Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/28/2015 I • City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Revised 4/28/2015- Executive Session in Study Session cancelled. MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 28,2015 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less.Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated;it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in ary order after 7::30 p.m. 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 (FDD -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 ([L)D -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://live.tizard-or.Qov CABLE VIEWERS:The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. ia • City of Tigard TIGARD Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Revised 4/28/2015-Executive Session in Study Session cancelled. MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 28,2015 -6:30 p.m. Study Session;7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 6:30 PM •STUDY SESSION A. RECEIVE COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS B. REVIEW SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE AUDIT AND POTENTIAL TMC CHANGES 6:45 pm estimated time ._-- .-. _ • :- _ .. -. : . .. - :. _ : -- :_:. . .' : . - - ' . : ' - Executive Session cancelled. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications&Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less,Please) A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication—Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA:Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 7:35 pm estimated time A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: •March 10,2015 •March 24,2015 B. Local Contract Review Board: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT REGARDING REVISED FUNDING FOR THE PACIFIC HIGHWAY/GAARDE STREET/MC DONALD STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS •Consent Agenda-Items Removed for Separate Discussion:Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council/City Center Development Ageng has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. CONSIDER HEAL CITY CAMPAIGN RESOLUTION 7:40 pm estimated time 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON STORM WATER,PARKS,AND TRANSPORTATION SDCs AND FEES 7:50 pm estimated time 6. AMEND MASTER FEES AND CHARGES FOR PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION SDCs 8:25 pm estimated time 7. BRIEFING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)PROJECTS 8:30 pm estimated time 8. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD -UPCOMING CONTRACT DISCUSSION - DOWNTOWN ENTRYWAY MONUMENTS 8:45 pm estimated time 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9:15 pm estimated time 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order,the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed.No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 11. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 pm estimated time AIS-2054 A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Council Liaison Reports Submitted By: Norma Alley,City Management Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg- Study Sess. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Council will present liaison reports. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments No file(s)attached AIS-2112 B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length(in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Review Solid Waste Franchise Fee Audit and Potential TMC Changes Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Norma Alley,City Management Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg-Study Sess. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Brief Council on the results of the Solid Waste Franchise Fee Audit and Potential TMC Changes STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff is seeking input from Council on: •Moving forward with an across the board seven percent increase in solid waste rates •Making changes to Tigard Municipal Code 11.04-Solid Waste Management •Timing-These changes are currendy scheduled for a hearing on May 26,2015. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Potential Rate Change: As required by Tigard Municipal Code(TMC) Chapter 11-04-090,Tigard's two franchised solid waste haulers have submitted their annual financial reports for the calendar year ending December 31,2014. The TMC requires the council be provided with an aggregate report summarizing the franchisee reports and recommendations on rate adjustments based on Resolution No. 01-54-A. This resolution sets a target, aggregate profit rate of 10 percent and calls for the council to consider a rate adjustment if the profit rate falls below 8 percent or exceeds 12 percent. The aggregate financial report shows a profit rate of 7.6 percent. Based on the resolution,the aggregate profit rate does not fall within the resolution set target percent and a rate adjustment is needed. Tigard finance staff worked with the haulers on expected increases in their cost of providing services. Based upon the cost escalators provided by each hauler,Finance staff is recommending a 7 percent increase in fees for 18 months (July 2015 -Dec 2016).The rationale behind the 7 percent increase is to provide rates that will produce an expected profit of 10 percent in 2016. When the 7 percent rate increase is modeled with a start date in July 2015 and is compared to the haulers' escalated costs for 2015 and 2016,the rate increase would result in an anticipated profit percentage of 9 percent in calendar year 2015 and 10 percent in calendar year 2016. The lower percentage in 2015 is due to the fact that the rate increase will only be in effect for the last six months of the calendar year. Accordingly, we would want to agree that the target for 2015 would be a profit margin of between 7-11%,instead of the standard 8-12%in the Resolution. As we have discussed,we propose an index that would adjust fees on January 1 of each year starting in January of 2017. Potential Code Change: After the last cost of service study took effect in the middle of 2013, there was some discussion between the haulers and city staff. The root of the discussion was the fact that the rate of return in 2013 fell outside the 8-12% parameters set in Resolution No. 01-54-A and whether that constituted the need for a rate increase, even though the new fees had only been in effect for the last 6 months of the year. In a memo from staff to Council on May 14,2014,Council was advised of the situation and the recommendation was not to increase rates again and allow a full year of the new rates. In order to avoid this type of confusion in the future,Council may want to consider the following types of changes to TMC 11.04-Solid Waste Management: •Setting an index that would adjust fees on January 1 each year •State that a cost of service study will be conducted at least every five years •In years where a cost of service study is completed,and the rates take effect in the middle of a calendar year,state that the report should set expected profit for that year that takes into account the fact that the new fees were only in effect for a portion of the year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Staff is seeking input. Council could choose to direct staff in a different direction than has been proposed by staff. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS Solid Waste Management is covered by TMC 11.04 DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION This is the first discussion of Solid Waste Rates since rates were adjusted for 2013. Attachments Memo to Council from March 24,2015 Historical Memo to Council from May 14,2014 II I " City of Tigard T I G A R D Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors City Manager Marty Wine From: Director of Finance and Information Services Toby LaFrance Re: Annual Solid Waste Financial Report Finding for 2014 Date: March 24,2015 As required by Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 11-04-090,Tigard's two franchised solid waste haulers have submitted their annual financial reports for the calendar year ending December 31,2014. The TMC requires the council be provided with an aggregate report summarizing the franchisee reports and recommendations on rate adjustments based on Resolution No. 01- 54-A. This resolution sets a target,aggregate profit rate of 10 percent and calls for the council to consider a rate adjustment if the profit rate falls below 8 percent or exceeds 12 percent. The aggregate financial report shows a profit rate of 7.6 percent. Based on the resolution, the aggregate profit rate does not fall within the resolution set target percent and a rate adjustment is needed. The TMC requires that the findings are reported to the council by April 15th. Staff will be presenting the report findings at the April 28th council study session to discuss the next steps. Staff will bring recommendations for any fee changes and propose potential code changes at a hearing scheduled for May 26, 2015. Potential code changes will likely include: > Setting an index that would adjust fees on January 1 each year. > State that a cost of service study will be conducted at least every five years. > In years where a cost of service study is completed, and the rates take effect in the middle of a calendar year, state that the report should set expected profit for that year that takes into account the fact that the new fees were only in effect for a portion of the year. cc: Mike Leichner,Pride Disposal Mike Jefferies,Waste Management s City of Tigardd" to 1 1(, AR Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor Cook and the City Council From: Marty Wine, City Manager Re: Solid Waste Rates Date: May 14, 2014 Tigard Municipal Code 11.04.090.E.2 requires a report be provided to the Council about solid waste rates for service including"franchisee reports and propose rate adjustments, if any. The city manager may make such recommendations as appropriate to the rate determination." Because the city adjusted solid waste rates in 2013, and has only a half-year of data to determine the waste haulers' rate of return,I have accepted the recommendation of Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director,to maintain current solid waste rates for the upcoming fiscal year. (See attached memo.) I find that based on an initial review, the existing solid waste fees appear to be sufficient to produce the profit margin required in Resolution No. 01-54-A in the range of 8-12%. City staff will be initiating a rate of return analysis based on a full year of financials (July 2013 to June 2014) to consider a full year's information based on the last increase. This allows the city and solid waste customers a more realistic and timely review of rates for fiscal year 2015-16. I encourage you to contact me with any questions or concerns that you may have. >, RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2014 of Tigard City of Tigard City f g Administration TIGARD Memorandum To: Marty Wine,City Manager From: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director CC: Brian Raga,Interim Public Works Director Lateen Mills,Assistant to the City Manager Re: Solid Waste Rates Date: May 5, 2014 The purpose of this memo is to recommend to you that Tigard maintain current solid waste rates, The TMC requires the Council be provided with an aggregate report summarizing the franchise reports and recommendations on rate adjustments based on Resolution No, 01>54FA.. This resolution sets a target, aggregate profit rate of 10 percent and calls for the Council to consider a rate adjustment if the profit rate falls below$percent or exceeds 12 percent, The calendar year 2012 report showed a profit of 5.21%,triggering a rate analysis and new rates that went into effect on July 1,2013 that target a 10%annual profit. As required by Tigard Municipal Code C) Chapter 11.04.090,Tigard's two franchised solid waste haulers have submitted their annual financial report* for the calendar year ending December 31,2013. The result of the analysis for the calendar year 2013 aggregate report showed that the profit,or rate of return, was below the $percent threshold: however, that rate of return is impacted by the fact that the new rates were only in effect for the last six months of the calendar year. Tigard recently hired independent auditors,Merin*&Co, T.I.F.,to review solid waste hauler's expenses and revenues for calendar year 2013, On July 1,2013,new solid waste rates went into effect. The purpose of crina's review was to determine the aggregate profit, or rate of return (ROR), for the two haulers if the fees had been in effect for the entire year(starting January 1, 2013). The result of Merina's analysis shows that the rate would have produced an aggregate rate of return of 9,1%, The solid waste haulers,Waste Management and Pride Disposal, have expressed concerns because their actual rate of return for 2013 is below 8%. Due to the timing that is laid out in TMC 11.04.090,new rates can only be in effect for approximately 6 months of a calendar year. Any time that rates are adjusted,it is reasonable to assume that the resulting unadjusted ROR will be outside of the 8-12%range. TMC 11.04.090.E.2 says the City Manager"may make such recommendations as appropriate to the rate determination." I interpret that portion of the code to say that the city has the ability to analyze this a bit more. The analysis by Merina supports the existing rates. Rate payers should not be subject to another rate increase when it can be shown that they would essentially be within the acceptable range if a full year of the last increase was considered. Based on the results of Merina's analysis, the fact that the timing laid out by the TMC that results in new rates only being available for the last six months of a calendar year, and the authority given to the City Manager in the TMC, I recommend that you determine that the existing solid waste fees are sufficient to produce the profit margin of 8-12%required by Resolution No. 01-54-A. Further, I recommend that staff offer to work with the solid waste haulers to perform a rate of return analysis based on 12 months of financials from July 1,2013 to June 30, 2014. The purpose of the analysis will be to unofficially determine if the current rates produce the required rate of return over their first full year. While the results will not automatically require a new rate analysis,it will give an indication of the likelihood that new rates will be required during 2015,enabling staff to start the process of hiring a rate consultant and scheduling time with Council. The result will be the ability to perform the rate review required by the TMC within the timeframes and without an extension. We can perform the analysis if both haulers agree to provide their financials for the analysis. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2-B- CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 28, 2015 (Limited to 2 minutes or less,please) The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda and items on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME,ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will _n� help the presiding officer pronounce: uu? Address C� � City State Zip 1• Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also,please spell your name as it sounds,if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION 1:\ADM\CATHY\000 City Recorder-Records Resources and Policies\CCSignup\citizen communication 150414.doc AIS-2231 3. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager,City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval: •March 10,2015 •March 24,2015 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Draft March 10,2015 Council Minutes Draft March 24,2015 Council Minutes City of Tigard • Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes March 10, 2015 TIGARD STUDY SESSION 6:30 pm A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: Councilor Henderson said Jennie Proctor,Program Manager for the Washington County Office of Community Development and Tigard Associate Planner Marissa Grass were present to discuss the proposed CDBG 2015/16 grant awards. Ms. Proctor discussed some of the prior CDBG funded projects in Tigard which include sidewalks on North Dakota Street(to be completed by mid-2016),Garrett Street sidewalks, Good Neighbor Center,Bonita Park, Knoll Apartments, and the Senior Center Remodel. Materials distributed by Ms.Proctor have been added to the packet for this meeting. B. REVIEW OF 2015 COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING REQUESTS: Financial and Information Services Executive Assistant Lutz led a discussion on the applications for community organizations for grants for next fiscal year. She displayed a spreadsheet of requested amounts and entered council's funding decisions for 18 organizations. There is $112,186 in requests but only$83,000 in available funds. Council selected amounts that were captured on the spreadsheet and will be discussed at the Budget Committee meetings and included in the FY 15/16 budget. The variance of information provided on the different requests was discussed and council recommended asking each applicant how they used their previous grant. Council President Snider noted differences in financial statements and asked for uniformity. Ms. Lutz said the process could include stricter submission guidelines and may have to begin sooner next year. Mayor Cook recommended that in August or September staff will initiate a discussion with council on getting better and more comparable information from the applicants. 1. BUSINESS MEETING—March 10,2015 la 2. A. Mayor Cool called to order the City Council and Local Contract Review Board meeting. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 1 of 13 C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items —There were none. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—None. B. The Tigard High School envoy was in Washington,DC so there was not a Tigard High School report this evening. C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce—Chamber CEO Mollahan gave a report on current and upcoming Chamber activities. Bowlorama went well and she thanked Tigard Bowl for their longtime support. She announced that the college scholarship application acceptance period has closed and the applications received are being reviewed. The Tigard Shining Stars event is scheduled for April 25,2015, and the chamber is accepting donations for the silent auction. A Farmers Market opens a mid-week on Wednesdays at the Tigard Grange and the Sunday Farmers Market opens on Mothers' Day at the Public Works Building. The Tigard Downtown Affiance is working on sourcing bike racks and baskets for the downtown. D. Citizen Communication—Sign-up Sheet Robert Van Vlack, 15585 SW 109th Avenue,Tigard, OR 97224 represented the Summerfield Civic Association and said he previously brought concerns to the city council regarding pedestrian and golf-cart safety at the four-way stop at the intersection of SW 98th and Summerfield Drive. He said Public Works Director Rager and staff developed a solution of installing a larger stop sign and red flags. He read a letter from the Summerfield Civic Association Board thanking the city for the upgrades made to this intersection and said they are hopeful that this solution will be effective. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) Motion to: A. RECEIVE AND FILE: • Three-month council calendar • Tentative Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 2 of 13 Council President Snider moved for approval of the Consent Agenda and Councilor Henderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse Absent Councilor Henderson ✓ 4. PROCLAIM NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK APRIL 6-11,2015 Mayor Cook proclaimed April 6-11,2015,as National Community Development Week. He mentioned many projects in Tigard that Community Development Block Grants have helped build such as the Senior Center,the homeless shelter and sidewalks. He said there is always more need than money. He said the grant money is divided up by county population and a formula based on need. Councilor Henderson noted that the amount is$3 million per year. 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING—CONSIDER MARIJUANA FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT COE AMENDMENTS a. El Open Public Hearing - Mayor Cook opened the hearing and gave the rules for public testimony. Three of five council members are in attendance so there is a quorum but he explained that the council may not vote on the code amendments tonight. One councilor is at a park and recreation grant proposal seminar and another is attending the National League of Cities Conference in Washington,DC. He said the absent councilors can watch the meeting video so every member hears the testimony but the vote will likely be continued to another meeting. b. Hearing Procedures-Mayor Cook said this is a legislative public hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment. c. Et Staff Report—Associate Planner Floyd Associate Planner Floyd said the code amendments are land use controls that would become effective May 1,2015,when the city's temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries ends. The code amendments were initiated at council direction and satisfy three criteria identified by council: • Regulation of full chain of production and sale • Must be adaptable to evolving state rules • Establish a consistency between medical and recreation markets and production systems TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 3 of 13 He presented a slide show of recommendations from the Planning Commission for text changes to Tigard's Development Code. Future action dates include: • May 1,2015 End of medical marijuana dispensary moratorium • July 1,2015 Possession/use of recreational marijuana is legal • January 1,2016 OLCC must have rules in place to accept applications for four types of commercial marijuana licenses He said Oregon already regulates the location of medical marijuana dispensaries by keeping them 1,000 feet from schools with 1,000 feet between dispensaries, as measured from property line to property line,not building to building. Staff used these as a foundational basis and built upon these minimums. The recreational marijuana rules are unknown and are still under development by the OLCC. Clarifying legislation is likely. There are different regulatory requirements for medical and recreational product and the legislature may combine them for consistency but this has not happened yet. In Measure 91,Section 59 states that cities and counties may adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations regarding the nuisance aspects of establishments that sell marijuana. SB 1531 states that the governing body of a city or county may impose reasonable regulations on the operation of medical marijuana facilities registered or applying for registration. He said regulations must be "reasonable,"but this is not defined.Staff considered what other cities were doing as well as existing Tigard regulations. Regulations must be tied to a nuisance impact (exposure to minors,unpleasant odors,noise,increased crime due to cash and controlled substances,noncompliance with codes,explosions from processing agents,or increased fire,police or code enforcement calls). Mr. Floyd said Tigard has experienced recent explosions due to the illegal manufacture of butane honey oil. Associate Planner Floyd listed community outreach and notifications to obtain public input including the website, online citizen forum,Cityscape articles,business owner surveys,interested parties list,newspaper ads, two public hearings and contact with local reporters. Mr. Floyd summarized proposed text changes as recommended by the Planning Commission. Chapter 18.210—General Administrative Provisions Removes federal consistency requirement and reduces risk of litigation. It increases certainty for investors and property owners and removes the incentive to avoid permits. Chapter 18.735—Marijuana Facilities TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 13 This is a new chapter that applies to commercial or public facilities where a state issued permit or registration is required. It establishes local uniformity for medical and recreational project. It does not apply to personal marijuana grows or use,which would be regulated by existing state law and local nuisance regulations. It is additive to underlying use and zone regulations. Future urban farming code amendments to address chickens and bees, etc., may have a chapter on marijuana growing within the city. Zoning would be retail for retail facilities and general industrial or office for laboratories. The review process is Type 1,a staff-level review with no public notice. Associate Planner Floyd said cities are allowed to create time,place and manner regulations. Included in Chapter 18.735 are regulations covering hours of operation,design and operation of facilities and location. He summarized: o Hours of operation would be 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. This was strongly recommended by the Police Department. General industrial uses such as growing and processing are exempted. o Odor limits. It must not be detectable beyond the property line. o Visible entry; the primary entrance must face the street on 99W or Main Street to allow for natural surveillance from citizens and police. o Exterior lighting is required. o No temporary structures, trailers or drive-through allowed. Location was more contentious,with the Planning Commission amending the staff recommendation. They decided to split out non-retail from retail. Retail is restricted to 99W and Main Street and non-retail can occur in a broader area of the city,based on the buffer restrictions. It allows mixing of types if this is authorized by the state and all local criteria are met.All are subject to the 500 foot buffer from parks and 1,000 foot buffer from schools. Non-retail restrictions include being 500 feet from a residential or park zone and 1,000 feet from schools,measured from the property line. The Planning Commission felt that the staff proposal did not adequately protect the residences of the city, especially those in single-family homes,and did not adequately protect those living in mixed use zones. There was concern about children living in some zones. There were issues of equity. They found it more expedient to say where it would be allowed rather than list all the area they would not be allowed. The Planning Commission arrived at a unanimous recommendation that the businesses had to front 99W.To avoid concentration they suggested 1,000 feet minimum between retail facilities, the buffer already established by state law for medical facilities. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 5 of 13 Associate Planner Floyd showed a map indicating where the facilities could be located if the Planning Commission recommendations are followed and estimated five to nine retail facilities could operate in the 99W corridor, assuming landlord cooperation and availability. For a 50,000 population,nine stores would adequately serve the city. IRMr. Floyd said staff communicated with nearby jurisdictions as 99W connects with other municipalities,and Beaverton responded that they have no concerns with this placement of facilities. In response to a question from Mayor Cook,Mr. Floyd said King City did not respond. He said these two streets are areas where potential operators desire to operate.There has been a lot of interest in these areas. Associate Planner Floyd showed slides of several maps and explained how earlier map versions showed no opportunity for retail businesses in the downtown because of St. Anthony's School to the south of Main Street and a home schooling location on Commercial Street near the north end of Main Street. Updated maps did not show a school and upon further investigation staff found that the school on Commercial had gone out of business. Councilor Henderson asked if this restricts schools from moving into the downtown. Associate Planner Floyd said it would not restrict the school but the marijuana facility would become non-conforming. Mayor Cook said if they remodel,move or get new owners,the business would not be allowed to continue. The Planning Commission looked for zones where residential occupancy is not allowed: industrial lands, neighborhood commercial zones, general commercial. The Planning Commission thought that businesses would not do well in industrial areas because they are more difficult to get to and another reason is their potential to compromise economic development in the industrial zone. Mayor Cook asked about the visibility from the street and gave an example of a business in a strip mall that may be facing Pacific Highway and have a Pacific Highway address,but cannot be seen from the street. He asked if that property would be eligible. Associate Planner Floyd said under a strict reading, no. There needs to be natural surveillance from the street. Council President Snider said many strip mall businesses have Pacific Highway addresses yet do not face the street. Mr. Floyd said if this is a council concern, staff can clarify this. The downtown area would be north of Jeffery Allen to the Joy Theater on 99W. One to two facilities could locate downtown and there has been much interest in this area. Two to three could locate in the Gaarde/McDonald/99W area, depending upon land availability. There is also an area near Bull Mountain Road. The south end of Tigard near Safeway and Albertsons across from King City could have one to two businesses,because of the large parcel size. Council President Snider asked about residential zoning within 1,000 feet behind the Safeway store. Associate Planner Floyd said staff did not factor in distance to residential areas in the retail location placement. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 6 of 13 d. Mayor Cook called on people who had signed up to give testimony. Proponents: Lee Engvall 15461 SW 82nd Place,Tigard, 97224 asked a question about the PowerPoint slide regarding retail facilities and whether the city was extending retail rules to wholesalers. Associate Planner Floyd said they would apply to retail and wholesale facilities selling directly to the public. Mr. Engvall said keeping marijuana out of the hands of children is important. The safety of patients is important and Tigard patients need good access to a local medical marijuana facility. Owners of most of the medical dispensaries are good neighbors that do not want riff-raff hanging around their businesses. He said having a retail shop in town would reduce the carbon footprint because buyers would not have to drive to Portland. Shanna Bernard, 11640 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, OR 97223 said she is a community member,mother,business owner and hopefully, a medical marijuana dispensary owner. She said she, "had a lot in the game here." She said she understands the safety issues and issues about keeping the product away from children. Her husband owns a building on 99W that was discussed previously. She said she realizes the city is considering language modifications regarding the visibility and she wanted to bring something to council's attention. Her husband's building sits on a lot on 99W but is not perfectly facing the street. However, their side-facing business location is perfectly visible from the street and she suggested allowing council to use good judgment and change the language to say the entry point should be visible from the road and/or state road frontage. Ms. Bernard mentioned a second issue. They applied for a minor modification permit from the city that cannot be issued until May 1,but their state provisional marijuana facility license, costing$4,000,expires on April 21. Council may not have voted on regulations by then. She asked if they could be allowed to get the building permit so they can start building out for their required security measures. She noted that her husband is a business owner who invested a lot of money into the building in an area where others have not.They want to revitalize the community and care about Tigard and want to see it grow. This would be a positive step forward. She said there is a lot of regulation so there will not be many facilities. Dimitri Yovko said his questions were answered by the information in the PowerPoint slides. II Brian Bergmann, 11180 SW Hall Boulevard,Tigard,OR 97223,said he has lived in Tigard most of his life. He broke his neck when he was 16 and has used medical marijuana for many years to help manage pain and muscle spasms. Dispensaries provide a valuable service for cardholders to get medicine and restricting the allowed locations to 99W and downtown Tigard will significantly reduce the number of facilities available. He said most landlords for the spaces currently for rent do not want to rent to dispensaries. Adding this to the buffer zone requirements further restricts the potential for dispensaries in Tigard. He said he would like to see dispensaries allowed on 99W, downtown, and other commercial zones within the Tigard city limits. He said he does not want an overabundance of facilities but believes in free enterprise and if multiple dispensaries can open and operate without TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 7 of 13 going out of business they should be allowed to operate within any commercial or retail zone. Mr. Bergmann said the state set up the buffer zones and he didn't know if the city council can change them but it is unfair to interpret the buffer from an aerial view of property lines. He suggested using a buffer of 1,000 feet in a walkable line, as it is more than 1,000 feet to walk from one facility to another. He referred to the previous conversation regarding the school in downtown Tigard that closed. He said he currently has a medical grow that was in place before Westside Christian School moved to the area. He asked if he could be grandfathered in within this instance. Opponents: Connie Ramaekers, 9655 SW Murdoch Street,Tigard, OR 97224, said she has been a resident since 1979, raised seven children that have graduated from Tigard High School and she currently has 15 grandchildren. She has worked for the Tigard-Tualatin School District as a prevention specialist since 1987 and is now the program director for Tigard Turns the Tide,a community coalition. She was present as a representative for Tigard Turns the Tide and for several members of the community. Ms. Ramaekers said the mission of Tigard Turns the Tide is to promote a safe and healthy community by reducing alcohol,tobacco and other drug-related problems within the community. She listed several proposed recommendations based on issues that Colorado and Washington are faced with since legalization. She provided some written material that have been added to the packet for this meeting. Additional regulations suggested: o Facilities should not be located within 1,000 feet of residential areas,parks, schools, public and private daycare facilities, and libraries. o Marijuana facilities should be restricted to operations only within the confines of Tigard's industrial areas. o No butane extraction or hash oil production should be allowed, nor storage of such product within the city limits. o No sales of marijuana edibles attractive to youth such as suckers,gummy bears, cereals, etc., should be allowed. o Retail sales and dispensary hours should be 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. o Storefront windows should be frosted or use non see-through glass so there is no glamorization of displays. Signage should have no pictures representing marijuana leaves and words-only signs should be considered. She strongly encouraged the city council to put the children's' safety and well-being first and foremost and consider the ramifications of these regulations. Morgan Chamberlain 9350 SW Martha Street,Tigard, OR 97224,is a junior at Tigard High School and represents STUD (Stop Teenage Underage Drinking and Drug Use), a school club promoting awareness of the danger of underage drinking and drug use. She spoke TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 8 of 13 before the Planning Commission and wanted to give the same message to council, supporting strict marijuana regulations with an emphasis on banning edibles. Small children have been hospitalized for eating marijuana-infused products. She noted there was no mention of edibles in the regulation discussion tonight. She said it should become more difficult for young people to obtain marijuana and items such as vapor pens and e-cigarettes. She saw three boys on the THS campus with a vapor pen this morning. She said her generation has a twisted perception and a lack of education on the risks of using marijuana. A girl at school told her she believes she drives better while high so has become a designated driver. This ignorance is very dangerous and accidents and hospitalization rates will only grow if regulations are not enacted. She said she does not want to be on the road with high drivers or walk into school through a cloud of smoke. Nick Albano signed up but did not speak. Mike Stevenson,owner of a commercial printing business at 9040 SW Burnham,Tigard OR, 97223, spoke as a property owner and as Tigard Downtown Alliance Vice President. He had two comments. As a business owner in an area identified as one in which marijuana facilities will be allowed,he is concerned that this discussion is being held without much public input. He said the Tigard Downtown Alliance wants to be involved in discussions and has received very limited information. His second comment was to question why Main Street and 99W were lumped together. 99W is a busy thoroughfare with heavy traffic. He thought Main Street was to be revitalized as a much slower, walking, family-friendly area. One goal of the downtown is to add park space. If a marijuana business is located on Main Street will it prevent the city from having park space, a fountain or the development of the Tigard Street Trail? He asked why Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard Triangle,Washington Square and the new area off of Roy Rogers Road were not considered. Mr. Stevenson said he cannot speak for all TDA members because they have not had time to discuss this. He understands that decisions need to be made but decisions should not be made in a vacuum.The TDA Board wants to speak with their group over the next two months and report any concerns or approvals to council. Linda Zumwalt signed up to speak but did not. Sherry Baton, 11020 SW Wilsonville Road#111,Wilsonville, OR said her building is "L- shaped" so the storefront is facing one side but is clearly visible from the street. Mayor Cook agreed that there needs to be clarification about whether visibility is achieved by standing on 99W and looking towards the entrance or if the actual business door needs to face 99W. Associate Planner Floyd clarified that the language states the primary entrance shall be located on street-facing facades and be clearly visible from a public or private street. He said there are instances where because of historical development patterns and the nature of 99W,some buildings may be askew and may have more than one visible facade.There may have to be a case by case analysis. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 9 of 13 She asked if the statement that five to nine facilities could be allowed meant five to nine in a mall area or was it within the entire city. Mayor Cook clarified that by saying staff estimates five to nine facilities on 99W based on a 1,000 foot buffer between them. Associate Planner Floyd said the code does not distinguish between medical and recreational. The two systems may converge at some point. Council President Snider said this was council's direction to keep it simple and consistent in the case that facilities are allowed to have both medical and recreational. Councilor Henderson asked how many medical marijuana dispensaries are presently in Tigard and Associate Planner Floyd said there were none. 11 Mayor Cook said he assumed retail meant recreational marijuana and non-retail meant medical. He asked if a building owner opens a medical dispensary and then decides to change to recreation sales later and the OLCC allows it,would the city determine that they cannot have the two together. Would each type count as one facility and they would have to buy another building 1,000 feet away? He said he would have no trouble with it if a business owner puts a wall down the middle and divides the space into two sales areas. Associate Planner Floyd said co-location could be clarified in the code if council desires. Council President Snider said to the audience that regulation of edibles has been mentioned but will not be addressed because it is not related to land use,which is what is being discussed tonight. He said he had the same question about road visibility and wanted that code section made clearer so less is left to interpretation. He asked for staff comment about why,when looking for large retail space in Tigard,Washington Square is not being considered. He also asked about the commercial zone in River Terrace and why it is not identified as potential space. Associate Planner Floyd said River Terrace was adopted after this process began but the same rules would apply. Under staff recommendation they could locate there but the dimensional calculations have not been made. He showed a slide of the Washington Square area. Council President Snider asked about a gap in the Washington Square area map and Mr. Floyd pointed out that there is a 500-foot buffer around residential. The cemetery is zoned residential. Councilor Henderson referred to Mike Stevenson's question about what comes first. If a school or park is located within an area, a dispensary would have to remain outside the buffer. But if the dispensary goes in first,a school could still locate there and the dispensary would be in non-compliance. He asked Mr. Stevenson if that explanation answered his question. Mr. Stevenson said as we try to redevelop the downtown area,we are trying to bring in more apartments,condos, parks and more places for families. He said he did not see why the downtown is the focus and Washington Square is not being considered. He added that the residential (cemetery) zoned area would not generate complaints. He referred to an earlier comment that a location may be 1,000 feet away on a map but it could still take someone 5,000 feet to get there. He asked why that area would be excluded and suggested that the city may be applying rules that are too rigid in one sense but not in others. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 10 of 13 Council President Snider said there needs to be a better solution for non-conformance issues and staff needs to figure what happens in that scenario.As long as the footprint stays the same does the business get to remain in operation? Otherwise,there could be a group of people opening schools just to shut down marijuana businesses. Mayor Cook asked Associate Planner Floyd if the Planning Commission discussed Washington County's rule that facilities could not be located within 1500 feet of a MAX station. Mr. Floyd said he did not recall that being discussed but said Main Street was identified as easily accessible for a large group of people by transit,walking and driving. He clarified that under the Planning Commission regulations only one facility could be located on Main Street. He said the park buffer distance is for a park zone,not a park boundary. There is no official boundary line for some parks,so it will be measured from a property line.The regulation is only for parks in a park zone.Theoretically there could be a park located in the underlying MU-CBD zone in downtown so the Tigard Street Trail could be implemented through the current zoning. Generally,most parks in the city are in a park zone but it is not always synonymous. Council President Snider asked if there were locations in residential zones that have something on it that would prevent a house from ever being built there, other than the cemetery near Washington Square. Mr. Floyd said there were and mentioned churches, schools,public utility infrastructure and cell towers. Council President Snider said those could be repurposed but a cemetery could not. Mayor Cook said cemeteries do get moved at times. In response to a process question from City Manager Wine,Mayor Cook said the public hearing could be closed but questions could still be asked of staff. He said he would rather deliberate when all of the council is present. Councilor Henderson said the other two councilors will be able to speak at the continuance but the TDA requested time to discuss with their members and bring input to council. Mayor Cook suggested that written testimony remain open. Council President Snider requested that staff do more outreach as suggested by the TDA representative. Associate Planner Floyd said the Planning Commission president has requested to speak at the next public hearing but accepting future oral testimony is up to the council. Councilor Henderson said he wanted it to remain open so council"gets it right." Council President Snider said he preferred only accepting written testimony. He said the TDA and Planning Commission President can provide additional written testimony. He said if oral testimony is kept open,council's ability to make decisions and take action is problematic. Mayor Cook agreed because there could be two hours of public testimony and then council would need to make a decision because this must be done by May 1. If the city's regulations are not adopted by then,Tigard will be under state rules. Councilor Snider asked if staff had a suggestion for the citizen with the issue of the provisional license running out before the city can issue a building permit.Associate Planner Floyd said the space may not be approved for retail so a change of use may need to be done. He recommended that the person come in and talk to staff at the Permit Counter. He proposed that the moratorium be lifted early. Mayor Cook asked if the ordinance is approved on April 14,when is it effective. Associate Planner Floyd said it has an emergency clause and will be effective immediately upon adoption. Assistant Community Development Director McGuire recommended that the prospective applicant who had the permit issue come in and meet with staff to discuss potential solutions. They may be able to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 11 of 13 get their security system in place and change the use later. Council President Snider remarked that his response was the kind of creativity he was looking for. Councilor Henderson asked what the current use is and Associate Planner Floyd said it has been vacant. laCity Manager Wine asked council to raise any questions prior to deliberation on the April 14 continuance date so staff can respond in time for council review of those responses. Mayor Cook said he would offer some hints about the direction he is considering. He agreed with the TDA and said if Main Street is in the"mix" for marijuana facilities,he wonders why Scholls Ferry Road is not included. A facility would be just as visible from Scholls Ferry Road as on Main Street. Council Henderson asked if he was willing to put that in writing for the rest of the council. Mayor Cook said he is just saying that if the majority of council do not want it on Main Street, Scholls Ferry Road or the Washington Square/Hall Boulevard are alternatives. He asked for clarification on the visibility from the street. He also asked if the Les Schwab building would be considered part of the Washington Square area. Council President Snider said he conceptually likes 99W on some level but it may be overly restrictive on retail. He said he did not know if a business will end up in Washington Square as their management is selective about tenants and there is also no road frontage which challenges the code recommendation about visibility from a street. Mayor Cook said he met previously with Councilor Woodard and Councilor Goodhouse about this topic. Councilor Woodard said the 500 foot buffer was too restrictive and wanted a lesser number for a residential buffer. City Manager Wine said there is also time available at the April 7 CCDA meeting if council would like additional separation between deliberations and the decision. Councilor Henderson said he would prefer that. f. Close Public Hearing—Mayor Cook closed the oral testimony and continued the public hearing until April 7,2015. Written testimony may be submitted through April 1,2015. g. Council Discussion and Consideration of Ordinance 15-04—hearing was continued to April 7,2015. 6. NON AGENDA ITEMS - None. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 9:29 p.m.Mayor Cook announced that the Tigard City Council will enter into an executive session. The executive session is called to discuss real property negotiations under ORS 192.660 (2) (e). He said the city council will adjourn from the Red Rock Creek Conference Room after the Executive Session. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov Page 12 of 13 8. ADJOURNMENT At 9:45 p.m. Council President Snider moved for adjournment. Councilor Henderson seconded the motion and all voted in favor Yes No Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse Absent Councilor Henderson ✓ Carol A. Krager, City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 10, 2015 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov Page 13 of 13 City of Tigard • City Council and City Center Development Agency ril Joint Meeting Minutes TIGARD March 24, 2015 CCDA 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Councilor Woodard reported he attended a Park and Recreation workshop participating in classes such as foundation development,master plans,grant writing,corporations and government,principles,cost recovery, contract services,performance measures and a think tank.There was great networking and educational sessions.He found Ogilvie,Chicago is the example to follow for recreation as they have a 99%cost recovery. He stated he was looking forward to attending again next year. Councilor Goodhouse reported on his trip to the National League of Cities conference in Washing DC with over 1,300 elected officials.He attended classes on transportation,planning, finance and ideal communities. An ideal community was pedestrian friendly and reports show 88%of citizens want quality of neighborhoods over quality of home.Desire for walkability was at 9%.There was discussion at the conference about ways of bringing in revenue like building apartments versus large box retail.The budget session was enlightening and received ideas like employers providing bus passes to employees to help increase walkability and participation in eco programs.He stated he got to see Senator Merkley on the floor,hear President Obama speak and got to meet Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden.He concluded with saying he got the opportunity to lobby for municipal bonds and transportation infrastructure. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Cook called the executive session to order at 6:46 p.m. to discuss real property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2)(e)held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Chair Cook closed the executive session at 7:07 p.m.and reconvened the public meeting. C. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS City Manager Wine stated items for the upcoming 5x1x10s were provided in the mail bag,which included talking points,maps of route options for the SW Corridor,and survey cards for attendees to fill out. She also went over Council's calendar of events. Mayor Cook adjourned the Study Session at 7:14 p.m. 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 1. CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING A. Mayor Cook called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. y � P TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 6 B. Deputy City Recorder Alley called the roll: Name Present Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard V C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items—None announced. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—None to report. B. Citizen Communication Mayor announced people wanting to speak on marijuana will need to submit their testimony in writing by April 1 if they want it to go into the record for the April 14 public hearing. Mr.Shannon Spahan,Lost Park Society Kung Fu Academy Owner, 12215 SW Main Street,Tigard,testified he was notified by his landlord that a marijuana dispensary is moving in next to his establishment. He said he has a martial arts school with children and teaches anti-bully and drug education. He asked what the boundaries were and what was going to happen. Mayor Cook responded dispensaries have to be 1,000 feet from a school and on April 14 council will discuss time,place and manner.Consideration is for Pacific Highway or Main Street,and dispensaries must follow the distance from schools rule.Mr.Spahan said he did not believe a marijuana dispensary on Main Street was appropriate with the events that go on downtown such as the Christmas event,Halloween trick or treating,summer events and others. Mr.Tom Cook, 13835 SW Hillshire Drive,Tigard,expressed concern for Oregon's definition of schools compared to other states and the close proximity to schools allowing easier access to under aged students.He said he was opposed to a dispensary downtown because a dispensary changes the demographics of downtown. He also said he spoke with the owner of the downtown ballroom center,whom was not aware of this action,and the owner is opposed to it as well. Ms. Linda Cook, 13835 SW Hillshire Drive,Tigard,testified she is a retired school teacher and shared her concern to have a dispensary in the downtown close to young people.There is an alternative school next to the ballroom club and suggested the location parameters should be extended to more than just an elementary or high school. Mr.Shawn Keren, 14150 SW Barrows Road,Tigard,stated looking at the marijuana dispensary matter from an economic perspective in relation to how much money was spent for the downtown beautification project and asked if a dispensary is really what the city wants to project for Tigard as that will be the first thing people see.Dispensaries can not be stopped from coming in,but maybe they can have their own area. Mr.Michael Brewin,11225 SW Morgan Court,Tigard,testified he is concerned about the noise pollution from air traffic and has noticed flight patterns have changed over Tigard creating more noise.In the past people in the West Hills,Forest Heights and other areas complained about flight patterns.Then the flight patterns changed shifting more over Tigard.Planes are flying at 500 feet,which is lower than the FAA requirement of 1,000 feet.This is increasing the noise and a risks of an accident.Mayor Cook suggested he check with the Port of Portland or the FAA. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 6 Mr.Reid Iford, 11575 SW Pacific Highway,Suite 140,Tigard, stated Tigard citizens can vote to keep marijuana dispensaries out of the city,so he will be collecting signatures to put on the ballot to keep dispensaries out of the city. He requested a moratorium on allowing dispensaries until there is an election. Mayor Cook responded the city has a moratorium for as long as allowable by the state. It does not extend to the November 2016 election when a petition could be on the ballot,so dispensaries can come and will need to move if the measure is approved to ban them in the future. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: • January 27,2015 • February 10,2015 • February 17,2015 • February 24,2015 B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR THE WALNUT STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 15-09—A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 14-46,LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND DEPICTIONS,AND TO DECLARE THE NEED TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING STREET AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SW WALNUT STREET FROM 116TH AVENUE TO TIEDEMAN AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY C. ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 15-10—A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANT (2015)TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERPRETIVE SHELTER/RESTROOM AT DIRKSEN NATURE PARK No items were pulled for separate consideration. Councilor Woodard moved for approval of the consent agenda,seconded by Councilor Henderson.Motion passed by unanimous vote of members present. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ 4. ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE METRO REGIONAL GOVERNMENT'S ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY DIRECTION TO CREATE A REGIONAL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM Associate Transportation Planner Bernard summarized the staff report in the packet announcing he landed a $150,000 grant to hire a dedicated Safe Routes to School(SRTS)coordinator for two years. He stated he is seeking council's support for the SRTS program. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 3 of 6 Councilor Henderson asked how the city would raise the money.Mr.Bernard said the$40 million is the total funding gap need for SRTS for the region.Community Develop Director Asher said this is not saying this is how much Tigard should raise,rather the possible need for the entire SRTS program. Councilor Goodhouse moved to approve Resolution No. 15-11,seconded by Councilor Woodard. Motion passed by unanimous vote of council members present. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ •Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ 5. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING:APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO PUBLIC TRAILS,ELECTRONIC SIGNS AND UTILITY CABINETS Open Public Hearing.Mayor Cook opened the public hearing and announced this was a Legislative Public Hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment. Staff Report: Associate Planner Floyd and Associate Planner Pagenstecher provided the staff report outlining the four changes to the development code changing the size of utility cabinets,reclassification to community trails inside the transportation corridor,change to the sign code in the Washington Square area allowing electronic message centers on free standing signs and clarifying sign regulations around electronic message centers with illumination and lastly,expansion of the stationary overlay in the downtown allowing for higher density for property zoned residential.Mr.Floyd handed out additional written testimony received since the last public hearing,which were entered into the record. Public Testimony: Ms. Carine Arendes,9524 SW North Dakota Street,Tigard,testified the CCAC reviewed this ordinance and supports it.She said she is also in favor of this ordinance and did not have concerns about the transfer of the parks and recreation zone and as there will be property available for parks.The train designation enhances access to parks and allows more access to downtown.Lastly,the expansion of the overlay is going to expand opportunities for downtown and flexibility for individual property owners. Mr.Michael Brewin, 11225 SW Morgan Court,Tigard,expressed concern for the language establishing a design for above ground utility cabinets on private property and how large they may be as shown in pictures he handed out,which were entered into the record. He asked if these regulations were applicable to only new development or if it would affect existing neighborhoods.Mr.John Floyd said regulations are only for new development.Mr Brewin suggested the council consider restricting above ground utility boxes to commercial property or on main arterial roads,restrict the maximum height to 36 inches and be cognizant and respectful of neighborhood CC&Rs. Staff Recommendation:Associate Planner Floyd stated staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. Close Public Hearing.Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. Council Deliberation: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES-MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 6 Mayor Cook asked how neighborhood CC&Rs could be taken into consideration.City Attorney Olsen replied if the cabinets are in a public easement the public easement would control,but if it was on private property and a new easement was created it would be subject to the neighborhood CC&Rs. Discussion commenced on the height requirement and changing it from 48 inches to 36 inches. Councilor Woodard motioned to approve Ordinance No. 15-05,amending the size requirement from 48 inches to 36 inches,seconded by Councilor Henderson.Motion passed by unanimous vote of council members present. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ 6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING:APPROVING A POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO TIGARD'S ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS Open Public Hearing:Mayor Cook opened the public hearing and announced this was a Legislative Public Hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment. Staff Report: Economic Development Manager Purdy and Associate Planner Pagenstecher summarized the staff report accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation which was entered into the record.They reported this ordinance amends the BOA allowing owners of industrial zone property with a slope greater than ten percent to request a zone change and then prompts the council to refer to the EOA to gauge available land supply. Public Testimony: None. Staff Recommendation:Economic Development Manager Purdy stated staff recommends approval as presented. Close Public Hearing:Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. Council Deliberation: Councilor Goodhouse motioned to approve Ordinance No. 15-06,seconded by Councilor Henderson. Motion passed by unanimous vote of council members present. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard V TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 5 of 6 7. APPROVE A RESOLUTION GRANTING FIVE NON-PROFIT LOW INCOME HOUSING PROPERTIES EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES UNDER TMC 3.50 Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance presented the staff report stating this is an annual routine tax exemption request. Councilor Henderson motioned to approve Resolution No. 15-12,seconded by Councilor Woodard. Motion passed by unanimous vote of council members present. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS—None CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair Cook called the City Center Development Agency executive session to order at 9:10 p.m. to discuss real property transactions under ORS 192.660(2)(e)held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room.Chair Cook closed the executive session at 9:39 p.m.and reconvened the public meeting in Town Hall. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 9:39 p.m. Councilor Goodhouse motioned to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Councilor Woodard. Motion passed by unanimous vote of the council members present. Name Yes _Lvt2_ Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Norma I.Alley,Deputy City Recorder Attest John L. Cook,Mayor Date: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES—MARCH 24,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 6 of 6 AIS-2058 3. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Agreement Regarding Revised Funding for the Pacific Highway/Gaarde St./McDonald St. Intersection Improvements Prepared For: Mike McCarthy Submitted By: Judy Lawhead, Public Works Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall council authorize the mayor to sign an agreement regarding revised funding for the Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street intersection improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the council authorizes the mayor to sign the agreement. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At a December 9,2014,meeting, the council discussed a funding shortfall related to the Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street intersection improvement project. Due to higher construction costs, the project bid was $1.1 million more than expected. The council subsequently voted to increase city funding of the project to cover the increased cost, and the mayor acknowledged the city's commitment to provide this additional funding in a letter to ODOT. The minutes from the December 9 meeting and the mayor's letter are attached. The project budget was adjusted accordingly during the second quarter supplemental budget adjustment. This amendment to the IGA: •Formalizes the city's commitment to provide the additional project funding. •Includes a provision that allows the city to receive a refund of up to $1.1 million if the actual total project costs are less than the expected$10,944,630 estimate. •Updates the project manager's name and contact information. OTHER ALTERNATIVES This amendment formalizes action taken by the council on December 9,2014. Within the constraints of the council's previous action, the council could propose changes to the amendment. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS This project is included in Tigard's Transportation System Plan, and is included as project number 95033 in the adopted Capital Improvement Plan. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION •At a December 9,2014,meeting, the council voted to increase city funding—by$1.1 million—to cover the increased project cost. •In October 2014,the council approved the first amendment to the IGA,which increased county funding and acknowledged construction of a city-owned water line across Pacific Highway. •In February 2013,the council approved the original IGA. Fiscal Impact Cost: $1.1 million Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department/program): CIP #95033 Additional Fiscal Notes: This amendment increases the city's contribution to the project by $1.1 million to cover higher-than-expected construction costs. At a December 9, 2014,meeting,the council voted to increase city funding of the project to cover the increased cost,and the project budget was adjusted accordingly during the second quarter supplemental budget adjustment. Attachments IGA Amendent Mayors Letter to ODOT Excerpt of December 9,2014,Minutes Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 28161 AMENDMENT NUMBER 02 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 2003 OREGON TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT MODERNIZATION and SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM — Urban OR 99W: Gaarde/McDonald Intersection Improvements The STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State;" and Washington County, acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the City of Tigard, Acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "City," all herein referred to individually or collectively as "Party" or "Parties," entered into an Agreement on April 10, 2013 and Amendment No. 1 on October 22, 2014. Said Agreement and Amendment covers the modernization and intersection improvements to OR 99W at SW Gaarde Street and SW McDonald Street. It has now been determined by Parties that the Agreement referenced above shall be amended to increase the City's contribution to address the increase in total Project cost due to high construction bid. Except as expressly amended below, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement are still in full force and effect. Revised Exhibit A-1 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Revised Exhibit A-1 (V2). All references to "Exhibit A" shall hereinafter be referred to as "Revised Exhibit A-1 (V2)." TERMS OF AGREEMENT, Paragraph 2, Page 3, which reads: 2. The Project is estimated to cost $9,840,000. Due to the uncertainty of cost estimates, the Parties agree to finance the Project at $9,850,000. Funding will come from the following funding sources: $944,630 from the 2003 OTIA Modernization Program: $3,000,000 from the Surface Transportation Program: $1,500,000 from City and up to $4,400,000 from County funds. The estimate for the total Project cost is subject to change. City shall be responsible for any nonparticipating costs, and Project costs beyond the State, County, and federal money that is being contributed pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 below. Shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 2. The Project is estimated to cost $10,915,000. Funding will come from the following funding sources: $944,630 from the 2003 OTIA Modernization Program; $3,000,000 from the Surface Transportation Program; up to $2,600,000 from City; and up to $4,400,000 from County funds. The estimate for the total Project cost is subject to change. City shall be responsible for any nonparticipating costs, and Project costs beyond the State, County, and federal money that is being contributed pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 below. Key. No. 16968 County/City/State Agreement No. 28161-02 TERMS OF AGREEMENT, Paragraph 13, shall be added as follows: 13.The Parties agree that the City's additional contribution of $1,100,000, provided as of this Amendment No. 2, shall be applied to Project costs after all previously agreed to Federal and County contributions and after the City's original $1,500,000 contribution. In the event the Project costs do not exceed the expected total Project financing cost of $10,944,630, the City shall be refunded any remaining City funds in excess of its original $1,500,000 contribution. CITY OBLIGATIONS, Paragraph 11, Page 7, which reads: 11. City's Project Manager for this Project is Michael Stone, City Engineer, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223, 503-718-2759, mstone @tigard-or.gov, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. City shall notify the other Parties in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. Shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 11. City's Project Manager for this Project is Mike McCarthy, Senior Project Engineer, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223, 503-718-2462, mikem @tigard-or.gov, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. City shall notify the other Parties in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Amendment so executed shall constitute an original. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. This Project is in the 2012-2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, (Key #16968) that was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on March 21 , 2012 (or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP). Signature Page to Follow 2 Mar. 12. 2015 3: 23PM No. 4950 P. 1/1 County/City/State Agreement No. 28161-02 CITY OF TIGARD, by and through its STATE OF OREGON, by and through elected officials its Department of Transportation By By Highway Division Administrator Date Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By City Counsel By Date Region 1 Manager Date WASHINGTON COUNTY, by and through its Board of County Commissioners APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By. By Date Assistant Attorney General Date 3 / / 2 /3— APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By State Contact: County Counsel Matthew Freitag, P.M. 123 NW Flanders St Date Portland, OR 97209 503-731-4851 matthew.d.freitag @odot.state.or.us City Contact: Mike McCarthy, P.E. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 503-718-2462 mikem @tigard-or.gov County Contact: Gary Stockhoff, CPM 1400 SW Walnut St., MS 18 Hillsboro, OR 97123-5625 503-846-7820 Gary.Stockhoff@co.washington.or.us 3 County/City/State Agreement No. 28161-02 REVISED EXHIBIT A-1(V2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Tigard Washington County OR 99W: Gaarde/McDonald Intersection Improvements The City of Tigard proposed, and the Oregon Transportation Commission has endorsed a Federal Transportation Reauthorization Request to improve safety and capacity of this heavily congested intersection of Highway 99W. Considering the fact that the new arterials proposed for addressing traffic demand from 99W to 1-5 are likely a number of years away, it is important that the existing route function as safely and efficiently as possible. The planned improvement include improved bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections, access management, improved capacity and additional turn-lanes. Project Cost Estimate Project Financing Preliminary engineering City Contribution $2,600,000 & design $1,850,000 County Contribution $4,400,000 Right of way purchase $3,565,000 STP (including match) $3,000,000 Construction $5,500,000 OTIA $ 944,630 Total $10,915,000 Total $10,944,630 4 114 TIGARD City of Tigard December 9, 2014 Shelli Romero, Interim Region 1 Manager Oregon Department of Transportation 123 NW Flanders Street Portland, OR 97209 RE: Hwy 99W/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street Improvement Project Dear Ms. Romero, We understand that the recently opened bids for the Hwy 99W/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street project came in higher than expected and that the total project cost is now expected to be about $10.9 million; about $1.1 million more than the amount of funding currently allocated for this project. We have identified funds that we currently have available and are willing to use to fill this funding gap up to the anticipated project cost of$10.9 million. City Council voted on December 9, 2014, to authorize use of those funds for this project. We request that ODOT award the construction contract for this project and take other action as necessary to advance the project. It is our understanding that an amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be prepared to memorialize this revised project funding. While we are thankful for ODOT's expertise in managing this project,we are concerned about the potential for further cost overruns in the construction phase,beyond the city's control. We have very little funding available to cover additional costs. We understand that ODOT and city staff have discussed this matter and have proposed additional amendments to the IGA. We ask that the IGA amendment include a provision that ODOT, Washington County and the city proportionally share any costs above the anticipated$10.9 million project cost. Sincerely, L pp 61/4 Joh L. Cook,Mayor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171 TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard-or.gov Fxcerpt from December 2014, Minutes oismastasse City Manager Wine and Public Works Director Rager provided an update on the Hwy 99W/McDonald/Gaarde Project(HMGP)and requested a motion authorizing the mayor to send a letter to ODOT confirming Tigard's commitment to the HMGP at this phase,including the future commitment of city gas tax funds per TTAC recommendation. Ms.Wine said during the last week and a half staff received information that the project bid is$10.1 million which is $1.1 million more than estimated for the project.This project is a partnership with the city of Tigard,ODOT,and Washington County who all have invested monies into seeing it completed.ODOT is requesting a letter from the mayor confirming the city of Tigard's commitment to fund and move forward with the project.Ms.Wine asked for council's support to draft this letter. Councilor Snider asked if it was written into the project agreement that the city is responsible for any overages of funds.Ms.Wine answered that is correct,whether the project is in the design or construction phase Tigard is responsible for overages. Councilor Woodard said this is one of the highest injury intersections and is in desperate need of a fix.This area needs to be taken care of and this is an important project.There has been a lot in the works for this project and a lot of commitment from partners. Councilor Buettner said this project and all of the issues on 99W the main reason the city council was urged to adopt the gas tax.The Greenburg Road intersection was looked at as the first to fix TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—DECEMBER 9,2014 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Ha119Ivd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 www.tigard-or.gov( Page 11 of 13 and the Gaarde/McDonald intersection as the second project.She said she is pleased the city has a fairly stable income source to fund these types of projects. Councilor Snider said his heartache is understanding how the estimate was off by so much.This is a big difference in the design estimate perspective.Councilor Snider said before he was prepared to act he thought the council deserved some sort of explanation. Streets and Transportation Senior Project Engineer McCarthy introduced ODOT Project Manager Matt Freitag and ODOT Interim Area Manager Shelli Romero.Mr.Freitag reported all jurisdictions came to an agreement through the intergovernmental agreement(IGA)on the original project cost. At about 50 percent into design it was recognized the original footprint was not a good fit so the original footprint and scope of the project was reduced and funds were added through the IGA in order to move forward. Mr.McCarthy said the project need was established in 2008 and in 2009 the city worked with the state to collect investment act funding.City staff began preliminary design and in 2010-2011 the city thought it would be best if the project was led by ODOT at which point the initial IGA came together.In 2013 it was identified that the project would not fit into the original budget so work began to scale back the scope.This brings us to today and the economy has picked up,prices are rising and cost of construction material has gone up from estimates put together four years ago.Mr. Freitag added with the scale back there has been a 5200,000.00 savings on the right-of-way. Councilor Snider asked how much money would be left on the table from other jurisdictions if the city walked away and what the implication would be to the project.Mr.McCarthy replied there would be over$8 million from other jurisdictions.Ms. Wine commented one of the reasons the partnership was mentioned is not only the financial commitment,but also the good will of working with the county and state. Cotuicilor Snider said he is going to support moving the project forward,but felt it was important for the community to understand how this decision affects them and the good of the project. Councilor Woodard said the council could decide to not do this and wait to complete the project, but costs will get more expensive. Council President Henderson said many dollars will be lost if the project does not get done now. Councilor Snider moved to authorize the mayor to send a letter to ODOT confirming Tigard's commitment to the MCDonald/Gaarde Project at this phase,including the future commitment of city gas tax funds per TTAC recommendation. Councilor Buchner seconded the motion.The motion passed with the following vote. Name Yes No Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Council President Henderson ✓ Councilor Buchner ✓ Councilor Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION—None held. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—DECEMBER 9,2014 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 13 AIS-2179 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider HEAL City Campaign Resolution Prepared For: Dana Bennett,City Management Submitted By: Dana Bennett,City Management Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Council to consider a resolution declaring the City of Tigard a participant in the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) City Campaign. STAFF RECOMMENDATION /ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that Council adopt the HEAL City Resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The HEAL City Campaign is a project of the Oregon Public Health Institute and the League of Oregon Cities and is funded by Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiatives. The HEAL Campaign encourages cities to create policies that expand options for every person to have affordable and convenient access to wholesome foods,encourage and provide access to physical activity,and build a culture of wellness for municipal employees. The Campaign has three components. •Encourages education about the impact our built environment and food environment have on our health,emphasizing that the status quo presents an on-going health risks to children. •Offers alternatives and resources.Campaign staff members have compiled a library of model policies and best practices from cities around the country to create more options for active living,healthy eating,and workplace wellness. •Provides free technical assistance to help each city identify,adopt and implement the necessary policies As a HEAL city,Tigard would join a consortium of 25 Oregon cities that are working to improve the public health of their residents through the adoption and implementation of policies and programs.These cities have adopted and implemented policies supporting healthy options such as bike lanes,community gardens,and city employee health incentives. Tigard enjoys a number of policies and initiatives that support healthy living in our community, from our farmer's markets,to our recently adopted strategic plan.As official participants in the Campaign, that work will be recognized through our initial evaluation and city designation.The HEAL program has four levels level 1 is designated for cities doing minimal work toward encouraging healthy eating,active living and/or workplace wellness.While Level 4 is designated for cities with well-developed programs. In our opinion,Tigard will be initially designated at level 3 initially.We will have an opportunity to reach level 4 through new initiatives being planned. As a HEAL City participant,we will work to improve the community health of Tigard residents. The need for improved community health is highlighted in Washington County statistics that show we still have a ways to go to mitigate health issues associated with chronic diseases,cancer,heart disease,diabetes,obesity,strokes, chronic lower respiratory disease and Alzheimer's disease. By adopting the HEAL resolution,the City of Tigard will be furthering our Strategic Plan goal to be the most walkable city in the Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities can lead healthy interconnected lives. Participating will allow the city to show its commitment to its residents and internal staff by being leaders in adopting policies and programs geared towards ensuring that our residents and staff have access to education and healthier choices. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could decide against joining the campaign. COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Joining the HEAL City campaign furthers the city's strategic plan to make Tigard more walkable and to encourage people of all ages and abilities to enjoy healthy and interconnected lives. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NA Attachments HEAL Resolution CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY LIVING FOR THE COMMUNITY WHEREAS,improving livability and community health are important goals; and WHEREAS the nutrition and physical activity choices that individuals make for themselves and their families are influenced by their environment; and WHEREAS local policies on land use & transportation, access to healthy food, and shared use determine whether options for healthy eating and active living are within reach of the people who live,work,go to school,play or worship in the city; and WHEREAS high rates of costly chronic disease among both children and adults are correlated to environments with few or no options for healthy eating and active living; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is a member of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC); and WHEREAS,in 2010, the LOC partnered with and supported the national Let's Move! Campaign led by the First Lady of the United States, and has encouraged Oregon cities to adopt preventive measures to fight obesity; and WHEREAS, in 2012, the LOC partnered with the Oregon Public Health Institute (OPHI) in the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Cities Campaign, and encouraged all Oregon cities to join the HEAL Cities Campaign and qualify as a HEAL City by accepting information, training and technical assistance from OPHI staff on policies to support healthier eating and increased physical activity levels for all residents, create more livable communities, and create a culture of wellness at municipal workplaces, and adopting at least one recommended HEAL policy; and WHEREAS, the city has reviewed the Heal Cities Policy Menu and finds it meets multiple criteria outlined in each of the policy menu areas; WHEREAS, the city has or is in the process of implementing aspects of its Strategic Planning goals to address walkability and promote a healthier lifestyle both for its citizens and employees including supporting Tigard Walks and Safe Routes to Schools; RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby recognizes that joining the HEAL Cities Campaign has the potential to improve local livability and have a positive impact on the community's health and well-being. To that end, the City of Tigard adopts this HEAL Resolution; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff shall work with HEAL Cities Campaign Staff to explore HEAL policies and identify those policies that may be suitable for the City's unique local circumstances. Those policies shall then be evaluated and considered for adoption. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that city staff will establish a goal of increasing the City of Tigard's HEAL designation up one level within twelve months of the adoption of this resolution, though the implementation of additional policies and programs as determined through working in partnership with the HEAL Campaign staff. This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor- City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15-_ Page 2 AIS-2000 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): 35 Minutes Agenda Title: Legislative Public Hearing on Storm water,Parks,and Transportation SDCs and fees Prepared For: Toby LaFrance Submitted By: Debbie Smith-Wagar Financial and Information Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Public Hearing-Legislative Meeting- Main Public Hearing Yes Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall Council adopt an ordinance adopting a methodology and other provisions relating to the imposition and collection of parks and transportation system development charges (SDCs) for the City of Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has been reviewing ways to finance Tigard's future system infrastructure (streets,water,sewer,storm, parks and public facilities systems) over the last year.This effort is being done for citywide purposes,in concert with the River Terrace Infrastructure Funding Strategy. On December 16,2014,Council adopted the River Terrace Infrastructure Funding Strategy,representing the financial toolbox for funding needed infrastructure in River Terrace. Many of the adopted recommendations need Council action to implement. Included in that strategy are System Development Charges (SDCs) for Parks and Transportation. SDC's are one-time charges paid by developers to pay for their impact on city infrastructure. Council discussed the SDC proposal in workshops on February 17,2015 and March 17,2015. The city currently has a citywide Parks SDC and the funding strategy recommends an update as well as the creation of an area-specific Parks SDC for River Terrace.The city does not have its own Transportation SDC, but uses the Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) for a similar purpose (to fund transportation system needs as a result of growth).A citywide Transportation SDC provides additional needed resources to help build and improve roads.The funding strategy recommends that Tigard create a citywide Transportation SDC and develop a River Terrace specific Transportation SDC. Based on the direction provided in the River Terrace Funding Strategy and the two workshops,this hearing provides Council the opportunity to adopt Parks and Transportation SDC's with the following key policy decisions: 1.Both Parks and Transportation SDC's will have a citywide reimbursement portion,citywide improvement portion,and River Terrace Overlay. 2.Both Parks and Transportation SDCs are discounted from the maximum fee permitted by law. This is consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy 3.The citywide SDCs for parks and transportation and the River Terrace Overlay SDC for parks will issue credits in the current standard method where SDC credits are issued to overbuilding a facility beyond the local portion. 4.The River Terrace Overlay Transportation SDC will issue additional credits roughly equal to 50%of the local portion of the facility. This is to incentivize construction and share the costs of River Terrace Blvd. 5.SDC Credits will be transferable between developers within the SDC fee area for which they were earned. 6.SDC Credits will expire within 10 years. 7.Transportation SDCs will be discounted for smaller homes and for transit oriented developments in Downtown. Adoption of the new fees requires two hearings. This first hearing will adopt the SDC methodology and procedures by amending the TMC. A second hearing to follow will adopt the fees by amending the Master Fees and Charges. Attached to this hearing packet are: 1.Staff PowerPoint presentation 2.Ordinance adopting the SDC methodology and proceedures by replacing TMC 3.24,including Exhibit A with the new TMC language. 3.Parks SDC Methodology Report,including: a.Original Public Review Draft of the Methodology Report that has been available for review for over 60 days,as required by state law. b.Addendum to the Original Public Review Draft showing the changes that have been made to the document,based on Council policy direction provided in public workshops. c.Exhibit B-Final Methodology Report that is being adopted. This is the clean copy that amends the original document with the changes presented in the addendum. 4.Transportation SDC Methodology Report,including: a.Original Public Review Draft of the Methodology Report that has been available for review for over 60 days,as required by state law. b.Addendum to the Original Public Review Draft showing the changes that have been made to the document,based on Council policy direction provided in public workshops. c.Exhibit C-Final Methodology Report that is being adopted. This is the clean copy that amends the original document with the changes presented in the addendum. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council can continue the hearing to request additional information from staff and consultants prior to adoption of the SDC methodology. This will result in a delay in implementing the SDCs. Council could propose no action on the SDCs.The result of no action is that funding for infrastructure does not keep up with growth. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES,MASTER PLANS Infrastructure Financing Project(River Terrace and Citywide) •Council briefing •SDC notice and methodology •Council hearing I DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION 05/20/2014-River Terrace Funding Strategy Introduction 06/17/2014-River Terrace Preliminary Funding Strategy and Parks and Transportation System Plan Addenda Briefing 07/08/2014-Infrastructure Financing Project(River Terrace&Citywide) Discussion 08/12/2014-LCRB award to FCS Group for Infrastructure Financing Study 09/23/2014-River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Briefing 10/21/2014-River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Plan Briefing Follow-up 12/16/2014-River Terrace Funding Strategy Adoption 02/17/2015 -Parks and Transportation SDCs Workshop 03/17/2015 -Second Parks and Transportation SDCs Workshop Attachments Presentation Ordinance and Exh.A Exhibit B-Parks SDC Methodology Report Exhibit C-Transportation SDC Methodology Report Parks SDC Public Review Draft Parks SDC Addendum Transportation SDC Public Review Draft Transportation SDC Addendum CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 95-28 AND 93-33 IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND REPLACING TMC 3.24. WHEREAS,the City has commissioned and authorized the preparation of a methodology for calculation of transportation related system development charges (SDCs) for the City of Tigard,resulting in a new"Parks SDC Methodology Report" and"Transportation SDC Methodology Report," ;and WHEREAS,the City intends to use its transportation SDCs as a way to balance the capital funding needed for improved transportation facilities between existing residents and future residents of this community,and, WHEREAS,the City Council desires to adopt a revised and updated system development charge program that reflects the current requirements and authorizations of ORS 223.297 through 223.314. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: TMC 3.24 set by Ordinance No. 95-28 and 93-33 are hereby repealed in their entirety SECTION 2: The System Development Charge program in Exhibit A is hereby adopted pursuant to ORS 223.297 through 223.314 and replaces TMC 3.24. SECTION 3: The Parks SDC Methodology Report in Exhibit B is adopted. SECTION 4: The Transportation SDC Methodology Report in Exhibit C is adopted. SECIION 5: This ordinance shall be effective on July 1, 2015 after its passage by the council,signature by the mayor,and posting by the city recorder. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 1 PASSED: By vote of all council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of 2015. Carol A Krager,City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2015. John L.Cook,Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 2 Exhibit A System Development Charge Program Sections 3.24.010 Purpose 3.24.020 Scope 3.24.030 Definitions 3.24.040 System Development Charge Established 3.24.050 Methodology 3.24.060 Authorized Expenditures 3.24.070 Expenditure Restrictions 3.24.080 Capital Improvement Plan 3.24.090 Collection of Charge 3.24.100 Installment Payments 3.24.110 Exemptions 3.24.120 Credits 3.24.130 Notice 3.24.140 Segregation and Use of SDC Revenue 3.24.150 Appeals and Procedure 3.24.160 Prohibited Connection 3.24.170 Penalty 3.24.180 Severability 3.24.190 Effective Date 3.24.010 Purpose A. This ordinance is intended to implement the authority provided by ORS 223.297 through 223.314 adopting and imposing system development charges (SDC) for capital improvements for the purpose of creating a fund to pay for the installation, construction, extension, and expansion of capital improvements. The purpose of the system development charge is to impose a portion of the cost of capital improvements for water,wastewater drainage, streets, flood control, and parks upon those developments and redevelopments that create the need for or increase the demands on the system. ORDINANCE, No. 15- Page 3 3.24.020 Scope A. The SDC created and imposed by this ordinance is separate from, and in addition to, any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or fee otherwise provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. 3.24.030 Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions apply: A. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a second residential dwelling unit created on a single lot with a single-family or a manufactured housing dwelling unit. The second unit is created auxiliary to, and is always smaller than, the single family or manufactured housing residential dwelling unit. B. "Administrator" means that person, or persons, appointed by the City to manage and implement the SDC program or portions thereof. C. "Applicant" means the person who applies for a building permit. D. "Building Official" means that person, or designee, certified by the State and designated as such to administer the State Building Codes for the City. E. "Building Permit" means that permit issued by a Building Official pursuant to the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code Section 301 or as amended, and the State of Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code Section R-109 or as amended. In addition, "Building Permit" shall mean a Manufactured Home Installation Permit issued by the Building Official, relating to the placement of manufactured homes in the City. F. "Capital Improvements"means facilities or assets used for the following: 1. Water supply, treatment, distribution, or any combination; 2. Sewage and wastewater collection, transmission, and disposal; 3. Drainage or flood control; 4. Transportation; or 5. Parks and Recreation. G. "Capital Improvements Plan" also called the CIP, means the City program that identifies facilities and improvements projected to be funded, in whole or in part, with SDC revenues. H. "City" means the City of Tigard, Oregon. I. "Condition of Development Approval" is any requirement imposed on an Applicant by the City, a City or County land use or limited land use decision, or site plan approval. J. "Construction Cost Index"means the Engineering News Record(Seattle) Construction Cost Index. K. "County" means Washington County, Oregon. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 4 L. "Credit" means the amount by which an Applicant may be able to reduce the SDC fee as provided in this Ordinance. M. "Development" means a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of capital improvements or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital facilities. N. "Duplex" means two attached single-family dwelling units on a single lot. O. "Improvement Fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the effective date of this ordinance. P. "Multi-Family Housing" means three or more attached residential dwelling units located on a single lot. Q. "New Development" means development for which a Building Permit is required. R. "Over-capacity" means that portion of an improvement that is built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary to serve the Applicant's New Development or mitigate for system impacts attributable to the Applicant's New Development. S. "Permit" means a Building Permit. T. "Permittee"means the person to whom a building permit, development permit, a permit or plan approval to connect to the sewer or water system, or right-of-way access permit is issued. U. "Previous use" means the most intensive use conducted at a particular property within the past 18 months prior to the date of application for a building permit. Where the site was used simultaneously for several different uses (mixed use) then, for the purposes of this Ordinance, all of the specific use categories shall be considered. Where the previous use is composed of a primary use with one or more ancillary uses that support the primary use and are owned and operated in common,that primary use shall be deemed to be the sole use of the property for purposes of this Ordinance. V. "Proposed use"means the use proposed by the Applicant for the New Development. Where the Applicant proposes several different uses(mixed use) for the New Development then, for purposes of this Ordinance, all of the specific use categories shall be considered. Where the proposed use is composed of a primary use with one or more ancillary uses that support the primary proposed use and are owned and operated in common, that primary use shall be deemed to be the sole proposed use of the property for purposes of this Ordinance. W. "Qualified Public Improvement" means any system capital facility or conveyance or an interest in real property that increases the capacity of the City's System and is: 1. Required as a condition of development approval; 2. Identified as a need in the SDC Methodology Report; and ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 5 3. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval,or 4. Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and, in the opinion of the Administrator, is required to be built larger or with greater capacity (over-capacity) than is necessary for the Applicant's New Development or mitigate for system impacts attributable to the Applicant's New Development. There is a rebuttable presumption that improvements built to the City's minimum standards are required to serve the Applicant's New Development and to mitigate for system impacts attributable to the Applicant's New Development. X. "Reimbursement Fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements that have been constructed or were under construction prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Y. "Remodel" or"remodeling" means to alter, expand or replace an existing structure. Z. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or a portion of a building consisting of one or more rooms, which include sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities and are arranged and designed as permanent living quarters for one family or household. AA. "Row house" means an attached single-family residential dwelling unit on a single lot. BB. "Single-family dwelling unit" means one detached residential dwelling unit, or one-half of a duplex, or one row house. CC. "Parks SDC Methodology Report" means the report entitled Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Methodology Report, dated April 27, 2015. DD. "Transportation SDC Methodology Report" means the report entitled Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report, dated April 27, 2015. EE."SDC Administration Procedures Guide" means that report entitled System Development Charges Administration Procedures Guide, dated April 27, 2015. 3.24.040 Systems Development Charge Established A. SDCs shall be established and may be revised from time to time by resolution of the council. The resolution shall set the amount of the charge, the type of permit to which the charge applies, the methodology used to set the amount of the charge, and if the charge applies to a geographic area smaller than the entire city, the geographic area subject to the charge. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 6 B. Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of this ordinance or any other applicable local or state law, a SDC is hereby imposed upon all development within the city. SDCs are imposed upon the act of making a connection to the City water or sewer system within the City,upon all development outside the boundary of the City that connects to or otherwise uses the sewer or water facilities of the City, and whenever the City Council has authorized an intergovernmental agreement which permits the City to impose a parks SDC outside the City limits. 3.24.050 Methodology A. The methodology used to establish the reimbursement fee shall be based on ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements, prior contributions by then-existing users, gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons, the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of the existing facilities, and other relevant factors identified by the city council. The methodology shall promote the objective that future systems users shall contribute no more than an equitable share of the cost of then-existing facilities and shall be available for public inspection. B. The methodology used to establish the improvement fee shall consider the projected cost of capital improvements identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to Section 3.24.080 that are needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related and for which the need for increased system capacity will be required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users. Improvement fees shall be calculated to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available system capacity for future users. C. The methodology shall also provide for periodic indexing of system development charges for inflation, as long as the index used satisfies the following criteria: 1. "(A)A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three; 2. (B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and 3. (C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate ordinance, resolution or order." D. Except when authorized in methodology adopted under subsection 3.24.050, any fees imposed or required to be paid, assessed, or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed by a land use decision are separate from and in addition to the SDC and shall not be used as a credit against an SDC. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 7 E. The methodology used to establish the improvement fee or the reimbursement fee, or both, shall be adopted by resolution by the council. 3.24.060 Authorized Expenditures A. Reimbursement fees. Reimbursement fees shall be applied only to capital improvements (and not operating expenses) associated with the system for which the fees are associated, including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness. B. Improvement Fees. 1. Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for the improvements. An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide service for future users. 2. A capital improvement being funded wholly or in part from revenues derived from the improvement fee shall be included in the plan adopted by the city pursuant to Section 3.24.080. 3. Notwithstanding subsections 3.24.060.B.1 and .2, SDC revenues may be expended on the costs of complying with the provisions of this Chapter, including the costs of developing systems development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of systems development charge funds. 3.24.070 Expenditure Restrictions A. SDCs shall not be expended for the following: 1. Costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements; or 2. Costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements. 3.24.080 Capital Improvement Plan A. The council shall adopt a capital improvement plan that: 1. Lists the capital improvements that may be funded with improvement fee revenues; and ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 8 2. Lists the estimated cost,percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improvement fee for each improvement, and time of construction; and 3. Describes the process for modifying the plan. If a SDC will be increased by a proposed modification of the list to include a capacity increasing capital improvement, the city shall provide, at least thirty(30) days prior to the adoption of the modification, notice of the proposed modification to the persons who have requested written notice under Section 3.24.130. The city shall hold a public hearing if a written request for a hearing on the proposed modification is received within seven(7)days of the date the proposed modification is scheduled for adoption. 3.24.090 Collection of Charge A. The SDC is payable upon issuance of: 1. A building or construction permit of any kind, including any permit or permits issued in connection with the set-up or installation of any trailer, mobile or manufactured home; 2. A development permit; 3. A development permit for development not requiring the issuance of a building permit; 4. A permit to connect to the sewer system; or 5. A permit to connect to the water system. B. If development is commenced or connection is made to the water system, sewer system, or storm system without an appropriate permit, the SDC shall be immediately due and payable upon the earliest date that a permit was required. C. The Administrator shall collect the applicable SDC from the Permittee. The Administrator shall not issue such permit or allow such connection until the charge has been paid in full, or unless an exemption is granted pursuant to Section 3.24.110, or unless provision for installment payments has been made, pursuant to Section 3.24.100,which follows. 3.24.100 Installment Payment A. When a SDC is due and payable, the Permittee may apply for payment in twenty (20) semi-annual installments, secured by a lien on the property upon which the development is to occur or to which the utility connection is to be made, to include the SDC along with the following: ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 9 1. Interest on the obligation at the rate stated in the city's Master Fees and Charges. If no rate is set, then the interest on the obligation will default to prime rate as published by the Wall Street Journal the day of application plus 4%; 2. Any and all costs, as determined by the Administrator, incurred in establishing payment schedules and administering the collections process; B. The intent of this section is to recognize that the payment of an SDC by installments increases the administrative expense to the city. It is the intent of this subsection to shift that added expense to the applicant, so that the city will not lose SDC revenue by accepting installment payments on such charges. Subject to the provisions of this section, all costs added to the SDC will be determined by the Administrator. C. An Applicant requesting installment payments shall have the burden of demonstrating the Applicant's authority to assent to the imposition of a lien on the property and that the interest of the Applicant is adequate to secure payment of the lien. D. The Administrator shall docket the lien in the lien docket. From that time, the City shall have a lien upon the described parcel for the amount of the SDC together with the costs in paragraph 3.24.100.A.1 and .2. The lien shall be enforceable in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223, and shall be superior to all other liens pursuant to ORS 223.230. 3.24.110 Exemptions A. The following are exempt from a SDC. 1. Structures and uses established and existing on or before the effective date of the resolution which sets the amount of the SDC are exempt from the charge, except water and sewer charges, to the extent of the structure or use existing on that date and to the extent of the parcel of land as it is constituted on that date. Structures and uses affected by this subsection shall pay the water or sewer charges pursuant to the terms of this Chapter upon the receipt of a permit to connect to the water or sewer system. 2. Additions to single-family dwellings that do not constitute the addition of a dwelling unit, as defined by the Building Code adopted pursuant to Section 14.04 of this Code, are exempt from all portions of the SDC. 3. An alteration, addition, replacement or change in use that does not increase the parcel's or structure's use of a capital improvement are exempt from all portions of the SDC. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 10 3.24.120 Credits A. A SDC shall be imposed when a change of use of a parcel or structure occurs,but credit shall be given in an amount equal to the existing SDC as applied to the pre- existing type and level use. The credit so computed shall not exceed the calculated SDC. No refund or credit shall be made on account of such credit. B. An improvement fee credit shall be given for the cost of a bonded or completed qualified public improvement associated with a development upon acceptance by the City of the improvement, subject to the following conditions: 1. Such credit shall be only for the improvement fee charged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for qualified public improvements under Subsection 3.24.030.W may be granted only for the actual, estimated, or agreed-upon cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the city's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development property or project. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies as a Subsection 3.24.030.W qualified public improvement. The request for credit shall be filed in writing no later than sixty(60) days after acceptance of the improvement by the City. 2. When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development approval, the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project, if any. C. Credits shall be used within ten(10) years from the date the credit is given, after which the credit shall expire, and be null and void, without the need for the city to take any further action. D. Credit shall not be transferable from one type of capital improvement to another. E. Credits may be transferable from one development to another. F. Credits for any SDC, or for the Washington County Transportation Development Tax, shall only be used for obligations relating to the charge and capital improvement type for which the credit was issued. 3.24.130 Notice A. After the effective date of this ordinance, the city shall maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to adoption or amendment of a methodology for any SDC. Written notice shall be mailed to persons on the list at least ninety(90)days prior to the first hearing to establish or modify a SDC, and the methodology supporting the adoption or amendment shall be available at least sixty(60) days prior to the first hearing to adopt or amend. The failure of a person on the list to receive a notice that was mailed shall not invalidate the city's subsequent action. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 11 B. The city may periodically delete names from the list, but at least thirty(30) days prior to removing a name from the list the city must notify the person whose name is to be deleted that a new written request for notification is required if the person wishes to remain on the notification list. C. A change in the amount of a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee is not a modification of the SDC methodology if the change in amount is based on a change in cost of materials, labor or real property applied to projects or project capacity as set forth on the list adopted pursuant to Section 3.24.080 or the periodic application of one or more specific cost indices published by a recognized organization or agency and is incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate ordinance, resolution, or order. 3.24.140 Segregation and Use of SDC Revenue A. All funds derived from a particular type of SDC are to be segregated by accounting practices from all other funds of the city. That portion of the SDC calculated and collected on account of a specific facility system shall be used for no purpose other than those set forth in this Chapter. B. The Administrator shall provide an annual accounting of SDCs showing the total amount of system development charge revenues collected for each type of facility and the projects funded from the account. 3.24.150 Appeals and Procedure A. A person aggrieved by a decision required or allowed to be made by the city recorder under this ordinance or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of SDC revenues may appeal the decision or the expenditure to the City Council by filing a written request with the Administrator describing with particularity the decision of the Administrator or the expenditure from which the person appeals. B. Appeal of an Expenditure: An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two (2)years of the date of the alleged improper expenditure. The council shall determine whether the Administrator's decision or the expenditure is in accordance with this ordinance and the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 and may affirm, modify or overrule the decision. If the Council determines that there has been an improper expenditure of SDC revenues, the council shall direct that a sum equal to the misspent amount shall be deposited within one(1) year to the credit of the account or fund from which it was spent. C. Appeal of an SDC Methodology: Legal action challenging the methodology adopted by the council pursuant to Section 3.24.050 shall not be filed later than sixty(60)days after the date of adoption, and shall be contested according to the ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 12 procedure set forth in ORS 34.010 to 34.100, and not otherwise. D. Appeal of an SDC Calculation or Credit Determination. 1. A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Administrator relating to the calculation of SDCs may file an appeal within ten(10) days of the Administrator's action. 2. Appeals must be made by filing a written request with the Administrator and must include a recommended solution to the issue that has initiated the appeal. 3. Appeals may be filed to challenge only the trip generation rate or land use category that is applicable to the project. 4. The City Council shall consider all appeals and shall render a decision to affirm, modify, or overrule the decision of the Administrator. 5. The City Council's decision shall be made in accord with the intent of the provisions of this ordinance. 3.24.160 Prohibited Connection A. No person may connect to the water or sewer or storm systems of the City unless the appropriate SDC has been paid. 3.24.170 Penalty A. Violation of this Chapter is a Class A infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed$500. 3.24.180 Severability A. The provisions of this ordinance are severable, and it is the intention to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided for. If any clause, section, or provision of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause,the remaining portion of this ordinance shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated herein. It is hereby declared to be the Council's intent that this ordinance would have been adopted had such an unconstitutional provision had not been included herein. ORDINANCE No. 15- Page 13 Exhibit B Tigard, Oregon TIGARD PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY REPORT April 9, 2015 •• GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials, including the bronze wire binding and the front and back cover,which are made from post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. I � TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page i This page intentionally left blank •:;> FCS C i RO U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1 A. Policy 1 B. Project 1 SECTION II: APPROACH 3 A. Reimbursement Fee 3 B. Improvement Fee 3 C. Growth 3 D. Compliance Costs 4 E. Geographic Allocation 4 F. Summary 4 SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION 5 A. Relevant Types of Growth 5 B. Population Growth 5 B.1 Expected Growth 5 B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units 5 C. Employment Growth 6 C.1 Expected Growth 6 C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents 6 SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION 8 A. SDC Reimbursement Fee 8 B. Facility Needs 9 C. Facility Costs 9 SECTION V: SDC CALCULATION 1 A. Calculated SDCs by Use 12 B. Residential and Non-Residential SDC Calculations 12 B.1 Residential SDC Calculation 12 B.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation 12 C. Annual Adjustment 13 D. Credits, Exemptions and discounts 13 D.1 Credits 13 D.2 Exemptions 14 D.3 Discounts 14 D.4 Tigard Parks SDCs After Discount 14 E. Existing and Proposed SDCs 15 •:;> FCS G RO U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page iii APPENDIX 16 •:;> FCS C R)U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 1 SECTION I : BACKGROUND This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. A. POLICY Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system development charges (SDCs). These are one-time fees on new development which are paid at the time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC: • A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements already constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists" • An improvement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed" ORS 223.304(1) states, in part, that a reimbursement fee must be based on"the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities" and must account for prior contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant-funded facilities. The calculation must "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed). ORS 223.304(2) states, in part, that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words, the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement fee may be spent only on capital improvements (or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed). B. PROJECT In August, 2014, the City of Tigard(City) contracted with FCS GROUP to update its SDCs for parks. This report documents our findings and recommendations. We approached this project as a series of three steps: • Framework for Charges. In this step, we worked with City staff to identify and agree on the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis. • Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates. •::> FCS RCS U P TIGARD,OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 2 • Draft Methodology Report Preparation. hi this step,we documented the calculation of the draft SDC rates included in this report. This Tigard Parks and Recreation SDC Methodology Report is intended to be generally consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014. The adopted funding strategy supports the creation of an SDC overlay district within the River Terrace Plan District. Please refer to City of Tigard Community Development Code: Map 18.660 for tax lots that are included in the River Terrace Plan District (Exhibit 1.1). Once this Parks SDC methodology is adopted, future development in Tigard would be subject to a citywide SDC, and development within River Terrace would also be subject to both the citywide SDC and the River Terrace SDC. Exhibit 1.1: River Terrace Plan District Ri%cr Terrace Plan District 2t 1_i Fla^otwlasanawr �O TIGARD O Tow op Body 1 pso- r E ! 1 1 r r r 1 r r r 1 r . r r 1 1 1 r 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD • 1 1 1 ! , 1 / 1 1 1 O 3 •:;> FCS (;R0 U TIGARD.OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 3 SECTION II : APPROACH This section provides a non-numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated,excess (i.e.,not currently utilized) capacity must be available to serve future growth. The reimbursement fee is the original cost of available capacity per unit of growth which will use that capacity. The unit of growth,whether number of new residents or number of new employees,is the basis of the fee. For parks facilities, available capacity is equal to that portion of the current inventory of parks facilities that exceeds the adopted standard for level of service. B. IMPROVEMENT FEE The improvement fee is the cost of capacity-increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those projects will serve. The unit of growth,whether number of new residents or number of new employees,is the basis of the fee. In reality,the capacity added by many projects serves a dual purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth.To compute a compliant SDC rate, growth-related costs must be isolated and costs related to current demand must be excluded. We have used the"capacity approach"to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth-related capacity that projects of a similar type will create. For example,suppose that a city's master plan included the acquisition and development of 100 acres of new neighborhood parks. Suppose further that our analysis determined that 30 acres were required to meet existing demand, and 70 acres were required to serve future users. In that case,only 70 percent of the cost for any new neighborhood park would be eligible for recovery with an improvement fee. C. GROWTH Growth should be measured in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of parks,the most applicable units of growth are population and,where appropriate, employees (or new jobs). However,the units in which demand is expressed may not be the same as the units in which SDC rates are charged. Many SDCs, for example,are charged in the basis of new dwelling units. Therefore, conversion is often necessary from units of demand to units of payment. For example, using an average number of residents per household, the number of new residents can be converted to the number of new dwelling units. •;>. FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 4 D. COMPLIANCE COSTS ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on"the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects,this report includes an estimate of compliance costs in its SDC rates. E. GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION Parks SDCs are often calculated and applied uniformly throughout a municipality,but such uniformity is not a legal requirement.Municipalities can calculate and impose area-specific SDCs. Area-specific SDCs allow a municipality to identify and isolate differential costs to serve particular areas within its jurisdiction. SDCs are calculated separately for each area,and improvement fees must be spent on projects in the improvement fee cost basis for the area in which those improvement fees were earned. Area-specific SDCs can be implemented in two ways.The first way is to divide the municipality into a set of non-overlapping areas.Under this method,the SDCs for a particular area are determined by the assets,projects, and projected growth in that area. The second method is a layered approach. The first layer consists of a citywide SDC based on assets and projects of citywide benefit. The second layer consists of one or more overlays. Each overlay is a separate list of assets and projects that benefit a particular area within the city. For each overlay, the cost bases are divided by projected growth in that particular area. Development within an overlay pays both the citywide SDC and the overlay SDC. Development outside of an overlay pays only the citywide SDC. Given the City's desire to isolate the costs of serving River Terrace, we recommend(and have calculated in this report) both a citywide SDC and an overlay SDC for River Terrace. F. SUMMARY In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee component,improvement fee component,and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand.The unit of demand becomes the basis of the charge. Exhibit 2.1 shows this calculation in equation format: Exhibit 2.1 - SDC E.uation Eligible costs of Costs of Eligible costs of SDC per unit of available capacity in + capacity-increasing + complying with - growth in existing facilities capital Oregon SDC demand improvements law Units of growth in demand Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 5 SECTION III : GROWTH CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the denominator in the SDC equation. A. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH Parks and recreation facilities benefit City residents,businesses, non-resident employees, and visitors. The methodology used to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDCs establishes the required connection between the demands of growth and the SDC by identifying specific types of park and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of residents and employees for each type of facility. The SDCs to be paid by a development meet statutory requirements because they are based on the nature of the development and the extent of the impact of that development on the types of park and recreation facilities for which they are charged. The Parks and Recreation SDCs are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the City's population and employment. For facilities that are not generally used by employees (e.g., neighborhood parks), only a residential SDC may be charged. For facilities that benefit both residents and employees(e.g.,community parks), an SDC may be charged for both residential and non-residential development. B. POPULATION GROWTH Having established the relevance of population, we now quantify expected growth in population and convert the result to dwelling units. B.1 Expected Growth Based on the City's Transportation System Plan (as amended to include River Terrace), the City's population is expected to grow from 50,851 in 2015 to 72,034 in 2035. In other words,the City is expected to add 21,183 residents over 20 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.76 percent per year. Of the 21,183 new residents, 6,174 are expected to reside in River Terrace. B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units Residential SDCs are initially calculated based on costs per capita but are ultimately charged based on dwelling units. To convert population to dwelling units, we analyzed data gathered for Tigard from the 2010-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.1 shows the resulting conversion factors: ••;> FCS ( RO L i 7 TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 6 Table 3.1: Residents Per Dwelling Unit,City of Tigard Dwelling Residents per Units Residents Dwelling Unit Single-family residences 14,099 35,891 2.55 Multifamily/other residences 6,718 13,027 1.94 Total or Average 20,817 48,918 2.35 Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,tables B25024 and B25033.Compiled by FCS Group. C. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Having established the relevance of employment in Section II, we now quantify expected growth in employment and convert the result to population equivalents. As used here, employee means someone who works in the City regardless of place of residence. Employees may live inside or outside the City. Later in this report, we will be more concerned with non-resident employees in particular. C.1 Expected Growth Based on the City's Transportation System Plan (as amended to include River Terrace), the number of persons employed within the City is expected to grow from 39,536 in 2015 to 54,381 in 2035. In other words, the City is expected to add 14,845 employees over 20 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.53 percent per year. Of the 14,845 new employees, 75 are expected to work in River Terrace once a small commercial center is added. C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents The parks and recreation facilities described in the recently adopted master plans were mostly designed with the needs of both residents and non-resident employees in mind. It is therefore appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to both residents and non-resident employees. The only exceptions are neighborhood parks. These facilities were designed for the needs of residents only and it is therefore appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to residents only. While most parks and recreation facilities benefit residents and non-resident employees, these two groups do not utilize parks and recreation facilities with the same intensity. To apportion the demand for facilities between non-resident employees and residents in an equitable manner, a non-resident- employee-to-resident demand ratio must be calculated based on differential intensity of use. First, we estimate the potential demand for parks and recreation facilities. Appendix A-1 identifies potential use by different population groups in a manner that averages day-of-week and seasonal effects. These averages are based on the maximum number of hours per day that each population group would consider the use of parks and recreation facilities to be a viable option. In the final panel of Appendix A-1 (Demand by Population Group), we multiply the weighted average hours by an actual count for each population group based on data from the U. S. Census Bureau. We then apportion this potential demand among residents (four population groups) and non-residents (one population group). This approach is used to estimate the allocation of parks usage among residents and non-residents, which is summarized in Figure 3.2. The findings indicate that residents comprise 83 percent of the expected level of parks demand and non-residents that work within the city comprise 17 percent of •::> FCS CR01 • TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 7 the demand. These estimates are subsequently used in the next Section of this report to allocate the eligible SDC cost shares between these two user groups. Figure 3.2: Allocation of Parks Demand by User Group Non-Residents that Work in Tigard 17% Residents 83% Source:derived from analysis provided in Appendix A-1. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 8 SECTION IV : COST CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. A. SDC REIMBURSEMENT FEE Table 4.1 summarizes the reimbursement fee cost basis, which represents the cost of available capacity in existing parks facilities. Table 4.1: SDC Reimbursement Fee Basis Reimbursement Fee Citywide Cost Basis Cost byfacility type Community parks $ 9,313,497 Open space 1,214,637 Total $ 10,528,134 Allocation to residential growth: Community parks $ 7,704,984 Open space 1,004,860 Total allocation to residential growth $ 8,709,844 Allocation to non-residential growth: Community parks $ 1,608,513 Open space 209,777 Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 1,818,290 Adjustments and Allocation Summaries Adjustments: Compliance costs ' $ - Donated or grant-funded assets (533,974) Remaining debt service' 234,357 Fund balance ' - Total adjustments $ (299,617) Allocation to residential growth: Facilities $ 8,709,844 Adjustments (247,871) Total allocation to residential growth $ 8,461,973 Allocation to non-residential growth: Facilities $ 1,608,513 Adjustments (51,746) Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 1,556,767 Calculated SDC-r Residential reimbursement fee per capita $ 399 Non-residential reimbursement fee per employee $ 105 Source: E mails from Steve Martin(10/08/2014,10/14/2014 and 10/27/2014);Park System Master Flan,2009. 'Based on Appendix A-2 calculatons for remaining debt service on exisitng parks bond. •:•> FCS t 14)U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 9 B. FACILITY NEEDS For purposes of this SDC methodology,each of the City's park facilities falls into one of the following five categories: • Neighborhood and pocket parks • Community parks • Linear parks • Open spaces • Trails(includes trails not identified in the Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report project list) Appendix A-3 compares the current inventory of facilities in each category with that category's adopted level of service. In the third panel,that comparison leads to a determination of surplus or deficiency for each category. Projects are eligible for improvement fee funding only to the extent that the projects will benefit future users. Therefore,only the categories with no deficiency(community parks, open space,and trails) are 100 percent eligible for improvement fee funding. As shown in the fifth panel (Improvement Fee Eligibility),the eligibility percentages of the remaining two categories, neighborhood/pocket parks and linear parks, are reduced to reflect the level of deficiency. Because some facility types have undeveloped land in their current inventory,the deficiency of land decreases within those types. Therefore,neighborhood/pocket parks have a higher improvement fee eligibility percentage for land acquisition. C. FACILITY COSTS The City provided a list(Table 4.2) of parks projects by category and area of benefit using project improvements identified in adopted parks and trails master plans for Tigard and River Terrace. Eligibility percentages are derived from the estimates indicated in Figure 3.2. Applying those percentages to the future Parks project capital costs results in a citywide improvement fee cost basis of$59.6 million and a River Terrace improvement fee cost basis of approximately $9.0 million. 4 FCS G ROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 10 Table 4.2: SDC Improvement Fee Basis SDCi 'tiSDci City Cost Eligibility City Cost for Eligibility for SDCi Cost Planned Improvement Projects Timing for Land for Land Develo•ment. Develo•ment Basis Projects with Citywide Benefit Neighborhood/pocket parks: Cannot exceed 34.05 acres Cannot exceed 57.05 acres. Bonita Park 0-10 years $ - 93.32% $ 75,000 55.70% $ 41,771 Metzger Elementary School 5-15 years - 93.32% 437,000 55.70% 243,388 Northview Park 5-15 years - 93.32% 367,000 55.70% 204,401 Proposed Local Park(P12) 5-15 years 549,840 93.32% 927,000 55.70% 1,029,380 Proposed Local Park(P9) 5-15 years 1,202,775 93.32% 927,000 55.70% 1,638,670 Future Neighborhood Park 10+years 4,811,100 93.32% 2,947,800 55.70% 6,131,286 Total neighborhood/pocket parks 9,288,896 Community parks: Cannot exceed 42.10 acres. Cannot exceed 61.10 acres. Sunrise Community Park 0-10 years - 100.00% 2,468,000 100.00% 2,468,000 New Community Park(P11) 5-15 years 100,000 100.00% 900,000 100.00% 1,000,000 New Community Park Complex 10+years 6,108,325 100.00% 10,084,000 100.00% 16,192,325 Fanno Creek Park: Urban Plaza 0-10 years 687,300 100.00% 4,100,000 100.00% 4,787,300 Community park in River Terrace 0-10 years 7,508,000 100.00% 8,386,000 100.00% 15,894,000 Total community parks _ 40,341,625 Linear parks: Cannot exceed 37.04 acres. Cannot exceed 37.04 acres. Tigard Triangle Area(P3) 0-10 years - 71.48% 250,000 71.48% 178,707 Commercial Park 5-15 years - 71.48% 545,000 71.48% 389,580 Englewood Park 5-15 years - 71.48% 1,340,000 71.48% 957,867 Fanno Creek Park: Park Gateway 0-10 years - 71.48% 850,000 71.48% 607,602 Fanno Creek Park: Upland Park 0-10 years - 71.48% 1,100,000 71.48% 786,309 Undeveloped Linear Park(P7) 5-15 years - 71.48% 275,000 71.48% 196,577 Total linear parks 3,116,642 Open space: Cannot exceed 66.14 acres Cannot exceed 66.14 acres. 5-15 years 412,380 100.00% - 100.00% 412,380 10+years 567,023 100.00% - 100.00% 567,023 Total open space 979,403 Trails: Cannot exceed 6.75 miles. Cannot exceed 6.75 miles. Fanno Creek(alreadyfunded)(trail project) 0-10 years - 100.00% 670,000 100.00% 670,000 Westside Trail 0-10 years - 100.00% - 100.00% - TigardStreet(trailprojectA) 0-10 years - 100.00% 634,000 100.00% 634,000 Fanno Creek(trail project C) 0-10 years - 100.00% 1,040,000 100.00% 1,040,000 Fanno Creek&Tualatin River(trail project D) 0-10 years - 100.00% 1,609,500 100.00% 1,609,500 Summer Creek(trail project F) 0-10 years - 100.00%' 742,500 ' 100.00% 742,500 Fanno Creek(trail project G) 5-15 years - 100.00% - 100.00% - Fanno Creek(trail project H) 5-15 years - 100.00% 206,500 100.00% 206,500 Tigard Street(trail project I) 5-15 years - 100.00% - 100.00% - Ascension(trailprojectN) 10+years - 100.00% 461,000 100.00% 461,000 Krueger Creek&Summer Creek(trail project P) 10+years - 100.00% 495,500 100.00% 495,500 _Total trails 5,859,000 Total projects with citywide benefit $ 59,585,565 .Projects with River Terrace Benefit Neighborhood/pocket parks $3,752,000 93.32% $ 2,975,000 55.70% $ 5,158,130 Linear parks 3,128,000 71.48% 228,000 71.48% 2,398,956 Trails 690,000 100%' 764,000 100% 1,454,000 Total projects with River Terrace benefit $ 9,011,086 Source E-mail(attachment)from Steve fvfartin,09/24/2014. Abbreviation: SDO=improvement fee. Note: This list does not include projects w hose fining as designated as either"corrpleted"or"in process." SDCi:hprovernent Fee •:•> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 11 After determining the total eligible costs, they must be allocated between residents and non-residents using the percentages shown previously in Figure 3.2. We also adjust the costs to include costs of compliance and exclude current SDC fund balance and future debt service on the unspent portion of bond proceeds. Table 4.3 summarizes and allocates the improvement fee cost basis after all adjustments. Table 4.3: SDC Improvement Fee by Area Improvement Fee . Area-Specific SDC River Terrace Citywide SDC Overlay SDC Total Single SDC Project Costs Eligible project costs by facility type: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ 9,288,896 $ 5,158,130 $ 14,447,025 $ 14,447,025 Community parks 40,341,625 40,341,625 40,341,625 Linear parks 3,116,642 2,398,956 5,515,598 5,515,598 Open space 979,403 979,403 979,403 Trails 5,859,000 1,454,000 7,313,000 7,313,000 Total eligible project costs by facility type $ 59,585,565 $ 9,011,086 $ 68,596,651 $ 68,596,651 Allocation to residential growth: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ 9,288,896 $ 5,158,130 '$ 14,447,025 $ 14,447,025 Community parks 33,374,315 33,374,315 33,374,315 Linear parks 2,578,373 1,984,638 ' 4,563,011 4,563,011 Open space 810,252 • 810,252 810,252 Trails 4,847,106 1,202,883 ' 6,049,988 6,049,988 Total allocation to residential growth $ 50,898,942 $ 8,345,651 $ 59,244,593 $ 59,244,593 Allocation to non-residential growth: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ - $ - $ - $ - Community parks 6,967,310 ' 6,967,310 6,967,310 Linear parks 538,268 414,318 ' 952,586 952,586 Open space 169,150 - • 169,150 169,150 Trails 1,011,894 251,117 ' 1,263,012 _ 1,263,012 Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 8,686,623 $ 665,435 $ 9,352,058 $ 9,352,058 Adjustments and Allocation Summaries Adjustments: Compliance costs $ 660,000 $ - $ 660,000 $ 660,000 Debt service for parks bond (2,550,009) (2,550,009) (2,550,009) Fund balance (1,124,011) (1,124,011) (1,124,011) Total adjustments $ (3,014,020) $ - $ (3,014,020) $ (3,014,020) Allocation to residential growth: Facilities $ 50,898,942 $ 8,345,651 '$ 59,244,593 $ 59,244,593 Adjustments (2,574,624) - • (2,574,624) (2,603,107) Total allocation to residential growth $ 48,324,318 $ 8,345,651 $ 56,669,969 $ 56,641,486 Allocation to non-residential growth: Facilities $ 8,686,623 $ 665,435 '$ 9,352,058 $ 9,352,058 Adjustments (439,396) - • (439,396) (410,914) Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 8,247,227 $ 665,435 $ 8,912,662 $ 8,941,144 1,° _ .'ibt- ems_ Residential improvement fee per capita 2,281 $ 1,352 $ 3,633 $ 2,674 Non-residential improvement fee per employee $ 602 $ - $ 602 $ 602 Note Non-residential SDC is calculated on a cityw ide basis.even though some costs can be alocated to Raver Terrace. •:;> FCS G RO U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 12 SECTION V : SDC CALCULATION This section provides a detailed calculation of the residential and non-residential SDCs. A. CALCULATED SDCS BY USE Dividing the reimbursement and improvement fee cost bases by projected growth in population and employees results in a calculated SDC per unit of growth. The results of this calculation are summarized in Table 5.1: Table 5.1: SDC Improvement Fee b Use* + . .,� $mprovement Fees* Area-Specific SDC River Terrace River Terrace Citywide Overlay Total Residential SDCs Total cost basis $48,324,318 $8,345,651 Growth in population 21,183 6,174 SDC per capita $2,281 $1,352 $3,633 SDC per single family dwelling $5,807 $3,441 $9,248 SDC per multifamily/other dwelling $4,372 $2,591 $6,963 Non-Residential SDCs Total cost basis $8,941,144 Growth in employment 14,845 SDC per employee** $602 $602 Note: Non-residential SDC is calculated on a citywide basis,even though some costs can be allocated to Fiver Terrace. *includes corn pliance costs.**SDC per enpbyee to be assessed based on square feet of floor area. Because only 75 new employees are expected in River Terrace over the next 20 years, the non- residential overlay SDC for River Terrace would have been prohibitively expensive. Therefore, we have calculated the non-residential SDC on a citywide basis only. B. RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC CALCULATIONS B.1 Residential SDC Calculation When we convert population to the dwelling units, we can determine the total maximum allowable SDC fee per dwelling unit as shown in Table 5.1. SDCs for residential development are calculated by multiplying the number of dwellings(by housing category) by the corresponding SDC rate. B.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation To calculate SDCs for proposed redevelopment of existing buildings, the SDC for non-residential uses will take into account the amount of floor area(square feet) proposed as a change in use. •:;> FCS G RO U 1' TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 13 The SDC calculation for new non-residential development takes into account the amount of proposed floor area(square feet). The Parks SDC for non-residential development will vary by the classification of development as shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Parks SDC Conversion Factors for Non-Residential Uses Parks Employees Parks SDC Per Per 1,000 SDC Per Category Employee' SF 2 1,000 SF General Industrial $707 1.25 $884 Warehousing/Distribution $707 0.80 $566 Flex $707 1.60 $1,132 Office $707 3.33 $2,357 Retail $707 2.22 $1,572 Institutional $707 2.00 $1,414 1SDC reflects proposed reimbursement fee, improvement fee, and compliance fee. 2Derived from Metro factors used for 2014 Urban Growth Report Source:Compiled by FCS GROUP. C. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT We have reviewed the City's method for annual adjustment of parks SDCs as summarized in the City's "Master Fees & Charges Schedule"and described more fully in Exhibit"A" of Resolution 01- 74, which the City Council first adopted on December 18, 2001. Because the index constructed under this method includes both land costs (based on data from the Washington County Assessor) and construction costs (based on data from the Engineering News Record), it is an especially appropriate index for adjusting parks SDCs. We therefore recommend continuing the current practice. D. CREDITS, EXEMPTIONS AND DISCOUNTS The Tigard SDC Procedures Guide will establish local policies for issuing credits and exemptions,annual adjustments,and other administrative procedures. D.1 Credits A credit is a reduction in the amount of the SDC for a specific development.The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a"qualified public improvement" which(1)is required as a condition of development approval,(2) is identified in the City's capital improvements program,and(3)either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval,or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement(e.g.,parks land or improvements provided by a developer can only be used for a credit for towards parks SDC improvement fee payments),and must be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the FCS C R I, I ' TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 14 particular project up to the amount of the improvement fee. For multi-phase projects,any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits,the City may,if it so chooses,provide a greater credit,establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's SDC Capital Improvements Plan,or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means(i.e.,partnerships,other City revenues,etc.). D.2 Exemptions The City may exempt specific classes of development(i.e.,minor additions,etc.)from the requirement to pay SDCs. D.3 Discounts Section IV of this Tigard Parks SDC Methodology Report documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(see Table 5.1). In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,the City of Tigard desires to establish its Parks SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City may discount the amount of the SDC by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs.Alternatively, the City may decide to charge only a percentage(i.e., 50%, 75%,etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. Because discounts reduce SDC revenues,they increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as general fund contributions in order for the City to maintain levels of service. D.4 Tigard Parks SDCs After Discount Table 5.3 summarizes the discounted residential SDC improvement/compliance fees that the City of Tigard would initially charge for residential development after the new SDCs are established. The Tigard City Council has the discretion to remove SDC discounts in the future. Table 5.3: SDC Im•rovement Fee, After Discount* Residential SDC Improvement Fee Afte Area-Specific SDC Discount* River Terrace River Terrace Citywide Overlay Total Single-family residences $5,807 $2,502 $7,728 Multifamily/other residences $4,372 $1,884 $6,256 Average SDC Per Dwelling Unit $5,347 $2,304 $7,651 Average SDC Per C. •ita $2,281 $983 $3,264 Source:discounted SDCs are consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,December 2014. *includes compliance costs. The River Terrace SDCs(after discounts) would be lower than the maximum SDC the City can charge to meet the policy objectives established by the River Terrace funding strategy. Hence, additional funding sources would need to be identified to ensure that all projects contained in the long term capital project list can be funded by year 2035. Appendix A-4 identifies the amount of SDC revenues and other funding revenues the City of Tigard would likely need to fully fund the projects identified in the SDC capital project list. •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 15 E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED SDCS Table 5.4 summarizes the existing and proposed total Parks SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement, improvement, and compliance charges after discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Parks SDCs would vary by location. Parks SDCs within the city (outside River Terrace) would initially be charged $6,824 per single family dwelling, $5,138 per multifamily dwelling, and $707 per new employee. Parks SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged$9,327 per single family dwelling, $7,022 per multifamily dwelling, and $707 per new employee. Table 5.4: Current and Proposed Parks SDCs SDC urrent T',and P Trails SDC Current Residential SDC per capita $ 2,753 SDC per single family dwelling $ 6,451 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,156 Non-residential SDC_per employee $ 446 SDC-i(proposed)* Total SDC(proposed) River River „. ,:.,, ... . . . ...._,... ., s. -_ Terrace Citywide Terrace . • . +.°` SDC-r Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential SDC per capita S 399 $ 2,281 $ 983 $ 2,681 $ 3,664 SDC per single family dwelling $ 1,017 $ 5,807 $ 2,502 $ 6,824 $ 9,327 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 766 $ 4,372 $ 1,884 $ 5,138 $ 7,022 Non-residential SDC •er em•Io ee** $ 105 $ 602 $ 707 $ 707 `Source:derived from prior tables.SDC-r=reimbursement fee, SDC-i=improvement fee.* Includes compliance fee.**Non-residential SDCs calculations for new development are to be based on square feet of floor area(see Table 5.2) (+ FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 16 APPENDIX •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 17 A. •endix A-1, Estimated Ti•and Parks Demand for Residents and Non-Residents Non- Resident Residents s • ..n, .. ., Non- Employe Work Work Work a',- °=: ''` ' , d, Ages Ages insid outsid inside Residence, City of Tigard 18+ 5-17 e Cit e Cit Cit Total Summer(June through September) Weekday Before work 1.00 1.00 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 2.00 2.00 Other leisure 12.00 12.00 2.00 2.00 Total weekday 12.00 12.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 Weekend 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Total summer 12.00 12.00 7.71 4.86 2.86 Spring/fall(April, May,October,and November) Weekday Before work 0.50 0.50 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 1.00 1.00 Other leisure 10.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 Total weekday 10.00 4.00 4.50 2.00 2.50 Weekend 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Total spring/fall 10.00 5.71 6.07 4.29 1.79 Winter(December through March) Weekday Before work 0.50 0.50 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 0.50 0.50 Other leisure 8.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Total weekday 8.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 Weekend 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Total winter 8.00 3.71 4.43 3.00 1.43 Weighting factors Summer 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Spring/fall 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Winter 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Total weighting factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Demand by Population Group Daily weighted average hours 10.00 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 Census counts in Tigard 12,850 8,286 6,507 18,843 31,303 Potential daily demand in Tigard 128,500 59,186 39,507 76,269 63,351 366,813 Proportion 35.03% 16.14 10.77 20.79% 17.27% 100.00 Proportion by place of residence 82.73% 17.27% 100.00 Source. FCS GROUP,U.S.Census Bureau,2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,tables DP03,DP05,and B08008;U.S.Census Bureau,On the Map application. •:;> FCS G RO L TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 18 Appendix A-4, Estimated Tigard Parks Bond Payments Existing Parks Bond Payments Principal Interest Total Fiscal year ending June 30,2016 $ 665,000 $ 627,525 $ 1,292,525 Fiscal year ending June 30,2017 685,000 607,575 1,292,575 Fiscal year ending June 30,2018 705,000 587,025 1,292,025 Fiscal year ending June 30,2019 725,000 565,875 1,290,875 Fiscal year ending June 30,2020 750,000 544,125 1,294,125 Fiscal year ending June 30,2021 780,000 514,125 1,294,125 Fiscal year ending June 30,2022 810,000 482,925 1,292,925 Fiscal year ending June 30,2023 845,000 450,525 1,295,525 Fiscal year ending June 30,2024 875,000 416,725 1,291,725 Fiscal year ending June 30,2025 910,000 381,725 1,291,725 Fiscal year ending June 30,2026 950,000 304,950 1,254,950 Fiscal year ending June 30,2027 990,000 304,950 1,294,950 Fiscal year ending June 30,2028 1,030,000 262,875 1,292,875 Remainder of planning period 4,615,000 558,050 5,173,050 $ 15,335,000 $ 6,608,975 $ 21,943,975 Principal spent $ 12,535,000 81.74% Principal remaining 2,800,000 18.26% $ 15,335,000 100.00% Adjustment to reimbursement fee $ 12,535,000 -1.87% $ 234,357 Adjustment to improvement fee $ 2,800,000 91.07% $ (2,550,009) Source:City of Tigard;compiled byFCS Group. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 19 Appendix A-3, Estimated Parks Invento and Needs b Category Neighborhood i and Pocket Community Parks Parks Linear Parks Open Space Current Inventory Fully developed facilities River Terrace acres(miles for trails) 0 0 0 0 0 Rest of city acres(miles for trails) 51 155 53 240 16 Total fully developed facilities 51 155 53 240 16 Undeveloped land River Terrace acres(miles for trails) 0 0 0 0 0 Rest of city acres(miles for trails) 23 19 0 0 0 Total undeveloped land 23 19 0 0 0 Current Level of Semi- Fully developed facilities Rest of city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for tra 1.00 3.05 1.04 4.73 0.32 Entire city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trail 1.00 3.05 1.04 4.72 0.32 Land Rest of city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for tra 1.46 3.43 1.04 4.73 0.32 Entire city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trail 1.46 3.42 1.04 4.72 0.32 Standards,Surpluses,and Deficiencies Standard acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trails) 1.50 3.00 1.25 4.25 0.32 Fully developed facilities surplus(deficiency) River Terrace acres(miles for trails) (0.15) (0.31) (0.13) (0.43) (0.03) Rest of city acres(miles for trails) (25.12) 2.75 (10.44) 24.32 0.03 Total fully developed facilities surplus(deficiency (25.28) 2.45 (10.56) 23.88 0.00 Land surplus(deficiency) River Terrace acres(miles for trails) (0.15) (0.31) (0.13) (0.43) (0.03) Rest of city acres(miles for trails) (2.12) 21.75 (10.44) 24.32 0.03 Total land surplus deficient (2.28) 21.45 (10.56) 23.88 0.00 Needs River Terrace Current developed acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Development of undeveloped acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 9.41 18.83 7.84 26.67 2.00 Total developed acres needed by 2035 9.41 18.83 7.84 26.67 2.00 Rest of city Current developed acres 51.00 155.00 53.00 240.00 16.20 Development of undeveloped acres 23.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 24.64 23.27 29.20 39.47 4.75 Total developed acres needed by 2035 98.64 197.27 82.20 279.47 20.95 Entire city Current developed acres 51.00 155.00 53.00 240.00 16.20 Development of undeveloped acres 23.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 34.05 42.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 s, -a.., ..•. .: ... 108.05 216.10 90.04 306.14 22.95 Improvement Fee Eli.ibility Development and other costs 55.70% 100.00% 71.48% 100.00% 100.00% Land acquisition only 93.32% 100.00% 71.48% 100.00% 100.00% Maximum acres of development 57.05 61.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 Maximum acres of land acquisition 34.05 42.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 ,4 ble Co a kW R.efmhurseme .Fee. Unit cost per acre of land(mile for trails) $ 400,000 $ 50,855 Unit cost per acre of development(mile for trails) $ 300,000 Reimbursable cost $ - $ 9,313,497 $ - $ 1,214,637 $ - Source. E-mails from Steve Martin(10/08/2014,10/14/2014 and 10/27/2014);Park System Mester Ran,2009. I A) FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 20 A. •endix A-4, Estimated Parks Inventor and Needs b Cate.or Tigard Parks SDC Discount River Methodology Total City-wide Terrace ' arks Improv s a st ; ' evenues Total Cost(Land&Improvements)'' $ 86,684,000 $ 71,173,000 $ 15,511,000 Includes discounted SDCs that are Less SDC Eligible Revenue** $ 60,499,000 $ 57,489,000 $ 3,010,000 supported by River Terrace Funding Strategy ''Remaining Funding Required $ 26,185,000 $ 13,684,000 $ 12,501,000 •" Non-SDC Funding Supported by River Terrace Funding Strategy(adopted Dec. 2014) Tota` ity-wide Grants $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 Potential Metro,State or foundation grants Assumes 100%of RI utility fees, Parks Utility Fees($1.11/month) $ 5,787,000 $ 2,718,000 $ 3,069,000 and 50%of citywide fee revenue to be allotted to RT projects Equates to levy of$0.20 oer$1,000 New Citywide Park Bond $ 13,000,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 AV;or$63/year for average horreow ner;and 50%alloted to RT projects Subtotal Funding Revenue $ 19,811,000 $ 9,218,000 $ 10,593,000 Remaining Net Funding Gap*** $ (6,374,000) $ (4,466,000) $ (1,908,000) *Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents. **SDC revenue adjusted to exclude remaining bond principal and include administrative costs. !MEW %WNW JAL Potential Additional "Gap" Funding Sourc '*'Funding Gap Source>ti&r Percent Dist. Amount Notes Grants 20°/ $ 1,274,800 This policy may result in project completion delays Developer dedications(SDC credit 10% eligible) $ 637,400 This policy may result in project completion delays This would require a+/-$2.34 monthly parks utility fee City Parks Utility Fees 70% $ 4,461,800 citywide Total 100% $ 6,374,000 Source:com plied by FCS Group. /-> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report April 2015 page 21 This page intentionally left blank •:;> FCS (1 IZc)1:1) Exhibit C Tigard, Oregon 114 TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY REPORT April 14, 2015 This page intentionally left blank TIGARD, OREGON rc^.sportation April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1 A. Policy 1 B. Project 1 SECTION II: METHODOLOGY A. Reimbursement Fee Cost basis 3 B. Improvement Fee Cost basis 3 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 3 D. Growth 3 E. Geographic Allocation 4 F. Summary 4 SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION A. Relevant Types of Growth 5 B. Growth in Trip Ends 5 B.1 Expected Growth Levels 5 B.2 Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share 5 SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION - A. Reimbursement Fee 7 B. Improvement Fee 7 B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs 8 B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance 8 B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District 8 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 9 D. Summary Calculated SDCs 9 `FCTION V: RECOM,MENE)A? A. Transportation SDC Calculation 10 A.1 Residential SDC Calculation 10 A.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation 11 B. Annual Adjustment 11 C. Credits and Exemptions 11 C.1 Credits 11 C.1.a Credit Policy Options 12 C.2 Exemptions 12 D. Discounts 12 E. Existing and Proposed SDCs 13 E.1 SDCs with Current Credit Policy 13 •:.> FCS ( E.2 SDCs with 50%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 14 E.3 SDCs with 100%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 14 Appendix A-Transportation Capital Project List 17 Appendix B-Capacity Share Assumptions 22 Appendix C-Reimbursement Fee Calculation 23 Appendix D-Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy 24 )" I - eop n°rl! SECTION I : BACKGROUND This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. A. POLICY Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system development charges (SDCs). These are one-time fees on new development, and they are paid at the time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC: • A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements already construct, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists" • An improvement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed" ORS 223.304(1) states, in part, that a reimbursement fee must be based on"the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities"and must account for prior contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant-funded facilities. The calculation must "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. ORS 223.304(2) states, in part, that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words, the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement fee may be spent only on capital improvements (or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. B. PROJEC1 In August 2014, the City of Tigard (City) contracted with FCS GROUP to prepare a new local SDC for transportation facilities that take into account the projects identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan and the River Terrace TSP Addendum,June 2014. This report documents our findings and recommendations. We approached this project as a series of three steps: � � i. • Framework for Charges. In this step, we worked with City staff to identify the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis. • Technical Analysis. In this step,we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates. • Draft Methodology Report Preparation. In this step, we documented the calculation of the draft SDC rates included in this report. For analysis purposes,the new Tigard Transportation SDC is intended to be consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014. This Transportation SDC Methodology Report supports the creation of a special SDC overlay district within the River Terrace Plan District boundary(Exhibit 1.1). Please refer to City of Tigard Community Development Code: Map 18.660 for tax lots that are included in the River Terrace Plan District. With the adoption of this SDC methodology, future development in Tigard would be subject to a citywide SDC and development within River Terrace would also be subject to the River Terrace SDC overlay fee. Exhibit 1.1 Rncr Tcrracc Plan Mums �ata ! 1.1 sus f7stin aagry p°. Tgre Cq ew,dry Q.'� e sa° 1, j 3,„04, 3 S�0P��O1t 3 ibmlil Li I ■ r I , SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD II LII-rn-m-rum-,,, I t 0 ' cc t vs t W 0 i O CC a e O ! CC H •°> FCS ( , �� _ S,-jam _ - r1. SECTION II : METHODOLOGY This section provides a non-numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE COST BASIS The reimbursement fee is the cost of available capacity per unit of growth that such available capacity can serve. In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated,excess transportation infrastructure capacity must be available to serve future growth. For facility types that have no excess capacity, no reimbursement fee may be charged. This analysis uses the original cost of all SDC or Transportation Development Tax (TDT) infrastructure less the amount currently used as the basis for the reimbursement fee. B. IMPROVEMENT FEE COST BASIS The improvement fee is the cost of capacity-increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those projects will serve. Since the capacity added by most projects serves a dual purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth, growth-related costs for each project must be isolated and costs that meet current demand or repair a deficiency must be excluded. We have used the capacity approach to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth-related capacity that projects of a similar type will create. The portion of each project that is attributable to growth is determined and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by dividing the total costs of growth- required projects by the projected increase in demand. C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on "the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects, this report assumes that compliance costs are equal to 3% of the SDC improvement fee basis. D. GROWTH Growth for SDCs is in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of transportation, the most applicable unit of growth is trips on the infrastructure. In this methodology we have analyzed growth in terms of average daily person trips (ADPT) and P.M. peak hour vehicle trip ends (PHVT). L( GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION SDCs are often calculated and applied uniformly throughout a municipality, but such uniformity is not a legal requirement. Municipalities can calculate and impose area-specific SDCs. Area-specific SDCs allow a municipality to identify and isolate differential costs to serve particular areas within its jurisdiction. SDCs are calculated separately for each area,and improvement fees must be spent on projects in the improvement fee cost basis for the area in which those improvement fees were earned. Area-specific SDCs can be implemented in two ways. The first way is to divide the municipality into a set of non-overlapping areas. Under this method, the SDCs for a particular area are determined by the assets, projects, and projected growth in that area. The second method is a layered approach. The first layer consists of a citywide SDC based on assets and projects of citywide benefit. The second layer consists of one or more overlays. Each overlay is a separate list of assets and projects that benefit a particular area within the city. Development within an overlay pays both the citywide SDC and the overlay SDC. Development outside of any overlay pays only the citywide SDC. Given the City's desire to isolate the costs of serving certain areas and findings in the River Terrace Funding Strategy adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014, we recommend (and have calculated in this report) both a citywide SDC and an overlay SDC for River Terrace. F. SUMMARY In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee component, improvement fee component, and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand.The unit of demand becomes the basis of the charge. Exhibit 2.1 shows this calculation in equation format: Exhibit 2i: SDC E•uation Eligible costs of Costs of Eligible costs of SDC per unit of available capacity in + capacity-increasing + complying with = growth in existing facilities capital Oregon SDC demand improvements law Units of growth in demand Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. Section V identifies SDC recommendations. Dever pry • r.i',Jr7A SECTION III : GROWTH CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the denominator in the SDC equation. r�. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip or average person trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs. This transportation SDC methodology utilizes both average daily person trips (ADPT) and P.M.peak hour vehicle trip ends(PHVT) in the calculation of the SDC fee. ADPTs include vehicle trips on collector and arterial streets and non-motor vehicle trips that utilize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The proposed SDC charges provide a PHVT to ADPT conversion factor so that non-residential SDCs can also take into account linked trips for certain types of developments, such as fast food restaurants and fuel stations, which have relatively high rates of linked-trip activity. B. GROWTH IN TRIP ENDS Having established relevance of ADPT and PHVT, we now quantify expected growth rates. 1 Expected Growth Levels As mentioned above,this methodology utilizes a citywide SDC with a River Terrace overlay. Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 show the growth in person trips (ADPT) and vehicle trips (PHVT) between now and 2035 for River Terrace and the rest of Tigard. The modeled trip growth forecasts result in a factor of approximately 0.047 for converting average daily person trips (ADPT) into peak hour vehicle trips (PHVT). Conversely, for every 21 average daily person trip-ends that originate or terminate in Tigard (including trips by vehicles,bicycle, pedestrian and transit), there is one P.M peak-hour vehicle trip-end expected(PHVT). Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share The growth share for any project varies by the project type and the percent of the project that serves future growth. See Appendix A for a complete list of projects with the appropriate growth shares. In general,new collector or arterial facilities (including the roadways,bicycle, and pedestrian facilities) that are needed only to serve growth are 100% SDC eligible. Existing roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities that are planned for expansion to accommodate growth may only be partially eligible for SDC funding. The share of existing transportation facilities that are planned for capacity upgrades to serve future growth needs varies by type of project and the rubric to determine future growth share is shown in Appendix B. I p .. TIGARD, OREGON T'ansoorta}ion System De A.pill 2015 Exhibit 3.1:Avera•e Daily Person Trip-End (ADPT) Growth Growth - 2015 Area 2010 2015 2035 to 2035 River Terrace 469 1,083 30,737 29,654 Rest of Tigard 525,451 560,100 733,130 173,030 All Tigard 525,920 561,183 763,867 202,684 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum (June 2014). Exhibit 3.2:Ti•and Peak-Hour Vehicle Trip-End (PHVT) Growth Growth - 2015 Area 2010 2015 2035 to 2035 River Terrace 63 119 1,536 1,417 Rest of Tigard 28,319 30,019 38,341 8,322 All Tigard 28,382 30,379 39,877 9,498 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum (June 2014). cv"-[-L) r_... T,or.sportu':.r. its �La. page 7 SECTION IV : COST CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE As noted in Section II, the reimbursement fee is based on the present value of unused capacity that the City has funded in Tigard. For analysis purposes, we have based the reimbursement SDC cost basis on the actual amount of prior capacity investments the city has made using Transportation Development Tax funds over the past nine fiscal years. The expenditures from previous years have been discounted by the trip growth rate in this report to account for increased use since initial construction. Exhibit 4.1 summarizes the cost basis for the reimbursement fee. Detailed calculations are included in Appendix C. Exhibit 4.1: Reimbursement Fee Basis Calculation Reimbursement Fee Calculation Total Capital Project Expenditures $4,955,023 Less Capacity Used Up $369,470 Reimbursement fee basis $4,585,553 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP. Using the calculated growth in PHVT from the previous section and the reimbursement fee basis, Exhibit 4.2 shows the calculated reimbursement fee. Note that the reimbursement fee is charged irrespective of the SDC overlay district. Exhibit 4.2: Reimbursement Fee Calculation Reimbursement Fee •er PMPHT Total Cost of SDC/TDT Capital Project Expenditures $4,585,553 Change in ADPT(2015-2035) 202,684 Reimbursement Fee per ADPT $23 Equivalent Reimbursement Fee per PHVT* $483 Source: Previous tables and Appendix C,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34 R IMPROVEMENT FEE City staff identified a list of project needs for the transportation SDC using several sources: The Tigard Transportation System Plan • The River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum The Metro's Regional Transportation Plan The Tigard's Capital Improvement Plan __ T,--I 0-,r' ",- --=r- =v rlt-F. .t Charge Stuay page 8 In addition,the current Transportation Development Tax Road Project List has been considered to ensure that potential SDC project expenditures are not included on the TDT project list as well. Exhibit 4.3 shows a summary list of the Tigard transportation project costs. Overall, the City identified a total need of$625 million. For a detailed list of Tigard transportation projects see Appendix A. Exhibit 4.3:Trans•ortation Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035(in $1,000s) Project Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM* Total Citywide $479,592 $39,000 $15,000 $34,030 $17,500 $585,122 River Terrace $0 $37,850 $0 11,800 $0 $40,150 Total $479,592 $76,850 $15,000 $35,830 $17,500 $625,272 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management. B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs Total SDC-eligible costs are a percentage of total projects. The percent of each individual project is calculated and then summed by infrastructure type. Because there is an overlay districts,each project is categorized as either benefitting the overlay district or the entire city. Exhibit 4.4 shows a summary table by SDC overlay and type of transportation costs. See Appendix A for detailed calculations of SDC-eligible costs. Exhibit 4.4:Trans•ortation SDC Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035 (in $1,000s) Project Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM* Total Citywide $222,818 $19,669 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $267,530 River Terrace $0 $14,623 $0 $0 $0 $14,623 Total $222,818 $34,292 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $282,153 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management (e.g., traffic signal synchronization and turning movement/access modifications). B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance There is no existing local transportation SDC in Tigard and therefore no fund balances to consider at this time. B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District Similar to the reimbursement fee cost basis above, we calculate the improvement fee cost basis by district in PHVT using growth estimates from the previous section and the SDC-eligible projects shown above. Exhibit 4.5 shows the potential improvement fee by district before discounts or adjustments. Exhibit 4.5:SDC Im•rovement Fee by District SDC Fee Improvement fee Equivalent per Single- Calculations(before SDC-Eligible Growth in Fee per Fee per Family discounts Project Costs ADPT ADPT PHVT* Residence Citywide base charge $267,530,222 202,684 $1,320 $28,168 $15,924 River Terrace Overlay $14,622,750 29,654 '.493 $10,523 $5,949 Total River Terrace SDC $282,152,972 232,339 $1,813 $38,690 $21,873 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34; compiled by FCS Group. s ,, 'i O?E.GON Tr:a-ispor+ofior, S/s+em Development( barge: Dill 2015 , C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS For the purpose of this study, we assume the compliance costs equal 3% of the SDC improvement fee. D. SUMMARY CALCULATED SDCS Exhibit 4.6 shows the calculated SDC per person trip (ADPT) by each fee basis and by district. Note that this is the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on forecasted growth in person-trips. Exhibit 4.6:Total SDC per ADPT(SDC per person trip before discounts) SDC Fee Compliance Total per Reimbursement Improvement Fee per SDC per Dwelling Area Fee per ADPT Fee per ADPT ADPT ADPT Unit Citywide $23 $1,320 $40 $1,382 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay $493 $15 $508 $6,127 River Terrace Total $23 $1,813 $54 $1,890 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP. Exhibit 4.7 expresses the maximum SDC that Tigard can charge in terms of growth in P.M peak- hour vehicle trip-ends (PHVT) by each fee basis and by district. This is also the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on vehicle trip growth. Exhibit 4.7: E•uivalent Total SDC per PHVT (before discounts) Total SDC Fee per Reimbursement Improvement Compliance SDC per Dwelling Area Fee Fee Fee PHVT Unit Citywide $483 $28,168 $845 $29,495 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay $10,523 $316 $10,839 $6,127 River Terrace Total $483 $38,690 $1,161 $40,334 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34;compiled by FCS Group. s SECTION V : RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides calculations of the residential and non-residential SDCs and recommended SDCs after accounting for credit and discount policies. A. TRANSPORTATION SDC CALCULATION The transportation SDC is based on the number of trips that a change in land use generates. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual contains trip rates based on studies conducted nationwide and provides the base data of unadjusted counts of trips generated by various types of land use. Unadjusted trip counts mean that certain land use types will have high trip counts including all traffic entering or leaving a location but does not account for traffic that passes by or interrupts a primary trip between origin and destination. Trips that interrupt a primary trip are called linked trips and this SDC methodology recommends removing them from the residential calculation because they would occur regardless of development activity. • The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations are relatively simple and take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. Residential land use types do not entail a linked trip adjustment factor. SDC rates for specific developments are to be determined using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook in which there are land use categories depicting single family detached (code #210), apartments (code #220), rental townhouses (code#224), and other residential types. Because there is presently no ITE land use code for small, standard, or large single family dwellings, Exhibit 5.1 will be used to calculate SDC rates for single family detached homes. Small single family detached houses will be charged 81% of the TSDC for a single family detached residential unit and large houses will be charged 108% of the TSDC. Exhibit 5.1 Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A(revenue neutral) (living area sq.ff.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source: compiled by FCS Group based on: Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results,Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services;and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers,Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT=average daily person trips; SFD=single family detached home. Non-Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new PHVT added for non-residential development.New non-residential development in Tigard may include land use types with linked trips. The number of new PHVTs generated for non-residential land use should take into account the following formula: ITE Vehicle Trip Rate x (1 —%Linked Trips) = Net New PHVT The SDC per unit of development is calculated for each type of land use by multiplying the new PHVT for each land use by the SDC per PHVT. It is important to note that the Trip Generation Manual may not contain some land use categories or may not include trip rates or number of net new trips generated. For such land use categories without data, the City administrator shall use her/his judgment to calculate the transportation SDC. B. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT Annual adjustment of transportation SDCs as summarized in the City's"Master Fees & Charges Schedule" shall be made with City Council approval. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements: 90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price(annualized) percent change. CREDITS AND EXEMPTIONS The Tigard SDC Procedures Guide will establish local policies for issuing credits and exemptions,annual adjustments,and other administrative procedures. (_ ' " . .:! A credit is a reduction in the amount of SDCs paid for a specific development.The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a"qualified public improvement"which(1)is required as a condition of development approval,(2) is identified in the City's capital improvements program, and(3) either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development T G 4r . i:;=E D _tnsc S\:tem De fe,opmen+Charge Study nr„ 22∎■2 page 12 approval,or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement(e.g.,transportation right of way or improvements provided by a developer can only be used for a credit for towards transportation SDC improvement fee payments),and must be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular project up to the amount of the improvement fee.For multi-phase projects, any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits,the City may,if it so chooses,provide a greater credit,establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's SDC Capital Improvements Plan,or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means(i.e.,partnerships,other City revenues,etc.). C.1.0 Credit Policy Options The City is currently considering establishing one of three credit policies for the transportation SDC. Option A. This credit policy,based on current City practice, assumes that the Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) credit policy is applied to future local transportation SDCs within the City. Option B.This credit policy assumes that the City implements a credit policy that applies the TDT credit policy to all SDC eligible projects in the city with an exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 50% of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately$4.3 million over Option A. Option C.This credit policy is similar to Option B,but expands the exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project from 50%to 100%credit eligible. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 100%of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued,the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $8.7 million over Option A. It is important to note that regardless of the credit policy chosen,the City would stipulate that credits provided within the River Terrace district cannot be used in another part of the City. However, citywide SDC credits could be utilized anywhere within the City.This would help ensure that any transportation SDC credits issued in River Terrace will result in continued development investment in River Terrace. C.2 Exemptions The City may exempt specific classes of development(i.e.,minor additions,etc.)from the requirement to pay SDCs. D. DISCOUNTS This Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report has documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(provided earlier in Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). FCSk TIGARD,OREGON Tron;ocrbr;on System Development ".n:. „- April 2015 The City can discount the SDC amount by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs and the City can decide to charge only a percentage (i.e., 50%, 75%, etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. The SDC Procedures Manual will specify how discounts should apply to certain developments, such as transit-oriented development. If the City discounts SDCs,revenues will decrease and amounts that must come from other sources, such as general fund contributions, will increase in order for the City to maintain levels of service. In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, the City of Tigard desires to establish its Transportation SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City's currently policy objective for transportation SDCs assume a citywide average SDC of$5,000 per dwelling unit and an average supplemental River Terrace SDC of$497 per dwelling unit. Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the residential SDCs that the City would charge new development initially once the new SDCs are established. Exhibit 5.2:Avera•e Transportation SDC per Dwelling (after discounts) Reimbursement Improvement Compliance Total Area with Ti•and Fee Fee Fee SDC Citywide $273 $4,589 $138 $5,000 River Terrace Overlay $483 $14 $497 River Terrace Total $273 $5,072 $152 $5,497 Source: Compiled by FCS GROUP based on funding policy objectives stated in the River Terrace Funding Strategy;and prior tables. Since the River Terrace SDCs would be lower than the maximum SDC the City can justify, additional funding sources would be needed to ensure that all projects contained in the long term capital project list can be funded by year 2035. Appendix D identifies the amount of SDC revenues and other funding revenues the City of Tigard would likely need to fund the projects identified in the SDC capital project list. F . EXISTING AND PROPOSED SDCS Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the existing and proposed total Transportation SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement, improvement, and compliance charges after accounting for discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Transportation SDCs would vary by location. SDCs within the city(outside River Terrace) would initially be charged $5,714 per single family dwelling, $3,333 per multifamily/other dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $8,844 per P.M. peak-hour vehicle trip-end (PHVT). The potential SDCs for the River Terrace District have been calculated under three possible credit policy scenarios. Under each scenario the citywide SDC would be the same but the River Terrace SDC would change. It is important to note that the City Council may decide to defer some of the SDC charges identified in the following tables (for example, the City Council could vote to defer implementation of the SDC reimbursement fees but charge SDC improvement fees). SDCs witn Curren: Credit Policy, If the City utilized its current credit policy that is consistent with the Washington County TDT credit policy, the local Transportation SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $6,282 per single family dwelling, $3,665 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $9,724 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.3). Exhibit 5.3: Pro•osed Ti•and Trans•ortation SDCs (after discounts) SDC-i(after discount)' Total SDC(after discount) River SDC CitrNid Terrace Citywide River Develo•ment T pe Current ease •' «, Citywide Overlay Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dweling n/a $273 $4,727 $497 $5,000 $5,497 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5.402 $568 $5,714 $6,282 , Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $331 $3,333 $3,665 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT 4 n/a $483 $8,362 $879 $8,844 $9,724 Notes: 1 Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dweling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for inked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for inked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. E.2 SDCs with 50% Creait Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 50% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $8,356 per single family dwelling, $4,875 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$9,874 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.4). Exhibit 5.4: O•tion B revised ,Ti•and Transportation SDCs (with 50% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount) Total SDC(after discount) River SDC '- Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current lose SDC ; Cit wide Overia Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge per multifamily dwelinq n/a $182 $3,151 $1,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,030 $8,844 $9,874 Notes: *Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local'elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100% credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other faciities would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by kind use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. 4 Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 100% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within rranSpcOo'!On system De+s c-rn n'Ct'orge Study page 15 River Terrace would initially be charged $10,453 per single family dwelling, $6,097 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$10,026 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.5). Exhibit 5.5: 0•tion C,Ti•and Trans•ortation SDCs with 100% RT Blvd. credit olicy)* SDC-i(after discount)' Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Terrace Citywide River Develo•ment T •e Current , Citywide Overlay Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dweling n/a $273 $4,727 $4,146 $5,000 $9,146 Charge per single family detached dweling n/a $312 $5,402 $4,738 $5,714 $10,453 Charge per multifamily dweling n/a $182 $3,151 $2,764 $3,333 $6,097 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT` n/a $483 $8,362 $1,182 $8,844 $10,026 Notes: •Credit poicy assumes River Terrace Blvd.improvements are 100%credit eigible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.A II other facifties would be subject to the current credit policy. r Includes complance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dweling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for Inked-trips. 4 A verage charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for Inked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceeding tables. ( k. APPENDIX > [ CS • , 1•. • Transportation System Development Charge Study page 17 Appendix A -Transportation Capital Project List cBy Cost Ater capacity Growth Capacity Canoe Ry TDT"of SIX'9.,of Rood %City Local Private ODOT,COUnty Identified local Related Percent of Total SDC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible Ehalble 'roiect ID Road Classification Description Project Cosh Share Fundma Fundlna Total City Cod Function Percent Capacity Ekalble Cosh Co.?(TDT) Cost(SDC) Project Costs Project Costs Sourc• r T•rwe•B•no1N Project ID 23A 1508n Ave Collector $400,000▪ 150th Ave.from Bull $400,000 24% 5306.000 594,000 $94,000 50% 50% $23,500 $0 $23,500 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum Mountain Rd.to Beet Bend Rd. Bull Protect ID 21A Mountain Rd CoNector Upgrade to urban standards 51.200,000 29% $850,000 $350,000 5350000 50% 50% $87.500 5350.000 $0 100% 0% RT TSP Addendum Project ID 18 Intersection Collector $1,500,000 Mauntahr Rd./N-S collector $1,500000 100% 51,500000 51.500.000 100% 100% $1,500,000 50 51500000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum htersection or roundabout Project ID 20 intersection Collect« Woodhue St./161st Ave.extension 52.000,000 0% $2000000 50 50 100% 100% $0 50 $0 RT TSP Addendum htersectbn or roundabout Project ID NA 2 I Intersection Sheet improvements where new sheets 5500000 100% $500.000 $0 50% 100% 50 50 $0 RI TSP Addendum meet exetho streets-Phase I Project ID 2 Lorenzo Ln Collector $2,500000 Lorenzo Ln.from West 11G8 to $2500000 5% $2,380.000 $120,000 5120000 100% 100% $120,000 $0 5120.000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Protect ID 3 Lorenzo In Collector • Lorenzo Ln.hem Roshak Rd.to $3500000 100% 53,500,000 33,500,000 100% 100% 53.500.000 50 53.500.000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Project ID NA 1 1 Silver Bka/Pod Wes Terrace Tral hem Roy Badgers $1900,000 100% 51,800000 51.800.000 0% 100% 50 $0 50 RT TSP Addendum ienace Trai Rd.to 15056 Ave. Project ID 5A RT Blvd Collector 3 lane N-S collector hem Scholls Ferry $6,030,000 43% $3,417.000 $2.613000 $2,613,000 100% 100% 52.613.000 $653,250 $1.959.750 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum to Lorenzo In-extension-Phase 1 Project ID 58 RT Blvd CollectorSlane N-S collector hem Schdls Ferry $2,970,000 100% $2.970000 52,970900 100% 100% 32.970.000 $742,500 52.227,500 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum to Lorenzo In-extension-Phase 2 3 lane N-S collector from Lorenzo Ln. Project ID 6A RI Blvd Collect« extension to Bull Mountah Rd.-Phone 34975,000 48% $2.550000 52.325000 32.325.000 100% 100% $2.325000 $581250 31,743.750 25% 75% RI TSP Addendum 1 alone N-S collector from Bull Project ID 7A RT Blvd Collector Mountah Rd-to the south CRy Ifni- $4.125,000 46% $2244000 $1981000 31081.000 100% 100% $1,881000 $470250 $1,410,750 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum Phase 1 Project ID 78 RI Blvd CollectorSlane N-S collector Iron south City 56,250000 46% $3.400,000 $2,850.000 $2,850.000 100% 100% $2.850,000 $712,500 $2.137,500 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum IimI to the south 3GB(phase 2) Project ID 8 Collector $2.500.000 lane E-W collector between Roy $2.500.000 0% $2500000 50 50 0% 0% $0 $0 $0 RT TSP Addendum Rodgers Rd.and N-S collector Downtown Be neelB finchsd•d in eIN+Ad•) Extend Ash Avenue horn Burnham, Metro Project ID Ash Ave Collector Sheet -RR I.Commercial Sheet $10000000 100% $10,000,000 $10000,000 50% 100% 55000.000 50 $5000.000 5% 100% TSP,RIP.CIP Tigard Tdaltal•B•n•Bl(Included In cRvwId•) Beveland St 7011,to 7117 Beveland St Bke/Pad 561 330'Sidewalk Gap $40,000 100% 840,000 $40000 50% 100% 520000 $0 520.000 0% 100% City staff Beveiondl Red Rock Creek Trai New hai porallel to and south of 99W Bke/Ped 53000000 100% 53.000.000 $3.000.000 25% 50% $375.000 $0 5375000 0% 100% City staff Greenwoy in triangle •:;> FCS ( ; 1-(-) -:, h C'9 :. Transportation System Development Charge Study page 18 City Cost After Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity MT%of SDC 10 of Road %City Local Pnvote ODOTICaunty identiited Local Related Percent of Total SDC/TOT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible •roj•ct ID Rood Classification Descnotion Pioiect Costs Shore rundmg funding Total City Cost fundng Percent Capacity Ekglble Costs Cost(TDT) Cost(SOC) Project Calls Project Cviit Scum Bk11N1 12151 Ave. 121st Ave Bke/Ped Add Sidewalks and Biro Lanes 03.500.000 100% 13,500.000 33.500.000 50% 100% 11.750000 03.500000 $0 100% 0% City staff yfi'kter to Ttapet 121st Ave over 121st Ave Bka/Peal Pedestri0n bridge on west side of $+0,000 100% 350.000 $50,000 50% 100% 325,000 $0 $25,000 0% 100% City staff sunyner Creek road Walnut Street to North Dakota Skeet- 121st Street two lanes with turn lanes where Widenng 121st St Collector necessary plus bke lanes and $6,000,000 100% 16.000.000 36.000.000 50% 100% 13,000.000 $6,000,000 $0 100% 0% City staff sidewalks Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Widen 72nd Ave.to 5 lanes tram $35.000.000 100% $35.000,000 $351300,000 80% 100% $28,000,000 19.269398 $18,730,402 33% 67% TSP,RTP.OP 10755 Hurneker Rd.to Hwy.99 Metro Project q 72nd Ave Arterial Wden 72nd Ave.to S lanes from $28.166,850 100% $28,166,850 028.166.850 80% 100% 022.533.480 37.261,185 $15,272,295 32% 68% ISP.RIP,CIP 10756 Hunker Rd.to Bonito Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Widen 72nd Ave.to S lanes ham 015,425,000 100% 015.425.000 $15.425.000 80% 100% $12.340.000 19.269398 13,070,402 75% 25% TSP.RTP.CIP 10757 Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd. Provide Arterial Corridor Management 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TOM along Conklar R19(Hwy 217)(Hwy 01.700.000 100% 11,700,000 31,700,000 100% 100% $1.700.000 $0 $1,700,000 0% 100% City staff 217)Sr the Metro ISM°Plan Provide Arterial Corridor Management on 72nd Avenue along Corrklor 12(4 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TSM 51(1-5)neo the Upper Boogies Ferry $1.600.000 100% $1.600.000 $1.600.000 100% 100% $1.600.000 $1,368,928 $231,072 86% 14% City stall Rood Interchange n the Metro 1SMO Plan Borrows Road Barrows Rd Bke/Ped Add Sidewalks and Pica lanes 03,000000 100% 33,000.000 33,000.000 50% 100% $1,500,000 $0 $1300,000 0% 100% City stall Metro Project ID Bonito Rd Arterial Widen Bonita Rd.to 4 lanes from 3/5000000 1006 10752 Bara9 to 6011 Bird 045,000,003 $45000.000 80% 90% 132400,000 35272,615 327,127,385 16% 84% TSP,RTP,OP Bull MOUntoe Rood(Hwy 99W Bull Collette Wden to three lanes will lake lanes $8.000.000 100% 18,000.000 18.000.000 50% 100% $4000000 $8,000.000 $0 100% 0% RT TSP Addendum to Benchvlew Mounted Rd and sidewalks Teal Cascade Ave A7rts Bke/Peal Pave northbound lake lane gap $30,000 100% $30000 330,000 50% 100% $15000 $0 $15,000 0% 100% City staff Metro Project ID Dartmouth Collects Wden Dartmouth 51.to 4lanes from $5000000 100% $5,000000 15000.000 80% 100% $4,000.000 01.853,920 $2,146,080 46% 54% TSP.RTP 10759 St 72nd Ave.to 68th Ave. Metro Protect ID Durham Rd Arterial Widen Dunham Rd.b S lanes from 120000000 100% 020000000 120000.000 80% 90% $14,400000 $0 $14.400,000 0% 100% TSP.RIP.CIP 10753 Boogies Feny to Hall Ovid. Metro Project IDS Rd Arterial Widen Durham Rd.to S lanes ham 125.000000 100% 025,000000 025000.000 80% 95% $19,0000()0 $0 $19,000,000 0% 100% TSP.RIP,OP 10764 Hall Ovid.To Hwy.99 Provide Arterial Corridor Management Durham Rood Durham Rd TSM along Corridor 819(Hwy 217)in the 01300.000 100% $1,500.000 01,500000 100% 95% 11.425000 $0 01.425.000 0% 100% City stet! Metro TWIG Plan Fenno Creek Fenno Trot Creek Trot Bke/Pest Durham Rd to Tualatin River Trot $1300.000 100% 31,500.000 $1.500.000 25% 100% 1375.000 $0 $375.000 0% 100% City staff Metro Project ID Gneenborg Arterial Wden Greenburg Rd.horn Shady 17.000000 100% $7,DDD.0DO 37000.000 80% 95% 10748 Rd Lane to North $5,320.000 $6,745098 $0 100% 0% 'Project Request" Metro Project ID Greenbwg Arterial Wden Greenbur9 Rd.to 5 lanes Mom 112000000 100% $12,000.000 $12000.000 80% 100% 09.600000 09,269398 $330,402 97% 3% TSP.RTP 10750 Rd Tdernon Ave.to Hwy.99 Metro Protect ID Hal Blvd Arterial Hall Ovid.Improvernenh from Locust $16,000000 100% 316,000000 116000,000 50% 100% 08.000000 $0 $8.000.000 0% 100% TSP.RTP.CIP 11220 to Durham Hall Blvd/ Replace with wider bridge with Fenno Creek Hall Blvd Bulge 16000,000 100% 06.000.000 *6.000.000 50% 100% Bulge sidewalks and lake lanes $3.000.000 30 $3.000.000 0% 100E City staff Capacity Capacity TDT%of SDC%ot Total SDCTTDT Related City Related City Eligible Pt5lble Eligible Cosh Cost(TOT)Cost(SOC)Project Costs Project Costs Source U § r Q U $0$0$0 City staff $38000000$9.860.000 128.140.000 26%74%TSP.RIP E C ��e § $950000$0$950.000 0%100%RI TSP Addendum' SE 5 ! < 6k & $1,600,000$0 11.600.000 016 100%TSP.RIP $1750,000$3.862,332$0 100%0%TSP.RIP.CIP d$1.-- %0 0000001$0$0O0bO0P6 U � �Ue § " o U LI A w $1,000,000$10(0000$0 100%0%Clly staff $.$WOOD$173.805$326.195 35%65%City staff 'Q �Ue g t o r U ;.0 u n c up u s p i5 52 25 552� a a 5R� - g 1 $ „ § 9t A 5� § - g 000'00001$000'000'01$ y� 25 5� § 5. VS 0 o g g R R § g g g g g§ g g g a 1 § § �I. 0 o U =Q W $8� M.p� gg 5t 2 0 ioSi I Add on eastbound through lone on 1 Hall Blvd Arterial Hall Rivd.from Pamelad Road to f Greenbura Rood Munrker St Bke/Ped Add sidewalk on north side; completes sidewalk horn 72nd to Hall 291 „o tg2 oot sag ° D£oc 132331 <Dox& _b 3 x Hwy 99 Arterial Hwy.99 intersection irp nr roveenh from 64M Ave.to Dunham Rd. Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Road/E-W collector frolic stand IIntersectbn Arterial Roy Rogers Rood/Bull IAOUntan Rd I loft siand $ 8 r 6 L 5 F i v r o 2 BD Fb I -E 5 F i g � i- oI L ffi o _ `m 4 Q S a= to 2_ g ,t1 _p S 1 m _ IlnfarseClksn Arterial Turn lanes,aux lanes,sidewalks,hire lanes,crossknas;transit iTlprpvemanh Intersection Arter.ot SB right-turn lane at Hall Blvd/OR 217 romp Intersection Improvemenh.P100 de Intersection Arteral protected left 0168th;transit queue bypass i p L o €l 10 Fm Infarsecibn ISM Install a traffc sgd n and add hue lanes where necessary Inferseclbn Arterial Add turn lanes and/or audibly through ions,sidewalks.etc Retain eastbound rghl-turn lane when 3rd lone added on Schotis Ferry Rd:Retain westbound right-turn lone Intersection Arterial when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Rd:southbound right-tum lane: Reconfigure northbound and southbound lanes to create exclusive left-turn lass Intersection Arterial Intersection Improvement i a 8 U U U U U U U U 6 U U U t. : U U U U u': s s g 7 R R R R N § $ § § " § ,, R �� - a. -• -• Y, » QUO g a. 1 l s - l s s s s s s s § n s s s s 616' » » 2 :-. la I �, a, _ 0, Q o h s g g g s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g O (5, 3, L z.,,..,U z.°e g g g g g g g « LI g g g g g g g g g n Unc E a9° § § § § § § § § § § §. § § • § § § § § PI 1 §. § § § 5 R R § R § § § §. § 8 r� » r, 2 » zi, r » Q g g g S R R R g § R R § § g 8 7 2~ o _ 0 s O » a ^O 'o° n C _ O J o tF g g g g g 8 g 8 g g g g 8 g g g g g g $ § S R R R g g R § § § § g g c c a - 0, 00 fx'g 1 'o c, Rf; i g6 0 o_1ro_H 8 3 c we E gt `S 5� A 8 " 0 ° m o n m m o t x s p g g2 1 t2 o° '..3'f g o$ o nE� 3a ma �3cT12< € si V x '° G p ° os 3 v"5 0 .�6ni, g E3 .. 7,b-rcc_ ; v -0 °- 8 oc -xH1 !i! iihh 4 gP g▪f° 2▪t m' o c5 0 .3� A �; lNti/4v I ao- - 2 w2 OK O0: SY K Z 2U ° a a e g u .4 i u ci t 4 .4 .G 4 .4 $ pp �_ or t ° m ° m m o m .1 m t t ._ t 8 m z°V < U U < < <` o < <` < o r, F o .S c` `c AS a .5 c p .m 5 .`o s s 1 g 6 s y -..J 8 8 tt2 -2 CJ) v x° c rc p 3 3 8 s t rc m .2 v S _ S€` 1k zo °m E 25 rcm n ^- i'E s c o o P < °ffi.s ►�+y Transportation System Development Char,.] City Cost After Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TOT%et SDC%o t Road 7 C■N Loco:Pr:vo1¢ODOT County Idenh5ed Local Related Percent at Total SDC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible EIIglbte roiled ID Rood Ctassitcah on Description Project Costs Share Fundna Funding total C■tv Cost funding Percent Capacity ENglble Cosh Cost(7011 Cost(SDC) Protect Costs Rai'ct Cosh Source Bene81(cartIlnuedi Metro Propel ID Portland&Western Rai Trail from 11228 Aai Bke/Ped Woman Ave.to Mah St. 31250000 100% $1.250.000 31250.000 25% 50% $156,250 SO $156.250 0% 100% TSP.RTP Tualatin River 1,01 Bka/Ped Complete multiuse path from Cook 310,000,000 100% $10,000000 $10000000 25% 50% $1250.000 30 $1.250.000 0% 100% City stall Toot Park to the PoweRhes Corridor Fenno Creek irai Bke/Ped Woodard Pork to Gant $670000 100% 3670000 $670000 25% 50% 383,750 3670.000 SD 100% 0% City staff Trot Fenno Creek tai Bke/Ped Tledeman Crossing Realignment 3250.000 100% 1250.000 $250000 25% 50% $31.250 30 331,250 0% 100% CIty staff Trail Cwrplele gaps along the Forma Fenno Creek hat Bka/Ped week multiuse path from the Tualatin $6.000.000 100% $6.000000 $.000.000 25% 50% $750000 $0 3750.000 0% 100% CM staff pat River to City Hall and from Highway 99W to roard Sheet Upper 800nes upper Widen to five lanes with bke tones (Durham to Arterial and sidewalks $10,000000 100% $10,000,000 310000.000 90% 90% $8,100,000 34,106,784 $3,993,216 51% 49% City staff Boones Sequoia) ' Upper Boone: Upper Provide Arterial Corridor Management ferry Road �n00 Ferry 0514 along Condor#2(I-5)h the Metro $1,300000 100% $1,300000 31,300.000 100% 100% II J00000 30 31,300.000 0% 100% City stall Rd ISMO Plan Metro Najecl ID Walnut SI Ade,oI WWan Wolnul St.to 3 lanes from Hwy. $8.000000 100% $8.000.000 38000000 40% 100% 33200.000 54,325812 $0 100% 0% TSP.RTP,CIP 11229 99 to Redeman Ave Metro Project ID Arterial Hwy.217 overo0sshg Hunzker-72nd 500,000000 100% $30.000,000 330000.000 80% 100% $24,000.000 $0 324,000.000 0% 100% TSP 10751 Ave. Hwy Turn lanes,aunt lanes,sidewalks.Ulm 9900/Dartmouth Arterial loom,aosshgs;Transit improvements $6.000.000 100% 16.000.000 $6,000.000 100% 100% $6,000.000 $308,987 $5,691,013 5% 95% City staff St, Geenburg Rd. Widen to 5 lanes from Locust St to (Hwy 217 to Hall Arterial Geanbu9 Rd;add turn/aux lanes; 320,000000 20% 516.001000 34.000.000 34.000.000 80% 100% $3200.000 $0 53200000 0% 100% CM stall Dr d) add bke tones and sidewalks Reoudrout corridor IOBM Street New bridge crossing north-south over Crossing of Bridge the Tuoloth River near 108th Avenue $3000'000 100% $3,000000 $3.000000 50% 50% $750,000 $0 $750,000 0% 100% CRY staff Tualatin Reef North Dakota 51 Bridge Replace with wirier bridge with 33.000000 100% $3000.000 33,000000 50% 50% $750,000 $0 $750,000 0% 100% City staff j Fenno Creek sidewalks and bke lanes j Dkksen-121st irai Bke/Ped New hot along Summer Creek from $1.000.000 100% $1.000000 $1.000.000 25% 50% $125000 $0 $125.000 0% 100% City staff Ave Poi Dkksen Nature Pork 10 121st Ave Woshhgton Square Mao 15M Adoptive Signal Coordhaffon $1000000 100% 31.000.003 31.000.000 i 100% 100% 31.000.000 $0 51000000 0% 100% City staff 5pnols Totals 3625271850 319,647,000 353,300.000 $552,324,850 3551,824,850 $392,345,980 SI 27,738,750 $277069222 Notes: I.Project ID's are consistent with eutkg local or regional franspatat0n plan project listings. 2.All projects listed ore assumed to be completed by year 2035. 3.All widening and newly constructed rood projects wit he ude bkelanes and sidewalks,even If not called out spectkally. 4.Capacity related portions of protects are consistent wets parameters shown h Appendix B. 5.Growth shores are estimated by City staff using Metro 2035 travel demand model.comparing 2010 to 2035 volume/capacity ratios. Trot isportatior System 1De velopment Ciarge Study • page 22 P -Capacity Share Assumption, Proportion of Project related to Improvement Type ca•aci New travel lanes added 100% Turn lanes or new traffic signals 100% New interconnected traffic signals 100% Road upgrades (widen from 3 to 5 lanes) 80% Road upgrades (change from local to collector standard) 75% Traffic signal upgrades 75% Road upgrades (widening &adding double left turn lanes) 50% Road upgrades (widening with new bike/ped facilities) 50% Road upgrades (widening from 2 to 3 lanes) 40% Access management& center turn lanes 25% Roadway realignment 25% Source:consistent with Washington County methodology per Appendix C, Amended TDT Road Project List,Jan. 2014 •:> FCS (_ ( )T1 3 Transportation System Development Charge Study page 23 Appendix C - Reimbursement Fee Calculation Transportation Capital Project Expenditures Reim- Reimbursement Fee FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY bursement Calculation 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fee Basis Tigard Traffic Impact Fee $408,826 $460,540 $1,283,017 $611,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $359,140 Fund Urban Services Traffic Impact $450 $2,554 Fee Fund Tigard Transportation Development Tax Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,840 Total $409,276 $463,094 $1,283,017 $611,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $1,234,980 Discount Factor (trip growth 12.98% 11.46% 9.96% 8.48% 7.01% 5.57% 4.15% 2.75% 1.37% rate) Net Present Value of Capacity Investment $356,155 $410,034 $1,155,273 $559,366 $886,604 $0 $0 $0 $1,218,120 $4,585,553 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP. •:•> FCS r.(_) ' IGARD. OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study -aril 2015 page 24 Appendix D - Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy (using TDT credit policy) SDC Option A: Districts' Total Cit -wide River Terrace (avg.) Total Cost(Land& Improvements)' $ 625,271,850 $ 585,121,850 $ 40,150,000 Less SDC Eligible Revenue $ 44,516,054 $ 30,804,818 $ 13,71 1,236 $5,000/per DU citywide; $5,497/per DU in RT overlay Remainin• Fundin• Re•uired $ 580,755,796 $ 554,317,032 $ 26,438,764 Other Potential Fundin, Sources TDT Revenue $ 82,534,026 $ 81,042,262 $ 1,491,764 Based on current TDT ODOT/County/Developer Funded $ 72,947,000 $ 53,300,000 $ 19,647,000 Possible regional funding solutions in future Grants $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Metro or state grants available City Fund Transfers $ - $ 3,000,000 Transp.Utility Fee Surcharge($5/month 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $5/month TUF fee overlay in RT RT only) $ District Other $ Total Other Funding $ 157,781,026 $ 134,342,262 $ 26,438,764 Remaining Funding Required** 422,974,770 419,974,770 $ - "Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide PRiMg documents.Assumes City's current credit policy. Funding •"Possible alternatives: Percent of gap Required Notes City could reestablish capital Delay project construction 50% $ (211,487,385) spending priorities Requires new Await non-local contributions(ODOT/County/Grants) 15% $ (63,446,215) state/regional/county funding This may limit development Require developer dedications(may be credit eligible) 15% $ (63,446,215) activity . City GO Bond(s) 0% $ Equates to about$1M per City Fund Transfers(e.g.,state and local gas tax) 5% $ (21,148,738) year Requires+/-$12.50 month TUF City TUF increase 15% $ (63,446,215) increase citywide Total 100% $ 422,974,770) •:;> F CS G RO I' This page intentionally left blank VAIML . , SUPPLEMENTAL PACKE FOR April aV Viols (DATED F M EETING) N ,�� CityofTigard• Tfa • _ - A. - { -��A D s System 4010 Development Charges for Parks „ .o- 1 - and Transportation 4iii‘v-N ,, i , Council Hearing ;71if April 28, 2015 • FCS• GROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting • •.4.. Presentation Agenda SDC for Parks — Policy direction — Residential SDCs — Non-residential SDC based on square feet SDC for Transportation — Policy direction — Residential SDC based on size of house — SDC discounts for transit-oriented development Results and Comparison of SDCs to neighboring jurisdictions FCS GROUP Page 2 ♦♦• Tigard Parks SDC Update Reimbursement fee, improvement fee, and admin fee elements SDC overlay for River Terrace • Discount SDCs to foster development Assess non-residential development based on square feet Only development to pay SDC / � FCS GROUP Page 3 _. .4 Parks SDCs : Current and Proposed ... SDC Current Tigard Parks & Trails SDC Current Residential SDC per capita $ 2,753 SDC per single family dwelling $ 6,451 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,156 Non-residential SDC per employee $ 446 SDC-i (proposed)* Total SDC (proposed) River River Terrace Citywide Terrace Proposed Tigard Parks & Trails !F ] SDC-r Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential SDC per capita $ 399 $ 2,281 $ 983 $ 2,681 $ 3,664 SDC per single family dwelling "':; $ 1,017 $ 5,807 $ 2,502 $ 6,824 $ 9,327 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 766 $ 4,372 $ 1,884 $ 5,138 $ 7,022 •n-residential SDC per emplo ee** $ 105 $ 602 $ 707 $ 707 Source' derived from prior tables. SDC-r = reimbursement fee; SDC-i = improvement fee. * Includes compliance fee. ** Non-residential SDCs calculations for new development are to be based on square feet of floor area (see Table 5.2) FCS GROUP Page 4 ♦♦■ • Non-Residential Parks SDC - Square Fet Parks SDC Conversion Factors for Non-Residential Uses Parks Employees Parks SDC Per Per 1 ,000 SDC Per Employee SF 1 ,00 General Industrial $707 1.25 $884 Warehousing/Distribution $707 0.80 $566 Flex $707 1.60 $1,132 Office $707 3.33 $2,357 Retail $707 2.22 $1,572 Institutional $707 2.00 $1,414 Source: Discussions with Metro, compiled by FCS GROUP. FCS GROUP Page 5 • ••. • Tigard SDC Reimbursement fee, improvement fee, and admin fee elements SDC overlay for River Terrace Discount SDCs to foster development New charge to supplement other funding sources Only development to pay SDC Jk /1 FCS GROUP Page 6 •• ••.• Policy Direction Discount SDCs to foster development Adjust SDC based on size of single family detached home Discounts for transit-oriented developments Special credit policy for River Terrace Boulevard 01 gt Rr FCS GROUP Page 7 Transportation SDCs : Proposed No current SDC Costs represent River Terrace Blvd. local elements being 50% credit eligible in addition to elements beyond local streets are 100% credit eligible. SDC-i & Compliance Total SDC (after Fee discount) River River Citywide Terrace Citywide Terrace Base SDC-r Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development Avg. charge per dwelling $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dwelling $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge per multifamily dwelling $182 $3,151 $1 ,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development Avg. charge per P.M. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip $483 $8,362 $1 ,030 $8,844 $9,874 1 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide. No adjustments made for linked-trips. FCS GROUP Page 8 •• •�• Single Family Detached Home TSDC based on size of structure Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A (revenue neutral) (living area sq.ft.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source: compiled by FCS Group based on: Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results , Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services; and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers , Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT = average daily person trips; SFD = single family detached home. FCS GROUP _ Page 9 Transportation SDC Discounts for Transit Oriented Developments in Downtown Transportation Benefit Based Impact& Potential Development on... Reduction Level TSDC Reduction Requirement I New development within 0.5 Proximity to 10%Vehicle Trip Level 1 miles from Tigard Transit Transit Service Reduction Center 17%Vehicle Trip Minimum Res.Density of 24 Discounts TSDCs up Level 2 Reduction dwellings per gross acre to 25% depending Minimum Res.Density of 24 dwellings per acre and at least upon proposed 20%Vehicle Trip 15%of thegroundfloorarea development mix and Proximity to Level 3 devoted to commercial Reduction Transit Service or location and Minimum FAR of 1.0 per acre Development for non-res.development t Discounts are not Minimum res.density of 55 Discounts l dwellings per acre and at additive 25%Vehicle Trip least 15%of ground floor area Level 4 devoted to commercial uses Reduction or Minimum FAR of 1.5 per acre for non-res.development Notes: Some portion of the development site must be located within a 0.50(one half)mile radius(straight line distance measurement)of Tigard Transit Center to qualify for 7SDC reduction. FCS GROUP Page 10 _• •♦> • SDC Comparison — Single Family Detached Homes (Option B-1 ) Proposed Tigard's Proposed River Terrace $50,000 Tigard's Existing Citywide SDC: SDCs: $39,049 SDCs: y7.817 $3304 $40,000 �r $30,000 II 111 II riffle $20,000 1111 ■ ■ ■ ■ lUJI ■ $10,000 I I I I I I I I I I I $0 a�a~`e 'k <•('c)r1 c,��e Coco ��Q,o ��oc .,,,4 area\ ���oe ooa area\ o�aa1 a`a,�\ maraca osea� a`a� 'e aF ego DSO ,i, O`' a, .+. \, e`' c� so �oQ c\ e ,oQ ,o\ `aa O, 3, awe Q� a\ Jai ,;,o �a \Q �c <,6,0 \Q 00 4<t. b .`4. 'e. ``o `ae e' �O `aLe 4� �aea� �e��\eay e`ra� Q .Qoaa` er ooQ �e�e` ho�r \ c Qo aQQ,a\ 0, ho �.�a`aQ • Parks - Sewer Storm 'Water •Transport(TDT) ■Transport(SDC) s Other North Bethany comparison includes a cap value of the County Service District required to pay for infrastructure improvements *Fees shown include existing and proposed SDCs FCS GROUP Page 11 ♦♦> Transportation SDC Comparison - Single Family Detached Home (Option B1 or B2) Tigard's Proposed Proposed Citywide SDC: River Terrace $13,750 SDCs:$15,392 $20,000 4e $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 001 $12,000 $10,000 County Service District $8,000 ■Transport (SDC) $6,000 $4,000 Transport (TDT) $2,000 $0 Tigard South Cooper Tigard River South North Citywide Mtn. (draft) Terrace Hillsboro Bethany (proposed) (proposed) (draft) North Bethany comparison includes a cap value of the County Service District required to pay for infrastructure improvements *Fees shown include existing and proposed SDCs FCS GROUP Page 12 •: SDC Comparison - 1 .5KSF Coffee Shop* Tigard's Existing Tigard's Potential Potential River Citywide SDC: Citywide SDC (B1): Terrace SDC (B1): $84K $197K $211K $250,000 - _ It$200,000 J j;± - B3 $130k $150,000 $129k B2 $100,000 $122K $50,000 Beaverton Tigard Hillsboro North South Cooper Tigard South Tigard River (Existing) Bethany Mtn. (draft) Citywide Hillsboro Terrace (proposed) (draft) (proposed) •Parks •Sewer ' Storm •Water •Transport (TDT) Transport (SDC) Other Assumes 5 employees, 1KSF parking lot, 2" sewer meter, 160 fixtures, land use code 936, and building value of $500,000. Water SDCs unavailable. North Bethany comparison includes a cap value of the County Service District required to pay for infrastructure improvements *Fees shown include existing and proposed SDCs under Option B1, B2 and B3. FCS GROUP Page 13 •4 SDC Comparison - 40KSF Office BIdg .* Tigard's Existing Tigard's Potential Potential River Citywide SDC: Citywide SDC: Terrace SDCs: $852K $1.4M $1.5M $1,600,000 4' - $1,400,000 -- — - - - ------ — $1,200,000 B3 B3• B2 $1.1M B2 $1.1M $1,000,000 — ---- $800,000 $600,000 0 $400,000 $200,000 Beaverton Tigard Hillsboro South North Tigard South Tigard River (Existing) Cooper Mtn. Bethany Citywide Hillsboro Terrace (draft) (proposed) (draft) (proposed) • Parks • Sewer TR Storm ■Water •Transport (TDT) Transport (SDC) Other Assumes 100 employees, 5KSF parking lot, 8" sewer meter, 1,600 fixtures, land use code 710, and building value of $3,000,000. Water SDCs unavailable. North Bethany comparison includes a cap value of the County Service District required to pay for infrastructure improvements *Fees shown include existing and proposed SDCs under Option B1, B2 and B3. FCS GROUP Page 14 • ••> • Stakeholder Input Direction No major issues (to date) with proposed parks SDCs When Discounting TSDCs: City should keep discounts similar for residential and non-residential uses Issues with TSDC that takes into account home size General Support (to date) for TSDClcredit policy option B Two New Alternatives to TSDC Option B (given input): Alt. B2: discount non-res rates (same as res rates) Results in +/- $20M increase in funding gap Alt.B3: lower discounts for res and non-res to keep TSDC revenue neutral (no change in funding gap) FCS GROUP Page 15 Transportation SDCs : Option B Option B1:Total SDC Option B2:Total SDC Option B3: Total SDC River River River Citywide Terrace Citywide Terrace Citywide Terrace Development Type Total Total Total Total Total Total Residential Development Single family detached dwelling $5,714 $8,356 $5,714 $8,356 $7,209 $10,583 Multifamily dwelling $3,333 $4,875 $3,333 $4,875 $4,206 $6,173 Non-Residential Development 1 Avg. charge per PHVT' $8,844 $9,874 $2,872 $2,944 $3,533 $3,625 1 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide. No adjustments made for linked- trips. FCS GROUP Page 16 r5.1 ,,mg: I ,h6 ..,2 _,= AGENDA ITEM No. 6 u iJ 0//1(;)- ,-5— Date: April 28, 2015 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent— (Speaking In Favor) Opponent— (Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. /Name,Address&Phone No. 1011 OW- - Y FT- C714-3 1' IS SS sw ��rRA- 3444 Nu, a... � ta1t0-Osve90t DK 47035 503- il—M$° 5773-3 A-08,0-1 Name,Address&Phone No. L-Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. s5nai__�% f-^%r' Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone NV Name,Address&Phone No. ��- 519 Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. itAA atta ✓ M i ■ie*'ifl f' ivo I I2O t4,N CWCt► -7W1714 Ploc12- A/�, Ar med . ronAN9 17209-1117c..=- f3� Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. v Name,Address&Phone No. SIs- '3oS-12 , a AGENDA ITEM No. 6 Date: April 28, 2015 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent—(Speaking In Favor) Opponent— (Speaking Against) Neutral Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. C'Ny to t e n.11 .,7 1 '101 ? b+14a . Oa- 4112u 563- 2.2,3- —Li , Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. ,r Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. NAIOP SUPPLEMENTAL suPPLEMENTAL.CKET Officers COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE FOR President.Kirk Olsen DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (DATA ^ i1�± Trammell Crow OREGON CHAPTER MEET/ND) Pres.-Elect Steve Barragar Harsch Investment Properties April 27, 2015 Treasurer,Eric Castle Shorensten Realty Services.LP The Hon. John Cook, Mayor Secretary,Brad Miller � Y Ball Janik LLP Tigard City Council Past-Pres.,Benjamin Chesser 13125 SW Hall Blvd. PacTrust Tigard,OR 97223 Board of Directors Mike Bematz Proposed Park and Transportation System Development Charges Menwether Partners rtners LLC Dear Mayor Cook and Councilors: Evan Bernstein Y Pacific NW Properties LP Brent Hedberg NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, is one of the Speck!Development leading organizations for developers, investors,owners &operators,brokers, Blake Hering.Jr. and related professionals in office, industrial and mixed-use real estate Norris Beggs&Simpson throughout the United States, Canada,and Mexico. The Oregon Chapter's Sue Kerns members represent a broad and diverse range of companies involved with ZGF LLP commercial real estate activities in the Portland metropolitan area, including Eddie Construction developers, owners,brokers, and managers, along with other professionals providing legal, finance, title, engineering, architectural, construction, and MK Long US Bank other services. Jody Patton Lawyers Title After reviewing the transportation and park SDC proposals before you Joe Mollusky today,we have serious concerns about the assumptions that were used and Port of Portland the significant impacts that such drastic fee increases will have on future Jim Rodrigues • commercial development within the City. Prologis Stuart Skaug Among our concerns: CBRE,Inc. Dietrich Wieland • Effective Date—According to the draft ordinance before you,the drastic Mackenzie fee increases being proposed would become effective in less than three months,on July 1g. We believe strongly that any increase should have a Executive Director longer lead time and be phased in so that commercial development Kelly Ross projects currently in process to begin the permitting process won't be unnecessarily burdened by additional costs that could not have been foreseen when pro forma analyses and financing were finalized. • Transportation SDC Methodology—As proposed, the total transportation SDC charged for commercial development would make Tigard the jurisdiction with the highest permitting fees in the region. For example, as I read the rates, a 50,000 square foot general office building would be 6745 SW Hampton,Suite 101 Portland,OR 97223 Tel:(503)223-1766 Fax: (503)597-3668 charged $658,950 in addition to the$551,700 Washington County TDT, for a total of $1,210,650. That compares with current SDC rates in Gresham of$528,894,Portland $299,500,Clackamas County$444,750, and Sherwood$747,050. We would urge you to reconsider this drastic rate increase and the disastrous impact that we believe it would have on the City's economic development efforts. A proposal from consultant FCS Group would discount the residential transportation SDC by approximately 66%. We believe strongly that the same discount level should also apply to commercial development. • Park SDC Methodology–According to ORS 223.304(2)(a)(B), improvement fees must be established or modified under a methodology that demonstrates consideration of"the need for increased capacity in the system to which the fee is related that will be required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users." The FCS Group methodology asserts that demand by future commercial users can be determined by a very general national census survey to arrive at the conclusion that commercial development should pay a 17.27%share of all future park improvement costs. There is insufficient evidence to back this assertion that access to parks at certain hours of the day translates into measurable benefits for various classes of system users. The benefit distribution asserted in Appendix A-1 (page 16)is an interesting schema,but it is not backed by any empirical observation. It's completely unreasonable to use this approach—without any regard to the distance of existing parks from commercial development(many existing commercial/industrial buildings aren't within walking distance of any park areas)—to gauge impacts on the park system,and then apply the 17.27% figure to all classes of future park improvements(neighborhood_parks/pocket parks,open space,trails,etc.). In virtually every other SDC methodology that we've encountered,there is a direct empirically measured relation between system use and the calculation of system benefits. For the water system the benefit measure is the amount of water consumed by meter size. That consumptive distribution is then used to allocate the cost of improvements for water treatment, storage, and distribution to serve growth. Metered water use in winter months and sampled nutrient loads are used in sanitary sewer SDCs to allocate the cost to serve demand that new development will impose the sanitary sewer system. The amount of new impervious surface area and runoff association with a"system design storm"provides the basis for allocating the cost to build stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities. Monitored traffic generation and flow patterns along with design standards for amenities that are not capacity constrained are used to allocate costs for future transportation improvements. The assertion that time in the city provides a reliable basis for estimating system benefits and for allocating costs to future development is especially bothersome when there are no data to support the hourly utilization factors for the various user groups. There also is no data to support the seasonal adjustments used to compute the weighted average hours for the various April 27,2015 Letter to Tigard City Council re Park&Transportation SDC Methodology Reports-Page 2 classes of users. The assertions for how differing classes of park users benefit from and impose demands on the system is a fabrication that is not based on any empirical observation of actual use or adopted capacity standards for different classes of park assets. It is difficult to imagine, for example,that park use surveys would align with the proxy-benefit claim in the methodology that resident and non-resident employed persons benefit equally from the park system before and after work hours. This may be true for passive use of near-by parks during the lunch hour,but non-residents are unlikely to take a lunch hour yoga class at a community center, or lap swim, or enroll in a program for which they must pay a non-resident fee. The methodology's proposal to use guesswork about amount of time per day that people can use parks is not a reasonable or rational basis for allocating costs to future system users when there should be other empirically based measures available such as records for visitors to its facilities and/or survey information for visitors to city parks. An analysis of these data would provide a more reliable and defensible approach for allocating costs between residential and non- residential development. Consultant FCS Group has suggested a discount of the park SDC for new residential development—we would recommend a similar or larger discount for non-residential development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the transportation and park SDC methodology reports. We hope to have the opportunity for involvement in a continuing process to further refine these proposals to ensure that the Tigard parks and transportation systems have capacity to accommodate future growth within the city in a fair and equitable manner. Sincerely, Kel y Ross Executive Director April 27,2015 Letter to Tigard City Council re Park&Transportation SDC Methodology Reports-Page 3 Pir.1111 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR L I- ? /.s- H BA (DATE OF MEETING) Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland April 28,2015 The Hon.John Cook, Mayor Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Proposed Park and Transportation System Development Charges Dear Mayor Cook and Councilors: On behalf of the more than 1,400 members of the Home Builders Association of Metro Portland, I am writing to express concerns with the City's proposed Parks and Transportation System Development Charges (SDC) methodologies. We want to be clear that we support SDCs as a way of helping fund needed infrastructure. We also understand that a new area like River Terrace has additional needs that will require extra costs. With that said,we also have a general concern with how much SDCs are rising and their impact on housing affordability(they are now the second highest building cost,after land, in the price of most homes). SDCs are not the only way new development can pay for needed costs, but they have a significant impact on home prices, affordability and mortgage debt. We would ask that the Council consider these overall impacts in also reviewing our specific concerns below. In addition to the general concern with housing affordability,we also want to raise some specific concerns related to the proposal before you. We would very much appreciate having more time to review these with City staff before the Council votes on the proposed methodology and increases. 1) Parks SDC projected costs. We appreciate that a lot of work has gone into these numbers. However,the Parks SDC plan appears to contain very high estimates for some of the capital improvements needed that may be overinflating the total costs, and thus impacting the proposed SDCs. We would appreciate an opportunity to review these costs in more detail. 2) Transportation SDC impact. North Bethany utilized a County Service District which helps pay for infrastructure improvements and reduces the amount put on housing through a transportation SDC. We strongly urge the City to look at a similar approach, as adding the proposed Transportation SDC to the existing TDT would create a total charge to new housing of over $16,000 just for transportation. Over the life of a mortgage,that would add $40,000-$50,000 in debt to a homeowner. Home Builders Association of Metro Portland 15555 SW Bangy Rd.,Ste.301 Lake Oswego,OR97035 503-684-1880• Fax 503-684-0588 3) Transportation SDC scaling to home size. This is a new issue that we just became aware of last Wednesday. To date, no jurisdiction in Oregon bases their Transportation SDC off of the square footage of a home. State statute requires that SDCs must be directly related to the impact a new home has on the transportation system. The widely used and accepted practice is to base impact using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, which only distinguishes trip use between multi-family and single-family homes. The fact ITE has never been able to show a nexus between single-family home size and trip usage is telling. As is the fact the consultants the City hired had to"compile" a new source from a couple of anecdotal surveys. We believe this violates ORS 223.299,which states that an SDC must have a nexus to increased usage. There is no accepted standard that shows a smaller or larger home has a lesser or greater impact on the transportation system. We appreciate that this approach is being explored to address affordability issues of smaller homes. However,there are other ways to accomplish this goal and we would willingly work with the City to explore some of these alternatives. 4) SIX Discounts. The FCS report states that there are discounts off of the maximum allowed SDC for both transportation and parks. These discounts acknowledge that using the full SDC could unduly burden housing affordability and that there are other ways new users can pay for added infrastructure(e.g. bonds, utility fees,grants and credits). We support this approach but are unable to determine the discounts from the report information. We would like the opportunity to review this further with staff to better understand what is being recommended. 5) Effective Date—According to the draft ordinance before you,the drastic fee increases being proposed would become effective in a little over two months,on July 1st.We believe strongly that any increase should have a longer lead time and be phased in so that residential development projects currently in process to begin the permitting process won't be unnecessarily burdened by additional costs that could not have been foreseen when pro forma analyses and financing were finalized. Again,we realize a lot of work has gone into the proposed methodology reports,and we appreciate that many concerns we typically have with new methodologies have been factored in to the work. We don't believe the concerns above will require significant delays in review. However, in light of these concerns, we ask that the Council consider granting a two week continuance in order to allow for additional review and potential revised recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, / ,fr-------- Jon Kloor Government Relations Coordinator Home Builders Association of Metro Portland Home Builders Association of Metro Portland pg.2 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR / Pacific (DATE OF MEETING) C'oniniunit■ Design MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2015 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Jim Lange, on behalf of Polygon Northwest RE: Parks Ft Recreation SDC Methodology Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Parks 8 Recreation SDC Methodology. Based on our review of limited information, on behalf of our client Polygon, we would like to request additional time to review the costs associated with implementing the Parks Master Plan in River Terrace. Attached is an example of a comparable park that was recently constructed by Polygon in another master planned community. This information demonstrates their concern that the cost estimates used by staff may be excessive and therefore are driving an inflated Park SDC. We would like to have time to work through these park cost assumptions with staff prior to adoption of the Park SDC's. Thank you. 12564 SW Main Street,Tigard,OR 97223• [T]503-941-9484[F]503-941-9485 i. N k • .10a ,g '-•-7 l !• "� 'fit Vii., • 41, ` ei: ;: ' ; v ; "�fir. F " 1� ` Tyr , ✓�.-��,� /' Jt , , ,,,.a.t. .• ,... e 4 ... . • , ; . . . 4 . �p� 'x 1!" :°0 0^..,:C MAXI w ml,c _ .,1 - r y - r.;1,•• i.,� /war .roex.."`. 11� u �„u,. * • t T W 1� `�y T s tt , ' - .III- ' lin S.": .0 1 ito •• ., . . IIl i�`� im .1"ia II . ' • �_ frl...:0.1 Y 4!4�- ".,ft . - 4c4♦ l e• • / /0-7. : .....E....6525-•Ft'-'1-A61-7:1 tke,40-4,,,,::_a:"... ' *Ai "IA _ � ..- �; ' Park Area:s.,G.MS Q --, .. 3.57 Acres Development Costs: $157,279 per Acre Park Manaus Plmalq,Dolga, Nituty Contraction Padttly, Sim(Milo or ]and Aegaldton/ Stow Ball!kids/ Vpmted lntaprrtlw Irelptd Peonage Cenyyse7 Administration Tale Amer) Emanates Paved P.ba Canaan Play Equip Coon Building Iola Bmeko Slpnp Opm Spew ImproSementt (30%) Da/Mumma Cam (55%) Taal Cat Noon Units Acre - Unit Prices 5.190,000 Crst to acquire easement maybe less per acre. COMMUNITY PARKS 19.25 Otero 16,212,180 $2,174,263 $15,893,943 xallfielda-multi,bball,tennis.lighting:Buildings-resstuoms. Community Park 10.75 $4.192,500 5321,000 $85.010 5385,000 $750.000 5150.000 $43.000 510000 $300,000 $700,000 5823,200 $3367,200 51,248.520/ $9.006.220 medium amphitheater,large pisnk.Other-,railhead,parkin` WOfielda-mule,bball.tennis.lightn1 Buildings-renrooms. Community Park 8.50 53.315,000 $171,600 $60,000 $120,000 $210000 090.000 $23,000 610.000 $450,000 $600,000 $610,380 $2,644,950 0923.743 16,185,723 medium picnic Other-parking off-leash dog park NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 962 arras 52,203500 5771,725 $6,726525 Neighborhood Park 1.40 5546,010 350.IX0 525.000 535.000 525.000 5100.000 55,000 $10,000 6100000 5105.000 5455.000 3159.250 61.160.250 Ball geld-hukethall.Building-picnic Neighborhood Park 130 5585,000 550,000 625.000 525.000 55,000 510.000 5100.000 f61,500 820300 397.525 5962.325 Building picnic.Other-community garden Neighborhood Park 1.60 $624,000 550000 $25.000 $35,000 525,000 5100,000 55.000 510,000 $100,000 0105,000 5455.000 0159.250 01,218,250 Other-small.carer feature Neighborhood Park 1.65 5643,500 550,000 $25,000 125,000 55,000 $10.000 $100,000 $64,500 5279,500 397,825 51.020.825 xuilding-picnic.Ocher-community garden Neighborhood Park 135 5526500 550,000 $25,000 535.000 $25.000 0100.000 35,000 $10.000 1100.000 $105,000 5455000 0159.250 $1,110.750 Ball Bell-baskmba0,Building-picnic Neighborhood Pack 2.12 $826,800 550,dp 525,000 525.000 35.000 510,000 8100,000 ' , 564,500 597.525 51.204,125 Building-pittsk,Other-community garden LINEAR PARKS 8.02 son 5169,.„ 555150 13.355.950 Linear Parks 5.02 $3,127,800 5100,000 510.000 $20,000 339,000 5169.000 059,150 53355,950 Assume Linear park is added on to the trail. TRAILS 3.01 milts $565,916 5198,071 11,454.097 River Terra.. 2.28 1Cmms moved to Ri..r Terrace TSP pro0em list. Southern Access hiat assume.a 20 wide land acquisition.Maybe easement is less 0.73 $690,110 5308,320 $100,000 - _ 623.000 $4.000 _ $130,596 $565.916 $198,071 $1,454.091 re Totals 115,077,210 Tntal. $9,150.596 . .' 709 $27,430,51$ ■ Average Park Costs: $229,054 per acre P e R K I N S COI PSUP 11 NW(nuch Street 0 +1.503.727.2(ln(1 PLEMENTAL PAC lour o +1.503.727.2222 FOR % e _aU�s - Portland.Ott 972119 4128 I)erkinscole.corn (PATE OF MEETING) April 28, 2015 Michael C.Robinson MRobinson(r,perkinseoie.com o (503)727-2264 F (503)346-2264 VIA EMAIL John Cook, Mayor City of Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: April 28, 2015 Legislative Hearing on Storm Water, Parks, and Transportation System Development Charges and Fees; Testimony by West Hills Development Company Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the Tigard City Council: This office represents West Hills Development Company ("West Hills"). West Hills is an owner and developer of property in the River Terrace Plan District. West Hills has asked me to send this letter to the City Council on its behalf concerning the proposed transportation and parks System Development Charges ("SDCs"). As an initial matter, because of the volume and complexity of the materials before the City Council in this hearing, West Hills requests that the City Council continue the public hearing to a date certain no earlier than two(2)weeks from today and leave the record open for public testimony through the continued hearing date. As the City Council knows, this legislative ordinance is not subject to the 120-day provision in ORS 227.178(3)and,therefore, the City Council is not bound to make the final decision within a certain amount of time. West Hills' issues are related to the proposed transportation and parks SDCs. The issues identified in this letter are only a summary of West Hills concern and West Hills will provide additional argument and evidence prior to and at the continued City Council hearing. 1. Transportation System Development Charges. A. West Hills believes that the River Terrace transportation SDCs are too high. In fact, the chart in the presentation to the City Council shows that the River Terrace SDCs will be the second highest of seventeen (17) SDC comparisons. West Hills requires more time to evaluate the impact on the development of their property. West Hills notes that there is an approximately 40 percent premium for transportation SDCs in the River Terrace Plan District as opposed to transportation SDCs in other parts of the City. This is a tremendous burden for property developers and homeowners in the River Terrace Plan District to absorb. 37165-0020/1.1:(3A1.125844935 1 John Cook, Mayor April 28, 2015 Page 2 B. West Hills is concerned about the listed cost of the proposed public road projects in the River Terrace Plan District. The roads will be built by property developers, such as West Hills,and credits applied against the payment of SDCs. West Hills understands that property owners will be eligible for 100 percent of the capacity portion of a public road and 50 percent of the local portion. The City will not build the roads; the roads will be privately built and the SDCs collected from the private developers. Because private developers will be constructing the roads and relying on credits to partly offset the cost of the transportation SDCs, West Hills is concerned that the City may be over-collecting SDCs based on the proposed rates if the estimated costs of the roads prove to be too high. C. West Hills opposes scaled SDCs(i.e.: SDCs based on the size of a dwelling unit). To the best of West Hills knowledge, this methodology has not been used anywhere in Oregon and is thus unproven. Moreover, West Hills has not had the opportunity to review the source materials used by the City's consultant to justify this untested approach. D. Washington County anticipates enacting a Major Street Transportation Improvement Program ("MSTIP") bond program to help build major roads in new areas such as the River Terrace Plan District. The MSTIP would apply to Roy Rogers Road. The City should consider the MSTIP bond program in the financing plan so that SDC rates can be reduced. West Hills expects the Washington County Board of Commissioners to adopt the MSTIP bond program by the end of 2015. E. It is unclear who is responsible for constructing Roy Rogers Road and what transportation SDC credits will be available. 2. Parks System Development Charges. A. West Hills appreciates that ORS Chapter 223 authorizes a reimbursement system development charge. It is unclear to West Hills that the reimbursement SDC for parks is appropriately applied to the River Terrace Plan District. B. It is unclear to West Hills who will be responsible for funding and building parks in the River Terrace Plan District. If private developers are responsible for park construction, then the same issue applies to the proposed parks SDCs that applies to the proposed transportation SDCs; that is, the SDCs may be artificially high. C. West l fills does not understand why developers are required to pay both a citywide parks SDC and a River Terrace parks SDC. West Hills believes that the River Terrace Parks SDCs should be included in the citywide parks SDCs so there is one citywide parks SDCs. As a practical matter, there will be no limitation on use of parks by Tigard residents. Residents 3716i-0020/LEGAL]25844935 1 stir John Cook, Mayor April 28, 2015 Page 3 outside of the River Terrace Plan District will be able to use the River Terrace Plan District parks. 3. Conclusion. West Hills appreciates all of the time and work that City staff, City consultants, Planning Commission members, and City Council members have spent on the proposed system development charge and fee program. Nevertheless, West Hills believes there are important and substantial questions that remain to be answered. Therefore, additional time is needed before the City Council takes action on this proposed ordinance. As noted in the beginning of this letter, West Hills respectfully requests that the City Council continue the public hearing so that it and other interested persons may submit additional argument and evidence for the City Council's consideration. Very truly yours, e RICO, Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsr cc: Mr. Wally Remmers (via email) Mr. Dan Grimberg (via email) Mr. Mike Peebles (via email) 37165-0020/IJiCi.A1.125844935. 1`ia•.1;nr;lf' M I L L E R U.S. Bancorp Tower N AS H GRAHAM SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue,Suite 3400 FOR V—; 'OCR Portland,Oregon 97204 AT DU N N<<P ATTORNEYS AT LAW (DATE OF MEETING) o6nce 503.224.5858 rnx503.224.0155 Kelly S.Hossaini kelly.hossaini@millernash.com 503.205.2332 direct line April 28, 2015 BY HAND DELIVERY Mayor Cook City Council City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Subject: City Transportation Systems Development Charge ("SDC") Dear Mayor Cook and Councilors: I represent Tigard-Tualatin School District, and the purpose of this letter is to provide comments on behalf of the District on the proposed City transportation SDC. Last week the District reviewed the information in the Council packet for this evening and was surprised to see that the recommended transportation SDCs for commercial, industrial, and institutional development were so high. To understand how the new transportation SDC might affect the District, the District calculated the proposed transportation SDC for a new 60o-student elementary school in the city, but outside of River Terrace. The proposed City transportation SDC for that school came to a shocking $1.2 million. Adding the required Washington County transportation development tax ("TDT") of$232,200, the total transportation SDC alone for the elementary school would be over $1.4 million. The District then compared what the transportation SDC would be for that same elementary school built in different Portland metropolitan jurisdictions, including the City of Portland. Attached is a table of those findings. As you will see, the proposed Tigard transportation SDC is well above anything charged in other jurisdictions. The total transportation SDC in Sherwood, which is one of the few cities in Washington County with its own transportation SDC, would be only $289,200. As a note, Sherwood cut its transportation SDC by 50%last year, and the original amount of that SDC was far less than the one proposed here. Portland, OR Seattle, WA Vancouver, WA Bend, OR Long Beach, CA 70022332.1 MILLERNASH.COM MILLER NASH GRAHAM &DU N NLLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mayor Cook City Council April 28, 2015 Page 2 The impact of this new SDC on the District will be significant. First, it will make it much more difficult for the District to provide needed school facilities to serve the residents of Tigard. This is because scarce bond money will have to be diverted from providing important components of capital projects, like sufficient classroom space and science labs, in order to pay the SDC. Second, an SDC of this magnitude will almost certainly have a substantial adverse impact on the economic health of the city. New development that would otherwise keep Tigard's tax base healthy will likely go to nearby cities that do not have such a burdensome transportation SDC. The District relies on a healthy tax base to fund local option levies, which allow the District to maintain a full school year. While other school districts in Washington County are considering a reduced school year in order to balance their budgets due to insufficient state funding, the District's local option levy will allow it to maintain full school years in the upcoming biennium. The District attended a meeting with staff regarding the proposed parks and transportation SDCs on April 23, 2015. It is our understanding that staff will be giving Council the option to discount the transportation SDC for non-residential uses. As of the preparation of this letter,the District has not seen the proposal. The impact of this new SDC on the District (and the economic health of the city) will be significant. We would ask, then, that Council not adopt the proposed non-residential portion of the transportation SDC tonight, but allow more time for its review and consideration. This consideration should include a substantial reduction in the amount of the SDC, as well as a phase-in to allow the market to adjust. The District appreciates this opportunity to provide comments. Very truly yours As i Ke ► ossaini cc: Mr. Ernie Brown Mr. David Moore Attachment Portland, OR Seattle, WA Vancouver,WA Bend, OR Long Beach, CA 70022332.1 MILLERNASH.COM 600 Student Elementary School 74,000 square feet Jurisdiction Transportation System Development Charges Tigard $1,433,220 (WACO TDT+TTSDC) Tigard - River Terrace $1,583,070 (WACO TDT+TTSDC+RTTSDC) Sherwood $ 289,200 (WACO TDT+STSDC) Washington County - Unincorporated* $ 232,200 (WACO TDT) Washington County -North Bethany $ 408,000 (WACO TDT+NBTSDC) City of Portland $ 203,500 (PTSDC) *Most cities in Washington County rely on the Washington County Transportation Development Tax and do not have their own transportation SDC. Therefore, this amount would reflect the transportation SDC for building the elementary school in Beaverton and Hillsboro,for example. Washington County Transportation Development Tax (WACO TDT) Tigard Transportation System Development Charge (TTSDC) River Terrace Transportation System Development Charge (RTTSDC) Sherwood Transportation System Development Charge (STSDC) North Bethany Transportation System Development Charge (NBTSDC) Portland Transportation System Development Charge (PTSDC) 70021825.1 Tigard, Oregon T1( ARD PARKS & RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY REPORT (DRAFT) February 25, 2015 •:;> FCS ( ; R( )LP This entire report is maa.=of r?ad v rec�/dable materials incluaina me bronze Aire bir and the front and bacK cover n-.X7e 'ost-consumer Clastic bottles. TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study February, 2015 page i This page intentionally left blank •::) FCS GROUP • TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation System Development Charge Study February, 2015 page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1 A. Policy 1 B. Project 1 SECTION II: APPROACH 3 A. Reimbursement Fee 3 B. Improvement Fee 3 C. Growth 3 D. Compliance Costs 4 E. Geographic Allocation 4 F. Summary 4 SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION 5 A. Relevant Types of Growth 5 B. Population Growth 5 B.1 Expected Growth 5 B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units 5 C. Employment Growth 6 C.1 Expected Growth 6 C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents 6 SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION 8 A. SDC Reimbursement Fee 8 B. Facility Needs 9 C. Facility Costs 9 SECTION V: SDC CALCULATION 2 A. Calculated SDCs by Use 12 B. Residential SDC per Dwelling Unit 12 C. Annual Adjustment 12 D. Credits, Exemptions and discounts 13 D.1 Credits 13 D.2 Exemptions 13 D.3 Discounts 13 D.4 Tigard Parks SDCs After Discount 13 E. Existing and Proposed SDCs 14 APPENDIX 15 • > FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 1 SECTION I : BACKGROUND This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. A. POLICY Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS)223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system development charges (SDCs). These are one-time fees on new development which are paid at the time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC: • A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements already constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists" • An improvement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed" ORS 223.304(1) states,in part, that a reimbursement fee must be based on"the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities"and must account for prior contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant-funded facilities. The calculation must "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed). ORS 223.304(2) states, in part, that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words,the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or that do not otherwise increase capacity for future users,may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement fee may be spent only on capital improvements(or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed). B. PROJECT In August, 2014, the City of Tigard(City)contracted with FCS GROUP to update its SDCs for parks. This report documents our findings and recommendations. We approached this project as a series of three steps: • Framework for Charges. In this step,we worked with City staff to identify and agree on the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis. • Technical Analysis. In this step,we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks &Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 2 • Draft Methodology Report Preparation. In this step, we documented the calculation of the draft SDC rates included in this report. This Tigard Parks and Recreation SDC Methodology Report is intended to be generally consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014. The adopted funding strategy supports the creation of an SDC overlay district within the River Terrace Plan District. Please refer to City of Tigard Community Development Code: Map 18.660 for tax lots that are included in the River Terrace Plan District(Exhibit 1.1). Once this Parks SDC methodology is adopted,future development in Tigard would be subject to a citywide SDC, and development within River Terrace would also be subject to both the citywide SDC and the River Terrace SDC. Exhibit 1.1: River Terrace Plan District IN River Terrace Plan District H 1 1 Flan Om aa,no.n 9p 116Alm 1=1 'Nod cAV&under, A y*i' NS 99 5 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 7 nfl _ t / t l L, � 1 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 \. 1 f 1 rl 1 II—-I:L"—I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD 1 1 1 1 1 1 / I 1 1 / 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I t I1 1 •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 3 SECTION II : APPROACH This section provides a non-numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated,excess (i.e.,not currently utilized) capacity must be available to serve future growth. The reimbursement fee is the original cost of available capacity per unit of growth that will use that capacity. The unit of growth,whether number of new residents or number of new employees,is the basis of the fee. For parks facilities, available capacity is equal to that portion of the current inventory of parks facilities that exceeds the adopted standard for level of service. B. IMPROVEMENT FEE The improvement fee is the cost of capacity-increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those projects will serve. The unit of growth,whether number of new residents or number of new employees,is the basis of the fee. In reality, the capacity added by many projects serves a dual purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth. To compute a compliant SDC rate, growth-related costs must be isolated and costs related to current demand must be excluded. We have used the"capacity approach"to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this approach,the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth-related capacity that projects of a similar type will create. For example,suppose that a city's master plan included the acquisition and development of 100 acres of new neighborhood parks. Suppose further that our analysis determined that 30 acres were required to meet existing demand, and 70 acres were required to serve future users. In that case, only 70 percent of the cost for any new neighborhood park would be eligible for recovery with an improvement fee. C. GROWTH Growth should be measured in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of parks,the most applicable units of growth are population and, where appropriate, employees (or new jobs). However,the units in which demand is expressed may not be the same as the units in which SDC rates are charged. Many SDCs,for example,are charged in the basis of new dwelling units. Therefore,conversion is often necessary from units of demand to units of payment. For example, using an average number of residents per household,the number of new residents can be converted to the number of new dwelling units. •: FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 4 D. COMPLIANCE COSTS ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on"the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects,this report includes an estimate of compliance costs in its SDC rates. E. GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION Parks SDCs are often calculated and applied uniformly throughout a municipality,but such uniformity is not a legal requirement. Municipalities can calculate and impose area-specific SDCs. Area-specific SDCs allow a municipality to identify and isolate differential costs to serve particular areas within its jurisdiction. SDCs are calculated separately for each area, and improvement fees must be spent on projects in the improvement fee cost basis for the area in which those improvement fees were earned. Area-specific SDCs can be implemented in two ways. The first way is to divide the municipality into a set of non-overlapping areas. Under this method,the SDCs for a particular area are determined by the assets,projects, and projected growth in that area. The second method is a layered approach. The first layer consists of a citywide SDC based on assets and projects of citywide benefit. The second layer consists of one or more overlays. Each overlay is a separate list of assets and projects that benefit a particular area within the city. For each overlay, the cost bases are divided by projected growth in that particular area. Development within an overlay pays both the citywide SDC and the overlay SDC. Development outside of any overlay pays only the citywide SDC. Given the City's desire to isolate the costs of serving River Terrace, we recommend(and have calculated in this report) both a citywide SDC and an overlay SDC for River Terrace. F. SUMMARY In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee component, improvement fee component,and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand. The unit of demand becomes the basis of the charge. Exhibit 2.1 shows this calculation in equation format: Exhibit 2.1 - SDC E•uation Eligible costs of Costs of Eligible costs of SDC per unit of available capacity in + capacity-increasing + complying with = growth in existing facilities capital Oregon SDC demand improvements law Units of growth in demand Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. : FCS G RO U P TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 5 SECTION III : GROWTH CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. A. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH Parks and recreation facilities benefit City residents,businesses,non-resident employees, and visitors. The methodology used to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDCs establishes the required connection between the demands of growth and the SDC by identifying specific types of park and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of residents and employees for each type of facility. The SDCs to be paid by a development meet statutory requirements because they are based on the nature of the development and the extent of the impact of that development on the types of park and recreation facilities for which they are charged. The Parks and Recreation SDCs are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the City's population and employment. For facilities that are not generally used by employees (e.g.,neighborhood parks), only a residential SDC may be charged. For facilities that benefit both residents and employees(e.g.,community parks), an SDC may be charged for both residential and non-residential development. B. POPULATION GROWTH Having established the relevance of population,we now quantify expected growth in population and convert the result to dwelling units. B.1 Expected Growth Based on the City's Transportation System Plan(as amended to include River Terrace),the City's population is expected to grow from 50,851 in 2015 to 72,034 in 2035. In other words, the City is expected to add 21,183 residents over 20 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.76 percent per year. Of the 21,183 new residents, 6,174 are expected to reside in River Terrace. B.2 Conversion to Dwelling Units Residential SDCs are initially calculated based on costs per capita but are ultimately charged based on dwelling units. To convert population to dwelling units, we analyzed data gathered for Tigard from the 2010-2012 American Community Survey. Table 3.1 shows the resulting conversion factors: •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 6 Table 3.1: Residents Per Dwelling Unit, City of Tigard Dwelling Residents per Dwelling Typ Units _ Residents Dwelling Unit Single-family '.,.dences 14,099 35,891 2.55 Multifamily/other residences 6,718 13,027 1.94 Total or Average 20,817 48,918 2.35 Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,tables B25024 and B25033.Compiled by FCS Group. C. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Having established the relevance of employment in Section II, we now quantify expected growth in employment and convert the result to population equivalents. As used here,employee means someone who works in the City regardless of place of residence. Employees may live inside or outside the City. Later in this report, we will be more concerned with non-resident employees in particular. C.1 Expected Growth Based on the City's Transportation System Plan (as amended to include River Terrace),the number of persons employed within the City is expected to grow from 39,536 in 2015 to 54,381 in 2035. In other words,the City is expected to add 14,845 employees over 20 years at a compound average growth rate of 1.53 percent per year. Of the 14,845 new employees, 75 are expected to work in River Terrace in the future once a small commercial center is added. C.2 Conversion to Population Equivalents The parks and recreation facilities described in the recently adopted master plans were mostly designed with the needs of both residents and non-resident employees in mind. It is therefore appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to both residents and non-resident employees. The only exceptions are neighborhood parks. These facilities were designed for the needs of residents only and it is therefore appropriate to allocate the cost of these facilities to residents only. While most parks and recreation facilities benefit residents and non-resident employees,these two groups do not utilize parks and recreation facilities with the same intensity. To apportion the demand for facilities between non-resident employees and residents in an equitable manner,a non-resident- employee-to-resident demand ratio must be calculated based on differential intensity of use. First, we estimate the potential demand for parks and recreation facilities. Appendix A-1 identifies potential use by different population groups in a manner that averages day-of-week and seasonal effects. These averages are based on the maximum number of hours per day that each population group would consider the use of parks and recreation facilities to be a viable option. In the final panel of Appendix A-1 (Demand by Population Group),we multiply the weighted average hours by an actual count for each population group based on data from the U. S. Census Bureau. We then apportion this potential demand among residents (four population groups) and non-residents(one population group). •:•> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 7 This approach is used to estimate the allocation of parks usage among residents and non-residents, which is summarized in Figure 3.2. The findings indicate that residents comprise 83 percent of the expected level of parks demand and non-residents that work within the city comprise 17 percent of the demand. These estimates are subsequently used in the next Section of this report to allocate the eligible SDC cost shares between these two user groups. Figure 3.2: Allocation of Parks Demand by User Group Non-Residents that Work in Tigard 17% Residents 83% Source:derived from analysis provided in Appendix A-1. •:;> FCS c , R( )L1 TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 8 SECTION IV : COST CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. A. SDC REIMBURSEMENT FEE Table 4.1 summarizes the reimbursement fee cost basis, which represents the cost of available capacity in existing parks facilities. Table 4.1: SDC Reimbursement Fee Basis Reimbursement Fee Citywide Cost Basis Cost by facility type Community parks $ 9,313,497 Open space 1,214,637 Total $ 10,528,134 Allocation to residential growth: Community parks $ 7,704,984 Open space 1,004,860 Total allocation to residential growth $ 8,709,844 Allocation to non-residential growth: Community parks $ 1,608,513 Open space 209,777 Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 1,818,290 Adjustments and Allocation Summaries Adjustments: Compliance costs • $ - Donated or grant-funded assets (533,974) Remaining debt service 1 234,357 Fund balance • - Total adjustments $ (299,617) Allocation to residential growth: Facilities $ 8,709,844 Adjustments (247,871) Total allocation to residential growth $ 8,461,973 Allocation to non-residential growth: Facilities $ 1,608,513 Adjustments (51,746) Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 1,556,767 Calculated SDC-r Residential reimbursement fee per capita $ 399 Non-residential reimbursement fee per employee $ 105 Source: E rrails from Steve Martin(10/08/2014,10/14/2014 and 10/27/2014);Park System Master Ran,2009. 'Based on Appendix A-2 calculatons for remaining debt service on exisitng parks bond. •:;> FCS GRO[ ' 1' TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 9 B. FACILITY NEEDS For purposes of this SDC methodology,each of the City's park facilities falls into one of the following five categories: • Neighborhood and pocket parks • Community parks • Linear parks • Open spaces • Trails (includes trails not identified in the Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report project list) Appendix A-3 compares the current inventory of facilities in each category with that category's adopted level of service. In the third panel, that comparison leads to a determination of surplus or deficiency for each category. Projects are eligible for improvement fee funding only to the extent that the projects will benefit future users. Therefore,only the categories with no deficiency(community parks,open space, and trails) are 100 percent eligible for improvement fee funding. As shown in the fifth panel (Improvement Fee Eligibility),the eligibility percentages of the remaining two categories, neighborhood/pocket parks and linear parks, are reduced to reflect the level of deficiency. Because some facility types have undeveloped land in their current inventory,the deficiency of land decreases within those types. Therefore,neighborhood/pocket parks have a higher improvement fee eligibility percentage for land acquisition. C. FACILITY COSTS The City provided a list(Table 4.2) of parks projects by category and area of benefit using project improvements identified in adopted parks and trails master plans for Tigard and River Terrace. Eligibility percentages are derived from the estimates indicated in Figure 3.2. Applying those percentages to the future Parks project capital costs results in a citywide improvement fee cost basis of$59.6 million and a River Terrace improvement fee cost basis of approximately$9.0 million. •:;> FCS G RO U I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 10 Table 4.2: SDC Improvement Fee Basis WC1 3TKSf City Cost Eligibility City Cost for Eligibility for SDCi Cost Planned Improvement Projec ° Timing for Land for Land Develo•merit' Develo' ment Basis Projects with Citywide Benefit - Neighborhood/pocket.. - Cannot exceed 34.05 acres Cannot exceed 57.05 acres. e• 0-10 years $ - 93.32% $ 75,000 55.70% Metzger 5-15 years - 93.32% 437,000 55.70% No rthview Park 5-15 years - 93.32% 367,000 55.70% 204,401 Proposed 5-15 years 549,840 93.32% 927,000 55.70% 1,029,380 Proposed Local Park(P9) 5-15 years 1,202,775 93.32% 927,000 55.70% 1,638,670 Future Neighborhood 10+years 4,811,100 93.32% 2,947,800 55.70% Total .• ••• •• - parks Community parks: Cannot exceed 42.10 acres Cannot exceed 61.10 acres. Sunrise Co 0-10 years - 100.00% 2,468,000 100.00% 2,468,000 New Corn rnunity Park(P11) 5-15 years 100,000 100.00% 900,000 100.00% 1,000,000 New Corn rnunity Park Complex 10+years 6,108,325 100.00% 10,084,000 100.00% Urban Fanno Creek Park: 0-10 years 687,300 100.00% 4,100,000 100.00% 4,787,300 Community park in River Terrace 0-10 years 7,508,000 100.00% 8,386,000 100.00% 15,894,000 Total community parks 40,341,625 Linear parks: Cannot exceed 37.04 acres Cannot exceed 37.04- 0-10years - 71.48% 250,000 • Commercial 5-15 years - 71.48% 545,000 71.48% 389,580 Englewood Park 5-15 years - 71.48% 1,340,000 71.48% 957,867 Fanno Creek Park: Park Gateway 0-10 years - 71.48% 850,000 71.48% 607,602 Fanno Creek Park: Upland Park 0-10 years - 71.48% 1,100,000 71.48% 786,309 Undeveloped 5-15 years - 71.48% 275,000 71.48% 196,577 Total linear parks 3,116,642 •• Cannot exceed 66.14 acres Cannot exceed 66.14 acres. 5-15 years 412,380 100.00% - 100.00% 412,380 10+years 567,023 100.00% •• ••'. 567,023 Total open space 979,403 Cannot exceed 6.75 miles. Cannot exceed 6.75 miles. Fanno Creek(already funded)(trail . • 0-10 years - 100.00% 670,000 •• ••'• 670,000 Westside 0-10 years - 100.00% 100.00% Tigard 0-10 years - 100.00% 634,000 100.00% 634,000 Fanno Creek(trail project C) 0-10 years - 100.00% 1,040,000 100.00% 1,040,000 project Fanno Creek&Tualatin River(trail 0-10 years - 100.00% 1,609,500 100.00% 1,609,500 Summer Creek(trail project F) 0-10 years - 100.00% 742,500 P. 100.00% 742,500 Fanno Creek(trail project G) 5-15 years - 100.00% - 100.00% Fanno Creek(trail project H) 5-15 years - 100.00% 206,500 100.00% 206,500 Tigard project I) 5-15 years - 100.00% - 100.00% Ascension(trail • - 10+years - 100.00% 461,000 100.00% 461,000 Creek Krueger Creek&Summer • . 10+years - 100.00% 495,500 100.00% 495,500 Total . • ••s Total projects with citywide benefit $ 59,585,565 iforojects wkh River Terrace Benefit Neighborhood/pocket parks $3,752,000 93.32% $ 2,975,000 55.70% $ 5,158,130 Linear parks 3,128,000 71.48% 228,000 71.48% 2,398,956 Trails 690,000 100%' 764,000 100% 1,454,000 Total projects with River Terrace benefit $ 9,011,086 Source: E-mai(attachment)from Steve Martin,09/24/2014. Abbreviation: SDG=improvement fee. Note: This list does not include projects w hose tirring as designated as ether"completed"or"in process." SDCi:Improvement Fee •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Parks &Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 11 After determining the total eligible costs, these costs must be allocated between residents and non- residents using the percentages shown previously in Figure 3.2. We also adjust the costs to include costs of compliance and exclude current SDC fund balance and future debt service on the unspent portion of bond proceeds. Table 4.3 summarizes and allocates the improvement fee cost basis after all adjustments. Table 4.3: SDC Improvement Fee by Area Improvement Fee Area-Specific SDC .� —– River Terrace Citywide SDC Overlay SDC Total Single SDC Project Costs Eligible project costs by facility type: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ 9,288,896 $ 5,158,130 $ 14,447,025 $ 14,447,025 Community parks 40,341,625 40,341,625 40,341,625 Linear parks 3,116,642 2,398,956 5,515,598 5,515,598 Open space 979,403 979,403 979,403 Trails 5,859,000 1,454,000 7,313,000 7,313,000 Total eligible project costs by facility type $ 59,585,565 $ 9,011,086 $ 68,596,651 $ 68,596,651 Allocation to residential growth: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ 9,288,896 $ 5,158,130 '$ 14,447,025 $ 14,447,025 Community parks 33,374,315 - ' 33,374,315 33,374,315 Linear parks 2,578,373 1,984,638 ' 4,563,011 4,563,011 Open space 810,252 - • 810,252 810,252 Trails 4,847,106 1,202,883 ' 6,049,988 6,049,988 Total allocation to residential growth $ 50,898,942 $ 8,345,651 $ 59,244,593 $ 59,244,593 Allocation to non-residential growth: Neighborhood/pocket parks $ - $ - $ - $ - Community parks 6,967,310 - • 6,967,310 6,967,310 Linear parks 538,268 414,318 ' 952,586 952,586 Open space 169,150 - • 169,150 169,150 Trails 1,011,894 251,117 ' 1,263,012 1,263,012 Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 8,686,623 $ 665,435 $ 9,352,058 $ 9,352,058 • •'ustmentsand Allocation Summaries Adjustments: Compliance costs $ 660,000 $ - $ 660,000 $ 660,000 Debt service for parks bond (2,550,009) (2,550,009) (2,550,009) Fund balance (1,124,011) (1,124,011) (1,124,011) Total adjustments $ (3,014,020) $ - $ (3,014,020) $ (3,014,020) Allocation to residential growth: Facilities $ 50,898,942 $ 8,345,651 '$ 59,244,593 $ 59,244,593 Adjustments (2,574,624) - • (2,574,624) (2,603,107) Total allocation to residential growth $ 48,324,318 $ 8,345,651 $ 56,669,969 $ 56,641,486 Allocation to non-residential growth: Facilities $ 8,686,623 $ 665,435 '$ 9,352,058 $ 9,352,058 Adjustments (439,396) - • (439,396) (410,914) Total allocation to non-residential growth $ 8,247,227 $ 665,435 $ 8,912,662 $ 8,941,144 Calculated Total SDCs Residential improvement fee per capita $ 2,281 $ 1,352 $ 3,633 $ 2,674 Non-residential improvement fee per employee $ 602 $ - $ 602 $ 602 Note: Non-residential SDC is calculated on a cityw de basis,even though some costs can be allocated to River Terrace. •:) FCS CR()UrP TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 12 SECTION V : SDC CALCULATION This section provides a detailed calculation of the residential and non-residential SDCs. A. CALCULATED SDCS BY USE Dividing the reimbursement and improvement fee cost bases by projected growth in population and employees results in a calculated SDC per unit of growth. The results of this calculation are summarized in Table 5.1: Table 5.1: SDC Improvement Fee by Use* Calculated SDC Improvement Fees* Area-Specific SDC _ ;..., River Terrace River Terrace Citywide Overlay Total Residential SDCs Total cost basis $48,324,318 $8,345,651 Growth in population 21,183 6,174 SDC per capita $2,281 $1,352 $3,633 SDC per single family dwelling $5,807 $3,441 $9,248 SDC per multifamily/other dwelling $4,372 $2,591 $6,963 Non-Residential SDCs Total cost basis $10,469,428 Growth in employment 14,845 SDC per employee $705 $705 Note: Non-residential SDC is calculated on a citywide basis,even though some costs can be allocated to River Terrace. "includes compliance costs. Because only 75 new employees are expected in River Terrace over the next 20 years, the non- residential overlay SDC for River Terrace would have been prohibitively expensive. Therefore, we have calculated the non-residential SDC on a citywide basis only. B. RESIDENTIAL SDC PER DWELLING UNIT When we convert population to the dwelling units, we can determine the total maximum allowable SDC fee per dwelling unit as shown in Table 5.1. C. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT We have reviewed the City's method for annual adjustment of parks SDCs as summarized in the City's "Master Fees & Charges Schedule" and described more fully in Exhibit"A" of Resolution 01- 74, which the City Council first adopted on December 18, 2001. Because the index constructed under this method includes both land costs (based on data from the Washington County Assessor) and construction costs (based on data from the Engineering News Record), it is an especially •:;> FCS G RO 1! TIGARD,OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 13 appropriate index for adjusting parks SDCs. We therefore recommend continuing the current practice. D. CREDITS, EXEMPTIONS AND DISCOUNTS The Tigard SDC Procedures Guide will establish local policies for issuing credits and exemptions,annual adjustments,and other administrative procedures. D.1 Credits A credit is a reduction in the amount of the SDC for a specific development. The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a"qualified public improvement"which(1)is required as a condition of development approval,(2)is identified in the City's capital improvements program,and(3)either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval,or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement(e.g.,parks land or improvements provided by a developer can only be used for a credit for towards parks SDC improvement fee payments),and must be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular project up to the amount of the improvement fee. For multi-phase projects,any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits,the City may,if it so chooses,provide a greater credit,establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's SDC Capital Improvements Plan,or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means(i.e.,partnerships,other City revenues,etc.). D.2 Exemptions The City may exempt specific classes of development(i.e.,minor additions,etc.)from the requirement to pay SDCs. D.3 Discounts Section IV of this Tigard Parks SDC Methodology Report documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(see Table 5.2). In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,the City of Tigard desires to establish its Parks SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City may discount the amount of the SDC by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs. Alternatively, the City may decide to charge only a percentage(i.e., 50%,75%,etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. Because discounts reduce SDC revenues,they increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as general fund contributions in order for the City to maintain levels of service. D.4 Tigard Parks SDCs After Discount Table 5.2 summarizes the discounted residential SDC improvement/compliance fees that the City of Tigard would initially charge for residential development after the new SDCs are established. The Tigard City Council has the discretion to remove SDC discounts in the future. •:;> FCS G ROUT) TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 14 Table 5.2: SDC Improvement Fee,After Discount* Residential SDC Improvement Fee After Area-Specific SDC Discount* River Terrace River Terrace �., Citywide Overlay Total Single-family residences S5,807 $2,502 $7,728 Multifamily/other residences $4,372 $1,884 $6,256 Average SDC Per Dwelling Unit $5,347 $2,304 $7,651 Avera t e SDC Per Ca•ita $2,281 $983 $3,264 Source:discounted SDCs are consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,December 2014. *includes compliance costs. The River Terrace SDCs(after discounts) would be lower than the maximum SDC the City can charge to meet the policy objectives established by the River Terrace funding strategy. Hence, additional funding sources would need to be identified to ensure that all projects contained in the long term capital project list can be funded by year 2035. Appendix A-4 identifies the amount of SDC revenues and other funding revenues the City of Tigard would likely need to fully fund the projects identified in the SDC capital project list. E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED SDCS Table 5.3 summarizes the existing and proposed total Parks SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement, improvement and compliance charges, after accounting for discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Parks SDCs would vary by location. Parks SDCs within the city(outside River Terrace) would initially be charged $6,824 per single family dwelling, $5,138 per multifamily dwelling, and $810 per new employee. Parks SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $9,327 per single family dwelling, $7,022 per multifamily dwelling, and $810 per new employee. It is important to note that the City Council may decide to defer some of the SDC charges identified in the following tables (for example the City Council could vote to defer implementation of the SDC reimbursement fees but charge SDC improvement fees). Table 5.3: Current and Proposed Parks SDCs, After Discount SDC Trent Tigard Parks Current Residential SDC per capita S 2,753 SDC per single family dwellling S 6,451 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 5,156 Non-residential SDC per employee $ 446 SDC-i(after discount)* Total SDC(after discount) River River Terrace Citywide Terrace STrails S SDC-r Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential SDC per capita $ 399 $ 2,281 $ 983 $ 2,681 $ 3,664 SDC per single family dwellling $ 1,017 $ 5,807 $ 2,502 $ 6,824 $ 9,327 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 766 $ 4,372 $ 1,884 $ 5,138 $ 7,022 Non-residential SDC per employee $ 105 $ 705 $ 810 $ 810 erived from p'Riffirtables.SDC-r=reimbursement fee;SDC-i=improvement fee.* Includes compliance fee. •:;> FCS GGRt)U1 TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 15 APPENDIX �:;> FCS GR()L I' TIGARD, OREGON Parks& Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 16 A. •endix A-1, Estimated Ti.ard Parks Demand for Residents and Non-Residents Non- Resident Residents s Non- Employe Work Work Work '`` ` •` d, Ages Ages insid outsid inside ,Residence, City of Tigard 18+ 5-17 , e City e City City Total Summer(June through September) •_ .. u w Weekday ■ Before work 1.00 1.00 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 2.00 2.00 Other leisure 12.00 12.00 2.00 2.00 Total weekday 12.00 12.00 6.00 2.00 4.00 Weekend 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Total summer 12.00 12.00 7.71 4.86 2.86 Spring/fall(April, May,October,and November) Weekday Before work 0.50 0.50 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 1.00 1.00 Other leisure 10.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 Total weekday 10.00 4.00 4.50 2.00 2.50 Weekend 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Total spring/fall 10.00 5.71 6.07 4.29 1.79 Winter(December through March) Weekday Before work 0.50 0.50 Meals and breaks 1.00 1.00 After work 0.50 0.50 1 Other leisure 8.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Total weekday 8.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 Weekend 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Total winter 8.00 3.71 4.43 3.00 1.43 Weighting factors Summer 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Spring/fall 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 mq Winter 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Total weighting factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Demand by Population Group Daily weighted average hours 10.00 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 Census counts in Tigard 12,850 8,286 6,507 18,843 31,303 1 Potential daily demand in Tigard 128,500 59,186 39,507 76,269 63,351 366,813 1 Proportion 35.03% 16.14 10.77 20.79% 17.27% 100.00 % % Proportion by place of residence 82.73% 17.27% 100.00 Source: FCS GROUP;U.S.Census Bureau,2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates,tables DP03,DP05,and B08008;U.S.Census Bureau,On the Map application. •••> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 17 Appendix A-4, Estimated Tigard Parks Bond Payments Existing Parks Bond Payments Principal Interest Total Fiscal year ending June 30,2016 $ 665,000 $ 627,525 $ 1,292,525 Fiscal year ending June 30,2017 685,000 607,575 1,292,575 Fiscal year ending June 30,2018 705,000 587,025 1,292,025 Fiscal year ending June 30,2019 725,000 565,875 1,290,875 Fiscal year ending June 30,2020 750,000 544,125 1,294,125 Fiscal year ending June 30,2021 780,000 514,125 1,294,125 Fiscal year ending June 30,2022 810,000 482,925 1,292,925 Fiscal year ending June 30,2023 845,000 450,525 1,295,525 Fiscal year ending June 30,2024 875,000 416,725 1,291,725 Fiscal year ending June 30,2025 910,000 381,725 1,291,725 Fiscal year ending June 30,2026 950,000 304,950 1,254,950 Fiscal year ending June 30,2027 990,000 304,950 1,294,950 Fiscal year ending June 30,2028 1,030,000 262,875 1,292,875 Remainder of planning period 4,615,000 558,050 5,173,050 $ 15,335,000 $ 6,608,975 $ 21,943,975 Principal spent $ 12,535,000 81.74% Principal remaining 2,800,000 18.26% $ 15,335,000 100.00% Adjustment to reimbursement fee $ 12,535,000 -1.87% $ 234,357 Adjustment to improvement fee $ 2,800,000 91.07% $ (2,550,009) Source:City of Tigard;compiled by FCS Group. •:;> FCS CROUP TIGARD,OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 18 Appendix A-3, Estimated Parks Inventory and Needs by Cate o ry and Needs by Category Neighborhood and Pocket Community Parks Parks Linear Parks Open Space Trails Fully developed facilities River Terrace acres(miles for trails) 0 0 0 0 0 Rest of city acres(miles for trails) _ 51 155 53 240 16 Total fully developed facilities 51 155 53 240 16 Undeveloped land River Terrace acres(miles for trails) 0 0 0 0 0 Rest of city acres(miles for trails) 23 19 0 0 0 r.• 23 19 0 0 0 Current Level of Service Fully developed facilities Rest of city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for tra 1.00 3.05 1.04 4.73 0.32 Entire city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trail 1.00 3.05 1.04 4.72 0.32 Land Rest of city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for tra 1.46 3.43 1.04 4.73 0.32 Entire city acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trail 1.46 3.42 1.04 4.72 0.32 Standards,Surpluses,and Defidendes Standard acres per 1,000 residents(miles for trails) 1.50 3.00 1.25 4.25 0.32 Fully developed facilities surplus(deficiency) River Terrace acres(miles for trails) (0.15) (0.31) (0.13) (0.43) (0.03) Rest of city acres(miles for trails) (25.12) 2.75 (10.44) 24.32 0.03 Total fully developed facilities surplus(deficiency (25.28) 2.45 (10.56) 23.88 0.00 Land surplus(deficiency) River Terrace acres(miles for trails) (0.15) (0.31) (0.13) (0.43) (0.03) Rest of city acres(miles for trails) (2.12) 21.75 (10.44) 24.32 0.03 Total land surplus(deficiency) (2.28) 21.45 (10.56) 23.88 0.00 Growth Needs River Terrace Current developed acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Development of undeveloped acres 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 9.41 18.83 7.84 26.67 2.00 Total developed acres needed by 2035 9.41 18.83 7.84 26.67 2.00 Rest of city Current developed acres 51.00 155.00 53.00 240.00 16.20 Development of undeveloped acres 23.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 24.64 23.27 29.20 39.47 4.75 Total developed acres needed by 2035 98.64 197.27 82.20 279.47 20.95 Entire city Current developed acres 51.00 155.00 53.00 240.00 16.20 Development of undeveloped acres 23.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Additional acres to acquire and develop 34.05 42.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 Total developed acres needed by 2035 108.05 216.10 90.04 306.14 22.95 lm. moment Fee Development and other costs 55.70% 100.00% 71.48% 100.00% 100.00% Land acquisition only 93.32% 100.00% 71.48% 100.00% 100.00% Maximum acres of development 57.05 61.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 Maximum acres of land acquisition 34.05 42.10 37.04 66.14 6.75 .,L. ble Costs for Reimbursement Fee Unit cost per acre of land(mile for trails) $ 400,000 $ 50,855 Unit cost per acre of development(mile for trails) $ 300,000 Reimbursable cost $ - $ 9,313,497 $ - $ 1,214,637 $ - Source: E-e ais from Steve Martin(10/08/2014,10/14/2014 and 10/27/2014);Park System Master Ran,2009. 4) FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 19 A. •endix A-4, Estimated Parks Inventor and Needs b Cate.or Tigard Parks SDC Discount River Methodology Total City-wide Terrace Notes limmimmiiik Parks Improvem=ent d evenue5 Total Cost(Land&Improve e $ 86,684,000 $ 71,173,000 $ 15,511,000 hcludes discounted SOCs that are Less SDC Eligible Revenue** $ 60,499,000 $ 57,489,000 $ 3,010,000 supported by River Terrace Funding Strategy Remaining Funding Require=, $ 26,185,000 $ 13,684,000 $ 12,501,000 1, Non-SDC Funding Supported by River Terrace Funding Strategy(adopted Dec. 2014) City-wide Terrace Notes Gran $ 1,024,000 $ 1,024,000 Potential Metro,State or foundation grants Assures 100%of RT utility fees, Parks Utility Fees($1.11/month) $ 5,787,000 $ 2,718,000 $ 3,069,000 and 50%of citywide fee revenue to be allotted to RT projects Equates to levy of$0.20 oer$1,000 New Citywide Park Bond $ 13,000,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 AV;or$63/year foraverage homeowner;and 50%alloted to RT projects Subtotal Funding Revenue $ 19,811,000 $ 9,218,000 $ 10,593,000 Remaining Net Funding Gap`** $ (6,374,000) $ (4,466,000) $ (1,908,000) Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents. "SDC revenue adjusted to exclude remaining bond principal and include administrative costs. ""Funding Gap Sour ces: Percent Dist. Amount Notes Grants 20% $ 1,274,800 This policy may result in project completion delays Developer dedications(SDC credit ° 10/° $ 637,400 This policy may result in project completion delays eligible) City Parks Utility Fees 70% $ 4,461,800 This would require a+/-$2.34 monthly parks utility fee citywide Total 100% $ 6,374,000 Source:com plied by FCS Group. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Report February, 2015 page 20 This page intentionally left blank •:;> FCS G RO U I' Addendum of Proposed Edits for Final Version: Tigard Parks System Development Charge Methodology Report (2/25/2015) Introduction This document summarizes the proposed changes to the Public Review Draft Tigard Parks System Development Charge Methodology Report that are needed to finalize the report upon adoption. Based on the input received by City staff from the time of publication of the Public Review Draft Tigard Parks System Development Charge Methodology Report,the following edits are proposed for consideration in the final version of the document. SECTION V. SDC CALCULATION Table 5.1 SDC Imsrovem ent and Compliance Fees lculat ,< »,! •rovement Fees* Area-Specific SDC River Terrace River Terrace Citywide Overlay Total Residential SDCs Total cost basis $48,324,318 $8,345,651 Growth in population 21,183 6,174 SDC per capita $2,281 $1,352 $3,633 SDC per single family dwelling $5,807 $3,441 $9,248 SDC per multifamily/other dwelling $4,372 $2,591 $6,963 Non-Residential SDCs Total cost basis $8,941,144 Growth in employment 14,845 SDC per employee** $602 $602 Note: Non-residential SDC is calculated on a citywide basis,even though sorre costs can be allocated to River Terrace. includes corn pi lance costs.**SDC per errpbyee to be assessed based on square feet of floor area. B. Residential and Non-residential SDC Calculations B.1 Residential SDC Calculation When we convert population to the dwelling units, we can determine the total maximum allowable SDC fee per dwelling unit as shown in Table 5.1. SDCs for residential development are calculated by multiplying the number of dwellings(by housing category)by the corresponding SDC rate. B.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation To calculate SDCs for proposed redevelopment of existing buildings, the SDC for non-residential uses will take into account the amount of floor area(square feet) proposed as a change in use. The SDC calculation for new non-residential development takes into account the amount of proposed floor area(square feet). The Parks SDC for non-residential development will vary by the classification of development as shown in Table 5.2. 1 Table 5.2 Parks SDC Conversion Factors for Non-Residential Uses Parks Employees Parks SDC Per Per 1,000 SDC Per Category Employee' SF2 1,000 SF General Industrial $707 1.25 $884 Warehousing/Distribution $707 0.80 $566 Flex $707 1.60 $1,132 Office $707 3.33 $2,357 Retail $707 2.22 $1,572 Institutional $707 2.00 $1,414 1SDC reflects proposed reimbursement fee, improvement fee, and compliance fee. 2Derived from Metro factors used for 2014 Urban Growth Report Source:Compiled by FCS GROUP. Existing and Proposed SDCs (page 14) Table 5.4 summarizes the existing and proposed total Parks SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement, improvement and compliance charges, after accounting for discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Parks SDCs would vary by location. Parks SDCs within the city(outside River Terrace) would initially be charged$6,824 per single family dwelling, $5,138 per multifamily dwelling, and $707 per new employee. Parks SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $9,327 per single family dwelling, $7,022 per multifamily dwelling, and $707 per new employee. Table 5.4: Current and Proposed Parks SDCs SDC nt Tigard Parks&1` Current Residential SDC per capita S 2.753 SDC per single family dwellling $ 6,451 SDC per multifamily dwelling S 5.156 Non-residential SDC per employee $ 446 SDC-i(proposed)* Total SDC(proposed) River River Terrace Citywide Terrace Proposed Tigard Parks&TrailsS SDC-r Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential SDC per capita $ 399 $ 2,281 $ 983 $ 2,681 $ 3,664 SDC per single family dwellling $ 1,017 $ 5,807 $ 2,502 $ 6,824 $ 9,327 SDC per multifamily dwelling $ 766 $ 4,372 $ 1,884 $ 5,138 $ 7,022 Non-residential SDC per employee** $ 105 $ 602 $ 707 $ 707 `Sourba:derNedfir1mpriorlables.S$C-r=embursementfee.SDC-i=improvement fee.*Includes compliance fee.**Non-residential SDCs calculations for new development are to be based on square feet of floor area(see Table 5.2) Suntmart These proposed changes will be presented and discussed during the transportation and parks SDC adoption hearing. Input received by the public and City Council will be considered before finalizing the SDC Methodology Report and establishing the new SDC rates and procedures. 2 Addendum of Proposed Edits for Final Version: Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report(4/8/2015) Introduction This document summarizes the proposed changes to the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report that are needed to finalize the report upon adoption. Based on the input received by City staff from the time of publication of the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report,the following edits are proposed for consideration in the final version of the document. SECTION III. GROWTH CALCULATION A Relevant Types of Growth Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip or average person trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs.This transportation SDC methodology utilizes both average daily person trips(ADPT)and P.M.peak hour vehicle trip ends(PHVT) in the calculation of the SDC fee. ADPTs include vehicle trips on collector and arterial streets and non-motor vehicle trips that utilize bicycle,pedestrian,and transit facilities.The proposed SDC charges provide a PHVT to ADPT conversion factor so that non-residential SDCs can also take into account linked trips for certain types of developments,such as fast food restaurants and fuel stations,which have relatively high rates of linked-trip activity. B.1 Expected Growth Levels As mentioned above,this methodology utilizes a citywide SDC with a River Terrace overlay. Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 show the growth in person trips(ADPT) and vehicle trips (PHVT) between now and 2035 for River Terrace and the rest of Tigard. The modeled trip growth forecasts result in a factor of approximately 0.047 for converting average daily person trips(ADPT) into peak hour vehicle trips(PHVT). Conversely, for every 21 average daily person trip-ends that originate or terminate in Tigard(including trips by vehicles,bicycle,pedestrian and transit),there is one P.M peak-hour vehicle trip-end expected(PHVT). SECTION V. RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations are relatively simple and take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. Residential land use types do not entail a"linked trip" adjustment factor. SDC rates for specific developments are to be determined using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook in which there are land use categories depicting single family detached(code#210), apartments (code#220),rental townhouses (code#224), and other residential types. Because there is presently no ITE land use code for small, standard, or large single family dwellings, Exhibit 5.1 will be used to calculate SDC rates for single family detached homes. Small single family detached houses will be 1 charged 81% of the TSDC for a single family detached residential unit and large houses will be charged 108% of the TSDC. Exhibit 5.1 Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A(revenue neutral) (living area sq.ft.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source: compiled by FCS Group based on:Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results,Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services;and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers,Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT=average daily person trips; SFD=single family detached home. B. Annual Adjustment Annual adjustment of transportation SDCs as summarized in the City's"Master Fees & Charges Schedule" shall be made with City Council approval. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements: 90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price(annualized) percent change. C.1.a Credit Policy Options The City is currently considering establishing one of three credit policies for the transportation SDC. Option A. This credit policy, based on current City practice, assumes that the Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) credit policy is applied to future local transportation SDCs within the City. Option B. This credit policy assumes that the City implements a credit policy that applies the TDT credit policy to all SDC eligible projects in the city with an exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 50% of the roadway improvement cost, the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $4.3 million over Option A. Option C. This credit policy is similar to Option B, but expands the exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project from 50% to 100% credit eligible. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 100% of the roadway improvement cost, the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $8.7 million over Option A. D. Discounts This Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report has documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(provided earlier in Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). 2 The City can discount the SDC amount by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs and the City can decide to charge only a percentage(i.e., 50%, 75%, etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. The SDC Procedures Manual will specify how discounts should apply to certain developments, such as transit-oriented development. If the City discounts SDCs, revenues will decrease and amounts that must come from other sources, such as general fund contributions, will increase in order for the City to maintain levels of service. In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, the City of Tigard desires to establish its Transportation SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City's currently policy objective for transportation SDCs assume a citywide average SDC of$5,000 per dwelling unit and an average supplemental River Terrace SDC of$497 per dwelling unit. Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the residential SDCs that the City would charge new development initially once the new SDCs are established. E.2 SDCs with 50% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 50%credit eligible,and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged$8,356 per single family dwelling, $4,875 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$9,874 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.4). Exhibit 5.4: O•tion B revised ,Ti•and Transportation SDCs (with 50% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount) Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Citywide Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current Base SDC-r Citywide Overla Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge permultifamiy dwellnq n/a $182 $3,151 $1,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,030 $8,844 $9,874 Notes: •Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local'elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100% credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facifties would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. `Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. Summary These proposed changes will be presented and discussed during the transportation and parks SDC adoption hearing. Input received by the public and City Council will be considered before finalizing the SDC Methodology Report and establishing the new SDC rates and procedures. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL PAC; 'T FOR Y-2 & -ad/S- (DATE OF MEETING) y«S4_ lien? Second Addendum of Proposed Edits for Final Version: Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report(4/27/2015) Introduction This document summarizes the alternatives for finalizing the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report. Based on the input received by City staff from the time of publication of the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report, the following changes are provided for consideration in the final version of the document. The potential changes to the draft report reflect the input received regarding the need to consider a non-residential TSDC discount. There are two alternatives being evaluated and presented in this Addendum. Both alternatives consider a discounted TSDC for non-residential development that equates to the proposed residential discount which is reflected in Table 1. This would result in a discount of approximately 71%in non-residential TSDC rates. Table 1 Res. Non Res Non Res Estimated change in PHVT(2015-2035) Total Share Share PHVT Weights Change in PHVT in River Terrace 1,417 94.7% 5.3% 75 2% Change in PHVT in Rest of Cityof Tigard 5,258 3,133 98% Total PHVT 6,675 51.9% 48.1% 3,208 100% Source:Tigard TSP Addendum,and DKS Associates. Citywide TSDC Discount Assumed with River Residential TSDCs Citywide Terrace TSDC Per Dwelling Before Discounts (table 4.7) $ 16,675 $ 7,952 TSDC Per Dwelling After Discounts(table 5.2) $ 5,000 $ 497 Discount Amount 70% 94% weighted avg Weights 98% 2% 71% Source:Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report,April 14,2015. Option B Alternative 2 If the discount shown above is applied to the future Tigard TSDC rates, the TSDC rates that would be adopted as part of the final Transportation SDC Methodology Report is reflected in the following table (see Exhibit 5.4: Option B (Alt. 2). If not supplemented by other local funding sources, the discounted non-residential TSDC rates are projected to result in a reduction in TSDC revenues by approximately $19.7 million over the 2015 to 2035 timeframe. Option B Alternative 3 This alternative assumes that the City chooses to maintain the SDC revenue forecast and not allow a $19.7 million revenue decrease that is attributed to the non-residential TSDC discount. In this scenario, it is assumed that the Tigard citywide TSDC rates are proportionately increased for both residential and non-residential development to make up the revenue reduction attributed to the non- residential TSDC discount. The TSDC rates that would be adopted as part of the final Transportation SDC Methodology Report is reflected in the following table (see Exhibit 5.4: Option B (Alt. 3). 1 Option B Alternative 2 Exhibit 5.4: Option B (Alt.2),Tigard Transportation SDCs(with 50% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount)' Total SDC(after discount) River SDC - Terrace Citywide River Terrace Development Type Current Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $1,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT 4 n/a $483 $2,389 $72 $2,872 $2,944 Notes:This option would lower the non-res TSDC to be on par with the Res.TSDC discounts;and would increase the citywide transportation capital funding gap by$19.7 M (from$423 M to$443 M)over 20 years. *Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local"elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100%credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. 1 Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs include similar discounts as the residential SDCs and will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. °Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked- Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. Option B Alternative 3 Exhibit 5.4:Option B Alt.3r ,Ti,and Transportation SDCs(with 50% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount) Total SDC(after discount) River `Citywi G. Terrace Citywide River Terrace Development T • • SDC Current ase SD Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $6,035 $2,951 $6,308 $9,260 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $6,898 $3,373 $7,209 $10,583 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $4,024 $1,968 $4,206 $6,173 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT 4 n/a $483 $3,050 $92 $3,533 $3,625 Notes:This option would lower the non-res TSDC to be on par with the Res.TSDC discounts;and neutralize the potential increase in funding gap($19.7 M)by raising citywide residential and non-res TSDC proportionally. *Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local"elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100%credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. I Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs include similar discounts as the residential SDCs and will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. 4 Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. 2 Addendum of Proposed Edits for Final Version: Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report (4/8/2015) Introduction This document summarizes the proposed changes to the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report that are needed to finalize the report upon adoption. Based on the input received by City staff from the time of publication of the Public Review Draft Tigard Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report,the following edits are proposed for consideration in the final version of the document. SECTION III. GROWTH CALCULATION A Relevant Types of Growth Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip or average person trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs. This transportation SDC methodology utilizes both average daily person trips (ADPT) and P.M.peak hour vehicle trip ends (PHVT) in the calculation of the SDC fee. ADPTs include vehicle trips on collector and arterial streets and non-motor vehicle trips that utilize bicycle,pedestrian, and transit facilities. The proposed SDC charges provide a PHVT to ADPT conversion factor so that non-residential SDCs can also take into account linked trips for certain types of developments,such as fast food restaurants and fuel stations, which have relatively high rates of linked-trip activity. Expected Growth Levels As mentioned above,this methodology utilizes a citywide SDC with a River Terrace overlay. Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 show the growth in person trips (ADPT) and vehicle trips (PHVT) between now and 2035 for River Terrace and the rest of Tigard. The modeled trip growth forecasts result in a factor of approximately 0.047 for converting average daily person trips (ADPT) into peak hour vehicle trips (PHVT). Conversely, for every 21 average daily person trip-ends that originate or terminate in Tigard (including trips by vehicles,bicycle, pedestrian and transit), there is one P.M peak-hour vehicle trip-end expected(PHVT). SECTION V. RECOMMENDATIONS P..1 Residential SDC Calcu!atior The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations are relatively simple and take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. Residential land use types do not entail a"linked trip" adjustment factor. SDC rates for specific developments are to be determined using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook in which there are land use categories depicting single family detached (code#210), apartments (code #220), rental townhouses (code#224), and other residential types. Because there is presently no ITE land use code for small, standard, or large single family dwellings, Exhibit 5.1 will be used to calculate SDC rates for single family detached homes. Small single family detached houses will be 1 charged 81% of the TSDC for a single family detached residential unit and large houses will be charged 108% of the TSDC. Exhibit 5.1 Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A(revenue neutral) (living area sq.ft.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source:compiled by FCS Group based on:Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results, Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services;and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers, Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT=average daily person trips; SFD=single family detached home. Annual Aajustnient Annual adjustment of transportation SDCs as summarized in the City's "Master Fees& Charges Schedule"shall be made with City Council approval. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements: 90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price (annualized) percent change. C.1 .a Credit Policy Options The City is currently considering establishing one of three credit policies for the transportation SDC. Option A. This credit policy, based on current City practice, assumes that the Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) credit policy is applied to future local transportation SDCs within the City. Option B. This credit policy assumes that the City implements a credit policy that applies the TDT credit policy to all SDC eligible projects in the city with an exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 50% of the roadway improvement cost, the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $4.3 million over Option A. Option C. This credit policy is similar to Option B, but expands the exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project from 50% to 100% credit eligible. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 100% of the roadway improvement cost, the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $8.7 million over Option A. This Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report has documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(provided earlier in Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). 2 The City can discount the SDC amount by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs and the City can decide to charge only a percentage (i.e., 50%, 75%, etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. The SDC Procedures Manual will specify how discounts should apply to certain developments, such as transit-oriented development. If the City discounts SDCs,revenues will decrease and amounts that must come from other sources, such as general fund contributions, will increase in order for the City to maintain levels of service. In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, the City of Tigard desires to establish its Transportation SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City's currently policy objective for transportation SDCs assume a citywide average SDC of$5,000 per dwelling unit and an average supplemental River Terrace SDC of$497 per dwelling unit. Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the residential SDCs that the City would charge new development initially once the new SDCs are established. E.2 SDCs with 50% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 50% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $8,356 per single family dwelling, $4,875 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $9,874 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.4). Exhibit 5.4: 0•tion B revised ,Ti•and Transportation SDCs (with 50% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-1(after discount)1 Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Citywide Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current Base$PC-r Cit de Overla Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dweling n/a $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge per multifamily dveIlng n/a $182 $3,151 $1,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT 4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,030 $8,844 $9,874_ Notes: *Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local'elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100% credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by and use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for inked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. '!'111. 11 These proposed changes will be presented and discussed during the transportation and parks SDC adoption hearing. Input received by the public and City Council will be considered before finalizing the SDC Methodology Report and establishing the new SDC rates and procedures. 3 Exhibit C Tigard, Oregon TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY REPORT April 14, 2015 •: FCS CROUP Solutions-Oriented Consulting This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials, including the bronze wire binding and the front and --„ ',hich are made from post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page i This page intentionally left blank • > FCS ( ;R()U P TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1 A. Policy 1 B. Project 1 SECTION II: METHODOLOGY 3 A. Reimbursement Fee Cost basis 3 B. Improvement Fee Cost basis 3 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 3 D. Growth 3 E. Geographic Allocation 4 F. Summary 4 SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION 5 A. Relevant Types of Growth 5 B. Growth in Trip Ends 5 B.1 Expected Growth Levels 5 B.2 Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share 5 SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION 7 A. Reimbursement Fee 7 B. Improvement Fee 7 B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs 8 B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance 8 B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District 8 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 9 D. Summary Calculated SDCs 9 SECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS 10 A. Transportation SDC Calculation 10 A.1 Residential SDC Calculation 10 A.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation 11 B. Annual Adjustment 11 C. Credits and Exemptions 11 C.1 Credits 11 C.1.a Credit Policy Options 12 C.2 Exemptions 12 D. Discounts 12 E. Existing and Proposed SDCs 13 E.1 SDCs with Current Credit Policy 13 :;> FCSCROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page iii E.2 SDCs with 50%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 14 E.3 SDCs with 100%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 14 APPENDIX 16 Appendix A-Transportation Capital Project List 17 Appendix B-Capacity Share Assumptions 22 Appendix C-Reimbursement Fee Calculation 23 Appendix D-Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy 24 > FCS (;RC)UP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 1 SECTION I : BACKGROUND This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. A. POLICY Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS)223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system development charges (SDCs). These are one-time fees on new development,and they are paid at the time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC: • A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements already construct,or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists" • An improvement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed" ORS 223.304(1) states, in part,that a reimbursement fee must be based on"the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities"and must account for prior contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant-funded facilities. The calculation must "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities."A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. ORS 223.304(2) states,in part,that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words,the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement fee may be spent only on capital improvements(or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. B. PROJECT In August 2014,the City of Tigard(City) contracted with FCS GROUP to prepare a new local SDC for transportation facilities that take into account the projects identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan and the River Terrace TSP Addendum,June 2014. This report documents our findings and recommendations. We approached this project as a series of three steps: •::> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 2 • Framework for Charges. In this step, we worked with City staff to identify the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis. • Technical Analysis. In this step,we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates. • Draft Methodology Report Preparation. In this step, we documented the calculation of the draft SDC rates included in this report. For analysis purposes,the new Tigard Transportation SDC is intended to be consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy,adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014. This Transportation SDC Methodology Report supports the creation of a special SDC overlay district within the River Terrace Plan District boundary(Exhibit 1.1). Please refer to City of Tigard Community Development Code: Map 18.660 for tax lots that are included in the River Terrace Plan District. With the adoption of this SDC methodology,future development in Tigard would be subject to a citywide SDC and development within River Terrace would also be subject to the River Terrace SDC overlay fee. Exhibit 1.1 hi River Terrace Plan Di.m o (10: Fil 1 4%7, __awn eou"m'a 90 TI ARP O il,.a Uy awnday 93 F e``t' �Sso OLP 5 - kli• 7n11 L I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 ' Cr 1 M 1 C W 1 O C D. C 3 M •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 3 SECTION II : METHODOLOGY This section provides a non-numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE COST BASIS The reimbursement fee is the cost of available capacity per unit of growth that such available capacity can serve. In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated,excess transportation infrastructure capacity must be available to serve future growth. For facility types that have no excess capacity,no reimbursement fee may be charged. This analysis uses the original cost of all SDC or Transportation Development Tax(TDT)infrastructure less the amount currently used as the basis for the reimbursement fee. B. IMPROVEMENT FEE COST BASIS The improvement fee is the cost of capacity-increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those projects will serve. Since the capacity added by most projects serves a dual purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth, growth-related costs for each project must be isolated and costs that meet current demand or repair a deficiency must be excluded. We have used the capacity approach to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth-related capacity that projects of a similar type will create. The portion of each project that is attributable to growth is determined and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by dividing the total costs of growth- required projects by the projected increase in demand. C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on"the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects, this report assumes that compliance costs are equal to 3%of the SDC improvement fee basis. D. GROWTH Growth for SDCs is in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of transportation,the most applicable unit of growth is trips on the infrastructure. In this methodology we have analyzed growth in terms of average daily person trips (ADPT)and P.M. peak hour vehicle trip ends (PHVT). •:;> FCSC;Rc)L'I' TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 4 E. GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION SDCs are often calculated and applied uniformly throughout a municipality, but such uniformity is not a legal requirement.Municipalities can calculate and impose area-specific SDCs. Area-specific SDCs allow a municipality to identify and isolate differential costs to serve particular areas within its jurisdiction. SDCs are calculated separately for each area,and improvement fees must be spent on projects in the improvement fee cost basis for the area in which those improvement fees were earned. Area-specific SDCs can be implemented in two ways. The first way is to divide the municipality into a set of non-overlapping areas.Under this method,the SDCs for a particular area are determined by the assets,projects, and projected growth in that area. The second method is a layered approach.The first layer consists of a citywide SDC based on assets and projects of citywide benefit. The second layer consists of one or more overlays.Each overlay is a separate list of assets and projects that benefit a particular area within the city. Development within an overlay pays both the citywide SDC and the overlay SDC. Development outside of any overlay pays only the citywide SDC. Given the City's desire to isolate the costs of serving certain areas and findings in the River Terrace Funding Strategy adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014, we recommend(and have calculated in this report) both a citywide SDC and an overlay SDC for River Terrace. F. SUMMARY In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee component, improvement fee component,and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand.The unit of demand becomes the basis of the charge. Exhibit 2.1 shows this calculation in equation format: Exhibit 2.1: SDC E•uation Eligible costs of Costs of Eligible costs of SDC per unit of available capacity in + capacity-increasing + complying with _ growth in existing facilities capital Oregon SDC demand improvements law Units of growth in demand Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. Section V identifies SDC recommendations. •:;> FCS CR()UI' TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 5 SECTION III : GROWTH CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand, which is the denominator in the SDC equation. A. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip or average person trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs. This transportation SDC methodology utilizes both average daily person trips (ADPT)and P.M.peak hour vehicle trip ends(PHVT) in the calculation of the SDC fee. ADPTs include vehicle trips on collector and arterial streets and non-motor vehicle trips that utilize bicycle,pedestrian,and transit facilities.The proposed SDC charges provide a PHVT to ADPT conversion factor so that non-residential SDCs can also take into account linked trips for certain types of developments,such as fast food restaurants and fuel stations,which have relatively high rates of linked-trip activity. B. GROWTH IN TRIP ENDS Having established relevance of ADPT and PHVT, we now quantify expected growth rates. B.1 Expected Growth Levels As mentioned above,this methodology utilizes a citywide SDC with a River Terrace overlay. Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 show the growth in person trips (ADPT) and vehicle trips (PHVT) between now and 2035 for River Terrace and the rest of Tigard. The modeled trip growth forecasts result in a factor of approximately 0.047 for converting average daily person trips(ADPT)into peak hour vehicle trips (PHVT). Conversely,for every 21 average daily person trip-ends that originate or terminate in Tigard(including trips by vehicles,bicycle,pedestrian and transit),there is one P.M peak-hour vehicle trip-end expected(PHVT). B.2 Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share The growth share for any project varies by the project type and the percent of the project that serves future growth. See Appendix A for a complete list of projects with the appropriate growth shares. In general,new collector or arterial facilities(including the roadways,bicycle,and pedestrian facilities) that are needed only to serve growth are 100% SDC eligible. Existing roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities that are planned for expansion to accommodate growth may only be partially eligible for SDC funding. The share of existing transportation facilities that are planned for capacity upgrades to serve future growth needs varies by type of project and the rubric to determine future growth share is shown in Appendix B. > FCSGROLP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 6 Exhibit 3.1: Avera•e Daily Person Trip-End (ADPT) Growth Growth - 2015 Area 2010 2015 2035 to 2035 River Terrace 469 1,083 30,737 29,654 Rest of Tigard 525,451 560,100 733,130 173,030 All Tigard 525,920 561,183 763,867 202,684 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum (June 2014). Exhibit 3.2:Ti•and Peak-Hour Vehicle Trip-End (PHVT) Growth Growth - 2015 Area 2010 2015 2035 to 2035 River Terrace 63 119 1,536 1,417 Rest of Tigard 28,319 30,019 38,341 8,322 All Tigard 28,382 30,379 39,877 9,498 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum (June 2014). • FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 7 SECTION IV : COST CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE As noted in Section II, the reimbursement fee is based on the present value of unused capacity that the City has funded in Tigard. For analysis purposes, we have based the reimbursement SDC cost basis on the actual amount of prior capacity investments the city has made using Transportation Development Tax funds over the past nine fiscal years. The expenditures from previous years have been discounted by the trip growth rate in this report to account for increased use since initial construction. Exhibit 4.1 summarizes the cost basis for the reimbursement fee. Detailed calculations are included in Appendix C. Exhibit 4.1: Reimbursement Fee Basis Calculation Reimbursement Fee Calculation Total Capital Project Expenditures $4,955,023 Less Capacity Used Up $369,470 Reimbursement fee basis $4,585,553 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP. Using the calculated growth in PHVT from the previous section and the reimbursement fee basis, Exhibit 4.2 shows the calculated reimbursement fee. Note that the reimbursement fee is charged irrespective of the SDC overlay district. Exhibit 4.2: Reimbursement Fee Calculation Reimbursement Fee •er PMPHT Total Cost of SDC/TDT Capital Project Expenditures $4,585,553 Change in ADPT (2015-2035) 202,684 Reimbursement Fee per ADPT $23 Equivalent Reimbursement Fee per PHVT* $483 Source: Previous tables and Appendix C, compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34 B. IMPROVEMENT FEE City staff identified a list of project needs for the transportation SDC using several sources: • The Tigard Transportation System Plan • The River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum • The Metro's Regional Transportation Plan • The Tigard's Capital Improvement Plan GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 8 In addition, the current Transportation Development Tax Road Project List has been considered to ensure that potential SDC project expenditures are not included on the TDT project list as well. Exhibit 4.3 shows a summary list of the Tigard transportation project costs. Overall, the City identified a total need of$625 million. For a detailed list of Tigard transportation projects see Appendix A. Exhibit 4.3:Trans•ortation Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035(in $1,000s) Pro'ect Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM* Total Citywide $479,592 $39,000 $15,000 $34,030 $17,500 $585,122 River Terrace $0 $37 850 $0 $1,800 $0 $40,150 Total $479,592 $76,850 $15,000 $35,830 $17,500 $625,272 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management. B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs Total SDC-eligible costs are a percentage of total projects. The percent of each individual project is calculated and then summed by infrastructure type. Because there is an overlay districts, each project is categorized as either benefitting the overlay district or the entire city. Exhibit 4.4 shows a summary table by SDC overlay and type of transportation costs. See Appendix A for detailed calculations of SDC-eligible costs. Exhibit 4.4:Trans•ortation SDC Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035(in $1,000s) Pro'ect Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM* Total Citywide $222,818 $19,669 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $267,530 River Terrace '.0 14,623 '.0 '.0 ',0 $14,623 Total $222,818 $34,292 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $282,153 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management (e.g., traffic signal synchronization and turning movement/access modifications). B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance There is no existing local transportation SDC in Tigard and therefore no fund balances to consider at this time. B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District Similar to the reimbursement fee cost basis above, we calculate the improvement fee cost basis by district in PHVT using growth estimates from the previous section and the SDC-eligible projects shown above. Exhibit 4.5 shows the potential improvement fee by district before discounts or adjustments. Exhibit 4.5: SDC lm•rovement Fee by District SDC Fee Improvement Fee Equivalent per Single- Calculations(before SDC-Eligible Growth in Fee per Fee per Family discounts Project Costs ADPT ADPT PHVT* Residence Citywide base charge $267,530,222 202,684 $1,320 $28,168 $15,924 River Terrace Overlay $14,622,750 29,654 ',493 $10,523 $5,949 Total River Terrace SDC $282,1 52,972 232,339 $1,813 $38,690 $21,873 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34;compiled by FCS Group. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 9 C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS For the purpose of this study, we assume the compliance costs equal 3% of the SDC improvement fee. D. SUMMARY CALCULATED SDCS Exhibit 4.6 shows the calculated SDC per person trip (ADPT) by each fee basis and by district.Note that this is the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on forecasted growth in person-trips. Exhibit 4.6:Total SDC per ADPT(SDC per person trip before discounts) SDC Fee Compliance Total per Reimbursement Improvement Fee per SDC per Dwelling Area Fee per ADPT Fee per ADPT ADPT ADPT Unit Citywide $23 $1,320 $40 $1,382 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay $493 $15 $508 $6,127 River Terrace Total $23 $1,813 $54 $1,890 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP. Exhibit 4.7 expresses the maximum SDC that Tigard can charge in terms of growth in P.M peak- hour vehicle trip-ends (PHVT) by each fee basis and by district. This is also the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on vehicle trip growth. Exhibit 4.7: E•uivalent Total SDC per PHVT (before discounts) Total SDC Fee per Reimbursement Improvement Compliance SDC per Dwelling Area Fee Fee Fee PHVT Unit Citywide $483 $28,168 $845 $29,495 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay $10,523 $316 '10,839 $6,127 River Terrace Total $483 $38,690 $1,161 $40,334 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.`Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34;compiled by FCS Group. : FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 10 SECTION V : RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides calculations of the residential and non-residential SDCs and recommended SDCs after accounting for credit and discount policies. A. TRANSPORTATION SDC CALCULATION The transportation SDC is based on the number of trips that a change in land use generates. The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual contains trip rates based on studies conducted nationwide and provides the base data of unadjusted counts of trips generated by various types of land use. Unadjusted trip counts mean that certain land use types will have high trip counts including all traffic entering or leaving a location but does not account for traffic that passes by or interrupts a primary trip between origin and destination. Trips that interrupt a primary trip are called linked trips and this SDC methodology recommends removing them from the residential calculation because they would occur regardless of development activity. A.1 Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations are relatively simple and take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. Residential land use types do not entail a linked trip adjustment factor. SDC rates for specific developments are to be determined using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook in which there are land use categories depicting single family detached(code#210),apartments (code#220),rental townhouses(code#224),and other residential types. Because there is presently no ITE land use code for small,standard, or large single family dwellings, Exhibit 5.1 will be used to calculate SDC rates for single family detached homes. Small single family detached houses will be charged 81%of the TSDC for a single family detached residential unit and large houses will be charged 108% of the TSDC. : FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 11 Exhibit 5.1 Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A(revenue neutral) (living area sq.ff.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source: compiled by FCS Group based on: Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results, Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services;and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers, Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT=average daily person trips; SFD=single family detached home. A.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new PHVT added for non-residential development. New non-residential development in Tigard may include land use types with linked trips. The number of new PHVTs generated for non-residential land use should take into account the following formula: ITE Vehicle Trip Rate x (1—%Linked Trips) = Net New PHVT The SDC per unit of development is calculated for each type of land use by multiplying the new PHVT for each land use by the SDC per PHVT. It is important to note that the Trip Generation Manual may not contain some land use categories or may not include trip rates or number of net new trips generated. For such land use categories without data,the City administrator shall use her/his judgment to calculate the transportation SDC. B. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT Annual adjustment of transportation SDCs as summarized in the City's "Master Fees& Charges Schedule" shall be made with City Council approval. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements: 90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price(annualized) percent change. C. CREDITS AND EXEMPTIONS The Tigard SDC Procedures Guide will establish local policies for issuing credits and exemptions,annual adjustments,and other administrative procedures. C.1 Credits A credit is a reduction in the amount of SDCs paid for a specific development.The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a"qualified public improvement" which(1)is required as a condition of development approval, (2) is identified in the City's capital improvements program, and(3)either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 12 approval,or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement(e.g.,transportation right of way or improvements provided by a developer can only be used for a credit for towards transportation SDC improvement fee payments),and must be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular project up to the amount of the improvement fee. For multi-phase projects, any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits,the City may,if it so chooses,provide a greater credit,establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's SDC Capital Improvements Plan,or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means(i.e.,partnerships,other City revenues,etc.). C.1.a Credit Policy Options The City is currently considering establishing one of three credit policies for the transportation SDC. Option A.This credit policy,based on current City practice,assumes that the Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT) credit policy is applied to future local transportation SDCs within the City. Option B.This credit policy assumes that the City implements a credit policy that applies the TDT credit policy to all SDC eligible projects in the city with an exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 50% of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued,the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately$4.3 million over Option A. Option C. This credit policy is similar to Option B,but expands the exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project from 50%to 100%credit eligible. By expanding the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 100%of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued,the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $8.7 million over Option A. It is important to note that regardless of the credit policy chosen, the City would stipulate that credits provided within the River Terrace district cannot be used in another part of the City. However, citywide SDC credits could be utilized anywhere within the City.This would help ensure that any transportation SDC credits issued in River Terrace will result in continued development investment in River Terrace. C.2 Exemptions The City may exempt specific classes of development(i.e.,minor additions,etc.) from the requirement to pay SDCs. D. DISCOUNTS This Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report has documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(provided earlier in Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). •.;> FCS (;R(:)U I' TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 13 The City can discount the SDC amount by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs and the City can decide to charge only a percentage(i.e., 50%, 75%, etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. The SDC Procedures Manual will specify how discounts should apply to certain developments, such as transit-oriented development. If the City discounts SDCs,revenues will decrease and amounts that must come from other sources,such as general fund contributions, will increase in order for the City to maintain levels of service. In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, the City of Tigard desires to establish its Transportation SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City's currently policy objective for transportation SDCs assume a citywide average SDC of$5,000 per dwelling unit and an average supplemental River Terrace SDC of$497 per dwelling unit. Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the residential SDCs that the City would charge new development initially once the new SDCs are established. Exhibit 5.2: Avera•e Transportation SDC per Dwelling (after discounts) Reimbursement Improvement Compliance Total Area with Ti•and Fee Fee Fee SDC Citywide $273 $4,589 $138 $5,000 River Terrace Overlay $483 $14 $497 River Terrace Total $273 $5,072 $152 $5,497 Source: Compiled by FCS GROUP based on funding policy objectives stated in the River Terrace Funding Strategy;and prior tables. Since the River Terrace SDCs would be lower than the maximum SDC the City can justify, additional funding sources would be needed to ensure that all projects contained in the long term capital project list can be funded by year 2035. Appendix D identifies the amount of SDC revenues and other funding revenues the City of Tigard would likely need to fund the projects identified in the SDC capital project list. E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED SDCS Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the existing and proposed total Transportation SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement, improvement, and compliance charges after accounting for discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Transportation SDCs would vary by location. SDCs within the city(outside River Terrace) would initially be charged $5,714 per single family dwelling, $3,333 per multifamily/other dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $8,844 per P.M. peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT). The potential SDCs for the River Terrace District have been calculated under three possible credit policy scenarios. Under each scenario the citywide SDC would be the same but the River Terrace SDC would change. It is important to note that the City Council may decide to defer some of the SDC charges identified in the following tables (for example, the City Council could vote to defer implementation of the SDC reimbursement fees but charge SDC improvement fees). E.1 SDCs with Current Credit Policy If the City utilized its current credit policy that is consistent with the Washington County TDT credit policy, the local Transportation SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged $6,282 per •::> FCS GROU TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 14 single family dwelling, $3,665 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $9,724 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.3). Exhibit 5.3: Pro•osed Ti•and Trans•ortation SDCs (after discounts) SDC-i(after discount) Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Citywl.' Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current Base SDC-r Cit wide Overla Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $497 $5,000 $5,497 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $568 $5,714 $6,282 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $331 $3,333 $3,665 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $879 $8,844 $9,724 Notes: Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dweling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for inked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for inked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. E.2 SDCs with 50% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 50% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged$8,356 per single family dwelling, $4,875 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$9,874 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.4). Exhibit 5.4: 0•tion B revised ,Ti•and Transportation S_DCs (with 50%RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-1(after discount)I Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Cityw • Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current Base SDC Citywide Overlay Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dwelling n/a $273 $4,727 $2,312 $5,000 $7,312 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $2,642 $5,714 $8,356 Charge per multifamily dweling n/a $182 $3,151 $1,541 $3,333 $4,875 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT` n/a $483 $8,362 $1,030 $8,844 $9,874 Notes: •Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd."local'elements are 50%credit eligible and elements beyond local streets are 100% credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs cotected by future River Terrace development.All other faciities would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by lond use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for Inked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceding tables. E.3 SDCs with 100% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 100% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within : FCS C�RCOU 1' TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 15 River Terrace would initially be charged$10,453 per single family dwelling, $6,097 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$10,026 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.5). Exhibit 5.5: 0•tion C, Ti•and Trans•ortation SDCs with 100% RT Blvd. credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount) Total SDC(after discount) River SDC Citywide Terrace Citywide River Development Type Current Base SDC-r Cit ide Overla Total Terrace Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per dweling n/a $273 $4,727 $4,146 $5,000 $9,146 Charge per single family detached dwelling n/a $312 $5,402 $4,738 $5,714 $10,453 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $2,764 $3,333 $6,097 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,182 $8,844 $10,026 Notes: *Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd.improvements are 100%credit eigibie;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.A II other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. 2 Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 3 Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for inked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHV T)is shown before making potential adjustments for inked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceeding tables. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 16 APPENDIX •:;>FCS ( ;RO 1' r- TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 17 Appendix A -Transportation Capital Project List City Cost Alter Capacrry Growth Capacity Capacity TDT%ot SDC%of Road TS CdT Local Private ODOT;C0uny Identified local Related Percent of Total SOC/TOT Related City Related City Eligible Biglble -meet ID Road Classification Description Protect Costs Share Funding Funding Total City Cost Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cod 17D11 Cost(MCI Protect Costs Protect Costs Source or Temece Benetll Project ID 23A 150th Ave Collector Improve 150th Ave.from Rot 1100000 24% 1306,000 $94,000 $94,000 50% 50% $23,500 $0 $23.500 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum Mountain Rd.10 Beet Bend Rd. Bull Project ID 21A Mountain Rd Collect' Upgrade to urban standards $1,200.000 29% 1850.000 $350,000 $350800 50% 50% $87,500 $350,000 $0 100% 0% RT ISP Addendum Project ID 18 Intersection Collector Bull Mountain Rd./N-S collect' 51,5001000 100% 51,500,000 $1,500,000 100% 100% $1,500,000 $0 $1,500000 0% 100% RI ISP Addendum ntersecikm or roundabout Project ID 20 Intersection Collector Woodhue St./161$1 Ave.extension 52,000000 0% $2,000,000 $0 $0 100% 100% 50 $0 $0 RI ISP Addendum intersection or roundabout Project ID NA 2 I Intersection Street Improvements where new streets 150000 10% $500.00 $0 50% 100% $0 $0 10 RI ISP Addendum meet exktha streets-Phase I Project ID 2 Lorenzo Ln Collector Extend Lorenzo Ln.horn West WB b $2,500,000 5% 52.30.00 8120.00 $120000 100% 100% $120000 $0 5120.000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Project ID 3 Lorenzo Ln Collector Extend Lorenzo Ln.horn Roshak Rd.to $3500,00 100% $3,500,000 53.50.00 100% 100% 83.500.000 10 $3,500,000 0% 10% RI TSP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Project ID NA 1 I firer Bke/Pad R'�Terrace Trail from Roy Rodgers 51.800,000 100% 51,800.000 $1.800.00 0% 100% 50 $0 $0 RI TSP Addendum terrace Troll Rd.to 150th Ave. Project ID 5A RI Blvd Collector 31arre N-S collector ham Scholls Ferry 140000 43% $311700 $2.613800 $2,613.00 100% 180% 52,613.000 5653250 01.959.750 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum to Lorenzo In.extension-Phone 1 Project ID 58 RI Blvd Collector 31ane N-S collector from Sctrolls feat' $2.970.00 100% $2,970.00 $2.970,000 10% 100% $2.970.000 $742,50 $2.227.500 25% 75% RI TSP Addendum to Lorenzo tn.extension-Phase 2 3 lane N-S collector Iron Lorenzo In. Project ID 6A RI Blvd Collector extension to Bull Mountob Rd.-Phase 14.875,00 48% $255080 $2,325,000 $2,325.00 100% 100% $2,32580 $581250 $1,743.750 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum 1 31ane N-S collector from Bull Project ID 7A RT Blvd Collector Mountain Rd.to the south City Lind- 14.125,00 46% $2211.000 $1.881,00 $1,881,000 100% 100% $1.881800 $470250 $1,410,750 25% 75% RI TSP Addendum Phase 1 Project ID 7B RT Blvd Collector 31're N-S collector horn south CBy $6.25080 46% 13.10800 $2,850,00 $2.850.00 100% 100% $21350800 $71250 $2.13750 25% 75% RI TSP Addendum Lind to the south UGB(phase 2) Project ID 8 Collector 21gne E-W collector between Roy 12,500000 0% $250,000 $0 $0 0% 0% $0 50 10 RI TSP Addendum Rodgers Rd.and N-S collector Dewdewn Iwo*(Included in clhwtde) Metro Project ID Ash Ave Collector Extend Ash Avenue from Burnham, 510,000000 100% $10,000,000 $10,000,000 50% 100% 55.00.00 $0 15,000.00 0% 100% TSP,RIP,CIP •cross the RR to Commercial Sheet Thom*Bent#(Included to citywide) Bev eland St 70th to 7117 Bevelond St Bke/Pad Ell 330'Sidewalk Gap 540.00 100% $40000 540.000 50% 10% $2080 $0 520.000 0% 100% City staff Bev eland) Red Rock Creek Trai Bke/Pad New hat parallel to and south of 990 $3000000 10% 53,00.000 13,00,00 25% 50% $375.000 $0 $375.00 0% 100% City stall Greenway h triangle •:;> FCS C r RO L P I TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 18 City Cosi After Capacity Grower Capacdy Capacity TOT Z.of SOC 0 or Road %CM Local Pdvate ODOT/County Idenl,Hed Local Related Percent of Total SDC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible 0lgible •rotect.0 Road Classification Description Project Cosh Share Funding fundIg Total City Cost funding Percent Capacity Eligible Cosh Cost(MO Cost(SDC) Project Costs Protect Costs Source - do Benekt 121st Ave. 121st Ave Bke/Ped Add Sidewalks and Bice Lanes 13,500,000 100% 33,500,000 $3500,000 50% 100% $1.750,000 13,500,000 $0 100% 0% CM staff whole,to ipptlt 121st Ave over 121st Ave Bke/Peal Pedestrian bridge on west side of $513000 110% $50000 j50A00 50% 100% 325,000 SD $25000 0% 100% City staff Sumner Creek road Walnut Sheet to North Dakota Skeet- 121 st sheet lanes St Collector $6.0004C0 lanes with turn laes where $6000000 100% $6000000 $6000.000 50% 100% 33.000000 16000000 $0 100% 0% City staff Widenig necessary plus bite lanes and sidewalks Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Widen 72nd Ave.to S lanes from $35000,000 100% 535,000.000 335A00.000 80% 100% 128,000,000 $9,269,598 518.730402 33% 67% TSP.RTP.CIP 10755 Hunker Rd.to Hwy.99 Metro Project ID Wden 72nd Ave.to S lanes horn 72nd Are Arterial $28.166450 100% $28.164450 128,166.850 80% 100% 122533,180 $7.261.185 $15,272295 32% 68% 15P,RIP.CIP 10756 Hunker Rd.to Bonita Metro Project ID Widen Ave Arterial 115.425400 72nd Ave.to S lanes ham 115.425000 100% $15425000 115025,000 80% 100% $12340000 $9169198 $3070.402 75% 25% TSP,RIP,CIP 10757 Bonito Rd.to Durham Rd. Provide Arterial Corridor Management 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TSM along Corridor 1119(Hwy 217)(Hwy $1,700000 100% 81.700000 11.700,000 100% 100% $1.700,000 $0 $1,700,000 0% 100% City staff 217)h the Meho TSMD Plan Provide Arterial Card«Management on 72nd Avenue along Conirfa 02(I- 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TOM 5)(FS)near the Upper Boones ferry $1,600000 100% 51.600,000 51.600.000 100% 100% $1.600.000 $1368.928 1231072 86% 14% City start Road Interchange'Sr the Metro iSMD Plan Brows Road Barrows Rd Bke/Ped Add Sidewalks and bite lanes 13.000000 100% 13000000 13000,000 50% 100% 11.500000 $0 $1.5000170 0% 100% City staff Metro Project ID Hondo Rd Arterial Widen Barrio Rd.to 4 lanes ham $45.000000 100% 145000.000 115000000 80% 90% 532400000 $5272.615 $27.127,385 16% 84% TSP.RIP,CIP 10752 Banav to Hall Bold. Bolt Mountain Road Hwy 99W Bull Collect« Widen to thee lanes with bke lanes $8,000000 100% 18000000 18.000.000 50% 100% $4.000000 $8000000 $0 100% 0% RT TSP Addendum to Benchview Mountoh Rd and sidewalks lee) Cascade Ave Aae ode Bke/Ped Pave northbound bike lane gap 130,000 100% $30000 $30000 50% 100% $15,000 $0 $15,000 0% 100% City staff Metro Project ID Dartmouth Wkfen Dartmouth Dartmouth St.to 1 lanes Mom Collector 55,000000 100% 35.000,000 35.000000 80% 100% $6 10759 St 72nd Ave,to 68th Ave. 000000 31.853.920 12,116.080 16% 54% 15P,RIP Metro Project ID Peden Durham Rd.to 5 lanes Mom Durham Rd Ader iol $20000000 100% $20000000 120000000 80% 90% 111,402000 $0 114400000 0% 100% ISP,RIP,aP 10753 Boons Fenv to Hall Bold. Metro Project ID Durham Rd Arterial Widen Durham Rd.to 5 lanes Man 125000000 100% $21000.000 525000.000 80% 95% 119000.000 $0 319000.000 0% 100% ISP.RIP.CIP 10764 Hall Bold,To Hwy.99 Provide Animal Cando Management Durham Road Durham Rd 15M along Corridor 1119(Hwy 217)'Sr the 51.500,000 100% $1,500.000 11,504000 100% 95% 11.425.000 $0 $1.425.000 0% 100% City staff Metro 15040 PlOn7 Fanno Creek Fanno Bke/Ped Durham Rd to Tualatin River Ital $1,500000 100% 18500000 11,5a1000 25% 100% 1375000 $0 $375.000 0% 100% City staff Tsai Creek Mai Metro Project ID Greanb«9 Arlaial Winer Greenburg a Rd.Man Shady 57000000 100% 17,000000 $7000.000 80% 95% $5.320.000 16.745098 $0 100% 0% 'Project Request" 10718 Rd Lane to North Dakota Motto Project ID Greenberg Arterial Widen Greenberg Rd.to 5 lanes Mom 112000000 100% 512000.000 312000,000 80% 100% 19,600000 59.269,598 1330402 97% 3% TSP,RIP 10750 Rd ideman Ave.to Hwy.99 Mvho Project ID m Hall Blvd Arterial Hal Bold.Improveenh from Locust 116000000 100% $16.000000 116000000 50% 100% $8.000.000 $0 18.000.000 0% 100% TSP.RIP.CIP 11220 to Durham Hall Blvd/ Replace with wider bridge with Fanno Creek Hall Blvd Bridge sidewalks and bke lanes $6'�'� 100% $6000.000 $6000000 50% 100% $3000000 $0 $3.000.000 0% 100% City staff Budge •.:) FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 19 CM Cost Atter Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity MI of SDC. :or Road %City Local Private 0130T/County Identified Local Related Percent of Total SDC,TOT Related City Related City Eligible 81glble reject ID Rood Classification Desc rption Project Costs Share Furling Furling Total City Cost Finland Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(SDC) Project Costs Protect Costs Source NneNt(cxiinued) Provde Arterial Corridor Management Hall Boulevard Hall Blvd ISM and Transit Signal Priority on Hall $3.700,000 105% $3,700,000 $3,700000 100% 100% $3,700,000 $0 53.700.000 0% 100% City staff Boulevard Iran Highway 217 to Highway 99W Add an eastbound through larre on Hall Boulevard Hop Blvd Artenoi HON Blvd.horn Parrrelad Road to $504000 100% $500000 $555,000 100% 95% $475,)00 $0 $475.000 0% 100% Cily staff Greenbaa Rood Hunzker St(72nd Add sidewalk on oath side: to 77th) Harker St Bke/Peal completes sidewalk ham 72nd to Hall $1000,000 100% 51000,000 $1,004000 50% 100% $500000 $0 $5070,000 0% 1001E Cily staff Sidewalk Hwy 217 Add a northbound through lane Northbound Aw Hwy 217 Arterial under the Hwy 99W overpass to 820,000000 0% $20000,000 $0 $0 50% 100% $0 $D $0 City staff Lone address a capacity ohch ooht Metro Project ID Hwy 99 Arterial Hwy.99 intersection kr>Fsrovemenh $50,000,000 100% 350000,000 550000,000 80% 95% $38,000000 $9,860,000 $28,140,000 26% 74% TSP,RTP 10770 from 64th Ave.to Durham Rd, Project ID 13 Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Road/E-W collector $1.000000 100% $1,000000 $1000990 100% 100% $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 0% 100% RI TSP Addendum traffic skint Project ID 14 Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Road/Bull Mountah Rd 51000,000 100% $1.000.000 $1,0000013 100% 95% $950,000 $0 $950000 0% 100% RI TSP Addendum traffic sksnol Project ID 16 Intersection Arterial Scholls Ferry /N-5 collector $1000000 100% $1,000000 $1,000.000 100% 100% 81.000.000 $0 $1,000,000 0% 100% RI TSP Addendum traffic signal Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial Intersection improvements at Hall $8000000 100% $8004000 $8000000 25% 80% $1,600000 $0 $1400000 0% 100% TSP.RTP 10769 By d.And Tedman Ave, Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial MaN/Honzker/SCOffrns Intersection 85,000000 100% $5,000,000 $5,000,000 75% 100% 53.750,000 $3562,332 $0 100% 0% TSP.RIP.CIP 11223 Realignment Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial Geerlbug/Tedemon/N.Dakota $14000000 100% $10000,000 $10000000 50% 80% $4000000 30 $1000000 0% 100% ISP 11224 Reconfuaaton Hwy 99W/72nd Intersectbn Arterial Turn lanes.aux tones.sidewalks.bike $8000000 100% $8,004000 $8.000000 80% 100% $6,400000 $772,466 $5427,534 12% 88% City staff Ave Intersection lanes,crooners'hank'Irnaovenlent5 Highway 217 SB /Hall Blvd ntersection Arterial SB right.turn lane at Hall Blvd/OR 217 55.000.000 100% $5,000000 $5000000 25% 100% $1250000 S9 $1250000 0% 100% City staff Interchange ramp protovements Hwy 99W/68h krtersecto m n Improveenh.Provide Ave Intersection Arterial protected left at 68th:kansl queue 54000000 100% $4,000000 $4000000 80% 100% $3,200,000 82394,646 $805354 75% 25% City staff bypass Hall Blvd/ Install new traffic sgnal:mohlah Pfafle St Traffic Intersection TSM exainglane configuration $1,000,000 100% $1,000000 $1,000.000 100% 100% $1,000,000 $1,000,000 SO 100% 0% City staff Sgnal 68th/Attanta/Ha Install a traffic signal and odd tan nes Intersection TSM lades where necessary $500'000 100% $500,000 $500,000 00 100% 100% $500, 0 SI 73.805 $326,195 35% 65% CNy stall I-S/Upper Boones/ Intersection Arterial Add turn lades and/or auxiliary $10.000000 100% $10000.100 $10000.000 80% 90% 57.200.000 $0 $7200,000 0% 100% City staff Carman through hoes,sidewalks.etc Interchange Ratain eastbound right-turn lane when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Scholls Ferry/ Rd:Retain westbound right-tan lone Nimbus Intersection Arterial when 3rd lone added on Scholls Ferry $6000000 20% $4,800000 $1,200,000 $1200.100 100% 100% $1200000 51.200.000 $0 100% 0% City staff Intersection Rd:southbound right-turn lane: Improvements Reconfigure northbound and southbound lanes to create exclusive left-tan lanes Scholls Ferry Rd /North Dakota Intersection Arterial Intersection Improvement $1.500000 100% 11,500.000 11.500.000 80% 100% $1200000 $0 $1200000 0% 100% City staff SI/125th Ave •::> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 20 City Cost Alter Capacity Growth Capacity Capocity TOT-o of SOC%ol Road %City Local Private°DOT/County Identified Local Related Percent of Total SDC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible 'cried ID Road Classlhc anon Description Project Costs Share Fundma Funding Total City Cost Funckna Percent Capacity ERarble Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(WC) Protect Cosh Project Co;'. 5ou,ce • B.mli(contMo.dl 72nd/Upper Boons Ferry Intersection Arterial Intersection Improvement 11000.000 100% 51000,000 11,000000 100% t00% $1,000000 11.000.000 10 100% 0% City staff lCarmonl Bonito/Sequoia Intersection ISM Traffic S' Intersection anal 11.000,000 100% 51.000.000 51.000000 80% 100% $800,000 11.000.000 $0 100% 0% City staff Tndeman Install a traffic signal:construct left- Sheet/TIg«d Intersection Collector turn lanes,sidewalk.and bite lanes $1,000000 100% 51.000.000 $1.000.000 100% 100% $1.000000 50 11,000,000 0% 100% City staff Street 121s1/North Intersecton 8ke/Ped Traffic signal $500.000 100% 1500.000 1500000 100% 100% 1500000 $231,740 1268260 46% 54% City staff Dakota Add turn lanes and auxiliary lanes Mc DOnaa/Nall Hall Blvd Collector with bite Imes rd sidewalks on Holt, 19000.000 100% 19,000,000 $9.000.000 90% 90% 17,290.000 1766.702 16523298 11% 89% CRy staff RT lane McDonald,and Bonne to improve traffic flow Durham/Upper Intersection Bke/Ped Sidewalk on NW Corner,Curb Ramp 140000 100% $40000 $40.000 50% 100% $20.000 $0 120000 0% 100% City daft Boons Geenburg Rd/ Pedestrian Islands to footnote Shady Ln Intersection Bke/Ped crossing Shady Ln on east side of $30000 100% $30000 130,000 50% 100% $15.000 $0 $15.000 0% 100% Cily staff Greenberg Bonita Rd near Intersection eke/Pet Enhanced Ped Crossing-RRI157 $20,000 100% $20000 $20000 25% 100% $5.000 $0 $5,000 0% 100% City stet' 79th Ave Geenburg Rd Intersecton like/Pet Enhanced Crossing between $20A00 100% $20000 $20,000 25% 100% 15.000 $0 $5,000 0% 100% City staff Tledemon and Center 51-at 951h7 Hwy 217 SB Intersection Capacity Improvements Romps/Highway Intersecton Arterial bcludng 2nd right Ian lane from off 12.500.000 100% 12.500000 $2,500000 100% 100% 12.500000 $0 $2500,000 0% 100% Cly staff 99W ramp Hwy 217 NB Add a second n«fhbound left loin Romps/Hghway Inlerseclbn Arterial lane $1500,000 100% $1.500.000 $1500000 100% tan $1.500,000 $0 11.500,000 0% 100% City staff 99W Metro Project ID McDonald Arterial $8000,000 Rd.irprovemenh from $8.000,000 100% 18.000.000 18.000.000 50% 50% $2.000.000 $0 $2000000 0% 100% ISP.RTP.OP 11217 Rd Hal Bvld.To Hwy.99 McDonald SI n4cDO55oa Bke/Pad Enhanced Crossing between Hall and $00.000 100% $30000 $30,000 25% 50% $3.750 $0 $3.750 0% 100% CRy staff Rd Hwy 99W-at°Mora7 971h7 m Roy Rodgers en Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 Ln.from N Project ID 22A Rd Arterial of Scholls ferry Rd.to 5.of Beef Bend 14.000.000 100% 14000000 $4,000,000 100% 100% 14,000000 13,000.000 11000.000 75% 25% RT TSP Addendum Rd.,Phase I Itralf-heel seamentsl Roy Rodgers Widen Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 In.horn N Project ID 22B Rd Arterial of Scholls Ferry Rd.to S.of Beet Bend 14,000000 100% 14000.000 14.000,000 100% 100% 14,000000 13.000.000 $1,000,000 75% 25% RT TSP Addendum Rd. Phase 2 Walf-heel seamen's! Schdls Ferry Rd lolls Ferry Virden to 7 lanes with bwe lanes and Wt denhg.Hwy Rd Arteral sidewalks $50.000)000 75% $12,500,000 $37.500,000 137500.000 100% 100% $37500.000 $18.745.186 118.754.814 50% 50% City staff 217 to 121st ScYalh Ferny Rd Scholls ferry ISM Provife Arterial Cartid«Management 14200.000 100% $4.200.000 14200000 100% 100% 14,200.000 $0 $4200000 0% 100% City staff Rd kom River Road to Hall Boulevard 7iedernan Ave Tiedaman Bke/Pent Sidewalks from Tigard St b Geenburg $1.000.000 100% $1.000,000 $1000,000 50% 50% 1250000 50 $250000 0% 100% City staff Ave Rd Tigard 51(Fann New bridge with bite lanes and Creek)Bridge Tigard SI Bridge sidewalks 13000000 100% 13000000 $3,000.000 50% 50% $750000 $0 1750000 0% 100% City staff Replacement Metro Project ID iral Bke/Pet Neighborhood irais&Regional Trot $1,100,000 100% $1.100000 11.100.000 25% 50% $137500 $0 $137500 0% 100% TSP,RTP 11227 Connections :> FCS GROUP r TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 21 City Cost After Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TOT TX.of SDC°=of Road %City local Privet,ODOT/C000ty Idenfrked local Related Percent of Total SDC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible Project ID Road Classification Desc:olion Project Costs Share Funding Funding Total City Cast Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cod(TOT) Cost(SDC) Project Cosh Project Casts Sourc• Citywide Sersedl(continued) Metro Project ID Portland 3 Western Rol Ira!from 1 1228 iroi Bke/Ped iiaman Ave,to Mon St. $1250,000 100% 31250000 $1250000 25% 50% $156,250 $0 $156250 0% 100% TSP.RTP Tualatin River Trot Bke/Ped Complete maltose Path from Cook $10.000000 100% $10000.000 $10,000,0= 25% 50% $1250000 $0 $1250,000 0% 100% City sfalt Trai Park to the Powerthes Candor Fanno Creek Trai Bke/Ped Woodard Pork to Grant $670000 100% $670000 $670000 25% 50% $83750 $670,000 $0 100% 0% City staff Trai Fenno Creek trot Bke/Ped Tedereon Crossng Realignment $250,000 100% $250000 $2500013 25% 50% $31250 $0 $31250 0% 100% City staff Trai Complete gals along the Fanno Fenno Creek Trot Bke/Ped Creek multiuse path from the Tualatin $6000000 100% $6000000 $6000000 25% 50% $750.000 $0 $750000 0% 100% City staff Trai River to Cky Hall and from Highway 99W to Tigard Sheet Upper Hooves Upper Wien to Ike lanes with bke lanes (Durham to Boanes Arterial and sidewalks $10,000000 100% $10000.000 $10000.00) 90% 90% $8.100,000 $4.106.786 $1993216 51% 49% City staff Sequoia} Upper Boories Upper Prov de Arterial Corridor Monogement Ferry Road Boores ferry TIM along Corridor 82 0-51 h the Metro $1300.000 100% $1.300000 $1,300,000 100% 100% $1.300,000 $0 $1,300000 0% 100% City stall Rd TSMO Plan Metro Project ID alt St Arterlol Widen Walnut St.to 3 lanes from they. $8,000,000 100% $8030.000 $8000000 40% 100% $3.200000 $4325012 $0 100% 0% TSP.RTP.CIP 11229 99 to Tedeman Ave Metro Project ID Arterial Hwy.217 overaossng Hunzker-72nd $30,000.000 100% $30000000 $30.000.000 80% 100% $21000,000 $0 $21003000 0% 100% TSP 10751 Ave. Hwy Turn lones.aux lanes,sidewalks,bike 99W/Darirmouth Al tonal lanes,crossings;transit knprovemenh '�'� IOC% $6.000.000 $60=000 100% 100% $6.000000 $308.987 $5691013 5% 95% City staff St. Greenburg Rd. Widen to 5 lanes from Locust St to (Hwy 217 to Hall Arterial $20.0030130 Rd:add hwn/aux lanes: 720.000000 20% $160=000 $.0=0= $6.0000= 80% 100% $3.200.000 $0 $32=.000 0% 100% City staff BN dl add bke lanes and sidewalks throushout condor (08th Street New bridge crossing north-south over Crossing of Badge Me Tualatn River near 108M Avenue $3.000.000 100% $30=0= $3000000 50% 50% $750000 $0 $750,000 0% 100% City staff Tualatin Riven North Dakota SI Bridge $3.000,000 wish wider bridge with $3000,000 100% $3000008 $3000030 50% 50% $7500= $0 $750,000 0% 100% City staff /Fanno Creek sidewalks and bke lanes Diksen-12151 Trot Bke/Pad New hat along Summer Creek from $1000000 100% $1.000.000 $1,0130.000 25% 50% 1125.000 $0 $125,000 0% 100% City staff Ave Tral Cabers Nahoe Pork to 121 sl A ve Washington Square Area TSM Adoptive Signal Coadnation $1,0=,000 100% $1.000,0= $1000,000 100% 100% $10=.000 $0 51.000.000 0% 100% City staff Signals Totals 1625271,850 $19667,000 $53,300.000 0552.326,850 1551,824.850 0392.3 45.980 $127,738,750 $277,069,222 Notes: I.Project ID's are consistent with ex'stig local or regional konspatatbn plan project bt.gs. 2.All projects Ieted are assumed to be completed by year 2035. 3.All widenng and newly constructed road projects wil include bkelanes and sidewalks,even if not called out specifically. 4.Capacity related portions of gowch ore consistent with parameters shown its Appends B. 5.Growth shores ore estimated by City staff usng Metro 2035 travel demand model,comparing 2010 to 2035 volume/capacity ratios. •:;>FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 22 Appendix B- Capacity Share Assumptions Proportion of Project related to Improvement Type ca•acit New travel lanes added 100% Turn lanes or new traffic signals 100% New interconnected traffic signals 100% Road upgrades (widen from 3 to 5 lanes) 80% Road upgrades (change from local to collector standard) 75% Traffic signal upgrades 75% Road upgrades (widening & adding double left turn lanes) 50% Road upgrades (widening with new bike/ped facilities) 50% Road upgrades (widening from 2 to 3 lanes) 40% Access management & center turn lanes 25% Roadway realignment 25% Source:consistent with Washington County methodology per Appendix C,Amended TDT Road Project List,Jan. 2014 •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 23 Appendix C- Reimbursement Fee Calculation Transportation Capital Project Expenditures Reim- Reimbursement Fee FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY bursement Calculation 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fee Basis Tigard Traffic Impact Fee $408,826 $460,540 $1,283,017 $611,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $359,140 Fund Urban Services Traffic Impact $450 $2,554 Fee Fund Tigard Transportation Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,840 evelopment Tax Fund Total $409,276 $463,094 $1,283,017 $61 1,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $1,234,980 Discount Factor (trip growth 12.98% 11.46% 9.96% 8.48% 7.01% 5.57% 4.15% 2.75% 1.37% rate) Net Present Value of Capacity Investment $356,155 $410,034 $1,155,273 $559,366 $886,604 $0 $0 $0 $1,218,120 $4,585,553 Source: City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP. •::> FCS GROUP TIGARD. OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 24 Appendix D— Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy (using TDT credit policy) SDC Option A: Districts Total Cl -wide River Terrace (avg.) Total Cost(Land&Improvements)* $ 625,271,850 $ 585,121,850 $ 40,150,000 Less SDC Eligible Revenue $ 44,516,054 $ 30,804,818 $ 13,71 1,236 55,000/per DU citywide; $5,497/per DU in RT overlay Remainin. Fundin• Re.uired $ 580,755,796 $ 554,317,032 $ 26,438,764 Other Potential Fundin• Sources Notes TDT Revenue $ 82,534,026 $ 81,042,262 $ 1,491,764 Based on current TDT ODOT/County/Developer Funded $ 72,947,000 $ 53,300,000 $ 19,647,000 Possible regional funding solutions in future Grants $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Metro or state grants available City Fund Transfers $ - $ 3,000,000 Transp.Utility Fee Surcharge($5/month 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 $5/month TUF fee overlay in RT RT only) $ District Other $ - Total Other Funding $ 157,781,026 $ 134,342,262 $ 26,438,764 Remaining Funding Required" - -- $ 422,974,770 , 419,974,770 $ - *Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents.Assumes City's current credit policy. Funding ""Possible alternatives: Percent of gap Required Notes City could reestablish capital Delay project construction 50% $ (211,487,385) spending priorities Requires new Await non-local contributions(ODOT/County/Grants) 15% $ (63,446,215) state/regional/county funding This may limit development Require developer dedications(may be credit eligible) 15% $ (63,446,215) activity AI City GO Bond(s) 0% $ - Equates to about$1M per City Fund Transfers(e.g.,state and local gas tax) 5% $ (21,148,738) year Requires +/-$12.50 month TUF City TUF increase 15% $ (63,446,215) increase citywide Total 100% $ 422,974,770) •:;> FCS G RO U I' TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study April 2015 page 25 This page intentionally left blank •:;> FCS GROUP Tigard, Oregon • I TIGARD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY REPORT (DRAFT) February 25, 2015 •:> FCS GROUP This entire report is mace ofreaa'ly recyclable material,. including the bronze wire binding arc the front and back corer which are made from post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page i This page intentionally left blank •:;> FCS ( ;P )UP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1 A. Policy 1 B. Project 1 SECTION II: METHODOLOGY 3 A. Reimbursement Fee cost basis 3 B. Improvement Fee cost basis 3 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 3 D. Growth 3 E. Geographic Allocation 4 F. Summary 4 SECTION III: GROWTH CALCULATION 5 A. Relevant Types of Growth 5 B. Growth in Trip Ends 5 B.1 Expected Growth Levels 5 B.2 Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share 5 SECTION IV: COST CALCULATION 7 A. Reimbursement Fee 7 B. Improvement Fee 7 B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs 8 B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance 8 B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District 8 C. Compliance Fee Cost Basis 9 D. Summary calculated SDCs 9 SECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS 10 A. Transportation SDC Calculation 10 A.1 Residential SDC Calculation 10 A.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation 10 B. Annual Adjustment 1 1 C. Credits and Exemptions 1 1 C.1 Credits 11 C.1.a Credit Policy Options 1 1 C.2 Exemptions 12 D. Discounts 12 E. Existing and Proposed SDCs 13 E.1 SDCs with Current Credit Policy 13 ••;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page iii E.2 SDCs with 75%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 13 E.2 SDCs with 100%Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard 14 APPENDIX 16 Appendix A-Transportation Capital Project List 17 Appendix B-Capacity Share Assumptions 22 Appendix C- Reimbursement Fee Calculation 23 Appendix D- Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy 24 •::) FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 1 SECTION I : BACKGROUND This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. A. POLICY Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS) 223.297 to 223.314 authorize local governments to establish system development charges (SDCs). These are one-time fees on new development, and they are paid at the time of development. SDCs are intended to recover a fair share of the cost of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve future growth. ORS 223.299 defines two types of SDC: • A reimbursement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements already construct, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists" • An improvement fee that is designed to recover"costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed" ORS 223.304(1) states, in part, that a reimbursement fee must be based on"the value of unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of existing facilities" and must account for prior contributions by existing users and any gifted or grant-funded facilities. The calculation must "promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." A reimbursement fee may be spent on any capital improvement related to the system for which it is being charged(whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. ORS 223.304(2) states, in part, that an improvement fee must be calculated to include only the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words,the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or that do not otherwise increase capacity for future users,may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. An improvement fee may be spent only on capital improvements (or portions thereof) that increase the capacity of the system for which it is being charged (whether cash-financed or debt-financed) and on the costs of compliance with Oregon's SDC law. B. PROJECT In August 2014, the City of Tigard (City) contracted with FCS GROUP to prepare a new local SDC for transportation facilities that take into account the projects identified in the Tigard Transportation System Plan and the River Terrace TSP Addendum,June 2014. This report documents our findings and recommendations. We approached this project as a series of three steps: •:;> FCS G ROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 2 • Framework for Charges. In this step, we worked with City staff to identify the approach to be used and the components to be included in the analysis. • Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of planned facility costs and calculate draft SDC rates. • Draft Methodology Report Preparation. In this step, we documented the calculation of the draft SDC rates included in this report. For analysis purposes,the new Tigard Transportation SDC is intended to be consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014. This Transportation SDC Methodology Report supports the creation of a special SDC overlay district within the River Terrace Plan District boundary(Exhibit 1.1). Please refer to City of Tigard Community Development Code: Map 18.660 for tax lots that are included in the River Terrace Plan District. With the adoption of this SDC methodology, future development in Tigard would be subject to a citywide SDC and development within River Terrace would also be subject to the River Terrace SDC overlay fee. Exhibit 1.1 r RAcrTcrracc Plan District 21 PI r ' I�, Ran OMS1 BwM.7 PQ T.. n Q T4.e c+b a undI r Q1 e 99 . Z 4,.59.S 0 0Pxa0`N 5 1 r r 1 7 r\_0,..n i 1 1 . \ ti__r.,1----L__Ia____,- r I ISW BULL MOUNTAIN RD II O cc 1 ,n 1 w 1 O O C O 3 N 4 FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 3 SECTION II : METHODOLOGY This section provides a non-numeric overview of the calculations that result in SDC rates. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE COST BASIS The reimbursement fee is the cost of available capacity per unit of growth that such available capacity can serve. In order for a reimbursement fee to be calculated,excess transportation infrastructure capacity must be available to serve future growth. For facility types that have no excess capacity,no reimbursement fee may be charged. This analysis uses the original cost of all SDC or Transportation Development Tax (TDT) infrastructure less the amount currently used as the basis for the reimbursement fee. B. IMPROVEMENT FEE COST BASIS The improvement fee is the cost of capacity-increasing capital projects per unit of growth that those projects will serve. Since the capacity added by most projects serves a dual purpose of both meeting existing demand and serving future growth, growth-related costs for each project must be isolated and costs that meet current demand or repair a deficiency must be excluded. We have used the capacity approach to allocate costs to the improvement fee basis. Under this approach,the cost of a given project is allocated to growth in proportion to the growth-related capacity that projects of a similar type will create. The portion of each project that is attributable to growth is determined and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by dividing the total costs of growth- required projects by the projected increase in demand. C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on"the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects, this report assumes that compliance costs are equal to 3% of the SDC improvement fee basis. D. GROWTH Growth for SDCs is in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of transportation,the most applicable unit of growth is trips on the infrastructure. In this methodology we have analyzed growth in terms of average daily person trips(ADPT) and P.M. peak hour vehicle trip ends (PHVT). > FCS ( � ROt1P TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 4 E. GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION SDCs are often calculated and applied uniformly throughout a municipality,but such uniformity is not a legal requirement. Municipalities can calculate and impose area-specific SDCs. Area-specific SDCs allow a municipality to identify and isolate differential costs to serve particular areas within its jurisdiction. SDCs are calculated separately for each area, and improvement fees must be spent on projects in the improvement fee cost basis for the area in which those improvement fees were earned. Area-specific SDCs can be implemented in two ways. The first way is to divide the municipality into a set of non-overlapping areas. Under this method,the SDCs for a particular area are determined by the assets,projects, and projected growth in that area.The second method is a layered approach. The first layer consists of a citywide SDC based on assets and projects of citywide benefit. The second layer consists of one or more overlays.Each overlay is a separate list of assets and projects that benefit a particular area within the city.Development within an overlay pays both the citywide SDC and the overlay SDC. Development outside of any overlay pays only the citywide SDC. Given the City's desire to isolate the costs of serving certain areas and findings in the River Terrace Funding Strategy adopted by Tigard City Council in December 2014,we recommend(and have calculated in this report)both a citywide SDC and an overlay SDC for River Terrace. F. SUMMARY In general, SDC rates are calculated by adding the reimbursement fee component,improvement fee component,and compliance cost component. Each component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the growth of units of demand.The unit of demand becomes the basis of the charge. Exhibit 2.1 shows this calculation in equation format: Exhibit 2.1: SDC E•uation Eligible costs of Costs of Eligible costs of SDC per unit of available capacity in + capacity-increasing + complying with = growth in existing facilities capital Oregon SDC demand improvements law Units of growth in demand Section III of this report provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. Section IV of this report provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. Section V identifies SDC recommendations. :;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 5 SECTION III : GROWTH CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations related to growth in demand,which is the denominator in the SDC equation. A. RELEVANT TYPES OF GROWTH Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip or average person trip estimates to assess transportation performance and determine system needs. This transportation SDC methodology utilizes both average daily person trips (ADPT) and P.M.peak hour vehicle trip ends (PHVT) in the calculation of the SDC fee. ADPT is an important measure of growth ADPTs include vehicle trips on collector and arterial streets and non-motor vehicle trips that utilize bicycle,pedestrian, and transit facilities.The proposed SDC charges provide a PHVT to ADPT conversion factor so that non-residential SDCs can also take into account linked trips (also known as pass-by trips) for certain types of developments,such as fast food restaurants and fuel stations, which have relatively high rates of linked-trip activity. B. GROWTH IN TRIP ENDS Having established relevance of ADPT and PHVT, we now quantify expected growth rates. B.1 Expected Growth Levels As mentioned above,this methodology utilizes a citywide SDC with a River Terrace overlay. Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 show the growth in person trips (ADPT) and vehicle trips (PHVT) between now and 2035 for River Terrace and the rest of Tigard. The modeled trip growth forecasts result in a factor of approximately 0.047 for converting average daily person trips(ADPT) into peak hour vehicle trips (PHVT). Or conversely,for every 21 average daily person trip-ends that originate or terminate in Tigard(includes people making trips by vehicles,bicycle,pedestrian and transit) there is one P.M peak-hour vehicle trip-end expected(PHVT). B.2 Calculating the Eligible SDC Cost Share The growth share for any project varies by the project type and the percent of the project that serves future growth. See Appendix A for a complete list of projects with the appropriate growth shares. In general,new collector or arterial facilities (including the roadways,bicycle, and pedestrian facilities) that are needed only to serve growth are 100% SDC eligible. Existing roadways and bicycle/pedestrian facilities that are planned for expansion to accommodate growth may only be partially eligible for SDC funding. The share of existing transportation facilities that are planned for capacity upgrades to serve future growth needs varies by type of project and the rubric to determine future growth share is shown in Appendix B. •:4 FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 6 Exhibit 3.1:Average Daily Person Trip-End (ADPT) Assumptions Growth 2015 to Area 2010 2015 2035 2035 River Terrace 469 1,083 30,737 29,654 Rest of Tigard 525,451 560,100 733,130 173,030 All Tigard 525,920 561,183 763,867 202,684 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum (June 2014). Exhibit 3.2: Tigard Peak-Hour Vehicle Trip-End (PHVT) Assumptions Growth 2015 to Area 2010 2015 2035 2035 River Terrace 63 119 1,536 1,417 Rest of Tigard 28,319 30,019 38,341 8,322 All Tigard 28,382 30,379 39,877 9,498 Source: Trip growth estimates and forecasts were compiled by DKS Associates using data derived from the Metro Regional Transportation Plan model that's consistent with the River Terrance Community Plan Transportation System Plan Addendum(June 2014). ••.) FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 7 SECTION IV : COST CALCULATION This section provides detailed calculations on eligible costs, which is the numerator in the SDC equation. A. REIMBURSEMENT FEE As noted in Section II,the reimbursement fee is based on the present value of unused capacity that the City has funded in Tigard. For analysis purposes, we have based the reimbursement SDC cost basis on the actual amount of prior capacity investments the city has made using Transportation Development Tax funds over the past nine fiscal years. The expenditures from previous years have been discounted by the trip growth rate in this report to account for increased use since initial construction. Exhibit 4.1 summarizes the cost basis for the reimbursement fee. Detailed calculations are included in Appendix C. Exhibit 4.1: Reimbursement Fee Basis Calculation Reimbursement Fee Calculation Total Capital Project Expenditures $4,955,023 Less Capacity Used Up $369,470 Reimbursement fee basis $4,585,553 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP. Using the calculated growth in PHVT from the previous section and the reimbursement fee shown in Exhibit 4.1, Exhibit 4.2 shows the calculated reimbursement fee. Note that the reimbursement fee is charged irrespective of the SDC overlay district. Exhibit 4.2: Reimbursement Fee Calculation Reimbursement Fee •er PMPHT Total Cost of SDC/TDT Capital Project Expenditures $4,585,553 Change in ADPT (2015-2035) 202,684 Reimbursement Fee per ADPT $23 Equivalent Reimbursement Fee per PHVT* $483 Source: Previous tables and Appendix C, compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34 B. IMPROVEMENT FEE City staff identified a list of project needs for the transportation SDC using several sources: • The Tigard Transportation System Plan • The River Terrace Transportation System Plan Addendum • The Metro's Regional Transportation Plan • The Tigard's Capital Improvement Plan •:;> FCS ROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 8 In addition, the current Transportation Development Tax Road Project List has been considered to ensure that potential SDC project expenditures are not included on the TDT project list as well. Exhibit 4.3 shows a summary list of the Tigard transportation project costs. Overall, the City identified a total need of$625 million. For a detailed list of Tigard transportation projects see Appendix A. Exhibit 4.3:Trans•ortation Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035 (in $1,000s) Project Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM* Total Citywide $479,592 $39,000 $15,000 $34,030 $17,500 $585,122 River Terrace $0 $37,850 $0 $1,800 $0 $40,150 Total $479,592 $76,850 $15,000 $35,830 $17,500 $625,272 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management. B.1 SDC-Eligible Costs Total SDC eligible costs are a percentage of total projects. The percent of each individual project is calculated and then summed by infrastructure type. Because there is an overlay districts,each project is categorized as either benefitting the overlay district or the entire city. Exhibit 4.4 shows a summary table by SDC overlay and type of transportation costs. See Appendix A for detailed calculations of SDC-eligible costs. Exhibit 4.4:Trans•ortation SDC Project Capital Costs, City of Tigard, 2015-2035 (in $1,000s) Project Location Arterial Collector Bridge Bike/Ped TSM Total Citywide $222,818 $19,669 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $267,530 River Terrace $0 $14,623 $0 $0 $0 $14,623 Total $222,818 $34,292 $5,250 $5,911 $13,882 $282,153 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP.*TSM=transportation system management (e.g., traffic signal synchronization and turning movement/access modifications). B.2 Adjustment for SDC Fund Balance There is no existing local transportation SDC in Tigard and therefore no fund balances to consider at this time. B.3 Improvement Fee Summary by District Similar to the reimbursement fee cost basis above, we calculate the improvement fee cost basis by district in PHVT using growth estimates from the previous section and the SDC-eligible projects shown above. Exhibit 4.5 shows the potential improvement fee by district before discounts or adjustments. Exhibit 4.5:SDC Im•rovement Fee by District SDC Fee Improvement Fee Equivalent per Single- Calculations(before SDC-Eligible Growth in Fee per Fee per Family discounts Project Costs ADPT ADPT PHVT* Residence Citywide base charge $267,530,222 202,684 $1,320 $28,168 $15,924 River Terrace Overlay $14,622,750 29,654 $493 $10,523 $5,949 Total River Terrace SDC $282,152,972 232,339 $1,813 $38,690 $21,873 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34;compiled by FCS Group. •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 9 C. COMPLIANCE FEE COST BASIS For the purpose of this study, we assume the compliance costs equal 3% of the SDC improvement fee. D. SUMMARY CALCULATED SDCS Exhibit 4.6 shows the calculated SDC per person trip (ADPT) by each fee basis and by district. Note that this is the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on forecasted growth in person-trips. Exhibit 4.6:Total SDC •er ADPT(SDC per person trip before discounts) SDC Fee Total per Compliance SDC Dwelling Reimbursement Improvement Fee per per Unit Area Fee per ADPT Fee per ADPT ADPT ADPT (average) Citywide $23 $1,320 $40 $1,382 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay $493 $15 $508 $6,127 River Terrace Total $23 $1,813 $54 $1,890 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix, compiled by FCS GROUP. Exhibit 4.7 expresses the maximum SDC that Tigard can charge in terms of growth in P.M peak- hour vehicle trip-ends (PHVT) by each fee basis and by district. This is also the maximum defensible SDC that Tigard can charge based on vehicle trip growth. Exhibit 4.7: E•uivalent Total SDC per PHVT (before discounts) SDC Fee Total per Reimbursement Improvement Compliance SDC per Dwelling Area Fee Fee Fee PHVT Unit Citywide $483 $28,168 $845 $29,495 $16,675 River Terrace Overlay ',10,523 '.316 ',10,839 '.6,127 River Terrace Total $483 $38,690 $1,161 $40,334 $22,802 Source: Previous tables and Appendix,compiled by FCS GROUP.*Assumes ADPT to PHVT conversion factor of 21.34;compiled by FCS Group. •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 10 SECTION V : RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides calculations of the residential and non-residential SDCs and recommended SDCs after accounting for credit and discount policies. A. TRANSPORTATION SDC CALCULATION The transportation SDC is based on the number of trips that a change in land use generates. The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual contains trip rates based on studies conducted nationwide and provides the base data of unadjusted counts of trips generated by various types of land use. Unadjusted trip counts mean that certain land use types will have high trip counts including all traffic entering or leaving a location but does not account for traffic that passes by or interrupts a primary trip between origin and destination.Trips that interrupt a primary trip are called"linked trips"and this SDC methodology recommends removing them from the residential calculation because they would occur regardless of development activity. A.1 Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations are relatively simply and take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. Residential land use types do not entail a"linked trip" adjustment factor. A.2 Non-Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new PHVT added for non-residential development. New non-residential development in Tigard may include land use types that include linked trips. The number of new PHVTs generated for non-residential land use should take into account the following formula: ITE Vehicle Trip Rate x (1 —%Linked Trips) = Net New PHVT The SDC per unit of development is calculated for each type of land use by multiplying the new PHVT for each land use by the SDC per PHVT.It is important to note that the Trip Generation Manual may not contain some land use categories or may not include trip rates or number of net new trips generated. For such land use categories without data,the City administrator shall use her/his judgment to calculate the transportation SDC. •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 11 B. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT We have reviewed the City's method for annual adjustment of parks SDCs as summarized in the City's"Master Fees &Charges Schedule" and described more fully in Exhibit"A"of Resolution 01- 74,which the City Council first adopted on December 18, 2001.The index constructed under this method which includes both land costs(based on data from the Washington County Assessor) and construction costs (based on data from the Engineering News Record)is an especially appropriate index for adjusting transportation SDCs.We therefore recommend application of this practice. C. CREDITS AND EXEMPTIONS The Tigard SDC Procedures Guide will establish local policies for issuing credits and exemptions, annual adjustments,and other administrative procedures. C.1 Credits A credit is a reduction in the amount of SDCs paid for a specific development.The Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a"qualified public improvement"which(1)is required as a condition of development approval,(2)is identified in the City's capital improvements program,and(3)either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval,or is located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement(e.g.,transportation right of way or improvements provided by a developer can only be used for a credit for towards transportation SDC improvement fee payments),and must be granted only for the cost of that portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular project up to the amount of the improvement fee. For multi-phase projects, any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits,the City may,if it so chooses,provide a greater credit,establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's SDC Capital Improvements Plan,or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means(i.e.,partnerships,other City revenues,etc.). C.1.a Credit Policy Options The City is currently considering establishing one of three credit policies for the transportation SDC. Option A. This credit policy is based on current practice in the City and assumes that the Washington County Transportation Development Tax(TDT)credit policy is applied to future local transportation SDCs within the City. Option B.This credit policy assumes that the City implements a"hybrid"credit policy that applies the TDT credit policy to all SDC eligible projects in the city with an exception made for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project. By"expanding"the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 75%of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued,the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately$6.5 million over Option A. Option C.This credit policy is similar to Option B,but expands the exception make for the planned River Terrace Boulevard project from 75%to 100% credit eligible. By"expanding"the creditable portion of River Terrace Boulevard to 100%of the roadway improvement cost,the city would need •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 12 to fund the difference by increasing its SDC improvement fee. If this policy is pursued, the eligible transportation improvement cost within the River Terrace district would increase by approximately $8.7 million over Option A. It is important to note that regardless of the credit policy chosen, the City would stipulate that credits provided within the River Terrace district cannot be used in another part of the City. However, citywide SDC credits could be utilized anywhere within the City. This would help ensure that any transportation SDC credits issued in River Terrace will result in continued development investment in River Terrace. C.2 Exemptions The City may exempt specific classes of development(i.e.,minor additions,etc.)from the requirement to pay SDCs. D. DISCOUNTS This Tigard Transportation SDC Methodology Report has documented the maximum defensible SDC that can be established in Tigard(provided earlier in Exhibits 4.6 and 4.7). The City can discount the SDC amount by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs or the City can decide to charge only a percentage(i.e., 50%, 75%, etc.) of the SDC rates required to fund identified growth-related facility costs. If the City discounts SDCs, the revenues will decrease and amounts that must come from other sources will increase, such as general fund contributions, in order for the City to maintain levels of service. In accordance with the River Terrace Funding Strategy, the City of Tigard desires to establish its Transportation SDC at a level that is below the maximum amount that it can charge. The City's currently policy objective for transportation SDCs assume an citywide average SDC of$5,000 per dwelling unit and an average supplemental River Terrace SDC of$497 per dwelling unit. Exhibit 5.1 summarizes the residential SDCs that the City would charge new development initially once the new SDCs are established. Exhibit 5.1: Avera•e Transportation SDC per Dwelling (after discounts) Reimbursement Improvement Compliance Total Area with Ti•and Fee Fee Fee SDC Citywide $273 $4,589 $138 $5,000 River Terrace Overlay $483 $14 $497 River Terrace Total $273 $5,072 $152 $5,497 Source: Compiled by FCS GROUP based on funding policy objectives stated in the River Terrace Funding Strategy;and prior tables. Since the River Terrace SDCs would be lower than the maximum SDC the City can justify, additional funding sources would be needed to ensure that all projects contained in the long term capital project list can be funded by year 2035. Appendix D identifies the amount of SDC revenues and other funding revenues the City of Tigard would likely need to fund the projects identified in the SDC capital project list. •:;> FCS G RO U P TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 13 E. EXISTING AND PROPOSED SDCS Exhibit 5.2 summarizes the existing and proposed total Transportation SDCs for the City of Tigard for reimbursement,improvement and compliance charges, after accounting for discounts. Once this Methodology Report is adopted, Transportation SDCs would vary by location. SDCs within the city(outside River Terrace) would initially be charged: $5,714 per single family dwelling, $3,333 per multifamily/other dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$8,884 per P.M. peak-hour vehicle trip-end (PHVT). The potential SDCs for the River Terrace District have been calculated under three possible credit policy scenarios. Under each scenario the citywide SDC would be the same but the River Terrace SDC would change. It is important to note that the City Council may decide to defer some of the SDC charges identified in the following tables (for example the City Council could vote to defer implementation of the SDC reimbursement fees but charge SDC improvement fees). E.1 SDCs with Current Credit Policy If the City utilized its current credit policy that is consistent with the Washington County TDT credit policy, the local Transportation SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged: $6,282 per single family dwelling, $3,665 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged $9,724 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.2). Exhibit 5.2:Option A,Ti•and Tran •ortation SDCs(after discounts) SDC-i(after discount)1 Total SDC(after discount) River River SDC Citywi•` Terrace Citywide Terrace Development Type Current Base S i +, Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per single family dwellling n/a $273 $4,727 $497 $5,000 $5,497 Charge per single family dwellling n/a $312 $5,402 $568 $5,714 $6,282 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $331 $3,333 $3,665 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHUT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $879 $8,844 $9,724 Notes: 'Includes compliance fee. `Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked- trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceeding tables. E.2 SDCs with 75% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 75% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged: $9,410 per single family dwelling, $5,489 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$9,951 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.3). •:;> FCS G RO L TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 14 Exhibit 5.3:O•tion B,Ti•and Transportation SDCs(with 75% RT Blvd.credit policy)* SDC-i(after discount)' Total SDC(after discount) River River 'Y 4 SDC a tywi. Terrace Citywide Terrace Development Type ':; Current •se SD Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per single family dwellling n/a $273 $4,727 $3,234 $5,000 $8,234 Charge per single family dwellling n/a $312 $5,402 $3,696 $5,714 $9,410 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $2,156 $3.333 $5,489 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,106 $8,844 $9,951 Notes: 'Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd.improvements are 75%credit eligible:with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. Includes compliance fee. Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked- trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceeding tables. E.2 SDCs with 100% Credit Policy for River Terrace Boulevard This scenario assumes that River Terrace Boulevard is 100% credit eligible, and all other transportation facilities would rely upon the current TDT credit policy. The resulting SDCs within River Terrace would initially be charged: $10,453 per single family dwelling, $6,097 per multifamily dwelling, and non-residential uses would be charged$10,026 per PHVT (Exhibit 5.4). Exhibit 5.4:Option C,Tigard Transportation SDCs(with 100%RT Blvd.credit policy)* TM,""""""" SDC-i(after discount)' Total SDC(after discount) River River SDC Citywi•" Terrace Citywide Terrace Development Type Current Base S•e, Citywide Overlay Total Total Residential Development 2 Avg.charge per single family dwellling n/a $273 $4,727 $4,146 $5,000 $9,146 Charge per single family dwellling n/a $312 $5,402 $4,738 $5,714 $10,453 Charge per multifamily dwelling n/a $182 $3,151 $2,764 $3,333 $6,097 Non-Residential Development 3 Avg.charge per PHVT4 n/a $483 $8,362 $1,182 $8,844 $10,026 Notes: "Credit policy assumes River Terrace Blvd.improvements are 100%credit eligible;with increase in cost basis being recovered through SDCs and TDTs collected by future River Terrace development.All other facilities would be subject to the current credit policy. 'Includes compliance fee. `Variance between single family detached and multifamily dwelling unit charges take into account peak trip adjustment factors derived from the ITE Handbook. 'Non-residential S DCs will be based on average charges by PHVT and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide.Adjustments may include reductions for linked-trips. "Average charge per P.M.peak-hour vehicle trip-end(PHVT)is shown before making potential adjustments for linked-trips. Source:compiled by FCS Group based on preceeding tables. :> FCS GROUP TIGARD,OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 15 > FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 16 APPENDIX () FCS G ROU P I TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 17 Appendix A-Transportation Capital Project List City Cost Atler Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TDT eol SOC<ot Road °:.City of P.M.:0001 c ounty Identified Local Related Percent of Total SDCiTDT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible P,alecl ID Roao clan:lhcahon Doscurptlon Prolecl Costs Stare o funding funding total City Cost Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(SOC) Project Costs Project Costs Source River Terrace Benefit Project ID 23A I501h Ave Collector Improve 150th Ave.ham Bull $400.000 24% $306.000 $94.000 $94.000 50% 50% $23,500 $0 023,500 0% 100% RT ISP Addendum Mountah Rd.to Beef Bend Rd. Project ID 21A Mound'n Rd Collector Upgrade to urban standads $1200000 29% $850000 $350,000 $350000 50% 50% $87,500 $350.000 SO 100% 0% RI ISP Addendum Project ID 18 Intersection Collector Bull Mounloin Rd./N-S collector $1,500,000 100% $1,500000 $1,500,000 100% 100% $1,500.000 $0 $1.500000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum blersecibn a roundabout Project ID 20 Intersection Collector Woodhue St.1 161st Ave.extension $2.000.000 0% $2,000,000 $0 SO 100% 100% $0 $0 $0 RI TSP Addendum hlersection a roundabout Project ID NA 2 1 Intersection Sheet Improvements where new sheets $500000 100% $500,000 $0 50% 100% $0 $0 $0 RT TSP Addendum meet existia streets-Phase I Project ID 2 Lorenzo Ln Collector 02,500.000 Lorenzo ln.from West 1168 to $2,500000 5% 02,380000 $120.000 $120.000 100% 100% $120,000 $0 5120.000 0% 100% WISP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Project ID 3 Lorenzo In Collect« Extend Lorenzo In.Iran Roshak Rd.to $3,500.000 100% $3,500000 $3.500000 100% 100% $3.500000 $0 $3.500000 0% 100% WISP Addendum Roy Rodgers Rd. Project ID NA 1 1 Noel Bke/Peal River Terrace Era1 horn Roy Rodgers $1.800.000 100% $1.800.000 $1,800,000 0% 100% $O $0 $0 RT TSP Addendum Terrace 1,01 Rd.l0 150th Ave. Project ID 5A RT Blvd Collector 3 lone N-S collector horn Scholia Ferry $6030000 43% 03.417.000 $2,613.000 $2,613,000 100% 100% $2.613,000 $653.250 $1.959.750 25% 75% RI ISP Addendum to Lorenzo In.extension-Phase 3 extension-Phase 2 Project ID 5B RI to Lorenzo In.I Blvd Collector e NS collector from Sctalh Ferry $2,970,000 100% 02.970000 $2.970.000 100% 100% $2.970,000 $742,500 32,227.500 25% 75% RI TSP Addendum b L 3 lane N-S collector from Lorenzo In. Project ID 6A RI Blvd Collect« extension to Bull Mounter Rd.-Phase $4,875000 48% $2.550000 $2,325.000 $2,325,000 100% 100% $2,325,000 $581250 $1.743.750 25% 75% RI ISP Addendum 1 alone N-S collector from Bull Project ID 7A RI Blvd Collector Mountain Rd.to the south City linit- $4,125,000 46% $2244.000 $1,881000 $1.881.000 100% 100% $1,881,000 $470250 $1 A10,750 25% 75% RT TSP Addendum Phase I alone N-S collector from south City Project ID 7B RT Blvd Collector to the south UGB( �2) $6,250,000 46% $3.400,000 52.850000 32050.000 100% 100% 52850.000 $712.500 12.137.500 25% 75% RI ISP Addendum Ihnit Project ID 8 Collector 21ane E-W oEecta between Roy Rodgers Rd..and N-S 00110010, 02,500,000 0% $2.500.000 $0 $0 0% 0% $0 $0 $0 RI TSP Addendum Dsne esen tem*(MCluded in citywide) Extend Ash Avenue from Brxnhan. Metro Project ID Ash Ave Collector $10000.000 100% $10000000 $10000.000 50% 100% $5.000.000 $0 $5.000.000 0% 100% TSP.RT.CIP fled Mangle Benefit(included on citywide) Beveland St 701h to 7117 Beveland St Bke/Peal RI 330'Sidewalk Gop $40.000 100% $40000 $40.000 50% 100% $20,000 SO $20000 0% 100% City staff Bevelandl Red Rock Creek liar Bke/Peal New hurl parallel to and south o1 99W $3000.000 100% 03,000.000 03.000.000 25% 50% $375,000 $0 $375,000 0% 100% City stall Greenway Is triangle •:;>FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 18 City Cost After Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity MT".,of SDC 7 of Road %City Local Private 0001,County Identified Loyal Related Percent of Total SOC/TDT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible •tact ID Road Classification Descnphon Project Costs Share Funding Funding total CM Cost Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(SDC) Project Costs Protect Costs So..ce - iteneM 121 sl Ave. Whittler to Tppit(121st Ave "'Red Add Sidewalks and Bite Lanes $3,500,000 100% 53,500,000 $3,500.000 50% 100% $1,750,000 $3,500,000 $0 100% 0% City staff 121st Ave over 121st Ave Bka/Ped Pedestrian bridge on west side of $5,000 100% $50000 $50.000 50% 100% 525,000 $0 $25000 0% 100% City staff Summer Creek road Walnut Sheet to North Dakota Sheet- 121st Sheet Iwo lanes with turn lanes where Wden6g 121st St Collector necessary plus bke lanes and $6.000000 100% 56.000,000 $6000.000 50% 100% 53,000,000 $6,000,000 50 100% 0% City staff sidewalks Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Wden 72nd Ave.to S lanes hom $35.000,000 100% $35000000 $35000,000 80% 100% $28,000000 $9,269,598 $18,730,402 33% 67% 1SP.RIP.CIP 10755 Hunker Rd.to Hwy.99 Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial vbden 72nd Ave.to 5lanes hom $2ff 100% 528.166,850 $28,166,850 80% 100% $22533480 $7.261,185 $15272295 32% 68% TSP,RIP,qp 10756 Hunker Rd.to Bonita Metro Project ID 72nd Ave Arterial Wden 72nd Ave.to S lanes from $15425000 100% $15425.000 $15,425.000 80% 100% $12,340000 $9269598 $3,070,402 75% 25% TSP,RTP.CIP 10757 Bonita Rd.to Durham Rd, Provide Arterial Corridor Management 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TSM along Condor 119(Hwy 217)(Hwy $1,700,000 100% 51.700000 $1,700,000 100% 100% 51.700000 $0 $1.700,000 0% 100% City staff 217)6 the Metro TSMO Plan Provide Arterial Conidaf Management on 72nd Avenue along Cond.12(I- 72nd Avenue 72nd Ave TSM 511~5)ne«the Upper Boones terry $1,600.000 100% $1.600,000 $1,600.000 100% 100% $1,600,0.00 $1368,928 $231072 86% 14% City staff Road Interchange sit the Matto TWO Plan B«rows Road Borrows Rd Bke/Ped Add Sidewalks and lake lanes 53,000000 100% 53,000000 53,000000 50% 100% $1,500,000 $0 $1500,000 0% 100% City staff Metro Project ID Bonita Rd Arterial Nkfen Bonita Rd.to 4 lanes ham $45000000 100% $45,000,000 $45,000000 80% 90% $32,400,000 $5272,615 $27,127,385 16% 84% TSP.RTP,CIP 10752 Bairn,to Hall hid, - Bull Mountain Road(Hwy 9900 Bull Widen Collect« den to three tones with bke lanes 58,000.000 100% 58000000 $8000000 50% 100% $4.000000 58000000 $0 100% 0% RI TSP Addendum to Benchvew Mountain Rd and sidewalks Tent Cascade Ave Aoa ade eke/Ped Pave northbound bee lane gap 530.000 100% $30000 $30000 50% 100% $15.000 $0 $15,000 0% 100% City staff Metro Project U Dartmouth Collector Dartmouth St.to 4 tones fiom collect $5.0170.000 100% $5000.000 55.000.000 80% 100% $4,000000 $1,853,920 $2146000 46% 54% TSP,RIP 10759 St 72nd Ave.to 6856 Ave. Metro Project ID Durham Rd Arterial y6den Duham Rd.to 5 lanes hom $20,000000 100% $20,000,000 $20000000 80% 90% 514,400000 $0 $14400000 0% 100% TSP,RIP.CIP 10753 Boones Feta to Hall Bvb, Metro 9'1001 10 Durham Rd Arterial Widen Durham Rd.to 5 lanes hom 825.000.000 100% $25000000 525,000000 80% 95% 519,000.000 $0 519.000000 0% 1170% TSP,RIP.OP 10764 Hap Bvld.to Hwy.99 Provide Arterial Condor Management Durham Rood Durham Rd TSM along Condo,119(Hwy 217)6 the $1.500.000 100% $1500000 $1500,000 10O% 95% $1425,000 $0 $1425000 0% 100% City slat( Metro ISMO Plan bonne Creek Fenno Bke/Ped Durham Rd to Tualatin Reef Trai $1,500.000 100% $1500000 $1500000 25% 100% $375000 $0 $375000 0% 100% City staff Trai Creek Trai Metro Project ID Greenb«) Arterial Geantwrg Rd.hom Shady $7.000.000 100% $7,000,000 57.000000 80% 95% 55320,000 56,745,098 $0 100% 0% 'Project Request- 10748 Rd lane to North Dakota Metro Project ID Cweenburg Arterial men Oteenb«g Rd.to S lanes hom 512.000.000 100% $12,000,000 $12000,000 80% 100% 59.600000 $9.269,598 $330,402 97% 3% TSP,RTP 10750 Rd ideman Ave.to Hwy,99 Metro Project ID Hall Blvd Arterial Mall 8vld.Improvamenh Yom locust $16.000.000 100% $16,000000 516.000000 50% 100% 1 1220 to Durham $8.000.000 $0 $8000000. 0% 100% 13P,RIP.OP Hall Blvd/ Replace with wider bridge with Fonno Creek Hall Blvd Bridge 56000.000 100% $6000000 56000,000 50% 100% 53.000.000 $0 531300000 0% MO% City staff sidewalks and bee lanes Bridge >FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 19 City Cost Atter Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TOT- of SOC`1 of Rood %City local Private 000T/County Identified Moat Related Percent of Total SDCiTOT Related City Related City Eligible Eligible Project ID Road Classification Desc nphon Project Costs snare Funding funding Total City Cost Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(SDC) P/Wect COS%Prefect Cosh Source Citywide benefit(continued) Mill Provide Arterial Corridor Management ' Hall Boulevard 1-101 Blvd 15th and Transit Signal Prix'8y on Hall $3.700000 100% $1700000 $3,700.000 100% 100% $3,700000 $0 $3,700000 0% 100% CFA/staff ' Boulevard from Highway 21710 Hghway 99W Add an eastbound through lane on Hall Boulevard Hal Blvd Arterial Hall Did.Irons Pamelod Road to 1500000 100% $500000 $500000 100% 95% $475000 $0 $475000 0% 100% City staff Greensboro Road Munzker St(72nd Add sidewalk on oath side; to Ilthl Nseszlus St Bka/Pad completes sidewalk from 72nd to Hall $1,000,000 100% $1000000 $1.008.000 50% 100% $500000 $0 $500000 0% 100% City staff Sidewalk Hwy 217 Add a northbound through lane Northbound Aux Hwy 217 Arterial undo the Hwy 99W overpass to $20000000 0% $20000000 $0 $0 50% 110% $0 $0 $0 City staff tone address a capacity Dhoti Point • Metro Project ID Hwy 99 Arterial Hwy.99 ntersecton inprovemenls $50500,000 100% $50000000 $50000000 80% 95% $38,000,000 $9060,000 $28,140000 26% 74% TSP.RIP 10770 hom 64th Ave.to Durham Rd. Project ID 13 Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Road/E-W collects $I 000000 100% $1000,000 $1000,00 100% 100% 11000000 $0 $1,000.000 0% 100% RT TSP Addendum traffic signal Project ID 10 Intersection Arterial Roy Rogers Road/Bull MOUntan Rd $1,000,000 100% 11000000 $1.000,000 100% 95% $950000 $0 $950,000 0% 100% RI TSP Addendum traffic signal Project ID 16 Intersection Arterial Scholls Ferry Road/N-5 collector $1,000,000 100% $1.000.000 $11000.000 100% 100% $1000000 $0 $1,000.000 0% 100% Rr TSP Addendum traffic signal Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial Intersection irprovemenh at Nall $8000.000 100% $8,000,000 $8000000 25% 80% $1.60,00 $0 $1.600000 0% 1007E TSP.RTP 10769 &Id.And li3dman Ave. Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial MaM/MUnsker/SCOffihs Intersection 55,000.000 100% $5000000 15,004(0) 75% 100% $3.750,000 $3,862,332 $0 100% 0% TSP,RIP.CIP 11223 Realgnrnent Metro Project ID Intersection Arterial Geenbug/Tiedenhan/N.Dakota $10,000000 100% $10000000 $10.000000 50% 80% $4,000,000 $0 $4000,000 0% 100'% TSP 11224 Reconinuratbn Hwy 99w/72nd Intersection Arterial turn lanes,aux boas.sidewalks,Dice 18.000.000 100% $8000500 $8.004000 80% 100% $6A0000 $772,466 55.627.534 12% 88% City stall Av a Intersection lanes.aossihas:transit improvements Highway 211 SB /Mall Blvd SB right-turn lane at Hall Blvd/OR 217 Intersection Arterial $5.000000 10% 155805,1001 $5000.00 25% 100% $1,250000 $0 $1250000 0% 100% City staff Interchange romp Improvements Hwy 99W/68th Intersection Improvements.Prov de Ave Intersection Arterial protected bit al 68th:transit queue $4000.000 100% 140000) $4.00000 80% 100% $320.000 12,394,646 $805,354 75% 25% City staff bypass Hall Blvd/ Install new traffic signal:monlaih Mottle St traffic Intersection TOM existing lane configuration 31.000,000 100% $1000,000 $1,000,000 100% 100% $1000,000 $1,00.000 $0 100% 0% City staff Sianol 681h/Atlanta/HO Intersection TSM Install a traffic signal and add turn $500000 100% 550000 $50000 10% 100% $5000 $173,805 $326,195 35% 65% City staff fines lanes where necessary I-5/Upper 800nes/ ntenectbn Arterial $10,000000 hen lanes and/ar auditory $10,00000 100% $10.000.000 110000.00 80% 90% 17.20,000 $0 17.200.000 0% 100% City staff Carman through lone,sidewalks.etc Interchange Rear eastbound right-turn lane when 3rd lane added on Scholls Ferry Scholls Ferry/ Rd:Retain westbound right-turn lane Nmbus ntersectian Arterial when 3rd lane added on Scholl,Ferry $6,000000 20% 14.800.000 11200.000 11.200.000 100% 100% 11.200.000 $1.204000 $0 100% 0% Cty slat Intersection Rd;southbound right-turn lone: Improvements Reconfpue northbound and southbound lanes to create exclusive Jett-tun lanes Scholls Ferry Rd /North Dakota Intersection Arterial Intersection improvement $1.500000 100% 11.50.000 11.500.000 80% 100% $1.200.000 $0 $120,00 0% 100% ON 0011 St/125th Ave •:;> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 20 City Cost After Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TOT':of SDC'i of Rood City Local Private 000T:County Identified Local Related Percent of Total SOC;TDT Related City Related City Eligible Ellyrbl• -roiecl ID Rood Closohcathon Description P,oiect Costs Shore Funding Funding Total City Cost Funding Percent Capacity Eligible Costs Cost(TOT) Cost(SDC) Protect Costs Protect Costs Source ide Benekt(continued) 72nd/Upper Boones Ferry Intersection Arterial Intersection Improvement $1.000,000 100% $1,000,000 11,000.000 100% 100% $1,000.000 11,000000 50 100% 0% City staff (Carman] Bonita/Sequoia Intersection ISM Traffic Signal 11,000,000 100% 11,000,000 $1,000,000 80% 100% $800.000 $1.000,000 $0 100% 0% City staff Intersection Iietlernan Install a traffic signal:construct leh- Shee1/rig«d Intersection Coltecta torn lane,sklewalk,and Dke loner 11,000000 100% 11,000000 11.000.000 100% 100% 11,000,000 $0 11,000,000 0% 100% Cily slaty Street 121 st/North Intersection Bke/Ped Traffic signal $500/00 100% $500,000 $500800 100% 100% $500/00 1231,740 $268260 46% 54% City staff Dakota Add turn lanes and auxiiwy lanes McDOnoa/Hag Nall Blvd Collector with bike lanes rid sidewalks on Hall. $9/00,000 100% $9,000.000 19,000.000 90% 90% 57290000 $766,702 $6,523,298 11% 89% City staff RI Lane McDonald.and Bonita to improve traffic flow Dunham/0ppen btersectbn Bke/Ped Sidewalk on NW Corner.Curb Ramp 140000 100% 1401100 $4,000 50% 100% 120000 $0 $20,000 0% 100% City staff Boons Geenb«g Rd/ rs Pedestrian blonds to loscillate Snarly In Intersection Bke/Ped crossing Shady In on east sloe of $30/00 100% $30/00 $30,000 50% 100% $15,000 $0 115000 0% 100% City staff GneerhUU B«nha Rd 0001 Intersection Bke/Ped Enhanced Ped Crossing-RRFB? $20/00 100% $20000 120,00 25% Igo% $5000 $0 $5/00 0% 100% City staff 79th Ave Geenburg Rd Inferseclbn Bke/Ped Enhanced Crossig between $20A013 100% $20/00 $20,000 25% 100% 15/00 $0 15,000 0% 100% City staff rledersan and Center 51-at 95th? Hwy 217 SB Intersection Capacity hnprovemenis Ramps/Highway Intersection Arteral includrrg 2nd right turn lane row off 12,500,000 100% $2,500,000 12,500000 100% 100% $2,500.000 $0 12500,000 0% 100% City staff 99W ramp Hwy 217 NB Add a second northbound left turn Ramps/Highway Intersection Arterial lane $1200,000 100% $1500,000 $1500000 100% 100% $1,500,000 $0 11500000 0% 100% Cily staff 99W Metro Project ID McDonald Art.,,,,, McDonald Rd.Mpovenenh ham 18,000,000 100% 18,000,000 18,000.000 50% 50% $2/00,000 $0 $2000600 0% 100% TSP,RIP.CIP 11217 Rd Hat Bvld.To Hwy.99 McDonald St Mc�Ol Bke/Ped Enhanced Crossing between Nall and $00,000 100% 130000 130.000 25% 50% $3,750 $0 13.750 0% 100% City staff Rd Hwy 99W-at O'Mara?97th? Roy Rotls7ers Widen Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 Ln.from N Project ID 22A Rd Arterial of Scholls Ferry Rd.to S.of Beet Bend 14.000.000 100% $4,000000 $4/00000 100% 100% $4.000.000 $3,000000 $1,000/00 75% 25% RI ISP Addendum Rd. Phase 1 Ihall-heel searnenlsl Roy Rotlgers %den Roy Rogers Rd.to 5 Ln.110111 N Project ID 228 Rtl Arterial of Schalls Ferry Rd.to S.of Beef Bend 14000.000 100% 14000.000 14/00000 100% 100% 54000.000 13,000,000 $1.000000 75% 25% Rf ISP Addendum Rd.,Phase 2(hall-beet seamentsl Scholts Ferry Rd Scls Ferry Widen to 7 lanes with bke lanes and V6denhg,HwY Rd hot Arteral sidewalks 150,000000 75% 112500/00 $37500000 $37500000 100% 100% $37,500000 $18,745.186 $18,754,814 50% 50% City staff 217 to 12151 Scholts Ferry Rd Sctalls Ferry ISM Rov ide Arterial Corridor Management 142(0000 100% $4200000 $4,200,000 100% 100% $4,200000 $0 $4.200000 0% 100% City staff Rd from Roe,Rood to Hall Boulevard Tiedeman Ave Aedeman Bke/Ped Sidewalks horn Tg«d St to Greenbur9 11,030000 100% 11.000,000 $1,000,000 50% 50% $250000 $0 1250000 0% 100% City staff Ig«d St)Farces New bridge with bke lanes and Creek)Bridge Tigard St Bridge sidewalks 13000000 100% $3.000.000 $3,000/00 50% 50% $750000 $0 $7501100 0% 100% City staff RedaceMent Metro Project ID trait Bke/Ped Neighborhood traits&Regional trot 11.100000 100% $1.100,000 11.100.000 25% 50% 1137500 $0 1137500 0% 100% TSP,RIP 11227 Connections - •:;>FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON - Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 21 City Cost Atter Capacity Growth Capacity Capacity TDT S of SOC<of Road %City Local moat.ODDS'County Identrhed Local Related Percent of Total SOC/70T Related City Related City Eligible Olgble ecl ID Rood Classification De sc notion Project Costs Shore Funding Fundrna Total City Cost Funding Parent Capacity EIpible Costs Cost(TDT) Cost(SDC) Project Costs Project Costs Source Hywld•keneM(continued) Metro Project ID Nai Bke/Pad Portland d Western Rol Nal hom 01,250,000 100% 01,250000 $1250.000 25% 50% $156250 $0 $156.250 0% 100% TSP.RTP 1 1228 Nieman Ave.to Main St. lualathr River Trai Bke/Pad Complete multiuse path horn Cook $10000000 100% $10.000.000 $100100,000 25% 50% 01250000 $0 01250.000 0% 100% City staff Trai Park to the Powerlies Corridor Fanno Creek Trait Bke/Pad Woodard Park to Grant 0670000 100% 0670,000 0670,000 25% 50% 001.750 06700100 $0 100% 0% Cily staff Trai Fanno Creek Trai Bke/Pad Tedeman Crossing Realignment $250"000 100% 0250000 $250000 25% 50% $31250 $0 031250 0% 100% City staff Troll Complete gals along the Fanno Fanno Creek Creek multiuse path from the Tualatin Trai Trai Bke/Ped Rivet to City Hall and hom Highway 06000.030 100% 060100.000 06.000.000 25% 50% 0750.000 $0 0750,000 0% 100% City staff 99W to Iisord Sheet Upper 800005 upper Widen to five lanes with bke lanes (Durham to Boon' Arterial and sidewalks 010.000000 100% 010.000000 $10000,000 90% 90% 08.100,000 $4,106,784 03.993216 51% 49% Cily staff Sequoia) Upper Boones Upper Provide Arterial Condos Management Ferry Road Boonef Ferry ISM along Corridor#2(F5)In the Metro $1"300.000 100% $1,300.000 01.300.000 100% 100% 01.300.000 $0 01"300.000 0% 100% City staff Rd TWO Plan Metro Project ID Walnut St Arterial Widen Walnut 5t.to 3lanes from Hwy. $8,000000 100% 08.000.000 08.000.000 40% 100% 03200000 $4325,812 00 100% 0% 15P.RIP,GP 11229 9910 Tedeman Ave Metro Project ID Arterial Hwy.217 overaosshg Hunzker-72nd 030000000 100% 030.000000 030"000.000 80% 100% $24000,000 $0 024000.000 0% 100% ISP 10751 Ave. Hwy Turn lanes.aux lanes,sidewalks.bite 99W/Dartmouth Menai lanes.crossings:transit improvements "�'� 100% 06.000.000 06.000.000 100% 100% 06000.000 0308,907 05,691.013 5% 95% City staff St. Oreenburg Rd. Widen to 5 lanes from Locust St to (Hwy 217 to Hall Arterial Greanburg Rd odd hen/aux tones: 020000000 20% $160100,000 04000003 $4.DD0.oto 80% 100% 03200.000 $0 $3201000 0% 100% City staff BN tl) odd bke lanes and sidewalks throudtout condor IO Sheet New bridge Gossip north-south over Gossoss ip of Bridge the lualath River near 108th Avenue u'0'� 100% $3"000000 03.000.000 50% 50% 0750000 $0 0750,000 0% 100% City staff Tualolh River North Dakota St Bridge Replace wilts wider bridge with J Fenno Creek sidewalks and bke lades 03.000.000 100% 03,000.000 03.000.000 50% 50% $750,000 $0 0750,000 0% 100% City staff Diksen-121st Trait Bke/Pad New had alone Sunnier Creek horn 01,000.000 100% $1,000000 $1000.000 25% 50% $125.000 $0 $125,000 0% 100% City staff Ave Trai Diksen Nature Park to 121st Ave Washington Square Area TSM Adaptive SEsno1 Coordhotion $1000000 100% $1000.000 01000.000 10011 100% $1000.000 00 011000000 0% 100% Qty staff Signals Totals $625271,850 $19447000 053,300,000 5552,324050 0551,824,850 5392,345,980 $127,738,750 $277069222 Notes: 1.Project ID's are consistent with exkihsp local or regional haraportalbn plan project risings. 2.All projects feted are assumed to be completed by year 2035. 3.All wdenng and newly constructed rood projects wil kxlude bkelanes and sidewalks.even if not called out specifically. 4.Capacity related portions of projects ore consistent with parameters shown is Appendk B. 5.Growth shares are estimated by City staff ushp Metro 2035 travel demand nodal"comporip 2010 to 2035 volume/capacity ratios. •:;>FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 22 Appendix B- Capacity Share Assumption. Proportion of Project related to Improvement Type ca•acit New travel lanes added 100% Turn lanes or new traffic signals 100% New interconnected traffic signals 100% Road upgrades (widen from 3 to 5 lanes) 80% Road upgrades (change from local to collector standard) 75% Traffic signal upgrades 75% Road upgrades (widening & adding double left turn lanes) 50% Road upgrades (widening with new bike/ped facilities) 50% Road upgrades (widening from 2 to 3 lanes) 40% Access management &center turn lanes 25% Roadwa reali•nment 25% Source:consistent with Washington County methodology per Appendix C,Amended TDT Road Project List,Jan. 2014 •::> FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 23 Appendix C — Reimbursement Fee Calculation Transportation Capital Project Expenditures Reim- Reimbursement Fee FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY bursement Calculation 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fee Basis Tigard Traffic Impact Fee $408,826 $460,540 $1,283,017 $611,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $359,140 Fund Urban Services Traffic Impact Fee Fund $450 $2,554 Tigard Transportation Development Tax Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,840 Total $409,276 $463,094 $1,283,017 $611,167 $953,489 $0 $0 $0 $1,234,980 Discount Factor (trip growth 12.98% 11.46% 9.96% 8.48% 7.01% 5.57% 4.15% 2.75% 1.37% rate) Net Present Value of Capacity Investment $356,155 $410,034 $1,155,273 $559,366 $886,604 $0 $0 $0 $1,218,120 $4,585,553 Source: City of Tigard, compiled by FCS GROUP. •:;> FCS GROUP f TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 24 Appendix D- Discounted TSDCs per River Terrace Funding Strategy (using TDT credit policy) SDC Option A: Districts Total Cit -wide River Terrace (avg.) �n Total Cost(Land& Improvements)* $ 625,271,850 $ 585,121,850 $ 40,150,000 Less SDC Eligible Revenue $ 44,516,054 $ 30,804,818 $ 13,71 1,236 $5,000/per DU citywide; $5,497/per DU in RT overlay RemaInln r Fundin. Re.uired $ 580,755,796 $ 554,317,032 $ 26,438,764 Sour__ Other Potential Fundin, rces Sou Notes TOT Revenue $ 82,534,026 $ 81,042,262 $ 1,491,764 Based on current TOT ODOT/County/Developer Funded $ 72,947,000 $ 53,300,000 $ 19,647,000 Possible regional funding solutions in future Grants $ 900,000 $ 900,000 Metro or state grants available City Fund Transfers $ - $ 3,000,000 Transp Utility Fee Surcharge($5/month 000 $ 1,400,000 $5/month TUF fee overlay in RT 1,400, RT only) $ District Other $ Total Other Funding $ 157,781,026 $ 134,342,262 $ 26,438,764 ej/././w Remaining tndha R q uired* $ 422,974,770 . 419,974,770 $ - *Total project costs to complete long-range capital improvements consistent with River Terrace and other citywide planning documents. Assumes City's current credit policy. Funding **Possible alternatives: Percent of gap Required.6 Notes Hy could reestablish capital Delay project construction 50% $ (211,487,385) spending priorities Requires new Await non-local contributions(ODOT/County/Grants) 15% $ (63,446,215) state/regional/county funding This may limit development "Require developer dedications(may be credit eligible) 15% $ (63,446,215) activity City GO Bond(s) 0% $ - Equates to about$1 M per City Fund Transfers(e.g.,state and local gas tax) 5% $ (21,148,738) year Requires+/-$12.50 month TUF City TUF increase 15% $ (63,446,215) increase citywide Total 100% $ 422,974,770) •:>FCS GROUP TIGARD, OREGON Transportation System Development Charge Study February 2015 page 25 This page intentionally left blank •:) FCS GROUP AIS-2223 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length(in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Amend Master Fees and Charges for Parks and Transportation SDCs Submitted By: Norma Alley,City Management Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall Council adopt a resolution adopting system development charges for parks and transportation and authorize the City Manager to approve and amend the system development procedures guide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends adopting the resolution KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has been reviewing ways to finance Tigard's future system infrastructure (streets,water,sewer,storm, parks and public facilities systems) over the last year.This effort is being done for citywide purposes,in concert with the River Terrace Infrastructure Funding Strategy. On December 16,2014,Council adopted the River Terrace Infrastructure Funding Strategy,representing the financial toolbox for funding needed infrastructure in River Terrace.Many of the adopted recommendations need Council action to implement. Included in that strategy are System Development Charges (SDCs) for Parks and Transportation. SDC's are 8y Y P g ( ) P one-time charges paid by developers to pay for their impact on city infrastructure. Council discussed the SDC proposal in workshops on February 17,2015 and March 17,2015. The city currently has a citywide Parks SDC and the funding strategy recommends an update as well as the creation of an area-specific Parks SDC for River Terrace. The city does not have its own Transportation SDC, but uses the Washington County Transportation Development Tax (TDT) for a similar purpose (to fund transportation system needs as a result of growth). A citywide Transportation SDC provides additional needed resources to help build and improve roads.The funding strategy recommends that Tigard create a citywide Transportation SDC and develop a River Terrace specific Transportation SDC. Based on the direction provided in the River Terrace Funding Strategy and the two workshops,this hearing provides Council the opportunity to adopt Parks and Transportation SDC's with the following key policy decisions: 1.Both Parks and Transportation SDC's will have a citywide reimbursement portion,citywide improvement portion,and River Terrace Overlay. 2.Both Parks and Transportation SDCs are discounted from the maximum fee permitted by law. This is consistent with the River Terrace Funding Strategy 3.The citywide SDCs for parks and transportation and the River Terrace Overlay SDC for parks will issue credits in the current standard method where SDC credits are issued to overbuilding a facility beyond the local portion. 4.The River Terrace Overlay Transportation SDC will issue additional credits roughly equal to 50%of the local portion of the facility. This is to incentivize construction and share the costs of River Terrace Blvd. 5.SDC Credits will be transferable between developers within the SDC fee area for which they were earned. 6.SDC Credits will expire within 10 years. 7.Transportation SDCs will be discounted for smaller homes and for transit oriented developments in Downtown. Adoption of the new fees requires two hearings. A first hearing adopted the SDC methodology and procedures by amending the TMC. This second hearing will adopt the fees by amending the Master Fees and Charges and set administrative procedures for staff to implement the SDCs. Attached to this hearing packet are: 1.The Resolution to adopt the SDCs and authorize the City Manager to approve and amend the System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide,and 2.Exhibit A-Setting Parks and Transportation SDCs 3.Exhibit B-The SDC Administrative Procedures Guide document that provides staff with procedures for implementation and administration of SDCs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council can continue the hearing to request additional information from staff and consultants prior to adoption of the SDCs. This will result in a delay in implementing the SDCs. Council could propose no action on the SDCs.The result of no action is that funding for infrastructure does not keep up with growth. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS,POLICIES,MASTER PLANS Infrastructure Financing Project(River Terrace and Citywide) •Council briefing •SDC notice and methodology •Council hearing DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION 05/20/2014-River Terrace Funding Strategy Introduction 06/17/2014-River Terrace Preliminary Funding Strategy and Parks and Transportation System Plan Addenda Briefing 07/08/2014- Infrastructure Financing Project(River Terrace&Citywide) Discussion 08/12/2014-LCRB award to FCS Group for Infrastructure Financing Study 09/23/2014-River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Briefing 10/21/2014-River Terrace Draft Funding Strategy Plan Briefing Follow-up 12/16/2014-River Terrace Funding Strategy Adoption 02/17/2015 -Parks and Transportation SDCs Workshop 03/17/2015 -Second Parks and Transportation SDCs Workshop Attachments Resolution Exhibit A-SDC Charges Exhibit B-Adminstrative Procedures Guide CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WHICE-I AMENDS RESOLUTION NO 14-31 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND AMEND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PROCEDURES GUIDE. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has a Master Fees and Charges Schedule, including System Development Charges (SDCs) ;and WHEREAS,City of Tigard has adopted new SDC Methodology Reports for Parks and Transportation SDCs; WHEREAS, system development charges air one-time fees paid by developers to help offset the impact of growth on the city's infrastructure;and WHEREAS,the SDC Administrative Procedures Guide will provide staff procedures for implementation and administration of the City of Tigard's System Development Charges for new development within the City; WHEREAS,the system development charges will be indexed to account for changes in costs of infrastructure; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The system development charges for parks and transportation for the City of Tigard are enumerated and set as shown in the attached schedule (Exhibit A). SECTION 2: The City Manager is authorized to approve and amend the System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide (Exhibit B). SECTION 3: This resolution is effective July 1,2015. PASSED: This day of 2015. Mayor- City of Tigard A 1'1'EST: City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 15- Page 1 Exhibit A City of Tigard, Oregon Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Schedule Fiscal Year 2015 - 2016 Adopted April 28,2015 11 r r mi • T I GARD Page 1 Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING Park System Development Charge(SDC)* Single Family Unit $6,451.34 7/1/2014 Single Family Dwelling-Reimbursement $1,017.00 7/1/2015 Single Family Dwelling-Improvement $5,807.00 7/1/2015 Single Family Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay $2,502.00 7/1/2015 Multi-family Unit $5,156.28 7/1/2014 Multi-Family Dwelling-Reimbursement $766.00 7/1/2015 Multi-Family Dwelling-Improvement $4,372.00 7/1/2015 Multi-Family Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay $1,884.00 7/1/2015 Commercial/industrial(per employee) $446.14 7/1/2014 Non-residential SDC per employee-Reimbursement $105.00 7/1/2015 Non-residential SDC per employee-Improvement $602.00 7/1/2015 Non-residential SDC per employee-River Terrace Overlay $0.00 7/1/2015 *See Methodology Report used to calculate the charges. **Non-residential SDC calculations for new development are to be based on square feet of floor area. See Table 5.2 of Adopted"Parks and Recreation SDC Methodology Report" For more detailed and updated information on calculating Park SDC's see"Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Methodology Report,"by FCS Group,April 9,2015. Page 2 Department Revenue Source It. Fee or Charge lak Effective Data Park SDC Annual Adjustment 4/10/2001 Parks SDC fees shall be adjusted annually on July 1st of each year beginning in 2011. The new fee will be determined by multiplying the existing fees by the average of two indices,one reflecting changes in development/construction costs and one reflecting changes in land acquisition costs. The average of these two indices is a reasonable approach because the Parks SDC fee is roughly split 50%between land acquisition land development components. The index for the Land Acquisition component will be the base cost for residential tract land in Tigard,as determined by the Washington County Appraiser. The average cost for residential tract land was selected because it is readily identified and is the lowest priced of the buildable lands in Tigard. Changes in this base cost can be calculated in terms of a percentage increase,to create the level of change to the original index,and projected to the overall acquisition cost. In accordance with Measure 5,the Washington County Appraiser's office will determine appraised values on July 1 of each year. The index for the Land Development component of the Parks SDC will be the Construction Cost Index for the City of Seattle as published in the May issue of the Engineering News Record(ENR). The Seattle cost index will be used because the city is the geographically closest to Tigard of twenty metropolitan areas for which the ENR maintains cost data. This index is adjusted monthly,quarterly,and annually. The annual index for each year will be selected beginning with the index for May 2012. The revised Parks SDC fees were derived from the costs of land and projects provided in the Tigard Park System Master Plan Update,adopted July 2009 and the Tigard Greenway Trails Master Plan adopted in July 2011. The costs for projects in both plans were adjusted using both the Land Acquisition and Land Development indices for the appropriate years. Page 3 Department Revenue Source MM. Fee or Charge Effective Date Park SDC Annual Adjustment(cont.) Calculation Definitions., SDC(2012)= Current SDC fee L(2012)=Average cost of residential tract land 2012 L(2013)= Average cost of residential tract land 2013 L(2xxx)=Average cost of residential tract land 2xxx C(2012)=Construction cost index of 2012 C(2013)= Construction cost index of 2013 C(2xxx)= Construction cost index of 2xxx LCI= Land Cost Index:change from the current year from previous year CCI= Construction Cost Index:change from the current year from previous year ACI= Average cost index change of LCI+CCI L(2014)/L(2013) =LCI and C(2014)/C(2013) =CCI therefore LCI+CCI/2 =ACI then SDC(2014)X ACI =SDC(2015) Each year subsequent to 2002,the costs shall be revised using the current year and previous year's data. Not withstanding the foregoing,all calculations shall be carried out to the thousandth place. A final product ending in .49 or less shall be rounded down to the nearest dollar,.50 or more up to the next dollar. Page 4 Department Revenue Source 1=Mr Fee or Charge MIK Effective Date COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING Residential Transportation System Development Charge(SDC)* Single Family Detatched Dwelling-Reimbursement $312.00 7/1/2015 Single Family Detatched Dwelling-Improvement $5,402.00 7/1/2015 Single Family Detatched Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay** $2,642.00 7/1/2015 Multi-Family Dwelling-Reimbursement $182.00 7/1/2015 Multi-Family Dwelling-Improvement $3,151.00 7/1/2015 Multi-Family Dwelling-River Terrace Overlay $1,541.00 7/1/2015 Non-Residential Transportation System Development Charge(SDC)*** Avg.charge per PHVT-Reimbursement** $483.00 7/1/2015 Avg.charge per PHVT-Improvement** $8,362.00 7/1/2015 Avg.charge per PHVT-River Terrace** $1,030.00 7/1/2015 *See Adopted Methodology Report used to calculate the charges. **Based on 50%Credit Policy for the"local" elements of River Terrace Blvd. *** Non-residential SDCs will be based on average charges by Peak Hour Vehicle Trips(PHVT)and shall vary by land use type using procedures established in the Tigard SDC Procedures Guide. Adjustments may include reductions for linked trips. For more detailed and updated information on calculating Transportation SDC's see"Transportation System Development Charge Methodology Report,"by FCS Group,April 14,2015. Transportation SDC Annual Adjustment 7/1/2015 Transportation SDC fees shall be adjusted annually on July 1st of each year beginning in 2016. The index to be used for adjusting transportation SDCs will based on the weighted average of the year over year escalation for two measurements:90 percent multiplied by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Seattle Area percent change plus 10 percent multiplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation monthly asphalt price (annualized)percent change. Page 5 City of Tigard TIGARD SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES GUIDE April 27, 2015 FCS GROUP City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES GUIDE 1 SECTION II: SDC CREDITS 2 A. Tigard Credit Policy Basis 2 B. Parks credit policy 2 C. Transportation Credit Policy 2 D. SDC Credit application and administration 5 E. Redeeming Credits 7 SECTION II: APPLICABILITY OF SDCS 8 SECTION III: EXEMPTIONS 9 A. Fully Exempt New Development 9 C. Applying for Exemption 9 D. Appealing a Denial of Exemption 9 SECTION IV: AMOUNT AND PAYMENT OF SDCS 10 A. Calculation of the SDC Amount 10 A.1 New Development 10 A.2 Parks SDC Calculations 10 A.2.a Residential SDC Calculations 10 A.2.b Non-Residential SDC Calculations 10 A.3 Transportation SDC Calculations 11 A.3.a Residential SDC Calculation 11 A.3.b Non-Residential SDC Calculation 12 A.4 Modification, Expansion, or Redevelopment 12 B. SDC Discounts for Transit Oriented Mixed Use Developments in Downtown 12 C. Alternative SDC Rate Calculation 13 D. When Payment is Due 14 SECTION V: UPDATING THE SDC RATES 16 A. Annual Cost Adjustment 16 A.1 Parks SDC Adjustment 16 A.2 Transportation SDC Adjustment 16 •:;> EC's GROUP „1\1,.t(12.1,1111).COl„ City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page ii SECTION VI: RECEIPT, EXPENDITURE, AND REFUNDS OF SDC REVENUE 18 A. Deposits 18 B. Permitted Uses 18 B.1 Reimbursement Fees 18 B.2 Improvement Fees 18 B.3 Compliance Fees 19 C. Prohibited Uses 19 D. Refunds of SDCs 19 SECTION VII: CHALLENGES AND APPEALS 21 A. Challenges of Expenditures 21 SECTION VIII: RECORD KEEPING 22 A. Records of Receipts 22 B. Records of Investments 22 C. Records of Expenditures 22 D. Timeliness of Records 22 E. Reports 22 APPENDIX 23 Appendix A: River Terrace District 24 Appendix B:Transportation SDCs by Use (as of July 1, 2015) 25 Appendix C:System Development Charge Form 27 •:.> FCS GROUP RNIAN.icsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 1 dry' SECTION I : PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES GUIDE The purpose of this guide is to provide procedures for implementation and administration of the City of Tigard's (City) System Development Charges (SDCs) for new development within the City. This document provides guidance regarding the following items: • Determination of when SDCs should be charged; • Calculation of SDCs for individual developments; • Treatment of SDC revenues and expenditures; and • SDC refunds, appeals, and record keeping. The guide presents information that is to be referenced by the Transportation SDC Ordinance and provides forms, notifications, and directions at a level of detail more specific than is provided in the Transportation SDC Methodology Report(s). Note information provided in text boxes, as the one below, references specific portions of Tigard code related to SDCs or references to the SDC credit policy in Section II. ... ORS 223.297- 223.314, adopted in 1989, authorizes local governments to impose system development charges to provide equitable funding for orderly growth and development... ���> FCS GROUP w`w■%.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 2 SECTION II : SDC CREDITS A. TIGARD CREDIT POLICY BASIS An applicant for a building permit,or occupancy permit if deferral has been granted, shall be entitled to a credit against the SDC for constructing eligible capital improvements as defined in this section. Tigard's Transportation SDC credit policy, for the most part, follows the Washington County TDT credit policy and procedures guide with a special condition for River Terrace Boulevard. B. PARKS CREDIT POLICY Credit eligibility shall be determined by the SDC administrator. The value of the SDC Credits under this section shall be determined by the SDC administrator based on the cost of the Qualified Public Improvement, or the value of Real Property Interests, as follows: 1. For Real Property Interests,the value shall be based upon a written appraisal of fair market value by a qualified,professional appraiser based upon comparable sales of similar property between unrelated parties in an arms-length transaction; 2. For improvements yet to be constructed, value shall be based upon the anticipated cost of construction. Any such cost estimates shall be certified by a professional architect or engineer or based on a fixed price bid from a contractor ready and able to construct the improvement(s) for which SDC Credit is sought. The City will give immediate credits based on estimates,but it will provide for a subsequent adjustment based on actual costs: a refund to the Applicant if actual costs are higher than estimated, and an additional SDC to be paid by the Applicant if actual costs are lower than estimated. The City shall inspect all completed Qualified Public Improvement projects before agreeing to honor any credits previously negotiated. The City shall limit credits to reasonable costs. Credits shall be awarded only in conjunction with an application for development; 3. For improvements already constructed, value shall be based on the actual cost of construction as verified by receipts submitted by the Applicant. C. TRANSPORTATION CREDIT POLICY An applicant for a building permit,or occupancy permit if deferral has been granted,shall be entitled to a credit against the SDC for constructing eligible capital improvements as defined in this section. Credit eligibility shall be determined by the SDC administrator. A. A transportation capital improvement constructed on a public road or transit facility,and accepted by the city,is eligible for credit provided it meets all the following criteria: 1. The city's authorized SDC administrator determines that the timing,location,design,and scope of the improvement is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the capital improvement program of the city. 2. The improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval issued by the city. ���> FCS GROUP 'S s■.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 3 3. The improvement must provide additional capacity to meet future transportation needs,or be constructed to address an existing safety hazard.Improvements to mitigate a safety hazard created primarily by the development are not eligible. 4. Improvements which primarily function as access to a private street,driveway,or development parcel are not eligible. 5. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating in its application for credit that a particular improvement qualifies for credit. 6. Improvements,including travel lanes and bike lanes,must be at ultimate alignment,line, and grade.No credit shall be granted for interim(e.g.,half street)improvements. 7. No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive plan. 8. New roads are eligible projects as long as they meet the remaining project eligibility criteria.An existing dirt or gravel road is deemed new if its daily traffic volume is below two hundred vehicles per day. 9. Bike lanes and multiuse pathways are eligible if required pursuant to applicable transportation or road standards. 10. No credit shall be granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise would have been the legal obligation of the jurisdiction pursuant to a franchise,easement, or similar relationship. 11. No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive plan. 12. No more than thirteen point five percent(13.5%)of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for survey,engineering,and inspection. 13. No credits shall be granted for storm sewer improvements that are also eligible for stormwater SDC credits. B. The SDC administrator shall provide credit for the documented,reasonable cost of construction of all or part of a qualified public improvement listed in the Methodology Report Appendix A based on the following criteria: 1. Transportation improvements located neither on nor contiguous to the property that is the subject of development approval shall be eligible for full credit. 2. Transportation improvements located on or contiguous to the property that is the subject of development approval,and required to be built larger,or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project shall be eligible. Credit for these improvements may be granted only for the cost of that portion of the improvement that a) exceeds the local government's minimum standard facility size;or b)exceeds the capacity needed to serve the particular development project or property. 3. Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan or development conditions is eligible as follows: a. To the extent an improvement is located neither on nor contiguous to the property that is the subject of development approval,the reasonable market value of land purchased by the applicant from a third party and necessary to complete that improvement is creditable. b. Road right-of-way located on or contiguous to the property that is the subject of development approval shall be eligible for credit to the extent necessary to construct the facility in excess of the local government's minimum standard facility needed to serve the particular development project or property.Credit for such right-of-way shall be allowed based on market value as determined by the county SDC records. C. For an improvement that is eligible for both TDT and Tigard TSDC credits,the TDT credits shall be calculated first.Total credits,including Tigard TSDC credits,together with TDT credits,shall not be issued in an amount that exceeds the eligible capital improvement cost for which the credits were issued. •:> FC S GROUP %%w«.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 4 D. For all improvements for which TSDC credit is sought within a TSDC overlay,the city's SDC administrator shall apportion the credit based upon the percent of the total SDC charge attributable to the City SDC and the overlay SDC. Please refer to Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2 for how to determine credit values. Exhibit 2.1: Guidance on Determination of Trans'ortation Credits Credit Eligible(at applicable Is the Project... credit%) Credit%of Project On Project Costs(Eligible Local Street Road Classification Contiguous? List? Components Only) Standard Right of Way Collector No No 50%* Yes Yes Collector Yes No 50%* No No Collector No Yes 100% Yes Yes Collector Yes Yes 100% No* Yes** Arterial No No 75% Yes Yes Arterial Yes No 75% No No Arterial No Yes 100% Yes Yes Arterial Yes Yes 100% No Yes** Source: adapted from the Washington County TDT procedures manual. * River Terrace Boulevard improvements are 100% credit eligble for elements beyond the local street standard; and 50% credit eligible for other project elements. ** Right of way credit applies only to the portion above local standard. .i..> FCS GROUP NN l■1%.fcs,roup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 5 Exhibit 2.1: Guidance for Determination of Contiguity Contiguous Definition On List* Not On List* 0 Improvement* mprovemen:* A 75%Arterial CO" 100%Credit 50%Collec:or C Eligible O Credi: Eligible C Local Street LocalStree: Standard** 5:andard** * Ineligible ineligible •. ,.,� . site Z On List* Not On List* OImprovement m provement 100%Credit Are :o 50%Collector All intersection and street O Eligible Credi: Eligible improvements are conditions of =6.: development approval. Local Street Locals:reef 5 Shaded portion of streets are CO Standard** 7.a Arterial considered contiguous to the 10096 Credit 50%Collector development site;remainder of streets rn Eligible Credit Eligible and intersection are non-contiguous •Contiguous Improvements must also exceed the Inca,street standard ""Local street standard°is a stand-in for"necessary to serve the development.° Reasons for conditions are defined through the land development process—TDT rules apply uniformly and after the condition. "`* "Contiguous°is defined based on frontage of site prior to subdivision or partition. Adapted from Washington County TOT procedures manual D. SDC CREDIT APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION A. All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the SDC administrator not more than sixty days after acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in accordance with the practices,procedures,and standards of the city. The amount of any credit shall be determined by the SDC administrator and based upon the subject improvement contract documents and other appropriate information provided by the applicant for the credit. In the request,the applicant must identify the improvement(s) for which credit is sought and explain how the improvement(s) meet the requirements of this section. The applicant shall also document,with credible evidence,the value of the improvement(s)for which credit is sought. If,in the SDC administrator's opinion,the improvement(s) meets the requirements of this section and the SDC administrator concurs with the proposed value of the improvement(s),a SDC credit shall be granted for the eligible amount. The value of the SDC credits under this section shall be determined by the SDC administrator based on the actual cost of construction and right-of-way,as applicable,as verified by receipts and other credible evidence submitted by the applicant. Upon a finding by the SDC administrator that the contract amounts,including payments for right-of-way,exceed prevailing market rates for a similar project,the credit shall be based upon market rates. B. The SDC administrator shall respond to the applicant's request in writing within thirty days of receipt of a technically complete request. The SDC administrator shall provide a written explanation of the decision on the SDC credit request. •:;> FCS GROUP „ .fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 6 C. Upon approval,the SDC administrator shall provide the applicant with a credit voucher, on a form provided by the department.The original of the credit voucher shall be retained by the department.The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied against any SDC imposed against the subject property. In no event shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed. Credits are limited to the amount of the charge attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit is sought and shall not be a basis for any refund. D. A credit shall have no cash or monetary value. A credit shall only apply against the SDC and its only value is to be used to reduce the SDC otherwise due, subject to all conditions, limitations,and requirements of this chapter. E. Tigard transportation SDC credits may not be used for TDT obligations or for payment of other SDCs. F. TDT credits may not be used for payment of Tigard transportation SDC obligations. G. When issued by the SDC administrator, a credit shall be the personal property of the applicant. Credits shall remain the personal property of the applicant unless transferred by the applicant or its authorized agent as transferor. Any person claiming the right to redeem a credit shall have the burden of demonstrating that any credit issued to another person has been transferred to him or her. H. Credits shall be apportioned against the property that was subject to the requirement to construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested by the applicant, apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportional to anticipated average weekday trips generated by the respective lots or parcels.Upon written application to the SDC administrator,however,credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. In the case of multi-phase development,excess credit generated in one phase may be applied to reduce the SDC in subsequent phases of the original development project. Reapportionment shall be noted on the original credit voucher retained by the department. I. Credits may be reassigned from a property to another property if all the following conditions are met. 1. A request for reassignment of a credit voucher must be made in writing to the SDC administrator signed by the person who owns the credit.The request for reassignment of a credit voucher shall contain all the information necessary to establish that such a reassignment is allowable under this subsection. The burden of proof that a reassignment is allowable is on the applicant. The SDC administrator shall respond in writing to the applicant's request for reassignment within thirty days of receipt of the request. 2. A credit voucher for the River Terrace SDC overlay district may not be reassigned to a property outside the identified SDC overlay district as identified by the map in Appendix A. 3. Credits may be reassigned if the SDC administrator determines that either: i. The lot or parcel that is to receive the credit is adjacent to and served by the transportation improvements that generated the credits, or a. The development on property receiving the credit would have impacts and traffic patterns affecting substantially the same facilities as the property that generated the credit. 4. When a credit voucher or portion of a credit voucher is reassigned a notation shall be placed on the initial credit voucher that a reassignment has been made. The amount reassigned shall be deducted from the credit voucher. 5. When a reassignment occurs a new credit voucher shall be issued for the reassigned credit amount. �.:� FCC GROUP www.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 7 a. The new credit voucher shall note the property to which the initial credit was assigned,subsequent reassignments shall also note the property to which the initial credit was assigned. b. The new credit voucher shall note the credit voucher number from which it was reassigned, if multiple reassignments occur each credit voucher number shall be noted. c. The new credit voucher shall have the same expiration date as the initial credit voucher. d. Apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the property to which a reassignment has been made is allowed as described in subsection F of this section. 6. A reassigned credit voucher shall follow all rules regarding redemption of credits. 7. The city may charge a fee for administering the reassignment of credits. 8. SDC credit reassignments approved in connection with new development outside SDC overlay districts, if applied to SDCs payable on new development inside overlay districts,may only be applied to the portion of that new development's SDC charges payable under the City SDC. Such SDC credit reassignments may not be applied to SDCs payable for a SDC overlay. J. Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the building permit or, if deferral was permitted, issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the building or occupancy permit. Under no circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of a building permit or, if deferral was granted, issuance of an occupancy permit. K. Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten years after the acceptance of the applicable improvement by the appropriate jurisdiction. No extension of this deadline shall be granted. E. REDEEMING CREDITS A developer can redeem credits for development within the City subject to the following constraints. Credit Application and Administration J. Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the building permit or, if deferral was permitted, issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the building or occupancy permit. Under no circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of a building permit or, if deferral was granted, issuance of an occupancy permit. • F CS GROUP t,._,,,,,,, owl City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 8 SECTION II : APPLICABILITY OF SDCS SDCs apply to all new development within the City unless it is specifically exempted from the SDC (see Chapter 3 of this guide regarding exemptions). Tigard Municipal Code states that SDCs are imposed on the following development within the City. 3.24.040 System Development Charge Imposed;Method for Establishment Created. A. Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of this ordinance or any other applicable local or state law, a SDC is hereby imposed upon all development within the city. SDCs are imposed upon the act of making a connection to the City water or sewer system within the City, upon all development outside the boundary of the City that connects to or otherwise uses the sewer or water facilities of the City, and whenever the City Council has authorized an intergovernmental agreement which permits the City to impose a parks SDC outside the City limits. In a case where there is a modification to an existing structure(such as a change in use, alteration, expansion, or replacement), the SDC is charged only if the modification will result in a net increase in the impact on the system for which the SDC is charged. �.•> 1 CJ RC)L; I' City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 9 SECTION III : EXEMPTIONS Certain types of new development are either fully or partially exempt from paying SDCs. A. FULLY EXEMPT NEW DEVELOPMENT The following types of development are fully exempt from SDC charges. 3.24.110 Exemptions A. The following are exempt from a SDC. 1. Structures and uses established and existing on or before the effective date of the resolution which sets the amount of the SDC are exempt from the charge, except water and sewer charges, to the extent of the structure or use existing on that date and to the extent of the parcel of land as it is constituted on that date. Structures and uses affected by this subsection shall pay the water or sewer charges pursuant to the terms of this Chapter upon the receipt of a permit to connect to the water or sewer system. 2. Additions to single-family dwellings that do not constitute the addition of a dwelling unit, as defined by the Building Code adopted pursuant to Section 14.04 of this Code, are exempt from all portions of the SDC. 3. An alteration, addition, replacement or change in use that does not increase the parcel's or structure's use of a capital improvement are exempt from all portions of the SDC. C. APPLYING FOR EXEMPTION Developers may apply for exemptions against the amount of SDCs owed to the City of Tigard. Correspondence must be made in writing to the City Manager or the SDC administrator. Exemptions may be given by the SDC administrator or designee for portions of the development that meets the above conditions. The City Manager or designee will respond to the Applicant's request in writing within 30 days of when a complete request is submitted. The City Manager or designee shall provide a written explanation of the decision on the SDC Exemption request. D. APPEALING A DENIAL OF EXEMPTION The decision of the City Manager or designee may be appealed to the City Council, as described in Section VII of these guidelines. In addition, all persons who object to the calculation of a system development charge have a right to challenge the decision and petition for review of a final City decision pursuant to ORS 34.010 to 34.100. •:•> FCS GROUP City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 10 SECTION IV: AMOUNT AND PAYMENT OF SDCs A. CALCULATION OF THE SDC AMOUNT A.1 New Development SDCs for new development are calculated in accordance with the System Development Charge Methodology Report,using the worksheet included in Appendix C. The City Manager or designee(i.e., Building Department) shall calculate SDCs by doing the following: • Identifying the SDC rates per unit of development for each system; • Multiplying each SDC rate(from step 1) by the appropriate number of units of development (e.g., thousand square feet of gross floor area [T.S.F.G.F.A,], students, VFPs, equivalent dwelling units). Any proposed use which constitutes 10% or less of the total building space is considered an ancillary use and does not require a separate calculation; however, the building space for such uses must be included in the total for other non-residential uses. A.2 Parks SDC Calculations A.2.a Residential SDC Calculations Parks SDCs for residential development is calculated by multiplying the number of dwellings (by housing category) by the corresponding SDC rate: Number of Dwellings x Parks SDC Rate (by use) =Total Parks SDC charge A.2.b Non-Residential SDC Calculations To calculate parks SDCs for proposed redevelopment of existing buildings,the SDC for non- residential uses will take into account the amount of floor area(square feet) proposed as a change in use. The Parks SDC for non-residential development will vary by the classification of development as shown in Exhibit 4.1 with the calculation as follows: Development Floor Area(by use) x Parks SDC Rate Per Employee x Employees to SF Conversion Factor = Total Parks SDC charge Note that development floor area is to be based on the net leasable floor area of new development. •:;> FCS GROUP ,,.,, City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 11 Exhibit 4.1 Parks SDC Conversion Factors for Non-Residential Uses Parks Employees Parks SDC Per Per 1,000 SDC Per Category Employee' SF2 1,000 SF General Industrial $707 1.25 $884 Warehousing/Distribution $707 0.80 $566 Flex $707 1.60 $1,132 Office $707 3.33 $2,357 Retail $707 2.22 $1,572 Institutional $707 2.00 $1,414 15DC reflects proposed reimbursement fee,improvement fee, and compliance fee. 2Derived from Metro factors used for 2014 Urban Growth Report Source:Compiled by FCS GROUP. A.3 Transportation SDC Calculations A.3.a Residential SDC Calculation Transportation SDC calculations for residential development will be charged based on new single family detached and multifamily/other dwellings added to the City. These types of calculations take into account the net new dwellings added multiplied by the SDC per dwelling unit. SDC rates for specific residential developments are to be determined using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, there are land use categories depicting single family detached(code#210), apartments (code #220), rental townhouses (code#224), and other residential types. Because there is presently no ITE land use code for small, standard or large single family dwellings, Exhibit 4.2 will be used to calculate SDC rates for single family detached homes. Exhibit 4.2 Average Daily Vehicle Trips and TSDC Adjustment Factors by SFD home size ADPT per TSDC Adjustment Factor Dwelling Unit Size Home Size Category 1,000 SF A(revenue neutral) (living area sq.ft.) Small 4.25 0.81 under 1,900 SF Medium 5.43 1.03 1,900 to 3,500 SF Large 5.70 1.08 over 3,500 SF All SFD 5.28 Source: compiled by FCS Group based on:Summary of 2011 Travel Activity Survey Results,Metro Transportation Research and Modeling Services;and National Association of Home Builders, Characteristrics of Home Buyers,Feb. 8, 2013. ADPT=average daily person trips; SFD=single family detached home. The number of new PHVTs generated for residential land use should take into account the following formula: 4 FCS GROUP ,sww.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 12 ITE Vehicle Trip Rate(by use code) x Dwellings x TSDC Adjustement Factor(if applicable) = Total TSDC charge A.3.b Non-Residential SDC Calculation The proposed SDCs identified in this report include specific recommendations for initial SDCs to be charged based on new PHVT added for non-residential development. New non-residential development in Tigard may include land use types with linked trips. The number of new PHVTs generated for non-residential land use should take into account the following formula: ITE Vehicle Trip Rate x (1—%Linked Trips) =Net New PHVT The SDC per unit of development is calculated for each type of land use by multiplying the new PHVT for each land use by the SDC per PHVT(see Appendix B).It is important to note that the Trip Generation Manual may not contain some land use categories or may not include trip rates or number of net new trips generated. For such land use categories without data,the City administrator shall use her/his judgment to calculate the transportation SDC. In the event that the proposed land use is a use that is not listed in the SDC Methodology Report or applicable ITE Handbooks (for transportation SDCs),the City may calculate the SDC charge based on the estimated increase in units of development for the proposed use,or may consider independent engineering studies submitted by the developer indicating the net impact of the proposed development. A.4 Modification, Expansion, or Redevelopment If the new development is a modification or expansion of an existing structure,or redevelopment of a property from a previous use,the SDC amount is based on the net increase in the number of units for each system,calculated as follows: 1. Calculate an SDC for each system in the new development as though the entire development was subject to the SDC; 2. Calculate an SDC for each system in the existing development,before modification, expansion,or redevelopment, as though the existing development was subject to the SDC; 3. Calculate the net SDC amount for each system by subtracting the results of Step 2 from the results of Step 3;if the result is zero or less than zero for a system,no SDC is due for that system. B. SDC DISCOUNTS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN DOWNTOWN Additional transportation SDC discounts may be permitted by the SDC administrator if the proposed new development meets the conditions for transit oriented mixed use developments(TOD) shown in Exhibit 4.3. The discounts for transit oriented mixed use developments apply to new development in downtown Tigard that are within 0.50 miles of the Tigard Transit Center. Additionally,transportation SDC discounts are allowed when new development is to be constructed with the minimum density and floor area mix assumptions shown in Exhibit 4.3.These discounts are based on the expected level of internal trip capture as documented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model 4.0. The discount takes into account the level of transit access afforded by the combination of frequent bus service and commuter rail service from this location. The total discount ranges from 10%to 25%of transportation SDC base calculations and the TOD discounts are not additive. �i�> FCS GROUP "w%ti.fcsgroup.coin City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 13 Exhibit 4.3 TSDC Discount Criteria in Downtown Tigard Transportation Benefit Based Impact& Potential Development on... Reduction Level TSDC Reduction Requirement Proximity to 10%Vehicle Trip Location within 0.5 miles from Transit Service Level 1 Reduction Tigard Transit Center 17%Vehicle Trip Minimum Res.Density of 24 Level2 Reduction dwellings per gross acre Minimum Res.Density of 24 dwellings per acre and at least 20%Vehicle Trip 15%of the ground floor area Proximity to Level 3 Reduction devoted to commercial Transit Service or and Minimum FAR of 1.0 per acre Development for non-res.development Type/Mix Minimum res.density of 55 dwellings per acre and at 25%Vehicle Trip least 15%of ground floor area Level 4 devoted to commercial uses Reduction .... m or Minimum FAR of 1.5 per acre for non-res.development Notes: ' Some portion of the development site must be located within a 0.50(one half)mile radius(straight line distance measurement)of Tigard Transit Center to qualify for TSDC reduction. 2 The minimum residential density for this TSDC reduction level has been interpolated based on ITE results. Source:ITE,Trip Generation Handbook,9th Edition,Appendix 8;and EPA Travel Demand Model,4.0. C. ALTERNATIVE SDC RATE CALCULATION An Applicant may request an alternative SDC rate calculation if: 1. The Applicant believes that the impact of facilities resulting from the new development is,or will be, less than that contemplated in the SDC Methodology Report, and for that reason, the Applicant's SDC should be lower than that calculated by the City. 2. The Applicant believes that SDCs paid by the property subject to development are, or will be, more than is provided by any credit for SDC payments which may be included in the SDC Methodology Report, and for that reason, the Applicant's SDC should be lower than that calculated by the City. 3. The Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for any additional time or resources necessary to provide a decision. The following process shall be used for an alternative SDC rate request. 1. If an Applicant believes that the assumptions for the class of structures that includes the new development are not appropriate for the subject new development,the Applicant must request an alternative SDC rate calculation, under this Section, no later than the time of issuance of a Building Permit for the New Development. Alternative SDC rate calculations for occupancy •:;> FCS GROUP ,,,,,, 14,,411/III1 0111 City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 14 must be based on analysis of occupancy of classes of structures, not on the intended occupancy of a particular new development. 2. In support of the Alternative SDC rate request, the Applicant must provide complete and detailed documentation, including verifiable data, analyzed and certified by a suitable and competent professional (such as a Transportation Engineer with a current professional engineering license to practice in the State of Oregon). The Applicant's supporting documentation must rely upon generally accepted sampling methods, sources of information, cost analysis, demographics, growth projections, and techniques of analysis as a means of supporting the proposed alternative SDC rate. The proposed Alternative SDC Rate calculation shall include an explanation with particularity why the rate established in the SDC Methodology does not accurately reflect the new development's impact on the City's capital improvements. 3. The City Manager or designee shall apply the Alternative SDC Rate if, in the City Manager's opinion, the following are found: a. The evidence and assumptions underlying the Alternative SDC Rate are reasonable, correct, and credible and were gathered and analyzed in compliance with generally accepted principles and methodologies consistent with this Chapter; b. The calculation of the proposed Alternative SDC rate was by a generally accepted methodology; c. The proposed alternative SDC rate better or more realistically reflects the actual impact of the new development than the rate set forth in the SDC Methodology Report; and d. The applicant has compensated the City for the additional cost of administrative services associated with the review of the alternative SDC rate(administrative review charges to be calculated by the City Manager or designee).' 4. Within 30 days of the Applicant's submission of the request,the City Manager or designee shall provide a written decision explaining the basis for rejecting or accepting the request. The decision of the City Manager or designee may be appealed to the City Council, as described in Section VII of these guidelines. In addition, all persons who object to the calculation of a system development charge have a right to challenge the decision and petition for review of a final City decision pursuant to ORS 34.010 to 34.100. D. WHEN PAYMENT IS DUE Payment is due according to the following criteria. It is noted that any additional SDC charges for this purpose are in addition to the charges included in the SDC Methodology Report,including the improvement fee,reimbursement fee and the compliance fee;as well as other permitting and inspection charges,fees or SDCes applied to new developments. {{ ". ∎s.fcs rou com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 15 3.24.090 Collection of Charge A. The SDC is payable upon issuance of: 1. A building or construction permit of any kind, including any permit or permits issued in connection with the set-up or installation of any trailer, mobile or manufactured home; 2. A development permit; 3. A development permit for development not requiring the issuance of a building permit; 4. A permit to connect to the sewer system; or 5. A permit to connect to the water system. B. If development is commenced or connection is made to the water system, sewer system, or storm system without an appropriate permit, the SDC shall be immediately due and payable upon the earliest date that a permit was required. C. The Administrator shall collect the applicable SDC from the Permittee. The Administrator shall not issue such permit or allow such connection until the charge has been paid in full, or unless an exemption is granted pursuant to Section 3.24.110, or unless provision for installment payments has been made, pursuant to Section 3.24.100, which follows. The permittee, or the one paying the SDC, can apply to make installment payments on the SDC according to the following section of Tigard code. 3.24.100 Installment Payment A. When a SDC is due and payable, the Permittee may apply for payment in twenty semi-annual installments, secured by a lien on the property upon which the development is to occur or to which the utility connection is to be made, to include the SDC along with the following: 1. Interest on the obligation at the prime rate as published by the Wall Street Journal the day of application plus 4%; 2. Any and all costs, as determined by the Administrator, incurred in establishing payment schedules and administering the collections process; B. The intent of this section is to recognize that the payment of an SDC by installments increases the administrative expense to the city. It is the intent of this subsection to shift that added expense to the applicant, so that the city will not lose SDC revenue by accepting installment payments on such charges. Subject to the provisions of this section, all costs added to the SDC will be determined by the Administrator. C. An Applicant requesting installment payments shall have the burden of demonstrating the Applicant's authority to assent to the imposition of a lien on the property and that the interest of the Applicant is adequate to secure payment of the lien. •::> FCS GROUP ,,,, il, 1,,111,.;,1111 City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 16 SECTION V : UPDATING THE SDC RATES A. ANNUAL COST ADJUSTMENT Oregon law dictates that the City is allowed to adjust SDCs based on escalation factors. Please refer to the respective SDC methodology for specific cost escalations. After calculating the SDC adjustment factor,each of the adopted SDC rates, fees, and charges included in a methodology report and outlined in this Administrative Procedures Guide shall be adjusted, effective on July 1st of each year to coincide with the start of a new fiscal year. A.1 Parks SDC Adjustment The adjusted parks SDC fee will be determined by the multiplying the existing fees by the average of two indices, one reflecting changes in land acquisition costs and one reflecting changes in development/construction costs (Exhibit 5.1). The index for the land acquisition component will be based on cost of residential tract land in Tigard, as determined by the Washington County Assessor/Appraiser. The average cost for residential land and year over year change (e.g.,July 1 to July 1) will be measured as a percentage basis,to create the level of change in the original index,and projected as the overall change in Land Acquisition cost for Tigard. The index for the construction cost component of the SDC will be the Construction Cost Index for the City of Seattle as published in May issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR). The Seattle Cost Index will be used because it is the most proximate city to Tigard of the twenty metropolitan areas for which the ENR maintains cost data. The index is adjusted monthly and will be calculated based on year to year changes in construction cost (e.g., July 1 to July 1) and projected as the overall change in construction cost for Tigard. Exhibit 5.1: Parks SDC Escalation (Change in Average Residential Land Value x 0.50) + (Change in Construction Cost Index x 0.50) = Parks SDC Adjustment Factor A.2 Transportation SDC Adjustment The adjusted parks SDC fee will be determined by the multiplying the existing fees by the average of two indices,one reflecting changes in construction costs and one reflecting changes in asphalt prices (Exhibit 5.2). The index for the construction cost component of the SDC will be the Construction Cost Index for the City of Seattle as published in May issue of the Engineering News Record (ENR). The index is adjusted monthly, and will be calculated based on year to year changes in construction cost (e.g., July 1 to July 1) and projected as the overall change in Construction cost for Tigard. The index for the asphalt price will be the annualized change in Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) published monthly change in asphalt prices. •:;> FCS GROUP ,,,,,..I City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 17 Exhibit 5.2: Transportation SDC Escalation (Change in Construction Cost Index x 0.90) + (Change in Annualized ODOT Asphalt Price x 0.10) = Transportation SDC Adjustment Factor •:;> FCS GROUP NN w.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 18 SECTION VI : RECEIPT, EXPENDITURE, AND REFUNDS OF SDC REVENUE A. DEPOSITS All SDC revenues collected by the City must be deposited in the appropriate SDC accounts. Until needed for an authorized use, funds deposited in the SDC accounts may be invested by the City with interest earned credited to the SDC accounts. 3.24.140 Segregation and Use of Revenue A. All funds derived from a particular type of SDC are to be segregated by accounting practices from all other funds of the city. That portion of the SDC calculated and collected on account of a specific facility system shall be used for no purpose other than those set forth in this Chapter. B. PERMITTED USES Each type of SDC has specific permitted uses listed below. B.1 Reimbursement Fees Reimbursement Fee SDC revenues can be used for any type of capital improvement within the system for which the fee is collected. The capital improvements must be included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP must do the following: • List the specific projects that may be funded with SDC revenues, • Provide the cost of each project, • Provide the estimated timing of each project, and • Provide the percentage of each project being funded with SDC revenues. The CIP may be amended at any time. 3.24.060 Authorized Expenditures A. Reimbursement fees. Reimbursement fees shall be applied only to capital improvements (and not operating expenses) associated with the system for which the fees are associated, including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness. B.2 Improvement Fees Improvement Fee SDC revenues can be used only for capacity-increasing capital improvements. •:;>FCS GROUP ,,,,,,.1,.._ „ �, .,,,,,, City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 19 3.24.060.B Authorized Expenditures; Improvement Fees 1. Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for the improvements. An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide service for future users. 2. A capital improvement being funded wholly or in part from revenues derived from the improvement fee shall be included in the plan adopted by the city pursuant to Section 3.24.080. B.3 Compliance Fees SDC revenues may be used and for the direct costs of complying with the State statutes governing SDCs, for the costs of administering the SDCs, and for the costs of developing SDC methodologies. 3.24.060.B Authorized Expenditures 3. Notwithstanding subsections 3.24.060.6.1 and .2, SDC revenues may be expended on the costs of complying with the provisions of this Chapter, including the costs of developing systems development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of systems development charge funds. C. PROHIBITED USES Money on deposit in any SDC accounts shall not be used for the following items. 3.24.070.A Expenditure Restrictions 1. Costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements; or 2. Costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements. D. REFUNDS OF SDCS The City shall grant a refund of SDCs for the following reasons: • The City Manager finds that... there was a clerical error in the calculation of the SDC, or • The SDCs have not been expended within ten years of receipt. In no case will a cash refund be available to the property owner/applicant. When one of the above referenced scenarios gives rise to a credit amount greater than the systems development charge that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving development approval, the amount of the remaining credit shall be included in an agreement signed by the applicant and the City Manager or designee that states the amount of the remaining credit and the effective date of the agreement. The remaining credit may be applied against system development charges that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. ���> FCS GROUP „ww .fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 20 Credit may be transferable from one development to another. As noted above, remaining credit shall expire 10 years from the date the credit is given. Credits shall only fulfill obligations of SDCs of the capital improvement type for which the credit was issued. •i> FCS GROUP „ %‘.fcsgroup.corn City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 21 SECTION VII : CHALLENGES AND APPEALS A. CHALLENGES OF EXPENDITURES If there is a challenge of either SDC expenditures or credits, Tigard code stipulates the following procedure. 3.24.150 Appeal Procedure. A. A person aggrieved by a decision required or allowed to be made by the city recorder under this ordinance or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of SDC revenues may appeal the decision or the expenditure to the City Council by filing a written request with the Administrator describing with particularity the decision of the Administrator or the expenditure from which the person appeals. B. Appeal of an Expenditure: An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two years of the date of the alleged improper expenditure. The council shall determine whether the Administrator's decision or the expenditure is in accordance with this ordinance and the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314 and may affirm, modify or overrule the decision. If the Council determines that there has been an improper expenditure of SDC revenues, the council shall direct that a sum equal to the misspent amount shall be deposited within one year to the credit of the account or fund from which it was spent. C. Appeal of an SDC Methodology: Legal action challenging the methodology adopted by the council pursuant to Section 3.24.050 shall not be filed later than sixty (60) days after the date of adoption, and shall be contested according to the procedure set forth in ORS 34.010 to 34.100, and not otherwise. D. Appeal of an SDC Calculation or Credit Determination. 1. A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Administrator relating to the calculation of SDCs may file an appeal within ten (10) days of the Administrator's action. 2. Appeals must be made by filing a written request with the Administrator and must include a recommended solution to the issue that has initiated the appeal. 3. Appeals may be filed to challenge only the trip generation rate or land use category that is applicable to the project. 4. The City Council shall consider all appeals and shall render a decision to affirm, modify, or overrule the decision of the Administrator. 5. The City Council's decision shall be made in accord with the intent of the provisions of this ordinance. The City will review the challenge and determine whether or not an expenditure was made in accordance with the provisions of the SDC Ordinance and ORS 223. If the City finds that the expenditure was not appropriate, the SDC account(s) must be reimbursed from other revenue sources. The City shall notify the person who submitted the challenge of the results of the review within 30 days following completion of the review. •::> FCS GROUP • City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 22 SECTION VIII : RECORD KEEPING A. RECORDS OF RECEIPTS All SDCs received should be listed in chronological order, with each record indicating the date received, the amounts received,the name and location of the development for which the SDC was paid,the number(s) of the building permit(s), and the name of the Applicant who paid the SDC. B. RECORDS OF INVESTMENTS Any funds on deposit in the SDC accounts that are not immediately necessary for expenditure may be invested by the City with all income derived from such investments deposited in the account. All investment transactions should include the date and a description of the transaction. C. RECORDS OF EXPENDITURES Records of disbursements should be recorded for each account and should include the date of the expenditure and the name of the specific capital improvement project for which the funds are expended. In the case of a refund, the date and name of the person receiving the refund should be recorded. D. TIMELINESS OF RECORDS Records of receipts and disbursements of SDCs shall be updated on the business day during which a transaction occurred. E. REPORTS The City is required by ORS 223 to prepare by January 1 of each year an annual report accounting for all receipts and expenditures of SDC revenues. The annual report must show the total amount of system development charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded in the previous fiscal year. It must also include a list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole or in part with system development charge revenues. 3.24.140 Segregation and Use of Revenue B. The Administrator shall provide an annual accounting of SDCs showing the total amount of system development charge revenues collected for each type of facility and the projects funded from the account. •:> FCS GROUP wwww.fcsgroup.com City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 23 APPENDIX •:•> FCS GROUP P "W' .fctigroup.cum City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 24 Appendix A: River Terrace District The River Terrace SDC overlay boundary is referenced by the City of Tigard Community Development Code Map 18.660. lig River Terrace Plan District 2t s. Pw Nand Boundary Q9 C) Q T1ga Oty Bwndr, Q, ‘451. YES RO SG�o`' 0PRR0 yS t 1 1 t 1 1 n t 1 1 t t t t 1 t r 1 M t r 1 1 SW BULL MOUNTAIN RD 1 1 t 1 "P.�'Trrr11 t7 rtt� 1 t r r 1 1 t � O � 1 n 1 w 1 t t7 O >. 0 •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 25 Appendix B: Transportation SDCs by Use (as of July 1, 2015) Tigard TSDC Rates by Selected Land Use Category(as of July 1,2015) Tigard TSDC Rate Per Peak Trip "C'3c' e< 4,7 ,-s'ed?, , Rates $483 $8,362 $1,104 ,.. .� SDC-1 River - SDC-I Terrace , Citywide River } Weekday SDC-R citywide Overlay Total Terrace 1 PM Peak- Pass Diverted ; I' PM Peak- charge charge charge , DC per Total TSDC dourTrips primary By Linked T• • ` it Hour p r• per Unit per Unit per Unit Unit per Unit 1,000 SFGFA 1.08 100% 100% 5.26 1.08 $522 $9,031 $1,192 $9,553 $10,745 130 indu a Tf..e„v .1,000 SFGFA 0.84 100% 100% 5.34 0.84 $406 $7,024 $927 $7,430 $8,357 z. 140 Manufacturing 1,000 SFGFA 0.75 100% 100% 3.03 0.75 $362 $6,272 $828 $6,634 $7,462 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 SFGFA 0.29 100% 100% 2.37 0.29 $140 $2,425 $320 $2,565 $2,885 160 Data Center 1,000 SFGFA 0.14 100% 100% 0.99 0.14 $68 $1,171 $155 $1,238 $1,393 210 Single-Family Detached Housing* Dwelling unit 1.02 100% 100% 9.45 1.02 $312 $5,402 $3,672 $5,714 $9,386 220 Apartment Dwelling unit 0.67 100% 100% 6.50 0.67 $182 $3,151 $2,142 $3,333 $5,475 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse -'Dwelling unit 0.52 100% 100% 5.65 0.52 $182 $3,151 $2,142 $3,333 $5,475 240 Mobile Home Pork • ODU 0.60 100% 100% 4.90 0.60 $290 $5,017 $662 $5,307 $5,969 254 Assisted Living Bed 0.35 100% 100% 2.56 0.35 $169 $2,927 $386 $3,096 $3,482 310 Hotel Room 0.61 100% 100% 7.86 0.61 $295 $5,101 $673 $5,395 $6,069 320 Motel Room 0.56 100% 100% 5.63 0.56 $270 $4,683 $618 $4,953 $5,571 411 City Park -'Acre 100% 100% 6.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 417 Regional Park Acre 0.26 100% 100% 4.99 0.26 $126 $2,174 $287 $2,300 $2,587 430 Golf Course 0.39 100% 100% 5.27 0.39 $188 $3,261 $431 $3,450 $3,880 492 Health/Fitness Club 1,000 SFGFA 4.06 100% 100% 30.32 4.06 $1,961 $33,950 $4,482 $35,911 $40,393 495 Recreational Community Center 1,000 SFGFA 3.35 100% 100% 27.40 3.35 $1,618 $28.013 $3,698 $29,631 $33,329 520 Elementary School 1,000 SFGFA 3.11 59% 41% 100% 7.12 1.83 $886 $15,343 $2,026 $16,230 $18,255 522 Middle School/Junior High School _' 1,000 SFGFA 2.52 59% 41% 100% 6.36 1.49 $718 $12,433 $1,641 $13,151 $14,792 530 High School 1,000 SFGFA 2.12 59% 41% 100% 5.95 1.25 $604 $10,459 $1,381 $11,063 $12,444 540 Junior/Community College 1,000 SFGFA 2.64 100% 100% 21.41 2.64 $1,275 $22,076 $2,915 $23,351 $26,265 560 Church 1,000 SFGFA 0.94 100% 100% 13.22 0.94 $454 $7,860 $1,038 $8,314 $9,352 565 Day Care Center 1,000 SFGFA 13.75 33% 67% 100% 18.02 4.54 $2,192 $37,943 $5,009 $40,134 $45,144 610 Hospital 1,000 SFGFA 1.16 100% 100% 12.17 1.16 $560 $9,700 $1,281 $10,260 $11,541 620 Nursing Home 7 1,000SFGFA 1.01 100% 100% 7.21 1.01 $488 $8,446 $1,115 $8,933 $10,048 710 General Office Building 31,000 SFGFA 1.49 100% 100% 8.38 1.49 $720 $12,459 $1,645 $13,179 $14,824 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 1,000 SFGFA 4.27 100% 100% 27.31 4.27 $2,062 $35,706 $4,714 $37,768 $42,482 750 Office Park 1,000 SFGFA 1.48 100% 100% 8.50 1.48 $715 $12,376 $1,634 $13,091 $14,725 760 Research and Development Cent 1,000 SFGFA 1.07 100% 100% 6.22 1.07 $517 $8,947 $1,181 $9,464 $10,645 770 Business Park 1,000 SFGFA 1.26 100% 100% 9.44 1.26 $609 $10,536 $1,391 $11,145 $12,536 812 Building Materials and Lumber Store ,". 1,000 SFGFA 5.56 100% 100% 43.13 5.56 $2,685 $46,493 $6,138 $49,178 $55,316 813 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 1,000 SFGFA 4.40 72% 28% 100% 38.46 3.17 $1,530 $26,491 $3,497 $28,021 $31,518 *FCS GROUP w*Iv J p. City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 26 Appendix B: Transportation SDCs by Use(continued) Ti•and TSDC Rates b Selected Land Use Cat-•or as of July 1,2015) Tigard TSDC Rate Per Peak Trip Trip Categories Adjusted Trip Rates 5483 58,362 $1,104 SDC-1 River SDC-I Terrace .•••se. River „„„ _ Weekday Weekday SDC-R citywide Overlay H I }, PM Peak- Pass Diverted PM Peak- charge charge charge - 1 0,1 t. lun,l u'. Hour Tri• 46.1......,`,..146.--Beim Iota Daily H. , 1,000 SFGFA 6.99 48% 17% 35% l: :% 3u.:.,, 3.34 $1,612 $27,910 $3,685 $29,522 $33,207 815 free-Standing Discount Store 1,000 SFGFA 5.57 48% 17% 35% 100% 28.22 2.66 $1,285 $22,240 $2,936 $23,525 $26.461 816 Hardware/Paint Store 1,000 SFGFA 4.74 45% 26% 30% 100% 25.91 2.11 $1,019 $17,638 $2.329 $18,657 $20,985 817 Nursery(Garden Center) 1,000 SFGFA 9.04 100% 100% 82.86 9.04 $4,366 $75,592 $9,980 $79,959 $89,939 820 Shopping Center 1,000 SFGLA 3.71 50% 34% 16% 100% 20.68 1.86 $898 $15,555 $2,054 $16,453 $18,507 826 Specialty Retail Center 1,000 SFGLA 5.02 100% 100% 40.58 5.02 $2,425 $41,977 $5,542 $44,402 $49,944 841 Automobile Sales 1,000 SFGFA 2.80 100% 100% 29.27 2.80 $1.352 $23,414 $3,091 $24,766 $27,857 843 Automobile Ports Sales 1,000 SFGFA 6.44 44% 43% 13% 100% 27.24 2.83 $1,369 $23,695 $3,128 $25,063 $28,191 848 Tire Store 1,000 SFGFA 3.26 69% 28% 3% 100% 17.08 2.24 $1,081 $18,719 $2,471 $19,800 $22,271 850 Supermarket '11,000 SFGFA 8.37 39% 36% 25% 100% 47.34 3.24 $1,567 $27,121 $3,581 $28,688 $32,268 851 Convenience Market(Open 24 Hours) 1,000 SFGFA 53.42 33% 61% 6% 100% 246.81 17.38 $8,392 $145,294 $19,183 $153,687 $172,869 857 Discount Club 1,000 SFGFA 4.63 100% 100% 42.35 4.63 $2,236 $38,716 $5,112 $40,952 $46,064 862 Home Improvement Superstore --1,000 SFGFA 3.17 44% 48% 8% 100% 16.73 1.39 $674 $11,663 $1,540 $12,337 $13,877 880 Pharmacy/Drugstore without Drive-Through 1,000 SFGFA 11.07 42% 53% 5% 100% 38.13 4.69 $2,263 $39,187 $5,174 $41,450 $46,624 881 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive-Through -1,000 SFGFA 9.72 38% 49% 13% 100% 36.83 3.69 $1,784 $30,886 $4,078 $32,670 $36,748 890 Furniture Store SFGFA 0.53 37% 53% 10% 100% 1.83 0.19 $94 $1,625 $215 $1,719 $1,933 911 Walk-in Bank 1,000 SFGFA 12.13 100% 100% 12.13 $5,859 $101,431 $13,392 $107,290 $120,681 912 Drive-in Bank 1,000 SFGFA 26.69 27% 47% 26% 100% 33.54 7.30 $3,524 $61,003 $8,054 $64,527 $72,581 925 Drinking Place 11,000 1,000SFGFA 15.49 100% 100% 15.49 $7.482 $129,527 $17,101 $137,009 $154,110 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000SFGFA 9.02 43% 44% 14% 100% 37.42 3.83 $1,852 $32,056 $4,232 $33,907 $38,139 932 High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 1,000 SFGFA 18.49 40% 43% 17% 100% 52.58 7.35 $3,550 $61,459 $8,114 $65,009 $73,123 934 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through1,000 SFGFA 47.30 41% 50% 9% 100% 219.07 19.37 $9,354 $161,945 $21,381 $171,299 $192,680 936 Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Throug r 1,000 SFGFA 25.81 40% 43% 17% 100% 10.26 $4,955 $85,790 $11,326 $90,745 $102,072 937 Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through 11,000 SFGFA 36.16 41% 50% 9% 100% 335.16 14.81 $7,151 $123,804 $16,345 $130,955 $147,300 938 Coffee/Donut Kiosk '1,000SFGFA 96.00 17% 83% 100% 306.00 16.32 $7,883 $136,468 $18,017 $144,350 $162,368 944 Gasoline/Service Station VFP 15.65 35% 42% 23% 100% 59.00 5.48 $2,646 $45,803 $6.047 $48,448 $54,496 945 Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience IVVFP 13.57 13% 56% 31% 100% 20.80 1.73 $837 $14,499 $1,914 $15,337 $17,251 4146. Saar j• a vrrth G,_1Mg•h VFP 14.52 24%P 49% 27% 100% 36.51 3.47_ $1,675 $29,005 $3,829 $30,680 $34,510 Source:ITE Trip Generation Handbook,9th Edition.•note,for single family detached rate calculations see Section IV of the Tigard SDC Procedures Manual. Abbreviations CFD commercial flights per day ODU occupied dwelling unit SFGFA square feet of gross floor area SFGLA square feet of gross leasable area VFP vehicle fueling position SDC-r SDC reimbursement fee SDC-i SDC improvement&compliance fee 4) FCS GROUP „wa•fesgroup.caail City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 27 Appendix C: System Development Charge Form City of Tigard System Development Charges APPLICATION AND CALCULATION WORKSHEET DATE: APPLICANT NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: PARCEL NUMBER OR SDC LOT NUMBER: LOCATION: BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: CURRENT USE(S): Site is Vacant Site Currently Has Residential Dwelling Units Number of Single-Family Dwelling Units Number of Multi-Family Dwelling Units Number of Manufactured Housing Dwelling Units Site Currently Has Non-Residential Structure(s) Size(s) Current Land Use(s) SDC CALCULATIONS SDC Exemption Request Is the proposed development in one of the following exempt categories? Alteration of existing building - no additional impacts. Accessory buildings or structures- no additional impacts. Mobile/manufactured home placement for a unit on which SDCs have already been paid. Temporary Use (less than 180 days). (EXPLAIN): OFFICIAL USE ONLY Exemption denied. Applicant may appeal denial. Exemption determination referred to City Council on (date) By: (Signature of City Official) • GROUP City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 28 SDC Credit Request If the development is donating or constructing a Qualified Public Improvement, a credit against the SDC may be available. A Qualified Public Improvement is a capital improvement required as a condition of development approval. To obtain an SDC Credit, the Applicant must submit a letter to the City specifically requesting a credit prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Development. In the request, the Applicant must identify the improvement(s)for which Credit is sought and explain how the improvement(s) meet the requirements for a Qualified Public Improvement. The Applicant must also document the value of the improvement(s)for which Credit is sought. SDC Credit is Requested Alternative SDC Rate Calculation Request An Applicant may request an Alternative SDC Rate Calculation if the Applicant believes that the impact on facilities resulting from the development will be less than the rates established in the SDC Methodology Report. In support of the Alternative SDC Rate request, the Applicant must provide complete and detailed documentation. Alternative SDC Rate Calculation is Requested SDC Calculation Worksheet Single Family Detached Residential SDC Rates (1) (2) (3) (4) Type of SDC SDC Per Dwelling Unit # Units Total Citywide TSDC Imp.* $ 5,402 RiverTerrace TSDC Imp.* $ 3,672 Transportation-Reimb. Fee $ 312 Water $ 7,930 Wastewater $ 4,900 Stormwater $ 500 Citywide Parks SDC Imp.* $ 5,807 RiverTerrace Parks SDC Imp.*$ 2,502 Parks Reimbursement Fee $1,017 Total *includes administration fee. Non-Residential SDC Rates (See Table 1 for appropriate SDC Rates) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Type of SDC Unit of Number of SDC (Transportation, Water,Wastewater, etc.) Measure Units Rate Fee •:;> FCS GROUP City of Tigard System Development Charge Administrative Procedures Guide April 2015 page 29 OFFICIAL USE ONLY TOTAL SDC FEES: Less: CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTION OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ( ) Less: ALLOWANCE FOR EXISTING USES (-I (expansion or redevelopment) NET SDCs DUE: FCSGROUP www.fcsgroup.com P eRK NS COIe 1121)NW Couch Street 0 +1.503.727.2000 10th Floor 0 +1.503.727.7222 Portland,OR 97209-4128 perkinscoie.com April 28, 2015 Michael C.Robinson MRobinson Wperkinscoie.com o (503)727-2264 F (503)346-2264 VIA EMAIL SUPPLEM gLp o CKE T FOR ri ENT l John Cook, Mayor (DATE OF MEETING), City of Tigard City Council Al. d w ` YH't/ Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: April 28, 2015 Legislative Hearing on Storm Water, Parks,and Transportation System Development Charges and Fees; Testimony by West Hills Development Company Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the Tigard City Council: This office represents West Hills Development Company ("West Hills"). West Hills is an owner and developer of property in the River Terrace Plan District. West Hills has asked me to send this letter to the City Council on its behalf concerning the proposed transportation and parks System Development Charges ("SDCs"). As an initial matter, because of the volume and complexity of the materials before the City Council in this hearing, West Hills requests that the City Council continue the public hearing to a date certain no earlier than two(2) weeks from today and leave the record open for public testimony through the continued hearing date. As the City Council knows,this legislative ordinance is not subject to the 120-day provision in ORS 227.178(3) and,therefore, the City Council is not bound to make the final decision within a certain amount of time. West Hills' issues are related to the proposed transportation and parks SDCs. The issues identified in this letter are only a summary of West Hills concern and West Hills will provide additional argument and evidence prior to and at the continued City Council hearing. 1. Transportation System Development Charges. A. West Hills believes that the River Terrace transportation SDCs are too high. In fact,the chart in the presentation to the City Council shows that the River Terrace SDCs will be the second highest of seventeen(17) SDC comparisons. West Hills requires more time to evaluate the impact on the development of their property. West Hills notes that there is an approximately 40 percent premium for transportation SDCs in the River Terrace Plan District as opposed to transportation SDCs in other parts of the City. This is a tremendous burden for property developers and homeowners in the River Terrace Plan District to absorb. 37 1 6 5-0020/LEG AI.125844935.1 -'1-1 l*, [l l' gt John Cook, Mayor April 28,2015 Page 2 B. West Hills is concerned about the listed cost of the proposed public road projects in the River Terrace Plan District. The roads will be built by property developers,such as West Hills,and credits applied against the payment of SDCs. West Hills understands that property owners will be eligible for 100 percent of the capacity portion of a public road and 50 percent of the local portion. The City will not build the roads;the roads will be privately built and the SDCs collected from the private developers. Because private developers will be constructing the roads and relying on credits to partly offset the cost of the transportation SDCs,West Hills is concerned that the City may be over-collecting SDCs based on the proposed rates if the estimated costs of the roads prove to be too high. C. West Hills opposes scaled SDCs(i.e.: SDCs based on the size of a dwelling unit). To the best of West Hills knowledge, this methodology has not been used anywhere in Oregon and is thus unproven. Moreover, West Hills has not had the opportunity to review the source materials used by the City's consultant to justify this untested approach. D. Washington County anticipates enacting a Major Street Transportation Improvement Program("MSTIP")bond program to help build major roads in new areas such as the River Terrace Plan District. The MSTIP would apply to Roy Rogers Road. The City should consider the MSTIP bond program in the financing plan so that SDC rates can be reduced. West Hills expects the Washington County Board of Commissioners to adopt the MSTIP bond program by the end of 2015. E. It is unclear who is responsible for constructing Roy Rogers Road and what transportation SDC credits will be available. 2. Parks System Development Charges. A. West Hills appreciates that ORS Chapter 223 authorizes a reimbursement system development charge. It is unclear to West Hills that the reimbursement SDC for parks is appropriately applied to the River Terrace Plan District. B. It is unclear to West Hills who will be responsible for funding and building parks in the River Terrace Plan District. If private developers are responsible for park construction, then the same issue applies to the proposed parks SDCs that applies to the proposed transportation SDCs;that is,the SDCs may be artificially high. C. West Hills does not understand why developers are required to pay both a citywide parks SDC and a River Terrace parks SDC. West Hills believes that the River Terrace Parks SDCs should be included in the citywide parks SDCs so there is one citywide parks SDCs. As a practical matter, there will be no limitation on use of parks by Tigard residents. Residents 37165-0020/LE0AL 125844935.I Pei km.,Cue LLP r John Cook, Mayor April 28,2015 Page 3 outside of the River Terrace Plan District will be able to use the River Terrace Plan District parks. 3. Conclusion. West Hills appreciates all of the time and work that City staff,City consultants, Planning Commission members,and City Council members have spent on the proposed system development charge and fee program. Nevertheless, West Hills believes there are important and substantial questions that remain to be answered. Therefore,additional time is needed before the City Council takes action on this proposed ordinance. As noted in the beginning of this letter, West Hills respectfully requests that the City Council continue the public hearing so that it and other interested persons may submit additional argument and evidence for the City Council's consideration. Very truly yours, klko e ROA- Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsr cc: Mr. Wally Remmers(via email) Mr. Dan Grimberg(via email) Mr. Mike Peebles(via email) 37165-0020/LEGAL 125844935.1 Perkirn Cue LLF' In e/'I€d 41 7`es 717.1 on et • -Fn r , rn t+/4 /err' 6 P e R K I N S CO I p► 1120 NW[ouch Sl 0 +1.503.727.21)00 `�UPPLEMENTAI,PACK 11 ))r�97209 v 4 i z� O + 501777. P 222 FOR Y- av /�s- (PAT OF MEETING) April 28, 2015 Michael C.Robinson M Rob inson(i perkinscoic.com I). (503)727-2264 F (503)346-2264 VIA EMAIL John Cook, Mayor City of Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: April 28, 2015 Legislative Hearing on Storm Water, Parks, and Transportation System Development Charges and Fees; Testimony by West Hills Development Company Dear Mayor Cook and Members of the Tigard City Council: This office represents West Hills Development Company ("West Hills"). West Hills is an owner and developer of property in the River Terrace Plan District. West Hills has asked me to send this letter to the City Council on its behalf concerning the proposed transportation and parks System Development Charges("SDCs"). As an initial matter, because of the volume and complexity of the materials before the City Council in this hearing, West Hills requests that the City Council continue the public hearing to a date certain no earlier than two(2)weeks from today and leave the record open for public testimony through the continued hearing date. As the City Council knows, this legislative ordinance is not subject to the 120-day provision in ORS 227.178(3)and, therefore, the City Council is not bound to make the final decision within a certain amount of time. West Hills' issues are related to the proposed transportation and parks SDCs. The issues identified in this letter are only a summary of West Hills concern and West Hills will provide additional argument and evidence prior to and at the continued City Council hearing. 1. Transportation System Development Charges. A. West Hills believes that the River Terrace transportation SDCs are too high. In fact, the chart in the presentation to the City Council shows that the River Terrace SDCs will be the second highest of seventeen (17) SDC comparisons. West Hills requires more time to evaluate the impact on the development of their property. West Hills notes that there is an approximately 40 percent premium for transportation SDCs in the River Terrace Plan District as opposed to transportation SDCs in other parts of the City. This is a tremendous burden for property developers and homeowners in the River Terrace Plan District to absorb. 37 1 6 5-002 0/ EUA1,125844435.I • r:ihid i i I' John Cook, Mayor April 28, 2015 Page 2 B. West Hills is concerned about the listed cost of the proposed public road projects in the River Terrace Plan District. The roads will be built by property developers, such as West Hills,and credits applied against the payment of SDCs. West Hills understands that property owners will be eligible for 100 percent of the capacity portion of a public road and 50 percent of the local portion. The City will not build the roads; the roads will be privately built and the SDCs collected from the private developers. Because private developers will be constructing the roads and relying on credits to partly offset the cost of the transportation SDCs,West Hills is concerned that the City may be over-collecting SDCs based on the proposed rates if the estimated costs of the roads prove to be too high. C. West Hills opposes scaled SDCs(i.e.: SDCs based on the size of a dwelling unit). To the best of West Hills knowledge, this methodology has not been used anywhere in Oregon and is thus unproven. Moreover, West Hills has not had the opportunity to review the source materials used by the City's consultant to justify this untested approach. D. Washington County anticipates enacting a Major Street Transportation Improvement Program ("MSTIP")bond program to help build major roads in new areas such as the River Terrace Plan District. The MSTIP would apply to Roy Rogers Road. The City should consider the MSTIP bond program in the financing plan so that SDC rates can be reduced. West Hills expects the Washington County Board of Commissioners to adopt the MSTIP bond program by the end of 2015. E. It is unclear who is responsible for constructing Roy Rogers Road and what transportation SDC credits will be available. 2. Parks System Development Charges. A. West Hills appreciates that ORS Chapter 223 authorizes a reimbursement system development charge. It is unclear to West Hills that the reimbursement SDC for parks is appropriately applied to the River Terrace Plan District. B. It is unclear to West Hills who will be responsible for funding and building parks in the River Terrace Plan District. If private developers are responsible for park construction, then the same issue applies to the proposed parks SDCs that applies to the proposed transportation SDCs; that is, the SDCs may be artificially high. C. West l-lills does not understand why developers are required to pay both a citywide parks SDC and a River Terrace parks SDC. West Hills believes that the River Terrace Parks SDCs should be included in the citywide parks SDCs so there is one citywide parks SDCs. As a practical matter, there will be no limitation on use of parks by Tigard residents. Residents 37 1 6 5-002 0/LE_(IA L 1 25844935.1 :'i r, 1,or 1.1.1' John Cook, Mayor April 28, 2015 Page 3 outside of the River Terrace Plan District will be able to use the River Terrace Plan District parks. 3. Conclusion. West Hills appreciates all of the time and work that City staff, City consultants, Planning Commission members,and City Council members have spent on the proposed system development charge and fee program. Nevertheless, West Hills believes there are important and substantial questions that remain to be answered. Therefore, additional time is needed before the City Council takes action on this proposed ordinance. As noted in the beginning of this letter, West Hills respectfully requests that the City Council continue the public hearing so that it and other interested persons may submit additional argument and evidence for the City Council's consideration. Very truly yours, e Michael C. Robinson MCR:rsr cc: Mr. Wally Remmers(via email) Mr. Dan Grimberg(via email) Mr. Mike Peebles (via email) 371 6 5-1102 0/LEGA1.125844935.1 alt:-,n.11cI.It' f ,4n4 /Irmtuq 057LIlfCJ AIS-1889 7. Business Meeting l ti m-1-119- Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects Prepared For: Lori Faha Submitted By: Judy Lawhead, Public Works Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE The council will be briefed on several Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is requested;the council is asked to listen to the briefing. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In order to keep the council informed on the status of current CIP projects, staff will provide regular project briefings. Several projects will be discussed at this meeting. See attached powerpoint slides. A table of CIP project and budget information will be prepared as soon as updated quarterly fiscal information is available and will be placed in the Thursday newsletter packet. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Not applicable COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Staff provides the council with regular briefings on the status of CIP projects. The last briefing was on February 17,2015. Attachments 2015-04-28 CIP Update 4/8/2015 C I T Y O F T I G A R D Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing Get it Done T14ARD Capital Improvement Project Update FY 2014-15 Third Quarter Tigard City Council Meeting I April 28,2015 (. 11 t ) I I I t Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper—Spruce Street gyp •• J1i• " /Q Y. • • 1 4/8/2015 LQC- Spruce Street III .....r, 1.,7_ : ti.J.--v.... 4401 y r �4 s r � t I/ , . . . ,. . I I I 1 O I' I I ( \ R t) Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper—N Dakota i • itia 3 s } .,, i . ,,. ...„ fa ,'" ' 2 4/8/2015 LQC-North Dakota Sidewalk f, w lt Summerlake Park Restrooms are underway! i 3 4/8/2015 99W/Gaarde/McDonald IIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINII ■ Water line crossing ' is„i::aat7 'fey complete 4 `••4 ? . ■ . � 4 ► Utility relocation A<< : rt � complete e,,,s..,.,,' ' '}- ' ■ Most retaining walls 1.'41' complete . , • Roadway widening in , progress ' '" C I T Y O F I I C .\ It D 9o)\\ ; (.,,t,ud►c AI.I)On.ildl Water line ,,.--._ M. crossing: '1 '--r.-- '��*. w launching the —.1 �------..�- 1� first casing [ a ^ 1 ., and auger... 1 Si lit ' tip / Ti 1+ 1 1 4 4/8/2015 99W/Gaarde/McDonald Water line _ •_ . , crossing: ; excavation tetk It I) Pavement Overlays & Crack Sealing 040. } y • • ZC rilisollibik y y r 5 4/8/2015 (' I 1' V U I• '1' 1 c, .\ R ll Pavement Management Program - I (, v is n Congrats to Engineering's Carla Staedter! TRK recognized Carla for: y • Efforts to mediate t 4f conflicts with wetlands --,, with the public, b r • Work with TRK's education program at Dirksen Nature Park, • Cooperative work on restoration projects such as plantings at Cook Park. 6 4/8/2015 Kudos for Derry Dell Creek Restoration: _elf: After Before 7 AI S-2215 8. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/28/2015 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Upcoming Contract Discussion-Downtown Entryway Monuments Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett,Financial and Information Services Item Type: Update,Discussion,Direct Staff Meeting Type: Local Contract Review Board Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Discussion of potential public improvement contract for the construction of the downtown entryway monuments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff is seeking Council direction on any additional information or direction they would like to see in preparation of an award decision for this proposed contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city is looking to construct gateway improvements at one or both intersections of Main Street and Pacific Highway. Improvements at the sites include 237 lineal feet of wall with natural stone facing,'Welcome to Downtown Tigard" signage and seating,landscaping,artwork base,electrical and water utilities. This project will implement the City Center Urban Renewal Plan and the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan. The prominence of the gateway and artwork will help attract new visitors to downtown and assist in place making for the downtown and the city. This project is supported by Council/Board of the City Center Development Agency and the City Center Advisory Commission. Public art was identified in the Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan as an important element"to bring more vitality to the downtown experience by creating a set of interconnected places and emphasizing the flow of people,history,and nature." The Tigard Downtown Alliance and others have also identified art as an important component to a vital downtown and has organized events like the Tigard Art Walk this May. On January 7,2014 the CCDA Board approved the"Petals"concept by artist Brian Borrello that was recommended by the CCAC and the CCAC Public Art Subcommittee. Mr. Borrello has completed fabrication of the 16 foot tall steel sculptures. The pieces have been reviewed by a structural engineer. An art conservation specialist has also reviewed it for durability and ease of maintenance. The city has an IGA with ODOT to allow a project which is technically ODOT right-of-way. ODOT reviewed sight distances and issued a permit in September,2014. The city contracted with Koch Landscape Architecture on a plan for the gateway area landscaping lighting plan,and stonework in conjunction with the base for the artwork. It will feature a stone wall,including built-in seating made of rock,similar to the Hall Boulevard and Burnham Street gateway. It will feature the message'Welcome to Downtown Tigard." The artwork would rest on a mounded area behind the wall (approximately 8 feet above grade) to make the artwork highly visible,which was considered a priority by the CCAC Public Art Subcommittee,CCAC and CCDA. The landscape architect had provided a rough estimate of$150,000 for the gateways before any design work had begun.The significantly higher final costs are mainly due to 1) the length and height of wall and stone veneer;2) the fact that this stone wall is serving as a retaining wall for the mounded earth (unlike the Burnham Street and Hall Boulevard gateway);and 3) the cost to install electric utilities for lighting. The city issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the construction of the gateway improvements on March 23rd. Public Notice of the project ran in both the Daily Journal of Commerce and the Tigard Times. The work detailed under the ITB consisted of the following: 1.Mobilization,Traffic Control,Erosion Control,Clearing and Grubbing 2.Excavation,Embankment,and Grading 3.Installation of Gateway Walls with Natural Stone Veneer Finish 4.Installation of Wall Drainage 5.Installation of Concrete Hardscape and Sidewalk. 6.Installation of Landscaping and Irrigation 7.Electrical Work including.Monument Lighting,Circuits,and Conduit,etc. 8.Performance of additional and incidental work as called for by the specifications and plans. Three bid schedules in the Invitation to Bid: 1.A Base Bid—Build the South Gateway only. 2.Alternate 1 —Build the North Gateway concurrent with the South Gateway. 3.Alternate 2—Build the North Gateway 12 to 18 months after the South Gateway. The city asked for these alternatives to give flexibility into the construction schedule to allow for any funding issues that may have arisen. The ITB was clear to bidders that the city would determine low bidder based either on the Base Bid or Alternative 1,whichever the city had budget appropriation to complete depending on CCDA and LCRB decisions. A mandatory pre-bid meeting and site visit was held on March 31st as staff felt it was vital that potential bidders understand the project and the potential traffic and staging issues with the sites. Four potential bidders attended this meeting. The closing date for the ITB was April 7th and the city received bids from three firms. The results of those bids are as follows: Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Firm South Entryway Concurrent Build Phased Build Lee Contractors $171,400 $349,000 $361,400 Subcom Excavation,LLC $226,447 $454,147 $474,147 Paul Brothers,Inc. $233,323 $480,162 $516,433 Staff has vetted these bids and has determined that Lee Contractors has submitted the lowest responsible bid for both the Base Bid and Alternative 1. Lee Contractors is not listed on the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries list of ineligible contractors and has had no disciplinary actions by the State Construction Contractors Board. In addition,Lee Contractors was recently a subcontractor on the city's 72nd/Dartmouth project and performed solid work on the retaining walls on that project. Given these facts and the provided quotes from Lee Contractors,staff will be recommending they receive the contract for Alternative 1, construction of both Gateways concurrently,in the amount of$349,000 at the May 12th business meeting. Staff is requesting guidance from the CCDA Board whether to pursue this course of action or if only the South Gateway should be constructed at this time.This decision will be placed in context with other urban renewal budget priorities. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Direct staff to bring forth an award recommendation based on construction of the South Gateway(Base Bid) only. (A reduction of$177,600 from the recommendation from staff but only one gateway built.) Direct staff to bring forth an award recommendation based on a phased construction approach (Alternative 2) with the South Gateway built now and the North Gateway constructed in the next 18 months. (An increase of $12,400 from the recommendation from staff.) Direct staff to reject all bids and rescope the project for a more economical alternative. The rough estimate for the redesign is between$25,000 and$40,000. Direct staff to reject all bids and place the project on hold. COUNCIL GOALS,POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal#2 Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be •Strengthen downtown's identity by completing gateway improvements and install art at both Main Street entrances. Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION March 3,2015: Receive update on Main Street art and gateway design. September 2,2014:Main Street Gateway Art Update January 7,2014:Consider Approval of the CCAC/Public Art Subcommittee Recommended Gateway Art Concept October 1,2013 July 23,2013 May 7,2013 March 6,2012 r- Fiscal Impact Cost: $349,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Indirectly Where budgeted?: CCDA Additional Fiscal Notes: The cost of building the two gateways concurrently is $349,000. This is an estimated$12,400 less than a phased construction approach. The CCDA budget has close to $400,000 to use on this project that was previously allocated to a property purchase that ended up being eligible for parks bond funds. Attachments No file(s)attached AgendaQuick©2005-2015 Destiny Software Inc.,All Rights Reserved SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 04/29/2015 FOR n / (OAT OF MEETING) A Controversy in Pu ' Iic Art All public art is inherently controversial. You're putting a piece of art there and sayin ., `This represents all of us. AniR .k` ou do that, yo '1,th23 peo . who stand up an • say, That doesn't represent me.' It goes with the territory. • 1 LIB N 0 N Ql N O � r 'mow_ �3 j 41--. ,� k !i re 4 .. �: _� 7 4 _. .) ill, 4 ,.. . ... ?.....-- ,-,r Ai ' , . t. r' ' II 4 II . . • g--- 1■ I Pr I - i' 1 \ 1"1 •:':'I. ■- •v *sir' A _,.. • . , . , . ... , . ......,... .. . ; „ . ........, ,: ._...._, , i ,t.1 '4 Ii- I• . - , I . in 12 1 , e 71.1114 11111111!''\ ' irYYFi.,r1/sue IM 11 .. : gi r 04/29/2015 "If you took a Calder and put it next to a pile of welded junk and didn't tell the average person which was which, 99 out of 100 people wouldn't know the difference." 1 lee Ititil. il ,! T i r sil %Ill tt kkbl .re r /.1k ,,,,, ... ..,k k ,S1 . ..:\- ' 1 ' - "' 4 4 ' ' "IA ''' .../' 111V.,7„, ..-\ dirrigglIMPRIE ""1161P ling' 3 04/29/2015 BIG RED THING 11 GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN "This thing looks like it was constructed by a manic pipe welder who forgot to take his Prozac." "Whoever approved this so-called `sculpture' should go back to school and take more art appreciation classes" 04/29/2015 F 1 . j , 4 ,* . . i' _ ., , Finr" - \ & . , iintin_ _ _ ,,,;) ...„ ____ . ,,,,, ie.._ 4 yr+ --f"' r �'. : BEsT !B 0 0 „,,,, . 4 ..:.„„............ CV El Paso Times is honored to present the result of the 2014 BEST of the BORDER polling! We are pleased to announce the Best of the Border 2014 winners as selected by the El Paso community. Best Public Art Display: The El Paso City's 1-10 Artwork 04/29/2015 At) I r j y - 0 ilkilt 1 / :I°,,. 6 04/29/2015 a - . ly .. 4, ,vcS er 'q'Y? 4 ir.'1 "'► • • ;W• 440 City of Tigard, Oregon ®® IN Affidavit of Posting T I GARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) jJ-0 8 STA LL OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, A,4 Tin4 di(el-- being first duly sworn , by oath depose and s That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number 1 5 OS ,which were adopted at the City Council meeting of t&4_( d8, Jo/5 ,with a copy/of said Ordinance, 'being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 7' day of /ft ,20 %5-r--- 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall`Blvd., Tigard, Oregon ----) I Ajj/iiG / ///' / Signature of Person why..Pe formed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this c t day of A44:117_ , 20 IS- . ,�_'', ` cwt 5 T A ki i �,.�,,,�., OFFICIAL STAMP ! `=', CAROL ANN KRAGER 4 NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON Signature of Notary Public for egon \r.�.x>� COMMISSION NO. 924954 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 10,2018 I:\admlrzlhyVonns\noel ordinance 2006.doc