Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 05/26/2009
Revised 5/21/09 — Added an Executive Session to the end of the Agenda — See ,11 II City of Tigard Item No. 5 Special Joint Meeting of Tigard and TIGARD g g Lake Oswego City Councils — Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: May 26, 2009 — 7:15 p.m. - Special Meeting 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). Replay Schedule - TVCTV Cable Television Broadcasts: Channel Date Time Title 28 Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:15:00 PM LIVE - Tigard /Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:00 PM Tigard /Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Friday, May 29, 2009 10:00 PM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:00:00 AM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Monday, June 1, 2009 6:00:00 AM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Thursday, June 4, 2009 6:00 PM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Friday, June 5, 2009 10:00 PM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg 28 Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:00:00 AM Tigard/Lake Oswego Joint City Councils Mtg SEE ATTACHED AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — MAY 26, 2009 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503 - 639 -4171 www.tigard - or.gov Page 1 of 2 q City of Tigard Special Joint Meeting of Tigard and TIGARD Lake Oswego City Councils — Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE /TIME: May 26, 2009 — 7:15 p.m. - Special Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 7:15 p.m. 1. SPECIAL MEETING 1.1 Call to Order — Mayor Dirksen 1.2 Roll Call: • Tigard City Council • Lake Oswego City Council 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 7:20 2. LAKE OSWEGO /TIGARD WATER PARTNERSHIP UPDA'T'E- DISCUSSION 7:40 3. TRANSIT /TRANSPORTATION /GROWTH ASPIRATIONS — DISCUSSION 8:10 4. FINANCE CHALLENGES /SOLUTIONS- DISCUSSION a. Street Maintenance Fee b. State Transportation Package 8:40 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) (d) to discuss labor negotiations. 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. 9:00 6. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM \CATHY\CCA\2009 \090526 special.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA — MAY 26, 2009 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503- 639 -4171 www.tigard- or.gov Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item # Pre-62 edit-) 5 / 1 014 r Meeting Date May 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Tour of the Tigard Public Library s Prepared By: Margaret Barnes /ag Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: eik) IssUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Provide a tour of the Tigard Public Library to the City Council of Tigard and the City Council of Lake Oswego. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Public Library is a 48,000 square foot facility sited on fourteen acres that opened in August of 2004. The building includes a large community room, a conference room and three quiet study rooms all available for public use. In addition, the library has a local history room, a technology room, a dedicated story room and a reading room. The library has experienced tremendous growth since opening in 2004 with over one thousand visitors a day and an annual circulation of over one million. The library also provides access to a wireless network and has over seventy computers for accessing die Internet. Besides visiting the public spaces of the library, the tour will also include the various staff workrooms. Staff will be available to provide additional information and answer questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N /A. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Promote and honor good citizenship in Tigard. ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES N /A. Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Lake Oswe. o Ti, •d Water Partnershi, Update Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: 1 k City Mgr Approval: eR ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action required. City staff and the Oversight Committee will update the Tigard and Lake Oswego Councils on the status of activities related to the partnership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no staff recommendation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • Lake Oswego and Tigard formed a partnership in 2008 to jointly construct water system improvements and develop Lake Oswego's existing water rights on the Clackamas River. • The partnership was formed by intergovernmental agreement. The agreement outlined procedural steps related to the partnership. The following steps are either underway or have been completed: - Establishment of a buy -in fee based on current appraisal information. - Creation of a Technical Committee. - Creation of an Oversight Committee. Councilors. - Development of an annual budget. • As individual partners, each city also has accomplished or is \vorking on its own activities. Lake Oswego: - Implemented new conservation -based water rates. - Established a budget structure to accommodate the partnership. - Is jointly defending a proposed final order from the Water Resources Department to extend access to its water rights. - Is incorporating the partnership in its Water Conservation and Management Plan. - Is determining the preferred project delivery method and is soliciting consulting services based on this method. - Is developing a public outreach plan. Tigard: - Withdrew its participation in the Tualatin River Water Supply Project. - Terminated its membership in the Joint Water Commission. - Is preparing to commission a Water System Master Plan Update using water derived through the partnership as the City's primary source water. - Budgeted to complete a water rate update and system development charge update FY '09 -'10. - Is participating financially in the joint defense of the water rights final order. - Completed a Water Conservation and Management Plan to compliment the Lake Oswego update. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS None ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES In December 2008, the Tigard City Council adopted Resolution 08 -75, approving a buy -in cost of $2.82 million. The buy -in payment was included in the FY '08 -'09 budget and will be paid by the June 30, 2009 due date. Tigard's share of partnership costs in the next fiscal year will be approximately $855,000 and will cover the City's proportionate cost of the scheduling, cost estimating, design, permitting, environmental studies, and legal fees. These costs are included in the proposed FY '09 -'10 budget. • Agenda Item # Meeting Date May 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Tigard /Lake Oswego Joint City Council Meeting — Transportation Issues Prepared By: Alike McCarthy Dept Head Approval: < ' U 7 City Mgr Approval: OR ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss Tigard's transportation needs and aspiration issues with the Lake Oswego City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The following information is provided for Council's use when discussing this matter. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • High Capacity Transit • A Tigard 2009 Council Goal is to `Continue to lobby for light .rail in 99W Corridor,' and a five -year goal is to `Obtain 99W designation as the next I ,fight Rail Corridor.' Metro is conducting a High Capacity Transit (HCT) study to identify the next corridors for HCT. Currently, the highest ranking corridor for new HCT is roughly parallel to Barbur Blvd. and Hwy 99W from downtown Portland through Tigard to Sherwood. This would be the next corridor to enter the detailed planning process. • Another high scoring corridor would connect the Clackamas Regional Center to the Washington Square Regional Center. It would go through Milwaulde, cross the existing rail bridge to Lake Oswego, and then follow existing rail lines through Lake Oswego and Tigard to the Washington Square Regional Center, with a likely extension to the Beaverton Transit Center. Highway 99W Corridor • A Tigard City Council five year goal is `Begin 99W access management implementation,' and a long term goal is to `Seek to improve Hwy 99W corridor (land use, alternative routes, traffic, etc.)'. • Tigard, along with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has developed a Hwy 99W corridor management plan that primarily uses access management and transit provisions to improve safety and mobility along the Htvy 99W corridor. The roadway would be widened in some areas, but only short sections to get traffic through key capacity - limiting intersections. • Tigard is developing its land use vision for revitalization and redevelopment along the 99W corridor. • Major intersection projects are scheduled to begin in 2010 at the intersections of Highway 99W with Hall Blvd and with Main Street / Greenburg Road. Funding is primarily from Tigard and Washington County. These projects would address the worst capacity problem on Hwy 99W in this area. Also, ODOT is constructing new sidewalks to fill-in gaps in the 99W sidewalk system. WES = WES commuter rail service began operation early this year serving the Beaverton, Hall/Nimbus, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville stations. Current ridership is approximately 6,000 riders per week. = Agency staffs have recently cooperated to resolve traffic signal controller issues at the Bonita Road crossing. = Some complaints have been received regarding horn noise. Transportation Planning Issues Tigard is beginning an update of its Transportation System Plan (TSP). Lake Oswego staff will be involved in the Technical Advisory Committee, and will be consulted on issues affecting both cities. Some key issues are: = The Tigard Triangle, bounded by 1 -5, Hwy 217, and Hwy 99W would be an ideal location for a dense urban mixed use employment area and retail center. However, ODOT capacity restrictions limit future development. Also the Transportation Planning Rule may limit the intensity of future development in the Tigard Town Center. = 1 -5, Fanno Creek, and the railroad each constitute transportation barriers (it is difficult to cross them) in eastern Tigard near Lake Oswego. During the afternoon (p.m.) peak period, traffic demand exceeds capacity at the two current crossing points — Bonita Road and Durham Road. Movement of traffic along major regional roadways (1 -5, Hwy 217, Hwy 99W, etc.) is important to both cities. Current capacity problems affect both cities. It is important to note that the highest daily traffic volume on I -5 in Oregon is 155,800, between Hwy 217 and Carman Dr — along the border between Lake Oswego and Tigard. It Traffic problems continue at the I -5 /Hwy 217 /Kruse Way interchange. ODOT may seek changes to nearby interchanges to help traffic flow, and may seek to implement future plans to improve the capacity of both 1 -5 and Hwy 217. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \CDADM \JERREE \Agenda Sum \5 -26 -09 Joint meeting with LO - Transportation Issues MS.doex Agenda Item No. Meeting of - 721a7 a ca p Q 2 d ©�I Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trails Project (Streetcar) April 3, 2009 The Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trails Project is a federally and locally funded study that is evaluating both transit and trail alternatives in the 5.7 -mile corridor between Lake Oswego and downtown Portland. For Lake Oswego, this project will improve transportation and access along the Highway 43 corridor to downtown Portland, and could be a major catalyst for the redevelopment of the Foothills area. The project partners include Metro, TriMet, the cities of Lake Oswego and Portland, Clackamas and Multnomah counties, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Metro recently completed the Alternatives Analysis for the project. The Alternatives Analysis is a part of the federal process necessary to eventually receive federal funds for building the project. Its purpose is to narrow the number of possible alternatives that will advance into the federal environmental impact study or EIS. Through the EIS process, a locally preferred alternative for the corridor will be selected. Once a locally preferred alternative is selected and both federal and local funds are in place, construction of the project can begin. Background In the Lake Oswego to Portland corridor, Highway 43 serves as the primary north /south route for cars, busses and trucks between the two cities. Existing traffic volumes on Highway 43 create substantial congestion during the peak hours. Traffic volume forecasts indicate congestion will continue to increase. Substantial highway improvements for Highway 43 have been ruled out in earlier studies due to environmental and community character impacts. - However, multiple studies have recommended consideration of transit along the publicly -owned Willamette Shoreline right -of -way. Also, as part of Metro's Willamette River Greenway vision, a trail is planned to run along the west side of the river from Willamette Park in Portland to downtown Lake Oswego. In 1988, a consortium of local government agencies purchased the Willamette Shoreline railway to preserve the corridor for future transit services. This Consortium includes all the project partners listed above. The Consortium manages and maintains the rail right -of -way and the Oregon Electric Railroad Society operates an excursion trolley service between Lake Oswego and Portland on this rail line. In May 2006, the City Council adopted the City of Lake Oswego Downtown Transit Alternatives Advisory Committee (DTAAC) recommendations for preliminary transit alternatives for downtown Lake Oswego. The DTAAC concluded that a streetcar, with multiple stops along State Street, is the type of transit and alignment that will best achieve the community's goals. The committee also determined there's a need for specially designed park- and -ride facilities in both downtown Lake Oswego and on its periphery in order to serve future transit riders. Alternatives Analysis Study The Alternative Analysis followed on the heels of the DTAAC work. The Alternative Analysis summary report was completed by Metro in 2007. A number of alternatives were evaluated as part of the study, several of which were screened out. Those eliminated included widening of Highway 43, providing a reversible lane on Highway 43, operating a river transit on the Willamette River, providing Bus Rapid Transit on adjacent corridors including Boones Ferry, Taylors Ferry and Terwilliger, and operating a streetcar on Highway 43 south of the Sellwood Bridge. The three alternatives which will be carried forward to the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) are: the No- Build, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Highway 43 and Streetcar alternatives. Both the BRT and Streetcar alternatives could include a continuous trail the length of the corridor. Key issues for project are: • The northerly alignment of the streetcar in the John's Landing area on either the Willamette Shoreline right -of -way or Macadam Avenue (Highway 43) • A mid - stopping point for the project near the Sellwood Bridge at Nevada Avenue • The streetcar operating through the Dunthorpe neighborhood • Two alternative terminus locations in Lake Oswego: one adjacent to the Safeway block on 5 Avenue and one adjacent to Albertson's along the east side of State Street. • Use of the existing Willamette Shoreline right -of -way which could leverage a large amount of federal funds. This in turn would minimize the amount of local funds needed for the project. To assist with these and other issues, the City has contracted with Roger Martin and Associates. The firm is providing strategic planning, public outreach and communications services to help ensure that the best outcome for the project is achieved for Lake Oswego. Next Steps and Upcoming City Council Considerations The project timeline is being advanced in order to take advantage of both federal funding opportunities for streetcar projects in the next few years as well as development potential along the route. Advancing the timeline also helps to keep costs down by minimizing the risk with escalation costs. As such, the DEIS is expected to begin this June. An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is currently in the approval process with the five participating agencies: Metro, TriMet, Clackamas County, Portland and Lake Oswego. Lake Oswego has approved the IGA which includes a contribution of $150,000 from the City's general fund. $57,000 is being provided out of the current year's budget. The remainder, $93,000, will come out of the 09/10 budget. Other local fund contributions include $1 million from Portland and $850,000 from Clackamas County. As part of the IGA, Lake Oswego will also advance to TriMet $1.5 million which will allow the planning and preliminary design effort to begin this spring. Without this advance, this work may not have begun until at late as 2012. TriMet will reimburse the City $1.8 million on September 30, 2012. The additional amount is to cover the costs for the use of these funds over the 3 -year period. Construction of the project will occur in 2012 as the very earliest. This is dependent on receiving Federal construction money as well as figuring out the local match. The local matching money for Lake Oswego would likely come from the City's urban renewal funds. • Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date Mav 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Tigard / Lake Oswego Joint City Council Meeting — Urban Growth Boundary Issues Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: 6. I cA City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss Tigard's urban growth expectations and aspirations with the Lake Oswego City Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION The following information is provided for Council's use when discussing this matter KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The City Tigard accepts that new urban Iands will be needed to accommodate population and employment growth expected in corning decades. • It is Tigard's position that new urban development occur within a municipal governance structure. • Tigard's development aspiration is to increase urban densities in its Downtown, Washington Square, along Highway 99W, and in the Tigard Triangle. The City also aspires to increase employment opportunities in its existing industrial, commercial, and office park designations. High capacity transit is essential to achieve these objectives. • The City also wants its low- density residential neighborhoods to retain their single - family land use designation. • It is Tigard's expectation that it will provide municipal services, including water to 1) unincorporated areas within its Urban Services Area; 2) Urban Growth Areas 63 and 64 and lands south to Beef Bend Road. • Tigard will ultimately grow toward the Tualatin River and Vanderrnost Road, excluding areas King City has determined necessary for its future growth. The City's ultimate 30 - 50 year growth scenario of new housing and jobs is summarized as follows: New housing developed inside existing City 14,000 New jobs established inside existing City 23,000 boundaries (Aspiration) boundaries New housing developed on lands added to the 8,300 New jobs established on lands added to 5,700 City boundaries the City boundaries Total Estimated New Housing Units 22,300 Total Estimated New Jobs 28 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N /A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 — Aerial of Tigard Redevelopment and Infill Pi ority Areas FISCAL NOTES N/A 1 \CDA€7M\JERRE:1 \Agenda Sum \5 -26-09 joint meeting with 1.0 - UBG Issues Alti.doc Attachment A Tigard Redevelopment and Infill Priority Areas Washington Square Regional Center Tigard Town Center Highway 99W Transportation Corridor Tigard Triangle n '� • J' i 1i ` ' I ` r 1 SH, G t s , A � r .. '' : fi 4e64.4.4:. • � � r' • > '' ,, WAINTONi.' c. t S" t 74:: _ ~ + `' 1r r r ' a ' SQUARE'- ' "CtL ' 1 ' ' e., "" "-- , .11 ' ,; t , • ' ° REGIONAL CENT 11 -,r - - —: „ . 1 , : ` fi I . -. 1 'ACV,. I r t � . , gy p .. le , , 41 { w>, j F' .-a w •rte - -f !r` r ° s s,ac r1. " � r # . r �. , 1 E //�rr a " • q! w " . x 4y . e„ C . � — i. ` --+ 1 +.', ::::1 Ti' ; ti-,161- - - 1- " Y' !i� iy 4 r , . Z • r r h "1 f . TOWN �, `4,� .. J r : - ti ` ., f 4 q t : S% } CEN.TE- ' `' 1 4 I , f , w ' 0. al Jf Si tit i � �'' ,f � "¢ a �R�` �a 2. % �Fr � �} fu wa - sv..t......:, f,.. .....„..., , S o -�k7� `i- a - t r n cl- ,;. a - L , : er a- . ,I z "� _ h r �' ,y} t Agenda Item No. _ 3 Meeting of 77 U 0 0 ort LAKE os Lake Oswego Community Aspirations Approved by the Lake Oswego City Council - - s May 5, 2009 aREGpN Lake Oswego's aspirations are set forth in its Comprehensive Plan and supporting documents. The Comprehensive Plan outlines a vision for Lake Oswego that includes vibrant town centers and quiet residential neighborhoods that fit well into a serene natural landscape. Key aspects of our aspirations are described below: Sustainability A sustainable Lake Oswego is a place recognized nationally as a model of livability —a unified city with a vital downtown, a strong sense of neighborhoods, and a harmonious relationship with the natural environment. The lives of everyone who lives, works, and conducts business in Lake Oswego are enriched by a wide range of choices in transportation, housing, recreation, and culture. Our infrastructure is sound, our finances stable, and our citizens and employees healthy and engaged. The City is committed to becoming a sustainable community. In 2008, the City formed a new Sustainability Advisory Board. Over the next year, the Board will be working on the first community - wide sustainability plan with an overarching vision of a sustainable Lake Oswego. The plan will strive to balance the three elements of sustainability as the City moves into the future; Community (housing, Stafford basin, and urban reserves), Economy (town center development, redevelopment opportunities, and transit), and Environment (environmental quality, energy use, travel options, low impact development). Housing The City's aspirations include accommodating its target number of housing units under Title 1 of the Metro 2040 Functional Plan. Lake Oswego has been growing at a slower rate than set forth under the 2040 plan and the City expects to meet Title 1 capacities by 2030 rather than 2017. Lake Oswego's target capacity under Title 1 is 4,049 housing units between 1998 and 2017. In the time period between 1998 and 2007, 756 dwelling units have been built The remaining capacity target is 3,293 units. We anticipate the majority of the new units will be accommodated in our two Town Centers and along the City's transit corridors. In regard to shifting housing trends and affordable housing, the City Council has adopted a 2009 Council Goal to explore more opportunities for encouraging secondary dwelling units. 1 Highway 43, Boones Ferry Road, Kruse Way and A Avenue. Page 1 Lake Oswego Community Aspirations Adopted May 5, 2009 Town Center Development & Redevelopment Opportunities Lake Oswego has high hopes for its two Town Centers: Downtown and Lake Grove. It also has high hopes for the redevelopment of the Foothills area and other downtown sites. Downtown Lake Oswego - The redevelopment in the downtown area over the past ten years has been recognized as a model for the region. The City's redevelopment program has been successful in attracting development to the downtown through street and park improvements and development agreements that resulted in construction of a public parking garage within a private development. The redevelopment plan anticipates continued public /private partnerships to encourage additional mixed use and housing projects within the downtown. Downtown redevelopment sites include the Wizer's, Safeway, and Albertson's shopping center sites. Each site has excellent potential for mixed use development. Redevelopment is also a possibility for the Oswego Point apartments and the riverfront office /commercial development at Oswego Point. All of these sites are currently planned and zoned for a more intense mix of housing and commercial use. The City's continued efforts to implement its downtown redevelopment plan will further enhance the walkability and transit orientation of the downtown area. Lake Grove - The City also has a designated town center in the Lake Grove area. In 2008, the City adopted the Lake Grove Village Center Plan to guide development in the area. The plan anticipates that over the next 20 years Lake Grove will be transformed from an auto oriented commercial strip to a pedestrian friendly mixed use center with high density housing and supportive commercial uses. The district is close to the major regional employment center along Kruse Way so there are excellent opportunities to create a center where jobs, housing, and shopping are within easy walking distance. The plan also calls for better pedestrian connections from the center to the adjoining neighborhoods. The City is currently in the process of developing a refinement plan for Boones Ferry Road which runs through the center of Lake Grove. The plan will result in a roadway design and improvement project that provides a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment with new bikeways, intersections, plazas, and pedestrian crossings. Foothills - The City is in the process of examining how to expand its downtown district to include the area east of downtown between Hwy 43 and the Willamette River. This area is known as the "Foothills" area and is well suited to accommodate additional housing and some office employment. Housing density in this area is dependent on a number of factors including compliance with the State Transportation Planning Rule. The Foothills area has excellent redevelopment potential due to its proximity to the downtown and to the new park on the Willamette River waterfront known as Foothills Park. Foothills is an area that is well suited for transit oriented development given that the proposed Portland to Lake Oswego streetcar line is immediately adjacent to the area. The City has been actively pursuing the planning and redevelopment of this area. The following studies were completed: 2002 — Concept Plan; 2003 — Transit station /park and ride study; 2005 — Access, Page 2 Lake Oswego Community Aspirations Adopted May 5, 2009 capacity and funding study; and 2008 — urban renewal feasibility study. We continue to work toward the redevelopment of this area and envision it as an extension of the downtown town center. New street infrastructure and structured parking are key features that an expanded urban renewal district may assist with in this district. Transit and Streetcar Lake Oswego aspires to provide multi -modal travel options to increase mobility, access, commerce, recreational opportunities, regional connectivity and reduce reliance on single - occupancy vehicles by supporting the extension of the Portland streetcar along the Willamette Trolley line to serve the downtown and the Foothill's area with frequent high capacity transit service. The extension of this line is critical to the community's vision for these areas. In addition, it is anticipated that a heavy rail commuter line will one day follow the Portland and Western Rail line that extends from Tualatin to Portland through Milwaukie. A downtown Lake Oswego stop will enhance the transit orientation of the downtown. Lake Grove Village Center Plan anticipates that with added housing in the area, better bus transit will be more viable. Today, bus service is lacking. The City also anticipates that development of a heavy rail commuter train or the extension of light rail along the Portland and Western railroad corridor would include a Lake Grove area stop which would add transit service to the area. The City aspires to provide better local transportation services to its growing senior population and to people who are at a disadvantage in using traditional transportation means. The City has explored the possibility of developing a Lake Oswego flexible shuttle bus that would follow a regular route through the city but could deviate to pick -up clients who call and schedule a specific pick -up time. This service would be coordinated with and compliment Tri -Met service and would reach areas within the City that are not currently served by Tri -Met. Environmental Quality Lake Oswego has been a regional leader in programs to protect the environment and promote sustainability. The City expects to continue to provide strong leadership in these areas into the future. Over the past 20 years, Lake Oswego has had an active program for purchasing open space and park land. We have used the program to protect natural areas as well as to provide for better recreational opportunities for community members. The City,expects to update and implement its open space plan to assure that existing parks and open spaces are well managed and that additional land is acquired for future open space and park use. The City is proud of its natural resources. The character of Lake Oswego is enhanced by its extensive tree canopy and its setting along Oswego Lake and the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers. Through careful planning the City has been able to balance resource protection with reasonable levels of development that allow citizens to live close to nature. The City remains committed to maintaining this balance of resource protection and development that respects the functions and values of the natural systems and Page 3 Lake Oswego Community Aspirations Adopted May 5, 2009 is working towards implementing programs to encourage the use of low- impact development best practices (e.g. surface water management, energy efficiency and conservation, green building, and on- site renewable energy). Stafford Basin — Urban Reserves The City does not support or envision urban levels of development in the upper Stafford basin. The current Comprehensive Plan includes policies that discourage urban development in this area. Dense urban development in this area will detract from the livability of Lake Oswego by increasing congestion on Highway 43 through the downtown and into Portland. The northern, upper portion of the Stafford basin is envisioned to be a rural enclave within the region providing access to small community farms and sustainable agriculture in close proximity to the city center. If the Stafford area, including the area around the 1- 205 /Stafford interchange, is included as an urban reserve area, Lake Oswego expects to have a primary decision making role in any planning and development decisions for the area. Lake Oswego envisions that rather than have low density residential development sprawl out from each of the adjoining jurisdictions, that urban development in the Stafford area should be focused as a walkable, transit oriented, mixed -use town center located near the l- 205 /Stafford interchange. A town center at this location would better promote the vision outlined in the Metro 2040 plan and would create much stronger transportation and transit connections to the east and west along 1 -205. Any urban reserve area designation in the Stafford area should include a condition that the area only be included within the UGB when high capacity transit service along 1 -205 is concurrently in place. • Page 4 Lake Oswego Community Aspirations Adopted May 5, 2009 Agenda Item # �l Meeting Date May 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Finance Challenges — Approved Budget and Financial Forecast for Tigard Prepared By: TL Dept Iead Approval: City Mgr Approval: eR ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This is a broad presentation of the City of Tigard's financial health. The presentation has been updated for decisions trade by the Budget Committee's Approved Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION NA KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The forecast goes through the primary funding areas of the City of Tigard. It is important to note that the forecast takes current decisions and forecasts them forward without future corrective action. This provides some perspective on the scope of future decisions for the City. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED NA CITY COUNCIL GOALS Develop a long -term financial strategy ATTACHMENT LIST PowerPoint presentation of FY 2009 -10 Approved Budget and Long Term Financial Forecast FISCAL NOTES NA City of Tigard FY 2009-10 Approved Budget &Long Term Financial Forecast For ,o'ont Council Pkiee of: Oty of iflg2rd 2rid C'ty of Lake Oswego n )i 7 01) �.� Budget ., F' . ;OS -09 • FY 09 -10 Cha Operating 51,552,484 49,144,386 -4.7% CIP 28,980,093 20,677,107 - 28.7% Other 10,184,105 15,403,314 51.2% Ending Fund Balance 31,385,938 21,734,653 -30.8% Total 122,102,620 106,959,461 -12.4% FTE 295.80 284.75 -3.7% • status quo Budget. • Maintain services when they are most needed. • Minimal operational staffing changes: — Budgets prior operating reduction in Building. — 0.1 FTE increase in Office Services for Graphic Design. — 0.2 FTE increase in PW Admin for reservations. 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term 5/26/2009 Forecast 2 Forecast Overview • Takes current proposals and economic conditions and forecasts impacts forward. • Does not assume corrective action. • Does not forecast end period of economic downturn. 5/ 6/2009 2-009 -10 Approved Budget Long Terra 3 Forecast Fund General jF9 f General Fund • Budgeted Ending Fun Financial Forecast through FY 13/14 Balance $600K less than $40,000,000 - l ast year. $35,000,000 - r T $30,000,000 1 _ • Due to economy, forecasted fund balance $25, 000, 000 ' a) $20,000,000 approaches $0 faster 0 $15,000,000 than prior forecasts. N $10,000,000 m 1 In third year of forecast, _. • � 4J $S,000,U00 beginning cash is $° 11_=1,6 - I ''''' - - . . ($5,000,000 . .... - - a Q $ ° insufficient to bridge to 4 t t... 2 t - . t- t.... Property Tax collection in ($10,000,000) Actual U audit d Projected N ovember. r' Ending Fund Balance w/ CIP-4— Forecast Revenue /Trans In --4:- Forecast Exp w/ CIP 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term 5/26/2009 4 ? Forecast •_�a Development F { ___. •„,,,,,..„,.,4„.0, i • Budgets staff at Development Funds Financial Forecast through FY 13/14 current levels. Ending Fund Balances $2,000,000 • Includes $300K :::::____ __..... ...._ __.._ $1,500,000 I 1- General Fun ,_ = i 1. 4. $1,000,000 —C transfer in 09 -1a. ::::::: : . � : ;e -a_ : :: _a __________ x ____ $5 00,Oa0 • /\dd $ ifl fee . .._ n eve s sta rti ng 09-10 o 0 0 o H 0500,000) ... ...........� . _ .� ... • Staff is working . .. .. g on ]�ctilal °''UnaTitlif d PPajected ($i,aaa,aaa Business Plan. Electrical Inspection Building Fund 5/26/2009 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term 5 Forecast .:" ParkCapitalFunds B • Includes $1 mil in Parks Funds parks land a cq u i s it i o n. Financial 'Forecast through FY 13/14 Ending Fund Balances • 4 81 K fo J Park $ ...._..........„........ $8,000,000 - Extension. = $7,000,000 .- .......... .__' -_' - _.... _.,.._. ..... .... .... ...________ • $ 180K i F anno C ree k = $,000,000 CD $5,000,000 Tra i mprovements. $�,oaa,aaa yu _ -=- =T ^ -- $3,00a,aoo _ • $ 150K • T re e C an o py • : °°°'° $2,,000 oo „ :- _-. _" . . = w �_..� = ::: > 100a 000 — w-- _ _.. ..... — Replacement. , . .._. . = • $348K ($1,000,000) - * 2 2 ' • p rojects • Actual Uiaudlted Projected Parks Capital . Parks SDC Tree Replacement 5/26/2009 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term C Forecast Funds .c.„ ���� Transportation • Burnham St. may require up Transportation Funds to $0.3 mil in borrowing. Financial Forecast through FY 13/14 Ending Fund Balances • Debt payments up to $510K $ �_.___._. forecasted starting FY 10 -11. $4,000,000 .._. _ . tu 3 $3,000,000 -. _ _....__ r - - • Burnham scope & Gas Tax ��� 5 $2,000,00 Nu decisions will be necessary $i,aaa,Da ©: = -.- - to balance road operations Q NE , CO cv o .- o a- .__._..N .w_ ($1, 000, 000)... ......o...f...:..... m .._ m- ... _. —.. l... ca eta I, and debt service. ce. i t .; t t si _..:_::: t.... p T ($2,000,000) • T[ F and T DT could help w i t h : -- actual i] 7eudtt- d ° -------_......_. °.--- -.. Proje ($3,000,000) d ebt service. '+ Gas Tax - 'TIF &TDTFunds City Gas Tax Street Maintenance Fee 5 /16/2009 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term 7 Forecast Sewer and Storm Funds • Overall, funds are , Sewer and Storm Funds Financial Forecast through FY 13/14 healthy. Ending Fund Balances $12,000,000 -- — ------- - • Includes $1.8 mil in . si0,000,... . _ __ _.................... .. _........._..... _______ ........__.. e_. . . . .. $8,000,000 capital projects. . w a _.. ... ___. ..............._......_ • $6,000,000 . El, ,--- ----- LLI 13 11 III RI i ffl 0 M r p $4,000,000 - in cu o $2,000,000 c I ....._ W ' ft P i n g > W IX 0 • C;J 0 • - -- 0-- -ri --r1 . , r1- -1-1- I ---,I- t'-- --!' 1 2 --- .1- tE' Actual Unaudit d Projected I 1 I Sanitary Sewer Storm Water Water Quality/Quantity 5/26/2009 2009-10 Approved Budget Long Term Forecast __ ' t. Water Funds ,..,.., • Budgets expenses for Water Funds Ti ga rd long-term water Financial Forecast through FY 13/14 Ending Fund Balances solution. 25,0D0,0D9 • Includes borrowing $5,5 tu $ 20,000,DDD -- mil for payments to Lake S15,000,0a0 = _ __- - -__ -- Oswego and Sherwood D -- _ -=_ _ _ - - _- � S � D,DDD,aDD starting this year. $5,DDD,DDD I _ _ _ -- ._� v— __ ___ a - • $22 mil bond in FY 11 -12. �_ , CC • includes 7% water rate ; SS,DaD,Daa, — : = L' 1 > } - {{I W W LL LL L ' { W W W W I lyly i ncreases through FY 11 . Actual Unaudited Prcjected 1 .2. Water Water5DC WalerClP 5 j26/2009 2009 -10 Approved Budget Long Term 9 Forecast Agenda Item # Date May 26, 2009 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title: The City of Tigard Street Maintenance Fee Prepared By: A. P. Duenas Dept Head Okay (5 /iLf City Mgr Okay ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Information on the City's Street Maintenance Fee and its ability to adequately maintain the City's street infrastructure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No Council action required. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • The State gas tax, last increased in the early 1990's, is no longer a viable source of revenue for adequate and timely maintenance of the 148 miles of paved streets in the City's street system. • The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly user fee established through Ordinance No. 03 -10 to provide a stable source of revenue for timely maintenance of the City's streets. Fee rates were set by Council by Resolution No. 04-12 with an effective date of April 1, 2004. The monthly fee charges for residential and non - residential users of the street system are billed through the City's bi- monthly utility billing system. • The initial revenue target for the fee was $800,000 annually but the rates were not indexed for inflation. The rates since inception have been $2.18 per residential unit and $0.78 per parking space (minimum required in the Development Code) for non - residential uses. • Although the revenue received from the fee has allowed the City to perform a significant amount of preventative maintenance work, the steep rise in price for asphalt since 2006 has severely compromised the ability of this revenue source to adequately maintain the street system. • Keeping good roads good maximizes the use of limited dollars, extends the pavement life, and provides for a safer driving experience. Deferred maintenance can cost 4 to 9 tunes more over the long -term. These costs are borne by both the community and the individual driver. • The fee rates need to be drastically increased to adequately protect the street infrastructure and achieve gradual improvement of the overall network condition over the long term. These rates basically need to be tripled to adequately maintain the system and achieve long -term goals for overall street condition. A phase - in period has been proposed to ease the transition from the current fees to the proposed rates. The rates will be indexed to keep pace with the increases in cost as part of the proposed changes to the existing ordinance. • Council has directed City staff to obtain as much public input as feasible on any proposed changes to the fee before bringing the issue before Council for consideration. • City staff has developed and is currently implementing an extensive public outreach plan to obtain that input. Meetings with a wide variety of groups and businesses have been scheduled and are currently ongoing. The schedule calls for submittal of the final report to Council on July 21, 2009 for discussion and direction. • A comprehensive Street Maintenance Fee Program informational booklet has been prepared as part of this public outreach process. That booklet can be viewed or downloaded from the City's website, and is available for review at City Hall and the Tigard Public Library. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None COUNCIL GOALS A Iong term goal of Council is to "pursue opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in Tigard." Timely street maintenance minimizes the need for costly reconstruction and allows available funds to be redirected to other projects. It also provides better rideability and should improve traffic flow on City streets. ATTACHMENT LIST Street Maintenance Fee Program Public Outreach Informational Booklet FISCAL NOTES The current monthly rates of $2.18 per residential unit and $0.78 per code required parking space for non- residential provide slightly over $800,000 in annual revenue. The funding needed to adequately maintain the street infrastructure and provide right - of-way maintenance is $2,500,000. The phase -in period will allow for incremental increases leading to implementation of the full monthly rates. So that the final rates account for inflation during the phase -in period, the proposed charges include a 6.5 percent inflation factor. is \ eng \gjs \council agenda summarie5\21109 \5 -26-09 tigard sweet maintenance fee summary ais.doc i - . 1 ,:, :2211.1 >$ ,' A 5.� 1` 1 _ F x lik • • r 5S tti 4, L. .: t.'" e \ 'Y r ! ,� � 1 5 th .. i , f ,,, . • • _ j : 11 r \ r r ., , , i i\i j \ 1\1 I F 'it .4.:? t. ' - 1 i - I -1 ‘,17. A , CJ r 1 . .. , . -- ii.,\17--- ,iA '''' 1 I\ 1 ;'. 11 Roads. rep one of. p R 1 0 G R A M the Largest investments ,. -• owne'by the City, an . - investmont :that's in need k / of re - 1 ai INSIDE: Street Maintenance Fee Update > 1 The Tigard, City Council Contact Information > is seeking C input Street Maintenance ldl > 2 about the condition of Importance of Maintenance > 3 1 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? > 6 its streets and how to ''. , Pavement Conditions > 8 protect this investment . Pavement Major Maintenance Program > 11 Fut Street Maintenance Funding > 12 I : � - 8 S'4U ' " ` ,_ , Frequently Asked Questions > 14 . `e AL tr i ;t,. - - Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force > 17 f , M i A 307 � : i s Appendix > al At r h - City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tied, OR 97223 I wwwtigard- ongovfmput . - 1 Tigard Street Maintenance Review ,:• ; I , '�.',,�+k ; l`I, T 'k;:`, �a , - ��° ' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .tl 7 , s + l I 4r , y ' ...a '1 y, e � ✓ 'T1 v t _ .. `. -N.,. 5 . ;, i4 -* f / x l !. ; M 1 � . r I : { .- ;! ! i . . 'r f - y . 1'. ` Questions or Comments? • v � ! " j � ` +`` , ii 1 ;i' } f `' You can submit your comments on line! Follow fi ti r _ ? : ! x , � ` �,.q'aR the link at www.tigard- or.gov /input to l ^.• .. ' '+ v0 0. ,.. .1, v.:,0. Leave any questions, comments, or concerns :: , ', ;' •... ~ ,:''' 2 ' k . , ' ` �� +� . ; • ' , • =.X for City Council and staff. Frequently asked y q y questions and items of interest will be posted online with answers for you to review. n the coming months, City Council will be revisiting our current Street Maintenance Fee Program to ensure it remains an effective tool for If you'd prefer, you can submit your comments safeguarding this community's biggest investment: 148 miles of paved Marisa D or questions a nn ieels ls i to: streets that keep the people of Tigard in motion. Street Maintenance Fee Comments 13125 SW Hall Blvd Stay tuned to the Cityscape newsletter and our website for informat=ion such as status Tigard, OR 97223 updates, ways you can get involved, and street maintenance facts. marissa @tigard or.gov tivww.tigard- or.gov/input Or, drop them off in the Tigard City Hall Permit Center. Tigard City staff will be available throughout the summer to answer your questions in TABLE OF CONTENTS: person. Check the web for an updated Street Maintenance 101 2 Future Street Maintenance Funding 12 outreach calendar. Importance of Maintenance 3 Frequently Asked Questions 14 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? 6 Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force 17 Pavement Conditions 8 Appendix al Pavement Major Maintenance Program 11 City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 1 Street Maintenance 101 S treets in good to excellent condition regular maintenance on busy streets, " are characterized as having good riding or to repair fair /poor residential streets 4 .: quality, drainage, and appearance. The 3. Major Overlay— Often used on busy j>_— total annual maintenance investment streets that have deteriorated into poor is four to five tunes less following condition 1 preventative maintenance strategy than 4. Street Reconstruction— Typically 05E:C if streets were allowed to deteriorate done only when a street's condition is f i to poor and failed conditions requiring very poor vy ' - I. major rehabilitation. I,, - For more information about each type of funded by the Tigard Public Works Pavement Minor Maintenance Treatments maintenance treatment, please visit our Department operating budget. The Tigard Public Works Street web site: Maintenance Division is responsible Street Lights for the maintenance of 148 miles of u7o vw•tigard- or.gov /input Tigard's electricity bill for traffic signals paved streets, 1 mile of gravel streets, and street lights is about $ 500,000 per maintenance of street and traffic signs, Right - - Way Maintenance year. It costs approximately an additional installation and maintenance of guardrails The City of Tigard currently hires a $100,000 per year to maintain the system and barricades, crack sealing, and patching contractor annually to mow roadside (replace burned -out lights, make repairs, street surfaces, maintenance of off-street grass and brush to maintain clear vision fix damage, etc.). These are paid for with bicycle paths and installation and marking. areas and minimize fire and complaint gas tax funds. activity. The City also provides debris Pavement Major Maintenance Treatments cleanup on an as needed basis in these Sidewalks There are four main pavement maintenance areas. The City trims trees annually It is up to property owners to maintain treatments commonly used on city streets: to ensure street lights are functioning the sidcwallks adjacent to their property. 1. Slurry Seal — Typically used on property. Also included in right -of -way The City maintains sidewalks adjacent good residential streets to keep them in maintenance is the maintenance of guard to City properties using funds from the good condition rails, delineators barricades, and street Public Works Street Maintenance Division 2. Asphalt Overlay— Often used as trees. This maintenance is currently operating budget. 2 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Importance of Street Maintenance Community Livability and the individual driver. As with many Economic Vitality ...the average American car investments, timely investments in Collectively, Tigard's 148 miles of paved owner incurs an a di ouai 413 per routine maintenance in roads can extend roads represents one of the biggest year in operating ing casts because of pavement life and provide for a safer investments owned by the community. driving experience. Not only will roads Our road system is what keeps the people rough road conditions. H last longer, but repairing a failed road of Tigard in motion as they travel to can be four to nine times more expensive work, to school, to the supermarket, to truck drives on roads in poor condition, than a routine maintenance program. the mall, and to parks and open spaces. the vehicle suffers accelerated wear and With a limited amount of funds available, Unfortunately pavement deteriorates tear, increasing time and money spent at the community is better served by over time as weather wears down the top the mechanic, as well as increased fuel spending the same amount of money surface, repeated pressures of vehicle consumption and tire replacement. This maintaining a greater amount of road loading (especially from trucks and buses) problem is not unique to Tigard. A recent miles, than completely rebuilding smaller wears down the underlying pavement study by TRIP, a national transportation sections as the entire network begins to structure, and as the ground beneath the research group, found that the average fail. In other words, if we can keep good pavement settles. Smooth, long - lasting American car owner incurs an additional streets good, we can maxinize the use of roads create an image of prosperity and $413 per year in operating costs because limited dollars. ensure that goods and people can move of rough road conditions. This same efficiently throughout Tigard and the report found that those living in the As demonstrated in the following world beyond. In contrast, uneven roads Portland Metropolitan Area incurred graphs, the worse a pavement condition, in poor Condition not only make travel approximately $235 per year. As such, the more expensive it is to repair. For unpleasant, they incur extra costs in terms drivers in Tigard are suffering less than instance, routine maintenance and surface of time and money every time a person or the national average, but rennain at a very treatments can be implemented for as little business needs to travel within the City real risk of paying more if roads are not as $1.50 to $3.00 a square yard of roadway maintained or repaired. This can increase dramatically to $15.00 Personal Costs a square yard to overlay the road with Individual drivers in Tigard are already Consequences of Delayed Maintenance new asphalt, and up to $90.00 a square paying extra money as a result of deferred The costs of deferred maintenance yard if the street is allowed to completely road maintenance. Every time a car or are borne by both the community and crumble, therefore needing to be rebuilt. City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 3 30 -Year Pavement Maintenance Alternatives: Neighborhood Route Traffic: 1,500 Vehicles per Day Dimensions: 1,000 feet long. 34 feet wide Option Maintenance Alternatives Details Average Pave- Total meat Condition Cost 1 ...4.- - A _i„,.._, „-_,,, a 81 $81,600 Regular :71 � � 3 Slurry Slurry U Se 1 Surface Roughness; Seals o Overlay Only Minor Cracks; ($454,000 Every 7 Pavement Intact per mile) Years cd 1 30 Time (Years) 2 T.�J r 76 o 1D?,DD0 . Pavement 1 Surface Roughness; Overlays U U 2 Overlays Some Cracking; (591,000 Every 12 Pavement Mostly= per mile) Years u Intact Time (Years) 30 '' a, 58 ht :.a o $227,000 Wait until r l aeon- Widespread struction Cracking; Potholes Pavement a ($ 1.20 U U at 25 Common; gets very bad then t O j Years Some Pavement million iliiiiiiiiiik repave S tructural 1W'eakness per mile) P 1 Time (Years) ,0 Developing 4 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation 30 -Year Pavement Maintenance Alternatives: Arterial Traffic: 12,000 Vehicles per Day Dimensions: 1,000 feet long, 34 feet wide Average Pave- Total Option Maintenance Alternatives Details went Condition Cost 80 $1 68,000 3 Two Pavement ° v • Inch Surface Roughness; 0$87,000 Overlays Overla Only Minor Cracks; Every 10 5 per mile) Years Pavement Intact t Time (Years) 3� 2 [ •----,- 1 q .= �_ °t'� 74 $214,200 Pavement e Major U V 2 Major Surface Roughness; [ 0 - - Overlays Some Cracking; ($1,13 Overlays Pavement Mostly million Every 15 Intact per mile) Years Time (Years) 30 16., 65 3 • o $340,000 Wait until `Widespread Pavement U U 1 Recon- Cracking; Potholes ($1.8 ails, then v C struction Common; F million Recoil- Some Pavement per mile) Structural Weakness struct o. 1 Time (Years) 30 Developing City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 5 What is the Street Maintenance Fee? a' > -`'N .`4, `. .--b to close the gap between local needs and Approximately 60 of those spaces are west • ' �.,. ,� - increasingly stretched state dollars. By of the railroad tracks. These spaces do not .-` a F . . { A � ;, having a locally based fee, communities are include those large parking lots that do exist 0.1,-"'4'.':''' ,,, � 5 i '''....".4,1--,.."34:'"7. ` m 3 d r provided with a stable source of revenue and are presumably used by patrons of - i 14 to pay for preventative maintenance and nearby businesses. The consensus in 2003 ` , • ",, '1/4_K ,,.- repairs in a timely and efficient mannet was that the patrons of the Main Street businesses are parking somewhere to get to How are the rates determined? the businesses and, as such, the downtown The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly Existing rates were set in 2004 under businesses should not be exempted from user fee designed specifically for the Council Resolution 04-12 which was the charges. maintenance of existing roads in Tigard. based on a five -year maintenance and The fee was recommended to City Council reconstruction plan. Both residential and by a Citizen task force, and established non - residential users pay the fee. Residential 665 sari property must be occupied through Ordinance No. 03 -10 on users pay $2.18 per month per dwelling to he assessed t he tee. 5 November 18, 2003. Monthly fee charges unit. Non- residential users pay $0.78 per for both residential and non - residential parking space or fueling pump station. customers are billed and collected through 'These fees generate $800,000 a year for Exceptions the City's bi- monthly utility billing system. street maintenance. All religious institutions will be charged half of the normal fee assessed to non -resi- thought the state Gas Tax Downtown dential businesses, resulting in a 100 -space paid for street maintenance Although many of the downtown maximum for those that reach the 200 Historically, Tigard roads have been businesses do not have sufficient parking space limit. This decision was made because maintained by the state Gas Tax, a spaces off - street to meet the minimum parking requirements for these institutions source of funding that hasn't risen in 20 code requirements, the City is providing are relatively high to accommodate large years, while road usage, operations and over a hundred on- street parking spaces services, while the parking lots are not fully maintenance costs have increased at an throughout most of Main Street to utilized during the week. overwhelming rate. As a result, Tigard accommodate the businesses. Some of is one of eighteen Oregon cities that these spaces have time limits to encourage In addition, a property must be occupied have adopted Street Maintenance Fees periodic turnover during a typical day. to be assessed the fee. If a property is 6 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation What is the Street Maintenance Fee? unoccupied for 30 days or more, the owner the trip generation rates are based on Sydney Shetwood to come up with an may apply for a fee waiver for that period. square footage of building alternative methodology, suggested the use of the minimum parking requirements Methodology The City needed to develop a methodology of the Tigard Municipal Code. City staff The methodologies used by most of the that distributes the costs of maintenance agreed that methodology proposed was cities in Oregon that have established a arnong all the non - residential and much better at distributing costs to the street utility fee are based on trip generation residential uses in as fair a manner as actual users of the City's street network and rates for the types of uses to distribute the possible. No methodology is going to be worked with OGA to flesh out the details. costs. These rates are found in a nationwide perfect. The Oregon Grocery Association, The methodology adopted is one that publication from the Institute of Transpor- in response to a challenge from Councilor focuses on the users of the City streets. tation Engineers and are compiled through numerous studies. However, the trip >>>>>>>> > >y > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> generation methodology does not work well for Tigard. This methodology, if The current methodology is based on the following: used as originally proposed, would have ❑ Ties the street maintenance element of the fee to a 5-year maintenance and reconstruction plan prepared by the charged the non - residential uses 75% of City of Tigard the costs with Washington Square, Fred ❑ Uses actual road maintenance and repair projects on City streets, not state or county routes. Meyer, and other large businesses bearing o Tailors the fee to the local data the brunt of the cost. Most of the traffic ❑ Sets a target revenue goal of $800,000 annually (established in 2003) o Allocates the costs of the arterial projects to the non - residential uses generated by these big businesses use ❑ Splits the costs for the collectors on a 50 -50 basis with residential and non - residential uses sharing the costs equally. state highways, such as Highway 217, The rationale for splitting the costs in this fashion is that many of the collectors do traverse residential areas and collect 99W and Hall Boulevard. Yet, the fee to traffic from those areas to feed the other collectors and arterials in the system. be collected is for maintenance of City ❑ Allocates the costs for neighborhood routes and local streets to residential uses streets. That methodology was not fair to ❑ Allocates the costs for residential uses on a per unit basis for both single family and multifamily units. the big businesses that draw their traffic ❑ Uses the minimum parking space requirements based on the Tigard Development Code for non - residential uses with a 5 -space minimum and 200 -space maximum. Like the trip generation rates, the parking space requirements are based from regional sources using state routes on size of building and type of use. However, this approach takes into account businesses that draw from a larger area to get there. Under that methodology, all than just Tigard. The argument is that above 200 spaces, the traffic is more likely regional traffic, which comes via the the businesses, including those downtown, state routes. The 5 -space minimum is to establish a minimum amount for the billing to compensate for the costs of would end up paying much more because preparing and mailing out the bills. City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 7 Pavement Condition T igard's 148 -mile paved street network Current Paved Network represents an investment of over $140 45 million, with an additional $120 million 40 - - invested in curbing, sidewalks, drainage, and right-of-way. The City's street 35 City of Tigard infrastructure represents the lar est p g Pavement Condition _ _ _ investment owned by Tigard citizens, and it 30 Data the overall pavement condition represents 25 i ©Arter[a[ the health of this network. x n — 20 oCollector - Pavement Rating System - . z 16 Pavement health is measured by a o ®Residential Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The 1 p - — ;1 — PCI indicates the extent and severity c of pavement distress such as cracking, I rutting, raveling, etc. It is expressed as ° - 0 a number from 0 (very bad, essentially Unacceptable Poor Acceptable Fair Good Very Good gravel) to 100 (essentially perfect). New Pavement Condition streets start with pavement conditions in the high nineties. For ease of understanding, pavement condition is Current Conditions in Tigard condition rating of 68 and the backlog of often classified as follows: The City completed a Pavement Manage- preventative maintenance is at 10 %. I owever, ment Analysis report re- rating all City there is cause for concern with 45% of the • Very Good (85 to 100) streets, and providing a PCI rating for streets in the acceptable and fair categories. • Good (70 to 85) each street. This means many streets will become • Fair (55 to 70) reconstruction candidates in the next five • Poor (40 to 55) Today, Tigard's streets are in fairly good con- to ten years. A preventative maintenance • Very Poor (Less Than 40) dition. The net average is an overall approach is needed to stop this trend. 8 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Pavement Condition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wir ________ • 7 R t -. 41111111111 AI4111, ,_._-______ • • t 3w - - - -' - - _ __w.. - - -- -- - -- - �' Pavement Condition 93 (Very Good) Pavement Condition 64 (Fair) Pavement Condition 34 (Very Poor) Condition Examples 79th Ave; PCI of 72 2. Volume of trucks and other heavy To give you an idea of what a street in • 72nd Avenue between Redwood Ln vehicles — the pavement deterioration very good condition versus fair condition and Cardinal Ln; PCI of 64 caused by a vehicle increases actually looks like, City staff prepared • Commercial Street west of Main St and exponentially with the amount of a presentation showing examples of Hwy 99W Overpass; PCI of 52 weight on each axle; and, pavement condition throughout the City. • Commercial Street east of Main Street; 3. Vehicles accelerating, braking, and PCI of 42 turning which exerts more force on The presentation includes: • 98th Avenue south of Greenberg Rd; the pavement, and accelerates pavement PCI of 34 deterioration. This is why pavement • 79th Avenue north of Durham Rd; • Beveland St east of 72nd Avenue; PCI deteriorates faster near intersections and Paved in 2008; PCI of 95 of 20 in sharp curves. • 108th Avenue south of Durham Rd; Paved in 2007; PCI of 93 Factors Affecting Pavement Condition Otherfactorr include: • Commercial Street between 96th The primary factors causing pavement Avenue and 97th Avenue; PCI of 78 deterioration are the vehicles that travel 1. Weather (which is the primary cause of • Tigard Street near Farina Creek; PCI over the pavement. These factors include: decay on streets with very little traffic of 72 1. Traffic volume (see chart in the volume) — especially rain and freeze/ • Bonita Road between Hall Blvd and appendix, page a2); thaw action; City of Tigard I Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 9 Pavement Condition 2. Settling of the ground beneath the • Pumping — when liquids (such as first 15 years of its life. Then over the next pavement — especially soils with high water or liquid asphalt) are drawn to 5 years, the street will greatly deteriorate, clay content; and, the surface (so it looks like the road is requiring major reconstruction. 3. Construction and or utility work that pumping out the liquid) necessitates cutting into the pavement Preventive maintenance using cost - to access a utility line. Street Lifecycle effective ($1.60 to $13 /sq. yd.) slurry Streets are designed to last about 20 years, seals or 2 to 3 -inch overlays during the Examples of pavement deterioration but the pavement begins to deteriorate first 10 to 15 years can extend a pavement include: much earlier. Studies have shown that life to 30 years and more. Without these • Rutting — When pavement surface be- pavement health worsens at an increasing surface treatments, costly reconstruction is comes depressed along the wheel paths rate as the pavement gets older. required ($35 to $55 /sq. yd.). • Longitudinal Cracking — cracking along the roadway, parallel to the Without periodic, preventive maintenance, For a map showing pavement conditions direction of travel a street's condition deteriorates 40% in the throughout the City, see appendix, a2. • Transverse Cracking — cracking across the roadway, perpendicular to Slurry Seal Example ' ,., l ,, . ,,, the direction of travel Slurry seals are t ,,, ` , , • Alligator Cracking — a combination typically used on a t�,. ,,.,. � i ;` l li ' of longitudinal and transverse cracking roads with a PCVQCi4 ' , , r g i n the 70 to 8a � ° ti that has became so dense it resembles range. It applies a r',4‘..4'4 , , : alli ator scales '�,t ` �f ' ;�, , finer slurry mixture � ; .1:..f -Y� ,‘ � , �a° ,� °�� , . • Loss of Fines — when file cohesive of cohesive asphalt V e k . ` P A ,` W , -. .,. , material near the top of the aveirient binder with finer R e3 ' P P bi nd r with articles , , . l , 'c , + , j f r, t r : ; 0, :. „, ■ wears away, often due to weather or p �: ; '! < 1 ' . . ,.. , . , . . y � � �l i �� :, � � A � � t j , �. � " ,:t: on top of the existing traffic loading { �: �+` Ol {. ' i4' r ,� • pavement, bringing 114, '. � A Raveling (berbaps better calle the existing pavement Jeki, { f , N rr , , , , $ t , ; t . l e ;4Y — Wh en pieces of . 4 ' ': • h µ ik t . • ' ' unraveling) P back to near its , � � .lair F ��,., 1 � l ,�; ti f ��z � come out of the pavement as ' a s p original conditio as,1, F C r , t� ' ` r } i t �� � fi r fi �, �a � ` t� � � a� P! ;f aggregate it continues to lose its fines shown at right. . '41° a,� .r ltl 4 . 'G� A '.r#f]s Ig ∎ , f o , Y 1.,, • 10 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation i Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP) Map (see appendix, a4) shows locations ■ At Budget Committee and City _ he PMMP is a yearly program of of past PMMP projects. Council review meetings and corrective and preventative maintenance hearings held in May /June. on City of Tigard streets funded by the Future Projects Street 11MMaintenance Fee (SMF). The Streets scheduled to be included in next program helps to extend the life of the year's program are at various locations _we °we DER focused DO pavement structure by various means such throughout the City. The Tigard Pavement limited o'esoa ces oat preven thfe as, complete removal and replacement of Management 2009-2013 Map (see appendix, maintenance— asphalt, o asphalt, slurry sealing and /or overlaying. a5) shows maintenance projects included in this year's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Through this program, the City is able Plan. The number of streets proposed Projects not included to perform timely maintenance on City for rehabilitation is subject to change State Highways, such as 1 -5, Hvy. 217, Hwy streets to avoid the much more costly depending upon actual construction costs. 99W, and Hall Blvd, are not included in reconstruction costs that result when streets Streets that need rehabilitation but cannot Tigard's Street Maintenance Fee. Washington are allowed to significantly deteriorate. be performed in the current fiscal year will County Roads, such as Scholls Ferry Road, be moved to the next fiscal year. Beef Bend Road, Bull Mountain Road, and Past Projects parts of Greenburg Road, are not included Each year, the City of Tigard develops a The annual CIP is updated and coordi- in Tigard's Street Maintenance Fee. 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) nated by the City CIP Management Team that determines the City's facility and that engages all City departments, advisory In this year's Pavement Major Maintenance capital needs for the current year and commissions, and Tigard citizens to Program (PMMP), we have focused our projected for four additional years. identify needed public projects. To suggest limited resources on preventive mainte- The Streets section of the Capital a specific street be included in the PMMP nance such as slurry seals in residential Improvement Plan contains the Pavement get involved in the annual CIP update areas, and pavement overlays on major Major Maintenance Program. Since process by providing comments: streets. We are only planning pavement the program began in 2004, $3,704,827 overlays on through streets. While there has been used for the maintenance • At Planning Commission review are several loops and cul -de -sacs that need of existing City streets. The Street meetings and public hearings held in pavement overlays, they are not planned to Maintenance Fee Projects 2004 -2008 February and March. be done this year due to limited funding. ' City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 11 Future Street Maintenance Funding Federal Stimulus Dollars purchased in 2003 dollars with $800,000 to maintain the streets in a perpetual Recognizing the current funding gap, the now requires approximately $1,800,000 for maintenance cycle that would keep good City of Tigard applied for federal stimulus the same amount, due to a steep increase streets good and gradually improve the funding (via the American Recovery and in raw material costs. In addition, the City condition of the overall street network for Reinvestment Act) for pavement overlay has experienced an increase in traffic levels the long term. projects, along with other projects. It throughout the system, accelerating the appears that Tigard will be receiving rate at which the City's roads deteriorate. The proposed fee increase would include some federal stimulus funds to construct Vehicle use is up 21% statewide, and City additional funding for right -of -way main - pavement overlays on: streets are seeing more and heavier trucks tenance on the City's major street network • Durham Road from Upper Boones and buses. In other words, the existing fees as a part of overall street maintenance. Ferry Rd to Hall Blvd are not enough to maintain a healthy road This additional funding would address fire • 72nd Avenuefrom Upper Boones system in good repair. hazards and unsightly overgrowth resulting Ferry Rd to Fir St Gust south of Hwy from un nown grass, weeds, and other 217) The current Street Overall Condition Index plants in the planters, medians, and areas • Bonita Roadfrom the 1 -5 bridge to (OCI) is 68 and declining every year due to between sidewalks and property lines on Fanno Creek an increasing backlog of maintenance. An the City's arterial and collector streets. The OCI of 73 to 75 would be optimal for the funding required for this maintenance work These projects will help fill this year's gap City because it ensures that the City can annually is $300,000. The combined total in funding for Arterials and Collectors, but enter into, and stay within, that perpetual for both street maintenance and right-of- the future funding gap remains. maintenance cycle over the long term. The way maintenance would be $2,500,000 City can achieve that OCI target goal over annually in 2008 dollars. Proposed Fee Increase a 20 -year period with a fee increase and When the existing Street Maintenance inflation adjustments each year to account Proposed increase Phases Fee was established, the target revenue for the rise and fall of material and labor The proposed fee increases are from $2.18 was set at $800,000 a year. Because an costs. The amount required to maintain a to $6.06 monthly for residential units, and inflation adjustment was not built into the comprehensive preventative maintenance from $0.78 to $2.44 monthly for non -resi- program, fees have remained constant while program over the long term is $2,200,000 in dential users. The new fee, if implemented, City needs and the costs of repairs have 2008 dollars. This continually revised target would produce the annual revenue target of increased dramatically. For instance, asphalt would ensure that the City could continue $2,500.000. However, because the increase 12 E Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development f Capital Construction and Transportation Future Street Maintenance Funding in fee is relatively large, immediate adoption because the City's experience during the Council must vote on the following items of the new rates will not be sought. To past 5 years has been that the larger main at a public hearing where public testimony lessen the immediate impact, the increases arteries of the City (collectors and arterial will be taken prior to the vote. will be phased in over two years so that by roads) require more frequent and extensive • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 to 2011, the fees charged will be at the level maintenance than do neighborhood roads. add right -of -way maintenance as an needed to adequately maintain the streets More than half the costs are still borne by integral part of street maintenance and rights -of -way. An inflation factor of residential users. under the street maintenance definition G.5% annually is incorporated in the phase- • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 to in plan to ensure that the fees collected in Among non - residential users, the largest include local commercial and indus- 2011 will be at the level needed at that tune. payers are still the big businesses, but the trial streets under the non - residential After 2011, any fiiture increases to account maximum charges are capped at 200 spaces. category for fee calculation purposes for inflation will be based on one or more Those with more than 200 spaces are many • Revision to Ordinance No. 03 -10 recognized construction cost indices. of the Washington Square businesses, the to incorporate an annual inflation Lincoln Center, Fred Meyer along Highway factor to ensure that the fee rates keep > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > 99W, and the Tigard Plaza along 99W pace with cost increases or decreases Current Fall Fall Fall and Hall Blvd., etc. Although Washington • Resolution to set the City's long Rate 2009 2010 2011 Square appears to be one entity, in reality term OCI goal of 75 Residential $2.18 $3.73 $5.22 $6.86 it is a number of businesses, each charged • Adoption of the new fee rates with individually, with a 200 -space cap. Macy's, phase -in plan incorporated Non Residential $0.78 $1.43 $2.07 $2.74 Nordstrom, and J.C. Penney are among Note: Rates for 2009 to 2011 include a 6.5% the businesses that own their properties. Additional Options annual inflation factor Lincoln Center is similar in that at least 5 The City has constrained options when different businesses axe charged the 200- searching for ways to maintain roads. One Residential versus Non - residential Rates space maximum. Charges are associated alternative to a fee increase is to allow the The original 5 -year plan developed in 2003 with each water meter and assessed based roads to continue to deteriorate, and pass resulted in the residential users paying for on the square footage for each business. the costs to future taxpayers. Another is to 58% of the costs and the non-residential find an alternative funding source, a diffi- users 42 %. The new 5 -year plan developed Procedural Steps cult proposition in today's economic climate in 2008 changes the ratio to 55% to 45% In order for the City to raise fees, the and constrained federal and state budgets. City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 13 Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the Street Maintenance maintenance than do neighborhood Fee? roads. More than half the costs are still t plic o', borne by residential users. A.: The Street Maintenance Fee is a monthly ee designed specifically for theH Y k Among non- residential users, the largest maintenance of existing roads in Tigard. E -* payers are still the big businesses, but Monthly fees are collected from both N • , the maximum charges are capped at residential and non- residential customers .. - 200 spaces (non- residential users are and are billed and collected through the charged on the number of parking spaces O City's utility billing system. w 1 4P 4 required in the Tigard Development Code). Although Washington Square Q: How is the Street Maintenance Fee QUESTIONS NSWERS and other shopping centers appear to be charged? one entity, in reality they are a collection A: The Street Maintenance Fee is assessed of separate businesses, each charged on your bimonthly utility bill. individually, with a 200 -space cap. Charges are associated with each water 11: Why is a fee increase being Q: How are residential and commercial meter and assessed based on the square proposed? fees determined? footage for each business. A: When the existing Street Maintenance A: The original 5 -year plan developed Fee was established in 2004, the target in 2003 resulted in the residential users Q' If the proposed increase is revenue was set at $800,000 a year. paying for 58% of the costs and the non approved, how much will my rates Because an inflation adjustment was not residential users 42 %. The new increase and when? built into the program, fees have remained 5 -year plan developed in 2008 changes A: The proposed fee increases are from constant while City needs and the costs the ratio to 55% to 45% because the $2.18 to $6.06 monthly for residential of repairs have increased dramatically. City's experience during the past 5 years units, and from $0.78 to $2.44 per required In other words, the existing fees are not has been that the larger main arteries of parking space for non - residential uses. enough to maintain a healthy road system the City (collectors and arterial roads) Increases will be phased in over two years in good condition. require more frequent and extensive so that by 2011, the fees charged will be 14 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation • Frequently Asked Questions at the level needed to adequately maintain for these institutions are relatively high shown that pavement health worsens at an the streets and rights-of-way. An inflation to accommodate large services, while the increasing rate as the pavement gets older. factor of 66.5 °l0 annually is incorporated parking lots are not fully utilized during The total annual maintenance investment in the phase -in plan to ensure that the the week. is four to five time less following a fees collected in 2011 will be at the level preventative maintenance strategy than if needed at that time. After 2011, any In addition, a property must be occupied streets are allowed to deteriorate to poor future increases to account for inflation to be assessed the fee. If a property is and failed conditions requiring major will be based on one or more recognized unoccupied for 30 days or more, the rehabilitation. construction cost indices. owner may apply for a fee waiver for that period. Q: Why can't the City wait until the Q: Your website states that the current economy improves? rate for residential users is $2.18 per Q: What is the pavement condition on A: The costs of deferred maintenance month, but when 1 check my utility my street? are borne by both the community and the bill the amount charged for the Street o Maintenance Fee is twice that amount A : You can visit Tigard Maps and look individual driver. As with many investments, ($ 6�, why? up the pavement rating data for your timely investments in routine maintenance street. Once you enter your address and in roads can extend pavement life and A: Because the City of Tigard sends out are routed to the page displaying your provide for a safer driving experience. Not utility bills on a bimonthly schedule (every property, just click on the Transportation only will roads last longer, but repairing a two months), the amount shown on your tab at the top of the page, then choose failed road can be four to nine times more bill is actually for two months. pavement condition. It's that simple! expensive than a routine maintenance program. With a limited amount of funds 0: Are exceptions allowed? Q: Why consider raising rates during a available, the community is better served down economy? by spending the same amount of money A: All religious institutions will be maintaining a greater amount of road miles, charged half of the normal fee assessed A: The City is looking to be fiscally than completely rebuilding smaller sections to non - residential businesses, resulting responsible with your Street Maintenance in a 100 -space maximum for those that Fee dollars. Streets are designed to last as the entire network begins to fail. In other reach the 200 space limit. This decision about 20 years, but the pavement begins words, if we can keep good streets good, was made because parking requirements to deteriorate much earlier. Studies have we can maximize the use of limited dollars. City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 15 r-- - —' Frequently Asked Questions Q: What about Tigard's share of state Q: What legislative steps are required Gas Tax revenue? to raise the fees? A: Historically, Tigard roads have been A: In order for the City to raise fees, the - - c maintained by the state Gas Tax, a Council must vote on the following items. source of funding that hasn't risen in 20 Each will occur at a public hearing where -°' years, while road usage, operations and public testimony will be taken prior to a -- 4 maintenance costs have increased at an Council vote. overwhelming rate. As a result, Tigard ■ Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to add is one of eighteen Oregon cities that right-of-way maintenance as an have adopted Street Maintenance Fees integral part of street maintenance to close the gap between local needs and under the definition of street J increasingly stretched state dollars. By maintenance; f having a locally based fee, coinmunities are Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to • provided with a stable source of revenue include local commercial and to pay for preventative maintenance and industrial streets under the non- Q: The City of Tigard instituted a repairs in a timely and efficient manner. residential category for fee calculation 3-cent per gallon gas tax. Why can't Q: Will Tigard residents have an purposes; the City use that money? • Revise Ordinance No. 03 -10 to A: The Tigard gas tax was developed by opportunity to vote on the proposed incorporate an annual inflation a citizen task force who recommended Street Maintenance Fee increase? factor to ensure that the fee rates keep it as a way to fund improvements to the A: According to state law, utility rate pace with cost increases or decreases; Greenburg Rd. /99W /Main St. intersection increases need only approval by City • Adopt a Resolution to set the City's ONLY. Collections from the Tigard tax Council. This is why your Council is long term Street Overall Condition are dedicated to this one project, and the making such an effort to hear from you Index goal at 75; and tax automatically ceases once the project You can provide corninents online, to staff, • Adopt new fee rates with a phase -in is completed and sufficient funds are or at hearings held by Tigard City Council. plan incorporated. collected to fully finance and pay for the improvements. 16 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capita] Construction and Transportation 1 Transportation Financing strategies Task Force Task orce History y s 7: w rI.J !' ' r ' Nt' -r �, .t. ' P The original Transportation Financing 1 =--.- ,- Strategies Task Force established through � r .� 4 !T� Resolution No 01 -06 recommended ; r the Street Maintenance Fee to City l . ` t: - j ,„,e, Council. The Task Force members i = . 4 ;. ' N were actively involved in the public - y p i � outreach to obtain citizen and business r' iggi input for submission as part of the 7 r_ . Task Force recommendation. The fee "' -� r �. was implemented in April 2004 and has' �=^ -' r'' - 'i provided a stable source of revenue � _ • ' �_. �_ - ��. for maintaining the existing street infrastructure. That effort took about existing funding sources. The Task Force The reconstituted Task Force three years and requited persistence and was reconstituted to explore funding recotrunended a local fuel tax to dedication to see it through. City Council, alternatives for those major transportation City Council dedicated solely to the through Council Resolution No. 04 -51, improvements. Council Resolution No. improvement of the Greenburg Road/ acknowledged the accomplishments of 04 -52 reconstituted the Task Force, Highway 99W /Main. Street intersection. the Task Force, concluded that phase of established the mission for the Task Force, This project, in conjunction with the the Task Force's work, and coirunended and appointed the members to serve on County's project to improve the Hall the Task Force members for a job the reconstituted Task Force. Blvd /Highway 99W intersection, alleviates well done. traffic congestion by removing the two On October 26, 2004, the City Council largest traffic bottlenecks along Highway Although maintenance needs were adopted Resolution No. 04-85 adding 99W in the City. The Task Force members addressed through the establishment two new members to the Task Force led the public process to obtain citizen of the fee, many major transportation and expanded the mission by adding and business input to help Council in improvements necessary to meet the construction of sidewalks and right -of- its decision - making process. Council current and future transportation demands way maintenance on collector and arterial established the local fuel tax in late 2006 still could not be implemented through streets to the scope. and collections began in April 2007. The City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > 17 . i:::_ `_._ ��L4�'Y:,:':1E•,P�.�]f�:ax. -_ �:r - -.sue Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force project is now in the design stages for • Jennifer Standfield Previous Task Force Members construction to begin in early 2010. • Christopher Warren • Gretchen Buehner(Cotntci/ • Marty Anderson On December 18, 2007 City Council • Steve Clark Resolution No. 07 -74 acknowledged the • Gretchen Buchner The Task Force is now involved in the accomplishments of the reconstituted public outreach process to obtain citizen (PfantingCollmlission Representative} Task Force, concluded that phase of the and business input into the proposed • Cam Gilmour Task Force's work, and commended the increases to the Street Maintenance Fee • Ralph Hughes Task Force members for a job well done. rates sufficient to meet the increases in • Paul Owen cost since 2003 and to ensure a gradual • Basil Christopher On January 29, 2009 City Council adopted improvement • of the City's overall . • Beverly Froude Resolution No. 09 -01 to again reconstitute • Joe Schweitz the Task Force to continue with the pavement condition over time. In • addition, they will continue the evaluation Nick Wilson (Cnttncill President) evaluation of feasible funding sources of a variety of funding sources for t • Oregon Grocery Association: for the City's transportation and street oe Gilliam (Primary) r operation, maintenance and improvement J � infrastructure operation, maintenance and Dan (Alternate) Flo d of the City's transportation system. y improvement needs. Recommendations will be submitted to City Council for consideration. The members of the newly- appointed Task Force are: • John Bailey • Rex Caffall (PlonningCotrnnission Representative) • Beverly Froude • Cam Gilmour • Dennis Mitchell • Rick Parker A list of previous Task Force meeting • Anthony Rivano minutes (2001- 2006) are available on the • Joe Schweitz City of Tigard website. 18 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Appendix City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > al €E 11.1 g A RI D I / . . Pavement • • 11 . - ._...c ; 1 Conditions • . - • • ),. . _ • J • '-, — I ._ . 2008 • • \_ '-\\ —__._ -- 1 r . - — •,-°-1 .... -- 1-1-1 I ° r ___ .__ . . _____ETr_s._._, - 14 'I -1 ,!••=0- _ .... ' 1 .17 1 `2,1 --- - ' . • ° 1 L. 1 , i ' ',1 1 , '---- - —1— =.1 i__..- Ti - -7— L' i Ji. . mem Condition ' eCend_20011 . I. N, \ • ;:r 1 - 1 r r , 1 ...._,..,. . _N "T.---;_l . - • - ---1 , , i - 1 I. ' Very Peer For c ::' , "\ -\ \ I-- I.. ,I - Fadr • 1 -- (-...,„ ___, , • ...,....-..... ..- ._./._f_ _. ...d , • . , ;-- - - k_ \ \ ' -,,_ - - i i Very Goad . • ' — \ _ I . :r• 1:L-;:_-",-- 1 (-- =I / 1 1 '- A — 1-' NC,C?';..,.... • = I I Metro Urban arnwr,h Boundary . ' r 1 '---"... ` - i •--, 1 ' ,- "--r- ' ‘ • ';,, 1: j 1--1 r 1 1 Tntard City Units ' __4 1 ' L - . I- - _..--' -" c / / . ...t , . - r ' ,/.. - - --• _, --- 1—_ . Street Network ; • r - 1 I I 1 I - ' 4 \ -fl fjj I _ ......._, , -! i • -,--_-_-_ i ...I 1_2_, 1 —1 1 - , '....,2_, 1 1 1 . _ ' . . IN ..,___. 1 li — . C1- , bi i - -1-4.7_1_4__- - - 7 . 1 ..... 1 . .... . . .. .: • - . —.. 11 r_ ...7.--1—,.... 1 • , -• _ L .. . , . (....) hollAgemcn. ■ , I . ....—.. , . . i . ...., 1 , . :.- -- Ls . . • 1 1 . , .., . -.?. . .. a2 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation CITY D F 'T`IGA N I '. �,4 I - Average .'' Daily Traffic (A DT) 1 „ ! , i 7 - i 2008 Volume I ( . ' , 1 I j �; Estimates -4 f music tt '\ , , 1 i`•r - -- y r / ' _ ! - i.. Network + ' ... Traard Brea • C ,' r E ., `+.. r-- - .—' - - � moth. - ofYeludes per c '� 32.000 -34399 v j I5 ,000 7.4.494 f . ✓ r it I - 1 } l 1- ' - „r'' pl 2400 -5,990 1' t . _ . , ra, ,q C 2666 C . _ 1 s ° °sumo Lee f +- - �" � a I .. ., 17 • I ` - ' " :,'''''T"- r aa.asa. a ti.M 11 1t. 1 Metro Urban chow. s Boundary ! i.. ' 1 1 y � �- f °�i d - - ff 1 I 'Tigard Cry limits • ,7 I 6, �l vy —' %'a i . - j + 'N17TE.Those aro estlrltated :lase .o { o I ..: = 1 1 1 avollabk. traffic counts and our ' } a ', ' 1 1 ., understanding of traffic pasterns. -- al wx `Mare will a inaccuracy always b some m irr ra r. ' - In estimator and melts patterns can ' <- , " s1gNf6cantlY wary from day ro day. I , I w _ l ' e, a I ''1a. "'vara:„ 'r ..n j ' ---- .' r1111 % ,,n. ' r., ly ' 4' . City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a3 . L. _ f ; ! = Street I i I 1 L t � T r I ( 1� (.1 ! - !— .-r '� L i - — • � Maintenance • d e a v 'e ' _ i C o - T, \ j /' f 1 , — ' 1 ., Fee Projects — -- 7�F_ -, : - i , . - 1 f. � I I y ' _ , I �� !— :_ . v 1 Y - Po CI 2004 - 2008 j , I I � 1 r1 • — .., I - - ,1 I _ I I " -- { i x 11 1 G r p I 1 � P of 1 �f C I , l - I t I If 1 — I r I i �; _ 1 I 1 Street Maintenance r M n an ee s I 1 n . , -_ I ! I I l --2004 • f 1 X7006 _ I ®2005 .. _ P . = ; ' 2007 � e 1 1 • + - _.2008 '1 i 1� 1 i � I ly _ .. / --- I - 1 ; „ a 1 '. . -i. t,i - -, . -1 1 ~ I _ . - h . - - I -I. - nape . J � - __ - . -- --, • -.b- � � I _ _ I _ 1 i -, rK 1 n -g 1 ' . 1 1 DI4msuu11Crs, 1 L 'r�i_'c t y r II- L_ - j Thud r I -.- -- - ... —1 �� 1 - 1 ` - I I l' ,.lake 1:111C-1.4111410.1 4 1 I I , ' ! . 1M .> au...! ham Inns " ' !LL - I • • . Oswego u I, „k... 1 I -1 �- --- 1— D u r h ` a m .. (sr 1 1' 1 — . •f —> `..ed T -u • 1 -1 i s - 1 t� i n - 1 1 1 J I t 1 , V l I 1 Moss 3. .r. wren ye..1.n,, 111 if.. u. 4171 Sri r j •,.It.H..r tee a4 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation E I r, 1—• -• r 1 r 1 F,.1 = � r ` _ r{� . Tigard i , ! � � ` te r! 1 !.— 1 L 1 1 _ ! 1 ' " _i �! r I @ , k- i i ; —1. Pavement - r {; vp ee B e a v e 1_ _r t_ • R f n I ,, , 1 •K U tz. Management - 1 P°rcl1f,{ 2009-2013 � ; -1 -, - i r h s - • • - a - t-_ ,I - I . , k. �1 a - f. j i , - pavement Management { [" r te• j - I ' 1 I 1 Treatment Year /Treatment Type S ``'• r ; r 1, 2409, Slurry • { • :..� ! a i - I 1 , . � i 2409, Overlay : 2010, Slurry I / __ € a ! - t .� 1 y ! ' —2410, Overlay R 2011, Slurry r n ;,-20 1 k, Overlay r »+ 2012, Slurry I ' I a # "' I . . ± 1 :— 2012, Overlay -. -- ! , i - I • I - �� rl ---201.3, Slurry { • +.:, J , . - �...... .. - 2013. Overlay ..._ C i ,--, 1 _. ' - l _ t ' i _ _' f Kin • r j , j r l ! n "I I DMA wurtceu � , — t" I r - ' . CO r • _� ' � { - • ` Cit y . , 7 .I L t ° _ 1 { i . � 1 fake oscwwem f , '" Oswe o d Ytm G ry n .,-.r -. I f I hi I 8 wu�� .ro, Kt..�•. __ [3 u r a m // H �,,r,� T .. a -;( — a t 1 1 n 1- - - 'r- 1l1. 111 fill City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a5 Pavement Condition Examples The Pavement Condition Index is a measure of the surface condition and intcgtity of the pavement. It is expressed as a number from 0 (very bad, essentially gravel) to 100 (essentially perfect). We have compiled these photos to give you a better idea of what the numbers mean and what different Ievels of pavement condition look like. New streets start with pavement conditions in the high nineties. Pavement deteriorates over time as weather wears down the top surface, the repeated pressures of vehicle loading (especially from trucks and buses) eventually wears down the pavement structure, and as the ground beneath the pavement surface settles. For ease of understanding, pavement condition is often classified as follows: Very Good 85 to 100 Good 70 to 85 Fair 55 to 70 Poor 40 to 55 Very Poor Less Than 40 Examples of pavement deterioration include: Rutting — When pavement surface becomes depressed along the wheel paths Longitudinal Cracking — cracking along the roadway, parallel to the direction of travel Transverse Cracking — cracking across the roadway, perpendicular to the direction of travel Alligator Cracking — a combination of longitudinal and transverse cracking that has become so dense it resembles alligator scales Loss of Fines — when the cohesive material near the top of the pavement wears away, often due to weather or traffic loading Raveling — (perhaps better called unraveling) — When pieces of aggregate come out of the pavement as it continues to lose its fines Pumping —when liquids (such as water or liquid asphalt) are drawn to the surface (so it looks like the road is pumping out the liquid) Some examples of Pavement Condition are on the following pages: aft < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard I Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation : t; , r ��.. I I 1 r y . .....„---- ii ,-- 0 4 , ,, , , , 1 .1 . t I ri / . t 7 11 fi i r A fir > , i N , r ....� .. . ........ -.1E1R, ,,,,,,...„‘ 4 1 1 * 0,.±. Pr kir • • 0 Pavement Condition 93 (Very Good): 108 Avenue south of Road; Paved in 2007. Smooth surface; No cracks; Smooth ride City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a7 ; — — • 1 �� • .. , r -- } , T r 1. �F'. y ,�._ ��. -.t - � �.- � � ^t ,-,-ii.:- Y - •_ , i ��� - 'T r+"T 4 ��~ , r t A • •'� .,,,/ s „ ., i •. r/Y ` . t! .' , r ? a r " y : r +r . j .1 . !, e . " tt � r r � 1 T � " ', L '„ rt 14 , x r , g' .r ) .'1,-„,,,N., . y 0.; i t i . > �N } y 4 r r e 5'/ + 1 e , r • ,i '�" '� � 1 ,r a��r r EI� ,r y � 1 � + .� j ��. r �� +h '��� • 1 '1"`',,,,*, ,r �� . � r 1 }} ` A ; T . 0 • t "4 ° i w � . " e r QT . t' 4 0 a ' , � ` '. Y }, ,\ , '".' e i . ? r ` t t' ' i , f " Ir c*i 4 I µy , � , j r l Iii y1:1:-: i i �t ,,_,;,•,.1/4: - Pi` t1", . , - : , r ` `._ i /I � , V . ' It [r . . r }'r 4 Z.; t e #'l � df ' y ` r { r ,. e ,f * 1 , ifj, , ` A � j' ;. `^ p t`1% -t. iy, r , 3,4 {f <f ,.! 4 + , . T ;i , , i 1 . ', tl ii I � f� ,. e,•. l r \ . ' h r ,, t I 1 �. ,Vr I ii tc ' t ej 1 . ..I i :, � ■y ( ¢ ! ' � ' + tlJ r i 1 1 .. 1 � � ) r � � R4 �i �I ., , t,1 p"( f f h •r: ( lNat , } � y � , ' 1, 5. \''.- ,t• ,.i •. , - ,, ' A:A b, y , .L r� Y ..2&41,,, , - 1 , f (•l r yj ro I :' 1 r di ij f 1 r r j f i +, $44, 4 J � ! • `h $ - 4 5 - ��1 ■ [, . ? S 6. 1 ., , . r A . „ - A !' Y ti ! . . l ev 'I P1 1.74'1,` - ( 1 4 - � 1 -p ? , ,, 7! . ' �rtk_ 4 ' it ^ .� 'L“ 174 f , i e „ J` , ,, y , < . '911 1, e; -,.re , da - r l r � , ', . " y Tr! 1 � i F _ r " i ' r y {' ' r ` .r /i •+ • i ,'^ � — y r - { f ., i':1, l _,,,), { i^ ." s ,`. ..ti 4 ' . . t "`+ ;,,. l Y , , .y a t` ; : � ,' L ' i ;i ' (' -11 h ' { !. r • �' k t r-rlt.- '�� ; � i � K F.. . Y A '}� 5�tr �f • a � � � �f : � +'f � I_ � ; 'k • 4 � . y [ p K t y1��' i'r J„ �� { � P et fiA s, ' � �� , 5, � l as � ' + Y i ) • M1 11 7! 7. J - 1 r _ i.: 4 . a .' � ,jl j � • i' . ' „ „,/— el f, 0. r � f l ,eoc 1,,, , C A � A. iv -) „,.1 r , r i A � M Y 1 ! • 0 4. . - - ,, 4 , . e t f 1 y 1 r . d, y ' / _ JF• R•• ' ;, ” { y , tt �i ' •' ,y ii sa' 1 .41 , . 1 • l r ' • ! q` �- -� ^ w � ^ 1 � ,� + ' � R ±r` r L ='1 ' r � • � ' r`+ M a ' � r .. r x. ;5, -, y t „Cif r Y , � � r C el, L iI* ter ,J . 4 '^ -V .. • y .. r • r/ i . ,.., * •(. 1',, A ,y c � � y ' 4 T f r r�� . .1 1 4... r , r ; . 1 r:, , .k !l R' * . ;ma y. 1 ! \ t. - ij' i `1'2°,1. I' i �F' t ,' w - , W , ,- t s, "4* f, f ,:s.„ ,0 � h- : , S t 4 / , ? . . F_ _� ,r,r' _ Kl'i i ' ; .4y y � /lw, • ,rf f � ViY, j �'r!' I , '!a _ s '�, , � 1 , , � + • i "� . "� �, � - . •t' � . '� e r . L i ...v L '+N c. aaa,,,777 ., - i rte' y ,,& ,' , 1 ' y � y � � . � � f � r a .�� qs ` "� { - . ; ( �yl .� / ' � � � '�9 ” A .' � r 4 ,,'� � �Y • i, E � 4 ..4 � t''� ` ' _ ` p 1 ' ✓ . " e "' ' - ' ' !: i ,. P- - Tt' ' e Y . . " to ... , ' 1 =�' .. = e yaQ- t V Y y / �- ,y¢ ' l t , f i Y ' ,y Y i, ., .4"4.4,t4.:',61,7 1 + 1 Y ! .# « ,,— , - I . r r �Y' , " "" k` . t . � of ► , t +� 4 x � . + p 4 1 6 : '' s 4" 1*1 I - i I •a �, . i . 4 r .., , 1 ., ia r • ' S ,Il : -- ° � � j � r. � ;:JT�'t+�= � +R� ,Y �*� �►�i�"' �" �`: ' � ' �.s } rte � ' � , I �, a 4 ' r. A r ` '�_" i C -4,104 i t ' ' {0, - 4 , d 6 ° � ,tjr, l ti , l ;:fe. y� a 71 a } - hr r � " 1 t_ i y'f• ,� ,s, .. 'i C � i �A 'a . =. t 1; p * >r i� { ;... k ,, .c S� i : qt..' ' "' +' t ! .}`� i }. `, - ,,... : i; "a -, 46f A d , ., r ' ,1 , .. . r „1F Y r - 9 r E ..1 r. ♦ .fi r .� stiff ` i 4 ?- .- r � a4 .rj T ;` 0 ' SS s *�.f: a m • { ' ' n,',. { f l r- J t ,' ' ` ' a . ✓ I - ' f yF " .I , lt ''''"•1 s ^ ' __f y1" e' �! r 4. _ ' ta ir ./ jI r " ' 9 a $_1k t ' 1; xl; i t r y' i 'r - � . r... t+ . 4 ti r ' '�. ' t� _ +- ' "4a"fT -T-1.-"! . may r a" FS r. + .4 '4.r y , g! , ,..' ` S' i r' ' � S. .k a t t 1 r - u li• 4 Ti , •"d } y '#3' ,air,. ,•[..,i :` • 1 ; ; Y` Inn. Ad'• E •.� 1 ,- rdµ ,f,. -- r sc Y. s �; � . r,,, 7 JE J AI g " '4 lit i � �, at :4 cir- Pavement Condition 95 (Very Good): 79 Avenue North of Durham Road; Paved in 2008. No Cracks; Most of the cohesive material is intact at the top. ' a8 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation no n E u_ - t - - ,� t r . � � Tr r ' i- as ,I. r, , r �r a • a �+ A ..` Ls ro as ` 5 t.. _ ' ' . ( - .'+. • ' U 4- t . F C cn ra Y ffi` + f u 7+ to k- • y r t y+ ' if ..t .(td I en t. .t ' C.. ! ! n • ° rv� x 4 .� 4,;.# d il s [ J ti Y + - , i 'l 1 + w ' .t t 1; .44 o ! '" .1 9 a c3 c ro 7 s' ,;,;4(.:k,' f r !Y ' s •. �1 a� • i.A ¢° • . + , , ,v-.77,104. i ( , `j " 4 . - _ { , " 1 ' , .._ . j s ., •• °O ri, lad , 1—. r , _ � a �i ` k l r vi 4 c ; . . 14 4 11 ;',°04P, - - : -_ . #" : _: , - ‘, --- :,,-,,..` .,,•- ,;(‘'‘,":,, :41 ."'-' ':!_.,":„,„° ..: :.:' 4 : 4 " I' 4 .,00i 4r1 ' 11 .'0.1,3r: 1.9 ro °Y .' + ,- r . . a . r � 4 ; L l � ` P`. � : w ay y T9 ` • f y" �_ off''' � �t j } s .. D CD L m r, � , y' r I . T r ,. + (.7 U 'E di E l_ t• e / E d fi r 7TH : o � o • � te r r r r `� , ..� K .� Y ��(. - .0 , 0' V • i . ",�' _ ,, : , _ 'F' r' . r l r y pi + r '.�: F . � - ! -- . ,._...1.. Ito e' � r ; � _ e , r �i � ,lr m DI • 0 T U ., " 4 " h T . w 1 t. E Ti re f 4 . F • . • 0 1i ~ 4 S • a w. • . .. .R 4 7 R, .• - ' w • +W tip. y ! �, ,T t . _. r. ` .' ■ ' .. - _ - - , ' -4 I , ' A r —. _ �-'.\. �� `!.e .•L. ! � irie , ..,.-,...,, - ..,. ._ ..,;...,,ii.,.,, It ". ,.*:. . a i , >o ••- 2-' '4 r i I • 14 - , Pavement Condition 72 (Good): Tigard Street near Fanno Creek Surface roughness shows pavement has lost much of its fines; Some cracks appearing Note sealant) al 0 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Alire • - times- -�._ �. � _ 44.7 ' }•• f� i ice "'.. . y l • • • • -• J • • • Nla -Ha to nth Pavement Condition 72 (Good): Bonita Road between Hall Blvd and 79` Ave Roughness shows pavement is Iosing some of its fines. Some cracks are appearing. City cif Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > all pipi iir rTNI R 111 I I MI I I I MI I N I MI B. leili I g " . . - ° • ,ad CUdknat la Fledwond '' a ,,Thad V ' - ' 91111 % .•ir ., qt : y., • { ` l, '4 '` �' • _ _ 3 Pavement Condition 64 (Fait): 72n Avenue between Redwood Ln and Cardinal Ln Cracks have become wider, more continuous, and tend to follow the wheel path; Note surface roughness; Some potholes occur a12 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation im • _ 'Commercial west et Main • a r Pavement Condition 52 (Poor): Commercial Street west of Main and 99W Overpass Cracking has become much more extensive (note crack sealant, and cracks near road center); Soft spots appear as areas of dense cracking City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a13 `it -- - r ik 1; 0 ■ 4 a a I `' . - - 1 . - _ t`�ti. t f ' Pavement Condition 42 (Poor): Commercial Street east of Main Street Cracking has become extensive; This is called `alligator cracking' because it resembles the back of an alligator. a14 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation e . , i ../ N, i., t .� ''"' fi /�.. i . _ i ttt"•• yII t X41 ,?,. _ M z —sr. f milliirly I lam• i . ~~ - 99th S. of Greenburg s :2'' Pavement Condition 34 (Very Poor): 98`'' Avenue south of Greenburg Rd Extensive alligator cracking; Subsurface structural weakness leads to uneven surface City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a15 A _ �� • _ '�_!'4' � y } , , _ - ' -s _ ' 1 . •1 - 4 L . 1. •. I -. , r ,' - - 4 c. w � F 3 . .4., Pavement Condition 20 (Very Poor): Beveland Street 500' east of 72 "` Avenue The patch on the right rates higher, but extensive cracking and subsurface weakness leave the rest of the road in very poor condition a16 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Slurry Seal Example Slurry seals are typically used on roads with a PCI /OCI in the 70 to 85 range. It applies a finer `slurry' mixture of cohesive asphalt binder with finer sand -- sized particles on top of the existing pavement, bringing the existing pavement back to near its original condition, as shown below: ' Y • it -{ 1 ITN } '1 •.a fo1 3 ... for•. y.. h ' -r, E ,'�°t !','.'S - 6 } . }:T' +- r Y.' , fry ,�*1�Y y, 1 ` • l ti • ` ' 1 k 1' 4 e,4 1 a i, : � sf t � " i . t,r� ;�. �� Pp h' 'I' y Y 1 ��� .� Y 1 � I d f 3 ' � ' ' : a t � . � t .'�� r2 l . ty 1 v i :� Y. ! •r ; • .k 1,,'w. ',?'' ,. IA I 1`t d I,.. , ,1" irP. , I re f • , • l Id Sy• {�l' 1' 1{ k:� s �{ r � r � a � - f - It -,l's }Y� 1 t: i !^ I r K l. �l r l + p ' r kowi ` �' i' {y � �� " 1 .0.? } i ;, A c ', •� „ y N 1 y ' 1, I 7, .OJT : ' '� s p P 1 104 �.r # 4 , 1 #. • I } , „ y _}.. •' M1 ' 114' A F ' i 1 Y � 1 . 1 . . . t i � . ii T * � t' rt 7 �4fr e4 1r l y wY ¢ h 1 1 a_ . sl t y f • �, 't, •. p • '4441 . ,h_' p � �' j,F ..! r q r� . fir • r ' �� :� , Fi ��S �. r:n n � �, ''. ��}�},•� 1�,� � ; cj '' �! y''y; • j ; t., � ; � W1 i '•�4�! ; • t "� ° f 6 �i ;'� T.# f � _��'.'�l'; •j. t : 111 + 1 j. :,�+ ," f? y �0 `I r . 7p. y ' it . r f ,l`l ! , e , r ..; � $ rI 4r, i • L �� ` A fr 1r ' 'l . ' _ ,r � 1. ► I n k '4 1 ; JJ ; �� y .. 1E?,� • G S � 1 . ' . 'e ' r IllY' �� . ^ �• y,. , ` r , . 3 i -� t `• i t l -' '4;a 4�ti 14 I � ' � ., tt. • (' � - 'Ai . , /A t. ` . i _ Yom .∎='' 1. a � t t {cy 1.'i t 1 .�I rl . . �4+�b,,.4 + � .1191i fie. , „ 4d _ tj i t, !i ,, 7 S ' �,r r •I' `s t' �.le, r ° ? - 1j y t r � A j ' a e# , r � gill' k Si,► � y Ll �i4Pie i 7 rt • . , �S Ot, tJ G �' 7 4 �• 1 r y l { It ' + r - S .. S f A - _k , i t' 44 k }i � t1 1 P , 4. $ ,0,`jr( +. 1 f , 4 t ' 1 41 r ' � 1 '• t P 4 "t Y1 t : : � • - � l ~ i 4 4 l , 0 t ut x ' ,, ' #. i 1 1 .' i , ' Y k ' ' 4 1% • A lj , . ' *. tr 't r5' iS ' " r Lol _� T ° •�. �. '� '/. .� � s e• � F 9�. 1 fi r d y * kit; � ' c� _ '{ '� I ' ri r �l', i. 7r, i '� T ° � l"� t I *) f s �'�. t i , 'yq . . ) 4 'Y . _. -. 1�. , �',} ? 5� . "Y ,rd, 1 . v r"# , ''4' ' �i�� _ ^ _ �:Ll k,!' �1 (,- a - ,, ? ,, , tr ' 1 } x " . .° . ',, s l ) Y C l tl r r : .., ` Fi►' ",� 4 1 i ' ' �• #t, , . �"� ,, K P ` '�t • f y ` IP T 1 ' � � .{ Jy },}�' �V4 i� � ' , "• f ' ' lip,..roveit,?.1 + 4 1 f:f I • / P, f 1 ] c : • +, 0 fi t ` r lc r13 ,�, Id . „ . h., f r .{1. f 4 i r 6` 1 .1, I 3 „ i {' S � ty. ,. Y , : t di r '. %'tr 1 r y . � ' i } .A { y •, :., yy _ � H � ,. r -( *R' . - . , 1 a , ' ', r - r 41« P a 44 t + , i � i te, r ; : T �i 1 I � P P t + ' f 4 l Poi,. {` t . ' . o, "-r r r u t . Y , ;, � ' F � � '� � y +�+ � ��}e',�° � 1 t . '� ; r y '� � � a ^ <.. r I" � , f " ' � ' � F � 1 = t %,� % 'i 1 H{ s,; z 7' �4, ` p -, � S 4 4 + 1 C :A a � `' � f _ f . ' A , I � ' ' or , ". ; ; b * 1 . ' z .. {` 1' 1A4' t{ s,.. r � rt' 1 %' it ' t, % , ' a r i' , i f ' ' iY> � v, ,t � . '' E P ► 1 t r f j ���� •j }} [' �'' r � 4 � � � ' 4 tr � �; 1. � , � 7 :: s, ' �a � F.S •� � ,� � ' ,' , ,�E � +�, :gj � ��� j' f y 1 + , a , M ar + ICI . .,� f . �' ` ■ If! J' t { yi j 'y'• ` 1 l 1, 3. �� ,%� �_ { 4 t ' a. t �,� .d �.yi ! � Irs y 944 M ` I Y; . jIP I A �f . . � � a � ! . ,�• r ` t u t 1 � , � . -� t r t,,T r y •i; � � ' � . A a„ ,, 1 'f . , �f i j - 3 r :r h ' !tip:: i 1'•!• , : l i�� . � "'r% •t- � t, � . : / ' ' �1r :j : 'L a � t , l r fx +r T ,� ..A • �. � ' . . , If, 1 ,t 1d 9 19 s r y t r , :i,,;� , r` . 1 a , t ` t k f : r , . it 1 ' , �! V 44:14; + } . r^` • f „ . r y + �. ' 1 . ., J � f P iF '11 � r )'!t' - : j {. _ .. mod r • ' ' vi t O i ' ; , . 1. r • rf i.i p,F • r � ., .` , . X7 �. A P> . ,}; 52 i} . t 'li Y j- V r [ ° s `4,q1-' , > , '1 r i + F t+jt „. 're:, { ° , • i . 1 r '.i.- d . t , ' �, 'e j #• "33 . ' A.. P.- R Vie f IN ,.P,�.. 1.• \� 1 - . 1':t 't , € * J 4 "7, t 4. .., ;, ! r i� { ., i ► ' t. F a.y • :d . ,• ' City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program a17 Pavement Treatment Examples • This compilation of photos describes the steps involved in each of the four main pavement maintenance treatments commonly used on city streets: 1) Slurry Seal (Typically used on good residential streets to keep them in good condition) 2) Asphalt Overlay (Often used as regular maintenance on busy streets, or to repair fair /poor residential streets) 3) Major Overlay (Often used on busy streets that have deteriorated into poor condition) 4) Street Reconstruction (Typically done only when a street's condition is very poor) Each treatment is described on its own page with the major steps listed and photos describing the key work activities: Slurry Seal ($0.20 to $0.35 per square foot) 1111146L li 1 is 1:LI S : , . . , 4 iI fr , l L_ '"�" p �� , r a ' I"` 1 > ' �_ l` ;! ` Slurry seals are typically used an 0. �. Is i i ti t �1 c -, t z " 4% '; ' — residential streets in good '' ".! q-' t " �` condition — to keep them in good i\.. i - - ,,- . : i i, , 4 ` + } jY ._ condition • 11111.1111111"111 . m 1) Clean street of dirt and debris; Cover manholes, valve covers, and catch basins 1 2) Place Slurry Seal (sand in back of truck is mixed with asphalt emulsion from tanks and laid down in a thin layer by this truck) 3) Allow seal to dry (Street must be closed for several hours) a18 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation • Asphalt Overlay ($1.25 to $2 per square foot) 'A 1 „Il : , I 1 ,. . . fe ' r ; ' , s• - „�,; _ Normal asphalt overlays are • • : t }_ { . I + • "' = - ` } typically used for regular NM iri • +o � *'! � ! d '' ! t . ' . 4 • ,1 v — ` ;maintenance on busy streets, or to ------ - ,I, " / � ,y repair fair /poor residential streets • t ..t • /r a ,. ' "? f „ � ti. ! - +` 7 . X t T -4 - a L4 my 11,-\:, 4_." �: fib" ;<F+T L "..w�t,i - "t-_ ' 4 '?`It 4 w; 4. 1) Grind to thatch curb lines and end joints - ' 2) Clean Street of dirt and debris; Cover facilities as necessary 4.t.—..;..: .. 3) Place Tack Coat (sticky adhesive material on left) 7: 4) Adjust manholes and valve covers to new elevation • At a .-1-k. 7) Place Asphalt 1.. _ 6) Allow asphalt to cool and set City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a19 Major Overlay (Leveling Course plus Tension Fabric plus Pavement Overlay) ($2,50 to $4 per square foot) • r . •.• + t' t -1 Mme ` I ' ` � ,! ' . !!�' .Y•1 •,r- • i ! ' .1, , 1 . . , .: to .. A ' . Air 1) Clean Street of dirt and debris, etc. " -_ .. • 2) Pave leveling course or grind pavement to level = _ . - 3} Grind to match curb lines or catch basins 5) Place Tension Strength Fabric (to keep old l; ) Apply Tack Coat , pavement cracks from spreading into new pavement} , l e o Major overlays are typically used to ,. .. - - repair busy streets in fair or poor - condition W—. ' 1 ;:.Alai 6) Adjust manholes, valve covers, or driveways to new elevation it 7) Place Asphalt Overlay over Fabric (Fabric not used on this street) a20 < Street Maintenance Fee Program City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Pavement Reconstruction ($7 to $15 per square foot) — very expensive; used only on streets in very poor condition ` ® — l e i _ ,,. . �_ - i 1 .' . . ' '. lit :` ,-": , .' `i 1 4 4 - ' - . ph i . .... , . I.t 4 0„ . � t o — .. 1 .4� d - �"'' Y _ 40 1) Remove existing bad pavement and base —f r 2) Remove or compact areas of soft soil under pavement 5) Backfill with rock aggregate for a solid base 4. 3) Work around manholes, catch basins, and valve covers 6) Compact aggregate in layers ° 4) Place geotextile fabric 7) Place smaller aggregate on top for leveling °},•.' y • 1 Z f b r� a ° U , a, r iii 1 t IN • �, Y _., 1 _J� _.._ i * _ 'I _ ... W ol. 9) PIace top lift (layer) of New Asphalt; 8) Place first lift (layer) of New Asphalt - -. 10) Adjust manholes, driveways, etc to new level City of Tigard 1 Community Development 1 Capital Construction and Transportation Street Maintenance Fee Program > a21 Agenda Item No. Meeting of Dd o Q � LAKE OSit Nika MI CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO oREGos COUNCIL REPORT TO: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: John D. Kennedy, P.E., Interim City Engineer PREPARED BY: Crystal M. Shum, P.E., Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Pavement Preservation Program DATE: October 7, 2008 Introduction Historically, the City has struggled to find adequate funding for street rehabilitation and preventative maintenance. Adoption of the Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) in 2003 substantially improved that situation. Still, the City now finds itself losing ground in the effort to improve the overall system -wide pavement condition index (PCI) and provide some level of care for the worst streets in the system. The SMF was created as a way to generate a stable source of funding for the community's road network, with the intention of achieving a system -wide PCI of at least 80 by 2014. Unfortunately, the costs of completing street maintenance activities have dramatically increased in the last few years, while the revenues generated by the SMF have increased only slightly. By comparison, ODOT estimates that transportation construction costs have increased over the last five years such that buying power is now only about 60% of what it was in 2004. (See Figure 5). Gas taxes provide an additional $1.8 million /year, but that money is used to help cover the day -to -day costs of operating the Streets Division of City Maintenance Services. A total of 30 lane miles of Lake Oswego streets have received maintenance funds from the SMF, including such major projects as Boones Ferry and Country Club Roads. Given that there are a total of 379 lane miles in the City and the surrounding urban service boundary, it is clear that the current rate of progress will not result in the maintenance of all of the streets. However, the overall PCI can actually improve while some of the worst streets in the community continue to decline. A review of the PCI on a street -by- street basis (Appendix A) shows that 113 street segments now have PCIs below 30. Ofithose, 24 have PCIs below 16. Page 1 of 15 The City began collecting the SMF on July 1, 2004. Residential use classifications (single family and multiple family) started paying the SMF at the full rate. However, due to concerns for impacts to local businesses, the non - residential fee was phased in over a 2 year period, paying their full rate beginning July 1, 2005. In its first year, the SMF generated approximately $815,000 and since July 2005 has generated about $1.1 million each year, with additional funds from motor vehicle registration fees. As stated in the ordinance that established the SMF: "All funds collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to pay costs of operation, maintenance, repair, engineering, improvement, renewal, replacement and reconstruction of the City street system." BACKGROUND The City of Lake Oswego has a street network of 379 lane miles including streets within the City's urban services boundary and this network has an estimated value of $181.5 million in 2007 dollars. All streets are classified as either arterials e.g., (e.g., Boones Ferry Road), collectors (e.g., South Shore Boulevard), or local streets (e.g., Troon Road). These classifications are illustrated on the following map from the City's Transportation Systems Plan (Figure 1). Figure 1 - •tea d2 1 11 �R 5•,) �'{�, it -..' � 4// / L t : i #''. !� r i t ' t'. f I SYSTEM PLAN I R d v- 4/ '—k- I "' 11 ( Li Pi l i ? r 1 . 11 ti\ .`") 1 – 7 – -- - 7 ) — it . ',... P.." }/.-+ � ' L^ r g y, U .✓ I L . .,_,„ , €.. ,. --: ,, l - J , f _ h r* / M!I F I wA mr r..+ I u I {a1 ''Y 1010" J a te ] � ' n i ' w" A""' Y 3 r`- • ... -a.-- , , �r •J ft J 1 LLU:R CGILICTOA L I ''E f -- vI .. � ^ a ' . - LAKE, + , 1115:.+11814eoa ....,U 1 " ' _ . err --- ",:co d rai - ' •i F at, ,�j I, + ma y. aLIN �Y � r/ ,•,0 ,..0-..„ 1 � 1 Tor I A _,;.- : iii:4117. /fr s - r ; , s ;A .- -- . fr i { , iri s' -_ .=.., r a r F I - - � LS1 ! ' "� FUNCTIONAL -- �� � `, I ,. >� 1 I �. STREET a � � , �� � ; ` y,Fl - LSfl ` . . rte • . " � r CLASSIFICATIONS :8 rte: ♦ 1 I — I! :Li.I � ! , �-- ..'�� ' I / --"'i• + 7 -..i ,-.14-( .F. `F I "]GLr&:C � O (C94UtiRT. eG.70 Page 2 of 15 Within the network, there are 41 lane miles of Arterial streets, 85 lane miles of Collector streets, and 252 lane miles of local streets, including approximately 50 lane miles of county roads (and public non - maintained roads) not currently under the City's maintenance jurisdiction. Pavement Management Program (PMP) The City uses a Pavement Management Program (PMP) computer software system to manage condition assessment data collected for the city's street network. The PMP system compiles information gathered during visual field inspections and produces condition analyses for the entire network. In compliance with the Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) ordinance, the City inspects all streets within the network every 3 years. The last visual inspection occurred in October 2006. With the use of the PMP software, all streets within the network have been assigned a Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI is a measurement of the health of the street network and condition. PCIs range from 0 to 100, a newly constructed street will have a PCI of 100, while a failing street will have a PCI of 10 or less. In the fall of 2006, Engineering Information Services, Inc. (EIS) of Salem, Oregon was retained by the City to conduct a condition assessment of the street network and to generate a new system -wide PCI. EIS has reported that even though as of 2006, 27 lane miles of streets have received pavement maintenance (see Exhibit A) since the SMF was enacted and the average PCI for these streets increased from 69 in 2004 to 84 in 2007, the system -wide average PCI is currently 68, a drop from the average PCI of 75 in 2004. The Tables below provide a more detailed look at the system -wide condition based on lane miles (Figure 2) and functional classification (Figure 3). Figure 2 2004 Condition PCI Percent of Category Range Network 2007 Percent of Network Good 70 - 100 73% 61% (231 lane miles) Satisfactory 50 - 69 18% 20% (76 lane miles) Fair 25 - 49 6% • 14% (53 lane miles) Poor <25 3% 5% (19 lane miles) • Page 3 of 15 Figure 3 Figure 4 Functional 2004 2007 Average Classification PCI PCI Average County Year City PCI PCI Arterial 76 67 2004 75 67 Collector 76 70 2007 70 54 Local 75 69 The following table shows that the condition of the County streets within the City's Urban Services Boundary has a lower average PCI than that of the City streets (Figure 4). Since the County streets' PCI is included in the network average, the whole network average is decreased. However, it is important that these streets be included in the network because it is anticipated that these County streets will eventually be annexed into the City. This does not imply that the City will provide maintenance to streets until they have been accepted by the City for maintenance. Another contributing factor to the lower PCI is that the street network has increased in size due to annexation (3.5 lane miles). Although these are relatively small increases, the annexation of streets that are in poor condition adversely affects the overall PCI. Another 1.5 lane miles have been added to the system through new development, but those streets tend to improve the overall PCI. When the streets are visually inspected, the inspector looks for distresses that may be present on a street. There are 7 major distresses: alligator cracking, block cracking, distortions, longitudinal and transverse cracking, patching and utility cut patching, rutting and depressions, and weathering and raveling. The following pictures are examples of each type of distress: Alligator Cracking • Page 4 of 15 Block Cracking - • - Distortions .41160 *. • .' • 4 ! • • . • . Longitudinal and Transverse r • Cracking 1 • , . • • ; * r ••• Patching 1,. •,.. • Page 5 of 15 Rutting and Depressions Weathering and Raveling .r� F Once the visual inspection is complete, the data is entered into the PMP which then calculates the PCI, taking into account all of the distresses that were seen in the field. The PCI is then used to determine which type of pavement preservation processes shall be considered. Pavement Preservation Program Currently the City uses slurry seals, pavement overlay, and pavement reconstruction to improve street condition. Slurry Seal Slurry seal is a mixture of petroleum -based emulsion product and fine aggregate rock, mixed on -site by the contractor, and then applied evenly across the entire surface of an asphalt concrete street. It is typically applied at 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch thick. Like the finish on a deck or paint on a house, a slurry seal provides a new protective surface. By sealing the street, the base of the street is protected from water damage and the surface is protected from weathering. Slurry seals are the least expensive treatments with costs ranging from $1.60 - $2,80 / square yard (sq. yd.). The cost depends on the amount of localized repairs needed due to small areas of asphalt concrete failure. Slurry seals are usually applied to streets with a PCl of 70 or greater. These are streets that are in good condition and by sealing them every 5 to 7 years they will remain in good condition and will not require a more expensive treatment. Page 6 of 15 e +�...J , ii ` r Localized _ • , .j :' I 1 � ' :' c,,,,u4„-,,- ,,,,t,..,..,. ,. .4- 1 IV -,- ' . i ' - v‘ Repair _ +.+ • ? _ .z a i.- ' • 1 4.4 ''1 '' , I " . 0', 1 , , ' Slurry Seal 1 % ' r : .a `;rl ,..' Pavement Overlay Pavement overlay is a maintenance treatment that is constructed by grinding the top layers of asphalt concrete off a street and replacing it with a new layer or Layers of asphalt concrete. The cost of an overlay ranges from $9.50 - $12.50 / sq. yd. Again, the cost depends on the amount of localized repairs needed due to small areas of failure. Overlays are typically used on streets that have a PCI of 50 to 70. r f ry . �f w.r" 'F , C T - , .. � e . I y i . Or _ 1 " , (' 1 '' + ! ."� I I w' .� 1 , - 1 • - . - + _ , • t5x,...n — ' ' _1 .- ,,,, .mil Grind Pavement Reconstruction The most expensive treatment is the pavement reconstruct. When reconstruction is required, all or most of the asphalt concrete is removed, the aggregate base under it is replaced and re- graded, and then the street is repaved. The cost ranges from $20.00 - $25.00 / sq. yd. Page 7 of 15 cif t f re!...:"" mss' —`"` L'' : r —r—� i ' a - a , Mk 'wa r i r 4 1 L __ x __. , ___:,..._„„_,..._ Hi. a k,, -o ff -Ai- • !Y , � r . " rt a>� q . r M ' .t�# '1;' • i •7` ..• ` - I ark i,...4, �". 1 + i l " � 5, .. e . 1 Reconstructed _,, r 5 - 4,a y ::N,•': rv. n 7....----. 'base w=.-,:. 1N 1 1M •i ' - v1 . Project Prioritization Selecting streets for the annual projects is done using the Pavement Management Program. After ail the data is entered, the streets are rated depending on their functional class and PCI. By taking the classification into account, the streets that are more heavily used are placed on the maintenance schedule earlier than other streets of equal PCI. An arterial that is heavily used will degrade much faster than a local road even though they had the same PCI. Once all of the streets have been ranked, it is possible to determine which streets will require what type of treatment. The following pie chart shows by percentage how much of the network needs a certain treatment. Streets are not prioritized on a "worst first" basis, instead every effort is made to keep good streets in good condition by slurry sealing them before they deteriorate into a more expensive rehabilitation category. For a street that is not a slurry seal candidate, overlaying it with pavement before it completely deteriorates can add 15 to 20 years of useful life. Once a street has deteriorated past this point, it will need to be reconstructed, the most costly treatment. Thus, it is critical that good streets remain good which is why priority goes to roads needing slurry seal and overlays first. Streets needing to be reconstructed will be reconstructed depending on available funds. • Page 8 of 15 Pecanitrvaien 18301 Wrry5eal Oeeiiay I S 6nlea 10.10% Costs The cost of all of these treatments has significantly increased since the pavement preservation program began in 2004. The increased costs can be attributed to the increased costs of oil, other materials and labor. Using the Oregon Department of Transportation Construction Cost Trends, the graph below shows the relationship of the increase in surfacing costs and the decreased buying power (Figure 5). Figure 5 Cost Trends 3.OD ® COOT cCT ■ Buying Power 230 - 230 i I i 030 - - - 1 2 1 3 4 1 12 3 C 1 2 3! II 4 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 2.34.4 03 1e NOS 23 {{{ 2037 2R3 Page 9of15 As buying power is reduced, the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow. Deferred maintenance refers to the amount of maintenance and rehabilitation work that should have been completed to maintain the street in "good" condition (PCI 70 -100), but was deferred due to funding deficiencies. This is also considered a "backlog ". Currently the City is experiencing a backlog of approximately $9.8 million in preservation work. Pavement Preservation Funds Although there are 4 sources of funds for street maintenance, the Pavement Preservation Program receives the majority (92 %) of its $1.2 million budget from the SMF. Currently the city charges the following rate: Figure 6 Residential use Single Family $3.75 per unit Multi- Family $2.68 per unit Figure 7 Non - Residential Use Group 1 $2.30 per 1000 SF of GFA < 29 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA Group II $5.17 per 1000 SF of GFA 29 5 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA Group III $19.31 per 1000 SF of GFA > 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA GFA = Gross Floor Area Page 10 of 15 Lake Oswego's rates have not changed since July 1, 2005. For comparison, the following table shows the rates for all cities in Oregon that are known to have street maintenance fees. Figure 8 Gross Monthly Fee Annual Annual for Single Revenue Population Year Revenue Family Per City (2006) Initiated (Budgeted) Detached Unit Capita Ashland 21,430 1986 1,092,500 $6.51 $50.98 Corvallis 53,900 2006 4 $1.36 $7.79 Eagle Point 8,340 1990 67,687 $3.00 $8.12 Hubbard 2,960 2001 54,000 $4.50 $18.24 La Grande 12,540 1985 199,000 $4.00 $15.87 Lake Oswego 36,350 2004 1,200,000 $3.75 $33.01 Medford 73,960 1992 1,778,800 $5.70 $24.05 Milwaukie 20,835 2007 1,200,000 $3.35 $57.60 Philomath 4,460 2004 N/A $1.90 N/A Phoenix 4,740 1994 60,000 $1.85 $12.66 Talent 6,415 2000 62,400 $1.96 $9.73 Tigard 46,300 2004 800,000 $2.18 $17.28 Tualatin 25,650 1990 865,600 $5.42 $33.75 Wilsonville 16,885 1997 945,000 $6.92 $55.97 Average 23,910 672,691 $3.74 $28.13 source: Memorandum "Transportation Utility Formation Study Issue 44 - Summary of Oregon Transportation Utility Programs, DKS Associates, April 4, 2007 Since each City defines the use of their SMF differently, a wide range of rates exists between the different cities. Currently, the City's Pavement Preservation Program only covers the design and construction costs for slurry seals, overlays, and reconstructions but in accordance with the SMF ordinance. The City of Lake Oswego defines the City street system as "Ail transportation - related components located on City -owned property, City right -of -way or City easements within the City limits that the City is contractually or legally obligated to operate and maintain. The components include streets, alleys, curbs and gutters, bridges, sidewalks and path, including improvements and installations related to any and all components, which are designated for use by motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles or other vehicle use." Page 11 of 15 The next chart shows the services each cities fund using their version of a SMF (Figure 9). Figure 9 o m c C u CD CI, o w on c v (1.1 17 E c o '_ C as a n u+ ' '� o c 6 " a � L > - a C6 'Z U 4.1 I - c CU to LL �, ° _ c c of cn n. > 1 � a a u) c 1 0 w ar b13 v I L "' a� 13 � a`�i m ■ 1 - c= o 2 m (% s w Q a 4 : "' ob City 0 0 m c a) a, nn en nn W " f0 — c v •CE m CC t!) v} cc to = LL_ R. Ashland II II M 1 1 • ■ • • Id Corvallis • • • 1 • 1 Eagle Point • _ • • 1 • 1 Hubbard • • 1 III 1 La Grande ■ ■ Lake * * * * * Oswego Medford ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 • • Milwaukie • ■ Philomath • • i Phoenix 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 • • ■ Talent III 1 • • 1 1 ■ 1 • • ■ • Tigard • • Tualatin • 1 ® 1 ■ ■ 1 NI Wilsonville • • 1 source: Memorandum "Transportation Utility Formation Study Issue #4 - Summary of Oregon Transportation Utility Programs ", DKS Associates, April 4, 2007 In the Future it is obvious that due to the rise in costs, the city will not be able to keep up with the street preservation needs without an increase in revenue. If the City continues to budget $1.2 million per year for this program, the streets will continue to degrade and the network PCI will fall to 61, and the deferred maintenance backlog of streets will grow to approximately $23.5 million within the next 10 years. Also, without an increased focus on those streets with the lowest PCIs, some local streets will become almost impassable without having a marked effect on the overall PCI. Page 12 of 15 Alternatives In order to better understand the options available for the future, the staff has analyzed three funding alternatives, estimating the impacts over a 10 -year period: maintaining the current level of $1.2 million /year; increasing the figure to $2.4 million/ year; and increasing it to $3.6 million /year. Other alternatives can also be considered, but these three show a wide range of possible outcomes. These estimates are all in 2008 dollars and the POs are contingent on actually doing all of the prescribed preservation treatments every year, $1.2 Million Budget 80 60 - 40 ` 1 0 - ._ ��._ — — _.. _ �� ci, o O � H r1 v-1 e -I -I r1 H O o 0 o Q 0 Q O o 0 - 111 Budget (in millions) E Deferred PCI (with Treatment) $1.2 million /year for 10 years PCI: 61 Deferred maintenance backlog: $23.5 million • Page 13 of 15 $2.4 Million Budget 80 70 60 - 40 30 O O O O O 0 N N 0 0 El Budget (in millions) L Deferred PCI (with Treatment) $2.4 million /year for 10 years PCI: 70 Deferred maintenance backlog: $16 million $3.6 Million Budget 100 - $0 60 , - 40 20 - -- -- 1 0 a1 r= 0 rrl %-i rri rl rrl i . f ' ` -3 co ri rll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IN CNI NI NI hl NI e Budget (in millions) 0 Deferred PCI (with Treatment) $3.6 million /year for 10 years PCI: 80 Deferred maintenance backlog: $1.7 million Page 14of15 Recommendations Due to the current shortfall in available funds, and the need to keep City streets in good condition, we recommend increasing the SMF and indexing it to keep pace with inflation. We also feel the goal of a system -wide PCI rating of 80 by 2014 should be lowered. Specifically, we believe the second alternative presented in the memorandum is the most fiscally responsible step for the City. This would double the current SMF and allow us to achieve a PCI of 70 by the year 2018. While this alternative does not eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog, it does keep it in check. Staff also recommends that a program be created to use a portion of the street fund every year as "seed money" to encourage the formation of local improvement districts (RIDS) or other neighborhood funding options for localized street improvements. This could be especially important in areas being considered for annexation into the City and other streets with very low PCIs and low traffic volumes. Update as of May 22, 2009 On December 2, 2008, the City Council agreed to increase the SMF 6.57% for a one -year period beginning on January 1, 2009. This increase was determined using the Engineering New Record 20 City National Average index. With the funds available, it is anticipated that the city will construct 3 projects: a slurry seal, a paving project using SMF revenues and a paving project using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds (stimulus funds). A map with a listing of these projects is attached. • Page 15 of 15 Agenda Item Igo. l Meeting of , 4y ? 00 ? City of Lake Oswego - 2009 Street Projects c ,,ti,`O • __It.___.-ji- 1 I 1—'— f l�L + �� �` _` '4 f 1 L }r"v( STREET PROJECTS l '` _ ^� I7 I I —�— ` �� ` ~ ` ` / 1 1 `* I PavamontPrrsaa[vatlon Program - f . ,, / ( ' 5[uny Seal Projects MA !FIANCE I } - sTA 2� 6 ° '^? 7 � I r ! - I CREEK ����r ' Cory nLcoP�Nl IJe Roods tiara Better Conurrunity j Errs � - ■ , - t i i _ :" -n. f , i _s''""' ( *{ _ d ST7 Erasmus - All t +, STAiE 1 j � F ST2 p ', ,r I --r--- t tt } ,I J e I $T4 Nova Court - A[I t v �` 515 5 lneca -All i E I hi-4..... ' �`,s� j'''' �I unruRra J / P _ " ;fa: L �.°� " YlJ; I I ' Vita ;;, @ \ r ! -f .-�' $T6 Aquino.^. - K1ngsgate Rood to Petldna 1 ?� 3 ��p u, m,,, , °' � y� i-c� y r...r YlJI f '1.- .- .,_ "`. _�,1 �° AREA r / t // sr� Padc3os - All • �, Aa,,,. " �! ! � + `� a w s +' ' -._ ."" y 5T: Ha to Couriela ¢ , ti s 11l` I 1 a W- ,,,,,.\ ...P✓ g ■ l $i10 Canton Orlvn pll onuo - All @� IC. � ♦ f • r Cl ' I ^� l m c ,� ST11 Can t o gham I- Al All I � r ar ti ` / ---1 ' . - I t °� h.`- I ,!/ / I L� - 5 ".' r ` I m ` ., ..s �- • �7/ ' "R' 4 u'� 11 I i�+ f I ST12 Raninglon Court -All \ i W $� I� _ , I ! / �, r .-- ST13 Edan6erry Drive -Ail 'v' �—,J ^-. ,�.. L wss".raL, r f '',-----,°' . � •emu I � l sT1a westSlold Court w /: L ; . y I ,u r ,, 45-�Y— - i- t. .,w 1 tN rsr"�`® -_ t ,,,, _ 5715 Hastings Court -A l a 1,,^ r 4 g , . _ �--- 4 / 1 ,`� I $T1c EdonhorryCaurt -AA ' � f .� 1 °� • .a. —rte J g ' / t � , mg" a l * d ,. I L1 � �. t YE sT ChalhamCaurt-A _ , r r I ST10 Hastings Drive -All Vr. �"" -' nw s'%` w / is aai f' €e"'� t oum'o ,......,, a a `61 • , . r [ I ST16 HoonosWay -Spring Lanalol1ov,rihlrnCL t I 14 `6 y I ; 1 I ST2 Alban Clrclo -Alt ( 1 IS] - -, I - J y I "" "O°"°' .y:RA ,�d - aW gC, a 1 , -.,` - ! ST21 Fomwoad Dr.- Gmoelm I Rd to Trop Top Ln. 1 115 pee -.. I {; -, _ }���� �' / � i " r � • "r'"x .M1 r � 5 I ST22 Trao Tap Way - All - -.' ---- x 1_7, r i \ , e. Y' / - � M1 -{,r 1 ,a,. I_ -1 r . 723 Tree lop Lano - All ll I I ""� A. g � � ' L°r-"v - I , I J , ST24 HIIIsIdo Dr.- Overlook Dr to Paiisadns Crest FF t nr -., .„„:,, .dh` n . a,, ,]^- ^._�_.• ..Ja -� �. - - •� �� d' v�,,; tl , ST25 Ridge Polnlo !)r.- Meadowlark Ln. to Slona 0 Q 1 rh r , > ' f i -tam B _.�, , 7, 9 *,�„ I_ ST2 Highland 131 Al -1 r f° ,ter yn r. w . g }. -� - I 5 ,� nw -.L ` e— - a , _ 5T27 Crestview ofer Court t-AlI All ,,� \ -_ S 3fp we IS y y "* -� / 5726 Hofer Court - All t II 47 l '' ,d" \ , a „n7�. t7 • II tr ff., �y '..,_)_,,,m "' Lake P''�urr 1'. 5 I_ i � r ' ` _ y _ - . ST7.g Tyndall Court -Ail Zh \ ,,r _ „.. b y J 1 r r ST36 Weidman Court - All j `.r* ' - ""'' r t 4i ' °w` BB B - ,, f - ST91 HIda.A -Way Lana -All I N. ' I r - . ` I I r~-. , - � - '" . � . �1 ---,. I ST72 Hider-A -Way Court - Al i y �O I \l ' , .... — � . acv_ -. w hwr. = -� ., x.06+ -fir_ -� � . s.m� % r , y — --�__I -^ . I "t � . � � -� -� � } , `}� Pavomont Preservation Program - PI _1 I ^. i' f I �./ -'� o Gg p e`'4} - - - f I !- I- ! -'' I -f I I 1 �� / / _ `¢ r r g r � � . - � _ - .C. Paving Projects i73.53343 Maatlnw Grss: Drivo Slroot -I Al l I II , , " S S/ti_ri g I y I ri I I _ � i i f- d � , `ld L �" a oro -A! 1 y ' - d to Trno Top Lon: T I ^'°++ / // ` 6'rzr�q Y— ��^ 4 1 y° K .. �- �`�'m '; ��' O glu vor l H oak Drlva. Siolt dR --- „: I � i �� I '- r-�- - .d ' ti A ; /�ur , ash i I! ` f a 1r ,' ,� y ! 1 m� ▪ ---! " " • i' ,% �—._ +� s �' ' "'rra `u'- � 4 'L°_f „ si• Stimulus Projects �� r l , , 1 I 'l 5 ' EI l !> , , , - , _ f . S1 : - - e /_,_,... I - ' ` -,=7.,..„, . 5735 McH Parkway - H�ldngo to err Parkway ''s F i g ,/f ,—r ( I j _ s - - - J J ` 1 e ' ,�. * p k m � ' .\ i r ��"� 2 }�j� l y r� and Churchill Q owna la Kerr Pgfkway ,�=,.. s 2 I! N ! l ¢>W , / - -_—_, -• l w [- a :r � \ ', 5737 Royce way -Ala ° P „ uc,ma 4 / �J h____ —1_,L1- I mm I . {� / � # � . ! 'I piwrwr -_-' _ - rw: rL.. 4? N f \ ----r-' I ,am R . _ �Z t I 4 J . f I � ( � 4� LdT �vmf 5 M 'Y„ r I ' I ..„ -- -...., 4 � �r _ t`r. F �I"w. ''�- - --- 31 I _� 14/091% f - / 1 . l f ' 4 t~/ F / ( • 7 '..e":„ --iF--. I 1 I f , I 1 I` i � � � I L?.� r , � we,.w ' s 'l 1 ,, 1 S,� , R iver" I �, ,•�ij I r l I l 7 I • I � l .1 `1 - -I ` . _. I 1- F-�l ,) Matta Scale May 2405 Agenda Item # � . - Meeting Date 5/26/09 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Status of House Bill (HB) 2001 Transportation Package and its potential impact on area transportation projects (� Prepared By: Kent Wyatt Dept Head Approval: _ fa Jt City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL • Does the current version of HB 2001 address transportation needs of local governments? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review HB 2001 Transportation Package and proposed amendments. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • HB 2001 Transportation Package - will be the .major funding source for future transportation projects. • Current version. raises $300 million annually • There will be a moratorium on new local gas taxes. An exemption has been granted to cities such as Tigard who currently have a local gas tax. • Basic funding mechanism is a 6 -cent state gas tax increase, a $16 vehicle registration fee increase and a $23 tide fee increase. There is also a $12 lost plate fee increase. • More than half of the $300 million would come from the gas tax increase, which would not go into effect until Oregon's unemployment rate grows for two consecutive quarters of January 1, 2011. • New revenue would be split evenly between the state and local governments o Cities would receive slightly less than $55 million; counties would receive $92 million o State would retain $135 million to increase safety on existing highways and pay for debt service on bonds to fund up to $900 million in large congestion relief projects. • The bill contains a list of "earmarked" projects to be funded from the State share of revenues. A list of earmarked projects in the Portland Metropolitan area is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: HB 2001- A Engrossed: Transportation Package — May 4, 2009 Attachment 2: Proposed Earmarked Portland Metropolitan Area Projects FISCAL NOTES N/A Attachment 1 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY- -2009 Regular Session A- Engrossed House Bill 2001 Ordered by the House May 4 Including House Amendments dated May 4 Sponsored by Representatives BEYER, BERGER, Senators METSGER, STARR; Representatives BENTZ, D EDWARDS, HUNT, Senators COURTNEY, JOHNSON (at the request of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure. [Directs Department of Transportation to include specific request for capital construction funding for sharing offices and other facilities with local government in budget request prepared for Oregon Department of Administrative Services.] Directs interim House and Senate committees related to transportation and Oregon Transportation Commission to conduct study. Sunsets January 2, 2012. Directs Department of Transportation to develop one or more pilot programs to imple- ment congestion pricing in Portland metropolitan area. Sunsets January 2, 2016. Directs Department of Transportation to provide information about transportation projects on website. Directs Department of Transportation to develop least -cost planning model. Authorizes issuance of lottery bonds for transportation projects funded from Multimodal Transportation Fund. Specifies allocation of lottery bond proceeds. • Defines "medium- speed electric vehicle." Creates offense of unlawfully operating medium -speed electric vehicles on highway. Punishes by maximum fine of $360. Directs Department of Transportation to adopt safety standards for low -speed vehicles • and medium -speed electric vehicles. Directs Department of Transportation to include specific request for capital construction funding to facilitate sharing of offices and other facilities with local government in budget request prepared for Oregon Department of Administrative Services. ; c Directs Oregon Transportation Commission to work with stakeholders to review and update criteria used to select projects within Statewide Transportation Improvement Pro gram. Directs Department of Transportation to develop environmental performance standards for highway projects. Directs Department of Transportation to implement certain transportation design prac- tices. Directs Oregon Transportation Commission to determine amount of federal transporta- tion funds available to Department of Transportation that may be used for eligible nonhigh- way projects. Permits city with population of more than 500,000 to establish vehicle registration fees. Becomes operative July 1, 2013. Prohibits local government from enacting or enforcing provision regulating use of fuel in motor vehicles. Sunsets January 2, 2014. Prohibits car rental company from imposing surcharge in rental agreement that is greater than costs to register and title vehicles. Removes requirement, for counties with population of 350,000 or more, that ordinance establishing county registration fees for vehicles be approved by electors of county. Becomes operative July 1, 2013. Changes certain vehicle fees and motor vehicle fuel tax. Extends credit against corporate excise or corporate income tax for corporation that provides motor vehicle insurance issued under mile -based or time -based rating plan. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to transportation; creating new provisions; amending ORS 319.020, 319.530, 801.040, 801.041, 3 803.090, 803.420, 803.570, 805.250, 818.225, 825.476 and 825.480 and section 4, chapter 545, Oregon 4 Laws 2003; and providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three - fifths majority. NOTE Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 3748 A -Eng. HE 2001 1 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 2 SECTION 1. The interim House and Senate committees related to transportation shall, 3 in consultation with the Oregon Transportation Commission, local governments, metropol- itan planning organizations and other transportation stakeholders; 5 (1) Review the responsibilities given to the state, counties and cities for improvement, 6 maintenance and management of the highway system and the resources available to each 7 level of government and make recommendations to better align resources and responsibil- 8 ities. 9 (2) Review best practices for stakeholder involvement in transportation decision- making. 10 (3) Identify opportunities to achieve greater program efficiency in the delivery of trans - 11 portation services and programs through intergovernmental cooperation. 12 (4) Study national best practices for improving the delivery of metropolitan transporta- tion services through enhanced regional decision- making. 14 (5) Prepare legislation to implement recommendations developed under this section for 15 introduction in the Seventy -sixth Legislative Assembly. 16 SECTION 2. Section 1 of this 2009 Act is repealed on January 2, 2012. 17 SECTION 3. (1) At the direction of the Oregon Transportation Commission, the Depart- 18 ment of Transportation shall develop one or more pilot programs to implement congestion 19 pricing in the Portland metropolitan area and study the effect congestion pricing may have 20 on reducing traffic congestion. Pilot - programs may include, but need not be limited to, 21 time -of -day pricing with variable tolls. 22 (2) No later than December 1, 2010, the commission shall report to the interim House and .•: 23 Senate committees related to transportation on the work of the commission and department. 24 in designing and implementing the pilot programs. 25 SECTION 4. Section 3 of this 2009 Act is repealed on January: 2, 2010. SECTION The Department of Transportation 26,, SF� p shall ,provide information about. trans- 27 portation projects on the department's website. 28 SECTION 6. (1) As used in this section "least -cost planning" means a process of corn- 29 paring direct and indirect costs of demand and supply options to meet transportation goals, 30 policies or both, where the intent of the process is to identify the most cost - effective mix 31 of options. 32 (2) The Department of Transportation shall, in consultation with local governments and 33 metropolitan planning organizations, develop a least -cost planning model for use as a 34 decision- making tool in the development of plans and projects at both the state and regional 35 level. 36 SECTION 7. Prior to February 1, 2011, the Department of Transportation shall submit a 37 progress report, including any recommendations for legislation, on the development of a 38 least -cost planning model under section 6 of this 2009 Act to the Seventy -sixth Legislative 39 Assembly. 40 SECTION 8. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that issuing lottery bonds to finance 41 transportation projects is essential to promoting the state's economic development. 42 (2) The use of lottery bond proceeds is authorized based on the following findings: 43 (a) There is an urgent need to improve and expand publicly owned and privately owned 44 transportation infrastructure to support economic development in this state. 45 (b) A safe, efficient and reliable transportation network supports the long -term economic 12] A -Eng. HB 2001 1 development and livability of this state. A multimodal network of air, rail, public transit, 2 highway and marine transportation moves people and goods efficiently. 3 (c) Local governments and private sector businesses often lack capital and the technical 4 capacity to undertake multimodal transportation projects. 5 (d) Public financial assistance can stimulate industrial growth and commercial enterprise 6 and promote employment opportunities in this state. 7 (e) Public investment in transportation infrastructure will create jobs and further eco- 8 nomic development in this state. 9 (3) The factors described in subsection (2) of this section will encourage and promote 10 economic development within the State of Oregon, and issuance of lottery bonds to finance 11 transportation projects is therefore an appropriate use of state lottery funds under section 12 4, Article XV of the Oregon Constitution, and ORS 461.510. 13 SECTION 9. (1) For the biennium beginning July 1, 2009, at the request of the Oregon 14 Department of Administrative Services, in consultation with the Department of Transporta- 15 tion, the State Treasurer is authorized to issue lottery bonds pursuant to ORS 286A.560 to 16 286A.585 in an amount not to exceed net proceeds of $100 million for the purpose described 17 in subsection (2) of this section, plus an additional amount, to be estimated by the State 18 Treasurer, for payment of bond - related costs. 19 (2) Net proceeds of lottery bonds issued pursuant to 'this section must be deposited in the 20 Multimodal Transportation Fund established under : ORS 367.080 sufficient • to provide $100 21 million in net proceeds and interest ear nings for disbursement to the Department of Trans -'. 22 .portation to finance grants and loans for transportation • projects as provided in ORS 367.080 23 to 367.086: 24 (3) Bond - related .costs for the lottery bonds authorized by this section must be paid from : 25 the gross proceeds of the lottery bonds'. and from : allocations for the purposes of ORS 26. . 286A.576 (1)(c). 27 SECTION 10. (1) The Oregon Transportation Commission shall allocate five percent of the 28 lottery bonds authorized by section 9 of this 2009 Act to rural airports. 29 (2) To the extent that proposed transportation projects meet the qualifications estab- 30 lished by the commission by rule, the commission shall allocate at least 10 percent of the 31 net proceeds of the lottery bonds authorized by section 9 of this 2009 Act to each region de- 32 scribed in this section. For purposes of this section, the regions are as follows: 33 (a) Region one consists of Clackamas, Columbia, Hood River, Multnomah and Washington 34 Counties. 35 (b) Region two consists of Benton, Clatsop, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook 36 and Yamhill Counties. 37 (c) Region three consists of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson and Josephine Counties. 38 (d) Region four consists of Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, 39 Sherman, Wasco and Wheeler Counties. 40 (e) Region five consists of Baker, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union and 41 Wallowa Counties. 42 SECTION 11. Sections 12 to 14 of this 2009 Act are added to and made a part of the 43 Oregon Vehicle Code. 44 SECTION 12. "Medium-speed electric vehicle" means an electric motor vehicle with four 45 wheels that is equipped with a roll cage or a erushproof body design, can attain a maximum [3] A -Eng. HE 2001 1 speed of 35 miles per hour on a paved, Ievel surface, is fully enclosed and has at least one 2 door for entry. 3 SECTION 13. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawfully operating a medium- speed 4 electric vehicle on a highway if the person operates a medium -speed electric vehicle on a 5 highway with a posted speed limit that is greater than 45 miles per hour. 6 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a city or county may adopt an ordi- 7 nonce allowing operation of medium -speed electric vehicles on city streets or county roads 8 that have speed limits or posted speeds of more than 45 miles per hour. 9 (3) The offense described in this section, unlawfully operating a medium -speed electric 10 vehicle on a highway, is a Class B traffic violation. 11 SECTION 14. (1) The Department of Transportation shall adopt, by rule, minimum safety 12 standards for low -speed vehicles and medium -speed electric vehicles. Standards adopted by 13 the department under this section must be consistent with, but may exceed, any vehicle 14 safety standards established under federal regulations. 15 (2) The department may not issue registration to a low -speed vehicle or medium -speed 16 electric vehicle if the department has reason to believe the vehicle does not meet the safety 17 standards adopted pursuant to this section. 18 SECTION 15. As part of the preparation of the capital construction estimate submitted 19 to the Oregon Department of Administrative Services pursuant to ORS 291.224, the Depart 20 ment of Transportation shall prepare, in addition to any.. amounts budgeted for the Depart- 21.. • ment of. Transportation, -a budget . request. for other funds that may be used to facilitate the , - .. ; . 22 .. sharing .of offices and other facilities used by. the Department 'of Transportation with the 23 offices and other facilities used by local government. 24: ; ;., SECTION 16., Section 17 of. this :2009:,Act is' added to and .made a part of ORS 184.610 to 1 2 154.666 26 SECTION, 17. The Oregon Transportation Commission shall. work with stakeholders to 27 review and update the criteria used to select projects within the Statewide Transportation 28 Improvement Program. When revising the project selection criteria the commission shall 29 consider whether the project: 30 (1) Improves the state highway system or major access routes to the state highway sys- 31 tem on the local road system to relieve congestion by expanding capacity, enhancing oper- 32 ations or otherwise improving travel times within high - congestion corridors. 33 (2) Enhances the safety of the traveling public using access management and other 34 techniques in support of decreasing traffic crash rates, promoting the efficient movement 35 of people and goods and preserving the public investment in the transportation system. 36 (3) Increases the operational effectiveness and reliability of the existing system by using 37 technological innovation, providing linkages to other existing components of the transporta- 38 tion system and relieving congestion. 39 (4) Is capable of being implemented in a timely manner to reduce congestion in other 40 modes of transportation and reduce the need for additional highway projects. 41 (5) Improves the condition, connectivity and capacity of freight - reliant infrastructure 42 serving the state. 43 (6) Supports improvements necessary for the state's economic growth and 44 competitiveness, accessibility to industries and economic development. 45 (7) Provides the greatest benefit in relation to project costs. [41 A -Eng. HB 2001 1 (8) Fosters livable communities by demonstrating that the investment reinforces or does 2 not undermine compact urban development. 3 (9) Enhances the value of transportation projects through designs and development that 4 reflect environmental stewardship and community sensitivity. 5 (10) Is consistent with infrastructure plans and reinforces the state's greenhouse gas 6 emissions reduction goals described in ORS 468A.205. 7 SECTION 18. (1) As used in this section, "highway" has the meaning given that term in 8 ORS 801.305. 9 (2) The Department of Transportation shall incorporate environmental performance 10 standards into the design and construction of all state highway construction projects, in- 11 eluding local government highway construction projects funded by the department. 12 (3) The department shall work with state and federal environmental regulatory agencies 13 to improve the environmental permitting process for state highway construction projects in 14 order to: 15 (a) Reduce the time required to design projects and obtain environmental permits; 16 (b) Reduce the cost and delay associated with redesigning projects to meet environmental 17 requirements; and ,18 (c) Maintain a strong commitment to environmental stewardship. 19: , SECTION 19. The Department of Transportation shall :implement transportation 'design 20 . practices that follow the concept of ..practical design. Practical ..design standards shouldr:in- :21:' corporate; maximum flexibility in application of standards that reduce the cost of•.project2: 22 . delivery , while preserving and enhancing safety and mobility. 23 SECTION 20. (1) No later than November 1, 2010, the Department of Transportation shall ' 24 prepare a report for submission to the interne legislative committees related to transports- .; 25 • tion. .. . 26: (2) The report described in subsection (1) of this section must include information about . 27 all new transportation design practices implemented under section 19 of this 2009 Act that 28 deliver transportation benefits in the most cost - effective manner. 29 SECTION 21. (1) The Oregon Transportation Commission shall determine the amount of 30 federal transportation funds available to the Department of Transportation that may be used 31 for eligible nonhighway projects without disqualifying the State of Oregon from participation 32 in discretionary grants of federal highway funds. 33 (2) The commission shall annually reserve an amount of the funds identified under sub - 34 section (1) of this section, minus $14 million per year, for eligible nonhighway purposes in the 35 development of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 36 SECTION 22. Section 23 of this 2009 Act is added to and made a part of the Oregon Ve- 37 hicle Code. 38 SECTION 23. (1) A city with a population of over 500,000 may adopt an ordinance to es- 39 tablish a vehicle registration fee based on road miles traveled. The Department of Trans - 40 portation and the Department of Environmental Quality shall work in collaboration with the 41 city in developing and implementing the vehicle registration fee program. The city shall re- 42 imburse the Department of Transportation and the Department of Environmental Quality for 43 the reasonable costs related to developing and implementing the vehicle registration fee 44 program. 45 (2)(a) The authority granted by this section allows the establishment of vehicle registra- [5] A -Eng. HE 2001 1 tion fees in addition to those described in ORS 803.420. 2 (b) The authority granted under this section does not affect registration periods, quail- 3 fications, cards, plates, requirements or any other provision relating to vehicle registration 4 under the vehicle code. 5 (3) Moneys from vehicle registration fees established under this section must be paid. to 6 the city establishing the registration fees. The moneys shall be used for any purpose for 7 which moneys from registration fees may be used. 8 (4) The governing body of the city establishing the vehicle registration fees authorized 9 under this section may enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Department of 10 Transportation by which the department shall collect the vehicle registration fees and pay 11 the fees over to the city. The intergovernmental agreement must state the date on which 12 the department shall begin collecting vehicle registration fees for the city. 13 SECTION 24. A city, county or other local government may not enact or enforce any 14 charter provision, ordinance, resolution or other provision regulating the use of fuel in a 15 motor vehicle. 16 SECTION 25. (1) As used in this section: 17 (a) "Car rental company" means a person whose primary business is renting motor ve- 18 hicles to consumers under rental agreements for periods of 90 days or less. • 19 (b) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning given that term in ORS 801:360. ,20 .. '(2) .A .:ear rental company may not impose a surcharge in a. rental agreement that is 21 • greater than the amount reasonably calculated to cover the: .costs incurred by the car rental . 22 company, to register and 'title rental motor vehicles: . 23 • SECTION 26. ORS 801.040 is amended to tread:.. 24 .. • ... 801,040..-This section describes circumstances .where . special :provisions are - made concerning the - . •, . 25 authority .of cities, counties or other political subdivisions in relation to some portion •of the vehicle • • ;.26': ; -- code: >This .section is not the only section of the vehicle, code that applies .to such authority and shall .... 27 not be interpreted to affect the vehicle code except as specifically provided in this section. The 28 following limits are partial or complete as described: 29 (1) No county, municipal or other local body with authority to adopt and administer local police 30 regulations under the Constitution and laws of this state shall enact or enforce any rule or regu- 31 lotion in conflict with the provisions of the vehicle code described in this subsection except as spe- 32 cifically authorized in the vehicle code. This subsection applies to the provisions of the vehicle code 33 relating to abandoned vehicles, vehicle equipment, regulation of vehicle size, weight and load, the 34 manner of operation of vehicles and use of roads by persons, animals and vehicles. 35 (2) Except as provided in ORS 822.230 and this subsection, no city, county or other political 36 subdivisions shall regulate or require or issue any registration, licenses, permits or surety bonds or 37 charge any fee for the regulatory or surety registration of any person required to obtain a certif= 38 icate from the Department of Transportation under ORS 822.205. This subsection does not: 39 (a) Limit any authority of a city or county to license and collect a general and 40 nondiscriminatory license fee levied upon all businesses or to levy a tax based upon business con - 41 ducted by any person within the city or county. 42 (b) Limit the authority of any city or county to impose any requirements or conditions as part 43 of any contract to perform towing or recovering services for the city or county. 44 (c) Limit the authority of any city or county to impose requirements and conditions that govern 45 the towing of a vehicle by a towing business under ORS 98.812 so long as those requirements and (61 A -Eng. HE 2001 1 conditions are consistent with the provisions of ORS 822.230. 2 (3) No city, county or other political subdivision of this state, nor any state agency, may adopt 3 a regulation or ordinance that imposes a special fee for the use of public lands or waters by 4 snowmobiles or Class I all- terrain vehicles, or for the use of any access thereto that is owned by 5 or under the jurisdiction of either the United States, this state or any such city, county or other 6 political subdivision. The registration fees provided by ORS 821.320 are in lieu of any personal 7 property or excise tax imposed on snowmobiles by this state or any political subdivision. No city, 8 county or other municipality, and no state agency shall impose any other registration or license fee 9 on any snowmobile in this state. This subsection does not prohibit any city, county or other political 10 subdivision, or any state agency from regulating the operation of snowmobiles or Class I all - terrain 11 vehicles on public lands, waters and other properties under its jurisdiction and on streets or high - 12 ways within its boundaries by adopting regulations or ordinances of its governing body if such reg.- 13 ulations are not inconsistent with ORS 821.150 to 821.292. 14 (4) The provisions of ORS 819.100, 819.120, 819.150, 819.160, 819.210 to 819.260 and 819.480 re- 15 lating to removal of vehicles that are abandoned establish minimum requirements subject to the 16 following: 17 (a) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection, a county or incorporated city may super- 18 sede such provisions by ordinance or charter provision. -. • 19 (b) Any road authority described under ORS 810.010 may adopt rules or procedures that do not . 20 conflict with such provisions to provide for additional protection for the owner or person with an .21 interest in :a vehicle subject to such °provisions or that more quickly accomplish the procedures es- 22 tablished under such provisions: ,., 23 (5) Any incorporated city may by •ordinance require that the driver of 'a vehicle involved in an . . 24 accident file with. a .designated city department , a .copy of any report required to be filed .under ORS .25 •811.725. All such reports shall be for the confidential use of the city department but subject to the ' 26. same requirements for release of. such • reports as provided for the :release 6f such reports by the 27 department under ORS 802.220 and 802.240. 28 (6) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, in accordance with the provisions 29 of ORS 801.041, the governing body of a county with a population of 350,000 or more may establish 30 by ordinance registration fees for vehicles registered at a residence or business address within the 31 county. 32 (7) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, in accordance with the provisions 33 of ORS 801.042, the governing body of a district may establish by ordinance registration fees for 34 vehicles registered at a residence or business address within the district. 35 SECTION 27. ORS 801.041 is amended to read: 36 801.041. The following apply to the authority granted to counties by ORS 801.040 to establish 37 registration fees for vehicles: 38 (1) An ordinance establishing registration fees under this section must be enacted by the county 39 imposing the registration fee and filed with the Department of Transportation. [Any} 40 Notwithstanding ORS 203.055 or any provision of a county charter, a county governing body 41 may enact an ordinance establishing registration fees [that is enacted by the governing body of a 42 county must be submitted] without submitting the ordinance to the electors of the county for their 43 approval. The governing body of the county imposing the registration fee shall enter into an inter - 44 governmental agreement under ORS 190.010 with the department by which the department shall 45 collect the registration fees, pay them over to the county and, if necessary, allow the credit or [7) A -Eng. HB 2001 1 credits described in ORS 803.445 (5). The intergovernmental agreement must state the date on which 2 the department shall begin collecting registration fees for the county. 3 (2) The authority granted by this section allows the establishment of registration fees in addition 4 to those described in ORS 803.420. There is no authority under this section to affect registration 5 periods, qualifications, cards, plates, requirements or any other provision relating to vehicle regis- 6 tration under the vehicle code. 7 (3) Except as otherwise provided for in this subsection, when registration fees are unposed under 8 this section, they must be imposed on all vehicle classes. Registration fees as provided under this 9 section may not be imposed on the following: 10 (a) Snowmobiles and Class I all- terrain vehicles. 11 (b) Fixed load vehicles. 12 (c) Vehicles registered under ORS 805.100 to disabled veterans. 13 (d) Vehicles registered as antique vehicles under ORS 805.010. 14 (e) Vehicles registered as vehicles of special interest under ORS 805.020. 15 (f) Government -owned or operated vehicles registered under ORS 805.040 or 805.045. 16 (g) School buses or school activity vehicles registered under ORS 805.050. 17 (h) Law enforcement undercover vehicles registered under ORS 805.060. 18 (i) Vehicles .registered on a proportional basis for interstate operation. • 19 (j) Vehicles 'with a registration weight of 26,001 pounds or more described in ORS 803 ;420 (10) • 2€1 or.(11)_ ..21: (k) Vehicles registered as farm vehicles under the provisions of ORS 805.300. • g P . 22 • (L) Travel trailers, campers and motor homes. 23• .. - (4) Any registration fee imposed by a, county ,must be a- fixed, amount not to exceed, with respect 24 .. to-any vehicle class, the registration fee established under' ORS. 803.420: (1). For vehicles on which 25.` ,a fiat fee is imposed under ORS 803.420,•:the fee must be a whole dollar. amount: 26 (5) Moneys from registration fees established: under,: this section must be paid ;:to the • county es' 27 tablishing the registration fees as provided in ORS 802.110. The county ordinance shall provide for 28 payment of at least 40 percent of the money to cities within the county unless a different distrib- 29 cation is agreed to between the county and the cities within the jurisdiction of the county. The 30 moneys shall be used for any purpose for which moneys from registration fees may be used. 31 (6) Two or more counties may act jointly to impose a registration fee under this section. The 32 ordinance of each county acting jointly with another under this subsection must provide for the 33 distribution of moneys collected through a joint registration fee. 34 (7) Before the governing body of a county that overlaps a district can impose a registration fee 35 under this section, it must enter into an intergovernmental agreement under ORS 190.010 with the 36 governing bodies of that district and all counties, other districts and cities with populations of over 37 300,000 that overlap the district. The intergovernmental agreement must state the registration fees 38 and, if necessary, how the revenue from the fees are to be apportioned among the counties and the 39 districts. Before the governing body of a county can enter into such an intergovernmental agree - 40 meat, the county shall consult with the cities in its jurisdiction. 41 SECTION 28. ORS 803.090 is amended to read: 42 803.090. The following fees are the fees for the transaction described: 43 (1) The transfer fee under ORS 803.092: 44 (a) For a salvage title, [$17] $ 45 (b) For trailers eligible for permanent registration under ORS 803.415 (1) and motor vehicles [8] A -Eng. HE 2001 1 with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, excluding motor homes, [$90] $ 2 (c) For vehicles other than vehicles for which the title fee is described in paragraph (b) of this 3 subsection, [$55) $ 4 (2) The fee for issuance of a certificate of title under ORS 803.045: 5 (a) For trailers eligible for permanent registration under ORS 803.415 (1) and motor vehicles 6 with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, excluding motor homes, [$90] $ . 7 (b) For vehicles other than vehicles for which the title fee is described in paragraph (a) of this 8 subsection, [$55] $ 9 (3) The fee for issuance of a salvage title certificate under ORS 803.140, [$17] $ 10 (4) The fee for issuance of a duplicate or replacement certificate of title under ORS 803.065: 11 (a) For a duplicate or replacement salvage title certificate, [$17] $ 12 (b) For trailers eligible for permanent registration under ORS 803415 (1) and motor vehicles 13 with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, excluding motor homes, [$90) $ 14 (c) For vehicles other than vehicles for which the title fee is described in paragraph (b) of this 15 subsection, [$55) $ 16 (5) The fee under subsection (4) of this section [must] may not be paid at the same time as a 17 transfer fee under this section if application is made at the same time as application for transfer. 18 (6) The fee for issuance of a new certificate of title under ORS 803.220 indicating a change of 19 name or address: 20 (a) For a new salvage title certificate,: [$17] $ 21 (b)• For trailers eligible for permanent registration under ORS 803.415 (1) and motor vehicles • 22 with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, excluding motor homes, [$90] $. .. 23. .. (e) For vehicles other than vehicles for which .the title. fee is described in paragraph (b) of this: • 24 . subsection, [$55] $ .. . 25 (7) The fee for late ,presentation of certificate: of. title .under ORS 803.105, $25 from the 31st day 26, after the transfer' through the 60th' day after the transfer and $50 thereafter. . 27 (8) The fees for title transactions involving a form of title other than a certificate shall be the 28 amounts established by the Department of Transportation by rule under ORS 803.012. 29 SECTION 29. ORS 803.420 is amended to read: 30 803.420. This section establishes registration fees for vehicles. If there is uncertainty as to the 31 classification of a vehicle for purposes of the payment of registration fees under the vehicle code, 32 the Department of Transportation may classify the vehicle to assure that registration fees for the 33 vehicle are the same as for vehicles the department determines to be comparable. The registration 34 fees for the vehicle shall be those based on the classification determined by the department. Except 35 as otherwise provided in this section, or unless the vehicle is registered quarterly, the fees described 36 in this section are for an entire registration period for the vehicle as described under ORS 803.415. 37 The department shall apportion any fee under this section to reflect the number of quarters regis- 38 tered for a vehicle registered for a quarterly registration period under ORS 803.415. The fees are 39 payable when a vehicle is registered and upon renewal of registration. Except as provided in ORS 40 801.041 (3) and 801.042 (7), the fee shall be increased by any amount established by the governing 41 body of a county or by the governing body of a district, as defined in ORS 801.237 under ORS 42 801.041 or 801.042 as an additional registration fee for the vehicle. The fees for registration of ve- 43 hicles are as follows: 44 (1) Vehicles not otherwise provided for in this section or ORS 821.320, [$27] $ for each 45 year of the registration period. [9] A -Eng. HB 2001 1 (2) Mopeds, I$151 $ for each year of the registration period. 2 (3) Motorcycles, [$151 $ for each year of the registration period. 3 (4) Government -owned vehicles registered under ORS 805,040, $3.50. 4 (5) State -owned vehicles registered under ORS 805.045, $3.50 on registration or renewal. 5 (6) Undercover vehicles registered under ORS 805.060, $3.50 on registration or renewal. 6 (7) Antique vehicles registered under ORS 805.010, $54. 7 (8) Vehicles of special interest registered under ORS 805.020, $81. 3 (9) Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles that use electricity and another source of motive power, 9 as follows: 10 (a) The registration fee for an electric or hybrid vehicle not otherwise described in this sub - 11 section is [$27] $ for each year of the registration. period. 12 (b) The registration fee for electric or hybrid vehicles that have two or three wheels is [$271 13 $ . This paragraph does not apply to electric or hybrid mopeds. Electric or hybrid mopeds 14 are subject to the same registration fee as otherwise provided for mopeds under this section. 15 (c) The registration fees for the following electric or hybrid vehicles are the same as for com- 16 parable nonelectric vehicles described in this section plus 50 percent of such fee: 17 (A) Motor homes. 18 (B) Commercial buses.. • 19 (C) Vehicles registered as farm vehicles under ORS 805.300. . . • 20 (D) Vehicles required to establish registration weight under ORS 803.430 or 826.013. • 21. (10.) Motor vehicles required to establish a :registration weight under ORS 803,430 or 826.013; • . • . " • '22 and commercial buses as provided in the following chart; based upon the weight submitted in. the 23 declaration of weight prepared under ORS 803.435 'or-826.015: 25 • • • 26 Weight in Pounds Fee 27 8,000 or Iess $ r.2 71 • 28 • 29 8,001 to 10,000 169 30 10,001 to 12,000 192 31 12,001 to 14,000 215 32 14,001 to 16,000 238 33 16,001 to 18,000 261 34 18,001 to 20,000 291 35 20,001 to 22,000 314 36 22,001 to 24,000 345 37 24,001 to 26,000 375 38 26,001 to 28,000 184 39 28,001 to 30,000 192 40 30,001 to 32,000 207 41 32,001 to 34,000 215 42 34,001 to 36,000 230 43 36,001 to 38,000 238 44 38,001 to 40,000 253 45 40,001 to 42,000 261 [10] A -Eng, HE 2001 1 42,001 to 44,000 276 2 44,001 to 46,000 284 3 46,001 to 48,000 291 4 48,001 to 50,000 307 5 50,001 to 52,000 322 6 52,001 to 54,000 330 7 54,001 to 56,000 337 8 56,001 to 58,000 352 9 58,001 to 60,000 368 10 60,001 to 62,000 383 11 62,001 to 64,000 398 12 64,001 to 66,000 406 13 66,001 to 68,000 421 14 68,001 to 70,000 429 15 70,001 to 72,000 444 16 72,001 to 74,000 452 17 74,001 to 76,000 467 18 76,001 to 78,000 475 19 78,001 to 80,000 490 20 80,001 to 82,000 498 21 $2,001 to 84 513 22 84,001 • to 86,000 521 23 . 86,001 to 88,000 536 24 88,001 to 90,000 544 25 90,001 to 92,000 559 26 92,001. to 94,000 567 27 94,001 to 96,000 582 28 96,001 to 98,000 590 29 98,001 to 100,000 598 30 100,001 to 102,000 613 31 102,001 to 104,000 621 32 104,001 to 105,500 636 33 34 35 (11)(a) Motor vehicles with a registration weight of more than 8,000 pounds that are described 36 in ORS 825.015, that are operated by a charitable organization as defined in ORS 825.017 (14), that 37 are certified under ORS 822.205 or that are used exclusively to transport manufactured structures, 38 as provided in the following chart: 39 40 41 Weight in Pounds Fee 42 8,001 to 10,000 $ 50 43 10,001 to 12,000 60 44 12,001 to 14,000 65 45 14,001 to 16,000 75 [111 A -Eng. HB 2001 1 16,001 to 18,000 80 2 18,001 to 20,000 90 3 20,001 to 22,000 95 4 22,001 to 24,000 105 5 24,001 to 26,000 110 6 26,001 to 28,000 120 7 28,001 to 30,000 125 8 30,001 to 32,000 135 9 32,001 to 34,000 140 10 34,001 to 36,000 150 11 36,001 to 38,000 155 12 38,001 to 40,000 165 13 40,001 to 42,000 170 14 42,001 to 44,000 180 15 44,001 to 46,000 185 16 46,001 to 48,000 190 17 48,001 to 50,000 200 18 50,001 to 52,000 210 19 52,001 to 54,000 215 20 54,001 to 56,000 220 21 56,001 to 58,000 230 22 58,001 to 60,000 240 23 60,001 to • 62,000 250 24 62,001 to 64,000 260 25 64,001 to 66,000 265 26. . 66,001 to 68,000 275 27 68,001 to 70,000 280 28 70,001 to 72,000 290 29 72,001 to 74,000 295 30 74,001 to 76,000 305 31 76,001 to 78,000 310 32 78,001 to 80,000 320 33 80,001 to 82,000 325 34 82,001 to 84,000 335 35 84,001 to 86,000 340 36 86,001 to 88,000 350 37 88,001 to 90,000 355 38 . 90,001 to 92,000 365 39 92,001 to 94,000 370 40 94,001 to 96,000 380 41 96,001 to 98,000 385 42 98,001 to 100,000 390 43 100,001 to 102,000 400 44 102,001 to 104,000 405 45 104,001 to 105,500 415 [12J A -Eng. HB 2001 1 2 3 (b) The owner of a vehicle described in paragraph (a) of this subsection must certify at the time 4 of initial registration, in a manner determined by the department by rule, that the motor vehicle 5 will be used exclusively to transport manufactured structures or exclusively as described in ORS 6 822.210, 825.015 or 825.017 (14). Registration of a vehicle described in paragraph (a) of this sub- 7 section is invalid if the vehicle is operated in any manner other than that described in the certif 8 ication under this paragraph. 9 (12) Trailers registered under permanent registration, $10. 10 (13) Fixed load vehicles as follows: 11 (a) If a declaration of weight described under ORS 803.435 is submitted establishing the weight 12 of the vehicle at 3,000 pounds or less, $54. 13 (b) If no declaration of weight is submitted or if the weight of the vehicle is in excess of 3,000 14 pounds, [$75] $. 15 (14) Trailers for hire that are equipped with pneumatic tires made of an elastic material and that 16 are not travel trailers or trailers registered under permanent registration, $27. 17 (15) Trailers registered as part of a fleet under an agreement reached pursuant to ORS 802.500, 18 the same as the fee for vehicles of the same type registered under other provisions of the Oregon 19 Vehicle Code. 20 (16) Travel trailers, campers and motor homes as follows, based on length as determined under 21 . ORS 803.425: 22 (a) For travel trailers or campers that are 6 to 10 feet in length, $81. 23 (b) For travel trailers or campers over 10 feet in length,. $81 plus $6.75 a foot for each foot of 24 length over the first 10 feet. 25 (c) For motor homes that are 6 to 14 feet in length, $54. 26 (d) For motor homes over 14 feet in length, $126 plus $7.50 a foot for each foot of length over 27 the first 10 feet. 28 (17) Special use trailers as follows, based on length as determined under ORS 803.425: 29 (a) For lengths 6 to 10 feet, $54. 30 (b) For special use trailers over 10 feet in length, $54 plus $3 a foot for each foot of length over 31 the first 10 feet. 32 (18) Fees for vehicles with proportional registration under ORS 826.009, or proportioned fleet 33 registration under ORS 826.011, are as provided for vehicles of the same type under this section 34 except that the fees shall be fixed on an apportioned basis as provided under the agreement estab- 35 lished under ORS 826.007. 36 (19) For any vehicle that is registered under a quarterly registration period, a minimum of $15 37 for each quarter registered plus an additional fee of $1. 38 (20) In addition to any other fees charged for registration of vehicles in fleets under ORS 39 805.120, the department may charge the following fees: 40 (a) A $2 service charge for each vehicle entered into a fleet. 41 (b) A $1 service charge for each vehicle in the fleet at the time of renewal. 42 (21) The registration fee for vehicles with special registration for disabled veterans under ORS 43 805.100 is a fee of $15. 44 (22) Subject to subsection (19) of this section, the registration fee for motor vehicles registered 45 as farm vehicles under ORS 805.300 is as follows based upon the registration weight given in the [13] A -Eng. HE 2001 I declaration of weight submitted under ORS 803.435: 2 3 4 Weight in Pounds Fee 5 8,000 or less $ [27] 6 7 8,001 to 10,000 [30] a 9 10,001 to 12,000 [35] 10 11 12,001 to 14,000 [45] 12 13 14,001 to 16,000 [50] 14 15 16,001 to 18,000 [601 16 17 18,001 to 20,000 [65] 18 19 20,001 to 22,000 [75] 20 21 22,001 to 24,000 [80] 22 . 23 24;001 to 26,000 [90] 24 ..... 25 26,001 to 28,000 • [95] • 26; 27 28,001 to 30,000 [1051 28 29 30,001 to 32,000 [110] so 31 32,001 to 34,000 [120] 32 33 34,001 to 36,000 [125] 34 35 36,001 to 38,000 [135] 36 37 38,001 to 40,000 [140] 38 39 40,001 to 42,000 [150] 40 41 42,001 to 44,000 [155] 42 43 44,001 to 46,000 [165] 44 45 46,001 to 48,000 [170] [14] A -Eng. HB 2001 1 2 48,001 to 50,000 180 3 50,001 to 52,000 185 4 52,001 to 54,000 190 5 54,001 to 56,000 200 6 56,001 to 58,000 210 7 58,001 to 60,000 215 8 60,001 to 62,000 220 9 62,001 to 64,000 230 10 64,001 to 66,000 240 11 66,001 to 68,000 245 12 68,001 to 70,000 250 13 70,001 to 72,000 260 14 72,001 to 74,000 265 15 74,001 to 76,000 275 16 76,001 to 78,000 280 17 78,001 to 80,000 290 18 80,001 to 82,000 295 19 82,001 to 84,000 305 20 84,001 to 86,000 310 21 . , 86,001 to 88,000 320 22 88,001 to 90,000 325 • • 23 90,001 to 92,000 335 24 92,001 to 94,000 340 . . 25 94,001 to 96,000 350 . ' 26 96,001 to 98,000 355. 27 98,001 to 100,000 365 28 100,001 to 102,000 370 29 102,001 to 104,000 380 30 104,001 to 105,500 385 31 32 33 (23) The registration fee for school vehicles registered under ORS 805.050 is $7.50. 34 (24) The registration fee for a low -speed vehicle is $54. 35 (25) A rental or leasing company, as defined in ORS 221.275, that elects to initially register a 36 vehicle for an annual or biennial registration period shall pay a fee of $1 in addition to the vehicle 37 registration fee provided under this section. 38 (26) Racing activity vehicles registered under ORS 805.035, $81. 39 (27) Medium - speed electric vehicles, $ for each year of the registration period. 40 SECTION 30. ORS 319.020 is amended to read: 41 319.020. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) of this section, in addition to the taxes otherwise 42 provided for by law, every dealer engaging in the dealer's own name, or in the name of others, in 43 the first sale, use or distribution of motor vehicle fuel or aircraft fuel or withdrawal of motor vehicle 44 fuel or aircraft fuel for sale, use or distribution within areas in this state within which the state 45 lacks the power to tax the sale, use or distribution of motor vehicle fuel or aircraft fuel, shall: [151 A -Eng. HE 2001 1 (a) Not later than the 25th day of each calendar month, render a statement to the Department 2 of Transportation of all motor vehicle fuel or aircraft fuel sold, used, distributed or so withdrawn 3 by the dealer in the State of Oregon as well as all such fuel sold, used or distributed in this state 4 by a purchaser thereof upon which sale, use or distribution the dealer has assumed liability for the 5 applicable license tax during the preceding calendar month. 6 (b) Except as provided in ORS 319,270, pay a license tax computed on the basis of [24] 7 cents per gallon on the first sale, use or distribution of such motor vehicle fuel or aircraft 8 fuel so sold, used, distributed or withdrawn as shown by such statement in the manner and within 9 the time provided in ORS 319.010 to 319.430. 10 (2) When aircraft fuel is sold, used or distributed by a dealer, the license tax shall be computed 11 on the basis of nine cents per gallon of fuel so sold, used or distributed, except that when aircraft 12 fuel usable in aircraft operated by turbine engines (turbo -prop or jet) is sold, used or distributed, the 13 tax rate shall be one cent per gallon. 14 (3) In lieu of claiming refund of the tax paid on motor vehicle fuel consumed by such dealer in 15 nonhighway use as provided in ORS 319.280, 319.290 and 319.320, or of any prior erroneous payment 16 of license tax made to the state by such dealer, the dealer may show such motor vehicle fuel as a 17 credit or deduction on the monthly statement and payment of tax. 18 (4) The license tax computed on the basis of the sale, use, distribution or withdrawal of motor 19 vehicle or aircraft fuel shall not be imposed wherever such tax is prohibited by the Constitution or 20 laws of the United States with respect to such tax. 21 SECTION 31. ORS 319.530 is amended.to read: 22 319.530. (1) To compensate this state partially for the use of its highways, an excise tax hereby 23 is imposed at the rate of [24] . cents per gallon on the use of fuel in a motor. vehicle. Except 24 as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, 100 cubic feet of fuel used or sold 25 in a gaseous state, measured at 14.73 pounds per square inch of pressure at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, • 26 is taxable at the same rate as a gallon of liquid fuel. 27 (2) One hundred twenty cubic feet of compressed natural gas used or sold in a gaseous state, 28 measured at 14.73 pounds per square inch of pressure at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, is taxable at the 29 same rate as a gallon of liquid fuel. 30 (3) One and three - tenths liquid gallons of propane at 60 degrees Fahrenheit is taxable at the 31 same rate as a gallon of other liquid fuel. 32 SECTION 32. ORS 818.225 is amended to read: 33 818.225. (1)(a) In addition to any fee for a single -trip nondivisible load permit, a person who is 34 issued the permit or who operates a vehicle in a manner that requires the permit is liable for pay - 35 ment of a road use assessment fee of [five and seven - tenths cents] . per equivalent single -axle 36 load mile traveled. As used in this subsection, "equivalent single -axle load" means the relationship 37 between actual or requested weight and an 18,000 pound single -axle load as determined by the 38 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Road Tests reported at the 39 Proceedings Conference of 1962. The Department of Transportation may adopt rules to standardize 40 the determination of equivalent single -axle load computation based on average highway conditions. 41 (b) If the road use assessment fee is not collected at the time of issuance of the permit, the de- 42 partment shall bill the permittee for the amount due. The account shall be considered delinquent if 43 not paid within 60 days of billing. 44 (c) The miles of travel authorized by a single -trip nondivisible load permit shall be exempt from 45 taxation under ORS chapter 825. [16] A -Eng. HB 2001 1 (2) The department by rule may establish procedures for payment, collection and enforcement 2 of the fees and assessments established by this chapter. 3 SECTION 33. ORS 825.476 is amended to read: 4 825.476. 5 6 7 MILEAGE TAX RATE TABLE "A" 8 Declared Combined Fee Rates 9 Weight Groups Per Mile 10 (Pounds) (Mills) 11 26,001 to 28,000 [40.0] 12 28,001 to 30,000 [42.4] 13 30,001 to 32,000 [44.3] 14 32,001 to 34,000 [46,3] 15 34,001 to 36,000 [48.1] 16 36,001 to 38,000 [50.61 17 38,001 to 40,000 [52.5] 18 40,001 to 42,000 [54.4] . 19 42,001 to 44,000 [56.4] 20 44,001 to . 46,000 [58.31 21 46,001 to 48,000 [60.2] • 22 48,001. to 50,000 [62.2] 23 •50,001 . to , . 52,000 [64.51. 24. .52,001 to 54,000 [66.9] 25 54,001. to.56,000 • [69.4] 26 56,001 to 58,000 [72:3] 27 58,001 to 60,000 [75.61 28 60,001 to 62,000 (79.51 29 62,001 to 64,000 [83.9] .... 30 64,001 to 66,000 [88.7] 31 66,001 to 68,000 [95.0] 32 68,001 to 70,000 [101.71 33 70,001 to 72,000 [108.4) 34 72,001 to 74,000 [114.6] 35 74,001 to 76,000 [120.5] 36 76,001 to 78,000 [126.3] 37 78,001 to 80,000 [131.6] 38 39 40 AXLE- WEIGHT MILEAGE 41 TAX RATE TABLE "B" 42 Declared Combined Number of Axles 43 Weight Groups 5 6 7 8 9 or 44 (Pounds) (Mills) more 45 80,001 to 82,000 [135.9 124.3 116.2 110.4 104.1] [17] A -Eng. H13 2001 1 -- 2 82,001 to 84,000 [140.3 126.3 118.1 111.8 105.5] 3 4 84,001 to 86,000 [144,5 129.2 120.0 113.2 107.0] 6 6 86,001 to 88,000 1149.4 132.0 121.9 115.2 108.4] 7 8 88,001 to 90,000 [155.2 135.4 123.9 117.1 110.41 9 .. 10 90,001 to 92,000 [161.9 139.3 125.7 119.0 112.3] 11 12 92,001 to 94,000 [169.2 143.1 127.7 120.9 113.8] 13 14 94,001 to 96,000 [176.9 147.5 130,1 122,9 115.6] 15 16 96,001 to 98,000 [185.1 152.8 133.0 124.9 117.6] 17 18 98,001 to 100,000 [158.5 135.9 127.2 119.5] 19 20 100,001 to 102,000 [138.8 130.1 121.5] 21 22 102,001 to 104,000 [141.7 133.0 123.91 23 • 24 104,001 to. 105,500 - [145.5 .. . 135:9 126.3] 25 26 . 27 28 SECTION 34. ORS 825.480 is amended to read: 29 825.480. (1)(a) In lieu of other fees provided in ORS 825.474, carriers engaged in operating motor 30 vehicles in the transportation of logs, poles, peeler cores or piling may pay annual fees for such 31 operation computed at the rate of [six dollars and ten cents] for each 100 pounds of declared 32 combined weight. 33 (b) Any carrier electing to pay fees under this method may, as to vehicles otherwise exempt from 34 taxation, elect to be taxed on the mileage basis for movements of such empty vehicles over public 35 highways whenever operations are for the purpose of repair, maintenance, servicing or moving from 36 one exempt highway operation to another. 37 (2) The annual fees provided in subsections (1), (4) and (5) of this section may be paid on a 38 monthly basis. Any carrier electing to pay fees under this method may not change an election during 39 the same calendar year in which the election is made, but may be relieved from the payment due 40 for any month on a motor vehicle which is not operated. A carrier electing to pay fees under this 41 method shall report and pay these fees on or before the 10th of each month for the preceding 42 month's operations. A monthly report shall be made on all vehicles on the annual fee basis including 43 any vehicle not operated for the month. 44 (3)(a) In lieu of the fees provided in ORS 825.470 to 825.474, motor vehicles described in ORS 45 825.024 with a combined weight of less than 46,000 pounds that are being operated under a permit [18] A -Eng. HB 2001 1 issued under ORS 825.102 may pay annual fees for such operation computed at the rate of [five 2 dollars] for each 100 pounds of declared combined weight. 3 (b) The annual fees provided in this subsection shall be paid in advance but may be paid on a 4 monthly basis on or before the first day of the month. A carrier may be relieved from the fees due 5 for any month during which the motor vehicle is not operated for hire if a statement to that effect 6 is filed with the Department of Transportation on or before the fifth day of the first month for which 7 relief is sought. 8 (4)(a) In lieu of other fees provided in ORS 825.474, carriers engaged in the operation of motor 9 vehicles equipped with dump bodies and used in the transportation of sand, gravel, rock, dirt, debris, 10 cinders, asphaltic concrete mix, metallic ores and concentrates or raw nonmetallic products, 11 whether crushed or otherwise, moving from mines, pits or quarries may pay annual fees for such 12 operation computed at the rate of [six dollars and five cents] for each 100 pounds of de- 13 dared combined weight. 14 (b) Any carrier electing to pay fees under this method may, as to vehicles otherwise exempt for 15 taxation, elect to be taxed on the mileage basis for movements of such empty vehicles over public 16 highways whenever operations are for the purpose of repair, maintenance, servicing or moving from 17 one exempt highway operation to another. 18 (5)(a) In lieu of other fees provided in ORS 825.474, carriers engaged in operating motor vehicles 19 in the transportation of wood chips, sawdust, barkdust, hog fuel or shavings may pay annual fees for. 20 such operation computed at the rate of [twenty -four dollars and sixty -two cents] . for each 100 21 pounds of declared combined weight. 22 (b) Any carrier electing to pay under this method may, as to vehicles otherwise exempt from . • 23 taxation, elect to be taxed on the mileage basis for movement of such empty vehicles over public 24 highways whenever operations are for the purpose of repair, maintenance, service or moving from • 25 one exempt highway operation to another. ... 26 SECTION 35. ORS 803.570 is amended to read: • 27 803.570. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the Department of Transportation 28 shall collect the fee described by this section each time the department issues a registration plate 29 upon the registration of a vehicle or at other times when a registration plate is issued by the de- 30 partment. The following all apply to the fee established by this section: 31 (1) The fee shall be in addition to any other fee collected upon issuance of a registration plate. 32 (2) The fee for each registration plate issued and for each [set of two] pair of plates issued shall 33 be determined by the department and shall be established by the department by rule. [The fee may 34 not exceed $3 for one plate and $5 for a set of two plates.] The department shall establish fees for 35 a single plate and for a pair of plates under this section by: 36 (a) Determining the cost of manufacturing a single plate or a pair of plates and rounding 37 the cost to the next higher half - dollar; and 38 (b) Adding $12 for a single plate and $24 for a pair of plates. 39 SECTION 36. ORS 805.250 is amended to read: 40 805.250. This section establishes fees for issuance of registration plates authorized under ORS 41 805.200, If a fee for plates authorized in ORS 805.200 is not established in this section, the fee is the 42 same fee as established under ORS 803.570. Where a fee is established under this section, the fee 43 is in addition to the fee established under ORS 803.570 unless otherwise provided in the following: 44 (1) Amateur radio operator registration plates issued under ORS 805.230, $5. 45 (2) Customized registration plates issued under ORS 805.240: [19] A -Eng. HE 2001 1 (a) For original issuance or renewal, [$25] $50 annual fee. 2 (b) For issuance of a duplicate or replacement plate, $5 when the plate is issued at the time of 3 renewal of registration or $10 when the plate is issued at any other time. 4 (3) Special interest registration plates approved under ORS 805.210 are approved without cost 5 except as provided in this subsection, including without payment of the fee established under ORS 6 803.570. If identifying stickers are required, $1 per sticker or pair of stickers. 7 (4) Dealer plates issued under ORS 822.020 and 822.040 are as follows: 8 (a) For the original dealer plate, no fee except the fee established under ORS 803.570. 9 (b) For replacement dealer plates, $10 for each plate except that persons dealing exclusively in 10 motorcycles, mopeds, snowmobiles or any combination of those vehicles shall pay only $3 for each 11 replacement plate. 12 (a) For additional plates, or for renewal of registration, $42, except that persons dealing exclu- I3 sively in motorcycles, mopeds or snowmobiles or any combination of those vehicles shall pay only 14 $9 for each additional plate, or for renewal of registration. 15 (5) Special vehicle transporter plates or devices issued under ORS 822.310, $5 for each plate or 16 device. 17 SECTION 37. Section 4, chapter 545, Oregon Laws 2003, is amended to read: 18 Sec. 4. Sections 2 and 3, chapter 545, Oregon Laws 2003, [of this 2003 Act] apply to tax years 19 beginning on or after January 1, 2005, and before January 1, [2010] 2015. 20 SECTION 38. Section 23 of this 2009 Act and the amendments to ORS 801.040 and 801.041 21 by sections 26 and 27 of this 2009 Act become operative July.1, 2013. 22 • • SECTION 39. The amendments to ORS 801.041 by section 27 of this 2009 Act apply to or- . • . 23 dinances enacted by the governing body of a county on or after July 1, 2013. 24 • SECTION 40. Section 24 of this 2009 Act • is repealed on January 2, 2014. 25 .. • [20] • Attachment 2: Proposed Earmarked Portland Metropolitan Area Projects (3) Amounts allocated. by the Oregon Transportation Commission 2 for purp :rases described in :*ecti aa1 66 of this 2009 Act shall be expended 3 from the account. 4 "SECTION 65. (1) Proceeds of the bonds, as defined in ORS 367.010, 5 authorized lr«;xder ORS t ;67..32( (3)(c) may be used to finance at or any 6 portion :•If the projects ms T,isted in snbse. +l;ion (2) of this `1ection. The 7 mis shall deterrn me the order •of complet ssi n °fqr- the projects 8 listed. in :subsection (2) of this section. 9 "(2) The following amounts are allocated for the i;' projects listed be- 10 low: 11 "(a) $32 million... U.S. Highway 26 at the Glencoe Road Interchange; 12 "(b) $24 million—Interstate 84 at the 257th Interchange; 13 "(c) $100 million...State Highway 212; Sunrise Corridor Phase 1, 14 Units 1, 2, and 3; 15 " (d) 1;4L m.illion...U.S. Highway 26 at Shute Road Interchange; 16 "(e) $11 million—Interstate 5 at Interstate 205 Interchange; 11 "(f) $20 million...U.S. Highway 26: 185th to Cornell Road; 18 "(g) $22 ra llion...Lri•tertitate. 205 and. State Highway 213 at 19 Washington Strreet 20 "(n) : millon—Interstate 84 at Hood River interchange; 21 "co f a:i] million—State Highway 43 at the Seliwood Bridge Inter - 22 change; 23 "(j) $27 million...State Highway 6 at U.S. Highway 101; 24 "(k) $192 million. Hig:iway 99W, Newberg and Dundee bypass, 25 Phase 1; 26 " (L) 4i4a mill kon. ..Inte rsf :ate 5 at State Highway 214 Interchange; 27 "(xn) ,z1O million—Interstate 5 at Beltline Highway, Units 3, 4, 5, 6 28 and '7; 29 "(a) million...Beltline Highway at Delta Highway; 30 "(o) 3:i.li million...intersta. a 5 at Kuehler Road, Phase I; HB 20G'. - Ai 5//e: ' Proposed. AZi1endrne :;ts to A -Eng. liB 2001 Page 49 1 "(p) million—Interstate 5 at Kuebler Road, Phase II; 2 "(q) 10 million—State Highway 42, county curve lines; 3 "(r) $100 million—State I igh. way 62 Corridor Solution; 4 "(S) $25 mxmillion,..Inte,r ia:,.te 5 at Fern Valley Road lntercla�' anige; C .i 5 "(t) $4.1 m :.i t',� sm�n....Im°atl; m °s:i mte �y mml:herlin Truck 00 Lea , 6 "(a) 10 million—Interstate 5 Sexton T xcl 'clintbon es ;. 7 "(v) b l million—Interstate 84 at :. u' jh�;u - V A 7' Y� i er ch a nge; 8 "(w) ;2 r ail:don... fl <S. Highway, qi;. River Bridge to 9 Redmo ,l �'tb fie.. :emu 10 "() $23 mill.ion...State Highway 140 'between Klamath Falls and 11 Nevada State l.i ;. 12 "(y) 25 million—Murphy Road and U.S. Highway 97 interchange; 13 "() $5 mmmill.ion...U.S. Highway 97 Redmond reroute, Phase H; 14 "(an) :31..armillion...CLir:o Broad. Construction in Baker County; is "(bb) $4.66 million—Chandler Lanc Recsanstruction. in Baker County; 16 "(cc) $L.6 mmmillion...mm lert;;:ate 34 climbing lane in Union County; 17 "Odd) $4.5 Y nil.l:iomA...gram. ° thwo t Washington Avenue in Malheur 18 County; 19 "(ce) $ ' ,rma.a:;. improvements in Union County; 20 "(1:f) :a:y mill;ion.. Highway 82 in Wallowa County; 21 "(gg) 5; t.. 1 .I goad in Umatilla County; 22 "(Llm; mi■eiion..,State Highway 207 and State Highway 206 inter - 23 change 24 "(ii) ,.:.1. E' m.:, Ul.ion—v.;Ll_aicle chain up areas east of Pendleton on 25 Intersta te 84 i Onion. C..- JE..4nty; 26 " E j) 4;4.5 ini lion... Izee..Fxnul.in.a Highway in Grant County; and 27 "(k :k) r;0.9 ni.i1lion „... ?hlo:nroe Street and U.S. Highway 20 in Harney 28 Cotari ty. 29 "(3) P "Lor t.:u jape - 21)1.:, lit .add ti.on t,•:, the projects listed in sub - %o section (2) of this section, ;: ` projects are r :eommneiided to the Oregon HB / 5,D 3. Propose. A,r , .eradm.t.ae arts to A- Eng.:jIB 2001 Page 50 1 Tranfsportatiot Commission b;r the applicable local area commission 2 on transortati: after e.onsuUation with the local governments listed 3 in this subsection, the Ciiregon Transportation Commission may also 4 approve and allocate fund to the following local governments for 5 projects approved by the commission in the following amounts: 6 "(a) $4.5 mi.,I.ion...Baker Co Unty: 7 "(b) $1, I kniiiiion—Grant County, 8 "(0 milflon...Harney County; 9 "(d) (11;.,unty: 10 "(e) $L3 Cours,ty: ii "(f) $2.5 million—Umatilla County; 12 "(g) SI milliim—City of Nyssal 13 "(h) $3 milli“n...City of Heppner: 14 "(i) $3 Indllion...Cily of Milton-Fre.ewater; 15 "(j) $) miL;on_ty of Ontrio; 16 "(k) iniLLon„...P.t0rt, of Umctilia; and 17 "(g) $10.7 t of Morrow. 18 "SECTION 66. The amendmonts to ORS 367.620 by section 62 of this 19 2009 Act do no impak and a;E:-,o, not intended to impair the interests 20 of the owners q';,f any Highway User Tax Bonds that are outstanding 21 on the o'llctive date •.4 this 269 At or any obligations of the agree- 22 rnent3 of the tepart.6.14!;ii't 1. of '1 inij under its Amended and 23 Restated :4/1astc. Highay I ISE c ;' ax Revenue Bond Declaration dated 24 June 1, 2606. as amended and E 25 "SECTION NotwiLlistanding ORS 367.620 (1), the provisions of 26 ORS 281E:A.035 not appfLy to bonds described in ORS 367.620 (3)(c) for 27 the bien4u1.i ! July 1, 2609. 28 "SEC.!.!';ON_ 0"4 SeLtion chei. 545, Oregon Laws 2003, is amended to 29 read. 30 "SCe. i. Sectis 2 and 3, chiq)ter 545, Oregon Laws 2003, [of this 2003 HB 2001-Al'? 5/115/:.? Proposed. A).,ey to 1 HT' 2001 Page 51 Act] apply to tax years beginnin, • on or after January 1, 2005, and before 2 January 3. [2010,1, 2015. 3 "SECT 1ON 69. The amendments to ORS 801.041 by section 41 of this 4 2009 Act apply to ordinances enacted by the governing body of a county 5 on or after July 1, 2013,. "SECTION `.'. Section 25 does not apply to ordinances imposing a 7 tax on fuel for motor vehicles enacted on, or before the effective date s of this 2009 Act or to any amen ment to those ordinances on or after 9 the effective date of this 2009 Act. 10 "SECTION 71. Section 6, chapter 862, Oregon Laws 2001, is repealed. 11 "SECTION 72. This 2009 Act takes effect on the 91st day after the 12 date on which the regular session of the Seventy -fifth Legislative As- 13 sembly adjoum. a sine die.". 14 • HB 2001 -A17 5/15/!)'? Proposed Amendments to A-Eng. HE 2001 Page 52