The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/09/2016 a City of Tigard ® Tigard City Council Meeting Agenda TIGARD February 9, 2016 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 6:30 p.m. estimated time B. BRIEFING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS 6:45 p.m. estimated time Administrative Items: 7:00 p.m. estimated time • Council Liaison Roles—City Manager Wine Council Meeting Calendar February 2 Tuesday City Center Development Agency/Council Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 4 Thursday Mayor's State of the City Address—6:30-8:30 p.m.,Indio Spirits, 7272 SW Durham Rd.,#100 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15 Monday Presidents Day,City Hall Closed;Library Open 16* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall March 1 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall April 5 Tuesday City Center Development Agency Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 19* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (*). AIS-2506 B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 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 Meeting Type: Council Staff Workshop Mtg. Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE The council will be briefed on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects status for the second quarter of FY16. 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. The attached file will be shown as a PowerPoint presentation at the meeting, providing a status summary for CIP projects currently underway that are managed by Engineering. • Copies of project status reports will be provided to the council in the Thursday, January 14, City Council Newsletter. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS FACILITIES M Project Name: Permit Center/City Hall/Police Building Wall Repairs Project Manager: Kim McMillan i = Project Number: 91013 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T I c.A R t) The Exterior Insulation Finishing System(EIFS)stucco had numerous points of water intrusion resulting in interior and exterior wall damage.The points of water intrusion have been fixed and the exterior finish will be repaired and painted.After the Description exterior is repaired and upgraded with new paint and trim,the landscaping around all buildings will be updated.Concrete work near building entrance will be done to bring ADA ramps into compliance. * LRS Architects-Closed * Northwest Playground-Closed Scope • On Target * Oh Planning&Design-6/30/16 * Carlson Testing-Closed Schedule • On Target * Mears-12/31/151/31/15 * 7 Dees Landscaping-6/30/16 Contracts Budget • On Target * Applied Restoration-6/30/16 * Concrete Cons.-12/31/15 2/28/16 * G2-Contract Managed in Risk * Davey Tree Expert-PO * Sound Exterior Ins.-Closed Total Project Budget Total project%spent:74% .68,524 Internal $79,858 I Project Manager's total project External $1,278,503 $1,730,517 estimated%complete:95% Project Budget FY2015/16 $16,448 IInternal 01 $25,838 External $617,934 $980,262 O O O O O© O O I (i i f I I f , I f I I I t I $ t it I I ,b ,tib ,yb ,y 1y �y ti� tih ,tis ,tib i ,tiro Tyro II �� etf Oeo 1J PpQi �Q O`ti boa OAC >aF ke`0 4a`• Project Schedule 1.Construction Phase 1 begins 5.Landscaping begins 1-€44-5 mid 11/15 2. Construction Phase 1 complete 6.Sidewalk/ramp work begins 10/1/15 11/15 to 12/15 3.Construction Phase 2 begins 7.Courtyard lights installed 4.Construction Phase 2 complete 8.Electronic sign installation * Landscaping contractors are on site finishing up the installation of plants Snapshot of Work * The new ADA ramps have been constructed.City crews are paving patch areas around new concrete work and Schedule * Working on punch list Progress * A programmable electronic monument sign will be installed as an upgrade to the existing sign at the entry driveway off Hall Boulevard LOOK AHLAD * Completion of all work Upcoming Work Items Risks/Issues Changes FACILITIES Project Name: Police Locker Room-Concept Plan Only Project Manager: Kim McMillan ? ■ ~ Project Number: 91014 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 11c;AH1) This Concept Plan is being developed to expand the men's and women's locker rooms on the west side of the existing Police building.The extent of the addition will be determined during the first phase of the project but is anticipated to be up to 15 feet Description wide by 50 feet long(length of existing men's and women's locker rooms).Two interior accessed showers for all staff will be considered as part of the conceptual design as an add alternate component. Scope 0 On Target * Mackenzie-6/30/16 Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target FY2015/16-Concept Plan Only $1.339 Project Budget Total project%spent: 20% Internal 111 $4,000 $4,473 Project Manager's total project External 111111111 $25,000 estimated%complete:50% O O I I I I I I + t I I Project Schedule ''' 1y by �`I by ti� ,tiro tiro yto yto 4.(..) �i; �� O`er +off OCL lac • <I �a� elcr �t� ,J�'ti 1.Preliminary concept 2.Concept Plan complete Snapshot of Work * Preliminary estimates are high.The team is evaluating what is driving costs up and may look at value and Schedule engineering options Progress LOOK AHEAD * Provide input to Citywide Facilities Plan Upcoming Work * Develop concept alternatives and select one to develop a budget range Items * Need to determine if design and construction should be budgeted starting FY2017,preliminary budget Risks/Issues estimates are higher than expected Changes FACILITIES Project Name: Citywide Facilities Plan Project Manager: Kim McMillan i e Project Number: 91020 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1 i t,A tt n The existing 20-year facilities plan(developed in 2008)is in need of updating or being replaced.A space and facilities strategic Description plan is needed to not only determine the best use of existing space but to also determine the best strategy for long-term needs. The space planning includes assessment of staff,Police,recreation and other community needs. Scope • On Target * MWA Architects-6/30/16 Schedule 0 Minor Issue Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent: 1% i S1.916 Project Budget Internal $5,000 $2,153 Project Manager's total project External $295 000 estimated%complete:0% II I - ._ I 1 I I I Project Schedule w' ti tih tih tih ti� ti° 'yrO 1rO 0 ti� �t0 . '111 P$ it( O& C c cf a� Cho Oe la �e P� 1J 1.Issue RFP *Final schedule is under development * Final schedule is under development Snapshot of Work * A Request for Proposal(RFP)was prepared and issued and Schedule Progress * Proposals were due 1/27/16;only one was submitted and determined to be incomplete LOOK AHEAD * Refine and re-issue request for consultant proposals Upcoming Work * Consultant selection Items * Negotiate scope and fee * Establish new schedule,reflecting delay due to lack of consultant proposals • Project schedule and budget will need to carry into FY2017 Risks/Issues Changes PARKS Project Name: Dirksen Nature Park-Education Center Project Manager: Jeff Peck ■ Project Number: 92016 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I I G A K t) A portable classroom is being renovated and improved to house nature education programs at Dirksen Nature Park. The Description project will add hardscape and a LIDA water quality facility at the parking lot,a new porch,new doors,a new roof,deck and ADA accessible railing. Scope • On Target * Lee Contractors-6/30/16 Schedule • On Target Contracts * Morgan Holen-1/30/16 Budget • On Target Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:11% $13,416 Budget Internal r $10,000 Project g Project Manager's total project $3,150 estimated%complete:45% External $139,852 I _ I 1 ( I I 4.1 1h 7h by tih tih sb 40 .yto tib tiro Project Schedule �� P �� o�� o� d" �� PQM, 4s1 �J� 1.Design complete 3.Substantial completion 2.Permitting Snapshot of Work * Drainage pipe installed and Schedule * Porch framing in progress Progress * Siding in progress LOOK AHEAD * Reroof building Upcoming Work * Complete LIDA facility Items Risks/Issues * Construction contract was rescoped to eliminate concrete pathway because construction bids came in Changes higher than expected-new amount is$115,886 PARKS Go Project Name: Dirksen Nature Park-Oak Savanna Restoration Project Manager: Carla Staedter i i Project Number: 92016 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T I(,A k 1) A nine acre area o Dirksen Nature Park houses some remnant Oregon white oak populations. This area is being restored back to a native oak savanna to be used for education and enjoyment by the public. The project will remove non-native trees,shrubs Description and grasses. Native grasses and wildflowers will be planted along with additional oak trees and a native shrub hedge around the savanna. A walking trail through the savanna will be lined on each side with rustic buck and pole fencing made from trees taken down as part of the restoration. Scope • On Target * Ash Creek Forest Mgmt.-6/30/19 Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:20% $10,052 Intema1 11.III. $40,000 11 Project Manager's total project External $54,323 $272000 estimated%complete: 35% Project Budget FY2015/16 I $10,052 InternalMO $10,000 Eate mal $54,323 $116,000 ©© ©0 O O I ►, I f f ! I f I I I I f $ i 7 ti� tih by ti`s 7 yco N. ((O 41n 0 ti� yot Project Schedule N\ Poi q' opt v-'94. oe'C ‘1..4st(ees 4'a N9 4s1' �aJ l' 1s),�� 1. Fall spray 4.Tree removal complete for 2015 2. Buck and pole fencing construction begins 5.Buck and pole fencing complete 3.Plant camas 6.Spring spray Snapshot of Work * Buck and pole fencing construction in progress and Schedule * Ongoing spray of non-native shrubs and trees Progress * Completed report to DEQ regarding supplemental funds use LOOK AHEAD * Continue work on buck and pole fencing Upcoming Work * Partial planting of shrub buffers to be completed in February 2016 Items * Spring spraying of non-native vegetation continues Risks/Issues Changes PARKS Project Name: Tigard Street Trail Project Manager: Lori Faha(Interim) i ■ Project Number: 92034 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 t I t,A It 1 ) The city has signed a lease for the use of the inactive railroad corridor from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street.FY15/16 includes Description internal budget only to continue the search for grant opportunities.If the city receives a grant,this project will create a bike/ped path and amenities including fencing,lighting,landscaping and art features.This project is related to LQC 98009 which used porous paving material to create a pathway in advance of the full project. Scope • On Target * Walker Macy-Closed " Does not include extra design work Schedule • Major Issue Contracts * CESS NW-Closed by CD Budget • On Target * AMEC-Closed Total Project Budget Total project%spent:3% I $11,592 Internal $75,000* Project Manager's total project $39,049 estimated%complete:3% External $1,425,000* Project Budget FY2015/16 I5 976 Internal $10,000 External'$0 O O O I II 5 I I I I I I t Project Schedule �. Joh GP o yam, cue ' o'� ,y�~� <4' �� c� c� S'' 1 P 5 06 4* >a k'it`' 0 4" �J \`) 1.Paving the temporary path complete 3.Grant notification August 2016 2.November 20,2015,Connect Oregon grant application Snapshot of Work * Project is on hold,apart from grant application effort,until grant funding can be acquired and Schedule * Applied for 2015 Connect Oregon grant.Partial matching funds committed from Washington County Progress * Preliminary concept design was completed in prior years LOOK AHEAD * Await word on grant application Upcoming Work Items Risks/Issues Changes PARKS r Project Name: Fanno Creek Trail Connection(RFFA) Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i i Project Number: 92046 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 TIGARD w This project constructs four segments of the Fanno Creek Trail.Segment 1-Grant Avenue to Woodard Park,Segment 2-Ash Description Avenue to Flail Boulevard,Segment 3-City Library to Bonita Road,Segment 4-85th Avenue(south of Durham Road)to the Tualatin River.There is a separate CIP(#92013-The Fanno Creek Remeander)which will realign the trail from Main Street to Ash Avenue.The Regional Flexible Funds Grant is federal dollars. Scope • On Target Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget $20,779 Total project%spent: 1% Internal $429,107 Project Manager's total project External $4,370,893 estimated%complete:1% Project Budget I FY2015/16 I $14,436 Internal $169,107 External $450,893 O O Project Schedule tiltihPJ '',, 49 .s'4.1 omaby o°by 4,1 (0 to~ ~ rKi (.(¢ e`e PQ`~ e ,J /' J 1.Scoring design proposals 2.Design work begins Snapshot of Work * ODOT preliminary review process and Schedule * Intergovernmental agreement development Progress * Reviewed and scored consultant proposals LOOK AHEAD * IGA with ODOT Upcoming Work * Select consultant team Items * Design and construction contracts will be run through ODOT Risks/Issues * ODOT procurement process may impact schedule Changes PARKS as Project Name: Tiedeman Trail/Fanno Creek Crossing Project Manager: Carla Staedter • Project Number: 92051 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1 I i.,A is t t' With the Open Spaces Bond Measure,Metro will fund the design and construction of the Tiedeman Connection gap in the Description Fanno Creek Trail.The project will realign the trail near Tiedeman Avenue to address safety Issues.Construction will include a new pedestrian bridge over Fanno Creek. Scope • On Target * IGA-Metro Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:0% Internal $ Project Manager's total project External $660,000 estimated%complete: 3% Project Budget FY2015/16 Internal - $ I External $ III I if j I 1 i' 1 I I f $ I 1 �y 0.." j •4:i 0 a�40 l40 �~ 1b `tib ti� 40 `Ca ,4 `tO y9r Project Schedule d•' �a Fe e Qst 4a NS e'' Q,$+ q• o` ao g 1` *Being developed-new project * Steve Martin is working with Metro to finalize the Intergovernmental Agreement Snapshot of Work * IGA still in progress and Schedule Progress LOOK AHEAD * Prepare a detailed scope of service Upcoming Work • Issue request for consultant proposals for trail/bridge design Items * Prepare project charter and schedule Risks/Issues Changes SANITARY SEWER Project Name: East Tigard Sewer Replacement Project Manager: Jeff Peck ■ Project Number: 93013 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I [(JAR!) This project is in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and involves increasing the capacity of an existing sanitary sewer line(serving the area north of Hunziker Street)to prevent overflows and to improve the access for routine maintenance. It will also provide Description sanitary sewer service for a portion of the undeveloped adjacent parcel(the Fields property).Clean Water Services is funding the majority of this project. Scope • On Target * CESS NW(due-diligence)-Closed Schedule • On Target Contracts * CESS NW-6/30/1.512/31/16 Budget 0 On Target * MSA 12/31/152/29/16 Total Project Budget Total project%spent:7% $23,428 Internal111011.1 I $69,159 $132,391 Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:15% External $1,229,802 Project Budget FY201S/16 $12,299 Internal OM $36,964 $17,442 External $301,000 O O O O III I I I I I I ff 1 5 I I I f .., ;' by .`t ti`s ti`s ti0 yro tiro til tiA yA A1 Project Schedule lvP�ab �� ocL aos oec qac FQ bac c 1. Psf. 1< 1.Initiate contact to resume design 3.Permitting and ROW negotiation 2. Design phase resumes 4.Construction phase begins Snapshot of Work * Completed 50%design and Schedule * Refined construction cost estimate Progress * Started right of way/easement discussions LOOK AHEAD * Coordinate improvements with Hunziker Industrial Core development Upcoming Work •Items Complete IGA with CWS • Continue right of way/easement negotiations Risks/Issues Changes SANITARY SEWER Project Name: Barrows Road/Scholls Ferry Road Sewer Line Ext.(Phase 3) Project Manager: Jeff Peck ■ Project Number: 93036 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T GAR 1) Description Install 1,600 lineal feet of 24"sewer main to accommodate anticipated future development at River Terrace.The project will be managed by Clean Water Services. Scope • On Target * IGA with City of Beaverton&CWS Schedule • On Target IGA Budget i� On Target Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:7% $5,883 Project Budget Internal $4,908 Project Manager's total project $210 estimated%complete:40% External $84,092 *City share of cost to be paid at the end of construction 0© O O �► I I f ► ► ► 1 I I ► ► by ,tih .tih 47 yh by tib 1b tib tiro tib yto Project Schedule 1`\ Poi oc� moo' oeC lac <6.‘`; tea` QV 1J° 1.IGA signatures being acquired 3.Construction begins 2.Bid opening 4.Construction complete Snapshot of Work * Weather delays and conflicts with existing utilities have extended construction contract date and Schedule * Construction is 40%complete Progress * Sewer mainline installed west of SW 157th LOOK AHLA[_) * Contractor is transitioning to west end of project Upcoming Work Items Risks/Issues Changes • SANITARY SEWER IS Project Name: Walnut Street Sanitary Sewer Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i ■ Project Number: 93054 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T I c,A R D Construction of sanitary sewer service to approximately 20 homes along Walnut Street and 112th Avenue.This project Is Description connected to 95023 Walnut Street Improvements. Note:Washington County is the overall project managing agency Scope • On Target * Washington County-3/31/18 Schedule Q Minor Issue IGA Budget • On Target Total Project Budget* Total project%spent:8% $5,966 internal $57,818 I Project Manager's total project $28,875 estimated%complete:15% External $379,000 Project Budget FY2015/16 I $998 Internal111.1 $ $28,87542,618 External $379,000 O O, O O I (1 5 1 1 1 I 1 - i f I I I t 1 ,',^, 4,7 4, 4, 47 4, .' ,tib i 1r° ,tib ,tib tib ,tib .b ,tib .tib Project Schedule 4 \� p� 44 a`' 4' d�` 1 1 '1 Ntl v 1, .fC 4po' *Schedule shown is adjusted to match with the Walnut Street road project 1.Send out for bid 3.Construction to begin 2.Tree removal starts 4.3-week road closure in July/August 2016 Snapshot of Work * Plans and specifications completed and Schedule * Rotschy,Inc.is the contractor Progress LOOK AHEAD * Tree removal started Upcoming Work * Main construction work starts in March 2016 Items * Completion in Spring 2017 * Three-week Walnut Street closure in July/August 2016 Risks/Issues * Current CIP shows project completion and all funds spent in FY2016.To be adjusted to match sewer Changes construction schedule with road construction schedule-with completion in FY2017 STORMWATER Project Name: Storm Facility Reconstruction(Greenfield near Pine View) Project Manager: Andy Newbury i ■ Project Number: 94025 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1 I(1 A R t) The project involves the reconstruction/retrofit of an existing stormwater quality facility that has failed.The project will provide Description roadside water quality via proprietary treatment structures or alternate methods and reconfigure the existing facility for public open space. Scope • On Target * Andy Paris-closed Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget 0 On Target 1 Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:4% $10,161 Internal Om $72,759 Project BudgetProject Manager's total project 2'400 estimated%complete:4% External $285,000 O O O O O I I (I I I I I I ' it I I t I f ,yh tih 4 by 4) by y0 tib oto tiro ti� tiro Project Schedule CJs $r• .c{ o�� qo� Oolc, Sao 44¢' 4° V 4b ,J) 1.Hire surveyor 4.Construction begins 2.Begin design 5.Construction ends 3.Send out for bid Snapshot of Work * Began design work(design work completed internally) and Schedule * Continued design work for 90%plans Progress LOOK AHF/\F) * Complete 90%plans for internal review Upcoming Work Items Risks/Issues Changes STORM WATER ■ Project Name: Canterbury Lane Storm Line Upgrade(106th to Pac.Hwy.) Project Manager: Andy Newbury ■ Project Number: 94033 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I I LiA ILI) This project will provide a storm drainage system with structure and access for proper maintenance.The current system does Description not allow access,which could result in a failure due to unknown structural issues that could cause damage to downstream properties. Scope • On Target Schedule Q Minor Issue Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:1% $4,071 Project Budget Internal $104,935 Project Manager's total project 0 estimated%complete:0% External $360,500 O O O ©o O O I I 1 j I f I 1 f I t I I h tih tih h h 7 b (t) �o to 40 to C`~ • 0~ q. �� p� c• Fe pQ 'f �J Project Schedule 1. Receive survey* 5.Permits* 2.30%design* 6.Send out for bid* 3.60%design* 7.Construction begins* 4.Final design* 8.Construction ends* *To be revised with re-start of project * Project no longer on hold.Was placed on hold initially so construction of storm line would coincide with CIP Snapshot of Work 496030,which includes construction of a waterline also in Canterbury.The water project is being and Schedule re-scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2021,so the stormwater project will now separately proceed Progress LOOK AHEAD * Work with PACE Engineers to revise the scope of work which was sent back to consultant in August Upcoming Work * Issue contract to PACE Engineers to begin design work Items * Update project schedule Risks/Issues Changes STORM WATER r Project Name: Ridgefield Lane Water Quality Facility Repair/Stabilization Project Manager: Andy Newbury U Project Number: 94034 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T I G A R D Description The project will repair the facility with installation of an energy dissipator and corrective action to the swale(planting/river rock)to restore the water quality function.The project will also reconstruct a small portion of retaining wall that is failing. Scope • On Target * Andy Paris-Closed Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:7% $5,604 Internal 1.1MI $25,006 Project Budget Project Manager's total project $2,100 estimated%complete:10% External $79,000 O O O O y 1h tih yh �h h yro .ro tiroCo ,,c3Project Schedule Jti O�� moo, OeC bac �� a� Qtj �y� 1.Hire surveyor 4.Construction begins 2.Begin design 5.Construction ends 3.Send out for bid Snapshot of Work * Submitted plans for 90%internal review and Schedule Progress LOOK AHEAD * Revise plans based on 90%comments Upcoming Work Determine if Public Works operations staff have capacity to perform this repair work internally Items Risks/Issues Changes STORM WATER Project Name: River Terrace Stormwater Implementation Project Manager: Lori Faha l i l Project Number: 94035 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 TIGAR[) City Council adopted the River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan(CIP#94030).This project(CIP#94035)is the extra effort required to implement the Stormwater Master Plan,including development of stormwater design standards,testing of the Description stormwater facility sizing tool,regional facility life cycle cost analysis and analysis of flow conveyance alternatives for the southern areas of River Terrace. Scope • On Target * OTAK-6/30/1512/31/15 6/30/16 Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget I $23,153 Total project%spent:100% Internal $19,556 Project Manager's total project externalilli $159,939 $154,141 $164,444(Q1) estimated%complete: 99% Project Budget FY2015/16 $5,604 InternalIMO $0 $5,000(Q1) External $55,061 S$0 $.57,000(Q1) O O O III eft I I 1�' 1h by by b (p to Project Schedule �` �� P�� ,eQ .,~ �eO~ �`~ 1.New stormwater standards 3.Complete updated SRT Stormwater Master Plan 2.South River Terrace(SRT)stormwater recommendations draft Snapshot of Work * Received final draft of updated Stormwater Master Plan incorporating all elements from this project and Schedule * Schedule slippage required to address cost and policy implications of high flow bypass alternatives for Progress Strategy Area C LOOK AHEAD * Staff discussions about funding options for Strategy Area C Upcoming Work • Request city council adopt amended River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Items * Additional internal staff time budget may be needed to complete the plan finalization and adoption process Risks/Issues * Possible scope increase may be needed to evaluate additional alternatives as cost estimates are very high for the two options analyzed for South River Terrace * 01 is reflected in budget(additional budget is for incorporation of updated information and maps into Changes master plan report) * Contract duration extended to allow for final editing and discussions about funding needs STORMWATER t. Project Name: Stormwater Master Plan Project Manager: Lori Faha i C Project Number: 94037 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1!GARD Tigard's Stormwater Master Plan has not been updated in over 30 years.The environmental regulations regarding the management of stormwater infrastructure have changed dramatically,Tigard's stormwater infrastructure is aging and many Description stream systems in the city are experiencing erosion issues with risk of infrastructure and property damage.This Master Plan will describe projects and programs that will address the regulatory requirements and will also identify and prioritize projects to address needs for the existing stormwater system. Scope • On Target Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:5% $14,836 Internal $22,355 I Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:2% External $250,000 Project Budget FY2015/16 I $14,836 internal 1111M $42,355 External— $150,000 Q O O I I I II , r, .. _ _ I f I j 1 N by by by by '1h tito tir° $° 4° -& tiro 71 Project Schedule N3' V- q per` ,oma Qct' tia° kg' 4,s� of jai ,J�e ,Jc 1.Issue RFP for consultant team 3.Complete master plan project-est.June 2017 2.Consultant Notice to Proceed Snapshot of Work * Continued compilation of known stormwater system problems and existing background information and Schedule * Finished preparing RFP work scope,including reviewing other jurisdictions similar plans and RFPs Progress LOOK AHEAD * Complete charter Upcoming Work * Consultant selection Items Risks/Issues Changes STREETS U Project Name: Pavement Management Program(PMP) Project Manager: Mike McCarthy ■ Project Number: 95001 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I 1(r Aft I) The Pavement Management Program,funded by the Street Maintenance Fee,provides for the preservation or replacement of Description the pavement by overlays,crack sealing or slurry sealing.A pavement condition review is used to determine future project needs. Fiscal Year 2015/16 includes overlay and crack sealing. Scope • On Target * MSA-12/31/16 * S-2-Closed Schedule • On Target Contracts * Jamar Technologies-PO * Capitol Asset-6/30/16 Budget • On Target * C.R.Contracting-Closed Total Project Budget FY2015/16 Total project%spent:67% $31,404 Internal 111=111$157,319 Project Budget Project Manager's total project External estimated%complete:75% $1,200,542 $1,672,681 O O O O ! I I I I I I I I i I I j h ti� ti� tih yh �h to ro b to to fo 0,„?,,, + oa' e� r, �, �' 2� c �~ Project Schedule 1. Pavement overlay construction 4.Curb ramp retrofits begin 2.Pavement crack sealing 5.2016 paving begins 3.Design begins for summer 2016 Snapshot of Work * Summer of 2015 pavement overlay and crack seal projects complete and Schedule * Developed street list,scope,and fee for design of Summer 2016 overlays Progress * Started designing 2016 work LOOK AHEAD * Pavement investigations in February Upcoming Work • Bid in April Items * Start ramps in June • Major paving in July/August * Fee review discussions with Council may result in change in size/scope of program Risks/Issues Changes STREETS Project Name: Walnut Street Improvements Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i ■ Project Number: 95023 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I I t,A It I t T e project wi I reconstruct and widen the roadway section from 116th Avenue to Tiedeman Avenue.Road improvements Include through lanes,a center turn lane,sidewalks and bike lanes,and a traffic control signal that will be installed at 135th Description Avenue.A new culvert with adequate capacity will be constructed.Utilities will be relocated underground.This is a$7M Washington County Street Project.The City of Tigard expenses are for staff time and utility work only.This project is tied to CIP 93054 Walnut Street Sanitary Sewer Project. Scope • On Target * Washington County-3/31/18 Schedule • On Target !GA Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:14% $49,079 Internal MEM$163,913 Project Manager's total project $41,601 estimated%complete:24% External $492,588 Project Budget FY2015/16 $15,262 Internal 0I $100,520(Q1) $29,257 External $3947480 $361,480(Q1) * Budget reflects only City of Tigard expenses.This is a$7M Washington County Street project O O, O O O I II 5 , t l k I -0.111111114 I `1 I I ! I '1'A 4' 4h 4 tib , tib 4" tib 4° 4' 4 4' 40 y'1 1 11 Project Schedule N3 06 f d" NI i rtc a ,g41 ��r %'Y fib .Q 4'4 Or 1.Send out for bid 4.3-week road closure in July/August 2016 2.Tree removal starts 5.Construction ends 3.Main construction work starts Snapshot of Work * Plans and specifications completed and Schedule * Rotschy,Inc.is the contractor Progress * Tree removal started LOOK AHEAD • Main construction work starts in March 2016 Upcoming Work Items * Tree removal complete in February 2016 * Completion in spring 2017 * Three-week road closure planned in July/August 2016 Risks/Issues • Ql is reflected in budget Changes • STREETS Project Name: Pacific Highway/Gaarde/McDonald Improvements Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i al Project Number: 95033 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T I(G A R Il The project includes new paving,storm drainage,through lanes and left-turn lanes at selected approaches to the intersection. Description In addition,new traffic control signals,sidewalks,bike lanes,street trees and landscape islands are included.The project is being managed by ODOT,with Tigard and Washington County as partners. Scope • On Target * ODOT Schedule • On Target IGA Budget • On Target I Total Project Budget Total project%spent:84% I $117 053 InternalEMI$224,100 Project Manager's total project External $2,563,942 %complete:99% Ezte 52,563,942 $2,952,325 Project Budget FY2015/16 II $12,904 InternalOM $66,994 10,166 External $66,994 *Budget reflects only City of Tigard expense.This is a$12 million ODOT/County/City project *Awaiting final billing from ODOT O O Project ScheduleI ii 5,^� 1h Iby <2by �`� � l � Ng' 4° •,..43tib Nw Ns v-46ye6 cp 64 P<'? 4c45;‘. a�' OE 41 1.Construction started January 2015 2.Construction substantially complete Snapshot of Work * Construction substantially complete October 5,2015 and Schedule * Punch list and final cleanup Progress LOOK AHEAD * Punch list and cleanup Upcoming Work • Signal timing adjustments Items * Awaiting final billing from ODOT,anticipated within project budget * Large ODOT project;city responsible for overruns Risks/Issues Changes STREETS Project Name: Upper Boones Ferry/Durham Adaptive Signals Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i !t al Project Number: 95041 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1 I t•:\It I ) Description This project will install traffic signal coordination from Durham Road to Pacific Highway including 13 traffic signals and two rail crossings.Traffic users consist of residential,school,city park,office and retail. Scope • On Target * Washington County Schedule 0 Minor issue IGA Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:64% I 7,253 Internal $56,404 Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:15%* External $114,563 $135,000 Project Budget FY2015/16 $1,122 Internal 1M $29,404 External MI $10,000 *This project is primarily federally funded-$1M.Percent spent reflects that the city's match has been paid ; O O I (I5 1°1 OI I f t IgiF''1 1` 4 I 1 I 4 I I Project Schedule 1. tih 4? 4' .}tib {tib 4° 1b 4? �y��o 4' `b tib :4° ,1 ?t 1.Detailed design begins 3.System implementation complete late 2016/ 2.Implementation begins early 2017 Snapshot of Work * Per the IGA,the city provided the county a 10.27%match in one lump sum payment due upon the execution of and Schedule the Agreement. The county is responsible for administering the remainder of the grant funds Progress * Schedule delays due to slow ODOT procurement process LOOK AHEAD * Decide which adaptive control system to implement Upcoming Work • Detailed design begins Items * Federal funding constraints * Implementation of technology new to Tigard Risks/Issues * ODOT procurement process delays * Design contract in final state legal review.Consultant team chosen 12/29/14;state yet to issue contract Changes • STREETS Project Name: 95th Avenue and North Dakota Street Sidewalks Project Manager: Mike McCarthy i ■ al Project Number: 95045 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I I t r A it t) This project will fill in the missing sidewalks along 95th Avenue north from Greenburg Road and along North Dakota Street east Description from Greenburg Road. In addition,it will provide curbing and storm drainage improvements as required. Scope • On Target * Wallis Engineering 12/31/156/30/16 Contracts/ Schedule • On Target * IGA Washington County-6/30/16 IGAs Budget 0 On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:42% nternai $17,438 $34,000 Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:40% External $80,577 $200,000 Project Budget FY2015/16 IInternal all $0 $22,661(Q1) 44 916 External $Q $164,339(Q1) O I l Is I i i i i 4 i �i ► f , , Project Schedule o '1, ,.,:N.�h tih �`' ,tih ``' Nx ; N. `4b `tip tib j N <40 1J PJ q' O` �° O� lac (<¢- 4a PQ �, ' 1. Bidding process starts 2.Construction begins Snapshot of Work * Right-of-way acquisition complete and Schedule * Design complete Progress LOOK AHEAD * Open bids 2/2/16 Upcoming Work Construct in spring 2016 Items * Pervious concrete new to Tigard Risks/Issues * Right-of-way acquisition required more funds than anticipated,may impact overall budget-TBD * C11 is reflected in budget Changes STREETS r Project Name: Hunziker Industrial Core Project Manager: Andy Newbury i ■ Project Number: 95047 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 T WARD New public infrastructure improvements to SW Wall Street,providing a connection from SW Hunziker Road to Tech Center Description Drive.The project supports development and redevelopment of adjacent industrial lands to achieve higher levels of employment. Scope • On Target Schedule • On Target Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:1% $34,613 internal 1111M.$150,000 I Project Manager's total project 117 estimated%complete:3% External $6,204,920 Project Budget FY2015/16 I $34,613 InternalIMO $0 $20,000(Qi) External iiiimmum$0 $180,000(Qi) 0:40 O o° 0 0 O 1 I I 1 11 f- f : ii I t I $ 1 I I ,il ,P i tf4' ,ti 0 ti') 4b 40 1t 4, 4, :6 �4' ,fib 4 - .0 4 Project Schedule 1.RFP for Design and Construction Mgmt.11/15 5.RFP construction services 10/16 2.Survey,geotechnical,traffic report 2/16 6.Bid and award 12/16 3.Design complete 9/16 7.Begin construction 1/17 4.Permits 10/16 8.End construction 8/17 Snapshot of Work * Completed updates for Federal EDA grant submittal and Schedule * Issued notice of contract award Progress * Continued coordination with Trammell Crow LOOK AHEAD * Issue 30%design contract Upcoming Work Initiate preliminary design Items * Complete negotiations of Developer Agreement with Trammell Crow * Current project scope relies on Federal EDA funding.If funding is not awarded to the city,scope will be reduced by Risks/Issues eliminating the Wall Street connection to Tech Center Drive Changes • WATER Project Name: Cach Reservoir and Pump Station Project Manager: Rob Murchison i ■ Project Number: 96040 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 1 I t.A It i The project is for the design of a new water reservoir,associated new water lines,and replacement of a temporary pump station for the city's 550-foot service area. The reservoir will be constructed on City property located on the west side of Bull Description Mountain in the Sun Rise Lane vicinity. A new permanent pump station will replace an existing temporary pump station on the Menlor Reservoir site to move water from the 410-foot to the 550-foot service areas. Scope • On Target Schedule • Major Issue Contracts Budget 0 Minor Issue Total Project Budget I Total project%spent:0% Internal13 External $ Project Manager's total project $ estimated%complete:% FY2015/16 Project Budget Internal _ $Q3 External $Q3 *Project Manager in the initial investigation phase with the hiring of a designer in Spring 2016 *Total Project Budget pending budget approval process for 2017.Adequate funds are available to start design due to postponement of projects 96044(ASR#2)and 96045(550 Zone to Price Reservoir) . i s. '1 'ai. r t 1 ( I Project Schedule tiro N. % 1fo � 4' ti� 14+ ti� N'il' (Ce' 11' 4411 gee �Q� •4=b ,4�J'y �v�'1 *Project schedule currently being re-defined. Construction scheduled to start in 2018 Snapshot of Work * Project Manager in the initial investigation phase and Schedule * Project being moved forward to address capacity needs for River Terrace Progress LOOK AHEAD • Issue request for consultant proposals Upcoming Work ■ Prepare project charter Items Risks/Issues Changes WATER IN "I Project Name: Aquifer Storage&Recover Well#2 Electrical Rehab. Project Manager: Rob Murchison ■ Project Number: 96044 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 I I C A R I) The project will allow the efficient operation of the existing pump motors by upgrading and cleaning the existing well. This will Description consist of replacing electrical devices(variable frequency drive)with easier-to-maintain components and removing and cleaning the screens which are located in the well. Scope • On Target * MSA-6/30/16 Schedule 0 Major Issue Contracts Budget • On Target Total Project Budget Total project%spent:0% 111 Internal $29,197 Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:0% External $358,000 Pr ojcct Budyet FY2015/16 Internal - $29,197 External $358,000 , O 4 5 I I i! I I .f f f I f l f 1 lam. o .�°,.o �`yo ,a i,,, ti�co �~, Pry~ °�~ ,J y~ Project Schedule 1.Construction begins* 2.Construction ends* *New proposed schedule as of January 2016 * On hold-new information and reduced power surges from PGE suggest that we can postpone Snapshot of Work and reschedule this project and Schedule Progress * This project will be coordinated with the design and construction of the CIP#96010 Aquifer Storage&Recovery Well#3 LOOK AHEAD * Staff to continually monitor well performance and maintain electrical components. If either well performance Upcoming Work Items or pumping capacity is significantly reduced,project schedule may need to be moved forward * Work on well needs to occur during low water demand months but still allow for well to be recharged * Reliability of ASR Well#2 is compromised if project does not proceed * Current VFD is no longer manufactured making it difficult to obtain parts and technical support Risks/Issues * Outcome of Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership water rights discussion may impact the need and timing of this facility's design and construction Changes URBAN RENEWAL Project Name: Tigard Gateway Monuments Project Manager: Jeff Peck ! Project Number: 97024 Actuals as of: 1/30/2016 TIGARD • Construction of gateway improvements at both intersections of Main Street and Pacific Highway(OR 99W). Improvements Description include 240 lineal feet of wall with natural stone facing,"Welcome to Downtown Tigard"signage,and seating;landscaping, artwork base and sculptures,electrical and storm drainage utilities. Scope • On Target * Brian Borello Art-12/31/2015 * Lee Contractors-Closed Schedule • On Target Contracts * KLA-Amendment-Closed * GeoPacific-Closed Budget • On Target * KPFF-Closed Total Project Budget Total project%spent:100% Int.mai MEM $42,406 Project Manager's total project estimated%complete:100% External $486,227 $488,180 p Project Budget FY2015/16 IInternal $20,509 $20,000 External $358,952 $359,650 O O O I if I I 1D N. " by by yh tih ' l $' - yro ti: ti� Project Schedule ,J� l�� JQ' ,./.., ¢Q O¢< ao' ' lac k¢'Q C P��, ; ,'c 1. Design&Permitting 10/13 to 5/15 3.Construction complete 2.Bid award Snapshot of Work * This project is substantially complete and Schedule Progress LOOK AHEAD * Contract close out Upcoming Work Items Risks/Issues Changes SUPPLEME TA PACKET 02/08/2016 FOR � 1 / 6 (DATE OF SUPPLEMENT:: CITY OF TIGARD Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done 1171 Capital Improvement Project Update FY 2015-16 Second Quarter Tigard City Council Meeting I February 9,2016 I \ C i I \ Adopted CIP FY2015/16 Engineering Projects Total Projects by Category / Parks 3 / Streets 5 ► Water 2* / Sanitary Sewer 3 / Storm 6 / Facilities 2 / Corn. Development 2 •LO/Tigard Water Partnership is not included 1 02/08/2016 4 I T Y 0 I I I (; A R I� Adopted CIP FY2015/16 Engineering Projects Only Total Projects by Category Projects Added Since July / Parks 3 / Parks 2 Streets 5 / Streets 1 ► Water 2* / Water 12 ► Sanitary Sewer 3 / Sanitary Sewer 0 ► Storm 6 / Storm 0 ► Facilities 2 / Facilities A 1 ► Com. Development 2 / Corn.Development 0 *LOgigard Water Partnership is not included I I 1 l) I I I (, A Iz II Parks Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule Dirksen Nature Park 0 The Education Center(construction starting) 0 0 Oak Savanna Restoration • Grant Applications • • ► Tigard Street Trail and Public Space(applied for grant) • • Fanno Creek Trail—RFFA Grant(IGA coming,RFP out) • • Adjustments ► Fanno Creek Remeander (IGAcoming) • O / Fanno Creek Trail @ Tiedeman (IGA coming) S •On laiget O M hsues •MIa hsun O[Bange n Budge[o,kgedule 2 02/08/2016 4 I I 1 ( f I I I R I) Streets Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule / Pavement Management Program / Walnut Street Improvements • • ► Pacific Hwy/Gaarde/McDonald Intersection • • ► Upper Boones Ferry/Durham Adaptive Signal • 0 / 95th/North Dakota Sidewalk(CDBG) 0 0 Adjustments Hunziker Core/Wall St(contract approval 1/12/16) Q • •Qi Target O Miro hsues •Maj.„Issues •(Hoge in Budget o,s€h l I I I I I) Water Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well#2 Rehab • • 550 Zone Connection to Price Reservoir • • Adjustments / Red Rock Creek Waterline Relocation • 0 ► Cach Reservoir&Pump Station •On Tasget 0Mom;ksues •M*'hsues 11)(1unge.nR dgeo4ledu. 3 02/08/2016 C 1 'I' 1' c) I I I \ k 1) Sanitary Sewer Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule / Barrows/Scholls Ferry Sewer Line Extension • • (Phase 3)(construction started( East Tigard Sewer Replacement I • / Walnut Sanitary Sewer I 0 .Oa laiget OMrohsues •Map ksues 0(hanseln gudgela glM1etlWe i I I 1 1 I I I 1, \ R I ) Storm Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule Greenfield Drive WQF Reconstruction / Canterbury Lane Storm Line Upgrade • O / Ridgefield Lane WQF Reconstruction Outfall Retrofit Program • • Stormwater Master Plan • / River Terrace Stormwater Implementation I 0 •on lalgn O Abro haves •Map hsues O tlunge n Budgel m kl+edule 4 02/08/2016 I I l O I '1' 1 G .1 It 1) Facilities Projects Existing Protects Budget Schedule / Permit Center/City Flail/Police Building Exterior Wall Repairs(really close to complete) ► Citywide Facilities Plan • Q Adjustments / Police Locker Room(concept plan) • •On Ta!get O Mimr ksues •Mapr issues el(hangs in Budget a khetlule ( I I 1 O I I I ( , A It I ) Community Development Projects Existing Projects Budget Schedule ► Main Street Gateway Monuments(complete) 1 Public Works Yard Demolition(complete) • • •Qi Target O W ksun •M*ksues •Change in Butlgn a klale 5 02/08/2016 A L I I 1 () I II (, -A R 1) City Hall / Permit Center/ Police Station - fry- A„'S K ;_ .� ::ISI - _. 'yeti 'I Ii ,.. elill.b..— The landscaping is almost complete I: 1 1 1 (t I I I (, .A R I) December 2015 Storm Event / Flooding Pathfinder Court ! lc,Mairlr,- i:,ri ®4 x 6 02/08/2016 (: I '1 1 () I I IG .1 R 1) December 2015 Storm Event / Flooding Tigard Street Bridge Oa.44, (: 1 1 1' O I 'I 1 (1 .A R I) December 2015 Storm Event / Flooding 72nd Avenue / Bonita Road wpm Y 7 02/08/2016 • - ( I I v• 0 r '1 I r .y R 1) Creek & Storm Outfall Erosion Example SW 113th near Durham Rd 4. r. r t fi 1. Al* l4 .1 "41 • .}'. Ry> V F � A� � �fit• Ct ,+ 4 .r ' Lat4 C I '1' 1' O I '1' I C; .A It 1) Dirksen Nature Park Environmental Education Center who. r 8 �' C. City of Tigard,Oregon ,�, F 4' «l, = 2016 Federal Legislative Agenda . —,ii ti ps 0 _..1 �L— i Portland ice. 'Llik-2: � T - tr� r r r -CIli Beaverton jILff- _. ow* V .Iril TIGARD, OREGON. Bordering the city r - of Portland,Tigard is Oregon's 12th largest city with y = • a population of 50,044.The city is largely residential Tig a rd� � r and offers a mix of industrial,commercial and - Lake yr retail space which results in a daytime population .? Oswego around 100,000.Because of the demand placed on �,, -^ y its transportation,water and public safety resources, J Tigard faces big-city infrastructure issues. Tualatin ---� W - r-.� /.ti _ - Tigard is ideally located to meet regional `� . '' I 1 - \ k 1-205 =� t employment demand.The region's workforce lives f - , , X; i - here.What's lacking,however,is infrastructure that `` -- . .`� - ;�4 �_� supports business expansion here. ..� e_ .1%. / �. _ „- _\ For more information... _- Late in 2014,the City Council adopted a strategic • k •t i plan to become"the most walkable community in the More information about these projects and Tigard's -\ _ aiJ ,* vision for the future can be found on our website at _ - Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities www.tigard-or.gov. Please don't hesitate to contact us — enjoy healthy and interconnected lives."This 20-year for additional information. JP - strategic vision,along with four strategic goals,will provide guidance and direction for the city's priorities Mayor John L.Cook,503-718-2476, ; over the long term by leveraging and building on our mayorcook@tigard-or.gov strengths to grow Tigard as a thriving community. City Manager Marty Wine,503-718-2486, j .�. , many@tigard or.gov MOS—-wPus Tigard continues to work with its regional Senior Management Analyst Kent Wyatt, owe partners toward creative solutions that address 503-718-2809,kentw@tigard or.gov - ?� 'r infrastructure and service delivery challenges.We are {®`= committed to responsible stewardship of public funds ---,>" r " 911IIlil_��luu Cityof Tigard = -. r , •—��__. and to making sound fiscal decisions that will guide ,� ' � '` _ us to a sustainable future. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 — E, 14,i - --'g TIGARD www.figard-or.gov - - POLICY ITEMS Hunziker Industrial Core Police Equipment Funding The City of Tigard is investing in public infrastructure that The City strongly supports funding for additional police encourages private sector investment and job creation. :IP- equipment.There are very few funding options at the Tigard's Hunziker Industrial Core includes 138 acres of ',.V:.., _. federal level to help police departments purchase industrial zoned property,home to more than 90 firms s equipment despite the fact that federal mandates located three-quarters of a mile from Highway 217 and icontinue to require costly upgrades. Interstate 5. 4 , 'r . .--% FY 2017 Program Levels In this employment area,96 acres are underutilized and -a:•'' 42 acres are undeveloped and limited in their economic ___ — Maintain adequate funding levels for the Economic potential due to a lack of site access and sufficient public "` - ° Development Administration(EDA),EPA Brownfields infrastructure.The City of Tigard is exploring public Assessment and Cleanup,Community Development Block infrastructure projects and funding sources to add or Downtown Tigard Brownfield Cleanup Grants(CDBG),the HOME Program,TIGER,Byrne Justice improve roads,water,wastewater and stormwater Tigard is seeking funds to clean up three downtown Assistance Programs,and Assistance to Firefighters funding. services in this area. properties for productive reuse. For several years,the City of Tigard and community members have envisioned Protect Municipal Bonds The first proposed public infrastructure project includes a more vibrant and prosperous downtown and have The City strongly supports protecting tax exempt $5.5 million of roadway,water,sewer and stormwater developed detailed improvement plans.Progress has municipal bonds from being eliminated or limited.Since that will support an estimated$32 million in private been made on implementing these plans with several 1913, interest earned from municipal bonds issued by sector investment.In 2015,the city received$1.5 million projects completed. state and local governments have been exempt from for a capital project in public infrastructure.Development federal taxation.These bonds are the primary financing of employment lands like this typically supports 150 to A major challenge to redevelopment, however, has been mechanism for state and local infrastructure projects, 300 jobs depending upon private sector investment. the need to assess and clean up some downtown with three-quarters of the infrastructure projects in the properties for potential environmental issues. REQUEST AMOUNT:$3,000,000 U.S. built by state and local governments,and with over Approximately sixty properties in this area have been $3.7 trillion in outstanding tax-exempt bonds, issued by identified as contaminated,or potentially contaminated, 30,000 separate government units.Local governments -A` from previous uses;these are known as potential save an average of 25-30%on interest costs with — -;:, brownfield properties.Tigard supports the cleanup and tax-exempt municipal bonds as compared to taxable revitalization of these properties,and has utilized EPA bonds. If the federal income tax exemption is eliminated " Brownfield Assessment funds to prepare properties for or limited,states and localities will pay more to finance cleanup and ultimate reuse. projects, leading to less infrastructure investment,fewer REQUEST AMOUNT:$400,000 jobs,and greater burdens on citizens who will have to pay higher taxes and fees. Tigard Street Heritage Trail - Support for Homeless Assistance Grants Formerly a rail line,this three-quarter-mile trail connects .�,> . . The city is collaborating with Just Compassion to address downtown Tigard to Tiedeman Avenue.The city recently the lack of homelessness resources in Tigard.Just paved a temporary trail for biking,walking and rolling. - Compassion,a registered nonprofit in Oregon,is committed A concept for the permanent Tigard Street Heritage Trail . to establishinga dayshelter for homeless adults in Tigard.9 is in the works.The project will place lighting,art,plazas _ The day shelter will provide resource information for mental and other amenities along the trail. .!...4"' � `' .f. and physical health,as well as assistance in overcoming �^ REQUEST AMOUNT:$1,000,000 barriers to employment,job and housing stability. Oregon's 2016 4 . .... , ,40 %. Regular Legislative Session: February 2— March 5 : ni i,1 n. ; .I : .., Me IV R c. Iv,.,4 lv:if.vl - Sen.Ginny Burdick Rep.Margaret Doherty . . _ __ ' . s .. _ SENATE DISTRICT 18 HOUSE DISTRICT 35 _ -_-- v X" 900 Court St.NE,S-213 900 Court St.NE,H-282 "Shenles with her own wings. —Judge Jessie Quinn Thornton Salem,OR 97301 Salem,OR 97301 sen.ginnyburdick@ re, margaretdoherty@ state.or.us state.or.us Oregon uses a system of single-member districts to elect its legislators.Each of the 90 members represent a designated 2016 senatorial or representative district,meaning each Legislative Age nda Onian is represented by a single senator and a single representative.Representative districts have a population of about 63,850;Senate districts contain about 127,700 people.These district lines are redrawn every ten years. Tigard Oregon Tigard City Council Mr' i SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET A FOR j q/p..01 Mayor Council President (DATE OF MEETING) John Cook Jason Snider , ,,, S7tc (/ ScsS %oV Councilor Councilor Councilor Marland Henderson Marc Woodard John Goodhouse councilmail@tigard-or.gov City of Tigard 1111 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 T I G A R D www.tigard-or.gov Affordable Housing Transportation • Support opportunities to meet the • Support passage of a comprehensive affordable housing needs of the transportation funding and policy package community and to improve the quality to address multi-modal needs with a of life for its low-income residents. priority of maintaining and preserving existing infrastructure. Economic Development and Land Use • Support legislative priorities that address traffic congestion, economic development • Support funding and policies to facilitate and jobs. for Brownfield mediation and clean-up. • Request funding for improvements to • Advocate for legislative funding of the SW Hall Boulevard — Burnham Street to Oregon Transportation Forum on Climate Durham Road.This project will add turn Smart Communities lanes at key intersections, illuminate, add transit stop amenities and fill in the Finance sidewalk gap along Hall Boulevard from downtown Tigard to Durham Road. • Property Tax Reform: Sidewalks along Hall Boulevard are one of ► Support referral to voters that would the top priorities identified by citizens to allow local control of temporary make the city more walkable. property tax outside of statewide caps; Request Amount:$7,100,000 ► Support an amendment of the state constitution that would reset a property's Other Focus Areas assessed value to its real market value at the time of sale or construction; • Advocate for legislative changes that ► Support a statutory change regarding will clarify and enhance public safety the way new property is added to the and local control related to marijuana tax rolls to provide the option of dispensaries. applying a city-wide changed property • Support increased resources for persons ratio to new property. with mental health issues, especially in • Allow for price comparison when procuring crisis situations. the services of architects and engineers. • Oppose preemption of the ability of cities to manage and receive compensation for the use of public ROW. • Advocate for a change to the current fiscal year(July 1 to June 30) as mandated by state law to a calendar that better coincides with the legislative session. • ,ViyaieM Student Envoy Report: 2/9/2016 Recently • Senior Citizen's Prom 1/31/16,30th Annual,approximately 120 in attendance(highest attendance to date) • HR Month all of February,Students held gender signs with definitions."Gender Gallery" • Slam Poetry 1/21/16 • Tigerettes got first place at competition, beat TuHS 2/6/16 and Color Guard hosted large competition and won 1st in all events • FBLA did very well at Districts @TigardFBLA on twitter for results • Tigard Thespians took home 15 ribbons from competition1/6/16 this past Saturday . • Annual McMinville Speech&Debate Tournament • Youth Ending Slavery visit,"Examination of Slavery: Past To Present",Tigard Chapter Coming Up • Hygiene Drive from "Random Acts of Kindness":Bridge the Gap, 1st Week of March • Rocket Fizz Feb 20th is holding a fundraiser for Animal Center. • THS production"An Evening of Mystery"opens February 18-20th,tickets$8 • "The Path Forward"wall begins this month.Showcases successes of students against adversity • Tigerettes hold competition this weekend SUPPLEMENTA PACKET FOR / 4 �°/ City Council Update Feb 2016 (DATE OF MEETING) Chamber Events Crfi?e - (2/Wl I11fi,e2{7(r�� Good Morning Tigard (GMT),Thursday A.M. Networking 7:30 a.m.—Weekly 2/11/16— Hosted by Great Bones @ their location 2/18/16— FIT Academy @ their location 2/25/16— Hosted by Tigard Chamber @ Tigard Chamber— New Website reveal Other • 2/10/16 6-8 p.m—Tigard Young Professionals After Hours at Max's Fanno Creek Brew Pub • 2/23/16 6:30—8 pm Good Evening Tigard (G.E.T.) Connected Afterhours @ Broadway Rose • 2/24/16—9-10 a.m.—Business Services Referrals Group • 3/1/16—6:30—8 pm -Good Evening Tigard (G.E.T.)Connected Afterhours @ Home Turf • 3/7/16—noon—1 p.m.—Health &Wellness Referrals Group • 2' Tues of each month—Gov't Affairs and Advocacy Committee Meeting Check our event calendar at http://business.tigardchamber.org/events/calendar/for details Save the dates—3/5/16 Bowlorama and 4/29/16 Shining Stars Community Awards. Submit Award nominations and scholarship apps NOW! Tigard Farmers Market Update • Excited for the beginning of our 2016 Season. Lot's of new things coming. Kids Community Garden,weekly Kids Sprouts activities, demos, pop up events and more. • Opening day 4/24/16—Currently accepting vendors www.tigardfarmersmarket.org Downtown Updates • Save the dates for our 2016 Events o 5/5-5/14—Art Walk o 9/10—Street Fair o 10/31—Trick or Treat Main Street o 12/4—Tree Lighting Learn what there is to do in Downtown Tigard on Facebook at www.facebook.com/exploredowntowntigard and at www.exploredowntowntigard.com 406 111 11. TIGARDF\1% ARKET A�tigardyoungprofessionals r itcl convect.cotlact.collaborate.climb. rito�t.r,:cruiit.i.1%1 'j'i> • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2-D - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: February 9, 2016 (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 o Y L � help the presiding officer pronounce: U `a es. Address J 1 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. 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 AIS-2550 3. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Receive and File: Council Calendar and Council Tentative Agenda Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Consent - Receive and File Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and file the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda for future council meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST No action is requested; these are for information purposes. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Council Calendar and the Tentative agenda for future Council meetings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A - Receive and File Items Attachments Three-month Council Calendar Tentative Council Agenda • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Honorable Mayor& City Council/City Center Development Agency Board FROM: Carol A. Krager,City Recorder RE: Three-Month Council/CCDA Meeting Calendar DATE: February 2,2016 February 2 Tuesday City Center Development Agency/City Council—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 9* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15 Monday Presidents'Day Holiday—City Offices Closed,Library Open 16* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 23* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall March 1 Tuesday City Center Development Agency—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 8* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 15* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 22* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall April 5 Tuesday City Center Development Agency—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 12* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 19* Tuesday Council Workshop/Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall 26* Tuesday Council Business Meeting—6:30 p.m.,Town Hall Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk M. is\adm\city council\council calendar\3-month calendar word format.doc Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session ! Special Meeting Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM- Updated Form Meeting Submitted Meeting Inbox or Date By Type Title Department Finalized l — 11 02/04/2016 February 4, 2016 State of the City Address Indio Spirits, (7272 SW Durham Rd, #100) 6:30-8:30 p.m. 2419 '02/09/2016 Carol Krager AAA February 9, 2016 Business Meeting ID 2427 02/09/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 2506 02/09/2016 Judy Lawhead ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Public Works 02/01/2016 Projects Total Time: 30 of 45 Minutes Scheduled I it 2550 02/09/2016 Carol Krager ACONSENT Consent Item - Receive and File: Council Calendar and Central Services 01/25/2016 Council Tentative Agenda 2551 02/09/2016 Carol Krager ACONSENT Consent Item - Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Central Services 01/25/2016 _ 11 2195 02/09/2016 Tom McGuire CCBSNS 15 Minutes - Briefing on Community Development Cost of Community LaFrance T, Service Study Development Fin/Info Svcs Director 2492 02/09/2016 Carissa Collins CCBSNS 15 Minutes - Info. Public Hearing: FY 2016 Second Finance and 01/27/2016 Quarter Budget Supplemental Information Services 2561 02/09/2016 Marty Wine CCBSNS 5 Minutes - Proposed Correction to Adopted Council Goals City Management 02/01/2016 2015-17 Total Time: 35 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 2421 02/16/2016 Carol Krager AAA February 16, 2016 Workshop Meeting Councilor Henderson Absent I II 11 P :igc is\adm\carol\tentatv ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session 0 Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2531 02/16/2016 Nadine CCWKSHOP 1 25 Minutes - Tigard Municipal Court Annual Report Central Services Robinson N, Robinson Central Svcs. Director 2417 02/16/2016 Marissa Grass CCWKSHOP 2 30 Minutes - Community Development Block Grant Community Grass M, Assoc (CDBG) Entitlement Status Discussion Development Planner 2496 02/16/2016 Susan Shanks CCWKSHOP 3 20 Minutes - Metro IGA for Tigard Triangle Grant Community Shanks S, Senior Award Development Planner 2552 02/16/2016 Carol Krager CCWKSHOP4 20 Minutes - Renew Annexation Incentives - Central Services Patton, J., Senior Resolution Administrative Sp 2526 02/16/2016 Judy Lawhead CCWKSHOP 5 15 Minutes - Briefing on Stormwater Master Plan Public Works Staedter C, Project I Coordinator 2558 02/16/2016 Joseph Barrett CCWKSHOP6 10 Minutes - Discussion of Upcoming Contracts - 95th Finance and Barrett 3, Sr Mgmt and North Dakota Sidewalk Infill Information Analyst Services Total Time: 120 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 1 lI 2422 02/23/2016 Carol Krager AAA February 23, 2016 Business Meeting Councilor Henderson Absent 1 it 2540 02/23/2016 Carol Krager ACCSTUDY 1 10 Minutes - Executive Session (h) potential litigation City Management 01/27/2016 2548 02/23/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 2 10 Minutes - Executive Session (f) exempt public Central Services 01/25/2016 records 2428 02/23/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 3 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 2505 02/23/2016 Sean Farrelly ACCSTUDY 4 10 Minutes - Metro IGA for Downtown Grant Award Community Farrelly 5, Redev Development Project Manager A Total Time: 45 of 45 Minutes Sche==117UDY SESSION FE, AL_ Ammo-; _ -II 2495 02/23/2016 Steve Martin ACONSENT Consent Item - Council Consideration of an IGA with Public Works LaFrance T, Metro for the Friends of Bull Mountain Park Fin/Info Svcs Improvements Director 2 1 Page is\adm\carol\tentatv ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting ❑ Study Session 4 Special Meeting ❑ Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full ❑ Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting ❑ City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2485 02/23/2016 Joseph Barrett CCBSNS 1 10 Minutes - Contract Award - Phone System Finance and Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Information Analyst Services 2497 02/23/2016 Susan Shanks CCBSNS 2 10 Minutes - Metro IGA for Tigard Triangle Grant Community Shanks S, Senior Award Development Planner 2513 02/23/2016 Gary CCBSNS 3 10 Minutes - Annexation Incentives Resolution Community Pagenstecher G, I Pagenstecher Development Assoc Planner 2559 02/23/2016 Joseph Barrett CCBSNS 4 5 Minutes - Contract Award - 95th and North Dakota Finance and Barrett 3, Sr Mgmt Sidewalk Infill Information Analyst Services Total Time: 35 of 100 Minutes Scheduled I _ II 2441 03/01/2016 Carol Krager AAA March 1, 2016 CCDA and Council Business Meeting I 11 2134 03/01/2016 Sean Farrelly CCDA 1 20 Minutes - Downtown Housing Inventory and Report Community Farrelly S, Redev Development Project Manager 2135 '03/01/2016 Sean Farrelly CCDA 2 20 Minutes - Downtown Jobs Inventory and Report Community Farrelly S, Redev Development Project Manager 2504 03/01/2016 Sean Farrelly CCDA 3 10 Minutes - Metro IGA for Downtown Grant Award Community Farrelly 5, Redev I Development Project Manager 2125 03/01/2016 Sean Farrelly CCDA 4 15 Minutes - Fanno Creek Overlook Update Community 01/26/2016 Development 2532 03/01/2016 Carol Krager CCDA 5 60 Minutes - DISCUSSION ON CITY PRIORITIES City Management MartyW, City Manager Total Time: 125 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 1 II 2442 03/08/2016 Carol Krager AAA March 8, 2016 Business Meeting Councilors Goodhouse and Woodard Absent f --- II 3 1 i> , rC is\adm\carol\tentaty ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session II Special Meeting Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCD.-1 Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2547 03/22/2016 Carol Krager ACCSTUDY 5 Minutes - Executive Session (f) exempt public records City Management 0/27/2016 2429 03/08/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 2500 03/08/2016 Susan Shanks ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Contract with (Consultant Name) for Tigard Community Barrett J, Sr Mgmt I Triangle Strategic Plan Implementation Development Analyst Total Time: 35 of 45 Minutes Scheduled l _ _ - - -.. ------ --- ---------_----_- II 2516 03/08/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 1 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder Finance and Barrett 3, Sr Mgmt Information Analyst Services 2527 03/08/2016 Judy Lawhead CCBSNS 2 10 Minutes - Consider Approval of Stormwater Master Public Works Staedter C, Project' Plan Coordinator 2554 03/08/2016 Dana Bennett CCBSNS 3 30 Minutes - Executive Session - (d) labor negotiations City Management 01/27/2016 Total Time: 60 of 100 Minutes Scheduled II 2443 03/15/2016 Carol Krager AAA March 15, 2016 Workshop Meeting Councilor Woodard Absent I II 2374 03/15/2016 Liz Lutz CCWKSHOP 1 30 Minutes - City of Tigard Financial Audit Report Finance and Fitzpatrick C, Asst Information Fin Dir Services 2525 03/15/2016 Lloyd Purdy CCWKSHOP 2 20 Minutes - Briefing on Hunziker Infrastructure Community Purdy, L, Econ I Project: Development Agreement Development Development Mgr 2537 03/15/2016 Lloyd Purdy CCWKSHOP 3 10 Minutes - (Hold for) Introduction to 2016 MURP Community 'Purdy, L, Econ Team and State of Place Project Development Development Mgr 2460 03/15/2016 Lloyd Purdy CCWKSHOP4 20 Minutes - Economic Development Update Community Purdy, L, Econ I Development Development Mgr 2557 03/15/2016 Liz Lutz CCWKSHOP 5 30 Minutes - Community Event Grants Finance and Lutz L, Conf Exec Information Asst Services Total Time: 110 of 180 Minutes Scheduled _ _== II 4 I P a g e is\adm\carol\tentaty ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session ® Special Meeting Consent Agenda ❑ Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting ❑ CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2444 03/22/2016 Carol Krager AAA March 22, 2016 Business Meeting I - I 2544 03/22/2016 Carol Krager ACCSTUDY 1 15 Minutes - Executive Session (i) performance of City Management 01/27/2016 public official 2430 03/22/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 2 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 Total Time: 30 of 45 Minutes Scheduled II 2480 '03/22/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 30 Minutes - Legislative Public Hearing: Consider Finance and LaFrance T, Ordinance Amending TMC Chapter 15.20 Street Information Fin/Info Svcs Maintenance Fee Services Director 2481 03/22/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 35 Minutes - Info. Public Hearing: Consider Resolution to Finance and LaFrance T, Adopt Increased Street Maintenance Fee Information Fin/Info Svcs Services Director 2517 03/22/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder - Tigard Triangle Central Services Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Strategic Plan Implementation Analyst 2529 03/22/2016 Liz Lutz CCBSNS 10 Minutes - Consider a Resolution Granting Exemption Finance and Lutz L, Conf Exec from Property Taxes under TMC 3.50 for Four Non-Profit Information Asst Low Income Housing Properties Services Total Time: 95 of 100 Minutes Scheduled l II 2459 04/05/2016 Carol Krager AAA April 5, 2016 CCDA Meeting I II 2445 04/12/2016 Carol Krager AAA April 12, 2016 Business Meeting - — II 2431 4/12/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 Total Time: 15 of 45 Minutes Scheduled 5 i' agc is\adm\carol\tentatv ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner Business Meeting 0 Study Session Special Meeting Consent Agenda Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2549 04/12/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 1 15 Minutes - PRESENTATION ON WASHINGTON City Management Krager C, City COUNTY LEVY Recorder 2518 04/12/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 2 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder Central Services Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Analyst 2553 04/12/2016 Carissa Collins CCBSNS 3 10 Minutes - FY 2016 Third Quarter Budget Finance and Collins C, Sr Mgmt Supplemental Information Analyst Services 2555 04/12/2016 Lloyd Purdy CCBSNS 4 20 Minutes - (Hold for Scheduling) Second Review: Community Purdy, L, Econ Development Agreement Hunziker Infrastructure Development Development Mgr 1758 04/12/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 5 15 Minutes - PLACEHOLDER - Google Franchise City Management Newton L, Agreement Assistant City Manager Total Time: 80 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 2446 04/19/2016 Carol Krager AAA April 19. 2016 Workshop Meeting • II 2477 04/19/2016 Norma Alley CCWKSHOP 1 30 Minutes - Joint Meeting with Library Board Library Grimes A, Conf. I Exec. Assistant 2389 04/19/2016 Judy Lawhead CCWKSHOP2 10 Minutes - Briefing on an IGA with ODOT for Design Public Works Faha L, City and Construction of New Sections of Fanno Cr. Trail Engineer 2466 04/19/2016 John Goodrich CCWKSHOP 3 30 Minutes - Willamette Water Supply Project - Project Public Works Goodrich J, by Other Agencies - Update Division Manager - 2508 04/19/2016 Liz Hormann CCWKSHOP 4 30 Minutes - Safe Routes to School Update Community Hormann L, SRTS Development Program Coord Total Time:_100 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 04/20.2016 April 20, 2016 Budget Committee Meeting Public Works Auditorium (8777 SW Burnham) 6:30 p.m. 6 I Page is\adm\carol\tentaty ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner ® Business Meeting 0 Study Session Special Meeting Consent Agenda Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM- Updated 04/23/2016 April 23, 2016 Council Outreach TVF&R Fire Station Fire Station 50 (12617 SW Walnut St.) 8:00 a.m.-Noon 04/25/2016 April 25, 2016 Budget Committee Meeting Public Works Auditorium (8777 SW Burnham) 6:30 p.m. 2447 04/26/2016 Carol Krager AAA April 26, 2016 Business Meeting I II 2432 04/26/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 2507 04/26/2016 Judy Lawhead ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Briefing on Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Public Works Faha L, City Projects Engineer Total Time: 30 of 45 Minutes Scheduled I II 2390 04/26/2016 Judy Lawhead ACONSENT Consent Item - Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Public Works McCarthy M, Sign an IGA with ODOT for Design and Construction of St/Trans Sr Proj New Sections of the Fanno Creek Trail Eng 2519 04/26/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder Central Services Barrett J, Sr Mgmt Analyst Total Time: 20 of 100 Minutes Scheduled - Il 2450 05/03/2016 Carol Krager AAA May 3, 2016 CCDA Meeting I II 2449 05/10/2016 Carol Krager AAA May 10, 2016 Business Meeting 1 2433 05/10/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports 'Central Services 10/29/2015 Total Time: 15 of 45 Minutes Scheduled 7 I Page is\adm\carol\tentatv ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx Meeting Banner 0 Business Meeting 0 Study Session el Special Meeting Consent Agenda 0 Meeting is Full Workshop Meeting 0 CCDA Meeting City Council Tentative Agenda 2/2/2016 9:05 AM - Updated 2520 05/10/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder Central Services Barrett 3, Sr Mgmt Analyst Total Time: 20 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 2451 05/17/2016 Carol Krager AAA May 17, 2016 Workshop Meeting 2560 05/17/2016 Carol Krager 'CCWKSHOP 30 Minutes - Fiscal Year 2017 Master Fees and Charges Finance and Collins C, Sr Mgmt Schedule Update Information Analyst Services Notal Time: 30 of 180 Minutes Scheduled 2452 05/24/2016 Carol Krager AAA May 24, 2016 Business Meeting 11 2434 05/24/2016 Norma Alley ACCSTUDY 15 Minutes - Council Liaison Reports Central Services 10/29/2015 2556 05/24/2016 Lloyd Purdy ACCSTUDY 25 Minutes - MURP/State of Place - final presentation Community Purdy, L, Econ I Development Development Mgr Total Time: 40 of 45 Minutes Scheduled I II 2522 05/24/2016 Carol Krager CCBSNS 20 Minutes - LCRB Contract Placeholder Central Services .Barrett 3, Sr Mgmt Analyst Total Time: 20 of 100 Minutes Scheduled 8 Pc is\adm\carol\tentaty ag\2016\feb 2 2016.docx AIS-2551 3. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: 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: • October 27, 2015 • January 12, 2016 OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments October 27, 2015 Minutes January 12, 2016 Minutes City of Tigard Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes TIGARD October 27, 2015 STUDY SESSION The Study Session started at 6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Cook,Councilor Woodard,Councilor Goodhouse,Councilor Henderson and Council President Snider Staff Present: City Manager Wine,Assistant City Manager Newton,Contracts Manager Barrett, Police Captain Rogers,Police Detective Foulkes, City Engineer Faha,Project Coordinator Peck,City Attorney Ramis and City Recorder Krager A. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS—Councilor Henderson distributed a report on Washington County's 10-year plan to end homelessness. He noted that Washington County returned $221,742 to the Housing and Urban Development Department for vouchers that could have been used for housing but were not because there were no places to rent. He spoke about some of the reasons there is currently more homelessness and asked that council read the report. He noted that it had not yet been approved by the commissioners. Mayor Cook discussed the SW Corridor Public Forum and said he was impressed with the number of attendees. There were 75 people attending. Councilor Henderson commented that it was well run and everyone got answers to their questions. Mayor Cook said there will be a vote in November to reduce the number of alignments. There will be an online survey and he will share the results. Councilor Goodhouse said he and Councilor Henderson attended a presentation on Tactical Urbanism at the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) meeting. He said a visitor at the meeting mentioned the traffic at the 92"d and Summerfield intersection and asked if a round planted median would help. Mayor Cook said the city engineers have been emphasizing pinching traffic to slow it down rather than installing median circles.He noted city staff has already been working with the Summerfield neighbors on this issue. Councilor Henderson said that one of Suenn Ho's ideas at the Tactical Urbanism meeting was to install free libraries in the form of plastic newspaper boxes along the Tigard Street Trail. CCAC Member Bush and others will work on this. He suggested the library should be informed about it. B. DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING CONTRACTS—Contracts Manager Barrett discussed the Dirksen Nature Park Education Center and Pathway Improvements project. Invitations to bid were due September 24 and three were received—Lee Contractors at$180,686,Brown Contracting at$252,248 and an incomplete bid from Pac Green Nursery and Landscaping. The engineer's estimate was $122,610 so staff worked on scaling back the project with the low bidder to keep it within available funding. By removing the concrete sidewalk and some other minor adjustments they were able to get back under existing funding for the project.The final contract will be around$115,000. Mayor Cook asked about the location of the sidewalk and TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 1 of 16 staff clarified that it is not at the Environmental Education Center but at the south end of the park near Summer Creek. Project Coordinator Peck said while it is at the other end of the park it was an element added to the package to gain connectivity from Fowler Middle School to the Fanno Creek Trail and to also allow for easier access by parks department maintenance vehicles. Mayor Cook asked about putting an in asphalt path until we can get funding for a concrete path. City Engineer Faha said staff could consider that and will be seeking an Oregon State Parks grant so that might be an opportunity. Contracts Manager Barrett replied to a question from Councilor Woodard about whether the contract needed to be rebid. He said it is clear that the second bidder would still be highest even with the reduction of the sidewalk. He said the largest difference between the two bidders is related to the building improvements section and he did not see the bids coming down between the two enough to warrant going back out for bid. City Manager Wine asked if this could be on a future consent agenda and council agreed. Contracts Manager Barrett said it will be on the November 10 consent agenda. C. CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE (TMC 7.42) UPDATE Captain Rogers and Detective Foulkes introduced this item. This code section has never been used but with some updating could be a valuable tool to help with livability and safety issues in some neighborhoods that are causing great distress. Nuisance properties can also be a drain on city resources. Proposed TMC changes include adding some specific crimes to the existing list of violent crimes more common in the 1980s and 1990s. Captain Rogers said a comparative analysis completed on one Tigard property with repeated and ongoing nuisances,including two drug overdoses in one day,showed officers spent 140 hours responding,or 17.5 days.The costs range from$9,100 or$18,000. They looked at nuisance ordinances in other cities and decided to make some changes to the city's chronic nuisance property ordinance to give police more agility to respond and higher civil penalties to be more of a deterrent. Captain Rogers said even if the property owner does not live on site they will need to be engaged because of potential impact to their pocketbook. Captain Rogers said the number of nuisance occurrences is revised from four to three,and the time period changes from 60 to 120 days. Added crime definitions include prostitution,theft,arson,sexual abuse,contributing to the delinquency of a minor, sexual misconduct,alcoholic liquor violations,offensive littering,illegal gambling,animal abuse,animal neglect and animal abandonment. Councilor Woodard expressed concern about the offensive littering crime and asked what happens if someone just does not have the means to clean up their property. Captain Rogers said offensive littering is not just garbage;it would be things like emptying a porta-potty on the street;leaving dog feces or rubbish in the road, something that is offensive to the neighbors. He said owners will be given notification;they will be warned and know what a third offense will set in motion. A municipal judge will require abatement or fines could be levied against the property of up to$1,000 a day. He said to prevent a situation whereby a neighbor is being singled out or picked on by other neighbors,the complaints will need to be substantiated and triaged by police. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 16 Councilor Goodhouse asked about panhandling and said he is hearing from more citizens that this is a problem. Captain Rogers said as long as the panhandlers are not impeding traffic the police do not interact with them. They are protected by free speech and panhandling is not against the law in Oregon. If a car stops unsafely to give them money it is a violation for the driver. Councilor Goodhouse said this is a nuisance. Mayor Cook said he did not think it was a good idea for the police to be out ticketing people who are giving money. Council President Snider asked City Attorney Ramis if there even was an opportunity for a Tigard ordinance against panhandling and City Attorney Ramis said it has been tried and did not work because of the First Amendment argument. The only way to regulate their behavior is if they are endangering traffic or trespassing. Councilor Woodard mentioned he has noticed an increase in loitering on trails and under the viaduct and is concerned about public access areas being inhabited by people loitering or drinking. He asked if police can cite people on the paths creating problems for walkers. Captain Rogers advised him to use his cell phone and report it. He noted there are bike officers on the trails now. Councilor Woodard also reported people defecating in the dirt area of his family's property on Burnham and Main Streets. Council President Snider referred to the proposed ordinance and asked why a 120-day period was selected and why there could not be an even longer time period. City Manager Wine said this is a policy decision that council could decide. Detective Foulkes said staff looked at other local agencies and 120-days is the standard and has held up in court. Councilor Goodhouse said properties of this type are rare in Tigard and most people will shape up after two warnings. City Attorney Ramis said the numbers must be reasonable from a prosecution point of view. One risk is a judge may think that three events in even 360 days is extreme. City Manager Wine said this ordinance will be on the council agenda November 10. Administrative Items: 1. Council's holiday greeting for TVCTV will be taped at 6:00 p.m. on November 10. Mayor Cook asked to have Executive Assistant Bengtson call and remind council the day before. 2. The November 3,2015 CCDA meeting is cancelled. Next CCDA meeting is December 1. 3. City Recorder Krager distributed copies of the public comments received by the noon deadline regarding the Fields Trust Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. 4. February 4,2015,is Mayor Cook's State of the City Address,at Indio Spirits,time TBA. 1. BUSINESS MEETING - 7:30 PM la A. At 7:31 p.m. Mayor Cook called the Tigard City Council meeting to order. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 3 of 16 C. Mayor Cook asked those attending to stand with him for the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Mayor Cook asked staff and council if there were any Non Agenda Items. None. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication: City Manager Wine said council heard from Paul and Joni Heidt and Kristen Block about an application for a proposed cell tower in their neighborhood. Council asked that staff meet with neighbors and view the meeting video to hear their testimony. That meeting occurred and there continues to be frustration about the city code's inadequacies as it relates to the attachment of cell towers to utility poles. The situation is under staff review and a decision will be rendered by the end of the month. Council President Snider stated to the extent possible he would like staff to solve the neighbors'problem and still move the application forward,particularly if the solution involves discussion with the applicant. City Manager Wine said it was her understanding that neighbors and staff have both indicated to the applicant that alternatives are sought. A reference was made to putting the tower on property the city owns but it turned out that the property referred to was Jack Park and there is a community garden in that spot. She said all parties are trying to meet the interests of the neighbors in particular and she will report back on this in the future. B. Citizen Communication—Sign-up Sheet Mayor Cook asked those who signed up to speak for the Quasi Judicial Public Hearing to speak to the resolution under consideration only and reminded them that they may not speak to the rest of the record. Neal Brown, 13853 SW Box Elder Street,Tigard,OR,97223 read"Ode to a Fallen Soldier" about two political lawn signs,one that was vandalized with spray paint and broken. He found the damaged sign on the ground in the rain. Rain represents tears that after 50 years of being a city we still do not have a community or recreation center. He said 20 years ago Sherwood showed Tigard the way. This is Tigard's opportunity to turn raindrops into tears of joy. He said,"Please vote,please vote yes,please vote yes for Tigard." He submitted three copies of the tabloid materials supporting the community center from the Friends of the Downtown YMCA to council and copies have been place into the record. Cleon Cox, 13580 SW Ash Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,spoke as a Tigard tax payer for the past 31 years. He asked people to vote no on Measure 34-241. He said it is his opinion that the city cannot afford its own recreation center as proposed. He said the project sounds great but not at the taxpayers' expense which he has figured would be a four-percent property tax increase for him. If this goes through the city will still come back for more money for maintenance or other problems with it.This is just the first round. He said another problem he has is that a city councilor and PRAB liaison is one of the main proponents and that seems like a conflict of interest. He said Oregon is the fifth worst state for senior citizens to live in based on taxes and this would be another tax on top of the others. He said the advertising on this is misleading;everybody seems to think it is the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27, 2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov Page 4 of 16 YMCA but that has not been figured out yet. Misleading information is out there and it bothers him that people are referring to it as the"Y"at a specific address downtown. Misleading information is not right,not correct. It bothers him when people call it the Y. Maybe it should go in further from downtown out near where the new growth is. As for gathering together,times have changed;people do not do that. He suggested letting the private sector fund its own recreation center. Chris Garstek, 11774 SW 125th Court,Tigard,OR,97223,invited everyone to the Halloween Dog Costume Contest at Potso Dog Park on October 31,Mayor and Mrs. Cook and Parks Supervisor McKnight are judges this year. The contest is for dogs but their owners can wear costumes too. Nick Frezza, 13275 SW 76`h Avenue,Tigard,OR,spoke regarding the resolution before council this evening. He said on October 13 Councilor Goodhouse proposed an amendment and much discussion ensued. Instruction was given to the planning staff to go back and craft a resolution. Councilor Goodhouse's intent was to prohibit access through the Rolling Hills neighborhood to any new development on the Fields Trust property. There was no intent to repeal Resolution No. 79-87. The neighbors looked at the proposed resolution on the city's website one hour ago and were disturbed. He said Section 1 prohibits vehicular traffic originating from the Fields Trust property from passing through the adjacent Rolling Hills neighborhood. It does not say anything about getting there. Section 3 repeals Resolution No. 79-87 which was the street plug. The resolution before council tonight does not reflect the intent of Councilor Goodhouse's original idea. This creates an opportunity however far-fetched,to make Varns Street a one way street into any development and take the plug out. He said that was not the intent. Eric Lea,7530 SW Varns Street,Portland,OR 97223,spoke to same issue as Mr. Frezza. His concern is that the proposed resolution is clearly not in the spirit of the resolution from the conclusion of the previous meeting. He said he watched the video of the meeting many times and Councilor Goodhouse's proposal contained language that proposed an amendment to the approval of the zoning change that would prohibit access to the Fields development via Varns Street. This was not simply an acknowledgement of Resolution 79- 86;it was a much bolder,more meaningful statement that would not lend itself to reversal or easy modification by a future council with or without public comment. It is their concern that these things can be readily changed without additional public comment. The message was clear—no through traffic on Varns Street to future development on the Fields Trust property. He said they began the evening with a simple acknowledgement of the previous resolution that had a street plug on Yarns Street. Councilor Goodhouse's resolution strengthened it by suggesting plugs be placed on other routes to prohibit through traffic on Varns. He said they have gone from acknowledging it,to strengthening it,to now weakening it. The proposed motion was manipulated and diluted so it is largely powerless and ineffective. He urged council to consider the original spirit of the motion and act upon it not the new,diluted version. SI April Frezza, 13275 SW 76th Avenue,Tigard,OR, 97223,agreed with the previous two speakers that the language in this resolution does not match the intent of what was deliberated on October 13. What she heard clearly was that Councilors Goodhouse and Snider were concerned about access through the Rolling Hills neighborhood not only from Varns Street but from any street within the Rolling Hills neighborhood. She asked council TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 5 of 16 not approve this resolution as drafted and hold true to the intent of what they were trying to reach on October 13. Reed Gillette,7480 SW Varns Street,Tigard,OR,97223,commented on the resolution. He said intent is mental desire and will to act in a particular way. He echoed his neighbors in saying that the intent was not what was drafted. In his profession he is required to take ethics training every year and has to sign off that he understands what ethics are,knows how to behave and what is right and wrong. He said that given the fact that this was drafted a certain way and there were some other things going on,he encouraged the planning commission to take ethics training so that,"we are aware and things are transparent."He asked the city attorney to examine the way conduct is being handled. He said,"My tax dollars are paying for this and I believe lawsuits could come up from these types of things." He said the city should take a look at the way the planning commission behaves. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Cook announced the consent agenda items. Item B (Council Minutes) is not included in the motion to approve the Consent Agenda and will be considered at the next business meeting. A. PROCLAIM OCTOBER 27,2015 AS MANUFACTURING DAY IN TIGARD B. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: • October 13,2015 C. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Councilor Woodard's National Parks and Recreation Association Conference Notes Councilor Woodard moved for approval of the Consent Agenda. Council President Snider seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ 4. PRESENTATION OF THE TREE FOR ALL CHALLENGE AWARD BY CLEAN WATER SERVICES Clean Water Services Watershed Director Bruce Roll presented the Tree for All Challenge Award to the City of Tigard. He said a challenge was issued to mayors and councils and played a video chronicling the eight-month long planting period activities. He thanked city staff Carla Staedter, Steve Martin,Lora Faha,Greg Stout and Theresa Reynolds. He mentioned the leadership of Mayor Cook and City Manager Wine. Mayor Cook said trees mean a lot to the community. Trees in TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 6 of 16 stream corridors are important for animals and the environment. He said Project Coordinator Staedter has been a stalwart supporter and won an award for her environmental work this year. 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION EXPANDING TIGARD EN 1'ERPRISE ZONE TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Economic Development Manager Purdy gave the background information on an opportunity to expand Tigard's Enterprise Zone to include Lake Oswego.Approving this resolution will add an area of Lake Oswego to the zone including 100 acres of property, 85 tax lots that are industrial or commercial and opportunities for 18 firms. One firm is ready for immediate investment. Lake Oswego City Council passed a similar resolution of approval and if Tigard passes one tonight,both resolutions will be sent to Business Oregon for their approval. Mr. Purdy showed an updated GIS map that defines the new zone. Councilor Henderson agreed that there is a lot of work to be done and he is glad we are working with our neighbors. He said it is a good thing for both cities. Councilor Woodard commented that this is a good program and will be another great partnership with Lake Oswego. Mayor Cook said Council President Snider moved for approval of Resolution No. 15-48. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Mayor Cook asked City Recorder Krager to read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO.15-48—A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST TO THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE TIGARD ENTERPRISE ZONE TO INCLUDE A PORTION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse V 6. CONTINUED QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY a. Open Public Hearing: Mayor Cook announced that the Public Hearing is closed.Written testimony only regarding the lot line adjustment and received by noon today was entered into the record and may be considered during deliberation. City Attorney Ramis said normally he would at this time read a lengthy statement about testimony process. He said in this case that is not necessary because testimony will not be taken as council is now at the deliberation stage. He noted for the record there was a request for the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 7 of 16 record to reopen to allow more information about a lot line adjustment and its relation to the zone change. The city sent out a notice making it clear that there was an opportunity to submit written testimony and comment on this and council can consider that testimony. He said council could reopen the hearing if they chose but there was no legal requirement to do so. b. Staff Report: Associate Planner Pagenstecher said materials in the agenda included information brought forward from the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change,a resolution requested by council and the public comments mentioned earlier. There were five comments from four neighbors and one from the applicant. He briefly addressed the issues. 1. Why would the city permit a lot line adjustment during a rezone application? It is an independent process and serves the applicant's desired outcome,however at their own risk. There is no effect on zoning.There is no connection. 2. Why would lot line applications not be shared with neighbors,planning commission or city council? Attachment Iof the application shows the intention to readjust the lots. A Type I review requires no notice and this is not material to the rezone. 3. Can a zone be changed without council action? No. It can only be changed with council action. 4. Can a lot line adjustment be used to circumvent an application for a zone change? No. The status of the lot line adjustment today is that the county tax layer shows them as submitted by Nick Frezza in comment letter. No. 2. However,the record of survey which was accepted by the county on August 12 shows the outcome of the second lot line adjustment which is as shown in Kelly Hossaini's comment letter No. 4 and is consistent with the legal description in Attachment 1 of the application for the zone change. 5. The ordinance for the October 13 council hearing may be invalid because of the tax lot references. True. So the ordinance tonight has been revised with current tax lot numbers available from the county. Mr. Pagenstecher said in conclusion that the lot line adjustment is not a relevant issue for council's deliberation on the proposed application.As shown in the staff report the project meets the applicable approval criteria and can be approved with the recommended conditions of approval. c. Staff Recommendation:Associate Planner Pagenstecher said staff recommends that council adopt the ordinance approving the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 8 of 16 d. Council Deliberation Council President Snider asked if council's intent is to act on the ordinance before Resolution No. 15-49 and expressed discomfort with that order. City Attorney Ramis said that it completely within the discretion of council to change or adjust the order of the agenda. Council could continue the discussion on the ordinance,act on the resolution first,and then return to consideration of the ordinance. Council President Snider said he was not sure he could approve one without the other and they are not in an order that would assure him of that. Mayor Cook asked council if they wanted to change the order and consider the resolution first. Council agreed. e. Council Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 15-49 Council President Snider noted he heard significant concern from the public tonight that what council previously proposed is not what was written. He asked who wrote the resolution and Associate Planner Pagenstecher said he wrote it to meet the intent of the concern about preventing vehicular traffic from entering the Rolling Hills neighborhood from the Fields Trust property. It is in three parts and does that however,he understands the neighbors feel there could be traffic coming from the other way. Council can address that if they feel it is a risk. Councilor Goodhouse said that is one aspect,but he also meant to add onto and not repeal previous Resolution No. 79-86. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said he added the repeal because he thought they would be redundant. If vehicular traffic is prevented from entering the neighborhood that would include Varns Street. Council President Snider said he understands the concerns people have about repealing 30-plus years of a resolution being in place but he also agrees that they are redundant. Councilor Goodhouse said the wording should be changed to say that traffic is not allowed going either way and it is blocked off. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said staff could take that direction and revise the resolution for future review. Council President Snider said if it is not revised now council may not be acting on the ordinance and he asked how much time there was to revise it. Councilor Henderson said he heard it was troublesome to affix this resolution to the ordinance. He clarified that this is a separate issue, changing the 30-year old resolution to include not just Yarns Street but the entire Rolling Hills community itself. He said he did not want to make this a part of the ordinance so it does not complicate things in the future. Councilor Woodard said the resolution seems complex and he had concerns about potential risks and opportunities and what they might mean to the community and future development. He said he is concerned about risks to tax payers,economic development and livability and it is hard to imagine without knowing the vision for the development. He mentioned past requests for council review of code language regarding through-roads and barricades,and potential openings,etc. He said he had concerns about past council decisions and the precedents set. Without development plans or a traffic study he had difficulty conceptualizing. Associate Planner Pagenstecher agreed that council is being asked to make a decision to support one point of view without any countering information to support other values. He said he understands how without a vision or strategic plan to orient to it might seem incomplete. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 9 of 16 Council President Snider said this is a situation where if there had been a robust transportation network in this area the concerns and issues being raised by large group of neighbors may not be as relevant. But he thinks the transportation network in this area (adjacent to the Fields Trust property and Rolling Hills neighborhood) is inadequate. He travels it multiple times a week and it is one of the weaker parts of the city's transportation network. He said with that and the concerns and action from the 1979 council,the right thing to do is pass the resolution with amendments. The simplest way to fix the language is to strike the word"originating"and add the words "to and." As far as repealing Resolution No. 79-86 he looked to the city attorney for advice on whether it matters that there are two different resolutions and if it would be good for simplicity reasons to repeal it. He asked if there should be an acknowledgement of Resolution No. 79-86. City Attorney Ramis said it would be cleaner to express for the record the intention to replace a resolution that was narrower with one that is more comprehensive. That would explain the repeal and the intent behind it. He said if council leaves both in place it does create the potential for arguments about the possible ambiguity between them. Councilor Goodhouse said he agreed with Council President Snider about amending the language and acknowledging Resolution No. 79-86. It could be referenced so in future cases it is known that this council basically expanded the wishes of a council 30-years prior. Councilor Woodard said the council in 1979 had it right and this was an honest attempt to keep traffic from going down Varns Street.The resolution stands in its own. He said he was not sure how the area can be fully developed unless there is a really creative and great opportunity that would increase the homeowner's properties and be an investment to the entire community. That process was left in place so future councils could wait until those things came into play. The resolution and plug would still be in place. He said he was not comfortable creating something on the fly and is concerned about potential risk. When the city gets into the development aspect,traffic analysis and design,then the public comes back, reviews it and we start all over again. This could be ten or twenty years down the road. He said he did not want to make decisions for a future council. Council President Snider countered,"Future councils could repeal it." Councilor Henderson said there is language in the original resolution referring to signage and it is not present in the proposed resolution. He asked if there was language that protects what was originally protected. Associate Planner Pagenstecher referred him to the first"whereas"phrase where he paraphrased the earlier resolution referring to the plug on Varns Street including placing signs on the east entrance. Mayor Cook said he concurred with Councilor Woodard. He spoke with his father who was on the 1979 city council that passed this resolution.The reason it came forward is that the exit ramp from 217 was being put in. He said Resolution No. 79-86 is fine and is still in place. A future council can decide to change it,take it out or strengthen it. He said it does not relate to the zone change. Councilor Goodhouse said the proposed resolution holds up what was done in 1979 to make sure it cannot be side-stepped.All it would take is a simple side road to bring in traffic onto Varns. This just adds a few words to what council did in 1979. If new traffic studies and development come up in fifteen years then that council can change it with public hearings. Council President Snider said problems with leaving the resolution as is are that things have changed since 1979.The neighborhood has changed,35 years have passed,what is envisioned TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 10 of 16 in the big picture for the Fields Trust property is well known,the neighborhood is built out, and there are other roads at play. The intent of 1979 was clear but he thought council needed to take some action now and admittedly,could be repealed in the future. Councilor Woodard said he would be comfortable coming up with a new resolution after holding a workshop meeting on it.He said he was concerned about coming up with changes on the fly when he did not understand how it could affect process litigation. He heard the word, "lawsuit"in the testimony tonight. He said he prefers to stand by the 79-86 resolution,hold a workshop and look at the code. He does not want to make a decision that will increase risk. He said he wanted to understand the legal ramifications. It looks like it would be good for the neighborhood but he wanted a workshop in order to understand risks and opportunities. Council President Snider asked if he would pass it tonight with a six-month sunset so those discussions can be held. He said if council does not do that he is not sure he can support the rezoning. Mayor Cook said his worry with waiting six months is that Councilor Woodard's concerns relate to more than this property. Councilor Woodard said he did not want to make that commitment and would like this topic scheduled for a workshop so he can get more land use and legal information. Councilor Goodhouse said he cannot move forward with the rezoning if the resolution is not considered with the simple changes. Councilor Woodard said he agrees with 79-86 but the language is not just a simple change to him. Mayor Cook noted that there are many properties and ways in and out of this neighborhood. Council has a chance to stop anything coming forward in the future. He said this does not relate to the zone change. Council President Snider moved for approval of Resolution No. 15-49 with the following amendments. Strike the word"originating" and add the words, "travelling to and." Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Mayor Cook asked if there was further discussion. Councilor Henderson said what makes him certain about not voting for this is that 79-86 is in place and it is protected. Council President Snider said things have changed and that council did not have the foresight that the current council does. Councilor Goodhouse said two weeks ago all five councilors agreed to bring this back and consider new language. Mayor Cook said it was late at night and people were willing to postpone and come back for discussion. Council President Snider asked,with the importance of what the city is trying to do in an economic development partnership perspective for the Fields Trust property,why would council want to move forward with a contentious 3-2 vote either way and have it be contested and show council division. Councilor Henderson said this conversation started because there was concern from the citizens about the intent of Yarns Street being pushed through and confusion about whether or not that would be tied to the ordinance. He said it should not be tied to the ordinance and he saw no problem with leaving this alone. It is protected by a resolution. Mayor Cook conducted a vote on the motion to approve Resolution No. 15-49. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 11 of 16 RESOLUTION NO. 15-49-A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PROHIBITING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ORIGINATING TO AND FROM THE FRED FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY TO PASS THROUGH THE ADJACENT ROLLING HIT.T S NEIGHBORHOOD.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF THE DATE OF THIS REOLUTION IS WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S MAP AND TAX LOTS 2S1010001100,2S101CA00100, 2S101CA00800,AND 2S101DB00400 AS AMENDED BY ADDING THE WORDS"TRAVELING TO"AND STRIKING THE WORD"ORIGINATING. Yes No Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook announced that the motion failed 3 to 2. He concurred with Councilor Woodard and said this can be discussed in a Workshop session. Councilor Woodard made a motion to retain Resolution No. 79-86 in its full force. Council President Snider asked City Attorney Ramis to address a procedural question about moving to maintain existing resolutions. City Attorney Ramis said council is free to do that but if the question is whether it needs to be readopted for it to be in effect,the answer is no. Councilor Woodard withdrew his motion. Mayor Cook said council would now deliberate on Ordinance 15-16. Councilor Henderson moved for approval of Ordinance 15-16. Councilor Woodard seconded the motion. Council President Snider asked to revisit how much of the decision is quasi-judicial and how much is legislative. City Attorney Ramis said under Oregon's case law this would be considered a quasi-judicial decision as council is applying criteria to a discrete piece of property. He said it is sometimes confusing when making changes to maps because maps tend to be adopted by ordinance and ordinance action is thought of as legislative. In Oregon specific parcel map amendments are adopted by ordinance and are still considered quasi-judicial. Council President Snider said he takes his role and responsibility seriously and he has to evaluate this,steering clear of personal biases. He asked for a brief review of exact criteria to help with objective decision making. City Attorney Ramis said it would be appropriate for staff to reiterate the criteria if council wishes. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said applicable review criteria for this proposal are Community Development Code Chapter 18.380,Comprehensive Plan Goals 1,2,9 and 10;and Statewide Planning Goals 1,2,9 and 10. Those numbers in both cases are for Citizen Involvement,Land Use, Economic Development and Housing. He added Oregon Administrative Rule 660,Division 9, Oregon State Transportation Planning Rule and Metro's Title 4 (Economic Development). These are addressed in the staff report and the planning commission recommendation to council. Council President Snider clarified that the question is whether the application and modification are consistent with those goals or are they more consistent as currently is zoned.Associate Planner TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 12 of 16 Pagenstecher said the staff report addresses the applicable standards to the proposed zone change and staff found that the proposed zone change meets those standards. Mayor Cook asked City Recorder Krager to read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 15-16-AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (CPA2015-00004)AND ZONE MAP AMENDMENT (ZON2015-00005) FOR THE 42.6-ACRE FIELDS TRUST PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SW HUNZIKER ROAD &SW WALL STREET,TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM 37.4 ACRES OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL(IL),3.1 ACRES OF PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL (CP),AND 2.1 ACRES OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(L) TO 18.3 ACRES OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (IL) AND 24.2 ACRES OF MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT (MUE).THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM 37.4 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL PARK(I-P),3.1 ACRES OF PROFESSIONAL/ ADMINISTRATIVE COMMERCIAL (C-P),AND 2.1 ACRES OF LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R-3.5)TO 18.3 ACRES OF I-P AND 24.2 ACRES OF MUE. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1)APPLYING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE,2) PRESERVING EMPLOYMENT CAPACITY,3) IMPOSING A TRIP CAP,AND 4) ENSURING A 50-FOOT FORESTED BUFFER. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS WASHINGTON COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S MAP AND TAX LOTS 2S1010001100,2S101CA00100,2S101CA00800,AND 2S101DB00400 At Mayor Cook's request that City Recorder Krager conduct a roll-call vote. Yes No Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Mayor Cook announced that Ordinance No. 15-16 passed by a 4-1 vote of council. 7. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FINDINGS REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF AN UNNAMED STREET LProject Engineer Berry said Washington County passed an ordinance intended to vacate a remnant right-of-way property located at the southwest corner of Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road. It is within the Tigard city limits. Washington County's resolution was based on a finding that the right of way is no longer needed and should be vacated. A state statute requires that the vacation is effective only if the city concurs. Project Engineer Berry said the origin of the right of way remnant is obscure but seems to be the result of realignment of Scholls Ferry Road at some point. It has never been used nor improved. Staff recommends council approval of a resolution TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 13 of 16 concurring with the vacation which will enable it to be developed as part of River Terrace.There were no questions from council. Council President Snider moved for approval of the resolution and his motion was seconded by Councilor Woodard. RESOLUTION NO. 15-49 -A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FINDINGS REGARDING VACATION OF A PORTION OF COUNTY ROADS NOS. 746 AND 812 Yes No Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ 8. BRIEFING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) PROJECTS City Engineer Faha presented a quarterly update on the city's capital improvement plan (CIP). She showed a PowerPoint which is in the packet for this meeting. Her first slide was a summary of projects by category in the 2015-16 CIP not including the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership. She noted that the slides show the projects as of July 1 and projects which have been added since. She said already added two more since the PowerPoint was prepared. Highlights about each category were given. Colored circles indicate on target,minor issues or major issues. Parks Projects Dirksen Nature Park Education Center bids were received and as discussed in the Study Session the contract will come before council in November.A grant for Tigard Street Trail will be sought. The Fanno Creek Trail RFFA (Regional Flexible Funds Active Transportation and Complete Streets) grant has significant projects along the Fanno Creek Trail and is moving through the ODOT process now and a consultant is being hired. One additional project is the Fanno Creek Trail remeander which is back on the schedule. There is an upcoming amendment with Clean Water Services that will detail how Tigard's portion of the project cost is significantly lowered. An additional project is called the Tiedeman Trail and it better connects the Fanno Creek Trail across Tiedeman Road and through the Swann property to join the trail in Woodard Park at a safer and less sharp angle. Streets Engineer Faha said Pacific Highway/Gaarde/McDonald is essentially complete. Mayor Cook asked about the vacant southeast corner property where the gas station was. He said ODOT owns it and if they sell it,could the proceeds be utilized to reimburse city gas tax funds used for project overages. He asked for follow up on this and City Attorney Ramis said he would work on an intergovernmental agreement for that. Council President Snider asked if the city traffic engineer felt the expected results were achieved. Engineer Faha said she has only heard good comments about it. Walnut Street is being done by Washington County and is going well. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27, 2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 14 of 16 An added street project is Hunziker Core/Wall Street/Tech Center Drive. Economic Development Manager Purdy got one grant and is seeking another,but in the meantime the city needs to move forward to get the project started. Councilor Henderson asked about Wall Street and said normally property owners on the west side of Wall Street would have to be involved with half-street improvements. The improvements would be a benefit to those on the west side of Wall Street so, "Shouldn't they be partners?" Engineer Faha said staff is in the process of getting right-of-way and needs to create an IGA to make that happen. Water Projects Engineer Faha said the city's key engineering staff person has been working full time for over a year at the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership project so it has been difficult to do additional water projects. Work has begun on the aquifer#2 rehabilitation. Cleaning the well will happen next fiscal year. The 550 zone connection to Price Reservoir was supposed to help bring water to River Terrace. Different ways were found to provide water to that development so this project may be stopped and staff will instead try to move forward the reservoir project.An added project is the Red Rock Creek water line relocation. This should be done now along with concurrent work in the Hunziker area. Sanitary Sewer Projects The Barrows Road sanitary sewer line is joint project between Tigard,Clean Water Services and Beaverton. The Walnut Street sanitary sewer project is associated with the Walnut Street improvement project. This needs to be done at the same time and the money is in one fiscal year and needs to be spread among two. Storm The Canterbury Lane storm line upgrade is being timed because there is a water line project scheduled and staff attempts to make sure projects in the same location are done concurrently. Engineer Faha said the line is functioning. Councilor Woodard asked what was found during scoping of the line and Engineer Faha said she did not know the details but said the operations crew could no longer maintain it. She noted that the outfall retrofit program should be integrated with the storm water master plan. Staff is preparing to go out for a consultant to develop a citywide storm water master plan and the storm retrofit analysis should be part of that plan. The River Terrace stormwater implementation has been extended into this fiscal years. Analysis is nearly complete. Facilities Projects Permit Center/City Hall/Police Building exterior wall repairs are on budget and on schedule. Council President Snider asked how much it cost and City Engineer Faha noted the project is under budget. City Manager Wine said the project is not completely done.A Citywide facilities plan will be initiated soon. An added project is that the Police Department wants to add on and improve their shower facilities so initial conceptual scoping will be done this year and it may become a project. Engineer Faha said another add-on project is the Roy Rogers Road widening which Washington County is leading and the city has a substantial amount of money to go towards that project with funds collected through River Terrace SDCs. Community Development Projects The Main Street gateway monuments are almost complete and the artwork lights are being calibrated.The public works yard demolition is complete. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 972231503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 15 of 16 Mayor Cook referred to the number of graphics with red dots,indicating schedule issues. He asked Engineer Faha what council could do to help and if the answer was more staff. Engineer Faha commented,"project management is change management," and engineering staff are hoping to do a better job anticipating what is coming down the line. They are looking at which projects might be eligible for grants. She said they are working hard to coordinate with other departments to understand what their needs are especially Community Development. City Manager Wine noted there is an ongoing evaluation of the engineering workload and staff will be coming to council with a proposal for increased staffing. Councilor Henderson asked about the gateway art monument project and requested a copy of the as-built drawings. Engineer Faha said she will send that to him after project completion. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS-None 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 9:30 p.m. Mayor Cook announced that the Tigard City Council was entering into Executive Session to discuss real property negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). He said the council would adjourn from Red Rock Creek Conference Room after the Executive Session. 11. ADJOURNMENT At 9:44 p.m. Council President Snider moved for adjournment. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Yes No Councilor Henderson Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Mayor Cook Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Carol A. Krager,City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—OCTOBER 27,2015 City of Tigard 113125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1503-639-41711 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 16 of 16 City of Tigard 711 ■ I Tigard City Council/LCRB Meeting Agenda TIGARD January 12, 2016 STUDY SESSION A. At 6:30 p.m. Mayor Cook read the citation for an Executive Session to be held under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) property negotiations. The Executive Session ended at 6:45 p.m. B. Council Liaison Reports were given. C. Metro Councilor Dirksen updated council on SW Corridor decision deadlines,Metro's convention center hotel and a new online feature called Regional Snapshot which gives interesting facts about the region. He brought several handouts have been added to the packet for this meeting. 1. BUSINESS MEETING A. At 7:32 p.m. Mayor Cook called the Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board to order. B. City Recorder Krager called the roll. Present Absent Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ C. Mayor Cook asked everyone to stand and join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Mayor Cook asked council and staff for any non-agenda items. City Manager Wine had two items to bring forward under Non Agenda items at the end of the meeting. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION A. Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication—None. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 19 B. Tigard High School Student Envoy—Student Body President Shaina Azbari gave an update on recent and upcoming Tigard High School activities. Over$1,200 was raised by students for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Team Dom is selling t-shirts and bracelets to raise money for a mother in the community battling cancer.The National Honor Society is doing a coin drive for the Janus Youth Program for homeless youth in the Portland area.The winter choir concert was held. Tigard High students collected gifts to brighten the holiday season for a few needy families. Students wrote holiday cards for patients at Doernbecher Children's Hospital at lunchtime. A Poetry Slam is planned for January 21 and the community is welcome. C. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce—CEO Debi Mollahan reported that a multi-chamber speed networking event will be held on the first Thursday in February. The Bowl-o-Rama event is scheduled for March 5th and she encouraged the city council to put together a team. The Shining Stars banquet will be on April 29 and the call for nominations will go out January 13. Nominating information is on the Chamber website. Opening day for the Tigard Farmers Market is April 24 and they are excited about adding some new children activities and a demo garden. The Holiday Tree Lighting event attracted the largest crowd ever. D. Citizen Communication—Summerfield Civic Association liaison Robert Van Vlack, 15585 SW 109`h Avenue,Tigard, 97224,brought a request before the council. When Summerfield was constructed in the 1970s a brick wall was put up along Durham Road. In 2001 the association took over maintenance of the wall. Over the years it has deteriorated and repairs need to be made.The right of way along Durham Road at Summerfield is maintained by the city and he requested that staff remove some underbrush so they can access the wall to make the necessary repairs. He has discussed with Public Works Director Rager. He read a letter from the Summerfield Civic Association which has been added to the packet for this meeting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) — A. RECEIVE AND FILE: 1. Council Calendar 2. Council Tentative Agenda for Future Meeting Topics B. APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: November 24,2015 December 8,2015 Local Contract Review Board: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 2 of 19 C. CONSIDER IGA WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS D. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE TIGARD/ LAKE OSWEGO ENTERPRISE ZONE IN I'ERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Councilor Woodard moved for approval of the Consent Agenda and Council President Snider seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson V Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard V 4. CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly gave the staff report and read brief biographies of the members being appointed. Councilor Henderson thanked them for their service noting that there is a lot of work to be done in the downtown. Councilor Woodard congratulated CCAC Member Schlatter for being a new business owner on Main Street. He said her new food operation will be great for the city. Councilor Henderson moved for approval of Resolution No. 16-01 and Council President Snider seconded the motion. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. Resolution No. 16-01 —A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CARINE ARENDES,GINA SCHLAI'I'LR,MARK SKORUPA,AND DAVID WALSH AS VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY CEN'T'ER ADVISORY COMMISSION,AND SARA VILLANUEVA AS A NON-VOTING ALI'ERNAI'L MEMBER Mayor Cook conducted a vote and announced that Resolution 16-01 passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 3 of 19 CCAC Members Gina Schlatter and Carine Arendes were present and received a city pin from Mayor Cook. 5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Assistant Community Development Director McGuire gave the staff report. This appointment will fill the unexpired term of Planning Commission President Rogers,expiring in 2018. Proposed member Yi-Kang Hu is also a member of the Tigard Transportation Advisory Commission and has agreed to sit on both commissions. Council President Snider moved to approve Resolution No. 16-02 and the motion was seconded by Councilor Goodhouse. City Recorder Krager read the number and title of the resolution. Resolution No. 16-02—A RESOLUTION APPOINTING YI-KUNG HU AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TO FILL FORMER COMMISSIONER ROGERS'UNEXPIRED TERM Mayor Cook conducted a vote. Resolution 16-02 passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider V Councilor Woodard ✓ New Planning Commission Member Yi-Kang Hu was present and received a City of Tigard pin from Mayor Cook. 6. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING—CONSIDERATION OF A PARK MAINTENANCE FEE a. Open Public Hearing -Mayor Cook opened the public hearing and announced that this is a legislative public hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment. b. Staff Report: Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance gave the staff report. Consultant Todd Chase was also present. Mr.LaFrance said before council was an ordinance to establish a parks maintenance fee and a resolution to amend the master fees and charges schedule. Council discussed this in four Budget Committee meetings and two council workshops. It was also a topic at two Parks and Recreation Board (PRAB) meetings. He said the proposal is closely linked with the Tigard's Strategic Plan Goal 4 which is to fund the vision while also maintaining core services and this proposal for a park maintenance fee does exactly that. It will allow the city to fund and expand park services by 20 percent. Parks relate not only TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 4 of 19 to walkability through Tigard's trails,but they provide places where people can interconnect, take part in healthy pursuits such as sporting activities,gardening and connecting with neighbors and community members. In addition, this park maintenance fee proposal will allow the city to take something currently funded by the General Fund and give it another funding source. This frees up some of the General Fund and through Budget Committee actions this spring,the city will be able to reinvest up to $1.7 million towards core services. As discussed in Budget Committee this does not mean maintaining the same number of staff to provide services to a growing city,but it means growing those services to meet the demands. Mr. LaFrance highlighted citizen outreach that included Cityscape articles,a city park brochure distributed months ago and a webpage dedicated to this subject. A whiteboard video has been accessible to give people a brief summary of this proposal. Citizen input was solicited through the webpage and those unable to attend tonight's meeting were invited to respond in writing. Six responses were received and they were given to council and are part of the record for this hearing. Social media was used to promote this hearing. A PowerPoint was shown and is included in the packet for this meeting. Mr. LaFrance described issues including the budget cuts in 2010 and 2012,population growth increases,and workforce decreases.The city's expenses continue to grow by 4 percent while general fund revenue only rises 3.5 percent. In addition, over the last 15 years park land grew by 66 percent but staffing to maintain the parks has only grown 12 percent. Deferred maintenance gets more expensive the longer it is deferred. SDCs finance capital assets but are not used for maintenance. Seven different level scenarios were described. Council direction from the workshop meetings was to fund only#1 (current level of service) and#2 (deferred maintenance).The fee will be paid by residential and non-residential customers. The annual average cost for the deferred maintenance scenario will be used to level the fee amount. There will be annual inflation factors and council was very interested in a program for low income fee assistance. Council was asked what the fee should be per equivalent dwelling unit per month.They indicated in the workshop meetings that funding park capital projects and recreation might be placed on a property tax levy measure so people could have a vote. c. Council questions of staff Mayor Cook noted that the city had a $17 million park bond which leveraged to$23 million. A percentage went to build capital items in some parks but there was no maintenance aspect added. He said citizens are asking why city did not think of this before. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said a general obligation capital bond cannot be used on operations and maintenance. There were specific restrictions. The bond that passed was the second attempt. The first bond measure was broader in scope but community feedback was to focus on purchasing land while it was cheaper during the recession. He said city staff was aware of the fact that the city would need to come up with TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES-January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 5 of 19 ways to fund maintenance of the land but they were unaware that the financial situation would be what it is today. Local government has not experienced an economic recovery. Councilor Goodhouse asked if the un-programmed$400,000 would go into the recently created rainy day fund. Mr.LaFrance said it goes to help keep the fund balance above the minimum requirement expenditures.There is still a structural inequity due to revenues rising slower than expenses but it does buy some time and is sustainable for at least six years. d. Public Testimony Doug Vorwaller, 13267 Woodshire Lane,Tigard,OR 97223,is concerned about this approach. He appreciated the creativity in looking at options but is seeing a lot of other things being addressed other than park maintenance. If park maintenance is being changed from$2.2 million to$2.3 this will not even touch the improvements that need to be made. We probably need$3-4 million as an annual budget to address the real concern.The utility fee is a good option. He suggested doing the utility fee at 100 percent and then phasing out the city budget line item over five years. City staff could review it at that time. If Tigard is going to be the most walkable city we need to connect some of the trails and that is a new improvement.There are city properties to make some connections but many are wetlands so remediation must be done at additional cost. Scott Winkels,8366 SW Char Court,Tigard,OR 97224 said he is in favor of the park maintenance fee. His family,including two daughters and a dog,has been active users of the parks system. He complimented Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance for the clear presentation. There are a number of issues with the parks. There are some acquisitions and trails that are in desperate need of assistance. He said he believes the funding method that council has chosen is creative and given Oregon's basket case of a public finance system,is probably one of the few reliable options available. He said he would hate to see the investments that this community approved continue to deteriorate. He said he has spent a great deal of time in these parks and has seen fire fuels buildup,maintenance and public safety issues in the Fields and Dirksen properties.There are extensive homeless camps. He said a well-maintained and usable park and trail system will address a number of these issues. The funding mechanism proposed will create a necessary safety valve to keep the parks budget from having to compete with other vital city services. Lonnie Martinez, 10540 SW Walnut Street,Tigard,OR 97223,addressed having a fee rather than a vote and said he did not want to be forced to pay for something. He said in a democratic world people get a chance to say what they feel is best for them. He said he recently purchased a home here and thinks Tigard is beautiful. He is not opposed to parks but is against being forced to pay for something without a democratic process. He addressed walkability and said he walks from his home to take public transportation but just crossing the street is an issue.When he walks in Tigard he fears a little more for this life than he did when living in Portland. Michel Didin, 12625 SW Snow Bush Court,Tigard,OR 97223 said he was troubled by the shell game aspect of funding the parks system by taking funds from one budget and shoving TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 6 of 19 it back into others. His other concern is that he opposes something being done in his absence without his vote. He proposed that this matter be put to a vote so all Tigard citizens can express their opinion. James Caster,7996 SW Ashford Street,Tigard,OR 97224,said when he and his wife retired they bought a home in Tigard and liked the neighborhood very much. Since his wife passed away it has been harder for him to pay the mortgage. Part of the reason is that utility costs have increased greatly. Water bills have doubled. Gas,electric,garbage,insurance and property taxes have all gone up.Like many senior citizens he is on a fixed income and Social Security benefits did not increase. He said in high school civics he learned that the main purpose of government is to provide basic,necessary services for the public,paid for by the citizens. But in the decades that have passed it seems like government's prime directive is to take more and more taxpayer money with no limits in sight and no accountability. Over the past several years the state government spent over$200 million on planning for a bridge that was never built and they wasted$300 million on a health insurance website that never worked. Locally,Tigard wasted nearly$1 million on two ugly,useless sculptures at each end of Main Street. Parks are neither a utility nor a necessity; they are optional extras. They are a luxury and if they are classified as a utility,as seen in the presentation tonight, the costs will keep increasing year by year. He wants to keep his home and requested no additional taxes. He said,"Let's not make Tigard like Portland." Gary Nelson, 15671 SW Summerfield Lane,Tigard OR,97224,said he agreed with the mayor's comments on the acquisition of parkland without identifying how to pay for maintenance. He was on the Ashland Parks Commission as well as one in Billings,MT and also on the Regional Council of the National Parks and Recreation Association (NRPA) so he has a background in this area. In Ashland,whenever a new subdivision was built,initially they would give ten percent of the land to make a small park but found it to be inefficient. It was necessary to haul maintenance equipment to each little park. He sees that Tigard added 30 percent more parkland with virtually no identifiable way to maintain that park land. He said the cart is before the horse right now. He said that needs to be addressed. He asked if this money becomes available to the parks department will the parks manager have exclusive and total control over the funds. He asked if that manager will be able to identify where the money will be spent or would it become part of the political makeup of Tigard. Arthur Molinari, 13209 Woodshire Lane,Tigard,OR 97223,said he moved to Tigard in October but has lived in the area for a long time. He was surprised that his water bill was $100 more than he expected. He looked into it and found that compared to Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD),Tigard has 221-110 percent higher meter costs up front and 290- 950 percent higher monthly meter costs. He asked why this is so high. He said his fundamental issue is that the city is considering adding on a fixed cost as opposed to making it a tax which can be written off. He added that it does not encourage conservation. Mayor Cook replied that the water fee difference between the two water providers in Tigard is that in the last eight years the city entered into a partnership with Lake Oswego to construct a $254 million water plant.Tigard's water rates helped to cover that cost. It is TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 7 of 19 projected that TVWDs rates will increase even more. Council President Snider added that Tigard's alternative was to keep buying water from Portland and that was even more expensive. Lee Coleman,7170 SW Lola Lane,Tigard,OR 97223,said a park utility fee made about as much sense as adding a fee for road maintenance on his electric bill every month. He said the city could come back at any time and request more fees without much public input.This should go to the ballot so people can vote on it. Claudia Ciobanu, 14180 SW 89th Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,said she is a huge proponent of parks and has no problem with the park fee. She said there may be people who were not aware of this public hearing and expressed concern about giving people an opportunity to give input. She suggested a flyer in the water bill. She supported city leadership going forward with this fee to protect the large investment in parks. She said the city's vision is wonderful but she is worried that the sights are being set too short. She noted that council has given staff direction to focus on levels #1 and#2 but the people of Tigard have spoken loudly about their need and desire to have recreation in Tigard. The $10 monthly fee would not cover this. Paying for levels 1-7 would be more like$16 a month and while this could be a significant hit to some people testifying tonight,she would be happy to pay it and help subsidize others in order to achieve the dream of having a recreation program. She was not sure if council could go as high as $16 but suggested seeking input from those who would be affected by this and then examine options in between$10 and$16 by adding 50 cents or one dollar more to start funding a true recreation program in Tigard. e. Council Questions and Discussion Mayor Cook stated that while everyone refers to this as a water bill it does not mean everything on it is a utility. Two-thirds of Tigard receive their water from the city so there is a water charge. There is also a street maintenance fee and a Clean Water Services sewer district fee that is collected for the county. Everyone in Tigard is billed for sewer and the street maintenance fee but one-third of Tigard residents do not receive water from Tigard. The bill is the only mechanism to reach everyone. Mr.LaFrance noted that Section 15.2 in the proposed ordinance says as new parks are acquired or significant developments are made,that information will come to council so they know how this may impact the parks maintenance fee. The idea is not to let the funding source fall behind like it has today. He responded to comments about the higher utility bill and said it is the total cost of city services. Tigard citizens benefit from the lowest property tax rate for any city over 10,000 population in Washington County. When information is provided on the total cost of comparable city services including taxes, from a dollar standpoint Tigard is in the lower half but from the affordability standpoint Tigard is in the middle.The city puts a little more on the utility bill because it gets less from taxes and it all evens out. f. Mayor Cook closed the public hearing. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 8 of 19 g. Council Deliberation: Councilor Henderson said he wanted sideboards on the fee so council does not end up doing something other than what they said they will do. He heard concerns about whether to mandate this or put it to a vote. Parks are a core value he understands the cost and while we need to invest in our community,it needs to be reasonable. Council President Snider said council consists of five elected officials and this does represent a democratic process. We make decisions and spend taxpayer money every week. He understands that people do not want to be forced to pay for things but Tigard has the lowest tax rate of any city in Washington County that is even close to its size. City expenses are increasing at rates higher than property tax funding mechanisms. He said it is frustrating to be an elected official in an organization where expenses go up faster than revenues can be increased. He does not love increasing costs for services but sometimes council has to make decisions and choices. He is a proponent of moving this off the utility bill and onto a property tax levy.The city has to provide services and cannot continue to manage as it has, with expenses rising by four percent and revenues only going up three and one-half percent. He said people need to be able to plan for increased costs and he supported a phase-in mechanism,even four or five years for the entire$2.7 amount,or placing it on the ballot. Councilor Goodhouse said he wants a phase-in period and a low-income program to help people who cannot afford the increase. He said in the future he would like to take some things off the utility bill and combine them on the property taxes so they can be written off. He said people in the community do not realize the city is bringing in half of the money Beaverton residents pay in taxes and has done a great job but it is not sustainable. He said when you let part of a community degrade it takes longer to bring it up to standard. Councilor Woodard said during the Budget Committee hearings his main concern was keeping the library open on Thursdays. But he is also concerned about the deferred maintenance and the$400,000 to maintain the fund balance. He said unless there is a designated spot for these funds it is hard to explain that to voters. He said he supports 37 percent with a phase-in. He was thinking$2.00 but that will not cover the$400,000. He said there has to be a public process to find out if citizens want to pay out the other 63 percent. He mentioned he would like to have a discussion at a future meeting on some ideas he has on creative and innovative ways to raise money. Mayor Cook said there is too much discussion on what park and what maintenance we are going to do. It is called a park utility fee but the question is what we need in our general fund to cover our general expenses. He said he was in favor of this coming from property taxes and would support a local option levy. He explained that a utility fee amount is the same for everyone. A$200,000 homeowner pays the same fee as a$2 million homeowner. But a property tax would increase with the value of the home and is a tax write-off. He said he was willing to support a 37 percent park maintenance fee but was not willing to ask for$10 because the unallocated money would build up to a large amount that is too large not to be considered by voters in a local option levy. If a levy passes the fee can be repealed. He added that he did not vote for opening the library on Thursdays because he did not want to TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 9 of 19 vote for something that is not funded. He said the Thursday opening is with a skeleton staff and the city is short$100,000 annually to pay for that. Councilor Snider said it was embarrassing that a city of Tigard's size did not have a seven- day a week library. He said council agreed to open the library and do something like this to fund it. Councilor Goodhouse said his concern was that this amount is a Band-Aid approach. If council will consider 37 percent,why not raise it slightly to 40 or 44? He said it was ridiculous to make this move that will leave the city in the same position in a year or so. Mayor Cook suggested$3.75 with a four-percent inflation factor. City Manager Wine said there are code sections that need to be revised and some scrivener's errors and council has asked for time to review the new documents. The hearing can be held over. Councilor Henderson said the document came from the pavement management program and as he compared the two he noticed some inconsistencies. It refers to capital improvements and a recreation program. Finance and Information Services Director LaFrance said this is the minimum recommendation and gets the city expanded park services,pays for the library,sets aside $400,000.What it does not get to is a continuance of Goal 4. There will not be additional reinvestment into the general fund. Council President Snider suggested the low income program follow the water concept for a 50 percent discount for 12 months. A person could apply once a year. Mayor Cook said the public hearing is closed and deliberation will scheduled for a future council meeting. 7. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING—CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES TO PRESERVE MEDIUM DENSITY(R-12)RESIDENTIAL LAND a. Mayor Cook opened the public hearing and announced that it is a legislative public hearing in which any person shall be given the opportunity to comment. b. Staff Report:Associate Planner Pagenstecher gave the staff report. He said the city is initiating this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment to facilitate preservation of R- 12 zoned land and to make sure it is applied in a location that supports residential use. Staff supports the change in response to two development applications for two sites involving R- 12 zoning. The owners and representatives of owners are present tonight. In the pre- application meeting for Site A,the owner showed interest in rezoning from CP to R-12. The Toppings had earlier annexed the property and rezoned it to CP in order to establish a day care use in 2008 which they have not moved forward on. Site B is owned by the Tigard- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 10 of 19 Tualatin School District and they applied for a rezone from R-12 to CG. It has been identified as surplus property by TTSD and they want to sell it to the highest bidder. The zone change and site development review on Site B has been withdrawn recently in favor of the city's proposed zone change. Staff was aware that both sites had development interest and saw an opportunity to organize a swap that will gain the city a slight net increase in R-12 zoning. This is important according to the city's Housing Goal,"to provide a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future city residents." Preservation of R-12 zone lands is warranted because it allows a full range of housing types, with a minimum lot size of 33,350,provides flexibility for both attached and detached ownership and multi-family,rental-type housing which supports affordable housing options in the city. Attached single-family residential or detached single family housing on small lots are an important component of the city's strategy to provide for a range of housing types and a range of affordability. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said Site A is at Spruce and 72' Avenue and fronts on a local residential street. It is bordered by R-4.5 and low-density housing,unincorporated Washington County to the north and CG and R 4.5 to the south.The adjacent lower class streets and lower density residential use make the property more suitable for medium residential use. It would form a transition between lower density and commercial zoned properties. Site A is located behind Fred Meyer. Site B fronts on Pacific Highway,classified as a primary arterial and is flanked by property zoned CG. Residential property adjacent to Pacific Highway is rare as it is primarily associated with private and public school ownership and use which is allowed conditionally in residential zones.Topographically constrained land between Canterbury Lane and Bull Mountain Road also has R-12 zoned land along Pacific Highway. This swap would result in a .17-acre net increase in R-12 zoned land. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor,supporting the city's initiative to preserve R-12 capacity and to further owner and property developer interests in both Site A and B. The Metzger neighborhood is here also as they were present at the Planning Commission to alert council to their concerns:increased water runoff,increased traffic,inadequate parking, and loss of open space associated with future development. Mr. Pagenstecher concluded by saying these proposed amendments comply with applicable state planning goals,applicable regional planning regulations,Tigard Comprehensive Plan, and applicable provisions of the city's implementing ordinances. c. Council questions of staff: Councilor Woodard asked if there was a reason to choose a legislative hearing process rather than quasi-judicial.Associate Planner Pagenstecher said yes,given other deliberations in the city going on about the value of R-12 zoned land at the time the quasi-judicial proposal would be coming to the Planning Commission or Council;staff would most likely have not TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 11 of 19 supported it.This was because it would have created a loss of R-12 zoning. But if done legislatively with inclusion of this other property it could be supported because it would not create a net loss of R-12 zoning. There was also interest in getting the school property developed soon. Councilor Goodhouse asked why the city did not do a zoning swap with the Heritage Crossing property. Council President Snider said they did not offer a swap and the sum of the density would have been lower. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said swap opportunities are rare. d. Public Testimony Richard and Katie Topping 19765 Derby Street,West Linn,OR 97068 Katie Topping gave their history with the property. They bought it in 2008 and their goal was to develop a preschool. They wanted to make an amazing preschool but she needed to first get her Master's degree. They both continued to be teachers and wanted to sell the property but the recession hit. Finally,last year they received an offer from someone who wanted to build storage units.They decided that was not quite the right fit. Later,someone wanted to build a trampoline warehouse. They spoke to Stafford Development and felt that the housing situation was a good compromise. They wanted to do a zone change that was beneficial and also get some return on their savings. Richard Topping said he understood that there may be some resistance from people in the neighborhood. The current tenants strive to keep kids off the property but there are a lot of dogs and drug use going on the property and it is a constant battle to keep it maintained. He said developing it into nice houses would be a benefit to the community. Levi Levasa,Stafford Development Company,485 South State Street,Lake Oswego,OR 97034,said they approached the Toppings last year after noticing the property was prime residential area yet is was zoned commercial. It is surrounded by residential and there is currently residential use on the property. They expressed support for the zone swap and hoped council find the Planning Commission's decision and staff report to be accurate. Monet Ragsdale, 1521 Oxbow Drive,Montrose,CO,spoke in support of the zone change, especially on the property owned by the school district. That property is surrounded by commercial property and commercial uses and the zone change would allow private development to come in,creating jobs and adding to the tax base. Will Ramusen,Miller Nash Graham Dunn, 111 SW Fifth Avenue,Portland, OR 97204, spoke on behalf of the Tigard-Tualatin School District,the owner of Site B. This application is a win-win-win. It will help the property owner. It helps the city's housing supply situation and it helps the school district fix a problem that they have had for a long,long time. The district has held this property since the 1940s at least. In 2005 it was officially designated as surplus property. It is zoned residential but on Pacific Highway so they have received little interest from buyers since listing it in 2006. Only a few inquiries were received,all interested in commercial. They have spoken with the city a few times about changing the zoning but the cost of a quasi-judicial rezone that reduces the inventory TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 12 of 19 of housing,in light of regional and state policies,led the district to say no. He said this is an appropriate and creative approach and appreciates staff's leadership and the city for thinking outside the box to solve multiple problems. He noted some comments have come from people liking the sites and wanting them to remain open space. He said he hoped the city does not develop a policy that maintains open space through miss-zoned properties. Noreen Gibbons, 10730 SW 72nd Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,said she lives directly across from Site A. She referred to the previous speaker and said this would actually be win-win- lose for her neighborhood. She said when she purchased her property there were three houses across the street. When the Toppings bought the site and wanted to put in a preschool she was supportive of that use. That would have been fine with her and the quality of the neighborhood. But having 18-20 two-story houses built on the site will have negative effects on the character of the neighborhood, She said she had spoken to council before about traffic issues and there have been motorcycle officers in her driveway recently ticketing people for running the stop sign. She asked what the traffic will be like when there are six driveways across the street. She asked why the zoning had to be R-12 and suggested it be lower density. Gay Wakeland signed up to speak but left the meeting earlier. Ivan Vanek, 7290 SW Pine Street,Tigard,OR 97223 said he bought his home in 1995 with the understanding that the adjacent property would be developed with low density. He said that putting in two-story houses will be an eyesore and he does not agree with the plan. Jim Long, 10730 SW 72"d Avenue,Tigard,OR, 97223,distributed copies of his testimony and this has been added to the record. He said he is the chair of CPO4M,serving east Tigard,Metzger and Durham and will be speaking as chair and as a private citizen. He said the CPO4M unanimously voted to endorse retaining the Commercial General zoning for Site A. After reading the pre-application materials he found huge errors. If the city goes forward or approves this application he will appeal and the city will lose. He referred to Councilor Woodard's question about holding a legislative hearing and commented that holding this as a legislative public hearing process and not a quasi-judicial one minimizes public input and is highly irregular. According to Tigard Community Development Code 18.390.050,zoning map and text amendments should be quasi-judicial proceedings. He said the city is trying to change the statutes for review for the citizens to the detriment of citizen involvement and Goal 1 land use law. He said,"To put it another way,maybe you are not neutral." Mr. Long said citizens have not been involved in every phase of the planning process. All public notices and signs had the wrong date and time for this hearing. The public notices were not sent to all of the neighbors. The public notice of November 9 states that all documents are available for inspection and copies are available at least seven days prior to the hearing. On November 30 he came to review the documents and talked with Planners Floyd and Pagenstecher who told him there were no documents to review. (Code CDC 18.390.050.C.2.a.) On December7 he tried the published number of 503-718-2432 and left two messages. No one responded. He had to drive to the city with his questions.The city TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 13 of 19 put up flimsy signs at both sites that were unreadable by the first week of December. He showed photographs of the signs. Planning Commission Vice President Fitzgerald commented that maybe some sturdier signs could be put up which was not done. The public notice was not published on the city's website from December 3-December 6. Some neighbors just heard about this zone change and did not have time to prepare comments. At Site B there is a for sale sign listing"commercial" but the property is not commercial. CDC 193.90 there has been no readable effective public notice at either Site A or Site B since one week before the Planning Commission meeting last month. In the four weeks since and even though the Planning Commission was notified with photos and a commissioner suggested public notice signs be changed. This is a violation of due process and now,January 12,2016 there has been no public notice for over four weeks. This is a violation of due process 197.763 so this hearing has no effect. Because the other sign is four times larger and says commercial,the average citizen would probably think it was already zoned commercial. Mr.Long said the commercial sign at Site B is in violation of city code chapter 18.780.130.B, besides it is not zoned commercial. He said the file title "Residential Preservation"is a misnomer and is misleading to citizens. Preservation hides the nature of the application which is to change zoning.The file title should be understandable to citizens and residents. He asked why the city is doing this zone swap as the city does not have enough commercial property according to an Cogan Owens Cogan report. Do not take Site A out of commercial zoning. There is also a deficiency of R-12 residential zoning shown in the Angelo report. He said it was very important to note that there is no loss because school property was not included in that inventory of properties zoned residential. Yes,making Site B would place that property back on the tax rolls. He said he asked to see the 2006 staff report on annexation of the three properties (Site A) into the city but it was missing pages 3-11. The language in the 2006 annexation ordinance justified the importance of Site A to be commercial. A comprehensive plan amendment is not a periodic review but periodic review has occurred and the zoning has remained the same. He listed reasons why Site B should remain residential due to its location adjacent to Charles F.Tigard Elementary. Students could walk safely to school and residents and visitors could easily hop on public transit along Pacific Highway: The city staff report incorrectly states the description of Site A saying the current zone does not allow residential use. There are currently two houses and there were three prior that have been lived in for decades. He said the citizens do not support residential use there,particularly R-12, three- story buildings. Since there is a deficit of commercial property the city should not take Site A out of commercial zoning. He suggested rezoning the excess R-7 property the city has, per the Angelo housing study. He asked why the city does not simply convert Site B from residential to commercial. He said it appears that the city concocted this zone swap forgetting earlier findings and evidence. The city had reasons for keeping in commercial professional during annexation and periodic reviews. He asked that the city deny the request for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 14 of 19 (Heidi Rechteger and others gave their testimony time to Jim Long.) Leslie Gray, 10650 SW 75th Avenue,Tigard,OR 97223,said they bought their home in 1999 and moved from Portland in search of space. Living on one acre in Metzger they love the livability of the area. She said having 19 houses spring up behind your house is a shock. She said she is not against affordable housing but it impacts livability in the neighborhood and the schools. She noted the impact higher density developments have had on Metzger Elementary.At almost 600 students they are at capacity at the moment. These 19 homes as well as the proposed homes on Spruce and on Ash Street in the wetlands will become a problem for families that want their children to go to local schools. If a teacher is over capacity,children may have to be bussed to another school. This will affect our families and the education of our students. Nathan Murdock. 7415 SW Spruce Street,Tigard,OR, said he lived in three different locations on the street for over 23 years. One reason he likes the street is that the houses have big lots. His property of one quarter- acre,gives an opportunity for kids to grow and be off of the streets. He has been involved in putting speed humps and stop signs put in. The new homes at the end of 74th Avenue park on Spruce because there is not enough parking. It is the same problem at Tigard Woods. To build row houses or any other tight-fitting homes will only create more problems. He commented that ODOT said they have no problem and the development should not cause any problems but he has seen many traffic problems as the area becomes denser. When 99W backs up cars use Spruce,Pine and Oak Streets in their neighborhood. It would be nice to have a business on the property that is daytime only with cars that clear out at the end of the day or a guarantee that only 6-7 homes with quarter-acre lots would be built. Nancy Tracy,7310 SW Pine Street,Tigard,OR 97223, said she supports the CPO's unanimous vote to maintain Site A as commercial,professional one-story zoning. She said she is very disturbed at what the city is doing. Changing a zone is not a frivolous thing: We are talking as if the zone has already been changed. She felt the city's action to effect a quick rezoning on Spruce Street and R-12 rezoning is just a little short of a hostile takeover.This 1.35 acre area annexed to Tigard in 2006 sits within the Metzger community but Metzger has been kept in the dark. There is so much traffic on Spruce Street that parents fear for their children's safety when boarding the school bus because there is so much commuter traffic. This land will never exist again to provide a park. South of Spruce Street Tigard has a lot of land that will be redeveloped for more intense housing. That will leave people without a space to call their own. A park would allow a lot of release. Children and adults need space to run,climb or jog. Once this area is buried under tons of concrete or asphalt,it will be gone forever. It is a miracle that it has survived to this point. It has more potential that just for putting a development on it. She said she hope more consideration will be give this because there is no lack of developable land. e. Council Questions and Discussion TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 15 of 19 Mayor Cook asked about the public notices that had the wrong date and time for this hearing. The hearing notice for this meeting listed the date as Tuesday,January 12,2015. He apologized for putting in the wrong year. Otherwise the notice was correct. Council President Snider asked about the other process issues.Associate Planner Pagenstecher responded that he cannot vouch for some of that but he knew that Mr. Long submitted a records request that was filled and all items asked for were delivered. He referred to testimony that holding a legislative public hearing rather than a quasi-judicial hearing abridged their rights in some way but the process is the same. They both get hearings at Planning Commission and Council. Mayor Cook asked about the records request missing pages and asked if all items were delivered. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said if it was missing he certainly could have asked. He had not heard previously from Mr. Long about that yet he made particular effort to reach Mr. Long and be available for any questions but he did not take advantage of that. Council President Snider asked about the 2432 telephone number. Mr. Pagenstecher read his copy of the public notice and said the telephone number is 2434 which is his number. The sturdiness of the public notice signs was questioned by Councilor Woodard. Associate Planner Pagenstecher said in this case the signs were a casualty of the weather. He said the material used and methods of posting have been in use at the city for ten years. He said to his knowledge this is the first time it has been cited as a problem. Councilor Goodhouse mentioned that the sign the city put up at the proposed Heritage Crossing site was also down and asked staff to look into that. Mayor Cook proposed that due to the time,items remaining on the agenda,and possible missed postings or records request pages, the public hearing be left open to a date certain,with the continuation re-noticed and weather-resistant signs at the site reposted with this information. He asked council to ask staff any questions that they want answered at the continued public hearing. Council President Snider suggested Assistant Community Development Director McGuire validate and address the process issues raised tonight. He said residents say they will appeal the legislative decision and he had questions for the city attorney on that. He asked staff if this property (Site A) has ever been considered for park property in any park master plan or rating process for park acquisition. Councilor Woodard asked if the new homes on 74`'Avenue are R-12 or a lower density. He asked for a plotting or other visual information on what the different residential zoning areas mean and if lower density had been considered. He expressed concern that he hears there is not enough parking in the neighborhood. He said he supported the zoning change on Site B but has questions on the use of the quasi-judicial process for two properties. Councilor Henderson advised that the commercial property sign be taken down at Site A until it is zoned correctly. Mayor Cook agreed but said the city does not have an officer that drives around and checks signage unless there is a complaint. Council President Snider asked if real estate signs are controlled by the code and Associate Planner Pagenstecher replied that they do not have to go through the sign permit process. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 16 of 19 Councilor Woodard verified that Metzger Elementary is the school in that neighborhood and that any development would impact the school. Mayor Cook said that is not the city's issue;it would be up to the school district to handle. City Manager Wine noted that council is looking at a potential business meeting combined with the CCDA meeting of February 2 and the next available meeting would be March 8. Mayor Cook asked staff what the noticing requirement is and Mr. Pagenstecher said a public hearing is continued to a date certain and no additional notice is required. Councilor Goodhouse said he and Councilor Woodard would be absent on March 8. Councilor Goodhouse mentioned he liked to keep the zoning the same as the surrounding neighborhood. Council President Snider pointed out that R-25,R-4.5,CG and CP surround Site A and asked which one he considered the neighborhood zone. Councilor Woodard moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain of February 2 and Council President Snider seconded the motion. Mayor Cook reiterated that the record would be kept open. He conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse V Councilor Henderson V Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard V 8. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT Human Resources Director Bennett gave the staff report for this item. She said following their annual evaluation of the city manager, council recommended an employment contract amendment. Councilor Henderson moved for approval of Contract Amendment No. 6 to the city manager's employment contract. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion and Mayor Cook conducted a vote. The motion passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook V Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson V Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 17 of 19 9. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT AWARD TO MURRAY,SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR HUNZIKER PROJECT Public Contracts Manager Barrett,City Engineer Faha,Economic Development Manager Purdy and Engineer Newbury were present for any questions on this item. Public Contracts Manager Barrett said this was discussed at the December 15 council workshop meeting and there is not much new information that was not covered then. More refined numbers were received for Phases 2 and 3 but those phases would receive further refinement and would come back for council consideration. This contract is for engineering services for Phase 1 of the Hunziker infrastructure project. Since the city was going to contract separately with Murray,Smith and Associates for the Red Rock Creek water line project staff proposes rolling that into this contract in order to alleviate administrative costs. LCRB Member Snider moved for approval of the contract with Murray,Smith and Associates for the Hunziker project and LCRB Member Goodhouse seconded the motion. Chair Cook conducted a vote and announced that the motion passed unanimously. Yes No LCRB Chair Cook ✓ LCRB Member Goodhouse ✓ LCRB Member Henderson ✓ LCRB Member Snider ✓ LCRB Member Woodard ✓ 10. DISCUSS PROPOSED FY 2017 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET Due to the time council agreed to discuss this at the next business meeting.Assistant City Manager Newton handed out to council a copy of their budget with recent changes circled including adding money for a reception and including$10,000 for TYAC support.A copy has been added to the packet for this meeting. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION. None scheduled. 12. NON-AGENDA ITEM—City Manager Wine said there will be a council outreach event at the Summerfield Clubhouse on January 28,2016. She reminded council to wear their name badges. She noted that following the Community Attitude Survey staff also contracted with the vendor to put two focus groups together. Topics are what the barriers are for walking in Tigard and citizen willingness to pay for services and how they want to pay for them. Council may observe the focus groups Tuesday,January 19 at 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.in the Public Works Building. Council's Thursday packet will have all the details. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES —January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 18 of 19 13. ADJOURNMENT At 10:31 p.m. Council President Snider moved for adjournment. Councilor Goodhouse seconded the motion. Mayor Cook conducted a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Yes No Mayor Cook ✓ Councilor Goodhouse ✓ Councilor Henderson ✓ Council President Snider ✓ Councilor Woodard ✓ Carol A. Krager,City Recorder Attest: John L. Cook,Mayor Date TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES—January 12, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 www.tigard-or.gov 1 Page 19 of 19 AIS-2195 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Briefing on Community Development Cost of Service Study Submitted By: Tom McGuire, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Community Development staff have been conducting a cost of service study in advance of updating the land use and permitting fee schedule. This briefing will present the Council with preliminary results of the study and indicate potential changes or adjustments to the fee schedule that may be proposed by staff to Council at the hearing on June 9. At that meeting Council will consider adoption of the fee schedule for FY2015/16. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST This is a briefing for Council on the cost of service study and preliminary look at the fee schedule. Staff will discuss tentative recommendations with Council. The fee schedule is formally discussed and adopted in June. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of the cost of service study is to assess the fairness and accuracy of the current land use application fee structure and to analyze and explore policy options for setting the future land use fee structure. It has been at least six years since any previous study has been conducted to assess the land use fees, or to examine the proper level of cost recovery expected from the fees. Additionally, in recent years individual City Councilors have asked questions of staff about the cost of the fees and have indicated that they would like to have a discussion on how land use fees are determined. Upon completing the initial run of the cost of service study, it appears the current fee schedule for planning-related land use reviews and permits is reasonably sized based on actual city costs. For the major reviews, the fees are at or close to full cost recovery. For lesser reviews, there appears to be some intention to subsidize these reviews and charge fees at 50 percent or less of full-cost recovery. The current fee schedule does lack some refinement. This is particularly evident where there is a wide range of variability in the intensity of projects within one case type. In such cases, the fee was determined based on an averaging over a wide margin of costs to the city. Pre-application conferences are a good example - where a conference for a lesser review type could actually cost the city substantially less than the fee that is charged. Staff will review the findings of the study with Council and be prepared to talk through the policy implications and discuss preliminary recommendations for fee schedule changes. The study and fee schedule policy are discussed in detail in the attached memorandum. Additionally, staff would like to discuss with Council the idea of reducing fees for land use reviews in the Tigard Triangle, as part of the effort to create a lean code process in the triangle. We anticipate that some land use review requirements will go away with the adoption of the form-based code for the Triangle but some land use review types will still be required in certain situations. The lean code procedure concept is one where potential barriers to development such as process time and cost of fees are reduced. This not only provides some incentive for developers but would allow for smaller, more innovative developers and property owners to take part in the development process. Substantially reduced fees in the Triangle would be intended to facilitate more organic and innovative development ideas. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could opt not to change anything. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.1 Policy 10 "The City shall institute fees and charges to ensure development pays for development related services and assumes the appropriate costs for impacts on the transportation and other public facility systems." DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION No previous dates. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Information: Anything less than 100 percent cost recovery results in some subsidy of development review by the General Fund. Some of the recommendations for Council consideration would increase that amount of subsidy. This is particularly the case with any reduction in fees for land use review applications within the Tigard Triangle. A more accurate assessment of fiscal impact will be made later on in the process as Council makes detailed decisions on setting land use fees. Attachments Cost of Service Study Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 Purpose and Need The purpose of this study is to assess the fairness and accuracy of the current land use application fee structure and to analyze and explore policy options for setting the future land use fee structure. It has been six years or more since any previous study has been conducted to assess the land use fees or to examine the proper level of cost recovery expected from the fees. Additionally, in recent years individual City Councilors have asked questions of staff about the cost of the fees and have indicated that they would like to have a discussion on how land use fees are determined. Methodology Land use fees are determined from several sources of information and are not just a factor of a direct recovery of time and materials spent in reviewing land use applications. Factors considered include: • Staff time spent for review by planners, permit techs, supervisors, engineers, and finance and administrative staff; • Comparison to similar fees charged by other jurisdictions; • Overhead; and • Council determined percentage of cost recovery. Tracking staff time A basic analysis of the time spent by city staff on processing land use reviews was the first step in the analysis. By gathering information on the time spent by staff on each land use case type, the time can be multiplied by an average hourly rate for each staff person involved to determine the cost in staff time for reviewing each case type.Once the average staff cost per case type is determined,the overhead cost can be added to get an estimate of the average total cost to the city for processing each type of land use case. Currently, the system the city uses for timesheets and payroll does not allow for tracking of time by project. So in order to determine an average of the time spent by staff for each land use case type, two methods were used. First, individual planners tracked their time on specific land use cases manually for one year. Second, individual time per case was estimated for each case type for the staff in the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, the Permit Counter intake staff, and for senior and administrative review staff. The planning staff that are primarily responsible for processing land use cases were instructed to track all of the time they spent on 16 different case types over the course of a year, from July 2013 to July 2014. The results were tabulated for each case type. Check-in meetings were held during the year to make sure the staff were all being consistent in the way that they were tracking their time. Adjustments were made as necessary. Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 During the time tracking period,the city was still experiencing the effects of the recession, so there was a lower number of cases than desired during the tracking period. The result being many of the case types did not have sufficient reliable information from which to extract good time data. Only those case types that had five or more individual cases tracked, and those that were completed within the review year were used for determining hours worked per case. Study Results The study results were somewhat disappointing due to the low overall number of land use cases processed during the year and the lack of a way to more accurately track time spent by each staff person, other than their having to track it manually. Additionally, even with multiple check-ins and discussion amongst the staff,there are still likely some differences in the way each staff person accounted for their time. Accordingly, staff also provided anecdotal estimates of the time it takes on average to complete each of the land use review types. The staff estimates were used to supplement the actual tracked time and provide a more reliable estimate for case types that had too few reviews to get an accurate time tracking. Because of the low number of cases and spotty data,the study focuses on the seven land use review types that had the strongest data. The seven case types and the abbreviations used throughout the report to identify them are as follows: Conditional Use Review -CUP Minor Site Development Review - MMD Pre-application Conference-PRE Subdivision- SUB Site Development Review - SDR Home Occupation Permit- HOP Variance-VAR The results of the combined tracked and estimated review times are shown in Table 1 for the seven case types tracked. Table 1 also shows the average hours worked,multiplied by the average Associate Planner hourly wage to determine the average cost for planner review. Table 1. Avg. hrs. Associate Case type per type Planner Total CUP 40 $94.00 $3,760.00 • MMD 6 $94.00 $564.00 PRE 4 $94.00 $376.00 SUB 35 $94.00 $3,290.00 SDR 40 $94.00 $3,760.00 HOP 12 $94.00 $1,128.00 VAR 8 $94.00 $752.00 2 of 6 Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 In addition to the cost of planner review time, the cost of other senior and administrative staff support was added into the total to determine the full cost to CD of processing these land use reviews. The cost of review time for staff in the Engineering Division of Public Works was also estimated and added to the overall cost.Table 2 displays these additional costs with the overall total, and provides a comparison to the current fee for each of the studied land use review types. Although City Council eliminated the Long Range Planning surcharge in 2015, the current fee reflects a total where the surcharge was annually added to the fee over many years. Currently, fees are increased each year based only on the Construction Cost Index. Table 2. Associate SR. Engineer Current Case type Planner Admin. Asst. Dir. ing Total Fee CUP $3,760.00 $126.00 $616.00 $2,821.44 $7,323.44 $6,558.00 MMD $564.00 n/a $154.00 $869.20 $1,587.20 $718.00 PRE $376.00 n/a $77.00 $1,225.76 $1,678.76 $718.00 $6,424.00 to SUB* $3,290.00 $126.00 $924.00 $4,279.29 $8,619.29 $8,890.00 SDR** $3,760.00 $94.50 $616.00 $2,821.44 $7,291.94 $7,228.00 HOP $1,128.00 $31.50 $77.00 $217.30 $1,453.80 $718.00 VAR $752.00 $31.50 $154.00 $481.73 $1,419.23 $769.00 *Current fee also requires$93.00 per lot **Current fee is split with$4735.00 for projects under$1,000,000.00,and$6/each additional$10,000.00 over $1M Jurisdictional Comparisons A comparison of Tigard land use fees with other jurisdiction land use fees can be useful to get a sense of where Tigard fits in the region. Keep in mind that there are a lot of variables that factor in for why one jurisdiction may be different from another—such as differing cost recovery targets. Also, some of the review types may not compare directly. For example, a Tigard Site Development Review may not have a direct equivalent in another jurisdiction,which may use a different type of design review. Nonetheless, a comparison is useful to provide a reality check and to inform cost recovery and policy decisions. Fifteen Oregon jurisdictions were evaluated. Table 3 shows the comparison for the seven land use case types studied between Tigard and six of the jurisdictions that most closely match Tigard's population. (Attachment 1 contains the data for all 15 jurisdictions.) 3 of 6 Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 Table 3. Beaver- Lake Oregon Case type ton Oswego Hillsboro City Gresham Salem Tigard $700.00 to $891.00 to $718.00 to CUP $2,922.00 $5,091.00 $2,625.00 $3,706.00 $6,203.00 $2,532.00 $6,558.00 MMD $1,842.00 $151.00 $315.00 $808.00 $359.00 $503.50 $718.00 $341.00 to $538.00 to $537.00 to PRE $245.00 $1,814.00 NC $1,044.00 $1,509.00 $419.50 $718.00 $6,424.00 to $4,276.00 $5,102.00 $4,042.00 $7,088.00 $8,890.00+ +$98.00 +$222 per +$337.00 +$359.00 $93.00 per SUB per lot lot $2,100.00 per lot per lot $6,783.00 lot $53,728.0 SDR $4,051.00 $985.00 $5,775.00 0 $8,558.00 $2,454.00 $7,228.00 HOP $516.00 NC* NC NA $1,687.00 NA $718.00 $3,572.00 +$460.00 each VAR $2,153.00 additional $1,785.00 $2,440.00 $5,318.00 $2,528.50 $769.00 NC-No charge NA-No applicable/equivalent review *Business license fee only The comparison to the other six jurisdictions shows Tigard to be somewhat on the high end generally. This holds true for other review types not included in the table. The fees vary a great deal from fee to fee and between jurisdictions. The fees for the other jurisdictions are established to also reflect the cost of processing the reviews in combination with other policy interests and cost recovery goals. The following section explores policy issues and considerations for Tigard. Policy Discussion A principal policy consideration in setting land use application fees is percentage of cost recovery. Cost recovery is a targeted percentage of the actual cost of processing applications that is set to be recovered through fee revenue. Some jurisdictions such as the City of Portland set fees to recover 100 percent of the cost of processing applications and permits.There are pros and cons to any decision on setting percentage of cost recovery. Some factors that need to be considered include low income or reduced income subsidy, cost averaging,and incentives. Low income or reduced income subsidy Some jurisdictions reduce fees on certain applications that are often applied for by low or fixed income residents, such as adjustments, as a way to provide some relief to those populations. This is a pretty blunt instrument in this context however. Fee waiver processes are better used in this context and can be more targeted and likely more effective.One argument in favor of setting fees at some level below full cost recovery is that the land use review and permitting process provides public benefits that are being realized, and that subsidizing private development applications to some degree with general fund dollars provides public support for those public benefits. The City of Tigard currently collects all planning fee revenue directly into the general fund, and the planning functions of the Community Development Department are fully funded through general 4 of 6 Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 fund dollars. This analysis is only looking at the planning and land use related permit and application fees. The Building Division of Community Development is funded through a wholly separate and independent Building Fund supported through building permit fees. There is no equivalent separate fund made up of planning-related land use and permit fees. Looking at the cost estimates for the land use review types shown in Table 2 and comparing them to the current fees charged shows that Tigard is likely subsidizing most fees with general fund dollars. The subdivision fee and site development review fee are the only ones close or at full cost recovery. The minor site development review,pre-application conference, and home occupation fees are at or below the 50 percent cost recovery level at 45, 43, and 49 percent respectively. Even at this level of cost recovery, CD staff have received complaints about the high level of fees for pre-applications and home occupation reviews. Cost averaging One concern expressed by the public regarding the current fee schedule is that in some instances the cost of processing a wide variety of cases is averaged and the fee is based on that average. For review types with projects that vary widely in size and scope,this can lead to an expensive fee for relatively small projects. In particular,this occurs with pre-applications and minor site development review. This leads to situations where two applicants are paying the same fee of$718.00 for a pre- application conference but one is proposing a 300-lot subdivision and planned development and the other is proposing a home occupation for a hair stylist. The home occupation pre-application conference takes considerably less time to prepare for and to conduct. Additionally, fewer staff from other city departments or outside agencies are involved in the home occupation conference than are involved in the subdivision conference. This is a legitimate issue that needs Council consideration. Incentives State law under ORS 227.175 requires that a governing body"shall establish fees charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the actual or average cost of providing that service." Even with this limitation in place, it is still possible to set fees in a way that provides some incentive or disincentive for certain applications. For example, some jurisdictions may charge the full cost for processing of applications for sensitive lands, wetlands, or floodplain development as a disincentive but charge less than full cost for pre-applications, planned developments, or accessory dwelling units as an incentive, or at least to lessen the disincentive,to encourage those types of development. Recommendations After conducting the cost of service study,it appears the current fee schedule for planning-related land use reviews and permits is reasonably sized based on actual city costs. For the major reviews, the fees are at or close to full cost recovery. For lesser reviews,there appears to be some intention to subsidize these reviews and charge fees at 50 percent or less of full-cost recovery. The current fee schedule does lack some refinement. This is particularly evident where there is a wide range of variability in the intensity of projects within one case type. In such cases the fee was detemined based on an averaging over a wide margin of costs to the city. Pre-application conferences are a good example,where a conference for a lesser review type could actually cost the city substantially less than the fee that is charged. 5 of 6 Cost of Service Study Community Development Department January 2016 Staff have reviewed the current fee schedule looking for opportunities for refinement centered on elements of the policy discussion above. Based on our review,the following changes are proposed to the Land Use Fee Schedule for Council consideration: Review Type Current Fee Proposed Fee Reasoning and Discussion Accessory $351.00 $250.00 Lower fee is proposed as an incentive. Residential Accessory rental units are supportive of the Units Strategic Plan. Home $718.00 $300.00 Lower fee is proposed as an incentive. Home Occupation occupations are supportive of the Strategic Plan. Type II Minor Site $718.00 $300.00 This is one of the review types where the scale Development of development can vary widely and that broad Review span is averaged in the fee. Some very minor development proposals end up paying more than actual cost to meet the average cost for all development types. Planned $9,286.00 for $9,286.00 This change is proposed to reduce the overall Development concept plan plus $93.00 cost for planned development(PD)review in an plus$450.00 per lot effort to provide some incentive to use the PD or$2,771.00 process. The PD process provides many public and the full benefits, and allows for a more site specific SUB or SDR design treatment for development. The current fee fee is one of the highest that the city charges and can act as a deterrent to developers to use the process. Pre- $718.00 $718.00 for This proposed change would create a lesser fee application major cases for pre-application conferences for minor land Conferences $300.00 for use cases,which would be defined as Type I or minor cases II reviews. This more accurately reflects the amount of staff effort necessary to prepare for and conduct the conference. Subdivisions $6,424.00 to $8,890.00 The fee schedule for subdivisions is needlessly $8,890.00 plus$93.00 complicated and tied to the PD fee. By plus$93.00 per lot separating the PD and subdivision fees we can per lot clear up a lot of confusion and eliminate some disincentive for PD applications. 6 of 6 AIS-2492 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Info. Public Hearing: FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Submitted By: Carissa Collins, Finance and Information Services Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Public Hearing- Business Informational Meeting- Main Public Hearing Yes Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication 01/12/2016 Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE A second quarter supplemental amendment to the FY 2016 Adopted Budget is being requested. The purpose of the supplemental is to account for revenues and expenses that were unknown at the time of budget adoption. The amendment includes requested budget adjustments in city operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve the second quarter amendment to the FY 2016 Adopted Budget. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The second quarter supplemental includes recognition of revenues and expenses from the following: Police Recognition of revenues and expenses from grants and donations totalling $33,138. •Grant funding was received for police overtime for Oregon Impact missions conducted for DUII and pedestrian cross {$13,390}; •Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for extra construction zone patrols and seatbelt enforcement missions {$13,635}; •Officer and administrative staff overtime for the Distracted Driving Program {$1,940}; •A private donation for the purchase of ballistic vests for the city's two K-9's in the amount of$2,340. •Additionally, a total of$15,000 in donations in FY 2015 for the purchase of another police dog including one-time startup costs. Actual costs for the K-9 amounted to $13,107. A carryforward is being requested in the amount of$1,893 to fund specialized K-9 handler training. Transit Officer •Council approved the intergovernmental agreement with TriMet for an additional 1.0 FTE within the Transit Police. The position will be funded by a reimbursement from TriMet in the amount of$130,000 annually. The position will be staffed for approximately 3 months of this fiscal year and the prorated adjustment for this fiscal year is $32,500. Public Works Budget adjustments for operations totaling $18,290. •Street Maintenance Division:A request in the amount of$1,275 is needed to reimburse the Gas Tax Fund for the creation of signage for the Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper projects. With this request, the amount remaining in the LQC program is approximately $77,000. •Administration-A request to recognize grant revenues and expenditures from the Oregon Military Department for Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) supplies totaling $3,790. •Parks Utility-A total of$5,225 is requested to pay for the installation of playground equipment at Summerlake Park. •Engineering-A request in the amount of$8,000 is needed to pay for staff time used to comply with the Department of State Lands regulations for stream and wetland mitigation. Mitigation is required for the next 3-5 years on the sewer repair project that is downstream of 68th Parkway. Capital Improvement Program-Bull Mountain Park •An additional appropriation in the amount of$20,000 is being requested to be used as matching funds for a $125,900 Metro grant obtained by the Friends of Bull Mountain Park to build a paved ADA pathway. This project was ranked a high priority among staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Policy & Administration Budget adjustments for operations totaling $52,000. • City Recorder/Records-A total of$37,000 is needed to pay for the two charter amendments and one general obligation bond measure that were on the November 3, 2015 ballot. •Financial Operations CIP Support-A request is being made to add .20 FTE to the Accountant position that is currently at .80 FTE. This request is needed in order to meet the workload demands. The primary driver of workload is the expanding need to assist with accounting and reporting of the city's Capital Improvement Program. The additional .20 FTE costs $15,000 bringing the position to a full 1.0 FTE. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the second quarter amendment to the FY 2016 Adopted Budget. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/. Fiscal Impact Cost: 127,763 Budgeted (yes or no): No Where Budgeted (department/program):Various Additional Fiscal Notes: The total impact of this amendment will increase the FY 2016 Adopted Budget by $127,763. Although the supplemental consists of increased requirements, they are offset by additional resources such as grants, and contingency. Exhibits A, and B contain the details of each budgetary item to the impacted fund(s) and the capital projects. Exhibit C summarizes the items by fund for all city funds. Attachments Resolution Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FY 2016 ADOPTED BUDGET TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING: RECOGNITION OF GRANT REVENUES AND EXPENSES ALONG WITH BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS IN PUBLIC WORKS, COMMUNITY SERVICFS, POLICY & ADMINISTRATION, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the city acknowledges those items that were unknown at the time the FY 2016 Budget was adopted; and WHEREAS, the city recognizes approximately$127,763 of unanticipated requirements in operations and the capital improvement program;and WHEREAS, the city acknowledges that the increase in unanticipated requirements is offset by transfers, and fund contingencies. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECIION 1: The FY 2015-16 Budget is hereby amended as detailed in Exhibit A. SECTION : This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of _2016. Mayor- City of Tigard AI EST: City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PD01.Recognition of revenues and expenditures from grants,donations,and carryforwards. The city received a total of$33,198 in grant revenues for the following: *$13,39(1 from Oregon Impact for extra DUB and pedestrian crossing missions; *$13,635 for the Oregon Dept.of Transportation for extra construction work zone patrols and seatbelt enforcement missions; *$2,340 is from the K9 Trust Account for the purchase of vests for the two K9's; 11,893 in carryforward funds is needed to fund specialized K9 handler training;and$1,940 of revenue from the Distracted Driver Program is being recognized to be used to pay for officer and administrative overtime in operating the program. As a result,intergovernmental,charges for services,miscellaneous,and beginning fund balance revenues will increase by$33,198 in General Fund with an equal increase in Community Services program expenditures. QI Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 1,893 $ 10,781,486 Property"Taxes $ 14,330,765 $ 14,330,765 Franchise Fees $ 5,909,165 $ 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits $ 1,352,42(1 $ 1,352,420 Intergovernmental $ 5,442,785 $ 27,025 $ 5,449,810 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 $ 1,940 $ 3,041,848 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,(06 $ 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 $ 2,340 $ 58,772 Other Financing Sources - Transfers In from Other Funds 5 57,750 57,750 .Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ 33,198 $ 41,978,744 Requirements Community Development $ 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services $ 22,294,039 $ 33,198 $ 22,327,237 Policy and Administration $ 906,662 S 906,662 Public Works S 4,256,072 S 4.256.072 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ 33,198 $ 31,533,150 Debt Service - Loans $ - $ - Work-In-Progress - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 S 3,504,936 Contingency S 978,868 S 978,868 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ 33,198 $ 36,016,954 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ 33,198 $ 41,978,744 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PD1 1 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PD02. Transit Officer TriMet has approved an additional 1.0 PTE in Transit Police for the city.This position is expected to be filled by March 2016.Therefore,a prorated amount of$32,500 is required to pay for the position this fiscal year.The new position will be budgeting in FY 2017 at approximately$130,000 for the full fiscal year.As a result,intergovernmental revenues in General Fund will increase by$32,500 with an equal increase in Community Services program expenditures. Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 10,779,593 Property Taxes $ 14,330,765 $ 14,330,765 Franchise Fees $ 5,909,165 $ 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits $ 1,352,420 $ 1,352,420 Intergovernmental S 5,442,785 $ 32,500 S 5,475,285 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 $ 3,039,908 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 $ 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 S 103,722 Miscellaneous S 56,432 S 56,432 Other Financing Sources - Transfers In from Other Funds 7 ,ii I S 57,75(1 Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ 32,500 $ 41,978,046 Requirements Community Development $ 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services S 22,294,039 $ 32,5(1(1 $ 22,326,539 Policy and Administration S 906,662 S 906,662 Public Works S 4,256,1)72 S 4,256,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ 32,500 $ 31,532,452 Debt Service S - S - Loans S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 S 3,504,936 Contingency S 978,868 S 978,868 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ 32,500 $ 36,016,256 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ 32,500 $ 41,978,046 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PD2 2 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW01.Signage for Lighter,Quicker,Cheaper projects. A request to reimburse the Gas Tax Fund for the creation of signage for the city's LQC projects. This action will result in a decrease of General Fund contingency in the amount of$1,275 with an increase in transfers.Public works program expenditures will increase by$1,275. Fund 1of2 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 10,779,593 Property Taxes S 14,330,765 $ 14,330,765 Franchise Fees $ 5,909,165 $ 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits $ 1,352,420 $ 1,352,420 Intergovernmental $ 5,442,785 $ 5,442,785 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 $ 3,039,908 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 $ 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ 103,722 Miscellaneous S 56,432 $ 56,432 Other Financing Sources S - S - Transfers In from()thcr Fends S 57,75i) Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ - $ 41,945,546 Requirements Community lkvclulmnent S 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services $ 22,294,039 $ 22,294,039 Policy and Administration $ 906,662 S 9116,662 Public Works S 4,256,072 S 4,256,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ - $ 31,499,952 Debt Service $ - S - Loans $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ - S - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 S 1,275 $ 3,506,211 Contingency S 978,868 S (1,275) $ 977,593 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ - $ 35,983,756 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ - $ 41,945,546 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW1 3 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW01.Signage for Lighter,Quicker,Cheaper projects. A request to reimburse the Gas Tax Fund for the creation of signage for the city's LQC projects. This action will result in a decrease of General Fund contingency in the amount of$1,275 with an increase in transfers.Public works program expenditures will increase by$1,275. Fund 2 of 2 Qi Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Gas Tax Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,028,122 $ 1,028,122 Property Waxes $ - S - Franchise Fees S - S - Licenses&Permits S 5,872 S 5,872 Intergovernmental $ 3,070,117 S 3,070,117 Charges for Services S - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - Interest Earnings $ 55,732 $ 55,732 Miscellaneous S 62,818 S 62,818 Other Financing Sources S - $ - Transfers In from Other Funds S 135,000 S 1,275 S 136,275 Total Resources $ 4,357,661 $ 1,275 $ 4,358,936 Requirements Community Development $ - $ - Community Services $ - $ - Policy and Administration S - S - Public Works S 2,201,046 S 1,275 S 2,202,321 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,201,046 $ 1,275 $ 2,202,321 Debt Service S 592,425 $ 592,425 Loans S - $ - Work-In-Progress S - S - Transfers to Other Funds S 552,639 S 552,639 Contingency S 2011,100 S 200,1011 Total Budget $ 3,546,110 $ 1,275 $ 3,547,385 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 811,551 $ - $ 811,551 Total Requirements $ 4,357,661 $ 1,275 $ 4,358,936 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW1 4 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW02.Recognition of grant revenues and expenditures. A request to recognize$3,790 of grant revenues and expenditures from the Oregon Military Department for Community Emergency Response Team(CERT)supplies.This action will result in an increase in General Fund intergovernmental revenues by$3,790 with an equal increase in Public Works program expenditures. Qi Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 10,779,593 Property Taxes S 14,330,765 S 14,330,765 Franchise Fees S 5,909,165 S 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits S 1,352420 5 1,352,420 Intergovernmental $ 5,442,785 $ 3,790 S 5,446,575 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 S 3,039,908 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 S 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 S 56,432 Other Financing Sources - l'ransfcrs In from Othcr Funds S 57,7511 _ Total Resources $ 41,945,546 111113,790 $ 41,949,336 Requirements Community Development S 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services $ 22,294,039 S 22,294,039 Policy and Administration S 906,662 5 906,662 Public Works S 4,256,072 S 3,790 S 4,259,862 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ 3,790 $ 31,503,742 Debt Service S - S - Loans S - S - Work-In-Progress - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 S 3,504,936 Contingency S 978,868 S 978,868 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ 3,790 $ 35,987,546 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ 3,790 $ 41,949,336 $:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW2 5 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW03.Playground equipment installation A request is being made in the amount of$5,225 for the installation of playground equipment at Summerlake Park.This action will decrease contingency in Parks Utility by$5,225 with an equal increase in Public Works program expenditures.The equipment will be purchased with revenue obtained from surplus in the General Fund.Revenue from General Fund supports the Parks Utility Fund which will support the use of contingency. Q2 Adopted Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks Utility Resources Beginning Fund Balance Property Waxes - Franchise Fees Licenses&Permits S - S - Intergovernmental $ - S - Charges for Services $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures - Interest Earnings - Miscellaneous - Other Financing Sources - S - Transfers In from Other Fund:, S 2,2511,1H 1( S 2,2511,1H 11 Total Resoytcs £ 7i i -..iMs.. _ .2 0010) Requirements Community Development - Community Services - Policy and dministration S - S - Public Works S 2,203,414 S 5,225 S 2,208,639 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,203,414 $ 5,225 $ 2,208,639 Debt Service - Loans - Work-In-Progress - Transfers to Other Funds S - S - Contingency S 40,00(1 $ (5,225) S 34,775 Total Budget $ 2,243,414 $ - $ 2,243,414 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 6,586 $ - $ 6,586 Total Requirements $ 2,250,000 $ - $ 2,250,000 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2 v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2 v1pW3 6 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW04.Mitigation Site Maintenance A total of$8,000 is being requested to pay for staff time related to the Department of State Lands mandate for the city to comply with wetland and stream mitigation requirements that were triggered by a sewer repair project downstream of 68th and Parkway that the city will have to perform for the next 3 to 5 years. As a result,contingency within the Sanitary Sewer Fund will decrease by$8,000 with an increase in transfers. Public Works program expenditures in the General Fund will increase by$8,000. Fund 1 of Z Q I Q2 Re ised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Sanitary Sewer Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 3,595,376 $ 3,595,376 Property Taxes Franchise Fees $ - $ - licenses&Permits S 16,549 $ 16,549 Intergovernmental S 221,770 $ 221,770 Charges for Services S 1,590,932 $ 1,590,932 Fines&Forfeitures S - $ - Interest Earnings S 100,333 $ 1(81,333 Miscellaneous S 143,091 $ 143,091 Other Financing Sources S - S - Transfers In from Other Funds S - - Total Resources $ 5,668,051 $ - $ 5,668,051,1 Requirements Community Development - s - Community Services ' ' - Policy and Administration S S - Public Works S 1960,I(87 $ 1,960,(187 Program Expenditures Total $ 1,960,087 $ - $ 1,960,087 Debt Service S - S - l.oans $ - S - Work-In-Progress $ 984,693 S 984,693 Transfers to Other Funds $ 85,434 S 8,000 S 93,434 Contingency S 400,1)011 S (8,000) S 392,0(10 Total Budget $ 3,430,214 $ - $ 3,430,214 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 2,237,837 $ - $ 2,237,837 Total Requirements $ 5,668,051 $ - $ 5,668,051 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\QZ\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q 2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW4 7 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW04.Mitigation Site Maintenance A total of$8,000 is being requested to pay for staff time related to the Department of State Lands mandate for the city to comply with wetland and stream mitigation requirements that were triggered by a sewer repair project downstream of 68th and Parkway that the city will have to perform for the next 3 to 5 years. As a result,contingency within the Sanitary Sewer Fund will decrease by$8,000 with an increase in transfers. Public Works program expenditures in the General Fund will increase by$8,000. Fund 2 of 2 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $__10,779,593 Property Taxes $ 14,330,765 $ 14,330,765 Franchise Fees $ 5,909,165 $ 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits $ 1,352,420 $ 1,352,420 Intergovernmental $ 5,442,785 S 5,442,785 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 $ 3,039,908 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 S 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 103,722 S 103,722 Miscellaneous S 56,432 S 56,432 Other Financing Sources S - S - Transfers In from()tiler Funds c 5-,-5n • 4 own Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ 8,000 $ 41,953,546 Requirements Community Development $ 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services $C 22,294,039 $ 22,294,039 $ Policy and Administration 906,662 $ 906,662 Public Works S 4,256,072 S 8,0110 S 4,264,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ 8,000 $ 31,507,952 Debt Service S - S - Loans S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 $ 3,504,936 Contingency S 978,868 5 978,868 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ 8,000 $ 35,991,756 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 'Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ 8,000 $ 41,953,546 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2 v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW4 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW05.Capital Improvement Program-Bull Mountain Park A request in the amount of$20,000 is needed to secure grant funding from Metro as the city's match for totaling$125,900.The money will be used to pay for the construction of park pathway that meets the American with Disabilities Act standards.The Friends of Bull Mountain Park have been integral in securing the majority of the funding in grants and private donations for park improvements.This project was ranked a high priority by staff and the Park&Recreation Advisory Board.With this action, contingency in Parks SDC's will decrease by$20,000.Transfers will increase with a$20,000 increase in capital program expenditures in the Parks Capital Fund. Q2 Fund 1 of 2 Adopted Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks SDC Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,000,054 $ 1,000,054 Property'faxes S - - Franchise Fees S - S - Licenses&Permits $ 478,027 $ 478,027 Intergovernmental - Charges for Services S - S - Fines&Forfeitures S - S - Interest Earnings S 19,782 S 19,782 Miscellaneous - Other Financing Sources - Transfers In from Other Funds - Total Resources $ 1,497,863 $ - $ 1,497,863 Requirements Community Development $ S - Community Services Policy and Administration S S - Public Works S S - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service - Loans - Work-In-Progress $ 6,800 $ 6,800 Transfers to Other Funds S 1,180,414 $ 20,000 $ 1,200,414 Contingency S 100,00(1 S (20,000) $ 80,000 Total Budget $ 1,287,214 $ - $ 1,287,214 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 210,649 $ - $ 210,649 Total Requirements $ 1,497,863 $ - $ 1,497,863 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW5 9 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2PW05.Capital Improvement Program-Bull Mountain Park A request in the amount of$20,000 is needed to secure grant funding from Metro as the city's match for totaling$125,900.The money will be used to pay for the construction of park pathway that meets the American with Disabilities Act standards.The Friends of Bull Mountain Park have been integral in securing the majority of the funding in grants and private donations for park improvements.This project was ranked a high priority by staff and the Park&Recreation Advisory Board.With this action, contingency in Parks SDC's will decrease by$20,000.Transfers will increase with a$20,000 increase in capital program expenditures in the Parks Capital Fund. Q1 Q2 Fund 2 of 2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks Capital Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 298,740 $ 298,740 Property Taxes - - Franchise Fees S - S - Licenses&Permits S - S - Intergovernmental S - S - Charges for Services - Fines&Forfeitures - Interest Earnings S 3,015 $ 3,015 Miscellaneous S - $ - Other Financing Sources S - S - Transfers In from Other Funds 3,666,561 S 20,0111 5 3,686,561 Total Resources $ 3,968,316 $ 20,000 $ 3,988,316 Requirements Community Development Community Services Policy and Administration Public Works - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ Debt Service - Loans - Work-In-Progress $ 3,666,561 $ 20,000 $ 3,686,561 Transfers to Other Funds $ 123,932 $ 123,932 Contingency S - S - Total Budget $ 3,790,493 $ 20,000 $ 3,810,493 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 177,823 $ - $ 177,823 Total Requirements $ 3,968,316 $ 20,000 $ 3,988,316 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1PW5 10 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2CS01.Elections Costs A request in the amount of$37,000 is being made for election costs associated with two charter amendments and one General Obligation bond measure on the November 3,2015 ballot.In addition, this request will pay for the legal notices related to three measures.This action will decrease General Fund contingency by$37,000 with an increase in transfers.Policy and Administration program expenditures will increase by$37,000. Fund 1 of 2 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 10,779,593 Property'faxes 5 14,330,765 S 14,330,765 Franchise Fees $ 5,909,165 S 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits $ 1,352,420 $ 1,352,420 Intergovemmental $ 5,442,785 $ 5,442,785 Charges for Services S 3,039,908 $ 3,039,908 Fines&Forfeitures S 873,006 5 873,006 interest Earnings $ 103,722 $ 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 S 56,432 Other Financing Sources $ - S - Transfers In from Other Funds S 57,750 57,750 IMr Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ - $ 41,945,546 Requirements Community Development 4,043,179 $ 4,043,179 Community Services S 22,294,039 $ 22,294,039 Policy and Administration S 906,662 $ 906,662 Public Works S 4,256,072 S 4,256,072 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ - $ 31,499,952 Debt Service $ - $ - Loans - Work-In-Progress - Transfers to Other Funds $ 3,504,936 $ 37,004) $ 3,541,936 Contingency $ 978,868 S (37,000) $ 941,868 Total Budget $ 35,983,756 $ - $ 35,983,756 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ - $ 41,945,546. I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A--Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1CS1 11 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2CS01.Elections Costs A request in the amount of$37,000 is being made for election costs associated with two charter amendments and one General Obligation bond measure on the November 3,2015 ballot.In addition, this request will pay for the legal notices related to three measures.This action will decrease General Fund contingency by$37,000 with an increase in transfers.I'olicy and Administration program expenditures will increase by$37,000. Fund 2 of 2 QI Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Central Service Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 387,372 $ 387,372 Property Taxes S - Franchise Fees $ - - Licenses&Permits $ 33,872 33,872 Intergovernmental $ - - Charges for Services $ 6,986,481 $ 6,986,481 Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - Interest Earnings S 22,593 S 22,593 Miscellaneous S 19,900 19,900 Ocher Financing Sources $ -Transit rs In iron)()iIi 1.nod, S 733,824 $ 37,1101) s 770,824 Total Resources $ 8,184,042 $ 37,000 $ 8,221,042 Requirements Community Development S - S - Community Services $ - $ - Policy and Administration S 7,849,297 $ 37,000 5 7,886,297 Public Works S - S Program Expenditures Total $ 7,849,297 $ 37,000 $ 7,886,297 Debt Service S S - Loans S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - Transfers to Other Funds S - S - Contingency S 125,1100 S 125000 Total Budget $ 7,974,297 $ 37,000 $ 8,011,297 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 209,745 $ - $ 209,745 Total Requirements $ 8,184,042 $ 37,000 $ 8,221,042 • I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2 v1051 12 FY 2016 Second Quarter Budget Supplemental Exhibit A Q2FIS01.Capital Improvement Program Support An additional appropriation of$15,000 is being made to increase the Accountant position by.20 FTE. The position is currently budgeted at.80 FTE.The added.20 FTE to this position will assist in meeting increased workload demands in accounting and reporting including the Capital Improvement Program. With the added.20 ItTE,this position will become a fulltime equivalent of 1.0.This action will decrease contingency in the Central Service Fund by$15,000 with an equal increase in Policy and Administration program expenditures. Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Central Service Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 387,372 $ 387,372 Property Taxes S - S - Franchise Fees S - S - Licenses&Permits S 33,872 5 33,872 Intergovernmental $ - S - Charges for Services $ 6,986,481 $ 6,986,481 Fines&Forfeitures S - $ - Interest Earnings 5 22,593 S 22,593 Miscellaneous S 19,900 S 19,900 Other Financing Sources S - $ - Transfers In from Othn I ain 5 -33,824 $ 733,824 MIL Total Resources $ 8,184,042 $ - $ 8,184,0 Requirements Community Development S - S - Community Services S - $ - Policy and Administration 5 7,849,297 $ 15,001) $ 7,864,297 Public Works S - S - Program Expenditures Total $ 7,849,297 $ 15,000 $ 7,864,297 Debt Service S - S - Loans - Work-In-Progress - $ - Transfers to Other Funds - S - Contingency • 125,000 $ (15,000) S 110,000 Total Budget $ 7,974,297 $ - $ 7,974,297 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 209,745 $ - $ 209,745 r Total Requirements $ 8,184,042 $ - $ 8,184,042 I:\FIN\Budget 16\Amendments\Q2\FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FY16-Exhibit-A-Q2_v1FIS1 13 FY 2015-16 Second Quarter Amendment Exhibit B Project#TBD Bull Mountain Park Design and construction of a paved ADA accessible trail through Bull Mountain Park from Woodshire Lane to Alpine Crest Way.Additional fund request will help to serve as a match for the Friend of Bull Mountain Park Nature in Neighborhood's grant from Metro. Original Revised Budget Budget Projected FY 2016 This Change FY 2016 2017 Project Total Internal Expenses Design and Engineering - - - - - Project Management - - - 15,000 15,000 Construction:Management - - - - - Total - - - 15,000 15,000 External Expenses Public Involvement - - - - - Land/Right of Way Acquisition - - - - - Design and Engineering - 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 Construction - - - 50,000 50,000 Contingency - - - 15,000 15,000 Total - 20,000 20,000 65,000 85,000 I 1 Total Project Expense - I 20,000 I 20,000 1 80,000 1 100,000 I Revenue Funding Source Park SDC - 20,000 20,000 80000 100,000 Total Project Revenues - 20,000 20,000 80,000 100,000 1 I I FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Adopted Revised Budget Amendment Budget Affected City Funds Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 17,089,257 $ 1,893 $ 17,091,150 Property faxes S 14,330,765 S - S 14,330,765 Franchise Fees S 5,909,165 S - $ 5,909,165 Special Assessments $ - S - $ - licenses&Permits $ 1,886,740 $ - $ 1,886,740 Intergovernmental $ 8,734,672 S 63,315 $ 8,797,987 Charges for Services $ 11,617,321 $ 1,940 $ 11,619,261 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 S - $ 873,006 Interest Earnings $ 305,177 S - $ 305,177 Miscellaneous $ 282,241 S 2,340 $ 284,581 Other Financing Sources S - S - S - Transfers In from Other Fund 6,843,135 S 58,2 5 6,901,410 Total Resources $ 67,871,479 $ 127,763 $ 67,999,242 Requirements Community Development 4,043,179 $ - $ 4,043,179 Community Services S 22,294,039 $ 65,698 $ 22,359,737 Policy&Administration S 8,755,959 S 52,000 $ 8,807,959 Public Works S 10,620,619 S 10,290 $ 10,630,909 Program Expenditures Total $ 45,713,796 $ 127,988 $ 45,841,784 Debt Service $ 592,425 S - $ 592,425 Loans $ - S - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 4,658,054 $ 20,000 $ 4,678,054 Transfers to Other Funds S 5,447,355 S 66,275 S 5,513,630 Contingency S 1,843,868 S (86,500) S 1,757,368 Total Budget $ 58,255,498 $ 127,763 $ 58,383,261 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 9,615,981 $ - $ 9,615,981 Total Requirements $ 67,871,479 $ 127,763 $ 67,999,242 1 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items: Q2PD01,Q2PD02,Q2PW01,Q2PW02,Q2CS01 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget General Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 10,779,593 $ 1,893 $ 10,781,486 PropertyTaxes $ 14,330,765 $ - S 14,330,765 Franchise Fees S 5,909,165 S - S 5,909,165 Licenses&Permits S 1,352,420 S - S 1,352,420 Intergovernmental S 5,442,785 S 63,315 S 5,506,100 Charges for Services $ 3,039,908 S 1,940 S 3,041,848 Fines&Forfeitures $ 873,006 $ - S 873,006 Interest Earnings S 103,722 S - S 103,722 Miscellaneous $ 56,432 S 2,340 S 58,772 Other Financing Sources S - $ - S Transfers In from Other Funds S 5i) S - S S Fs Total Resources $ 41,945,546 $ 69,488 $ 42,015,034 Requirements Community Development ' 4,043,179 $ - 5 4,043,179 Community Services S 22,294,039 S 65,698 S 22,359,737 Policy and Administration S 906,662 S - $ 906,662 Public Works S 4,2'36,11-2 S 3,790 S 4,259,862 Program Expenditures Total $ 31,499,952 $ 69,488 $ 31,569,440 Debt Service S - $ - $ - Loans S - S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - $ - Transfers to Other Funds S 3,504,936 $ 38,275 S 3,543,211 Contingency 5 978,868 S (38,275) S 940,593 Total Budget $35,983,756 $ 69,488 $ 36,053,244 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 5,961,790 $ - $ 5,961,790 'Total Requirements $ 41,945,546 $ 69,488 $ 42,015,034 2 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items: Q1CS01,Q1FIS01 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Central Service Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 387,372 $ - $ 387,372 Property Taxes S - $ - $ - Franchise Fees S - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits S 33,872 $ - S 33,872 Intergovernmental $ - $ - $ - Charges for Services $ 6,986,481 $ - $ 6,986,481 Fines&Forfeitures S - $ - S - Interest Earnings S 22,593 $ - $ 22,593 Miscellaneous S 19,900 $ - $ 19,900 Other Financing Sources S - S - S - '1'ransfers In from Other I t/11,I, S -33,824 S 1-.l h r S 770,824 — - Total Resources $ 8,184,042 $ 37,000 $ 8,22111 Requirements Community Development $ - S - S - Community Services S - S - S - Policy and Administration S 7,849,297 S 52,000 S 7,901,297 Public Works S - S - S - Program Expenditures Total $7,849,297 $ 52,000 $ 7,901,297 Debt Service S - $ - S - Loans S - S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - S - Transfers to Other Funds S - S - S - Contingency S 125,000 S (15,000) S 110,000 Total Budget $7,974,297 $ 37,000 $ 8,011,297 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 209,745 $ - $ 209,745 Total Requirements $ 8,184,042 $ 37,000 $ 8,221,042 3of8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items:Q2PW01 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Gas Tax Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,028,122 $ - $ 1,028,122 Property Taxes S - S - $ - Franchise Fees S - S - $ - Licenses&Permits S 5,872 S - S 5,872 Intergovernmental $ 3,070,117 S - $ 3,070,117 Charges for Services S - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures S - $ - $ - Interest Earnings S 55,732 $ - $ 55,732 Miscellaneous S 62,818 $ - $ 62,818 Other Financing Sources S - S - S - Transfcrs In from Other Funds S 135,000 S II J'-5 1;(,,2-', Total Resources $ 4,357,661 $ 1,275 $ 4,358,936 Requirements Community Development $ - S $ Community Services S - S - $ - Policy and Administration $ - S - $ - Public Works S 2,201,046 S 1,275 S 2,202,321 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,201,046 $ 1,275 $ 2,202,321 Debt Service S 592,425 $ - S 592,425 Loans S - S - $ - Work-In-Progress S - S - $ - Transfers to Other Funds S 552,639 S - $ 552,639 Contingency S 200,000 S - S 200,000 Total Budget $ 3,546,110 $ 1,275 $ 3,547,385 Reserve For Future Etipenditure $ 811,551 $ - $ 811,551 Total Requirements $ 4,357,661 $ 1,275 $ 4,358,936 4 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items:Q2PW04 Q1 Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Sanitary Sewer Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 3,595,376 $ - $ 3,595,376 Property Taxes S - $ - $ - Franchise Fees S - S - $ - Licenses&Permits S 16,549 $ - $ 16,549 Intergovernmental $ 221,770 $ - $ 221,770 Charges for Services S 1,590,932 $ - $ 1,590,932 Fines&Forfeitures S - $ - $ - Interest Earnings S 100,333 $ - $ 100,333 Miscellaneous S 143,091 S - $ 143,091 Other Financing Sources S - $ - $ - Transfers In from Other 1 ands S - $ - $ - MUMTotal Resources $ 5,668,051 $ - $ 5,668,051 Requirements Community Development S - S - S - Community Services S - S - S - Policy and Administration S - S - $ - Public Works S 1,960,087 S - S 1,960,087 Program Expenditures Total $ 1,960,087 $ - $ 1,960,087 Debt Service S - $ - S - Loans S - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress S 984,693 $ - $ 984,693 Transfers to Other Funds S 85,434 $ 8,000 $ 93,434 Contingency S 400,000 $ (8,000) S 392,000 Total Budget $ 3,430,214 $ - $ 3,430,214 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 2,237,837 $ - $ 2,237,837 Total Re a uirements $ 5,668,051 $ - $ 5,668,051 5 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items:Q2PW05 Q2 Adopted Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks SDC Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 1,000,054 $ - $ 1,000,054 Property Taxes S - S - S - Franchise Fees S - S - S - Special Assessments S - S - S - Licenses&Permits S 478,027 S - S 478,027 Intergovernmental S - S - S - Charges for Services S - S - S - Fines&Forfeitures S - S - S - Interest Earnings S 19,782 S - S 19,782 Miscellaneous S - S - S - Other Financing Sources S - S - $ - Transfers In from Other I•unJ< S S - S - Total Resources $ 1,497,863 $ - $ 1,497,863 Requirements Community Development S s Community Services S - Policy and Administration S - S Public Works S - S - Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service S - S - S - Loans S - S - S - Work-In-Progress S 6,800 S - S 6,800 Transfers to Other Funds S 1,180,414 S 20,000 S 1,200,414 Contingency S 100,000 $ (20,000) $ 80,000 Total Budget $ 1,287,214 $ - $ 1,287,214 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 210,649 $ - $ 210,649 Total Requirements $ 1,497,863 $ - $ 1,497,863 6 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items:Q2PW05 Qi Q2 Revised Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks Capital Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ 298,740 $ - $ 298,740 Property Taxes $ - S - $ - Franchise Fees S - $ - S - Special Assessments $ - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits $ - $ - $ - Intergovernmental $ - S - $ - Charges for Services $ - S - $ - Fines&Forfeitures $ - $ - S - Interest Earnings S 3,015 S - S 3.H I R Miscellaneous $ - S - $ Other Financing Sources S - S - S Transfers In from()thcr Funds S 3,6 s.36 i ' 20,000 S 3,686,561 Total Resources $ 3,968,316 $ 20,000 $ 3,988,316 Requirements Community Development S - - S - Community Services S - $ Policy and Administration S - - S Public Works $ - S - S Program Expenditures Total $ - $ - $ - Debt Service $ - $ - $ - Loans S - $ - $ - Work-In-Progress $ 3,666,561 $ 20,000 $ 3,686,561 Transfers to Other Funds S 123,932 $ - S 123,932 Contingency S - S - S - Total Budget $ 3,790,493 $ 20,000 $ 3,810,493 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 177,823 $ - $ 177,823 Total Requirements $ 3,968,316 $ 20,000 $ 3,988,316 7 of 8 FY 2016 Second Quarter Supplemental Exhibit-C Summary of Budget Changes Reference Budget Items:Q2PW03 Adopted Revised Budget Amendment Budget Parks Utility Fund Resources Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - Property Taxes $ - $ - S - Franchise Fees S - S - S - Special Assessments S - $ - $ - Licenses&Permits S - S - S - Intergovernmental S - $ - $ - Charges for Services S - $ - $ - Fines&Forfeitures S - S - $ - Interest Earnings S - $ - S - Miscellaneous S - S - S - Other Financing Sources S - S - S - Transfers In from Other Funds S 2,250,000 S - S 2,250,000 Total Resources $ 2,250,000 $ - $2,250,000 Requirements Community Development - S - Community Services - $ - $ - Policy and Administration S - S - S - Public Works S 2,203,414 S 5,225 S 2,208,639 Program Expenditures Total $ 2,203,414 $ 5,225 $2,208,639 Debt Service S - S - S - Loans S - S - S - Work-In-Progress S - S - S Transfers to Other Funds S - S - S - Contingency S 40,000 S (5,225) S 34,775 Total Budget $ 2,243,414 $ - $ 2,243,414 Reserve For Future Expenditure $ 6,586 $ - $ 6,586 Total Requirements $ 2,250,000 $ - $2,250,000 8 of 8 AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 9, 2016 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: Informational Public Hearing - FY 2016 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL 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. Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: February 9, 2016 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. 0 Vk (Ap f)° , 00fItv 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. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. Name,Address&Phone No. AIS-2562 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Consideration of Park Maintenance Fee Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Council Resolution Business Meeting- Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Continued Public Hearing on Park Maintenance Fee, establishing Tigard Municipal Code 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee and amending the Master Fees and Charges STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff requests Council consider adoption of an ordinance to establish TMC 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee and the resolution to amend the Master Fees and Charges Schedule. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY During the Budget Committee meetings, the committee considered the course of Tigard's General Fund and the services it supports: Police, Library, Community Building, and Parks. The General Fund revenues grow approximately 3.5% annually, while expenses grow 4.0% annually. Tigard has taken actions in prior years to limit cost growth and has added incremental revenues. The Budget Committee decided to take a different direction with the Fiscal Year 2016 budget; moving Parks to a separate fund modeled after a utility. The Committee chose parks because of the needs to maintain and operate current park lands compounded by the need to develop and maintain the parks purchased with the $17 million Park Bond that has expanded Tigard's park acreage by 30 percent. The direction in the FY 2016 budget was to fund all park services using a fee that will be paid as part of the utility bill and then prioritize the General Fund resources that used to fund existing parks maintenance and operations during the FY 2017 budget process. Staff presented initial policy issues to Council on October 20, 2015 and November 17, 2015. At the November 17, 2015 Workshop, Council instructed staff to bring the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) forward for consideration in a public hearing. The fee is limited in scope to the current level of parks maintenance, operations, and recreation plus identified deferred maintenance needs. Council determined that they would consider expanding park funding to needed capital and additional recreation purposes at a later date and possibly fund those via a special option property tax levy. Based on Council feedback during the workshops, on January 12, 2016, staff presented an ordinance and resolutions to establish the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF) which included the following policy directions from Council: •I{eep fee structure simple •Fee paid by residential and non-residential customers •Fee based on scenarios #1 (current level of services) & #2 (deferred maintenance) only •Use annual average cost for the deferred maintenance scenario to level out the resulting fee amount •Use annual inflation factor as outlined in the rate consultant's report •Include program for low income fee assistance Staff presented the complete fee and program at a public hearing on January 12, 2016. Council considered the program and continued the hearing. Based on the hearing actions on January 12, 2016, staff is bringing forward documents for Council approval that will result in the following: •A Park Maintenance Fee of$3.75 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit per month •Revenues from the PMF of approximately$1,014,000 per year •The fee will pay for: o$500,000 of the current $2.2 million in current maintenance and operations (Scenario #1), and o the entire $514,000 of deferred maintenance annually (Scenario #2) •By funding the $500,000 of current maintenance and operations (Scenario #1), the General Fund that previously supported that expenditure will now support: °Approximately $100,000 of the over $250,000 needed to fund the opening of the Library on Thursdays with limited services. The remaining funding for the Thursday openings comes from the Washington County Cooperative Library Service operating levy passed in November 2015. o Approximately $400,000 of General Fund intended to bolster reserves and aid a financially sustainable General Fund. This will not be programmed for expenditures. •By limiting the PMF to $3.75, there are no additional General Fund resources freed up to be programmed during the FY2017 Budget process. •The PMF is indexed at 4.26% annually, starting July 1, 2017 •The PMF can be adjusted as decisions are made that lead to additional parks maintenance and operations services, such as purchasing additional park land and developing existing park land. Staff will need to present the additional cost for Council consideration. •The PMF has a program that will reduce the fee by half for qualifying low income households Attached to this Agenda Item are the following documents: 1. Ordinance Establishing TMC 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee 2. Exhibit A to the Ordinance -TMC 3.75 Draft 3. Resolution to Amend the Master Fees and Charges Schedule to include the PMF 4. Exhibit A to the Resolution outlining the PMF and changes to the Master Fees and Charges Schedule 5. The rate consultants report on "Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report to Council for January 12, 2016 Public Hearing" OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council can choose to return parks maintenance and operations to the General Fund and not enhance park services. Council can choose to pass a fee that is more than $3.75 per EDU per month, enabling the direction of the Budget Committee to free up General Fund that previously supported parks. The available resource would then be allocated during the FY 2017 Budget process. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Strategic Plan Goal #4 -Fund the vision while maintaining core services. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Budget Committee Meetings on: •April 20, 2015 •April 27, 2015 •May 4, 2015 •December 15, 2015 Council Meetings on: •October 20, 2015 Workshop •November 17, 2015 Workshop •January 12, 2016 Hearing Attachments Ordinance TMC 3.75 Resolution Resolution Exhibit A - Park Maintenance Fee Rate Consultant's Report CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A PARK MAINTENANCE FEE WHEREAS,Park maintenance and operations funding from the General Fund is limited;and WHEREAS,Tigard has been unable to maintain park service levels for existing park land;and WHEREAS, Tigard has added park land without an adequate revenue source to maintain and operate the parks;and WHEREAS, Tigard has determined to fund a portion of parks maintenance and operations through a Park Maintenance Fee;and WHEREAS, The amount of the fee will pay for a portion of the existing level of parks maintenance, operations,and recreation;and WHEREAS, The fee will also pay for parks maintenance and operations services that have been defend due to limited resources;and WHEREAS, The fee will be paid by residential and non-residential utility customers within the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, The fee will be adjusted annually to account for inflation and any new maintenance costs caused by changes in parks such as additional parks or newly developed parks or new or expanded parks operations; and WHEREAS, Council may establish a program to provide assistance to lower income utility bill payers to be paid from Park Maintenance Fee revenues. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SEC11ON 1: Chapter 3.75 of the Tigard Municipal Code is hereby created as provided in Exhibit A. SEC'11ON 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the council, signature by the mayor,and posting by the city recorder. PASSED: By vote of all council members present after being read by number and title only,this day of ,2016. Carol A. Krager,City Recorder ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 1 APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,2016. John L.Cook,Mawr Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 16- Page 2 Exhibit A Chapter 3.75 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE B. Developed property or developed use. A parcel or legal portion of real property, on which Sections: an improvement exists or has been constructed. Improvement on developed property includes,but 3.75.010 Creation and Purpose is not limited to buildings, parking lots, 3.75.020 Definitions landscaping and outside storage. 3.75.030 Administrative Officers Designated C. Equivalent Dwelling Unit. Equivalent 3.75.040 Park Maintenance Fees Dwelling Units (EDUs) are the basis for equally Allocated to the Park apportioning annual Park Maintenance Fee Maintenance Fund revenue requirements among customer groups. 3.75.050 Determination of Park D. Finance Director. The finance and Maintenance Fee information services director or designee. 3.75.060 Determination of Amount, Billing and Collection of Fee E. Residential Property. Property that is 3.75.070 Waiver of Fees in Case of used primarily for personal domestic Vacancy accommodation, including single family, multi- 3.75.080 Administrative Provisions and family residential property and group homes, but Appeals not including hotels and motels. 3.75.090 Administrative Policies 3.75.100 Penalty F. Nonresidential Property. Property that is 3.75.110 Severability not primarily used for personal domestic accommodation. Nonresidential property includes 3.75.010 Creation and Purpose industrial, commercial, institutional, hotel and motel,and other nonresidential uses. A park maintenance fee is created and imposed for the purpose of maintenance of city G. Occupied Unit. Any structure or any parks. The park maintenance fee shall be paid by portion of any structure occupied for residential, the responsible party for each occupied unit of commercial, industrial, or other purposes. For real property. The purposes of the park example, in a multifamily residential develop- maintenance fee are to charge for the service the ment, each dwelling unit shall be considered a city provides in maintaining public parks and to separate occupied unit when occupied, and each ensure that maintenance occurs in a timely retail outlet in a shopping mall shall be considered fashion, thereby reducing increased costs that a separate occupied unit. An occupied unit may result when maintenance is deferred. include more than one structure if all structures are part of the same dwelling unit or commercial 3.75.020 Definitions or industrial operation. For example an industrial site with several structures that form an integrated As used in this chapter, the following shall manufacturing process operated by a single mean: manufacturer constitutes one occupied unit. Property that is undeveloped or, if developed, is A. Public Works Director. The public not in current use is not considered an occupied works director or the public works director's unit. designee. 3-70-1 Exhibit A H. Responsible Party. The person or maintenance programs for the maintenance of city persons who by occupancy or contractual parks and, subject to city budget committee arrangement are responsible to pay for utility and review and city council approval, allocation and other services provided to an occupied unit. expenditure of budget resources for park system Unless another party has agreed in writing to pay maintenance in accordance with this chapter. and a copy of the writing is filed with the city, the person(s) paying the city's water and/or sewer bill C. The finance director shall be responsible for an occupied unit shall be deemed the for the collection and calculation of fees and the responsible party as to that occupied unit. For any appeals process under this chapter. occupied unit not otherwise required to pay a city utility bill, "responsible party" shall mean the 3.75.040 Park Maintenance Fees person or persons legally entitled to occupancy of Allocated to the Park the occupied unit,unless another responsible party Maintenance Fund has agreed in writing to pay and a copy of the writing is filed with the city. Any person who has A. All park maintenance fees received shall agreed in writing to pay is considered the be deposited to the park maintenance fund or responsible person if a copy of the writing is filed other fund for the purpose of operation and with the city. maintenance of the city park system. The park maintenance fund shall be used for park I. Park Maintenance. Any action to maintenance. Other revenue sources may also be operate and maintain city parks,including,but not used for park maintenance. Amounts in the park limited to repair, renewal, replacement, maintenance fund may be invested by the finance reconstruction, minor improvements, programing, director in accordance with state law. Earnings recreation and other park activities. Park from such investments shall be dedicated to the maintenance does not include the capital park maintenance fee fund. development, construction or acquisition of new parks or undeveloped parks. B. The park maintenance fund shall not be used for other governmental or proprietary 3.75.030 Administrative Officers purposes of the city,except to pay for an equitable Designated share of the city's overhead costs including accounting,management and other costs related to A. Except as provided in subsections B and management and operation of the park C of this section, the public works director shall maintenance program. be responsible for the administration of this chapter. The public works director shall be 3.75.050 Determination of Park responsible for developing administrative Maintenance Fee procedures for the chapter, administration of fees, and for the purposes of establishing the fee for a A. For residential and non-residential specific occupied unit, the consideration and property, the fee shall be charged on a per assignment of categories of use,and parking space equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis. For single requirements subject to appeal in accordance with family and multifamily accounts, each occupied this chapter. unit within the residential property is one EDU. The calculation of an EDU for commercial and B. The public works director shall be industrial accounts will be defined in the Master responsible for developing and maintaining park Fees and Charges Schedule. 3-70-2 Exhibit A city water and/or sewer. All such bills shall be B. The park maintenance fee rates shall be rendered regularly by the finance director and established by council resolution and shall be shall become due and payable upon receipt. calculated based on all or a part of: B. Collections from utility customers will 1. The city's projected five-year be applied first to interest and penalties, then maintenance forecast plan for operations and proportionately among the various charges for maintenance of the city's park system; and utility services and park maintenance. 2. Any new maintenance costs C. An account is delinquent if the park incurred during the five-year program. New costs maintenance fee is not paid by the due date shown include, but are not limited to, maintenance of on the utility bill. The city may follow the additional park land, new park development of procedures for collection of delinquent accounts existing park land, and new or expanded set forth in Sections 12.03.030 and/or 12.03.040, programing and operations. These will be including termination of water and/or sanitary addressed annually based on estimates from the sewer service. public works director. 3.75.070 Waiver of Fees in Case of C. The park maintenance fee rate shall be Vacancy annually adjusted to account for new costs (as identified in 3.75.050.B.2) and according to an A. Pursuant to subsection F of this section, annual index as defined in the Master Fees and when any developed property within the city Charges, effective the first billing cycle following becomes vacant, upon written application and July Is`of each year,starting July 1,2017. approval by the finance director, the park maintenance fee shall thereafter not be billed and D. Council may establish a program to shall not be a charge against the property. reduce the park maintenance fee for lower income utility payers. The program may be administered B. The finance director is authorized to by city staff or a qualified non-profit. The cause an investigation of any property for which program may be defined in the city's Master Fees an application for determination of vacancy is and Charges Schedule. submitted to verify any of the information contained in the application. The finance director E. The program shall be reviewed annually is further authorized to develop and use a standard as part of the city's budget process. form of application, provided it shall contain a space for verification of the information and the person signing such form affirms under penalty 3.75.060 Determination of Amount, for false swearing the accuracy of the information Billing and Collection of Fee provided therein. A. The park maintenance fee shall be billed C. When any developed property within the to and collected from the responsible party for city has the utilities shut-off due to vacancy, the each occupied unit. Billings shall be included as park maintenance fee shall be waived for the part of the utility bill for occupied units utilizing duration of the vacancy as described in subsection city water and/or sewer, and billed and collected F of this section. separately for those occupied units not utilizing 3-70-3 Exhibit A D. When any multi-occupied developed the fee by submission of a written application to property within the city has one or more vacancies the finance director. The application shall be as described in subsection F of this section, the submitted in sufficient detail to enable the finance responsible party may request, in writing, a director to render a decision. waiver of a portion of the park maintenance fee applicable to the vacant units. B. To address the submitted request, the city may follow the procedures for utility charge E. When a change of use occurs,a vacancy adjustments set forth in Section 12.03.040. has been filled,or a property is developed,it is the responsible party's responsibility to inform the 3.75.090 Administrative Policies city of any change so the proper park maintenance fees may be assessed. If the responsible party does A. The following policies shall apply to the not inform the city of any change, the city shall operation and scope of this chapter: cancel the vacancy waiver and charge the responsible party as per subsection F of this 1. Parks maintenance fees imposed section. under this chapter shall apply to all occupied F. For purposes of this section, a unit of units, occupied units owned and/or occupied by property is vacant when it has been continuously local, state and federal governments, as well as unoccupied and unused for at least 30 days. Fees property which may be entitled to exemption from shall be waived in accordance with this section or deferral of ad valorem property taxation. only while the property remains vacant. The waiver duration is for six months. After six 2. Publicly owned park land, open months, the responsible party must re-apply for spaces and greenways shall not be subject to the the waiver if the property continues to be park maintenance fee. unoccupied and unused.The responsible party has 30 days to re-apply for the vacancy waiver after 3. Areas encompassing railroad and the expiration of the six month waiver. Any public right-of-way shall not be subject to the park occupancy or use of the property terminates the maintenance fee. waiver. As a penalty for not reporting a change in property vacancy, the city may charge any 4. Railroad property containing property two times the appropriate park structures, such as maintenance areas, non-rolling maintenance fee that would have been due storage areas and areas used for the transfer of rail without the vacancy waiver for prior billing transported goods to non-rail transport shall be periods upon determining by whatever means that subject to park maintenance fees. the property did not qualify for waiver of charges during the relevant time. The decision of the 5. For newly developed properties, finance director under subsections A, B, C, D and the fees imposed under this chapter shall become F of this section shall be final. (Ord. 10-08 §1, due and payable from and after the date when the 2010;Ord. 10-01 §2) developed property is occupied and connected to the public water or sanitary sewer system. 3.75.080 Administrative Provisions and Appeals B. The public works director and the finance director are authorized and directed to A. The responsible party for an occupied review the operation of this chapter and, where unit may request reconsideration of the amount of appropriate, recommend changes thereto in the 3-70-4 Exhibit A form of administrative policies for adoption of the city council by resolution.Administrative policies are intended to provide guidance to property owners, subject to this chapter, as to its meaning or operation, consistent with policies expressed herein. Policies adopted by the council shall be given full force and effect, and unless clearly inconsistent with this chapter, shall apply uniformly throughout the city. 3.75.100 Penalty In addition to any other remedy, violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a Class A civil infraction. Each day of delinquency in paying the park maintenance fee constitutes a separate violation. 3.75.110 Severability A. In the event any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or phrase of this chapter or any administrative policy adopted herein is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity of the remainder of the chapter shall continue to be effective. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that this chapter imposes a tax or charge, which is therefore unlawful as to certain but not all affected properties, then as to those certain properties, an exception or exceptions from the imposition of the park maintenance fee shall thereby be created and the remainder of the chapter and the fees imposed thereunder shall continue to apply to the remaining properties without interruption. B. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting the city's authority to levy special assessments in connection with public improvements pursuant to applicable law. ■ 3-70-5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MASTER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE TO ADD THE PARK MAINTENANCE FEE WHEREAS,Tigard Municipal Code 3.75 Park Maintenance Fee was adopted on February 2,2016;and WHEREAS, The amount of the fee will pay for a portion of the existing level of parks maintenance, operations,and recreation;and WHEREAS, The fee will also pay for parks maintenance and operations services that have been deferred due to limited resources;and WHEREAS, The fee will be paid by residential and non-residential utility customers within the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, The fee will be adjusted annually to account for inflation and any new maintenance costs created by changes such as additional parks or newly developed parks or new or expanded parks operations;and WHEREAS, Council may establish a program to aide lower income utility bill payers to be paid from Park Maintenance Fee revenues. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Master Fees and Charges Schedule adopted with Resolution 15-31 is hereby amended per Exhibit A. SEC1'TON2: This resolution shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the council, signature by the mayor,and posting by the city recorder. PASSED: This day of 2016. Mayor- City of Tigard A 1'1'EST: RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 1 City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 16- Page 2 Exhibit A Department Revenue Source Fee or Charge Authority Date PUBLIC WORKS-PARKS Park Maintenance Fee(TMC 3.70) Monthly Residential Rate-Single and Multi-Family $3.75/equivalent dwelling unit 4/1/2016 Monthly Non-Residential Rate 53.75/equivalent dwelling unit 2 4/1/2016 Reduction for Qualified Low Income Single Family 50°o 4/1/2016 Notes: 1 Commercial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*0.76 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor =EDUs 2 Industrial EDU Calculation(rounded to nearest whole EDU): (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee*1.19 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor =EDUs Calculation of the annual Park Maintenance Fee Index(from ICS Group report"Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee: Report to Council for January 12,2016 Public I fearing" Cost Center Annual Rate Weight Personnel 4.80% (1.60 Services/Utilities 3.00"'0 0.25 Materials/Internal Services 4.20°c 0.15 Annual Index(Weighted Average) 4.26% TMC 3.75.(150.D authorizes the establishment of a program to reduce the Park Maintenance Fee for low income individuals responsible for paying the utility bill. The reduction will last for 12 billing cycles after which the fee reduction will end or the responsible party can reapply To Qualify for the reduction,the responsible party: 1 Must be the individual(s)on the utility bill 2 Provide documented proof of income such as most recent tax statement or W-2. 3 I lave an income at,or below,50%of the Median Income for Oregon as set by the US Department of I lousing and Urban Development(HUD). City of Tigard • .I T I GARD Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report to Council for January 12, 2016 public hearing Prepared by FCS GROUP In association with Conservation Technix, Inc. FCS GROUP 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 1, Suite 220 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 T: 503.841.6543 www.fcsgroup.com Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION II: RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY 2 A. Rate Setting Principles and Methodology 2 B. Fiscal Policies 2 C. Revenue Requirement 3 D. Rate Design 3 SECTION III: REVENUE REQUIREMENT 4 A. Introduction 4 B. Operating Forecast 4 B.1 Non-User Revenue 4 B.2 Expenditure Projections 4 B.3 Existing User Fees 5 C. Capital Funding Plan 5 D. Summary of Revenue Requirement 6 D.1 Scenario 1: Funding Parks at Existing Levels 6 D.2 Scenario 2: Funding Deferred Maintenance 6 D.3 Scenario 3: Fully Funding CIP 7 D.4 Scenario 4: Develop Current Lands 8 D.5 Scenario 5: Develop New Lands 8 D.6 Scenario 6: Funding New Recreational Programs 8 D.7 Scenario 7: Funding Special Community Assets 8 SECTION IV: RATE DESIGN 9 A. Introduction 9 B. Parks Utility Funding 9 C. Customer charges 9 D. Parks Utility Fee Scenarios Analysis 11 D. Recommended Rate Scenario 11 SECTION V: RATE POLICIES 14 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 15 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION I : INTRODUCTION The City of Tigard(City)Parks Division maintains, operates, and owns 548 acres of park land which provides citizens with recreational opportunities,maintains environmentally sensitive lands,and meets or exceeds all regulatory standards. In addition to maintaining park land, the public works department is tasked with the maintenance of trails,planning new facilities, and running recreational activities for citizens of all ages. As Tigard's population and employment grow, the need for recreational opportunities increase as well. The latest voter approved parks bond has enabled the city to acquire a substantial amount of land it intends to develop into community assets but those dollars cannot be used to develop that land into usable parks. Meanwhile,necessary maintenance of existing parks has been deferred in the face of Tigard's constrained general fund. This report evaluates the utility rate revenue requirement to enable the City's parks fund to meet its ongoing operating and capital expenses and establishes a basis for a local charge to assist in funding any revenue deficiencies. In addition,this report provides a series of scenarios which analyze the revenue requirements in the case that certain parks priorities are fully funded(e.g., addressing deferred maintenance, developing city-owned park land,funding recreational programs, etc.) and what a parks utility fee designed to address those needs would cost citizens and businesses in Tigard. The purpose of the Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee (PMF) is to provide a reliable source of revenue for ongoing parks operations and maintenance. The reasons for a PMF include: • Maintenance is more expensive the longer it is deferred • Other financing mechanisms (e.g., system development charges) help construct capital assets but cannot be used for operations • Expenditures have been increasing in all city operations putting undue pressure on the General Fund as a limited resource with many demands • Over the last 15 years,park land has grown 66% while staffing to maintain parks has increased 12% in Tigard. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION 11 : RATE STUDY METHODOLOGY A. RATE SETTING PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY The methods used to establish user rates are based on principles that are generally accepted and widely followed throughout the industry. These principles are designed to produce rates that equitably recover costs from residents and businesses by setting the appropriate level of revenue to be collected from ratepayers, and establishing a rate structure to equitably collect those revenues. Exhibit 2.1 illustrates the overview of the methodology used in this rate study process. Exhibit 2.1: Overview of the Rate Study Process Forecast C Establish Revenue costs& Fiscal Policies Requirement Revenues Benefit Allocation (by EDU Costs by Customer Class(Res and Non Res) PARC Charges B. FISCAL POLICIES The stewardship of public funds is one of the greatest responsibilities given to the officials and the managers of the City. Therefore, the establishment and maintenance of wise fiscal policies enables City officials to protect public interest and ensure public trust. This study incorporates fiscal policies observed by the City to ensure that current policies are maintained, including reserve levels, capital/ system replacement funding and debt service coverage. Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report C. REVENUE REQUIREMENT The revenue requirement analysis will form the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy for the parks system. It also enables the City to establish a rate structure which will fully recover the total cost of operating the parks system: capital improvement,capital replacement, operations,maintenance, general administration, fiscal policy attainment, cash reserve management, and expanded programs. Linking rate levels to a financial plan such as this helps to enable not only sound financial performance for the City's parks fund, but also a clear and reasonable relationship between the costs imposed on utility customers and the costs incurred to provide service. A revenue requirement analysis includes the following core elements to form a complete portrayal of the parks utility's financial obligations. • Operating Forecast. Identifies future annual non-capital costs associated with the operation, maintenance, and administration of the system. • Deferred Maintenance. Measures the value of asset replacement and current required maintenance activities necessary to maintain adequate parks facilities condition. Capital Funding Plan. Defines a strategy for funding the City's capital improvement program, including an analysis of available resources from system development charges, debt financing, and any special resources that may be readily available (grants, outside contributions, etc.). Identifies if additional funding sources are needed. • Revenue Sufficiency Testing. Evaluates the sufficiency of revenues in meeting all financial obligations, including any coverage requirements associated with long-term debt. • Rate Strategy Development. Designs a forward-looking strategy for establishing rates to fully fund financial obligations on an annual basis over the projection period. D. RATE DESIGN The principal consideration of rate design is for the rate structure to generate sufficient revenues for the system which are reasonably commensurate with the cost of providing service. The pricing structure is largely dictated by the objectives of the system. Most rate structures consist of a combination of fixed and variable charges. Fixed charges typically attempt to cover system costs that do not vary with usage. Variable charges typically serve two functions, equitably recovering variable costs and encouraging customers to use the system efficiently. In this case,variable costs associated with the parks utility fee are based upon the services and materials the city chooses to fund through the utility fee. 3 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION III : REVENUE REQUIREMENT A. INTRODUCTION A revenue requirement analysis forms the basis for a long-range financial plan and multi-year rate management strategy. The analysis is developed by completing an operating forecast that identifies current and future annual operating costs, deferred maintenance costs, and a capital funding plan that defines a strategy for funding the capital improvement needs of the City not being addressed by SDCs, funding for additional recreational activities and programs. B. OPERATING FORECAST The purpose of the operating forecast is to determine at what level the potential rates and charges are sufficient to recover the costs the City incurs to operate and maintain the parks system. The fiscal year(FY) 2015-16 budget provided the primary basis for developing a multi-year forecast for FY 2016-17 through FY 2025-26 expenses. The complete 10-year forecasts are included in the Technical Appendix. The ensuing discussion highlights the key assumptions used to develop the parks operating forecast. B.1 Non-User Revenue Historically,parks funding in Tigard has been dependent upon general fund transfers,parks SDCs, voter-approved bonds, and grants. A summary of key non-user fee revenue assumptions includes: • General Fund Transfers: General fund transfers provide Tigard's parks with the majority of needed operations and maintenance dollars. It is assumed that these transfers will cease if the parks utility fee is implemented. • SDCs: SDC fund transfers provide Tigard's parks with the majority of the capital costs necessary for development of new park land or purchase of other assets. These incomes were generally not included in the modeling of this fee. • Voter-Approved Parks Bond: Residents of Tigard agreed to an increase in their property taxes in order to provide Tigard with money to purchase new parks land. Given that this income stream is finite,bond proceeds were not included in the model. B.2 Expenditure Projections • Salaries were budgeted at $904,416 in FY 2015-16 and were anticipated to grow at 4% annually. • Benefits were budgeted at $374,149 in FY 2015-16 and were anticipated to grow at 6.67% annually. • Materials and services were budgeted at $605,432 and costs were anticipated to grow at 3% annually. 4 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report • Capital Outlay expenses were budgeted at $49,000 in FY 2015-16 and capital outlay expenses were expected to grow at 4.5% annually. • Payments for Citywide Support Services were budgeted at $270,417 in FY 2015-16 and annual transfers out were expected to grow at 4.1% annually. It should be noted that recreation program expenses at current levels include a portion of the annual salary, benefits and services budgets. The PMF analysis includes a sensitivity analysis removing the recreation expenditures from the overall budget. In FY 2016,the recreation spending is $177,410 ($70,000 salary, $30,798 benefits and $76,612 in professional services). If recreation expenses are not included in the PMF revenue requirement,they would likely continue to be funded by the city's General Fund and User Fees. Each PMF fee development scenario contains a unique set of parameters with cost and fee assumptions. Discussion of each scenario is included in Section III.D. Detailed tables of scenario- based cost assumptions can be found in Appendix D and further cost estimate detail can be found in Appendix E. B.3 Existing User Fees Tigard's parks generate funds when users reserve areas, pay to participate in recreational sports leagues, or to enter designated facilities. City staff indicated the fees would defray $70,000 of the total department expenditures.We assume that user fee revenue increases by 3 percent per year for the 10-year planning horizon. Exhibit 3.1 shows the forecasted budget expenditures based on the FY 2015-16 budget including the user fee revenue reduction. Exhibit 3.1: Parks Utility Fee Scenarios Adopted Budget: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Salaries $ 940,593 $ 978,216 $ 1,017,345 $ 1,058,039 $ 1,100,360 Benefits 399,105 425,725 454,121 484,411 516,721 Materials and services 623,595 642,303 661,572 681,419 701,862 Capital outlay 51,205 53,509 55,917 58,433 61,063 Transfers 281,504 293,046 305,061 317,568 330,588 Less: Existing User Fees (70,000) (72,100) (74,263) (76,491) (78,786) Total expenditures $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 C. CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN The adopted Tigard parks and trails capital improvement plan includes $13 million in total costs in the 7-year projection period (Appendix E2). Costs represented in this plan are based on inflated dollars to the year of construction. Representative projects include: • Fanno Creek Remeander: A$1,147,000 project intended to reduce erosion impacts by lengthening the channel and decreasing the slope of the stream bed.This project will also require the realignment of a portion of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail. • Dirksen Nature Park: A$3.8 million project which will maintain 35 acres of natural area while also renovating an existing educational building on the site as well as improving trail connections throughout the property, among other improvements. • Tree Canopy Replacement Program: A$600,000 project which intends to replace lost tree canopy along stream corridors, school grounds,highways, and other areas. 5 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report • Park Land Acquisition: A$890,000 dollar effort to identify and purchase park land with funds coming from Tigard's citizen approved parks bond. • Downtown Land Acquisition: A$1.3 million effort to identify and purchase park land exclusively within downtown Tigard with funds coming from Tigard's citizen approved parks bond. • Tigard Street Trail and Public Space: An $45,000 trail project which is intended to connect SW Tiedeman Avenue to downtown Tigard and Tigard Transit Center by converting a disused rail spur. • Damaged Tree Replacement Program: A $300,000 effort to increase the quality and quantity of large trees and tree canopy. • Fanno Creek Trail Connection: A $4.8 million project which intends to close numerous gaps on the Fanno Creek Regional Trail present within the city of Tigard. The capital funding strategy envisions funding these projects through a mix of available cash balances including grants, System Development Charges,and transfers from other funds. D. SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT The operating forecast components of operations and maintenance(O&M) expenses, debt service, and system reinvestment come together to form the multi-year revenue requirement. The revenue requirement compares the overall revenue available to the parks system to the expenses and evaluates the sufficiency of rates on an annual basis. Seven scenarios were developed to evaluate the potential for Tigard's parks utility fee to support various revenue requirements: D.1 Scenario 1 : Funding Parks at Existing Levels Appendix Al displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 1. In this scenario, the parks utility fee assumes the parks costs which in the past were paid for using general fund transfers. This scenario assumes that no increase in parks funding occurs,meaning that deferral in needed maintenance continues and no funding is added to expand recreational programs or add capital projects as part of the PMF. Revenue requirements gradually and steadily increase as residential and employment growth increase. The revenue requirement for scenario 1 increases from $2,226,001 in FY 2016-17 to $3,254,938 in FY 2025-26. As noted previously,the PMF analysis includes a sensitivity analysis removing the recreation expenditures from the overall budget. In FY 2016,the recreation spending is $177,410. Hence, if recreation expenses are not included in the PMF revenue requirement, the annual revenue requirement for scenario 1 would be lower by approximately$180,000 dollars. D.2 Scenario 2: Funding Deferred Maintenance Appendix A2 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 2. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for deferred maintenance costs.This includes equipment and vehicle repair and replacement,repairs to trails, and other maintenance activities. The revenue requirement associated with scenario 2 fluctuates annually based upon the replacement timeline for assets. The initial year of the revenue requirement also addresses previously deferred maintenance whereas the following years address deferred maintenance requirements in that specific year. The revenue requirement for scenario 2 ranges from a high of$1,179,539 in FY 2016-17 to a low of$244,343 in FY 2025-26. 6 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Cost estimates for this scenario can be found in Appendix Dl while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix El. As shown in the following Exhibit,expenditures in this scenario are highly variable. To correctly account for expenditures in the utility rate and ensure low rate volatility, it is recommended that the city utilize a five-year average PMF rate. The annual revenue compared to annual expenditures for this scenario is shown in Exhibit 3.2. Since this approach will likely result in 1 or 2 years with inadequate fund balances to cover planned deferred maintenance, the city may need to transfer (borrow) funds from other city funds to cover temporary imbalances until reserves build up over time. The five-year(smoothed)revenue requirement for scenario 2 would result in an initial revenue requirement of approximately$514,000,as noted in Appendix A2-B,which is also part of the recommended PMF rate scenario. Exhibit 3.2: Projected Avg. Annual PMF Revenue vs. Expenditures for Deferred Maintenance Revenue Requirement 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 -800,000 600,000 400,000 an III 116 I 200,000 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 0;Revenue from Five-Year Average Rate ■Annual Expenditures D.3 Scenario 3: Fully Funding CIP Appendix A3 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 3. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the costs of all CIP-related transfers from the Urban Forestry Fund and transfers from the Transportation CIP Fund which are currently expected to fund capital projects. This scenario would reduce parks-related transfers from city accounts while identifying financing necessary to complete anticipated CIP projects (Appendix E2). This would also ensure such projects were funded with guaranteed funds rather than assuming funds from SDCs or other sources will be available. The revenue requirement fluctuates through the first five years and then gradually increases over the last five years. This fluctuation is due to the CIP calling for uneven expenses year to year since its costs are associated with the purchase and construction of facilities. The revenue requirement for scenario 3 begins at $857,500 in FY 2016-17, fluctuates in the next four years from $0 to $1,174,500, and then averages around$600,000 in the last five years. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D2 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E2. 7 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report D.4 Scenario 4: Develop Current Lands Appendix A4 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 4. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the capital and O&M costs associated with the development of new park land purchased using Tigard's voter approved parks bond.This would allow the city to build parks quicker with more stable funding sources than is currently possible. This scenario's revenue requirement increases over the 10-year planning horizon with costs growing at a faster rate each fiscal year. This is due to rapidly increasing operations and maintenance costs associated with bringing additional facilities on-line. The revenue requirement for scenario 4 increases from $203,624 in FY 2016-17 to $452,008 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D3 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E3. D.5 Scenario 5: Develop New Lands Appendix A5 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 4. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the currently budgeted parks expenditures and adds the cost of the purchase, development, and O&M of new park land which has not yet been acquired through Tigard's voter approved parks bond. This would allow the city to expand their parks inventory, continuing to build in anticipation of a growing population and employment base. The revenue requirement for scenario 5 increases steadily as operations and maintenance expenses associated with opening new facilities grow. The revenue requirement for scenario 5 increases from $84,687 in FY 2016-17 to $486,452 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D4 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E3. D.6 Scenario 6: Funding New Recreational Programs Appendix A6 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 6. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the cost of implementing programs identified as council priorities. Among those activities, scenario 6 assumes that one full time recreation employee will be hired in FY 2016-17 and another will be hired in FY 2018-19. Additionally, a recreation guide will be published and made available along with the implementation of an online reservation system for park facility rental. It is anticipated that the reservation system and recreation guide will generate additional revenue for the parks department in the form of participation fees,user fees, and rental fees. Finally, the city will also provide grants and scholarships so that low-income citizens can participate in the newly realized activities. The revenue requirement for this scenario increases steadily from $153,076 in FY 2016-17 to $617,733 in FY 2020-21 then, averages $420,000 in the final five years. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D5. D.7 Scenario 7: Funding Special Community Assets Appendix A7 displays the results of the revenue requirement analysis of scenario 7. In this scenario, the parks utility fee pays for the cost of implementing an arts and culture program through which the city of Tigard would purchase and display artwork throughout the city. In addition, scenario 7 would fund the construction of stormwater facilities in city parks.The revenue requirement for scenario 7 increases along with employment and residential growth because the programs funded by this scenario do not fluctuate in cost based on the year being considered. The revenue requirement increases from $201,627 in FY 2016-17 to $248,192 in FY 2025-26. An annual cost breakdown of this scenario can be found in Appendix D6 while further detail regarding the cost assumptions associated with this revenue requirement can be found in Appendix E4. 8 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION IV : RATE DESIGN A. INTRODUCTION The principal objective of the rate design stage is to develop parks utility rate structures that collect the appropriate level of revenue. The City currently does not assess local charges for parks utility service. In order to fund the activities identified in the revenue requirement section above, it is recommended that a local charge be formed. B. PARKS UTILITY FUNDING The existing parks funding mechanisms in Tigard are grouped into two purposes: those funds dedicated to capital purchases and those funds dedicated to maintenance for parks. Capital funds have historically come from SDC revenues, transfers from capital funds and grants. Meanwhile,the majority of operations expenses have come from transfers from the city's general fund. C. CUSTOMER CHARGES Equivalent Dwelling Units Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are the basis for allocating annual PARC revenue requirements to customer groups. EDUs,by definition, equate to a one unit of customer demand (usage) of parks and recreation investment within the City of Tigard, whereas one unit is equivalent to the amount of parks and recreation investment needed to support one single family residential dwelling unit. The methodology for determining EDUs takes into account most current (FY 2015-16) customer data that is maintained and updated periodically by the city as part of its street maintenance fee program. Supplemental data depicting building occupancy(using COSTAR quarterly reports for the Tigard subarea),employment(using confidential Oregon Employment Department data and local business interviews), and dwelling units(using city staff estimates) is compiled using sources noted in the table below. Non-residential EDU conversion factors are derived from the adopted Tigard Parks and Trails SDC Methodology Report(adopted in 2015), with an EDU conversion factor that equates 1 dwelling unit to 15 jobs. Hence, the PMF methodology estimates employment for each commercial and industrial customer and divides it by 15 to calculate non-residential EDUs. Single family residential EDUs are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Customer Accounts x 0.992 Occupancy Rate = EDUs 9 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Multifamily residential EDUs are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Dwelling Units x.942 Occupancy Rate = EDUs Commercial EDUs are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 0.76 Jobs Per Stall x.995 Occupancy Rate] = EDUs 15 (EDU factor) Industrial EDUs are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 1.19Jobs Per Stall x 1.0 Occupancy Rate] 15 (EDU factor) = EDUs As indicated in the Exhibit 4.1,the resulting distribution of EDUs, when combined by general customer type equates to a distribution of 90.8%to residential customers and 9.2% to non-residential (commercial and industrial) customers. Exhibit 4.1: Distribution of Citywide EDUs commercial ERU distribution & industrial 9.2% residential 90.8% An annual EDU growth factor of 0.45% is assumed based on historic customer growth trends in Tigard's customer utility accounts. A summary of EDU calculations and projections can be found in Appendix B. Customer Charges The City shall charge each customer within the City of Tigard based on actual customer account information which is updated annually. Any occupied residential dwelling,multifamily and commercial or industrial customer is to be charged as follows: Occupied single family residential PMF rates are calculated for each customer using the following formula: Dwelling Unit x monthly PMFRate per EDU= Monthly charge 10 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report Occupied multifamily customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: Dwelling Units x monthly PMF Rate per EDU = Monthly charge Occupied commercial customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 0.76 Jobs Per Stall] 15 (EDU factor) x monthly PMF per EDU = Monthly charge Occupied industrial customer PARC rates are calculated using the following formula: [Parking Stalls x 1.19 Jobs Per Stall ] x monthly PMF per EDU = Monthly charge 15 (EDU factor) D. PARKS UTILITY FEE SCENARIOS ANALYSIS Each of the scenarios and their associated revenue requirement were analyzed to determine potential utility fees for the citizens and businesses of Tigard. An analysis of each scenario resulted in draft PMF rate calculations that were summarized and presented to the City at a Tigard City Council Work Session. The results of each scenario are shown in their respective appendices. Exhibit 4.2: Parks Utility Fee Scenarios Scenario Comparison Annual Equivalent Property Tax Revenue per EDU FY Annual Mil Annual Avg. 2016-17 Initial Five rate, FY Cost on (Year 1) Year Rate' 2016-17 $240k home 1. Adopted Budget $98.17 $8.18 0.4056 $97.35 2. Deferred Maintenance $22.69 $1.89 0.2149 $51.59 3. Fully Fund CIP Projects $37.82 $1.94 0.1563 $37.50 4. Develop and Operate Current Lands $8.98 $0.92 0.0371 $8.91 5. Develop and Operate New Lands $3.73 $0.59 0.0154 $3.70 6. Develop Recreation Programs $6.75 $1.39 0.0279 $6.69 7. Special Community Assets $8.89 $0.79 0.0367 $8.82 Total $187.03 $15.70 0.8940 $214.56 *Residential and Non-Residential EDUs are Charged the same amount per EDU. 'Note that five year rate may cause a revenue deficiency in the first years,if expenditures in early years are higher than later years. Total Assessed Value in City of Tigard: $5,838,019,224 Average Home Assessed Value:: $240,000 Average annual collection factor: 94% Source:Compiled by FCS GROUP. it Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report D. RECOMMENDED RATE SCENARIO The recommended initial PMF rate is intended to address the current budgeted funding requirements for parks and deferred parks maintenance costs. Using the detailed assumptions provided in the Appendix, the annual revenue requirement over the next five years (FY 2016-17 to FY 2020-21) is projected to include $2,226,001 in parks budget and $514,457 in deferred maintenance for a total initial year revenue requirement of$2,720,458. In order to smooth out the PMF rates, it is recommended that the initial fee be based on the projected parks budget and the five year average revenue requirement for deferred maintenance. The resulting figure will be allocated among the customer groups. It is further recommended that the annual escalation rate be applied starting in year two. An annual escalation of 4.26% is recommended using the assumptions shown in Exhibit 4.3. Exhibit 4.3: PMF Escalation Rates Parks Utility Rate Indicies Years 1-5 Year of I_,. • - - Annual Rate Weights Personnel 4.80% 0.6 Services/Utilities 3.00% 0.25 Materials/Internal Services 4.20% 0.15 Weighted Average 4.26% Source: City of Tigard and FCS GROUP; based on estimated expenditures. The resulting Tigard PMF rates are shown below in Exhibit 4.4. Initial monthly PMF rates would be $10.07 per customer, and increase by approximately 4 percent annually. This charge should be sufficient to generate an annual average revenue amount of$2,740,458 in FY 2016-17 and $3,239,691 in FY 2020-21. Exhibit 4.4: Tigard PMF Rates for Recommended Scenario: Parks Budget plus Deferred Maintenance Average Revenue Requirement with 5-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Smoothin! of Deferred Maintenance 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Parks Budget $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2,523,379 $ 2,631,809 Deferred Maintenance* $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 Total expenditures $ 2,740,458 $ 2,857,072 $ 2,978,975 $ 3,106,424 $ 3,239,691 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 2,487,186 $ 2,593,022 $ 2,703,659 $ 2,819,330 $ 2,940,280 Non-residential allocation 253,272 264,049 275,316 287,094 299,411 Total expenditures $ 2,740,458 $ 2,857,072 $ 2,978,975 $ 3,106,424 $ 3,239,691 EDUs: 5-Year Projections Residential 20,579 20,672 20,765 20,858 20,952 Non-Residential 2,096 2,105 2,114 2,124 2,134 Total 22,675 22,777 22,879 22,982 23,086 Rate Calculation: 5-Year Projections nominal dollars Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 120.86 $ 125.44 $ 130.20 $ 135.17 $ 140.33 Non-residential $ 120.86 $ 125.44 $ 130.20 $ 135.17 $ 140.33 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 10.07 $ 10.45 $ 10.85 $ 11.26 $ 11.69 Non-residential $ 10.07 $ 10.45 $ 10.85 $ 11.26 $ 11.69 *assumes escalation rate of 4.26%on deferred maintenance avg.revenue requirement. 12 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report In the sensitivity analysis, the PMF is adjusted downwards to reflect a policy that the fee be used exclusively for parks maintenance only. In this scenario, the annual revenue requirement is reduced by$184,563 to exclude the annual amount of funds currently expended on recreation facilities and programs. This results in a 74 cent per month per EDU reduction. Hence,the initial PMF would be $9.33 instead of$10.07,and subsequent year rates would comport with such a reduction in charges. 13 Tigard Parks Maintenance Fee Report SECTION V : RATE POLICIES Parks revenues at current levels are not sufficient to fund ongoing maintenance needs, much less identified parks priorities and the development of parks on city-owned land. Seven scenarios were evaluated for the parks system based on services and activities that Tigard has identified as priorities for the parks department. Recommendations of this study include: • The recommended initial PMF rate would be set at a level to fund the existing annual parks budget and identified deferred parks maintenance. • The Parks Fund should establish a minimum operating reserve that equates to 90-days of expenditures. • The City should provide a rate policy that establishes an annual reserve for low income assistance. Based on experience by the City of Tigard with its water rates,an initial annual reserve fund balance of$25,000 should be established.The city would utilize this fund to provide assistance to individuals and families within the City of Tigard if they meet the certain income parameters. Eligibility is to be determined by St. Vincent de Paul (city partner) using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development income criteria for utility assistance. Once this fund is established, a share of each year's PMF revenue should be transferred into it to maintain a minimum beginning year fund balance of$25,000. • As the City considers acquiring or developing new land for future parks, it shall consider potential impacts on PMF expenditures and revenue requirements, and accordingly make annual adjustments to the PMF rates. • The City should adopt a rate policy that establishes an annual escalation rate based on city cost experience or at an annual rate of at least 4 percent. • The City shall revisit the study findings during the budget cycle to check that the assumptions used are still appropriate and that no significant changes have occurred that would alter the results of the rate methodology.The City should continue to monitor the financial status of the parks utility,adjusting the parks utility fee rate strategy as needed. I4 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report TECHNICAL APPENDIX APPENDIX A: REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Appendix Al: Scenario l (Adopted Budget) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 1 � � tiO y° titi rt. tiO ON 'LON SON SON X01' yOI' yO1' X01' �Orya. �y. ■Residential l Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Adopted Budget $ 2.226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2.523,379 $ 2,631.809 $ 2.745,283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3.118,592 $ 3,254,938 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - -Total expenditures $ 2,226.001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2.523.379 $ 2,631,809 $ 2.745.283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3,118.592 $ 3,254,938 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 2,020.275 $ 2,106,221 $ 2,196,120 $ 2.290,170 $ 2,388,578 $ 2,491,565 $ 2,599,361 $ 2,712,212 $ 2,830,373 $ 2,954,118 Non-residential allocation 205,726 214,478 223,632 233,210 243,231 253.718 264.695 276,186 288,219 300,820 Total expenditures $ 2,226,001 $ 2,320,699 $ 2,419,753 $ 2.523.379 $ 2,631,809 $ 2.745,283 $ 2,864,056 $ 2,988,398 $ 3,118,592 $ 3,254,938 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A2-A: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000immumem $200,000 - t. , „$- ,,1 ,..4t, .,°'NCc NV tiZti'` tiV tib tib VO tiCO riA ejl, etbiW Residential I Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Pr. ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Deferred Maintenance $ 1,179,539 $ 306.463 $ 476.641 $ 290,388 $ 319,251 $ 255,309 $ 370,340 $ 431,111 $ 508.687 $ 244,343 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 1,179,539 $ 306.463 $ 476,641 $ 290,388 $ 319,251 $ 255,309 $ 370.340 $ 431,111 $ 508,687 $ 244,343 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 1,070,527 $ 278,140 $ 432,590 $ 263,551 $ 289,746 $ 231,714 $ 336,113 $ 391,268 $ 461,675 $ 221,761 Non-residential allocation 109,013 28.323 44.051 26,838 29,505 23,596 34,227 39,843 47,013 22,582 Total expenditures $ 1,179,539 $ 306.463 $ 476,641 $ 290,388 $ 319.251 $ 255.309 $ 370,340 $ 431,111 $ 508,687 $ 244.343 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A2-B: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Revenue Requirement with five year smoothing Revenue Requirement $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 II II . $400,000 $300,000 � II � Ill 111 Ill � III II � $200,000 I IIIIII III111 III �� III • III `L ^3 01 h1.ro -- Residential •Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Deferred Maintenance $ 514.457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410,215 $ 427,690 Manual adjustments - Total expenditures $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607.883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410,215 $ 427,690 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 466,911 $ 486,801 $ 507,539 $ 529,160 $ 551,702 $ 328,506 $ 342,500 $ 357,091 $ 372,303 $ 388,163 Non-residential allocation 47,546 49,571 51,683 53,885 56.180 33,452 34,877 36,363 37,912 39,527 Total expenditures $ 514,457 $ 536,372 $ 559,222 $ 583,045 $ 607,883 $ 361,958 $ 377,378 $ 393,454 $ 410,215 $ 427,690 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A3: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 -i $200,000 $150,000 - $100,000 $50,000 $- N1 ,`I' ,\°' �O �� ,ti`1. -v 1,1 by ti� elS)11 Kt, Residential •Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Fully Fund CIP Projects $ 857,500 $ 604,150 $ 1,174,500 $ - S - $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628,732 $ 657,025 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 857,500 $ 604,150 $ 1,174,500 $ - $ - $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628,732 $ 657,025 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 778,250 $ 548,315 $ 1,065,953 $ - $ - $ 500,036 $ 522,538 $ 546,052 $ 570,624 $ 596,303 Non-residential allocation 79,250 55,835 108,547 - - 50,919 53,210 55,605 58,107 60,722 Total expenditures $ 857,500 $ 604.150 $ 1,174.500 $ - $ - $ 550,955 $ 575,748 $ 601,657 $ 628,732 $ 657,025 Ifi CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A4: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 , , 111 ' , 111III I I I I I I I I$100,000 ; I I I I11 $50'°$ 11 I 1 I Cl, be 43, riv A ti��55. � roto el ti�� ti�� (61°1,1 nNgle ) Residential •Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Develop Current Land $ 203,624 $ 225.903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327,532 $ 356.353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 203,624 $ 225,903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327,532 $ 356.353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 184,805 $ 205.025 $ 226,331 $ 248,772 $ 272,398 $ 297,262 $ 323,419 $ 350,927 $ 379,844 $ 410,234 Non-residential allocation 18,819 20.878 23,047 25,333 27,738 30,270 32.934 35,735 38,680 41,774 Total expenditures $ 203,624 $ 225.903 $ 249,379 $ 274,105 $ 300,136 $ 327.532 $ 356.353 $ 386,662 $ 418,524 $ 452,008 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A5: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,0001 I 1 1 1 1 1 $100,000 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $50,000 1 1 I 1 - I $_ I 1 1 I I . ' - I _ ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti nv v - Residential IN Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Develop New Land $ 84,687 $ 120.155 $ 157,687 $ 197,376 $ 239.316 $ 283,610 $ 330,360 $ 379,674 $ 431,666 $ 486,452 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 84,687 $ 120.155 $ 157.687 $ 197,376 $ 239.316 $ 283.610 $ 330.360 $ 379,674 $ 431,666 $ 486.452 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 76,861 $ 109,051 $ 143.114 $ 179,134 $ 217.199 $ 257.399 $ 299.828 $ 344,585 $ 391,772 $ 441,494 Non-residential allocation 7,827 11.105 14.573 18,241 22.118 26,211 30.532 35,089 39.894 44.958 Total expenditures $ 84.687 $ 120.155 $ 157.687 $ 197,375 $ 239.316 $ 283.610 $ 330.360 $ 379,674 $ 431.666 $ 486,452 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A6: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 - - , , , , , , $150,000 -' I I I I I I I I $100,000 „ ' $5 I I I I I I I I I $50,000 $- ' , , , , , r , kA be Vv if 011 Residential s Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Recreational Programs $ 153,076 $ 182.040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392.478 $ 405.820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $_ 153,076 $ 182.040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392,478 $ 405.820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 138,929 $ 165.216 $ 386,488 $ 471,198 $ 560,643 $ 356,205 $ 368,314 $ 380,750 $ 393,519 $ 406,618 Non-residential allocation 14,147 16.824 39.356 47,982 57.091 36,273 37.506 38,772 40,072 41,406 Total expenditures $ 153,076 $ 182.040 $ 425,845 $ 519,180 $ 617,733 $ 392.478 $ 405,820 $ 419,522 $ 433,592 $ 448,024 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix A7: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) Revenue Requirement Revenue Requirement $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 L. I I I II $100,000 I I I I $50,000I I I I $_ II I - IIi O^ v lib co- ,,N ..,P•NO O�cb' O�cb' OnsW Off^*� O�� AV Oetbe OetV ti ti ti ti -v -v ti ti ti v Residential ■Non-Residential Revenue Requirement: 10- Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Adjusted cost scenario: Special Community Assets $ 201,627 $ 207,676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226.933 $ 220,515 $ 227,131 $ 233,945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 Manual adjustments - - - - - - - - - - Total expenditures $ 201,627 $ 207.676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226,933 $ 220,515 $ 227,131 $ 233,945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 Allocated costs Residential allocation $ 182,992 $ 188,482 $ 194,137 $ 199,961 $ 205,960 $ 200,136 $ 206,140 $ 212,324 $ 218,694 $ 225,254 Non-residential allocation 18,634 19,193 19,769 20,362 20,973 20,380 20,991 21,621 22.270 22,938 Total expenditures $ 201,627 $ 207,676 $ 213,906 $ 220,323 $ 226,933 $ 220,515 $ 227.131 $ 233.945 $ 240,963 $ 248,192 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX B: EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS A• u endix Bl: Parks EDU Assum itions and Customer Statistics, Cit of Ti lard FY 2015-16) Jobs DUs Parking Per per Occupancy Customer (.;roup Accounts i Stalls ' Stall `' Stall a Factor EDU Factor' EDUs ' Commercial 916 40,309 0.76 0.995 15 2,029 Industrial 13 718 1.19 1.000 15 57 Multifamily 587 7,433 1.05 0.942 1.0 7,373 Single Family 13,222 13,222 1.00 0.992 1.0 13,114 TOTAL Commercial & Industrial 929 2,086 Residential 1 3,809 20,487 Notes 1 Derived from City of Tigard, Street Maintenance Fee customer data. 2 Calculated based on current estimated jobs (Oregon Employment Department and local business survey data for Tigard). s Calculated based on current estimated dwellings (American Community Survey, 2013 data for City of Tigard) ` EDU = equivalent dwelling unit. Note: Non-residential ERUs calculated by dividing the number of jobs in Tigard (40,746 based on data gathered for the parks SDC methodology) by a conversion factor of 15 employees per EDU (based on calculations in the Tigard Parks and Trails SDC Methodology Report, 2015). Compiled by FCS GROUP. Appendix B2: 10-Year EDU Projections (All Scenarios) EDUs: 10-Year Projections Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Residential,single-family 13,173 13,232 13,292 13,352 13.412 13,472 13,533 13,594 13,655 13,716 Residential,multi-family 7,406 7,440 7,473 7,507 7,540 7,574 7,608 7,643 7,677 7,712 Non-residential,commercial 2,038 2,048 2,057 2,066 2,075 2,085 2,094 2,103 2,113 2,122 Non-residential,industrial 57 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 60 Total 22,675 22,777 22,879 22,982 23,086 23,190 23,294 23,399 23,504 23,610 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX C: 10-YEAR RATE PROJECTION Appendix Cl: 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 98.17 $ 101.89 $ 105.76 $ 109.80 $ 114.00 $ 118.38 $ 122.95 $ 127.72 $ 132.68 $ 137.86 Non-residential $ 98.17 $ 101.89 $ 105.76 $ 109.80 $ 114.00 $ 118.38 $ 122.95 $ 127.72 $ 132.68 $ 137.86 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.18 $ 8.49 $ 8.81 $ 9.15 $ 9.50 $ 9.87 $ 10.25 $ 10.64 $ 11.06 $ 11.49 Non-residential $ 8.18 $ 8.49 $ 8.81 $ 9.15 $ 9.50 $ 9.87 $ 10.25 $ 10.64 $ 11.06 $ 11.49 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.35 $ 8.35 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.70 $ 9.70 $ 10.47 $ 10.47 $ 11.30 $ 11.30 Non-residential $ 8.35 $ 8.35 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.70 $ 9.70 $ 10.47 $ 10.47 $ 11.30 $ 11.30 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 Non-residential $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 8.91 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 $ 10.76 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 Non-residential $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 $ 9.96 Appendix C2: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 52.02 $ 13.46 $ 20.83 $ 12.64 $ 13.83 $ 11.01 $ 15.90 $ 18.42 $ 21.64 $ 10.35 Non-residential $ 52.02 $ 13.46 $ 20.83 $ 12.64 $ 13.83 $ 11.01 $ 15.90 $ 18.42 $ 21.64 $ 10.35 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 4.33 $ 1.12 $ 1.74 $ 1.05 $ 1.15 $ 0.92 $ 1.32 $ 1.54 $ 1.80 $ 0.86 Non-residential $ 4.33 $ 1.12 $ 1.74 $ 1.05 $ 1.15 $ 0.92 $ 1.32 $ 1.54 $ 1.80 $ 0.86 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.73 $ 2.73 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.04 $ 1.04 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 Non-residential $ 2.73 $ 2.73 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.04 $ 1.04 $ 1.43 $ 1.43 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 Non-residential $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.89 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 $ 1.30 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 Non-residential $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 $ 1.61 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C3: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 37.82 $ 26.52 $ 51.33 $ - $ - $ 23.76 $ 24.72 $ 25.71 $ 26.75 $ 27.83 Non-residential $ 37.82 $ 26.52 $ 51.33 $ - $ - $ 23.76 $ 24.72 $ 25.71 $ 26.75 $ 27.83 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 3.15 $ 2.21 $ 4.28 $ - $ - $ 1.98 $ 2.06 $ 2.14 $ 2.23 $ 2.32 Non-residential $ 3.15 $ 2.21 $ 4.28 $ - $ - $ 1.98 $ 2.06 $ 2.14 $ 2.23 $ 2.32 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.69 $ 2.69 $ 2.14 $ 2.14 $ 0.99 $ 0.99 $ 2.11 $ 2.11 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 Non-residential $ 2.69 $ 2.69 $ 2.14 $ 2.14 $ 0.99 $ 0.99 $ 2.11 $ 2.11 $ 2.28 $ 2.28 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 Non-residential $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 1.94 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 Non-residential $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 $ 2.08 Appendix C4: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 8.98 $ 9.92 $ 10.90 $ 11.93 $ 13.00 $ 14.12 $ 15.30 $ 16.52 $ 17.81 $ 19.14 Non-residential $ 8.98 $ 9.92 $ 10.90 $ 11.93 $ 13.00 $ 14.12 $ 15.30 $ 16.52 $ 17.81 $ 19.14 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.75 $ 0.83 $ 0.91 $ 0.99 $ 1.08 $ 1.18 $ 1.27 $ 1.38 $ 1.48 $ 1.60 Non-residential $ 0.75 $ 0.83 $ 0.91 $ 0.99 $ 1.08 $ 1.18 $ 1.27 $ 1.38 $ 1.48 $ 1.60 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 $ 1.54 $ 1.54 Non-residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.13 $ 1.13 $ 1.33 $ 1.33 $ 1.54 $ 1.54 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 Non-residential $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 0.92 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 1.40 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 Non-residential $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 $ 1.17 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C5: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 3.73 $ 5.28 $ 6.89 $ 8.59 $ 10.37 $ 12.23 $ 14.18 $ 16.23 $ 18.37 $ 20.60 Non-residential $ 3.73 $ 5.28 $ 6.89 $ 8.59 $ 10.37 $ 12.23 $ 14.18 $ 16.23 $ 18.37 $ 20.60 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.31 $ 0.44 $ 0.57 $ 0.72 $ 0.86 $ 1.02 $ 1.18 $ 1.35 $ 1.53 $ 1.72 Non-residential $ 0.31 $ 0.44 $ 0.57 $ 0.72 $ 0.86 $ 1.02 $ 1.18 $ 1.35 $ 1.53 $ 1.72 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.38 $ 0.38 $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 1.27 $ 1.27 $ 1.63 $ 1.63 Non-residential $ 0.38 $ 0.38 $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 1.27 $ 1.27 $ 1.63 $ 1.63 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 Non-residential $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 0.59 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Non-residential $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Appendix C6: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 6.75 $ 7.99 $ 18.61 $ 22.59 $ 26.76 $ 16.92 $ 17.42 $ 17.93 $ 18.45 $ 18.98 Non-residential $ 6.75 $ 7.99 $ 18.61 $ 22.59 $ 26.76 $ 16.92 $ 17.42 $ 17.93 $ 18.45 $ 18.98 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.56 $ 0.67 $ 1.55 $ 1.88 $ 2.23 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 $ 1.58 Non-residential $ 0.56 $ 0.67 $ 1.55 $ 1.88 $ 2.23 $ 1.41 $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.54 $ 1.58 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.62 $ 0.62 $ 1.72 $ 1.72 $ 1.82 $ 1.82 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.56 $ 1.56 Non-residential $ 0.62 $ 0.62 $ 1.72 $ 1.72 $ 1.82 $ 1.82 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.56 $ 1.56 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 Non-residential $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.39 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 1.51 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 Non-residential $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 1.47 'r, CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix C7: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) 10-Year Rate Projections Rate Calculation: 10-Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Pro'ections 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Required annual revenue per EDU Residential $ 8.89 $ 9.12 $ 9.35 $ 9.59 $ 9.83 $ 9.51 $ 9.75 $ 10.00 $ 10.25 $ 10.51 Non-residential $ 8.89 $ 9.12 $ 9.35 $ 9.59 $ 9.83 $ 9.51 $ 9.75 $ 10.00 $ 10.25 $ 10.51 Monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 $ 0.85 $ 0.88 Non-residential $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.78 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.83 $ 0.85 $ 0.88 Two-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.87 $ 0.87 Non-residential $ 0.75 $ 0.75 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 0.81 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.87 $ 0.87 Five-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Non-residential $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.79 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 $ 0.84 Ten-year monthly rate per EDU Residential $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 Non-residential $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 $ 0.82 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX D: TIGARD PARKS UTILITY COST ASSUMPTIONS BY SCENARIO Appendix D1: Scenario 2 (Deferred Maintenance) Associated Costs .Deferred Parks Maintenance 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 „ Fiscal Year Fisc-1 ` - - 'seal Year .fiscal Year Fiscal Y "• „ al Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Y_ _ ... - -- _-_ •',..: '._.:Escalation Year Needing Replacement „ � _""' _ -- -.. --� '-^_ -__ � 20! 7� 2022'- _;_, 2024-25 ^ . . . -. -... :: $207,800 $31,000 $102.000 $10,000 $79,500 $15.000 $22.000 $117,000 $55,000 $0 Materials&Services 3.00% Parks Asset inventory $602300 $35.000 $138,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $95,000 $42,000 $137,000 $0 Capital 4.50% Parks Facilities Rent(depreciation) _ $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 $31,751 Capital 4.50% Parks Trails(low end estimate) $125,588 $125,588 $125.588 5125.588 $125.588 $125,588 $125,588 $125,588 $125.588 $125,588 Capital 4.50% Parks Vehicles Replacement $166,682 $59,902 $25,298 $54,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Materials&Services 3.00% Total•Real Costs $1,134,121 $283,241 $423,137 $247,212 $261,839 $197,339 $274,339 $316,339 $349,339 $157,339 Total-Nominal Costs $1,179,539 $306,463 $476,641 $290,388 $319,251 $255,309 $370,340 $431,111 $508,687 $244,343 Nominal Average,Initial 5 Years I $5144571 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Appendix D2: Scenario 3 (Fully Fund CIP Projects) Associated Costs 3.Identified Ca•ital Im•rovement Pro'ects excludes bond •roceeds and •arks SDC funds Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 inflation Inflation -+ Internal Expenses $282,500 $135,900 $140,600 $0 $0 External Expenses $3,410,000 $3,100,250 $1,433,900 $150,000__ $150,000 Total Expenses 3,692,500 3,236,150 1,574,500 150,000 150,000 -11115- IMF Bonds/SDCs $817,440 $1,072,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from transp CIP fund $0 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Regional Flexible Funds $1,670,000 $1,410,000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Transfers from other funds(general fund) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues 3,692,500 236,150 1,574,500 150,000 150,000 'Casie.indwled ilhe ...... :4ailiainaMIIIIIIIiinamili- ; Transfers from Urban Forestry Fund $857,500 $604,150 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Capital 4.50% Total-Real Costs $857,500 $604,150 $1,174,500 $0 $0 $527,230 $527,230 $527,230 $527,230 $527,230 Total-Nominal Costs $857,500 $604,150 $1,174,500 $0 $0 $550,955 $575,748 $601,657 $628,732 $657,025 Nominal Average Over Ye ' $565,027 Source:City of Tigard,compled by FCS GROUP Appendix D3: Scenario 4 (Develop Current Land) Associated Costs 4.Development of Current Parks Land invento ----' '•"•' ��" • -ff.Ifcd.Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fisc•Y�•ear "''•� � "" •r F -"-''' ,"' "" ''6"'-'7- ;•17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025- Annual Capital Costs $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 $182,490 Capital 4.50% Annual O&M Costs • $12,546 $25,092 $37,638 $50,184 $62.730 $75,276 $87,822 $100,368 $112,914 $125,460 Materials&Services 3.00% Total-Real Costs $195,036 $207,582 $220,128 $232,674 5245,220 $257,766 $270,312 $282,858 $295,404 $307,950 Total-Nominal Costs f $203,624 $225,903 $249,379 $274,105 $300,136 $327,532 $356,353 $386,662 $418,524 $452,008 Nominal Average Over Years-y= $319,423 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Note:Thk analysis excludes bond proceeds and parks SOC funds. i` CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix D4: Scenario 5 (Develop New Land) Associated Costs 5.Level•• •ent of New Parks on Land Not Yet Ac•aired Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Inflation Notes Inflation Annual Capital Costs $5'' 194 $51.194 $51,194 $51,194 $51,194 $51„94 $51,1%4 $5:,192. $51,194 $51,194 Capital 4.50% Annual O&M Costs $30,281 $60,562 $90,842 $121,123 $151,404 $181,685 $211,966 $242,246 $272,527 $302,808 Materials&Services 3.00% Total-Real Costs $81,475 $111,756 $142,037 $172,318 $202,598 $232,879 $263,160 $293,441 $323,722 5354,002 • Total-Nominal Costs $84,687 $120,155 $157,687 $197,376 $239,316 $283,610 $330,360 $379,674 $431,666 $486,452 NgmIssal tkeetw_e Over Years $271,098 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP Note:Th6 analysis excludes bond proceeds and parks SDC funds. Appendix D5: Scenario 6 (Recreational Programs) Associated Costs Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Inflation Notes Inflaflon Recreation Staffing-1 FTE fiat two years: FTE in all following years $135,000 $135,000 $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 Personnel Services 4.00% Professional Services-Recreation Guide ' $20.000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Materials&Services 3.00% Equipment&Technology-Online Reservation System $0 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Materials&Services 3.00% City Investment-Grants,Scholarships,and Pilot Programs $56,000 $87,500 $200,000 $200.000 $200,000 Materials&Services 3.00% Program Revenue ($63,3001 1$72,7501 15165.0001 15195,0001 15225,0001 Total-Real Costs $147,700 $169,750 $385,000 $455,000 $525,000 $336,490 $336,490 $336,490 $336,490 $336,490 Total-Nominal Costs $153,076 $182,040 $425,845 $519,180 $617,733 $392,478 $405,820 $419,522 $433,592 5448,024 Nominal Average Over Years $399,731 Source:City of Tigard,Recreation Program Study,March 2015:compiled by FCS GROUP Appendix D6: Scenario 7 (Special Community Assets) Associated Costs 7.Inclusion of S-ectal Community Assets Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Inflation Notes Inflation Arts and Cultural Program Costs $95,754 $95,754 $95,754 $95,754 $95,754 Materials F.Services 3.00% Stormwater Program Costs $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Materials S.Services 0.003% Total-Real Costs $195,754 $195,754 3195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 $195,754 Total-Nominal Costs $201,627 $207,676 $213,906 $220,323 $226,933 $220,515 $227,131 $233,945 $240,963 $248,192 Nominal Average Over Yeats $224,121 Source:City of Tigard and FCS GROUP. CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report APPENDIX E: TIGARD PARKS UTILITY SCENARIO COST ASSUMPTIONS Appendix El: O&M current and estimated future costs Estimated O/M Costs for Current&Future Park Develo•ment _ Neighborhood& Community Avg Net New Cost at Pocket Parks Parks Linear Parks Open Space Trattd`s Total end of each 5 year cycle Costs per Acre $ 4,400 $ 7,880 $ 645 $ 705 $ 4,450 Costs etMi . 10,900 T Current developed acres 53.0 ac 191.1 ac 23.1 ac 252.9 ac 4.6 ac 524.7 Total O&M Costs $ 233,376 $ 1,506,026 $ 14,867 $ 178,302 $ 20,470 $ 1,953,040 Development of undeveloped parks and Ira" 23.0 act 19.0 act 0.0 act 0.0 act 0.0 ac 42.0 Total O&M Costs $ 101,200 $ 149,720 $ - $ - $ - $ 250,920 $ 62,730 Additional acres to acquire and develop , 34.1 ac 42.1 ac 37.0 ac 66.1 ac 4.9 mi 184.2 - -. ' - " $ 149,821 $ 331,753 $ 23,892 $ 46,631 $ 53,519 $ 605,616 $ 151,404 searer.dry of Tigard,compiled by Conservaaontechnix;and KS GROUP. Existing Park Inventory(Acres)by Type& Development Level . ., leve ._ '• " - el 3 `'evel 4 Subtotal • Community 104.8 52.92 19.4 177.12 Neighborhood --- - 18.86 29.12 9.43 2.77 60.18 Pocket0.61 0.61 Open Space 102.14 178.37 280.51 Linear Park 5.13 17.92 23.05 Special Properties 18.15 0.13 0.18 18.46 Trails 4.6 4.6 Subtotal 142.42 86.77 136.28 199.06 564.53 Note:Level 1 is highest maintenance level;Level 4 is lowest Source:City of Tigard,compiled by Conservationtechnix. stimated O/M Cost Percentages by Type& Development Level(Existing Invento Development Level L1 62% 87% L2 25% L3 7% L4 6% . _ ossification Community . 72% 85% Neighborhood13% Pocket 0% Open Space 10% Linear Park 1% Special Properties i 3% Trails 1% Estimated O/M Costs per Acre by Classification Community $ 7,878 $ 7,880 Neighborhood&Pocket $ 4,341 $ 4,400 Open Space $ 705 $ 705 • Linear Park - $ 645 $ 645 Special Properties - $ 2,877 $ 2,880 Trails(per acre) $ 4,450 $ 4,450 10900 $ 10,900 Source:Conservationlechdx. 30 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E2: Identified Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Yew Endi 6(30: - -- ,- - - ,, $ir114T 9_ .r ander Revenues Bonds/SOCs $0 $0 $145,000 $752,000 $250.000 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $25,000 $45,000 $90,000 $0 $0 External Expenses / s .s .120,000 707,000 '160,000 s s Revenues Bonds/SDCs $375,000 $295,593 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $12,000 $165,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $0 $0 $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from transp CIP fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $77,000 $55,393 $57.500 $40,900 $50,600 $0 $0 External Ex enses 410,000 5,200 900,000 3,250 1,123 900 ) Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) - $0 $100.000 $100.000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses . '.s '100,000 '100000 •100000 '100,000 '100,000 '100,000 Revenues ' Bonds/SDCs $4,004 $885,649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses • Internal Expenses - - .. - $4,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses '.s :5 649 '•s '.s '.s '.s '.s 2 n own land Acquisition Revenues Bonds/Si-' $530,000 $770,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Infernal Expens. . - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Exn,, , I1,111 .771000 '.s ,s •.s ,1 -ii•Street Trail and Public Space(Main St.to Tiedeman Ave./TI•ard St. Revenues $15,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from other funds(general fund) $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses 535,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Ex•enses '.s ',s '.s '.s .s '.s •.s 5-City of Tigard/Tigard-Tualatin School District Park Develo•ment Bonds/SDCs $0 $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenses Internal Expenses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Ex•enses '.r ••135000 -Damaged Tree Replacement Program Rev- Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) •. $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Expenses Internal Expenses -.._... ..- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses ',I '. s 000 '•50 Ids s sss '.50000 .50111 l III .-=ek Trail Connection(RFFA Grant Revenues Bonds/SDCs `- - $5,000 $420,000 $672,440 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $5.000 $200,000 $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Regional Flexible Funds $0 $0 $1,670,000 $1,410,000 $0 $0 $0 Expenses • Internal Expenses $10,000 $169,107 $200,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 External Expenses 's '•'50893 '.2240000 '.1680,000 Revenues __ $929,004 $2,516,242 $817,440 $1,072,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Transfers from enterprise funds $17,000 $365,000 $97,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from tramp CIP fund 50 $0 50 $0 $1,174,500 $0 $0 Regional Flexible Funds $0 $0 $1,670,000 $1,410,000 $0 $0 $0 Transfers from parks capital fund $0 $0 $857,500 $604,150 $0 $0 $0 • Transfers from other funds(urban forestry) $100.000 $250,000 $250,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150.000 Transfers from other funds(general fund) $20,000 $0 SO $0 So $0 $0 Total Revenues $1,066,004 $3,131,242 $3,692,500 $3,236,150 $1,574,500 5150,000 $150,000 Expenses Internal Expenses $126,004 $234,500 $282,500 $135,900 5140.600 $0 $0 External Expenses • 5940,000 $2,896,742 $3.410.000 $3,102,250 $1,433,940 $150,000 $150,000 _ ''axs,o_ $1,066,004 $3,131,242 $3,692,500 $3,236,150 $1.574,500 5150,000 5150.000 Source:City of Tigard,compiled by FCS GROUP 31 CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E3: Development of Current Parks Land Inventory& Addition of New Parks •w Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Non-SDC Non-SDC Eligible-Dev Eligible- City Cost for Funded PARC-Ellgible City Cost for Funded PARC-Eligible of Current Addition of -- Timfn• Land Portion Costs Develo-ment Portion Costs Parks new Parks Neighborhood/pocket parks: Total Land/Development 34.05 57.05 _ _ ire BonIta Park ,. -- _._ - ..- .. ''i 0-10 years $0 6.68% $0 $75,000 44.30% $33,229 $33229 $0 Metzger Elementary School = ,5.15 years $0 6.68% $0 $437,000 44.30% $193,612 $193,612 $0 Northview Park 5-15 years $0 6.68% $0 $367,000 44.30% $162,599 $162,599 $0 Proposed Local Park(P12) 5-15 years $549,840 6.68% $36,754 $927,000 44.30% $410,706 $0 $447,460 Proposed Local Park(P9) - "5-15 years $1,202,775 6.68% $80,399 $927,000 44.30% $410,706 $0 $491,105 Future Neighborhood Park 10+years $4,811,100 6.68% $321,595 $2,947,800 44.30% $1,306,019 $0 $1,627,614 River Terrace Parks 1-20 years $3.752,000 6.68% $250,800 $2,216,375 44.30% $981,962 $0 $1,232,762 Total neighborhood/socket••rks -. 89 440 '3 798 942 Community parks: Total Land/Development 42.10 61.10 0.00 0.00 Sunrise Community Park 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $2,468,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 New Community Park(P11) 5-15 years $100,000 0.00% $0 $900,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 New Community Park Complex ., '- 10+years $6,108,325 0.00% $0 $10,084,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek Park: Urban Plaza 0-10 years $687,300 0.00% $0 $4,100,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Community parks in River Terrace 1-20 years $7,508,000 0.00% $0 $8,386,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Total commu ' ••rks • I • Linear parks: Total Land/Development 37.04 37.04 10.56 10.56 Tigard Triangle Area(P3) 0-10 years $0 2852% $0 $250000 28.52% $71,293 $71,293 $0 Commercial Park • 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 5545,000 28.52% $155,420 $155,420 $0 Englewood Park 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 $1,340,000 28.52% $382,133 $382,133 $0 Farina Creek Park: Park Gateway 0-10 years $0 28.52% $0 $850,000 28.52% $242,398 $242,398 $0 Fanno Creek Park: Upland Park 0-10 years $0 28.52% $0 $1,100,000 28.52% $313,691 $313,691 $0 Undeveloped Linear Park(P7) 5-15 years $0 28.52% $0 $275,000 28.52% $78,423 $78,423 $0 River Terrace Linear Parks 1-20 years $3,128,000 28.52% $892,024 $228,000 28.52% $65,020 $0 $957,044 Total Iinear••rks .1 43 358 -.957 044 Open space: Total Land/Development 66.14 66.14 0.00 0.00 5-15 years $412,380 000% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 10+years $567,023 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 s s Trails: Total land/Development 6.75 6.75 0.00 0.00 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $670,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Westside Trail 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Tigard Street(trail project A) ' -_ 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $634,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project C) - 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $1,040,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek&Tualatin River(trail project D) • 0-10 years $0 000% $0 $1,609,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Summer Creek(trail project F) 0-10 years $0 0.00% $0 $742,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project G) 5-15 years $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Fanno Creek(trail project H) , 5-15 years $0 000% $0 $206,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Tgard Street(trail project I) 5 15 years $0 0.00% $0 $0 0.00% $0 $0 $0 tension(trail project N) 10+years $0 0.00% $0 $461,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 eaer Creek&Summer Creek(trail project PI 104-years $0 0.00% $0 $495,500 0.00% $0 $0 $0 River Terrace Trails ii 1-20 years $690,000 0.00% $0 $764,000 0.00% $0 $0 $0 Total trails .-, . - - $0 $0 Total CostsAlb $29,516,743 $45,046,175 $1,632,809 $4,755,996 Source:Parks SDC Methodology,compiled by FCS GROUP. CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report Appendix E4: Arts and Culture Program Assumptions Arts and Culture Program Assumptions Per Capit•.` Total Costs* Cost Tigard Personnel Services $20,640 $0.27 $13,232 Materials and Services $128,720 $1.68 $82,522 Capital Outlay $0 $0.00 $0 Other $0 $0.00 $0 Total $149,360 $1.95 $95,754 Population 76,650 49,140 Source: based on similar program in Medford, Oregon. CITY TIGARD Parks Maintenance Fee Report 4 . SUPPL w;t_ �NTAL PACKET FOR _tom-/` --------Z6-- Item# (GATT OF MEETING) Newsletter:A—LI'I ce 1,1 ii a City of Tigard TIGARD Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Council From: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services Director Re: Councilor Henderson's PMF Concerns Date: February 3, 2016 Prior to the February 2, 2016 hearing on the Park Maintenance Fee (PMF), Councilor Henderson submitted some written concerns. The intent of this memo is to answer some of Councilor Henderson's questions and provide some clarity about how the fee and the code will work. Below are Councilor Henderson's concerns in as outlined in his document and information for Council to consider regarding the concerns as you head toward a decision on funding parks through the PMF. 1. Any consideration of other funds needed other than parks maintenance costs must be removed. There are two potential concerns here. • First is "other funds" which are funding sources. As long as there is a partial implementation of the PMF, General Fund will be involved and other funds will be necessary. • Second are "park maintenance costs". In the proposed TMC 3.75.020.I, Park Maintenance is defined as: "Any action to operate and maintain city_parks, including, but not limited to repair, renewal, replacement,reconstruction, minor improvements, programing, recreation and other park activities. Park maintenance does not include the capital development, construction or acquisition of new parks or undeveloped parks." The definition includes more than "maintenance" to reflect Council direction to include Scenarios #1 & 2 of the rate consultant's study that is attached to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). These two scenarios reflect the current level of park maintenance and operations (Scenario #1) and the deferred maintenance needs (Scenario#2). Current parks maintenance and operations includes aspects of recreation, programming, and the other aspects in the definition. The deferred maintenance portion will focus on the first five items listed: repair, renewal, replacement, reconstruction, and minor improvements. 2. Consideration to remove all non-residential as EDU's Non-Residential EDU's are included based on Council direction provided in workshops on October 20, 2015 and November 17, 2015. a. Non-residential has a very small benefit for the costs they will contribute to the PMF The proposal recognizes the small benefit by only placing 9% of the total funding obligation on non-residential customers. Please see pages 9-11 of the rate consultant's report in the AIS for the discussion of the costs by customer type. b. Formula is predicated on PMP calculations that may change i PMP calculated on sq.ft x use designation with a minimum 5 parking spaces ii. PMF uses PMP calc.'s of 5 parking spaces and requires minimum 15 spaces iii. Business with 1 or 2 known parking spaces would be required to pay for 15 iv. Businesses with 16 would then need to pay for 30 The proposed PMF for non-residential customers does use the existing method of required parking spaces as a proxy for determining the impact on parks. Per Appendix B of the rate consultant's report attached the AIS, the rate consultant has used employment data to create a relationship between required parking and the number of employees who could utilize Tigard Parks. This relationship is then used in the Exhibit A to the Resolution establishing the amount of the PMF. The formula for a commercial customer is: (Billed Parking Stalls from Street Maintenance Fee * 0.76 Jobs Per Stall)/15 EDU Factor = EDUs In the calculation, the EDU Factor of 15 represents the finding of the rate consultant that 15 jobs is equivalent to one household; which is consistent with the standard used in the Parks SDC study. The calculation for non-residential customers will be rounded to the nearest EDU. To illustrate this, below are some example calculations: A. An example calculation for a commercial business with 15 required parking stalls is as follows: (15 stalls * 0.76 jobs per stall)/15 = EDUs 11.4/15=EDUs 0.76 EDUs In this case, the 0.76 EDUs will be rounded to the nearest whole number of 1.0 and the business will be charged $3.75 per month for the impact of 1 EDU. B. The average commercial business in Tigard has 44 required parking spaces. For the average commercial customer, the calculation is as follows: (44 stalls * 0.76 jobs per stall)/15 EDUs 33.44/15—EDUs 2.2 EDUs In this case, the 2.2 EDUs for the average commercial customer will be rounded to the nearest whole number of 2.0 and the business will be charged $7.50 per month for the impact of 2 EDUs C. Currently, our cap is at 250 parking spaces. In this situation, the calculation is as follows: (250 stalls * 0.76 jobs per stall)/15 = EDUs 190.0/15=EDUs 12.66 EDUs In this case, the 12.66 EDUs will be rounded to the nearest whole number of 13.0 and the business will be charged $48.75 per month for the impact of 13 EDUs. 3. Without non-residence paying, residences would then pay approx.. $4.12 per EDU a. Beware that non-residence dollars will pass those costs onto goods and services i. Thereby increasing those costs by 5 to 20%more Removing non-residential customers from the calculation will result in residential customers' fee increasing from $3.75 to $4.12 per EDU per month. For non-residential customers, the fee is variable based on the size of the business as demonstrated in the three previous examples. I do not know the impact that the fee will have on prices paid by customers of the effected businesses in Tigard. 4. Do not put the PMF on the Water Bill i. Separate Water Bill from Utility Bill to every other month billing With the increase in water rates to pay for the LO/Tigard Water Partnership, Tigard administration implemented monthly billing starting in 2011. Since water rates would double over the subsequent years, the goal of moving from billing every two months to each month was to smooth out the impact on rate payers. With monthly billing, the amount of the bill would be smaller on a monthly basis and would be more predictable. I am attaching my utility bills from July and August of last year as an example. With the monthly billing, the two bills are similar in amount with a variance of less than $35. Under the proposal to split the monthly utility bill into a two month water bill and a two month other utility bill, I will pay significantly different amounts. In the month where I pay the water bill, I will pay for two months of water. My charges for water for July and August were $195.38 and $228.86 respectively, resulting in a potential water bill of$424.24. My charges for other utilities for July and August were $53.61 and 54.39 respectively, resulting in a potential two month other utility bill of$108.00. This represents a variation of$316.24 from one month to the other. A move to a 2-month Water Bill followed by a 2-month Other Utilities Bill will eliminate the benefits of predictable billing amounts that the current monthly Utility Bill provides. ii. Allows all Tigard Residences equal impartiality from being fined arbitrarily Any fines paid by Tigard residences related to their utility bill are applied equally and are based on fines outlined in TMC and the Master Fees and charges. If a mischarge is discovered, it is corrected in an expeditious manner as outlined in TMC. 5. Eliminates City Council Written Appeal Filing Fee of$300 in Municipal Code. No fee is eliminated. In the Street Maintenance Fee TMC 15.20.080 there is a process for Administrative Provisions and Appeals. A customer can appeal their SMF charge to the PW Director. If the customer is not satisfied with the result, the customer can further appeal to a subcommittee formed by Council. This step involves paying a filing fee. The filing fee is $300 and is established in the Master Fees and Charges Document under the section for the Street Maintenance Fee. This section is found on page 27 of the current Master Fees and Charges. Implementation of the proposed TMC 3.75 does not impact the SMF appeals process or the filing fee in the Master Fees and Charges. The proposed TMC 3.75 does have an appeals process in section 3.75.080. This section points to TMC 12.03.040 which is the appeals process for Billing and Collection of Utility Charges. This section of code does not have a subcommittee or a filing fee. Council could choose to have the PMF and the proposed TMC 3.75 reference the appeals process for the SMF in TMC 15.20.080 instead. Alternatively, Council could direct staff, and staff would be interested in, developing a uniform appeals process for any charge that appears on the city's utility bill. 6. Share Financial Reports for Parks Maintenance monthly i. Breakdown of parks maintenance and operation services costs ii. Breakdown of PMF and General Fund transfers Financial Operations produces monthly reports for all city divisions. These reports can be made available to Council upon request. I hope this information is helpful to Council. If you have any other questions or concerns about the PMF, I would be happy to help. I can be reached at my office: (503) 718-2406; by cell (503) 475-4327; or email tobyatigard-or.gov . City ofTigard I UTILITY BILLING Service Address: eiSIMIIIIIIIIIRIIIIIHOPI 11111 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 Customer Number: 002537 001 TO MAKE PAYMENTS: 1-:,:8-826-7211 Service Type: RESIDENTIAL I I t;A R E) Questions on your account:503-718-2460 Meter Size: 5/8" www.tigard-or.gov/ub Service Dates: 07/14/2015 to 08/18/2015 DUE DATE: September 16, 2015 Billing Summary Fcr an a*..i o'each charg f, '±-;. ;ee thy:reverse .pie of';.. bEa. WATER CHARGES: Water Consumption 39 CCF (Current Meter Read 696 Previous Meter Read 657) $197.88 Customer Base Charge $25.83 Booster Charge $5.15 TOTAL TIGARD WATER CHARGES: $228.86 SEWER AND SURFACE WATER CHARGES: Sewer Usage Charge Based on your Winter Average of 7 CCF $12.39 Sewer Base Charge $26.63 Surface Water Management Charge $9.25 TOTAL SEWER AND SURFACE WATER CHARGES: $48.27 ... STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGES: Residential $6.12 TOTAL TIGARD STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGES: $6.12 Compare Your Water Usage TOTAL CURRENT BILLING: $283.25 CCFs Water consumption is charged por 100 cubic feet(or CCFI Each CCF=74E gallons PRIOR BILLING: 4.3Previous balance(as of August 18,2015): $248.99 32 J Adjustments: $0.00 J:4 Payments received-thank you: -$248.99 TOTAL PRIOR BILLING: $0.00 1E dhi ill 1 .__ ___ _Ail TOTAL DUE: $283.25 SE714 O1r11 MdY: SKY, JAYS FU'13 MARIE APeI! W1r1! JUMIS WV AU6'1S ■ Cur rent`:ear Previous Year Last rea's water usage in saute billing period 39 CCF � DISCOVER THE BENEFITS SKIP THE CLUTTER AND SAVE THE PAPER.Wmi OUR CONVENIENT PAPERLESS BIWNG YOU RECEIVE YOUR BILL ONUNE AND GET AN EMAIL NOTICE WHEN IT'S READY, I I VIEW YOUR BILL ANYTIME,VIEW PAST BILLS,AVOID LOST OR MISPLACED BILLS AND HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF SEEING ALL THE INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH I YOUR UTIUTY ACCOUNT.IT'S A SUSTAINABLE,EARTH-FRIENDLY CHOICE.SIGN UP AT HTTPS://TIGARD.MERCHANUR.ANSACT.COM Please return this portion with payment.Please DO NOT staple or tape check to the coupon. MEI ®FOLC 4.I1CF.C-,:::•'ES..E.ELE CHE•r BC' .f.,_r LE.' iif City ofTigard 1 UTILITY BILLING Tigard,OR 97223 DUE DATE: September 16, 2015 ii TIGARD TOTAL DUE: $283.25 ADDRE:)S SERVICE REQUESTED Service Address: 48111111/111111110/ Customer Number: 002537-001 1661 1 AV 0.391 4/208 01674 0001:0001 Make check payable to City of Tigard IhIIIrlIuuIIIIIIIrhhlllrllllllilhlrllllrllllllilliil111rllllii 503-718-2460 wa"w tleard-or gov TOBY LAFRANCE dilliD 3 2 8 til I114rIIIIr4111rIrrlllugllllrlllrrlrulllnrlirlllrrlulllllr gliiCITY OF TIGARD P.O.BOX 3129 PORTLAND,OR 97208-3129 101002537001000000000283253 City of Tigard I UTILTI Y BILLING Service Add ress a W 13125 SMiall Bl•:d. Customer Number: 002537-001 . Tib,;rd.OR 9'/223 INI TOM MAKE PAYMENTS:1-888-820-7211 Service Type: RESIDENTIAL TIGARD' 'I C;A R D Questions on your account:503-718-246( Meter Size: 5/8" 'ww.tigard-or.gor/ub Service Dates: 06/15/2015 to 07/14/2015 DUE DATE: August 12, 2015 Billing Summary For anexplananco.ofeach chars•:,pin:,... e,•tip:retwsead,,. uiC. WATER CHARGES: Water Consumption 33 CCF (Current Meter Read 657 Previous Meter Read 624) $164.40 Customer Base Charge $25.83 Booster Charge $5.15 TOTAL TIGARD WATER CHARGES: $195.38 SEWER AND SURFACE WATER CHARGES: Sewer Usage Charge Based on your Winter Average of 7 CCF $12.21 Sewer Base Charge $26.23 Surface Water Management Charge $9.05 TOTAL SEWER AND SURFACE WATER CHARGES: $47.49 STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGES: Residential $6.12 TOTAL TIGARD STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGES: $6.12 .MMNN........NN.........---..H.....N.......N...N ..NM ..... Compare Your Water Usage TOTAL CURRENT BILLING: $248.99 CCFs water consumption is charged per 100 cubic eet(or CCF) WI C,:::=748 gallon PRIOR BILLING: ao Previous balance(as of July 14,2015): $155.00 f2 Adjustments: $0.00 Payments received-thank you: -$155.00 24 TOTAL PRIOR BILLING: $0.00 16 TOTAL DUE: $248.99 a i--- _§ 1 ili _47AI - ,1110'.7 :11'17 OCT17 N14 DE4•1• 1M,Y7 FEE IS wiA U AM! NIA 11i 1„117 .111l••$ I. Cur rent Year Previous Year Last yeao's ware!usage in same billing period 23 CCF DISCOVER THE BENEFITS n I SKIP THE CLUTTER AND SAVE THE PAPER.WITH OUR CONVENIENT PAPERLESS BILLING YOU RECEIVE YOUR BILL ONLINE AND GET AN EMAIL NOTICE WHEN ITS READY. I I VIEW YOUR BILL ANYTIME,VIEW PAST BILLS,AVOID LOST OR MISPLACED BILLS AND HAVE THE CONVENIENCE OF SEEING ALL THE INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH I YOUR UTILITY ACCOUNT.ITS A SUSTAINABLE,EARTH-FRIENDLY CHOICE.SIGN UP AT HTTPS://TIGARD.MERCHANTTRANSACT.COM I L _ I Please return this portion with payment.Please DO t4OT staple or tape check to the coupon. L •] -1•.:�r>i'.._o'':;S.: E..c C..E. :ox 1 L1C0:':r_F.1S FC-!.'C JE3"LE,�E. MI City of Tigard : UTILITY BILLING r 13125 SW Iiall Blvd. I: Tigard,OR 97223 DUE DATE: August 12, 2015 ma ® TIGARI) TOTAL DUE: $248.99 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Service Address: Customer Number: 002537-001 1472 1 AV 0.391 4/15 01478 0001:0001 Make check payable to City of Tigard 1111iIII1'11l11"III11.11.11II'IIII'1I1111"I'1'1"'ll11l1'11'11 503-718-2460 www tlgard-orgov TOBYLAFRANCE ININMPINIMMIMPMMI TIGARD OR 97223-2028 =;• : Illl.rl'Il'11111'llll'i"Illllli1'I'III'li'IIllll'lllll'I'11.1111 bC,. CITY OF TIGARD P.O. BOX 3129 PORTLAND,OR 97208-3129 101002537001000000000248998 t SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 02-02-2016 FOR �i r ` '716/ Mayor and Council, (DATE OF M ETING) For tonight's agenda, I would like to note some points of concern regarding tonight's discussion regarding the proposed Parks Maintenance Fee. Regretfully I am unable to attend however I have been assured that tonight no final action will be rendered. In that conversation tonight I would propose that the following be considered 1. Any reference to other funds needed other than parks maintenance costs must be removed. 2. Consideration to remove all non-residential as EDUs. a. Non-residential has a very small benefit for the costs they will contribute to the PMF b. Formula is predicated on PMP calculations that may change i. PMP calculated on sq.ft. x use designation with a minimum 5 parking spaces ii. PMF uses PMP calc.'s of 5 parking spaces and requires minimum 15 spaces iii. Business with 1 or 2 known parking spaces would be required to pay for 15 iv. Businesses with 16 would then need to pay for 30 3. Without non-residence paying, residences would then pay approx.$4.12 per EDU a. Beware that non-residence dollars will pass those costs onto goods and services i. Thereby increasing those costs by 5 to 20%more. 4. Do not put the PMF on the Water Bill i. Separate Water Bill from Utility Bill to every other month billing ii. Allows all Tigard Residences equal impartiality from being fined arbitrarily 5. Eliminates City Council Written Appeal Filing Fee of$300.00 in the Municipal Code. 6. Share Financial Reports for Parks Maintenance monthly i. Breakdown of parks maintenance and operation services costs ii. Breakdown of PMF and General Funds transfers Lastly my concern is that the PMF has a perception that PMF is funding other programs other than Parks Maintenance and somehow putting it on the Water Bill. Of my greatest concerns is that we separate the Utility Bills especially as we move towards increasing the PMP and Clean Water Charges. Thanks for your consideration Marland. V Chapter 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS Sections: 18.765.010 Purpose 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.765.030 General Provisions 18.765.040 General Design Standards 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards 18.765.060 Parking Structure Design Standards 18.765.070 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements 18.765.080 Off-Street Loading Requirements 18.765.010 Purpose A. Insure adequate vehicle parking. These parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient vehicle parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic carrying-capacity of nearby streets. B. Adequate capacity. These regulations are also intended to establish vehicle parking areas which have adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on the site and at access points. 18.765.020 Applicability of Provisions A. New construction. At the time of the erection of a new structure within any zoning district, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070. B. Expansion of existing use. At the time of an enlargement of a structure which increases the on-site vehicle parking requirements, off-street vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with Section 18.765.070 subject to the following: 1. On the date of adoption of this title, the number of vehicle parking and loading spaces required shall be based only on floor area or capacity of such enlargement; 2. If the minimum vehicle parking spaces required for the enlargement added to the existing on-site space exceed the maximum number of vehicle parking spaces allowed for the whole project per the maximum parking ratios established in Section 18.765.070, the applicant may reduce the additional number of spaces provided so that the total spaces on the site do not exceed the maximum spaces allowed. C. Change of use. When an existing structure is changed from one use to another use as listed in Section 18.765.070,the following provisions shall apply: 1. If the parking requirements for each use are the same, no additional vehicle parking shall be required; 2. Where a change results in an intensification of use in terms of the number of vehicle parking spaces required, additional vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in an amount equal to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.765-1 AP Update:2/14 TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS (NA:Not Addressed DU:Dwelling Unit (M):Metro Requirement) MAXIMUM"' MINIMUM'S) ZONE A ZONE B I BICYCLE'' _ RESIDENTIAL Household Living Single Units,Attached See Multifamily(M) none(M) none(M) none Single Units,Detached 1.0/DU none(M) none(M) none Accessory Units 1.0/DU none none none Duplexes none Multifamily Units DU<500 sq ft: 1.0/DU(M) none none 1.0/2 DUs except elderly,which 1 bedroom: 1.25/DU(M) is 1.0/20 DUs 2 bedroom: 1.5/DU(M) 3 bedroom: 1.75/DU(M)171 Manufactured Units 1.0/DU(M) none(M) none(M) none Mobile Home Parks 1.0/DU(M) none(M) none(M) none Group Living 1.0/room none none 1.0/5 beds 1.0/2.5 beds 2.7/1,0001 none Transitional Housing 1.0/2.5 beds none none 1.0/5 beds Home Occupation none none none none CIVIC Basic Utilities none none none none Colleges 1.0/5 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) 1.0/3.0 students/staff Community Recreation 2.0/1,000 2.5/1,000 4.0/1,000 0.3/1,000 Cultural Institutions 2.5/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 . 1.0/1,000 Day Care Home:none none none Home:none Commercial:2.0/classroom 2.7/1,000 3.2/1,000 Commercial: 1.5/classroom Emergency Services 3.0/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.5/1,000 Medical Centers 2.0/1,000143 2.7/1,000'4J 3.2/1,0001 0.2/1,000 Postal Services 2.5/1,000 3.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.3/1,000 Public Support Facilities none none none none D] To be determined by the City of Tigard based on Metro criteria. [21 Required bicycle parking shall be required per the ratios below except in no case shall there be fewer than two spaces provided. [31 Refers to 1,000 sq.ft.of floor area,unless otherwise noted. [41 Does not include outpatient clinics or medical offices;see Medical/Dental Offices. [51 Please see Section 18.610.060,off-street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU-CBD zone. [61 Religious institutions may provide 1 space for every 4 seats on site in the main assembly area provided that they supply the city with a parking plan that demonstrates that the peak parking demand of I space for every 3 seats is met utilizing any combination of the alternatives mentioned in this chapter.Adjustments to the minimum parking of 1 space for every 3 seats may be granted per applicable provisions of the code,but shall not decrease the amount of required on-site parking to less than 1 space for every 4 seats(unless the cumulative value of all adjustments granted results in an adjusted requirement of less than 1 space for every 4 seats). [71 In the MU-CBD zone the minimum parking requirements for all multifamily units is 1.0/DU. 181 Fast food designation includes all eating and drinking establishments with a"walk-up counter"or less than 10 tables in the dining area. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.765-15 AP Update:2/14 r TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS(CONT.) (NA:Not Addressed DU:Dwelling Unit (M):Metro Requirement) MAXIMUM 111 MINIMUMI5) ZONE A ZONE B BICYCLE 121 Religious Institutions 1.0/3161 seats in main assembly 1.0/1.7 seats in main assembly 1.0/1.3 seats in main assembly 1.0/20 seats in main assembly area(M) area(M) area(M) area Schools Preschool: 5.0+1/classroom Preschool:7.0+1.0 classroom Preschool: 10.0+1/classroom Preschool: 1.0/classroom Elementary/JR:2.0/classroom Elementary/JR:2.5/classroom Elementary/JR: 3.5/classroom Elementary/JR:6.0/classroom SR: 1.0/5 students/staff(M) SR: 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) SR: 1.0/3.3 students/staff(M) SR:6.0/classroom Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges 10.0/1,000 main assembly area 12.0/1,000 main assembly area 14.0/1,000 main assembly area 2.0/1,000 main assembly area COMMERCIAL 151 Commercial Lodging 1.0/room 1.2/room 1.4/room 1.0/10 rooms Eating and Drinking Fast food: 7.0/1,000(M) 12.4/1,000(M) 14.9/1,000(M) All: 1.0/1,000 Establishments 181 other:9.0/1,000(M) 19.1/1,000(M) 23.0/1,000(M) Entertainment-Oriented Major Event Entertainment 1.0/3 seats or 1.0/6'bench 1.0/2.5 seats or 1.0/2 seats or 1.0/10 seats or 40'bench 1.0/5'bench 1.0/4'bench Outdoor Entertainment 4.0/1,000(M) 4.5/1,000 5.0/1,000 0.4/1,000 Indoor Entertainment 4.3/1,000(M) 5.4/1,000(M) 6.5/1,000(M) 0.5/1,000 Theater: 1.0/3 seats(M) Theater: 1.0/2.5 seats(M) Theater 1.0/2.0 seats(M) 1.0/10 seats Adult Entertainment 2.5/1,000 3.5/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.5/1,000 1.0/3 seats(M) 1.0/1.25 seats(M) 1.0/2.0 seats(M) 1.0/20 seats General Retail Sales-Oriented 3.0/1,000(M) 5.1/1,000(M) 6.2/1,000(M) 0.3/1,000 Personal Services 2.5/1,000 3.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 1.0/1,000 Bank with drive in:3.0/1,000(M) 5.4/1,000(M) 6.5/1,000(M) 1.0/1,000 Repair-Oriented 3.3/1,000 4.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.3/1,000 Bulk Sales 1.0/1,000 but no less than 10.0 1.3/1,000 2.0/1,000 0.3/1,000 Outdoor Sales 1.0/1,000 sales area 1.3/1,000 sales area 2.0/1,000 sales area 0.1/1,000 sales area Animal-Related 3.3/1,000 4.0/1,000 4.5/1,000 0.3/1,000 in To be determined by the City of Tigard based on Metro criteria. 1�1 Required bicycle parking shall be required per the ratios below except in no case shall there be fewer than two spaces provided. 131 Refers to 1,000 sq.ft.of floor area,unless otherwise noted. 141 Does not include outpatient clinics or medical offices;see Medical/Dental Offices. 151 Please see Section 18.610.060,off-street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU-CBD zone. 161 Religious institutions may provide 1 space for every 4 seats on site in the main assembly area provided that they supply the city with a parking plan that demonstrates that the peak parking demand of 1 space for every 3 seats is met utilizing any combination of the alternatives mentioned in this chapter.Adjustments to the minimum parking of 1 space for every 3 seats may be granted per applicable provisions of the code,but shall not decrease the amount of required on-site parking to less than 1 space for every 4 seats(unless the cumulative value of all adjustments granted results in an adjusted requirement of less than 1 space for every 4 seats). m In the MU-CBD zone the minimum parking requirements for all multifamily units is 1.0/DU. fel Fast food designation includes all eating and drinking establishments with a`walk-up counter"or less than 10 tables in the dining area. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.765-16 AP Update:2/14 1 TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS(CONT.) (NA:Not Addressed DU:Dwelling Unit (M):Metro Requirement) MAXIMUM'tl • MINIMUM'S) ZONE A 1 ZONE B I BICYCLE 12) Motor Vehicle Related Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental 1.0/1,000 but no less than 4.0 1.3/1,000 but no less than 4.0 2.0/1,000 but no less than 4.0 0.2/1,000 sales area Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair 2.0/1,000 but no less than 4.0 2.3/1,000 but no less than 4.0 2.6/1,000 but no less than 4.0 0.2/1,000 Vehicle Fuel Sales 3.0+2.0/service bay 4.0+2.0/service bay 4.0+2.5/service bay 0.2/1,000 Office 2.7/1,000(M) 3.4/1,000(M) 4.1/1,000(M) 0.5/1,000 Medical/Dental Office 3.9/1,000(M) 4.9/1,000(M) 5.9/1,000(M) 0.4/1,000 Self-Service Storage 1.0/4 storage units 1.0/4 storage units 1.0/2 storage units 1.0/40 storage units Non-Accessory Parking none none none none INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 1.8/1,000 0.1/1,000 Manufacturing and Production Light Industrial 1.6/1,000(M) none none 0.1/1,000 General Industrial 1.6/1,000(M) none none 0.1/1,000 Heavy Industrial 1.6/1,000(M) none none 0.1/1,000 Railroad Yards none none none none Research and Development , 2.0/1,000 3.0/1,000 3.8/1,000 0.5/1,000 Warehouse/Freight Movement <150,000 sq ft:0.5/1,000 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 0.1/1,000 >150,000 sq ft: 0.3/1,000(M) 0.4/1,000(M) 0.5/1,000(M) Waste-Related 5.0 7.0 10.0 none Wholesale Sales 0.8/1,000 1.2/1,000 1.8/1,000 0.1/1,000 1'1 To be determined by the City of Tigard based on Metro criteria. [2) Required bicycle parking shall be required per the ratios below except in no case shall there be fewer than two spaces provided. 131 Refers to 1,000 sq.ft.of floor area,unless otherwise noted. [4] Does not include outpatient clinics or medical offices;see Medical/Dental Offices. (5) Please see Section 18.610.060,off-street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU-CBD zone. [6] Religious institutions may provide I space for every 4 seats on site in the main assembly area provided that they supply the city with a parking plan that demonstrates that the peak parking demand of 1 space for every 3 seats is met utilizing any combination of the alternatives mentioned in this chapter.Adjustments to the minimum parking of I space for every 3 seats may be granted per applicable provisions of the code,but shall not decrease the amount of required on-site parking to less than 1 space for every 4 seats(unless the cumulative value of all adjustments granted results in an adjusted requirement of less than 1 space for every 4 seats). D] In the MU-CBD zone the minimum parking requirements for all multifamily units is 1.0/DU. [81 Fast food designation includes all eating and drinking establishments with a"walk-up counter"or less than 10 tables in the dining area. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.765-17 AP Update:2/14 TABLE 18.765.2 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS(CONT.) (NA:Not Addressed DU:Dwelling Unit (M):Metro Requirement) MAXIMUM III MINIMUM15 ZONE A I ZONE B BICYCLE PI OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture 2.5/1,000 sales area but no less none none none than 4.0 Cemeteries Exempt Exempt Exempt none Detention Facilities 1.0/2.5 beds none none _ 1.0/2.5 beds Heliports none none none none Mining <5.0 none none none Wireless Communication none none none none Facilities Rail Lines/Utility Corridors none none none none DI To be determined by the City of Tigard based on Metro criteria. [2] Required bicycle parking shall be required per the ratios below except in no case shall there be fewer than two spaces provided. [31 Refers to 1,000 sq.ft.of floor area,unless otherwise noted. [41 Does not include outpatient clinics or medical offices;see Medical/Dental Offices. 151 Please see Section 18.610.060,off-street vehicle parking minimum requirements in the MU-CBD zone. 161 Religious institutions may provide 1 space for every 4 seats on site in the main assembly area provided that they supply the city with a parking plan that demonstrates that the peak parking demand of 1 space for every 3 seats is met utilizing any combination of the alternatives mentioned in this chapter.Adjustments to the minimum parking of I space for every 3 seats may be granted per applicable provisions of the code,but shall not decrease the amount of required on-site parking to less than I space for every 4 seats(unless the cumulative value of all adjustments granted results in an adjusted requirement of less than I space for every 4 seats). 171 In the MU-CBD zone the minimum parking requirements for all multifamily units is 1.0/DU. (Ord. 13-07 §1; Ord. 10-02 §2; Ord.09-13;Ord. 02-13) ■ Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 18.765-18 AP Update:2/14 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE primary function is serving traffic to and from J. Responsible Party. The person or commercial and/or industrial (i.e., nonresidential) persons who by occupancy or contractual uses. arrangement are responsible to pay for utility and other services provided to an occupied unit. 5. Local streets are any streets within Unless another party has agreed in writing to pay the city that are not designated as arterials, and a copy of the writing is filed with the city,the collectors, neighborhood routes or identified as person(s)paying the city's water and/or sewer bill commercial/industrial streets. These streets have for an occupied unit shall be deemed the the sole function of providing access to responsible party as to that occupied unit. For any immediately adjacent land. occupied unit not otherwise required to pay a city utility bill, "responsible party" shall mean the G. Parking Space Requirement. The person or persons legally entitled to occupancy of minimum off-street vehicle parking requirement the occupied unit,unless another responsible party as stated in the minimum and maximum off-street has agreed in writing to pay and a copy of the vehicle and bicycle parking requirements in the writing is filed with the city. Any person who has Tigard Community Development Code. agreed in writing to pay is considered the responsible person if a copy of the writing is filed H. Pavement Management Program(PMP). with the city. An annual program of corrective and preventative maintenance on City of Tigard streets funded by K. Street Maintenance. Any action to the street maintenance fee (SMF). The program maintain city streets, including repair, renewal, helps to extend the life of the pavement structure resurfacing, replacement and reconstruction. by various means such as, pavement overlaying, Street maintenance does not include the slurry sealing, or complete removal and construction of new streets or street lighting. replacement of asphalt. Street maintenance shall include resurfacing of existing streets, repair or replacement of curb and I. Occupied Unit. Any structure or any gutter where they exist, repair or replacement of portion of any structure occupied for residential, the entire existing street structural section, repair commercial, industrial, or other purposes. For or replacement of existing street shoulders, example, in a multifamily residential develop- pavement markers, striping and other street ment, each dwelling unit shall be considered a markings, repair or replacement of existing separate occupied unit when occupied, and each channelization devices, adjustment of existing retail outlet in a shopping mall shall be considered utilities to match finish grades, and any other a separate occupied unit. An occupied unit may related work within the existing streets. It includes include more than one structure if all structures repair or restoration of existing storm drainage are part of the same dwelling unit or commercial systems within existing streets, but does not or industrial operation. For example an industrial include installation of new drainage systems. It site with several structures that form an integrated includes right-of-way maintenance on the city's manufacturing process operated by a single arterial and collector streets, which covers manufacturer constitutes one occupied unit. maintenance and enhancement of planting strips, Property that is undeveloped or, if developed, is medians and areas between sidewalks and not in current use is not considered an occupied property lines on these street to prevent the unit. uncontrolled growth of weeds and other undesirable vegetation in these areas. It does not 15-20-2 Code Update:8/13 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE include repair or replacement of existing Earnings from such investments shall be dedicated sidewalks. (Ord. 10-01 § 2) to the street maintenance fee fund. 15.20.030 Administrative Officers B. The street maintenance fee fund shall Designated not be used for other governmental or proprietary purposes of the city, except to pay for an equitable A. Except as provided in subsections B and share of the city's overhead costs including C of this section, the public works director shall accounting,management and other costs related to be responsible for the administration of this management and operation of the street chapter. The public works director shall be maintenance program. Engineering design, responsible for developing administrative pavement evaluation, construction management, procedures for the chapter, administration of fees, and other related costs, including project and for the purposes of establishing the fee for a advertisements for bid, in the implementation of specific occupied unit, the consideration and the street maintenance projects shall also be assignment of categories of use,and parking space considered as being used for street maintenance. requirements subject to appeal in accordance with (Ord. 10-01 §2) this chapter. 15.20.050 Determination of Street B. The public works director shall be Maintenance Fee responsible for developing and maintaining street maintenance programs for the maintenance of city A. The street maintenance fee shall be streets and, subject to city budget committee established based on the following: review and city council approval, allocation and expenditure of budget resources for street system 1. The city's five-year maintenance maintenance in accordance with this chapter. and reconstruction plan for corrective and preventative maintenance of the city's street C. The finance director shall be responsible infrastructure. for the collection and calculation of fees and the appeals process under this chapter. (Ord. 10-01 § 2. The average annual cost based on 2) the five-year maintenance and reconstruction plan with costs allocated as follows: 15.20.040 Street Maintenance Fees Allocated to the Street a. Arterial maintenance costs Maintenance Fee Fund allocated 62% to nonresidential uses and 38% to residential uses. A. All street maintenance fees received shall be deposited to the street maintenance fee b. Local commercial/industrial fund or other fund dedicated to the operation and street maintenance costs allocated 100% to maintenance of the city street system. The street nonresidential uses. maintenance fee fund shall be used for street maintenance. Other revenue sources may also be c. Collector maintenance costs used for street maintenance. Amounts in the street allocated 50% to residential uses and 50% to maintenance fee fund may be invested by the nonresidential uses. finance director in accordance with state law. 15-20-3 Code Update: 8/13 Streets and Street Maintenance Page 1 of 3 JOBS I MAPS I CONNECT FORMS I CONTACT US • City Of Q Search... Tigard, Home a City Hall* Departments a Public Works*Streets City Hall Community Business Police Library Help Me To... .-. :, • Contact IMPROVING ROADS s� ' r ,. %` s General Information ):. • ✓ Mike McCarthy at 503-718-2462 Street (Mon.-Thurs.,7 a.m.-6 p.m.) • r (.5iLlIf11L'1I1111CC' ti'• Street Maintenance ^ y' Vance Walker at 503-718-2606 • w :{ ,el r � (Mon.-Thurs.,7 a.m.-4:30 p.m.) a 17". iil - 3 Online Form y.40. UV.et- `!�; Report a Public Works Issue General Information Street Sanding Priorities Mao PUBLIC WORKS The city has over 300 miles of streets and 12 Streets and Street Maintenance miles of paved pathways which it is responsible for maintaining or developing.The Engineering Street Maintenance Fee: Division and the Street Maintenance Division Upcoming Public Hearing I Tuesday, March 22 share the construction and maintenance responsibilities which include traffic signals, We encourage you to take the 2016 Street Maintenance Fee Survey streetlights,guardrails,barricades,pavement Responses will be shared with the City Council at the Public Hearing on March 22, 2016. surfaces,right-of-way(shoulders,islands,etc.), » Business Customers and street sanding during inclement weather. * Residential Customers Puroose of the Street Maintenance Fee Sandbags Anyone? The street maintenance fee(SMF)is a charge that is paid by Tigard residents and There are 13 sites around the county(including businesses on their monthly utility bill.The fee is used primarily to fund routine the Tigard Public Works Building located at maintenance of Tigard's roads through the Pavement Management Program(PMP). In 8777 SW Burnham)where citizens can get sand addition to the PMP,the SMF pays for$100,000 of right-of-way (ROW) maintenance.The and bags. The entire list is posted at ROW maintenance keeps plantings and grounds around and in the medians of larger roads www.ocem.orq.Citizens are welcome to return in good condition. Lastly, about seven percent of the fee is used to help pay for the cost of full sandbags(used or not)that may have been billing the fee. received during the rain event. Please return directly to the sandbag station located at the City Council considered the street maintenance fee on September 15,2015. A meeting west end of the Public Works parking lot(8777 agenda,fee calculation report,and documents showing possible modifications to the Tigard SW Burnham,Tigard). Municipal Code(15.20)are provided here.This item will come before the Tigard City Council at a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday,March 22,2016. Street Sanding Priorities Map Highway 99 and Hall Boulevard are state Table 7 below is a summary from the Fee Calculation Report. roads maintained by the Oregon Department of City Council will be considering these changes at the March 22 hearing. Transportation.Other streets are maintained by the city.During a winter storm,roadway maintenance is prioritized.In general,streets at higher elevations or with steep grades are sanded first,followed by major city thoroughfares.Click here to view the Street Sanding Priorities Map. http://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/Streets.php 2/2/2016 Streets and Street Maintenance Page 2 of 3 TABLE 7-SI'MMARY OF SMF CALCULATION AND COMPARISON OF NEW FEE. CALCULATION TO CURRENT FEE BASED ON 2010 PMP (ant,nment.nl 5M1 Result:n(1.d Non-Reside/1A ial •Email Me Curran I invent 2016 Fee 2i11(,l,a Current SMF From $6.39 Per month per 51.44 Per month per required 2010 PMP Incl. hou.chnld parLine.pace ra•a Current ROW Mains. proxy for tops generated paid by Res. ht the huanc. I Proposed Feta Based on 2016-2019 PMP and Polley Changes \cu 1'n S(hangtr (hang,. \ave Pec s Chants •I:h.uts•a• µ,Cum'ru 115(:urrcm o.Curran Is I uncut Current Pavement 55,to -SLIM! I-",. SI`m >u 34 Program Level _ Adding Backlog S2.S2 12.52 _ 194,. 91.66 SI166 Ib Pavement Projects Proposed Commercial \:1' Sn.01N 0"., sill 2 WI ROW Maintenance "TOW Proposed Street 57.82 SI.l1 22% '.776 S1.12 92". Mainten:utce Fee . .. .. ., ...i.. �.owu ,,. ., - „n.vxr• In.tvn•.f Ar axvm SA a't 4x pa+I OF mmt:I. n-x4.1.13l......mxn Bated opal(.,stn,II p,hat ,ht r,❑..n and the va„rl..,f the P\i l' hiticn'from rc<gknnal steed.6,arterial n,ad..the SMF arll nxt.a t b, 22 t•n re-id,. n.l rue„men Anil'12 • for nnnae.idenoal tu.toniers. Take the Street Maintenance Fee(SMF)Survey Questions on the SMF Survey cover components of the fee change proposed in Table 7 above. Responses will be shared with the City Council at the Public Hearing scheduled for March 22,2016. 2016 Street Maintenance Fee Survey * Business Customers * Residential Customers Previous Survey Results(December 2014) * Business Customers Residential Customers STREET MAINTENANCE FEE The street maintenance fee is a monthly user fee dedicated to the maintenance of existing roadways and rights-of-way within Tigard.The fee was recommended by a citizen task force and established by the City Council in 2003. Customer Type Fee (effective 1/1/16) Residential/Multi-Family(per unit) $6.39 Non-Residential Rate $1.94 (per minimum required parking space) Rate Exceptions • Religious Institutions Religious institutions are charged half the normal fee assessed to non-residential businesses, resulting in a 125 space maximum for those that reach the 250 space limit.This decision was made because parking requirements for these institutions are relatively high to accommodate large services,while the parking lots are not fully utilized during the week. • Vacant Property A property must be occupied to be assessed the fee.If a property is unoccupied for 30 days or more,the owner may apply for a fee waiver for that period. How are the rates determined? Existing rates were set under Council Resolution 15-31. http://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/Streets.php 2/2/2016 Streets and Street Maintenance Page 3 of 3 How do we pay for street maintenance? Historically,Tigard roads have been maintained by the state gas tax,a source of funding that has risen in 20 years,while road usage,operations and maintenance costs have increased at an overwhelming rate.As a result,Tigard is one of 18 Oregon cities that have adopted street maintenance fees to close the gap between local needs and increasingly stretched state dollars. By having a locally based fee,communities are provided with a stable source of revenue to pay for preventive maintenance and repairs in a timely and efficient manner. You can read the entire code by visiting the link to Tigard Municipal Code 15.20. SELF-SERVE SANDBAG STATION REPORT: STREETLIGHT OUTAGES REPORT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONCERNS STREET MAINTENANCE (PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM) RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE STREET SANDING PRIORITIES AND MAP STREET CUT MORATORIUM Ilr7 You Tube FEEDBACK ONLINE SERVICES MAJOR PROJECTS DON'T MISS THIS Library Catalcg-WCCLS Economic Development v Survey:Street Mapping Services River Terrace Maintenance Fee Park Shelter Rentals SW Corridor Mayor's State of the City Permits and Inspections Strategic Plan Address Ticket Payments Tigard Triangle Utility Payments Water Partnership � 13125 SW HALL BLVD.,TIGARD,OR 97223 503-639-4171 CITY DEPARTMENTS I DIRECTIONS I LOCATION AND HOURS OF OPERATION TIGARD POWERED BY REVIZE LOGIN http://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/Streets.php 2/2/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET o TIGARD PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET FOR (DATE O EETING) YEARS 2017 2015 2016 .jetle/ (+P,4 116$100K LIBRARY -FU (o(,( y, 6:10r BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ken enderSor . PROPOSED EDU @ $3.75 PARKS MAINTENANCE FEE • .-i $514K DEFERRED PARKS MAINTENANCE � 7 ADMINISTRATION FEE 7% % ADMINISTRATION FEE a f- W w O CO H EXISTING PARKS MAINTENANCE O u ri TRAILS m a CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND REPLACE ADMINISTRATION FEE $200K RECREATION MHH 1 OF 1 10:27 AM 02/09/2016 I SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR -2/9/aa/4 (DATE OF MEETING) Park Maintenance Fee February 9, 2016111 ■ TIG.ARD City of Tigard Hearing Agenda • Deliberate on Ordinance establishing the authority to create a Park Maintenance Fee • Consider a Resolution setting the amount of the Park Maintenance Fee City- of Tigard Park Maintenance Fee • $3 .75/Equivalent Dwelling Unit/Month will generate $ 1,014,000 next year. • Pays for Parks $500K towards the $2.2 Million current service level $514K towards expanded parks service to address deferred maintenance issues ap '3' '... u City oTlg�lyd i�' Current Parks Budget Parks Budget I. $2,200,000 ... ...., .. • • .,_ $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 •Current Parks Maintenance and Operations •Deferred Maintenance City of Tigard Parks Budget with th PMF Parks Budget $2,200,000 • $514,000 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 •Current Parks Maintenance and Operations •Deferred Maintenance City of Tigard Parks Budget PMF with Parks Budget $1,700,000 N'..+, +. $514,000 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 •Current Parks Maintenance and Operations Current PMF Funded Deferred Maintenance City of Tigard Parks Budget i with PMF Parks Budget General Fund Park Maintenance Fee I I 1 ‘111: N'a s,a. 'a $514,000 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 •Current Parks Maintenance and Operations ,,Current PMF Funded •Deferred Maintenance City ofTigard General Fund Impact • General Fund will still fund $ 1.7M in Parks. • The FY16 Budget Committee determined that the $500K of GF savings will go to : $1O0K of the needed $265K for Library Thursday opening $4O0K toward GF financial stability AIS-2561 7. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 02/09/2016 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Proposed Correction to Adopted Council Goals 2015-17 Submitted By: Marty Wine, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Correcting the objectives and timeline for the City Council goal "Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015." STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Review and adopt the 2015-2017 City Council goals with proposed amendment to the River Terrace goal. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council asked for additional clarification about the actions that would be taken for 2015-2017 goals. The City Manager inadvertently left out the amendments provided by staff for action in 2016-17 for the goal regarding River Terrace. This action would correctly reflect the objectives and planned objectives for the River Terrace goal for 2016-17. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may choose to further amend these goals for 2016, or develop alternative goals for adoption, or not adopt Council goals, COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION December 22, 2014 January 27, 2015 January 5, 2016 January 26, 2016 Attachments council goals 2015-2017 Tigard City Council Goals Priorities for Council Attention and Action 1. Provide Recreation Opportunities for the People of Tigard Objectives Estimated Timeline Establish city recreation program in 2015-16 adopted budget • Recreation clearinghouse and program guide Completed July 2015 • Grants &scholarships • Recreation coordinator- staff position Spring 2016 • Programs and classes (beginning Year 2) Spring 2016 2017 • Outdoor events (Year 2) • Indoor events (Year 3) Explore feasibility of partnership opportunities, including THPRD, December 2016 YMCA, TTAD, TTSD, other city, or non-profit opportunities; establish facility partnership if feasible Consider a voter-approved measure to fund recreation November 2016 Complete the city's facilities strategic plan to identify future facility September 2016 needs for a recreation/community center. 2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Objectives Estimated Timeline • Support residential and mixed use development in walkable and transit-supported areas by completing the Ash Completed in 2015 Ave/Burnham Redevelopment project • Increase walkable access to open space by advancing plans for new downtown open space, including the Tigard Street December 2016 Trail plaza,the Fanno Creek Overlook, and a Main Street plaza, including programming • Strengthen downtown's identity by completing gateway improvements and install art at both Main Street entrances Completed in 2015 • Support walkability by completing two Strolling Street Completed in 2015 projects • Secure brownfields cleanup grant (if eligible) to facilitate Spring 2016 infill or open space development enabling a more walkable and interconnected downtown • Promote downtown as a place to shop, dine and recreate Summer 2016 Through communications and support of Tigard Downtown Alliance activities. Page 1 1 Draft-Reused January 2016 3. Adopt and Begin Implementation of Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan Objectives Estimated Timeline Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan • Plan Development Completed Spring • Council consideration and adoption (code and plan 2015 amendments) September 2016 Consider Lean Code and Plan Amendments September 2016 • Zoning • Community Development Code • Transportation System Plan • Parks and Trails Master Plans Infrastructure Planning • Citywide Stormwater Master Plan June 2017 o Triangle Stormwater Implementation Plan FY 2017-18 • Streetscape Design Plan August 2016 • 72nd Avenue Study(pending CTP approval June 2017 Development of Funding Tools • Urban Renewal o Plan Development October 2016 o Plan Adoption December 2016 o Public Vote May 2017 • LID - consider continuance of existing April 2016 • Vertical Housing Development Zone Completed 2014 • Tigard Enterprise Zone Completed 2014 Page 21 Draft-Reused January 2016 4. Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015 Objectives Estimated Timeline Infrastructure Financing Project (RT SDCs) Completed River Terrace Community Plan Implementation Completed Permitting • Early assistance for land use applications (ongoing) Completed Winter • Land use applications 2015 and ongoing into • Building and site permits 2016 Public Facilities • Clean Water Services pump station Winter 2016 • City of Tigard downstream stormwater conveyance analysis Completed • River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan Amendments (updates,direction, and Council adoption) Spring 2016 • Transportation Utility Fee adopted Spring 2016 • Stormwater Utility Fee adopted Summer 2016 • City of Tigard 550-Zone Water Improvements Summer 2016 Strategic Plan Implementation • Achieve walkability aims of Strategic Plan in River Terrace Summer 2016 by following through on pedestrian planning efforts 5. Expand Opportunities to Engage People in the Community Objectives Estimated Timeline Citywide Communications Plan (will include suggested Completed Spring engagement improvements) 2015 Continue Council outreach meetings Quarterly throughout each year Seek input on and outreach about the sidewalk connection Prepare for May 2017 program ballot Community education; identify timing and content of measures for June 2016 voter approval Organize community engagement through increased work with June 2016 Neighborhood Networks, in-person and online forums 6. Define and Establish the City's Role in Addressing Homelessness Page 31 Draft-RersedJanuary2016 Issues for Further Council Discussion [Topics will be scheduled for workshop meetings (3rd Tuesday) or study sessions] • SW Corridor- Mayor will brief Council during Council Liaison reports • Pacific Highway/congestion and aesthetics (May 2016) • Annexation (Incentives Resolution in February, discussion June 2016) • Charter review(July 2016) • Future possible ballot measures (April 2016) • Strategic Plan Updates • Sustainability(August 2016) Page4I Draft-Reused January 2016 City of Tigard, Oregon 14 Affidavit of Posting • 1111 . • , .. T I GARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance/ STATE OF OREGON ) • County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, /��JYf'YC /rat ,being first duly sworn,by oath, depose and say: I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number , °if'/ --- T which were adopted at the City Council meeting of re- rl-Yt with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the U day of F-e,hYUE.t-_r _4 ., 20 I(0 . 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 / ,1_,,,,..„ , ,,// ) Signature of Person wi, Performed Posting Subscribed and sworn before me this)arilday of te--{21'v1 G IV, 20 a, by /3 o ('ill Ci J. . Ai( . Nif ** -',W;# otary Public—State of Oregon 4°A.,;-''!.... OFFICIAL STAMP a r;:`>„>' t JILL MEREDITH BENTLEY "' NOTARY PUBLIC — OREGON Ni l COMMISSION NO. 928359 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 08,2018 I:\ADM\CATHY\FORMS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING—ORDINANCE.DOC