City Council Packet - 01/17/2012 • City of T igard
Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Revised Jan. 12, 2012 to Add Agenda Item 5 - Discussion on 2012 -13 City Council Budget
MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 17, 2012 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council
meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or
503- 684 -2772 (TDD - 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: / /www.tvctv.org/ government - programming/government- meetings /tigard
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30
• Every Sunday at 11 a.m.
• Every Monday at 6 a.m.
• Every Tuesday* at 2 pm ( *Workshop meetings are not aired live. Tuesday broadcasts are a replay of the most
recent workshop meeting.)
• Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
• Every Friday at 3 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
• City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting - Agenda
TIGARD __.._._
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: January 17, 2012 - 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. Council Communications & Liaison Reports
E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items
2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE 6:40 p.m. estimated time
3. BRIEFING ON INITIATING THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OF A PORTION OF
BARROWS ROAD TO THE CITY 7:20 p.m. estimated time
4. BRIEFING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 7:30
p.m. estimated time
5. DISCUSSION ON CITY COUNCIL BUDGET 8:15 p.m. estimated time
6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to
the public.
9. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 p.m. estimated time
AIS -668 Item #: 2.
Workshop Meeting
Date: 01/17/2012
Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes
Agenda Title: Budget Committee Meeting
Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Liz Lutz
Financial and
Information
Services
Item Type: Budget Committee Meeting Type: Council
Workshop Mtg.
ISSUE
Quarterly budget committee meeting to update council and budget committee on fiscal matters of the city.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action requested. Meeting is informational.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Agenda:
1. Introduction of new Budget Committee members
2. Fiscal year 2011 audit update
3. Present fiscal year 2012 2nd quarter budget report
4. Update on the fiscal year 2012 budget process
5. Update on Long Term Strategic Financial Plan process
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Fiscal Stability
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
NA
SUPFLEMENTAL PACKET
,
I NI 1' City of Tigar FOR
(DK E OF M STING)
TIGARD Budget Committee Agenda '99_0id - /teim ,
MEETING DATE /TIME: January 17, 2012, 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard
1. Call to order
a. Introduce new members Toby
2. Audit update Debbie
3. 2nd quarter financial review Toby
4. Plan for next budget cycle Toby / Marty
a. Presentation of budget
b. Budget committee dates (Apr 23, 30, May 7, 14)
5. Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan update Toby / Consultants
Supporting materials
• 2 Quarter Financial reports
BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA - January 17, 2012
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1 503 - 639 -4171 1 www.tigard - or.gov 1
Page 1 oft
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
Ili I " FOR () 17 2Db
City of Tigard (DATE OF M TING)
TIGARD Memorandum kend,t_ !em Z
To: City of Tigard Budget Committee
From: Toby LaFrance, Tigard Finance and Information Services Director
Re: FY 2012 Second Quarter Financial Report
Date: January 17, 2011
Introduction
I am pleased to provide you with the FY 2012 Second Quarter Financial Report. Please bear in
mind that the numbers on the following pages are not the official audited financials of the City
of Tigard. This means that the amounts represent the current fiscal situation of the City but
may change with further accounting review.
How to Read the Report
The tables on the following pages report the progress against budget through the first six
months of the fiscal year. Each page contains funds that are grouped to a similar purpose (e.g.
transportation funds, water funds, etc). For each fund, the table provides the amount of the
budget, the progress against budget and the percent of budget complete.
At the top of the page are the resources for each fund. The resources start with the funds'
Beginning Fund Balance, which represents the amount of savings in the fund at the beginning
of the fiscal year. Next are the revenues of the fund grouped by revenue type. For more
information on the particular revenues within a revenue type, see the Revenue Analysis section
and the Fund Summaries section of the Adopted FY 2012 Budget Document. The Beginning
Fund Balance plus the Revenues make up the Total Resources of the funds.
The bottom half of the report shows the fund Requirements. The Requirements start with the
Expenditures by type. For more information on the specific expenditures within a type, see the
Program Summaries section and the Fund Summaries section of the Adopted FY 2012 Budget
Documents. By subtracting the Total Expenditures from the available Total Resources, the
Change is Fund Balance is calculated. By combining the Change in Fund Balance and the
Beginning Fund Balance at the top of the page, the Ending Fund Balance is derived. Finally, the
Ending Fund Balance is added to the Total Expenditures to calculate the Total Requirements.
The total Requirements equals the total Resources to balance the budget.
Summary of Findings
This is.a brief overall summary. Again, bear in mind that the financials here are not the official
audited financials of Tigard, but represent the current financial situation and may change with
further accounting review. Ideally, our expenditures are at, or below, 50 percent and our
revenues are at, or above, 50 percent. This is not always the case and is often expected. Our
operating expenses should adhere to this rule, but capital, transfer, and other expenses will not.
Revenues are often seasonal, dependent on a collection schedule, or dependent on the schedule
of other agencies.
1. Budget amounts reflect the one budget adjustment that has been adopted by Council
since the budget was adopted.
2. Operating Expenditures for all programs in all funds are under 50 percent spent.
3. General Fund revenues are above 50 percent. This is expected since Property Taxes
were mostly received in November and December.
4. General Fund Franchise Fee revenue is only at 34 percent of budget. This is expected
due to the timing of collections. Our largest franchise is Electric Franchise Fees
budgeted at $1, 553,565. PGE typically pays in March of each year.
5. Development Funds have lower resources than budgeted. Development activity is
currently below last year's levels. To match the slowdown, several staff have had their
hours reduced from 40 to 32 hours per week. In addition, Licenses & Permits revenue in
the Building Fund, Electrical Inspection Fund, Parks SDC Fund, and Urban Forestry
Fund are below 37 percent of budget.
6. Revenue in the Gas Tax and City Gas Tax fund is below budget. This is due to the
timing in collections from the State. Finance expects to achieve the budgeted revenue.
Finance will continue to monitor this item.
7. Sanitary Sewer Fund revenue is below budget. A review shows that the actual revenue is
in line with the collections from the prior year and that budgeted revenue appears to be
too high and will need a downward adjustment. The fund has sufficient resources to
balance the budget.
8. Clean -up Notes — One of the useful components of this report is that it provides staff
with an overview and some clean -up items. They are listed below:
a. None to Note
Follow -up from Last Quarterly Report of the Fiscal Year
9. There is no follow -up. Since we did not produce a first quarter report, this is the first
report of the fiscal year.
Upcoming Supplemental Budget
10. Attached to the end of the report is a summary of items that are proposed to be part of
the second Supplemental Budget Adjustment. The list of items may change between
now and the hearing scheduled for February 28, 2011.
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
General Fund
General Fund -100
Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 7.784.731 7.327.165 9
Revenues
Taxes 12,435,379 11,414,136 92%
Franchise Fees 4,797,202 1,613,932 34%
Special Assessments - - 0%
Licenses & Permits 866,846 681,704 79%
Intergovernmental 5,511,272 3,276,943 59%
Charges for Services 258,155 77,355 30%
Fines & Forfeitures 944,100 529,387 56%
Investment Earnings 103,206 24,871 24%
Other Revenue 52,231 69,557 133%
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen 375,000 - 0%
Transfers In 3,076,285 1.521.388 4
NM Revenu . ..._
Total Resources 36,204,407 26,536,438 73
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration 864,157 422,343 49%
Community Development 3,226,930 1,403,152 43%
Community Services 20,809,395 10,142,620 49%
Public Works 4,843,628 2,256,048 47%
Debt Service - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0%
Loan to CCDA 375,000 - 0%
Transfers Out 1,069,530 284,864 27%
Contingency 903.755 - gio
xpen 3233T303 " 09,027
Change in Fund Balance (3,672,719) 4,700,246 - 128%
Ending Fund Balance 4,112,012 12,027,411 292%
Total Requirements 36,204,407 26,536,438 73°/o
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1 /17/2012 4:44 PM 1 of 14
FY 2012 - 2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Central Service Funds
Central Svc Fund - 600 Fleet /Prop Mngmt Fund - 650 Insurance Fund - 660 I
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 214,516 163,674 2,U9, 78,830 77.486 98% 777.113 751292 97%
Revenues
Taxes - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0% - - 0% -- - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Charges for Services 5,262,270 2,584,113 49% 1,714,656 810,910 47% - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 590 - 0% - - 0% 7,771 0%
Other Revenue 1,700 164 10% - 4,961 0% 33,600 33,024 98%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers In 1,516,347 771,142 5 96.245 - 0� - - 2Z2
�_
o evenues 6,-" 3,355,41W% , 1;810,901 815,871 _ o M: 33,024 NOM
Total Resources 6,995,423 3,519,093 50° 0 1,889,731 893,357 47% 818,484 784,316 96%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration 6,368,428 2,898,101 46% - 0% - 0%
Community Development - - 0% 0% - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Public Works 0% 1,766,629 810,910 46% - 0%
Debt Service - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Loan to CCDA 0% - 0% - 0%
Transfers Out - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Contingcncv 297.500 - 0°�0 100.000 - OL - - 0�
_. , ._�:�. , ..., v
Change in Fund Balance 114,979 457,318 398% (55,728) 4,961 - 9% 41,371 33,024 80%
Ending Fund Balance 291,707 620,992 213% 23,102 82,447 357% 818,484 784,316 96%
Total Requirements 6,957,634 3519,093 51% 1,889,731 893,357 47 ° %o 818,484 784,316 96%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 PM 2of14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Development Funds
Building Fund - 230 Elec. Insp. Fund - 220 I
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 309,853 702,023 227% 60,958 141,565_ 232%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits 1,150,479 423,373 37% 197,037 69,822 35%
Intergovernmental 8,281 2,109 25% - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 19,684 - 0% 1,201 - 0%
Other Revenue 9,891 - 0% - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers In 197,037 98,519 50% - - 0%
,000 3 8% 198,238 69,822 35'90
Total Resources 1,695,225 1,226,023 72% 259,196 211,387 82 °,'o
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% - - 0%
Community Development 1,179,625 544,892 46% - - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - - 0%
Public Works - - 0% - - 0%
Debt Service - - 0% - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 199,844 99,922 50% 197,037 98,519 50%
Contingency 200,000 - 0% 30,000 - 0%
Total xpen� tares 1,579 644,814 41% 227,b37 98,519 43%
Change in Fund Balance (194,097) (120,814) 62% (28,799) (28,697) 100%
Ending Fund Balance 115,756 581,210 502% 32,159 112,868 351%
Total Requirements 1,695,225 1,226,023 - 72% 259,196 211,387 82 %
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 PM 3of14
•
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Parks Funds
Parks Capital Fund - 420 Parks Bond Fund - 421 Parks SDC Fund - 425
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 346,668 69,078 20% 8,000,000 7,906,647 99% 2,366,258 2,426,083 103%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% 374,825 120,421 32%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 3,000 - 0% 4,000 20,798 520% 19,684 - 0%
Other Revenue - 32,636 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers In 6.601.360 302.646 5% - - 0% - - 0%
- . 4, °TC
Total Resources 6,951,028 404,359 6% 8,004,000 7,927,444 99% 2,760,767 2,546,504 92%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% - 0% - 0%
Community Development - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Community Scntices - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Public Works - 0% - 0% - 0%
Debt Sentice - - 0% - - 0% 282,711 282,710 100%
Capital Improvement 6,389,639 95,625 1% - 17,377 0% - - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 462,197 231,099 50% 4,781,116 222,051 5% 1,543,944 207,516 13%
Contingency 50.000 - (It Z2 - - 0% 300.000 - 0%
,,� 781,. mss: 4 IIIIIIIIII
Change in Fund Balance (297,476) 8,558 -3% (4,777,116) (218,630) 5% (1,732,146) (369,805) 21%
Ending Fund Balance 49,192 77,636 158% 3,222,884 7,688,017 239% 634,112 2,056,277 324%
• Total Requirements 6,951,028 404,359 . _ 6 °Ao 8,004,000 7,927,444 99% 2,760,767 2,546,504 : 92%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/20124:44 PM 4of14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Parks Funds (Continued)
Urban Forestry Fund
Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 1,544,790 1,297,714 8
Revenues
Taxes - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0%
Charges for Services 40,000 12,625 32%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0%
Investment Earnings 4,040 - 0%
Other Revenue - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0%
Transfers In - _ 0%
Total
Revenues 44,040 12,625 29%
Total Resources 1,588,830 1,310,339 82 °,o
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0%
Community Development - - 0%
Community Services - 0%
Public Works - 280 0%
Debt Service - 0%
Capital Improvement - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0%
Transfers Out 160,878 43,134 27%
Contingency - - 0%
TotaltxpenTait ties 1. 160,878 43,414 27%
Change in Fund Balance (116,838) (30,789) 26%
Ending Fund Balance 1,427,952 1,266,925 89%
Total Requirements 1,588,830 1,310,339 82%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PM 5 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Transportation Funds
Gas Tax Fund - 200 City Gas Tax Fund - 205 Street Maint. Fee Fund - 412
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning fund Balance 914,841 1,981,045 217% 507.743 511.352 101% 429.204 454,022 106%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits 2,602 677 26% - - 0% - 0%
Intergovernmental 2,961,761 1,198,440 40% 692,265 274,046 40% - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% 1,583,758 73 1,645 46%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 55,455 9,699 17% 34,412 2,584 8% 2,033 - 0%
Other Revenue - 111,494 0% - 53,391 0% - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Transfers In 75.000 25.396 34% - - 0% - - 0%
._ ' 021 85,791
Total Resources 4,009,659 3,326,750 83% 1,234,420 841,372 68% 2,014,995 1,185,666 59%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% 0% - - 0%
Community Development - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Public Works 2,024,960 693,827 34% - - 0% - - 0%
Debt Service 621,632 94,691 15% 327,426 49,838 15% - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% 1,115,400 786,934 71%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 657,328 514,121 78% - - 0% 155,323 86,162 55%
Contingvncy 300.000 - 0% 50.000 - 0% 100.000 - 0%
in Fund Balance 09 406��
Change ( 5,102 9 2 ) 3,
5 -8% 349,251 280,183 80% 215,068 (141,451) -66%
Ending Fund Balance 405,739 2,024,110 499% 856,994 791,535 92% 644,272 312,571 49%
Total Requirements 4;009,659 3,326,750 83% 1,234,420 841,372 68% 2,014,995, 1,185,666 59%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/20124:44 PM 6of14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Transportation Funds (Continued)
TDT Fund - 405 TIF Fund - 410 Underground Util. Fund - 411
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 259,498 469,018 181% 518,672 851.621 164% 400,531 505,718 126%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits 176,678 146,162 83% 65,920 4,909 7% 15,629 7,420 47%
Intergovernmental 11,223 - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0 %
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings - - 0% 11,223 774 7% 7,124 - 0%
Other Revenue
-
0% 515 0% - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers In - 010 - 0� - - 0° o
Total Resources 447,399 615,184 138 %0 596,330 857,305 144% 423,284 513,138 121%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Community Development - 0% - 0% - 0%
Community Services - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Public Works - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Debt Service - - 0% - 0% - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 351,984 12,057 3% 73,307 9,549 13% - - 0%
Contingency 40.00Q - 0° 0 20.000 - 926 - 0�
•t
Change in Fund Balance (204,083) 134,106 -66% (15,649 (3,865) 25% 22,753 7,420 33%
Ending Fund Balance 55,415 603,124 1088% _ 503,023 847,756 169% 423,284 513,138 121%
Total Requirements 447,399 - 615,180 138% 596,330 857,305 144% 423,284 513,138 121%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1 /17/20124:44 PM 7of14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Transportation Funds (Continued)
Trans Capital Proj Fund - 460
Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance - - 0%
Revenues
Taxes 0%
Franchise Fees - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0%
Licenses & Permits - 0%
Intergovernmental - 0%
Charges for Services 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0%
Investment Earnings - - 0%
Other Revenue - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0%
Transfers In 961,915 456,646 4
-� -- s...�,,.. ..... _, 961915 456
ti' st. .,�..,, , '
Total Resources 961,915 456,646 47%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0%
Community Development - - 0%
Community Services - - 0%
Public Works - 0%
Debt Service - - 0%
Capital Improvement 721,696 336,536 47%
Loan to CCDA - - 0%
Transfers Out 240,218 120,109 50%
Contingency - - 0%
'�'otal "Ex en Inures 99 45 045
Change in Fund Balance 1 1 124%
Ending Fund Balance 1 1 124%
Total Requirements 961,915 456,646 47%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1 /17/2012 4:44 PM 8 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Sani / Stormwater Funds
Sanitary Sewer Fund - 500 Stormwater Fund - 510 Water Qual /Quant Fund - 511
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 9,570,004 7,663356 80% 641.887 1.120.223 175% 1.506.972 1,534,767 102%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - 0% - 0% - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits 25,750 10,201 40% - - 0% 4,250 2 ,650 62%
Intergovemmental - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Charges for Services 1,734,500 506,179 29% 1,850,689 1,125,972 61% - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 99,834 - 0% 7,897 - 0% 15,027 - 0%
Other Revenue 126,250 65,077 52% - - 0% - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Tran sfers In - - 0° o _ - 0� - - 0°L
:RANNIIMIFIRMEIMPRIPM86,334 581,458 _ 125 972 ,_ . 277 "' .
Total Resources 11,556,338 8,244,814 71% 2,500,473 2,246,195 90 °%o 1,526,249 1,537,417 101%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Community Development - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Public Works 976,952 404,494 41% 1,212,258 591,666 49% - - 0%
Debt Service - - 0% - - 0% - 0%
Capital Improvement 2,374,374 73,491 3% 749,738 103,170 14% - - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 888,567 450,990 51% 320,310 169,094 53% - - 0%
Contingency 282.197 - 0° 0 210,803 - 0/ - - 0�
Change in Fund Balance (2,535,756) (347,518) 14% (634,523) 262,041 -41% 19,277 2,650 14%
Ending Fund Balance 7,034,249 - 7,315,839 104% 7,364 1,382,264 18771% 1,526,249 1,537,417 101%
Total Requirements 11,556,338 8,244,814 71% 2,500,473 2,246,195 90% 1,526,249 1;537,417 101 /6
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/20124:44 PM 9 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Water Funds
Water Fund - 530 Water SDC Fund - 531 Water CIP Fund - 532
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 1.459.045 2,326,649 159% 132,176 703.676 532% 3,594159 1.142.064 332%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% 0% 0%
Licenses & Permits 10,030 3,978 40% 361,575 35 99% - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0% - - 0% 0%
Charges for Services 11,683,266 5,930,490 51% - - 0% - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 30,492 - 0% 232 - 0% 13,031 - 0%
Other Revenue - 6,042 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0% 44,147,727 1,904,760 4%
Transfers In 58.751 58,751 100% - - 0% 1.427.026 1.427.026 100%
' —7111111611 - - 261 .
._ -- 5 999, _ 361.$7 -
-_ -_ ill
Total Resources 13,241,584 8,325,910 63% 493,983 1,061,074 215% 49,181,943 4,473,850 9%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Community Development - - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Public Works 6,236,017 2,601,916 42% - - 0% - 0%
Debt Service - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% - - 0% 14,294,199 2,796,004 20%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out 3,739,296 1,331,147 36% 361,575 361,575 100% 5,761,407 568,465 10%
Contingency 500.000 - 0% - - 0% - - 0%
InliiIIIIL 1,575 20,055,606 : 36446
Change in Fund Balance 1,307,226 2,066,198 158% 232 (4,177) -1800% 25,532,178 (32,683) 0%
Ending Fund Balance 2,766,271 4,392,847 159% 132,408 699,499 528% 29,126,337 1,109,381 4%
Total Requirements 13,241,584 8,325,910 63% 493,983 1,061,074 215% 49,181,943 4,473.850 9%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PM 10 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Water Funds
Water Debt Svc Fund - 533
Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance - - 0%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0%
Special Assessments 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0%
Intergovernmental - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0%
Investment Earnings - - 0%
Other Revenue - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0%
Transfers In 6.479.804 41,062 1%
41 Total Resources 6,479,804 41,062 1%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0%
Community Development - 0%
Community Services - 0%
Public Works - - 0%
Debt Service 1,801,926 41,062 2%
Capital Improvement - - 0%
Loan to CCDA - - 0%
Transfers Out - - 0%
Contingency - 0%
ota xpen 1,801,926 41,062 iguir 2%
Change in Fund Balance 4,677,878 - 0%
Ending Fund Balance 4,677,878 - 0%
Total Requirements 6,479, 41,062 1%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PM 11 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Debt Service and Other Funds
GO Debt Svc Fund - 350 Bancroft Debt Svc Fund - 300 Libr. Donations /Bequests - 980 Criminal Forfeiture Fund - 240
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 241.321 181.836 750 510.918 393.832 22 378.953 471.335 1241' 44.109 - 60.871 138^ "
Revenues
Taxes 2,208,889 2,073,742 94% - - 0"0 - - 0"0 - - 0° o
Franchise Fees - - 0"0 - - 0 ". - - 0% - - 0 "0
Special Assessments - - 0"'0 120,000 17,340 14 °o - - 0"0 - - 0"
Licenses & Permits - - 0" o - - 0° o - - 0"0 - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0 "o - - 0"o - - 0"o - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0 0, o - - 0"•o - - 0° %" - - 0" o
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0 " -ii - - 0" %o - - 0% - 5,777 0".
Investment Earnings 4,589 2,043 45 " -0 37,282 30,113 81". 4,710 - 0% 1,883 0"o
Other Revenue - - 0"0 - - 0 °0 - - 0% - - 0" o
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0 "/o - - 0 0 0 - - 0% - - 0" o
Transfers In - - 0% - - 0% - - - - 0%
Total Resources 2,454,799 2,257,621 92 ° %o 668,200 441,285 66% 383,663 471,335 123 °'o 45,992 66,648 145°'o
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0 "0 - - 0 "'o - - 0"%o - - (1'
Community Development - - 0" n - - 0" 0 - - 0% - - 0
Community Services - - 0% - - 0% - - 0% - - 0"
Public Works - - 0 °' - - 0"o - - 0 % - - 0 "
Debt Service 2,195,951 1,319,587 60 °o 193,422 59,732 31 0 'o - - 0° o - - 0 ""
Capital Improvement - - 0"o - - 0° o - - 0" - - O"
Loan to CCDA - - 0 "0 - - 0" %" - - 0% - - 0".
Transfers Out - - 0" 0 4,830 2,415 50" %o 100,000 - 0° , 45,992 6,242 14%
Contingency 0"0 - - 0 °i" - - 00% - - 0 "0
:I'''' ; `'`,' ' ' ' :: . i ::1. - - ,d - r. a , ,
Change in Fund Balance 17,527 756,198 4314% (40,970) (14,694) 36% (95,290) - 0% (44,109) (464) 1%
Ending Fund Balance 258,848 938,033 362% 469,948 379,137 81% 283,663 471,335 166°/ - 60,407 0"0
Total Requirements 2,454,799 2,257,621 92% 668,200 441,285 66% 383,663 471,335 123% 45,992 66,648 145%
*Note: Financials presented arc not thc official audited financials of thc City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PN1 12 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
Capital Projects Funds
Facilities Cap Proj Fund - 400
Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 518.717 417.479 80%
Revenues
Taxes - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0%
Investment Earnings 3,196 - 0%
Other Revenue - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repayment - - 0%
Transfers In 667.791 133.810 20%
Total Resources 1,189,704 551,289 46%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0%
Community Development - - 0%
Community Services - 0%
Public Works - - 0%
Debt Service - - 0%
Capital Improvement 310,800 5,811 2%
Loan to CCDA - - 0%
Transfers Out 42,878 21,439 50%
Contingency 70.000 - 0%
Totamienc&itures ,
Change in Fund Balance 247,309 106,560 43%
Ending Fund Balance 766,026 524,038 68%
Total Requirements 1,189,70451 46%
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the City of Tigard, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PM 13 of 14
FY 2012 -2nd Quarter Report (July thru Dec. - 50% of the year)
City Center Development Agency Funds
U.R. Debt Svc Fund - 930 U.R. Capital Fund - 940
Budget YTD* % of Budget Budget YTD* % of Budget
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 384.818 494.991 129% 89.330 42,445 48%
Revenues
Taxes 300,000 293,008 98% - - 0%
Franchise Fees - - 0% - - 0%
Special Assessments - - 0% - - 0%
Licenses & Permits - - 0% - - 0%
Intergovernmental - - 0% 375,000 - 0%
Charges for Services - - 0% - - 0%
Fines & Forfeitures - - 0% - - 0%
Investment Earnings 3,455 376 11% - - 0%
Other Revenue - - 0% - - 0%
Proceeds from Loan Repaymen - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers In - - 0% - - 0%
Total Rev 303,455 293,384 97% 375,000 - 0%
Total Resources 688,273 788,375 115% 464,330 42,445 9%
Requirements
Expenditures
Policy & Administration - - 0% - - 0%
Community Development - 0% - - 0%
Community Services - - 0% - - 0%
Public Works - - 0% - - 0%
Debt Service 375,000 - 0% - - 0%
Capital Improvement - - 0% 464,330 32,998 7%
Loan to CCDA - - 0% - - 0%
Transfers Out - 0% - - 0%
Contingency - 0% - - 0%
Total Expenditures 375,000 - 0% 464,330 32,998 7%
Change in Fund Balance (71,545) 293,384 - 410% (89,330) (32,998) 37%
Ending Fund Balance 313,273 788,375 252% - 9,44 0%
Total Requirements 688,273 788,375 115% 464,330 42,445 9 ° %o
*Note: Financials presented are not the official audited financials of the CCDA, but represent
the current financial situation and may change with further accounting review.
1/17/2012 4:44 PM 14 of 14
•
FY 2012 Supplemental Budget Amendment
Second Quarter DRAFT
Item Project /Contract /Carryover /Grant Fund /Division Amount Description
1 Fields /Library Road Agreement General Fund /Library $10,000 Legal expenses supporting the work associated
Administration with the road agreement. Legal expenses have
been paid from the Library operating budget.
2 Build America Bonds (BAB) Gas Tax $27,685 Adjust split of debt payment on $7.25 million in
Transportation Bonds for Burnham and Greenburg
/ Pacific Hwy / Main St. Based on actual use of
bond proceeds, Gas Tax Fund will pay an
additional $27,685 annually with an equal
decrease in payments from the City Gas Tax
Fund.
3 Vehicles - Capital Outlay General Fund /Police $34,229 Appropriation required for police vehicle #10 -207
Operations that was totaled on 9/3/11. The city has received
$22,700 from insurance for the replacement of the
vehicle.
4 Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Central Services $35,000 Appropriations required for the development of a
Fund /Finance & long -term strategic financial plan for the city as
Information Services endorsed by the Budget Committee on September
Administration 20, 2011. This action results in a decrease in
Central Services contingency with an equal
increase in program expenditures in Finance
Administrations.
5 Tigard Police Officers Association General Fund $220,000 TPOA contract settlement which results in a
decrease in General Fund contingency, and an
increase in program expenditures in Police.
6 Dept of Land Conservation & General Fund $45,000 Received grant funding for periodic review work
Development Grant associated with Goal 10:Housing. This action will
result in an increase in grant revenues for General
Fund with an equal increase in Community
Development's program expenditures.
7 Salary Corrections General Fund $286,612 Salaries and benefits are underbudgeted this fiscal
Gas Tax Fund $7,078 year. The underbudgeting was primarily a result of
Building Fund $13,137 not budgeting the wage related impacts of
Sanitary Sewer Fund $10,714 incentive pay, as well as, the impact of bringing
Stormwater Fund $7,223 current any performance reviews that were past
Water Fund $16,627 due. Over the past several years, the city did not
Cent Svc Fund $56,821 budget for these impacts, but had the ability to pay
Fleet/Prop Mnq Fund $8,539 for these occurences with savings from vacancies.
However, these savings are no longer available
due to a low turnover rate citywide.
All Funds $406,751
Total All Funds $778,665
Note: This information is as of January 17, 2012 and may differ from the actual supplemental that goes to the Council for a hearing.
I: \FIN \Budget 12\Amendments \2nd Quarter \Q2_Amendrnboftlog.xlsx 1/17/2012 4:53 PM
9 - ?aolz A 'en 74'
City ofTigard Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing 1 Get it Done
Overvie w for
FY 2013 Budget
Process
TIGARD
City ofTigard
2011 Community Attitudes Survey
Traffic /congestion 32'o
Jobs and economic development 11°.
Education /schools 8%
Street improvements /maintenance
Crime and drugs - 7%
Growth and development /growth... 7%
Government spending /using tax dollars... 4% 1 What is the
i le most
Taxes /lower taxes 4% single
Water Supply 4% important issue
Parks and recreation 3% for City Council
Transportation /public transit I 2% to address over
Downtown development 24 the next year?
Local Government effectiveness 1%
Protecting /preserving environmental... I , 1 %: . J
J
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
City 0/Tigard
2012 Council Goals
• Take the Next Step on Major Projects
Continue oversight of design, permits, rate implementation and costs
for the Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership.
Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including:
Tree code.
Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land use policies and
designations and identifying priorities for high- capacity transit (HCT) station location
alternatives by mid -2012.
Determine the economic development opportunities, development plan, city policies and
regulations needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an HCT station location.
Deliver on the promise of the voter - approved park bond by identifying
all acquisition opportunities and completing the majority of park land
acquisitions and improvements by the end of 2012.
City ofTigard
2012 Council 1
Goa s
Financial Sustainability
■ Maintain the Tong -term financial health of the General Fund and
reserves.
Develop a Tong -term financial strategy by mid -2012.
■ Communicate regularly to residents about the alignment of city
priorities with resources.
Evaluate the city's sustainability efforts on an ongoing basis.
City ofTigard
2012 Council Goals
• Downtown
► Identify a geographic- opportunity area in the downtown with the
greatest potential to create a catalyst for further development.
Concentrate most resources there.
Contact owners of key, structurally sound Main Street buildings with
vacancies. Begin cooperative effort to secure tenants that will
contribute to the vitality of downtown.
• Annexation
►' Re- evaluate the city's annexation policy.
Develop a philosophy and approach to consider annexations,
including islands.
City ofTigard
2012 Council Goals
• Recreation
Evaluate options and resources to create a pilot recreation program:
Inventory existing city and community recreational programs, facilities and
resources.
Create recreational opportunities b
pp by partnering with the school istrict and other
agencies or groups.
Identify funding options aligning with the recreational programming demand.
City ofTigard
Two Years Ago
• Budgets reduced $2.3 million w/ 17.2 FTE cut.
• Targeted reductions sufficient to maintain
service levels for two years.
• Set target of $5.5 million Ending Fund Balance
in General Fund in order to pay expenses until
Property Taxes are collected in November .
• Mission Accomplished
4 .s.
_. ,.
,,
. •
City ofTigard
le .
st
Current General Fund Forecast
• Existing structural deficit.
• Expenditures grow at 4.1% annual average rate.
• Revenues grow at 2.2% annual average rate.
• Based on last four years experience, Ending
Fund Balance need is approx. 22% of following
year's budget to pay expenses until Property
Taxes are collected in November.
City ofTigard
I n i t i a l F o r e c a s 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Current Expenses 29,280,000 28,350,000 30,160,000 30,520,000 31,920,000 32,560,000 34,380,000 35,130,000
Current Revenues 28,860,000 28,610,000 28,330,000 28,970,000 29,310,000 30,160,000 30,990,000 31,740,000
• F Y 12 Ends Required EFB for Next Year 6,130,000 6,680,000 6,710,000 7,020,000 7,160,000 7,560,000 7,720,000 7,720,000
Ending Fund Balance ' 7,340,000 7,600,000 5,500,000 3,950,000 1,340,000 (1,060,000) (4,450,000) (7,840,000)
Year w/
General Fund Forecast
$1.2 Million Initial - January 10, 2012
40,000,000 — — — —
Tess than 35,000,000
30000,000 - --
needed 25060,000 --- --
33,000,000
• Ending Fund
15 000,000
10,000,000
Balance 5
__ —= •∎• RPM
d ecli nes r.000.000) ; 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
(10000,000) '
•
rapidly.
Required EFB for Next Year NM Ending Fund Balance — Current Expenses — Current Revenues
City- ofTigard
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Forecast with: Current Expenses 29,280,000 28,350,000 29,460,000 28,020,000 29,300,000 29,820,000 31,510,000 32,120,000
Current Revenues 28,860,000 28,610,000 28,330,000 28,970,000 29,310,000 30,160,000 30,990,000 31,740,000
• $ 70 0 K Required EFB for Next Year 6,130,000 6,680,000 6,160,000 6,440,000 6,550,000 6,930,000 7,060,000 7,060,000
Ending Fund Balance ' 7,340,000 7,600,000 6,200,000 7,150,000 7,150,000 7,500,000 6,990,000 6,610,000
savings n General Fund Forecast
F Y 12 and Initial Modified w/ Adjustments - January 10, 2012 ' —
35,000,000
• $2.6 Mil i n 30,000,000 -- — - -- - --
25,000,000 ---- —
ongoing
20,000,000 —
budget 15,000,000
adjustments I0,000,00o
• 5 ,W0,000 �: •.
■
starting FY13. 11 _ lir et
■
INA NM
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Required EFB for Neat Year r• Ending Fund Balance — Current Expenses — Current Revenues
City ofTigard
" Do the best with what we have
• Near term plan for current year and FY
2013 Budget
► Requested Budget - Hold the line
Feb 3 Exec Staff Meeting
• Long Term Strategic Finance Plan meets
2012 Council Goal
• Your input here and to your Director will
help both
City ofTigard
Your Ideas
• What are the city's core services? • Are there
• Beyond what's mandated, are we R services that are "nice to
providing the services citizens want? have" but are now
How do we know? unaffordable, or that our
• Assume we already operate efficiently, customers could live without?
looking for improved services and 1 opportunities to share costs
lower costs. Are there more ways to with other departments/
change how or what we provide? agencies?
(Structure, organization, how work ► ways to invest in technologies?
gets done, etc.) • What are challenges /obstacles we
• How best to engage employees in the need to overcome to position the
city's financial sustainability? city financially for the future?
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR ut 17, "/2
D E OF MEETING)
A9tOtek- `em 2
City of Tigard Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan
Introduction
Develop a Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan for the City of Tigard that focused on key
issues and policy decisions with a review of service levels, new programs and capital
outlay and funding sources (including revenue, debt and other sources).
• The goal is to develop a Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan for consideration and
approval of the Budget Committee and adoption by the City Council.
• Another objective is to provide focus on key issues for planning, strategic and
policy direction.
• Principles and financial policies used in making financial and funding decisions
by the Budget Committee and Council will be identified and documented.
Current Situation
Specific developments facing the City include requirements for maintaining land being
purchased for future park development, expiring franchise fees, and unfunded projects
in the Facility Master Plan. Council desires to consider these funding questions in light of
other revenues options, annexation, overall spending and appropriate level of municipal
services for all departments, all capital outlay and debt service requirements. The City
conducted a Citizen Survey in November 2011 which may help to focus and prioritize
these financial and policy issues.
Approach
Consultants will meet with the City Manager, Director of Finance and Information
System, Executive Team, Budget Committee and City Council to identify goals for the
Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan.
Consultants will collect data on specific issues identified, as well as, master plans, capital
plans, service levels, current sources of revenues and expenses, and an overview of
current operations and business processes.
The data will be analyzed to identify potential funding sources, service level
considerations and prepare a draft strategic financial plan. A draft plan will be presented
to the Budget Committee and City Council for consideration. A final plan will be
presented to Council for adoption.
Implementation Plan
This project follows standard project management methodology. The Project Sponsor
will be the City Manager and the Project Leader is Director of Finance and IS.
Consultants will meet with Project Leader frequently, usually weekly, and with Sponsor
as directed, usually monthly or when summaries, observations and reports are ready for
review.
The Project Phases include:
• Discovery:
City of Tigard Prepared by Kathy Taylor and Jenni Lipscomb
Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Printed on1/17/2012 8:18 AM1 /11/2012 10:33 AM
Page 1
o Interviews with stakeholders (City Manager, Director of Finance and
Information Services, Executive Team and others as directed both
internal and external)
o Input from City Council and Budget Committee
o Collect existing documents and plans (City Council Goals, City 2011 -12
Budget and existing forecasts, Audit Report CAFR 2010 -11, debt service
schedules, long range capital plans, facility condition surveys, master
plans, rate studies and analysis, Citizen Survey November 2011,etc.)
o Obtain the City's existing forecasting model (Excel based). Consultants
intend to use the existing model so that the City can maintain the plan
after development.
• Analysis:
o Document present situation and alternatives for consideration.
• All issues identified will be listed.
o Establish and document criteria for selection significant items for in
depth evaluation from the list of all issues.
o Collect data required to forecast projections for significant items
• Cost, rates, contracts, commitments, debt schedules, cost of living,
resources, service levels, etc.
• Potential impact on departments, funds
• Potential impact on the public
• Policy implications and limitations
o Provide Project Sponsor and Project Leader written preliminary
observations based upon preceding steps to gain approval of approach;
revise as needed.
• Research for Significant Items:
o Identify and research potential opportunities and issues with
appropriate executives and staff to finalize selection of significant items
for detail review and analysis.
o Identify and research policy and fiscal impact over life of the Long -Term
Strategic Financial Plan
• Risks, existing policy, competing needs, alternatives and ranges for
consideration
• Impact on departments (staff levels, service delivery, hours of
operation)
• Impact on funds (ending fund balance, targeted fund balance)
• Impact on the public (rates, service levels)
City of Tigard Prepared by Kathy Taylor and Jenni Lipscomb
Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Printed on1/17/2012 8:18 AM1/11/2012 10:33 AM
Page 2
ii
• Deferred construction, maintenance, etc.
• Give consideration to non - fiscal impact if practical.
o Provide Project Sponsor and Project Leader written preliminary
observations based upon research; revise as needed.
• Determine which significant items and alternatives to use in the
Plan Development
• Plan Development:
o Document projection parameters and guidelines such as minimum fund
balance (no projection can display a negative fund balance) and other
policy limitation.
o Generate draft of Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan using City's Excel
forecast as a basis. Significant topics include:
• Basis for selection
• Decisions required and policy impact
• Forecast assumptions (quantity, rates, taxes, etc.)
• Financial projections
• Implementation timeframe — Forecast Year 1, Year 2, etc.
• Fiscal impact by year
o Provide Project Sponsor and Project Leader written preliminary
observations based upon Plan Development; revise as needed.
• Reaffirm significant items and alternatives to use in the revised Plan
Development
• Plan Review:
o Present updated draft plan to Project Sponsor and Project Leader;
revise as needed.
o Present updated draft plan to executive team; revise as needed.
o Present updated draft plan other identified Budget Committee and City
Council; revise as needed.
• Include criteria, alternatives, policy issues and decisions required
o Provide Project Sponsor and Project Leader written final plan document;
revise as needed.
• Plan Approval:
o Final Plan Presentation to Council for adoption
City of Tigard Prepared by Kathy Taylor and Jenni Lipscomb
Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Printed on1/17/2012 8:18 AM1/11/2012 10:33 AM
Page 3
9
Deliverables
Two plan documents (narrative, forecast) will be developed simultaneously during the
project, as well as other documents that may be resources for the Council and Budget
Committee.
• Narrative: For each significant item, a narrative will discuss issues,
recommendations, risks and decisions made during the project.
Recommendation for policy consideration including financial impacts, service
level impacts, consequences of action and risks of inaction. (see attached
Strategic Financial Issues)
• Forecast: Using the City's Excel forecast as a foundation, include department
and fund impact for significant items including at least 3 years of financial
history, current year budget and projection, and a 4 year forecast.
Other documents include:
• Guiding principles and fiscal policies.
• Debt and Capital extended forecast to determine the longer term impact from
decisions including debt service and deferred capital /maintenance.
Schedule
Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan will be presented for consideration to Budget
Committee and City Council during the 2012 -13 budget process. The expectation would
be to adopt the Long -Term Strategic Financial Plan in June 2012.
City of Tigard Prepared by Kathy Taylor- and Jenni Lipscomb
Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Printed on1/ 17/2012 8:18 AM ! ! : •
Page 4
•
r
STRATEGIC FINANCIAL ISSUES
1) Significant Issue One
i) Description
(a) Basis for selection as significant item
ii) Operation Impact
(a) Revenue, sources, rates,
(b) Expenses, personal services, capital outlay
(c) Service level impact
iii) Citizen impact
(a) Rates
(b) Services
iv) External requirements and standards
(a) Legal requirements or restrictions
(b) Profession and industry standards
(c) Legal requirements or restrictions
v) Internal requirements and standards
(a) Master plans
(b) Facility conditions surveys
(c) Capital Improvement Plan
(d) Financial Policies
vi) Risks
vii) Timing and implementation period
viii) Alternatives, options, ranges
ix) Policy implications, decisions required
x) Financial Projection
(a) Resources
(b) Requirements
(c) Department projection impact
(d) Fund Balance projection impact
2) Significant Issue Two
3) Significant Issue Three
4) ...
5) List of Other Issues
6) Policy
i) Debt Policy
ii) Financial Policy
•
City of Tigard Prepared by Kathy Taylor- and Jenni Lipscomb
Long Term Strategic Financial Plan Printed on1/17/2012 8:18 AM1 /11/2012 10:33 AM
Page 5
AIS -700 Item #: 3.
Workshop Meeting
Date: 01/17/2012
Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes
Agenda Title: Briefing on Proposed Updates to Park Systems Development Charges
Prepared For: Steve Martin Submitted By: Steve Martin
Public Works
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop Mtg.
ISSUE
The council will be briefed on proposed updates to park system development charges (SDCs).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff is seeking council feedback on the draft Park & Recreation System Development Charge Study and the
proposed SDC updates.
No action is requested at this meeting; consideration of updated park SDCs is scheduled for an upcoming council
meeting.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• SDCs are fees levied on new development to recover some of the cost needed to serve that development.
• Tigard's park SDCs were last updated in 2005.
• Since that time, the council adopted the Park System Master Plan in 2009 and accepted the Tigard Greenways
Trail System Master Plan in 2011. The plans identify and prioritize numerous city park and trail projects
which now need to be incorporated into the city's park SDCs.
• The city hired FCS Group, a consulting firm with expertise in developing municipal SDCs, to update its park
SDCs.
• John Ghilarducci of FCS will brief the council on his firm's draft Park & Recreation System Development
Charge Study, including proposed SDC increases.
• In accordance with state requirements, a 90 -day notice of intent to update the park SDCs was sent to
interested parties on December 20, 2011. SDC methodology will be available for public review 60 days prior
to council consideration of the updated park SDCs. Council is scheduled to consider the updated SDCs
at its March 27, 2012 meeting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The council could choose not to receive a briefing on park SDCs.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
2011 Tigard Council Goal No. 3, "Complete Plans for Parkland Acquisition."
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is the first time this issue has come before the council.
Park SDCs were last updated seven years ago.
Attachments
Draft Park SDC Study
PowerPoint
Tigard, Oregon
TIGARD
Draft Report for
PARKS & RECREATION
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
CHARGE STUDY
October, 2011
FCS GROUP
4380 SW Macadam Ave. Suite 220
Portland, OR 97239
T: 503.841.6543 1 F: 503.841.6573
This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials,
including the bronze wire binding and the front and
back cover, which are made from post- consumer
recycled plastic bottles.
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1
A. Policy 1
B. Project 1
SECTION II: METHODOLOGY 3
A. Reimbursement Fee 3
B. Improvement Fee 3
C. Compliance Costs 3
D. Summary 4
SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION 5
A. Relevant Types of Growth 5
B. Population Growth 5
B.1 Expected Growth 5
B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units 5
C. Employment Growth 6
C.1 Expected Growth 6
C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents 6
SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION 9
A. Facility Needs 9
B. Facility Costs 10
B.1 Neighborhood /Pocket Parks 10
B.2 Community Parks 11
B.3 Linear Parks 12
B.4 Open Space 13
B.5 Trails 13
B.6 Allocation to Residents and Non - Residents 14
C. Compliance Costs 14
D. Adjustments 15
E. Summary 15
SECTION V: SDC CALCULATION 17
A. Residential Cost per Capita 17
B. Residential SDC per Dwelling Unit 17
C. Non - Residential SDC per Employee 17
D. Summary and Comparison 17
E. Annual Adjustment 18
•: > FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 1
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is
based.
A. POLICY
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system
development charges (SDCs). These are one -time fees on new development, and they are paid at the
time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned
facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth.
ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC:
• A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover "costs associated with capital improvements
already constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local
government determines that capacity exists"
• An improvement fee that is designed to recover "costs associated with capital improvements
to be constructed"
ORS 223.304(1) states, in part, that a reimbursement fee must be based on "the value of unused
capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities" and must account for prior
contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant- funded facilities. The calculation must
"promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the
cost of existing facilities." A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to
the system for which it is being charged (whether cash - financed or debt - financed).
ORS 223.304(2) states, in part, that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost
of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other
words, the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or that do not otherwise increase
capacity for future users, may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement
fee may be spent only on capital improvements (or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the
system for which it is being charged (whether cash - financed or debt - financed).
B. PROJECT
On July 14, 2009, the Tigard City Council adopted a new Park System Master Plan. On July 26,
2011, the Tigard City Council adopted a Trail System Master Plan.
The City contracted with FCS Group to update its parks SDCs based on these recently adopted
master plans.
We approached this project as a series of three steps:
•:; >FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 2
• Framework for Charges. In this step, we worked with City staff to identify and agree on
the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis.
• Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion
of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates.
• Draft Methodology Report Preparation. In this step, we documented the calculation of the
draft SDC rates included in this report.
•: : >FCS GROUP 2
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 3
SECTION 11: METHODOLOGY
This section provides a non - numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates.
A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE
In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated, excess (i.e., not currently utilized) capacity must
be available to serve future growth. Our analysis of the two recently adopted master plans indicates
that the City currently has no excess capacity in its parks system. Therefore, no basis for a
reimbursement fee exists.
B. IMPROVEMENT FEE
The improvement fee is the cost of capacity- increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those
projects will serve. The unit of growth, whether number of new residents or number of new
employees, is the basis of the fee. In reality, the capacity added by many projects serves a dual
purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth. To compute a compliant SDC
rate, growth- related costs must be isolated, and costs related to current demand must be excluded.
We have used the "capacity approach" to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this
approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth- related
capacity that projects of a similar type will create. For example, suppose that a city's master plan
included the acquisition and development of 100 acres of new neighborhood parks. Suppose further
that our analysis determined that 30 acres were required to meet existing demand, and 70 acres were
required to serve future users. In that case, only 70 percent of the cost for any new neighborhood
park would be eligible for recovery with an improvement fee.
Growth should be measured in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of
parks, the most applicable units of growth are population and, where appropriate, population
equivalents. However, the units in which demand is expressed may not be the same as the units in
which SDC rates are charged. Many SDCs, for example, are charged in the basis of dwelling units.
Therefore, conversion is often necessary from units of demand to units of payment. For example,
using an average number of residents per household, the number of new residents can be converted to
the number of new dwelling units.
C. COMPLIANCE COSTS
ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on "the costs of complying with the provisions
of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the costs of developing system development charge
methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To
•: FCS GROUP 3
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 4
avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth- related
projects, this report includes an estimate of compliance costs in its SDC rates.
D. SUMMARY
In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee (if applicable) component,
improvement fee component, and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by
dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand. The unit of demand becomes the basis of
the charge. Figure II.1 shows this calculation in equation format:
Figure 11.1 — SDC Equation
Eligible costs Eligible costs of Costs of
of excess capacity- complying SDC per
capacity in + increasing + with unit of
existing capital Oregon = growth
facilities improvements SDC law in
Units of growth in demand (e.g., new demand
residents)
Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the
denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on
eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation.
•$> FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 5
SECTION 111: GROWTH CALCULATION
This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the denominator in
the SDC equation.
A. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH
Parks and recreation facilities benefit City residents, businesses, non - resident employees, and
visitors. The methodology used to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDCs establishes the
required connection between the demands of growth and the SDC by identifying specific types of
park and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of residents and employees for
each type of facility. The SDCs to be paid by a development meet statutory requirements because
they are based on the nature of the development and the extent of the impact of that development on
the types of park and recreation facilities for which they are charged. The Parks and Recreation
SDCs are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the City's
population and employment. For facilities that are not generally used by employees (e.g.,
neighborhood parks), only a residential SDC may be charged. For facilities that benefit both
residents and employees (e.g., community parks), an SDC may be charged for both residential and
non - residential development.
B. POPULATION GROWTH
Having established the relevance of population, we now quantify expected growth in population and
convert the result to dwelling units.
B.1 Expected Growth
Based on data from Metro and the Population Research Center at Portland State University, the
City's population is expected to grow from 47,838 in 2009 (when the Park System Master Plan was
adopted) to 63,042 in 2028 (the final year of the plan). In other words, the City is expected to add
15,204 residents over 19 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.46 percent per year.
B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units
Residential SDCs are initially calculated based on costs per capita but are ultimately charged based
on dwelling units. To convert population to dwelling units, we analyzed data gathered for Tigard
from the 2005 -2007 American Community Survey. Table III.1 shows the resulting conversion
factors:
•:; > FCS GROUP 5
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 6
Table 111.1 - Residents per Dwelling Unit
Type of Dwelling Unit Residents
Single - Family 2.69
Multi - Family 2.15
Manufactured 1.63
C. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Having established the relevance of employment, we now quantify expected growth in employment
and convert the result to population equivalents.
C.1 Expected Growth
Based on data from Metro and the Population Research Center at Portland State University, the
number of persons employed within the City is expected to grow from 43,929 in 2009 (when the Park
System Master Plan was adopted) to 58,840 in 2028 (the final year of the plan). In other words, the
City is expected to add 14,911 employees over 19 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.55
percent per year.
As used here, "employee" means someone who works in the City regardless of place of residence.
Employees may live inside or outside the City. Later in this report, we will be more concerned with
non - resident employees in particular.
C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents
The parks and recreation facilities described in the recently adopted master plans were mostly
designed with the needs of both residents and non - resident employees in mind. It is therefore
appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to both residents and non - resident employees. The
only exceptions are neighborhood parks. These facilities were designed for the needs of residents
only. It is therefore appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to residents only.
While most parks and recreation facilities benefit both residents and non - resident employees, these
two groups do not utilize parks and recreation facilities with the same intensity. To apportion the
demand for facilities between non - resident employees and residents in an equitable manner, a non-
resident- employee -to- resident demand ratio must be calculated based on differential intensity of use.
First, we estimate the potential demand for parks and recreation facilities. Table III.2 presents
potential use by different population groups in a manner that averages day -of -week and seasonal
effects. These averages are based on the maximum number of hours per day that each population
group would consider the use of parks and recreation facilities to be a viable option.
• :;> FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 7
Table 111.2 - Potential Daily Demand by Population Group
Non -
Residents Residents
Non- Work Work Work
Employed. Ages inside outside inside
Season, Day, and Time Ages 18+ 5 -17 City City City
Summer (June through September)
Weekday
Before work 1.00 1.00
Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00
After work 2.00 2.00
Other leisure 12.00 12.00 2.00 2.00
Total weekday 12.00 12.00 6.00 2.00 4.00
Weekend 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Total summer 12.00 12.00 7.71 4.86 2.86
Spring /fall (April, May, October, and November)
Weekday
Before work 0.50 0.50
Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00
After work 1.00 1.00
Other leisure 10.00 4.00 2.00 2.00
Total weekday 10.00 4.00 4.50 2.00 2.50
Weekend 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Total spring /fall 10.00 5.71 6.07 4.29 1.79
Winter (December through March)
Weekday
Before work 0.50 0.50
Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00
After work 0.50 0.50
Other leisure 8.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Total weekday 8.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00
Weekend 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
Total winter 8.00 3.71 4.43 3.00 1.43
Weighting factors
Summer 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Spring /fall 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Winter 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Total weighting factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Daily weighted average hours 10.00 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02
We then multiply the weighted average hours derived in Table III.2 by an actual count for each
population group. The counts in Table III.3 are based on the 2000 Census. Although these data are
now stale, the accuracy of the individual counts is less important than the proportion of each group.
Table 111.3 - Total Potential Daily Demand
Non-
Residents Residents
Non- Work Work
Employed, Ages inside outside Work
Ages 18+ 5 -17 City City inside City Total
Census counts 9,140 7,270 5,798 15,821 27,382 65,411
Daily weighted average hours 10.00 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 4.56
Total potential daily demand 91,400 51,929 35,202 64,037 55,416 297,984
We then apportion this potential demand among residents (four population groups) and non - residents
(one population group), as shown in Table III.4.
4 FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 8
Table 111.4 - Demand by Place of Residence
Proportion of
Population Group Hours Total Residents
Residents
Non - Employed, Ages 18+ 91,400 30.67% 37.68%
Ages 5-17 51,929 17.43% 21.41%
Work inside City 35,202 11.81% 14.51%
Work outside City 64,037 21.49% 26.40%
Total residents 242,568 81.40% 100.00%
Non- residents 55,416 18.60% 22.85%
Grand total 297,984 100.00% 122.85%
As shown in Table III.4, non - residential demand represents 22.85 percent of residential demand.
This is the non - resident - employee -to- resident demand ratio.
8
•:; >FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 9
SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION
This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC
equation.
A. FACILITY NEEDS
The recently adopted master plans specify both (1) a level of service for each type of facility and (2)
the projects needed to meet that level of service by 2028, which is the end of the planning period.
Table IV.1 summarizes the recently adopted level of service for each type of facility and quantifies
the need for each type of facility:
Table IV.1 - Needs per Master Plans
2028
Adopted
Population Level of
and Service Needed
Facility Type Units Equivalents per 1,000 Inventory
Neighborhood /pocket parks acres 63,042 1.50 94.56
Community parks acres 76,484 3.00 229.45
Linear parks acres 76,484 1.25 95.61
Open space acres 76,484 4.25 325.06
Trails miles 76,484 0.26 20.24
For neighborhood /pocket parks, the "Population and Equivalents" column reflects projected
population only. For other facility types, because they benefit non - resident employees, this column
also includes a population - equivalent number of employees (calculated by multiplying the projected
number of non - resident employees by the non - resident - employee -to- resident demand ratio calculated
in the previous section).
The projects listed in the recently adopted master plans are eligible for SDC funding only to the
extent that the projects will benefit future users. As of 2009, no facility type met the adopted level of
service for the existing population. Therefore, not all project costs will benefit future users. Some
project costs will simply remedy existing deficiencies. Table IV.2 quantifies this distinction for
each facility type.
•:; > FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 10
Table IV.2 - Components of Needed Inventory and SDC Eligibility
Neighborhood/ Community Linear Open
Component Pocket Parks Parks Parks Space Trails
Current developed inventory 60.13 155.16 47.40 190.10 13.00
Development of acquired land 5.30 18.47 6.10
Level of service deficiency 6.33 18.84 55.87 2.32
Subtotal - meeting adopted LOS before growth 71.76 173.62 72.34 245.97 15.32
Growth - related need 22.81 55.83 23.26 79.09 4.93
Total - meeting adopted LOS after growth 94.56 229.45 95.61 325.06 20.24
Deficiency - related need 11.63 18.47 24.94 55.87 2.32
Growth - related need 22.81 55.83 23.26 79.09 4.93
Total need 34.43 74.30 48.21 134.96 7.24
SDC - eligible percentage 66.23% 75.14% 48.26% 58.61% 68.02%
SDC - eligible percentage for land only 78.28% 100.00% 55.25% 58.61% 68.02%
Because some facility types have undeveloped land in their current inventory, there is less deficiency
of land within those types. Therefore, neighborhood /pocket parks, community parks, and linear
parks all have a higher SDC - eligibility percentage for land acquisition.
B. FACILITY COSTS
The recently adopted master plans identify new facilities to serve the parks and recreation needs of
the City through the year 2028.
B.1 Neighborhood /Pocket Parks
Projects for neighborhood /pocket parks have an estimated cost of $16,839,800, as shown in Table
IV.3. Of that, $12,002,748 is eligible for funding by SDCs.
10
•: > FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 11
Table IV.3 - Projects for Neighborhood /Pocket Parks
SDC-
Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Bonita Park Improve Crossing 0-10 years $ 75,000 0.00% $ -
Jack Park Extension Design 0-10 years 15,000 66.23% 9,935
Jack Park Extension Bridge 0-10 years 100,000 66.23% 66,231
Jack Park Extension Park amenities 0-10 years 100,000 66.23% 66,231
Jack Park Extension Trail amenities 5 -15 years 212,000 66.23% 140,410
Metzger Elementary School Develop School 5-15 years 437,000 66.23% 289,431
Park
Northview Park Improve park 5 -15 years 295,000 0.00% -
amenity
Northview Park Design 10+ years 15,000 0.00% -
Northview Park Develop 10+ years 57,000 0.00% -
Proposed East Butte Design 0-10 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Heritage Park (P10)
Proposed East Butte Develop 0-10 years 350,000 66.23% 231,809
Heritage Park (P10)
Proposed Local Park (P12) Acquire land 0-10 years 800,000 78.28% 626,243
Proposed Local Park (P12) Design 5 -15 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Proposed Local Park (P12) Develop 10+ years 867,000 66.23% 574,225
Proposed Local Park (P9) Acquire and 5 -15 years 1,750,000 78.28% 1,369,906
Proposed Local Park (P9) Design 5 -15 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Proposed Local Park (P9) Develop 10+ years 867,000 66.23% 574,225
Woodard Park Develop 5 -15 years 60,000 0.00% -
Future Neighborhood Acquire land 10+ years 7,000,000 78.28% 5,479,625
Parkland (20 acres)
Future Neighborhood Park Develop 10+ years 2,947,800 ' 66.23% 1,952,366
Development (17 acres)
Undeveloped Linear Park Identify /Acquire 5 -15 years 260,000 78.28% 203,529
(P6) Site
Undeveloped Linear Park Design 10+ years 15,000 66.23% 9,935
(P6)
Undeveloped Linear Park Develop 10+ years 437,000 66.23% 289,431
(P6)
$16,839,800 $12,002,748
This list satisfies the requirem ents of ORS 223.309( 1).
B.2 Community Parks
Projects for community parks have an estimated cost of $44,511,000, as shown in Table IV.4. Of
that, $38,308,495 is eligible for funding by SDCs.
•:;> FCS GROUP 1
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 12
Table IV.4 - Projects for Community Parks
SDC-
Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Cach Community Park Design 0-10 years $ 150,000 75.14% $ 112,717
(Approx. 22 acres)
Cach Community Park Planning 0-10 years 5,000 75.14% 3,757
(Approx. 22 acres)
Cach Community Park Develop 5 -15 years 2,313,000 75.14% 1,738,095
(Approx. 22 acres)
Cook Park Improve park 5 -15 years 20,000 0.00% -
amenity
Fowler Property (Approx. Acquire land 0-10 years 6,250,000 100.00% 6,250,000
48 acres)
Fowler Property (Approx. Design 0-10 years 200,000 75.14% 150,289
48 acres)
Fowler Property (Approx. Planning 0-10 years 10,000 75.14% 7,514
48 acres)
Fowler Property (Approx. Develop 5 -15 years 2,459,000 75.14% 1,847,806
48 acres)
New Community Park (P11 Planning 5 -15 years 60,000 75.14% 45,087
- Approx. 10 acres)
New Community Park (P11 Identify /Acquire 5 -15 years 3,500,000 100.00% 3,500,000
- Approx. 10 acres) Site
New Community Park (P11 Design 10+ years 200,000 75.14% 150,289
- Approx. 10 acres)
New Community Park (P11 Develop 10+ years 4,307,000 75.14% 3,236,479
- Approx. 10 acres)
New Community Park Identify /Acquire 10+ years 8,750,000 100.00% 8,750,000
Sports Complex (P13 - Site
Approx. 20 - 25 acres)
New Community Park Design 10+ years 200,000 75.14% 150,289
Sports Complex (P13 -
Approx. 20 - 25 acres)
New Community Park Develop 10+ years 9,884,000 75.14% 7,427,294
Sports Complex (P13 -
Approx. 20 - 25 acres)
Potso Dog Park Land acquisition 5 -15 years 625,000 100.00% 625,000
Potso Dog Park Design 5 -15 years 15,000 75.14% 11,272
Potso Dog Park Develop 10+ years 295,000 75.14% 221,677
Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Improve park 0-10 years 150,000 0.00% -
Park amenity
Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Improve park 5 -15 years 18,000 0.00% -
Park amenity
Fanno Creek Park - Urban Acquire 0-10 years 1,000,000 100.00% 1,000,000
Plaza
Fanno Creek Park - Urban Develop 0-10 years 4,100,000 75.14% 3,080,929
Plaza
$ 44,511,000 $38,308,495
This list satisfies the requirem ents of ORS 223.309(1).
B.3 Linear Parks
Projects for linear parks have an estimated cost of $6,860,000, as shown in Table IV.5. Of that,
$3,131,408 is eligible for funding by SDCs.
•:; > FCS GROUP 12
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 13
Table IV.5 - Projects for Linear Parks
SDC -
Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Tigard Triangle Area (P3) Planning 0-10 years $ - $ -
Tigard Triangle Area (P3) Develop 5 -15 years 250,000 48.26% 120,643
Commercial Park Expand 5 -15 years 545,000 48.26% 263,002
Englewood Park Develop 5 -15 years 1,104,000 48.26% 532,759
Englewood Park Add local 5 -15 years 236,000 0.00% -
amenities
Fanno Creek Park - Lower Develop 0-10 years 2,115,000 48.26% 1,020,639
Park
Fanno Creek Park - Fanno Improvements to 0-10 years 135,000 0.00% -
Creek House indoor space
Fanno Creek Park - Park Develop 0-10 years 850,000 48.26% 410,186
Gateway
Fanno Creek Park - Upland Develop 0-10 years 1,100,000 48.26% 530,829
Park
Proposed Senn Park Develop 0-10 years 250,000 48.26% 120,643
Undeveloped Linear Park Design 5-15 years 15,000 48.26% 7,239
(P7)
Undeveloped Linear Park Develop 5-15 years 260,000 48.26% 125,469
(P7)
$ 6,860,000 $3,131,408
This list satisfies the requirements of ORS 223.309(1).
B.4 Open Space
Projects for open space have an estimated cost of $2,025,000, as shown in Table IV.6. Of that,
$1,186,757 is eligible for funding by SDCs.
Table IV.6 - Projects for Open Space
SDC -
Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Open Space Acquire 0-10 years $ 300,000 58.61% $ 175,816
Open Space Acquire 0-10 years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 5-15 years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 5-15 years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 225,000 58.61% 131,862
$ 2,025,000 $1,186,757
This list satisfies the requirem ents of ORS 223.309(1).
B.5 Trails
Projects for trails have an estimated cost of $11,700,000, as shown in Table IV.7. Of that,
$7,957,821 is eligible for funding by SDCs.
•:;> FCS GROUP ' j
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 14
Table IV.7 - Projects for Trails
SDC -
Plan Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project ID Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Fanno Creek (already funded) 0-10 years $ 670,000 68.02% $ 455,704
Fanno Creek (already funded) 0-10 years 300,000 68.02% 204,047
Westside Trail (to be ODOT - funded) 0-10 years - 0.00% -
Tigard Street A 0-10 years 634,000 68.02% 431,219
Krueger Creek 8 0-10 years 160,000 68.02% 108,825
Fanno Creek C 0-10 years 1,040,000 68.02% 707,362
Fanno Creek & Tualatin River D 0-10 years 1,609,500 68.02% 1,094,711
Pathfinder- Genesis E 0-10 years 715,000 68.02% 486,311
Summer Creek F 0-10 years 742,500 68.02% 505,016
Fanno Creek G 5 -15 years - 68.02% -
Fanno Creek H 5 -15 years 206,500 68.02% 140,452
Tigard Street I 5 -15 years - 68.02% -
Tualatin River J 5 -15 years 140,000 68.02% 95,222
Tualatin River K 5 -15 years 2,045,500 68.02% 1,391,258
Washington Square Loop L 5 -15 years 183,000 68.02% 124,468
Fanno Creek M 10+ years 1,631,500 68.02% 1,109,674
Ascension N 10+ years 461,000 68.02% 313,552
Washington Square Loop 0 10+ years 666,000 68.02% 452,984
Krueger Creek & Summer Creek P 10+ years 495,500 68.02% 337,017
$11,700,000 $7,957,821
This list satisfies the requirements of ORS 223.309(1).
B.6 Allocation to Residents and Non - Residents
After determining the total SDC - eligible costs, these costs must be allocated between residents and
non - residents. As mentioned previously, neighborhood /pocket parks do not benefit non - residents, so
they do not receive an allocation of that facility type. Other facility types are allocated using the
percentages computed in Table I11.4. This allocation is shown in Table IV.8.
Table IV.8 - Allocation of SDC - Eligible Costs
SDC- Residential Non - Residential
Eligible
Facility Type Costs
Neighborhood /pocket parks $12,002,748 100.00% $12,002,748 0.00% $ -
Community parks 38,308,495 81.40% 31,184,282 18.60% 7,124,213
Linear parks 3,131,408 81.40% 2,549,062 18.60% 582,346
Open space 1,186,757 81.40% 966,056 18.60% 220,701
Trails 7,957,821 81.40% 6,477,909 18.60% 1,479,912
$62,587,229 $53,180,057 $ 9,407,172
84.97% 15.03%
After this allocation, the residential share of SDC- eligible costs is 84.97 percent, and the non-
residential share is 15.03 percent.
C. COMPLIANCE COSTS
The City incurs costs in the development and administration of SDCs and may recover those costs as
provided in ORS 223.307(5). We estimate recoverable costs during the planning period of $660,000,
as shown in Table IV.9.
•:;> FCS GROUP I/
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 15
Table IV.9 - Estimated Compliance Costs
Estimated
Activity Services Required Cost
Master plan update Consulting, staff $ 300,000
CIP management (parks and Audit, consulting, financial 300,000
recreation portion) reporting, legal, staff
SDC methodology review and update Consulting, staff 60,000
$ 660,000
D. ADJUSTMENTS
On January 25, 2011, the City issued Series 2011A General Obligation Bonds with a par amount of
$17 million. The purpose of the bonds was to fund capital projects related to parks and recreation.
According to the issue's Official Statement, a bond levy will fund debt service of nearly $22 million
during the planning period (through June 30, 2028). Since the project list for the bonds largely
coincides with those projects listed earlier in this report, it is appropriate to reduce the total SDC to
be charged by the amount of taxpayer- funded debt service. Table IV.10 shows how this adjustment
reduces SDC - eligible costs by nearly $17 million.
Table IV.10 - Adjustment for Bond Levy
Fiscal
Year
Ending
June 30 Principal Interest Total
2012 $ 395,000 $899,536 $ 1,294,536
2013 625,000 665,625 1,290,625
2014 645,000 646,875 1,291,875
2015 665,000 627,525 1,292,525
2016 685,000 607,575 1,292,575
2017 705,000 587,025 1,292,025
2018 725,000 565,875 1,290,875
2019 750,000 544,125 1,294,125
2020 780,000 514,125 1,294,125
2021 810,000 482,925 1,292,925
2022 845,000 450,525 1,295,525
2023 875,000 416,725 1,291,725
2024 910,000 381,725 1,291,725
2025 950,000 304,950 1,254,950
2026 990,000 304,950 1,294,950
2027 1,030,000 262,875 1,292,875
2028 1,075,000 216,525 1,291,525
$21,939,486
Overall SDC eligibility 76.39%
Adjustment for bond levy $16,758,629
Finally, because the City's SDC fund has a balance of $2,426,083, the costs to be recovered by SDCs
can also be reduced by that amount.
E. SUMMARY
Table IV.11 summarizes and allocates SDC - eligible costs after all adjustments.
•:;> FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
- Y p 9 � Y
October, 2011 page 16
Table IV.11 - Adjusted Allocation of SDC Ellglble Costs
SDC- Residential Non - Residential
Eligible
Cost Type Costs % $ % $
Facilities $62,587,229 84.97% $53,180,057 15.03% $9,407,172
Compliance 660,000 84.97% 560,799 15.03% 99,201
Bond levy (16,758,629) 84.97% (14,239,723) 15.03% (2,518,905)
Fund balance (2,426,083) 84.97% (2,061,431) 15.03% (364,652)
$44,062,517 $ 37, 439, 702 $6,622,816
•:;> FCS GROUP 16
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 17
SECTION V: SDC CALCULATION
This section provides a detailed calculation of the residential and non - residential SDCs.
A. RESIDENTIAL COST PER CAPITA
As shown in Table IV.11, total residential costs are $37,439,702. As shown in Section III, we
expect the City's population to grow by 15,204 residents during the planning period. Dividing these
numbers results in a cost per capita of $2,463.
B. RESIDENTIAL SDC PER DWELLING UNIT
When we convert population to the dwelling units described in Table III.1, we can determine the
total SDC per dwelling unit as shown in Table V.1.
Table V.1 - SDC per Dwelling Unit
Residents
Cost per SDC per
Type of per Dwelling Dwelling
Dwelling Unit Capita Unit Unit
Single - Family $2,463 2.69 $ 6,624
Multi - Family $2,463 2.15 $ 5,294
Manufactured $2,463 1.63 $ 4,014
C. NON - RESIDENTIAL SDC PER EMPLOYEE
As shown in Table IV.11, total non - residential costs are $6,622,816. As shown in Section III, we
expect the City's employment to grow by 14,911 employees during the planning period. Dividing
these numbers results in a non - residential SDC of $444.
D. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Table V.2 summarizes the calculated SDCs and compares them with SDCs currently in effect.
Table V.2 - Comparison of SDCs
Fee Change
Type of SDC Current Proposed $
Residential, Single - Family $4,048.34 $6,624.27 $2,575.93 63.63%
Residential, Multi - Family $3,254.20 $5,294.49 $2,040.29 62.70%
Residential, Manufactured $3,209.17 $4,013.96 $ 804.79 25.08%
Non - Residential, Per Employee $ 274.81 $ 444.16 $ 169.35 61.63%
•:;> FCS GROUP
TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study
October, 2011 page 18
E. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
We have reviewed the City's method for annual adjustment of parks SDCs as summarized in the
City's "Master Fees & Charges Schedule" and described more fully in Exhibit "A" of Resolution 01-
74, which the City Council adopted on December 18, 2001. Because the index constructed under this
method includes both land costs (based on data from the Washington County Assessor) and
construction costs (based on data from the Engineering News Record), it is an especially appropriate
index for adjusting parks SDCs. We therefore recommend continuation of the current practice.
'g
•: :> FCS GROUP
Agenda Item No. 3
Meeting of ')4,12-(4) i 17 c9e /
Mr
if
/
City of Tigard
Parks & Recreation System
Development Charges
Council Work Session
January 17, 2012
' :;> FCS GROUP 4 SW nue, uit 220,
Port l Macadam OR 97239 Ave (503) 84 1 -6543 e F: (503) 841 -6573
onsulung www.fcsgroup.com
Agenda
F Introduction to SDCs
r Key Study Assumptions
• Park Improvements
✓ Calculation of SDCs
• Discussion
Next Steps
• :;> F CS GR OUT 2
1
SDC Background
\ Key Characteristics
aW -C, 1. SDCs are one -time charges,
not ongoing rates.
ORS 223.297 - 314, 2. SDCs are for capital only, in
defines "a uniform both their calculation and in
framework for the their use.
imposition of" SDCs, 3. Properties which are already
to provide equitable developed do not pay SDCs
funding for orderly unless they "redevelop."
growth and
development in 4. SDCs include both future and
Oregon's existing cost components.
communities" 5. SDCs are for general facilities,
(. not "local" facilities.
•> FCS GROUP 3
SDC Methodology
Reimbursement Improvement S stem Development
Fee Fee Charge
Eligible value of Eligible cost of
unused planned
capacity capacity
■
in existing + increasing
facilities facilities
q
per unit of
capacity
Growth in Growth in
system capacity system capacity
demand demand
J • FCS GROUP 4
2
Key Study Assumptions
The average growth rate for population
and equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) is
estimated at 1.46 percent per year.
15,204 more residents by 2028
14,911 more employees by 2028
• 4) FCS GROUP 5
Key Study Assumptions
Since the City does not currently have
available capacity in its existing parks,
there is no basis for the reimbursement
fee portion of the system development
charges (SDCs).
Planned capacity- increasing project
costs are included in the improvement
fee portion of the SDCs.
•:;> FCS GROUP 6
3
E
Neighborhood Park Improvements
50C-
Es timated SDC Eligibile
. _ P..., ,. Timing Cosf Eligibility Cost
Bonita Park Improve Crossing 0-10 years $ 75,000 0.00% $ -
Jack Park Extension Improve 0-10 years 15.000 66.23% 9.935
Jack Park Extension Bridge 0 -10 years 100,000 66.23% 66,231
Jack Park Extension Park amenities 0-10 years 100,000 66.23% 66,231
Jack Park Extension Trail amenities 5 -15 years 212,000 66.23% '40,410
•
Metzger Elementary School Develop School Park 5-15 years 437,000 66.23% 289,431
Norihview Park Improve park amenity 5 -15 years 295,000 0.00%
Northview Park Design 10+ years 15,000 0.00% -
C Nor(hview Park Develop 10+ years 57,000 0.00% -
Proposed East Butte Heritage Park (P10) Design 0-10 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Proposed East Butte Heritage Park (P10) Develop 0 -10
g years 350.000 66.23% 231,809
Proposed Local Pork (P12) Acquire land 0-10 years 800,000 78.28% 626,243
'€ ' Proposed Local Park (P12) Design 5 -15 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Proposed Local Park (P12) Develop 10+ years 867,000 66.23% 574,225
Proposed Loco! Park (P9) Acquire land 5 -15 years 1,750,000 78.28% 1,369,906
i Proposed Local Park (P9) Design 5-15 years 60,000 66.23% 39,739
Proposed Loco! Park (P9) Develop 10+ years 867,000 66.23% 574,225
t Woodard Pork Develop 5 -15 years 60,000 0.00% -
Future Neighborhood Parkland (20 acres) Acquire land 10+ years 7,000,020 78.28% 5,479,625
Future Neighborhood Park Development (17 acres) Develop 10+ years 2,947,800 66.23% 1,952,366
Undeveloped Linear Park (P6) Identify /Acquire Site 5 -15 yea0 260,000 78.28% 203,529
Pill Undeveloped Linear Park (P6) Design 10+ years 15,000 66,23% 9,935
Undeveloped Linear Park (P6) Develop 10+ years 437,000 66.23% 289,431
$16,839,800 $12,002,748
This fist satisfies the requirements of ORS 223.309(1).
I .
:;> FCS GROUP
1
Community Park Improvements
SPC•
Esared 50C Eiig,bile
• Cacti Community Park (Approx. 22 acres) Design 0-10 year $ 1504103 75.14% $ 112.717
Cacti Community Park (Approx. 22 acres) Planning 0-10 years 5.000 75.14% 3,757
Cacti Community Park (Approx. 22 acres) Develop 5 -15 years 2.313,000 75.14% 1.738,095 .00
Cook Park improve park amenity 5 -15 years 20,000 0% -
Fowler Property (Approx. 48 acres) Acquire land 0-10 years 6,250,300 100.008 6,250,000
Fowler Propedy(Approx. 48 acres) Design 0-10 years 200.000 75.14% 150,289
Fowler Property (Approx. 48 acres) Planning 0-10 years 10,000 75,14% 7.514
Fowler Property (Approx. 48 acres) Develop 5 -15 years 2.459.000 75.14% 1.847.806
New Community Park (P11 - Approx. 10 acres) Planning 5 -15 years 60000 75.14% 45,087
New Community Park (P11 - Approx. 10 acres) Identify /Acquire Site 5 -15 years 3,500,000 100.00% 3,500,000 20
New Community Park (P11- Approx. l0 acres) Design 10+ years 0,000 75.14% 150,289
New Community Park (P11 - Approx. 10 acres) Develop 10+ years 4,307,000 75.14% 3.236.479
- New Community Park Sports Complex (P13- Approx. 20 -25 acres) Identify /Acquire Ste 10+ years 8,750.000 100.00% 8.750.000
New Community Park Sports Complex (P13- Approx. 20 -25 acres) Design 10* years 200000 75.14% 150.289
New Community Park Sports Complex (PI3- Approx. -25 acres) Develop 10+ years 9,884,000 75.14% 7,427,294
Potso Dog Park Land acquisition 5 -15 years 6254300 100.008 625.000
Potso Dog Park Design 5 -15 years 154000 75.14% 11.272
1..
Potso Dog Park Develop 10 +years 295.000 75.14% 221,677
Ism Griffih MEmo9015kate Pork Improve park 0,9001y 0-10 years 150,000 0.00%
Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Pork Improve park amenity 5 -15 years 18.000 0.00% Fenno Creek Park - Urban Plaza Acquire 0-10 years 1,000,000 100.00% 1,000,000
Fenno Creek Park - Urban Plaza Develop 0-10 years 4,100,000 75.14% 3,080,929
00 , 38,308,495
Tho ist satisfies the requirements ofOR5 22330011 .
•:;> FCS GROUP 8
4
Linear Park Improvements
SDC -
o FsBmated SDC Eligibile
Pr ojecf Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Tigard Triangle Area (P3) Planning 0-10 years $ - $ -
Tigard Triangle Area (P3) Develop 5 -15 years 250,000 48.26% 120,643
Commercial Park Expand 5.15 years 545,000 48.26% 263,002
Englewood Park Develop 5-15 years 1,104,000 48.26% 532,759
Englewood Park Add local amenities 5-15 years 236,000 0.00% -
Fanno Creek Park - Lower Park Develop 0-10 years 2,115,000 48.26% 1.020,639
Fanno Creek Park - Fanno Creek House Improvements to indoor space 0-10 years 135,000 0.00% -
Fenno Creek Park - Park Gateway Develop 0-10 years 850.000 48.26% 410,186
Fanno Creek Park - Upland Park Develop 0-10 years 1,100,000 48.26% 530.829
Proposed Senn Park Develop 0-10 years 250.000 .48.26% 120.643
Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) Design 5-15 years 15,000 48.26% 7,239
Undeveloped Linear Park (P7) Develop 5-15 years 260,000 48.26% 125,469
6,860,000 3,131,408
This list satisfies the requirements of ORS 223.309(11.
•: :> FCS GROUP 9
•
Open Space Improvements
SDC -
Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project Phase Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Open Space Acquire 0-10 years $ 300,000 58.61% $ 175,816
Open Space Acquire 0.10 years 300.000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 5-15 years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 5-15 years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 300,000 58.61% 175,816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 300,000 58.61% 175.816
Open Space Acquire 10+ years 225,000 58.61% 131,862
2,0 25,000 E 1,186,757
This Est satisfies the requiem entr of ORS 223.309111.
> FCS GROUP 10
5
Trail Improvements
SOC-
Plan Estimated SDC Eligibile
Project ID Timing Cost Eligibility Cost
Fanno Creek lalreadyfunded) 0 -10 years $ 670,000 68.02% $ 455,704
Fanno Creek (already funded) 0-10 years 300,000 68.02% 204,047
Westside Trail (to be ODOT- funded) 0-10 years - 0.00% -
Tigard Street A 0-10 years 634,000 68.02% 431,219
Krueger Creek B 0-10 years 160,000 68.02% 108,825
Fanno Creek C 0-10 years 1,040,000 68.02% 707,362
Fanno Creek & Tualatin River 0 0-10 years 1,609,500 68.02% 1,094,711
Pathfinder- Genesis E 0-10 years 715,000 68.02% 486,311
Summer Creek F 0-10 years 742,500 68.02% 505,016
Fanno Creek G 5-15 years - 68.02% -
Fanno Creek H 5-15 years 206,500 68.02% 140,452
igard Street 1 5-15 years - 68.02% -
ualatin River J 5-15 years 140,000 68.02% 95,222
Tualatin River K 5-15 years 2,045,500 68.02% 1,391,258
r.
Washington Square Loop L 5-15 years 183,000 68.02% 124,468
Fanno Creek M 10+ years 1,631,500 68.02% 1,109,674
Ascension N 10+ years 461,000 68.02% 313,552
Washington Square Loop 0 10+ years 666,000 68.02% 452,984
Krueger Creek & Summer Creek P 10+ years 495.500 68.02% 337,017
1 1 $ 70 ,,000 7,957,821
This 6sf sati9ler the requirements of ORS 223.309 {1).
L
•:; >FCS GROUP ))
Calculation of SDCs
SDC- Residential Non - Residential
Cost Type Eligible Costa $ 0 5
Facilities $ 62,587,229 84.97% $53,180,057 15.03% $9,407,172
Compliance 660,000 84.97% 560,799 15.03% 99,201
Bond levy (16,758,629) 84.97% (14,239,723) 15.037. (2,518,905)
Fund balance 12,426,083) 84.97%_1231 15.03% 364,652
$ 4 4,062,517 $37,439,702 6,622,816
Growth In residents /employees 15,204 14,911
SDC per resident /employee $
2,463 $ 444
' Dwelling Unit Residents SDC
Single-Family 2.69 $ 6,624
Multi- Family 2.15 $ 5,294
Manufactured 1.63 $ 4,014
. 4) FCS GROUP 12
6
Discussion
�. .
•:;> FCS GROUP 13
Next Steps
1 Make Calculation Methodology
Available for Public Review for 60 days
r Public Hearing /Council Action on
March 27, 2012
1 Implementation
•:;> FCS GROUP 14
7
PARK SDC Comparison /f l' „/�� / /Prn 3
2010 - 2011 �T� L�
CITY 2010 SDCs* 2011 SDCs 1-Jul-11
Single Family Single Family Multi Family Manufatured Non - Resid.
Dwelling Dwelling Swelling Home Employee
Sherwood 6,787.00 $5,092.68 $7,268.93 $71.32
Fee $699.12 $525.15 $748.83 $6.48
Total $7,205 $7,486.12 $5,617.83 $8,017.76 $77.80
Wilsonville $4,602 $4,602.00 $3,535.00 $162.00+
Beaverton $6,888 $5,299 $3,963.00 $137.00 ++
TVWD $6,175
Lake Oswego $10,683 $11,089 $6,167.00 $713.00 + ++
Tualatin $4,530 $3,880
Portland $49.00 to
Non - Central $7,972 $7,814.00 $5,128.00 $7,277.00 $463.00+
Tigard $5,370 $4,048.34 $3,254.20 $3,209.00 $274.81
Proposed $6,624.27 $5,294.49 $4,013.96 $444.16
* From HBA Website
+ Per Thousand Gross Square Feet
++ per employee as determined by THPRD Worksheet based on type and square footage
+ ++ Based on structure's gross square footage per employee based Metro Employment Density
AIS -723 Item #: 4.
Workshop Meeting
Date: 01/17/2012
Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes
Agenda Title: Briefing on Initiating the Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Portion of Barrows Road to the City
Prepared For: Kim McMillan Submitted By: Greer Gaston
Public Works
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop Mtg.
ISSUE
The council will be briefed on a resolution initiating the transfer of jurisdiction of a portion of Barrows Road to the
city.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action is requested at this meeting; consideration of the resolution is scheduled for an upcoming council meeting.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Background
A segment of SW Barrows Road, from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Walnut Street, lies within the City of Tigard
and is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. (Tigard city limits follow the centerline of the road.)
In 2009, a bridge along this section of Barrows Road was showing signs of failure and was slated to be closed by
the county. Area residents asked to keep the bridge open, so the City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington
County entered into an agreement in which:
• The three entities agreed to share costs and repair the bridge.
• The county, at its expense, agreed to perform a pavement maintenance overlay on this section of Barrows
Road.
• The cities of Beaverton and Tigard agreed to assume joint jurisdiction of this section of Barrows Road.
Once bridge repairs and the pavement overlay were completed, the transfer of jurisdiction was to occur within 60
days. The work was completed in September 2009. Beaverton initiated the transfer of the northwesterly half of the
road in 2010.
It was recently brought to the city's attention that Tigard had not initiated the transfer of jurisdiction for the
southeasterly half of the road.
The Transfer Process
The transfer process begins with a council resolution requesting Washington County commissioners transfer
jurisdiction of this section Barrows Road to the city. County commissioners then act on the request and execute the
transfer.
The attached resolution, which is slated to come before council at an upcoming meeting, initiates the transfer
process for the southeasterly half of SW Barrows Road (County Road No. 812) that extends from SW Scholls Ferry
Road (County Road No. 348) to SW Walnut Street.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The council could choose not to request the transfer of jurisdiction.
However, this would be in direct conflict with Resolution No. 09 -28A adopted on May 12, 2009. This resolution
approved the agreement between the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and Washington County. The agreement
included a provision that, when bridge repairs and the pavement overlay were completed, Tigard would assume
jurisdiction of a portion of SW Barrows Road.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
None
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is the first time the actual transfer of jurisdiction has come before the council.
On May 12, 2009, the council adopted Resolution No. 09 -28A . This resolution approved the agreement between
the City of Tigard, the City of Beaverton and Washington County. The agreement included a provision that, when
bridge repairs and the pavement overlay were completed, Tigard would assume jurisdiction of a portion of SW
Barrows Road.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Information:
There are no direct costs associated with the transfer of jurisdiction.
The city will now incur on -going street maintenance costs for the southeasterly half of SW Barrows Road from SW
Scholls Ferry Road to SW Walnut Street. Actual street maintenance costs for this section of Barrows Road have
not been calculated.
Attachments
Resolution and Exhibits
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
A RESOLUTION INITIATING ACTION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION OF A PORTION OF SW
BARROWS ROAD (COUNTY ROAD NO. 812) WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD TO THE CITY OF
TIGARD
WHEREAS, ORS 373.270(6) provides a mechanism to transfer jurisdiction of county roads within a city to a
city; and
WHEREAS, a segment of SW Barrows Road from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Walnut Street is within the
City of Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard agreed to accept jurisdiction of this segment of road when partnering with
Washington County and Beaverton on the Barrows Bridge repair project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby requests that the Commissioners of Washington County, Oregon
transfer jurisdiction of that segment of SW Barrows Road, described and depicted in Exhibits
A and B attached hereto, from the county to the City of Tigard.
SECTION 2: The aforementioned request is to be granted or denied within one year of the execution of
this resolution.
SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2012.
Mayor - City of Tigard
A1 EST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 12-
Page 1
EXHIBIT "A"
TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD
9. SW BARROWS ROAD
BETWEEN THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF SW SCROLLS
FERRY ROAD AND A POINT ±100 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM
THE INTERSECTION OF SW BARROWS ROAD AND SW WALNUT
STREET, AND LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD.
SEE EXHIBIT "B"
All that portion of County Road No. 812 lying southeasterly of the
centerline of said road and lying between the southerly right -of -way of
County Road No. 348 (SW Scholls Ferry Road) and that portion of
• Country Road No. 812 transferred to the City of Tigard in County Road
3191T/J. Said portion being situated in the West one -half of Section 33,
T1S, R1W, W.M.
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Li cc °> OCHER "B"
t s
h ., 6 ,bc.er
'I
Q 5 m ' — S I TE
L EC,9't IX
:i' SC) C � 9 �'L G 6 GR.
a = ARROnS l
ST. o °'C' .
■
LA
o BULL MOUNTAIN SGNp g 0 ,
, e RD. op 4 i cv u.if .-
i 0 < <M 1 0144- z
y -� .: MAP t ; , ,, r:
i
t�iD ., 0*
•
. t
0
:*
Fl K
e i
4' 1 TIGARD
�,
TO CITY OF ,
�f 1 BEAVERTON . ,,, �
1 A � � � nn rr_ I� � • � � `�,
•; ^'i it .� Vat N IIII NOT TO SCALE
ma
I / HI i
a � � � ` �� � � � � Pa A PORTION OF
0 # on MI wit
SW BARROWS ROAD
I ° I t N s f
,►
1S1 SECTION 33 1 111
2S1 SECTION �4
St► r ,,- S ,-- Ir.. .!� `w .� •-.. ww- gi
4
STREE RANSFE" OF • JUR�SDICITON i�
G :.� T _ THE CITY�OF TIGARD S oo"
Mayor & City Council Budget Unit 100 - 0500
1
FY10 2011 -12 2012-13 SUPP MENTAL PACKET
Description actual Adopted Requested
Personal Services FOR . c111a l7�a2
Positions 0 0 0 (D E OF M ETING)
Coq eCn'7 8g 1 5 9 e
Salaries $58,962 $61,575 $37,800 Mayor: $21,000 - Council $4,200) D /.SC4 ,$..S'r 6�
Benefits $60,248 $84,775 $90,506
ITotal Personal Services $119,210 $146,350 $128,306
Materials & Services
Office Supplies $444 $5,900 $5,800
Professional /Contract Services $26,288 $12,400 $9,550
Legal Fees $17,596 $12,000 $17,000
Dues /Subscriptions $40,344 $44,524 $45,830
Travel & Training $20,018 $31,900 $31,500
Special Dept. Expense $1,384 $3,900 $1,200
(Xoom data pkg ?) $0 $2,580
Total Materials & Services 105,630 $110,624 113,460
Captial Outlay
Computer Equipment $16,000 0 0
Total Capital Outlay $16,000 $0 $0
'Total Budget Unit $256,974 $256,974 $241,766
FY 12 City Council Budget FY 12 -13
Adopted Detailed Description Requested
Office Supplies $5,100 Copies -based on use $5,000 5800
800 Office supplies $800
Professional Services $8,000 Consultant fee for coaching and 2 meetings for council team building $6,500
$4,000 TVCTV taping of Council workshop meetings $2,650 9550
$400 Interpreter services for hearing impaired at CC meetings (upon reques $400
mm
(Legal Expenses $12,000 City Attorney - legal support for Council $17,0001 17000
Special Dept Expense $2,400 Recognition, awards, florist (funerals, illnesses) from Council $1,200 1200
Dues & Subscriptions $150 Oregon Mayor's Association Dues (based on population) $150
$475 Ore. Govt. Ethics Commission Annual Dues $500
$32,500 League of Oregon Cities $33,600
$3,900 National League of Cities $3,980 45830
$100 Other Publications $100
$4,850 Westside Economic Alliance $5,000
$2,500 Vision Action Network (VAN) 2,500
Business meals outside regular council meetings (WEA Forums, mtgs
Travel Training $1,500 with Metro /jurisdictions, regional Mayor's dinner) $1,100
$20,000 Councilors training budget - $5,000 per councilor $20,000 31500
$1,400 Council Meals before regular scheduled meetings $1,400
$9,000 Mayor's training budget for conferences & meetings 9,000
Xoom Data Plans? IT budget? 43.01 x 12 ($516 /yrper unit) 2580