08/01/1985 - Packet . ' .
CITY OF TIBARD
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
August 1 , 11985
7: 3A p. m.
Tigard City Hall
� Members: Thomas J. Sullivan , Chairp Mark Padgettv Vice-chair; Robert W.
Kempter , Jr. , secretary; Lidija Ba1odis; Wilbur Bishop; Milt Fyre; G.
Homer Hamlin; Joe Schweitz .
MEETING AGENDA:
1 . Review of Previous Meeting.
2. Additions to agenda.
3. Discussion and review of Hall Blvd. Standards
4. CIP Status Report by Duane Roberts of Staff .
5. Review and Discussion of Transportation Plan Map
7. Discussion on Fostering Citizen Input
9. Adjourn
TIC ARC! TRAt--•ISPORTATIOtd ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE JULY 11 1965 MEETING
PRESENT:Members! Toni, Sullivan : Chair' ) , MarK Padgett ( ;rice-chair ) , Lidija
Salodis. Milt Fyr'e , L:lilbur Bishop . Staff; FranK Currie , Randy Clarno .
Guests; Gerry Sall .
ABSENT. Bob Kempter ,, Homer' Hamlin , Donna Scrogg int• , Joe Schwe itz .
The meeting was called to order. at 7:30 P.t-,I. by Chairman Torn Sullivan .
MarK Padgett was as-Ked to taKe notes .
FranK Currie gave an over-view of the meeting between the cities of Tigard
and Beaverton . We were told Beaverton has relinquished it 's plans to
annex: Metzger but not Washington Square . Other agreements were made
concerning future annexation claim= in the SW Schoiis Ferry Road area.
:also discussed was the responsibility for traffic improvement at certain
intersections .ions. . Tigard will taKe SW Scho 1 1 s Ferry Road at 121st and at
135th . Beaverton will taKe SW Scholl= F-err't and Hail .
FranK explained payment responsibility for street impr~ovements in an LID
and why a change should be considered . The hangup seems to be
incompatab it it;• of requirements for 1/2 street improvements . The county
ida.nts us to taKe ju_:risdiction of 15th to solve this problem, but will
not agree to a settlement uniess a definite path for a Murry Road
ex-tension 4.2. decided .
The committee discussed for-mul at ing a policy for adoption by the City
Council regarding taK ing over jurisdiction of roads . After much
d is ctat•s. ia.1 b�, all , the outline for. a policy was determined •
Tigard should taKe over all roads now existing within the city limits ,
al 1roads. partially now existing in the city 1 units r ie � Walnut ) and al 1
roads that come into the city by future annexation . State routes would
be exempt from this. pot icy , o-f course .
It :::as agreed not to "trade " with the county and give them jurisdiction
of maj or roads w ith in the c it,;., ie . Greenburg , Durham, Hal i , etc . ) .
Milt suggested we submit resolutions to the cit;' council to solidify this
::-o 1
his-
ol ic, , w= ith a separate resolution covering the 135th and Scho11s and the
121st and Schoi i= intersections due to the tra.ff is safety hazards there .
Mar-K and tti 1 t were designated to do so .
Tom passed out Copies of an objective time-1 ine Chart he was given by Bob
Jean and stated he warted to get started or, then: right away . FranK
deciphered the chart for us . Torn stated he would liKe to get the
committee members doing more of the worK l oad .
Milt defined the responsibility of an advil.ory committee as different
from a 'tasK-force or worKing committee . FranK enlightened us to the road
,:til its, fee system and suggested we discuss it further at a future
meet ing .
The, meeting adjor-ned at 9.55 P.H.
' '
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TDGARD, OREGON
TO: Tigard Transportation Committee July 20, 1085
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director 014
Community Development
SUBJECT: County' s Proposed MSTIP
The City Counoil will review the County' s proposal MSTIP on August 19. The
proposal provides for $62 million worth of road improvements, of which $6.6
million directly affects Tigard. The MSTIP would possibly go to the voters
for approval in November, 1985 for a $00 million levy .
Enclosed please find draft materials prepared by Washington County concerning
the MSTIP. Both Frank Currie and Tom Brian have represented the City
throughout the process.
I will be present at the August 1 meeting to discuss the program with you,
since comments by your committee would be very valuable for the August 10
meeting.
(WAM:br/1658P)
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Inter—Department Correspondence
Date July 17, 1985
To Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee - Technical Group
From Frank Angelo, Senior Planner g4o,4L
Subject MSTIP ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS
I have drafted some initial guidelines for your consideration for
the administration of the MSTIP. Please review these guidelines and
provide me any comments.
I. MSTIP Administration
It is the responsibility of the Washington County Transportation
Coordinating Committee (Policy and Technical Groups) and the
MSTIP Project Manager to administer the MSTIP. These respon-
sibilities include:
a. ) Establishing the scheduling of projects consistent with
MSTIP funding availability;
b. ) Approving funding obligations for specific projects;
c. ) Securing jurisdictional project agreements on each MSTIP
project;
d. ) Maintaining project accounting files on each MSTIP project;
and
e. ) Administering the daily activities of the MSTIP.
The MSTIP Project Manager will be hired by the Washington County
Department of Land Use and Transportation. Funding for the
manager and MSTIP administrative costs will come from the MSTIP
Project Reserve. The Project Manager shall be hired immediately
following passage of the MSTIP. Since MSTIP funds will not be
available immediately, the County's Road Fund will be used
initially for the manager, with the MSTIP funds reimbursing the
Road Fund when they are collected.
II. Funding Authority
The MSTIP project list establishes the funding authority for
each individual project. Based upon the adopted construction
schedule and funding mechanism, projects will be indexed to
account for inflation.
Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee - Technical Group
MSTIP ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS
July 17, 1985
Page 2
III. Project Cost Overruns
Subject to a review and approval by the WCTCC, a sponsoring
jurisdiction will be able to fund cost increases on a priority
MSTIP project by transferring funds from other MSTIP projects
it sponsors. Approval of a transfer of funds by the WCTCC
shall be subject to the following findings submitted by the
sponsoring jurisdiction:
a. ) Costs have escalated on the original project scope. The
jurisdiction shall indicate to the WCTCC what elements of
the project have increased in costs; or
b. ) The original project scope has changed. The jurisdiction
shall submit findings documenting the change in circum-
stances, how the revised project scope is consistent with
the original project objectives and revised project costs;
c. ) Downscoping the project to match the original MSTIP author-
ity will not achieve the original project objective;
d. ) The project(s) from which funds are transferred remains a
valid project within its original project objective. If
the project is no longer valid, the jurisdiction shall re-
quest its removal from the MSTIP project list.
IV. Project Cost Underruns
Project cost underruns shall be applied to:
a. ) The MSTIP overall project reserve; or
b. ) Other MSTIP projects sponsored by the jurisdiction which
realizes the cost underrun.
Either action shall be subject to review and approval by the
WCTCC.
V. MSTIP Project Reserve
Priorities for the use of the MSTIP reserve shall be:
a. ) MSTIP overall management and administration;
b. ) Covering cost overruns of approved MSTIP projects;
c. ) Providing local match for federal or state-funded projects
not included in the MSTIP project list; and
Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee-Technical Group
MSTIP ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS
July 17, 1985
Page 3
d. ) Funding new projects following the commitment of funds to existing
MSTIP projects. A prioritized back-up list for the use of the MSTIP
reserves shall be adopted by the WCTCC.
Since the construction of MSTIP projects will occur over a 5 to 10 year
period, authority to spend funds from the project reserve shall not occur
prior to three years into the implementation of the MSTIP. This three-
year period will permit all MSTIP projects to be scheduled for construction
and accurate cost estimates determined. The only exception to this will be
the use of the MSTIP reserve to fund the overall MSTIP management and
administration.
VI. MSTIP Project Amendments
Over the period of implementing the MSTIP, it is possible that a change
in conditions may alter a jurisdiction's priority for improvement pro-
jects. In such instances, a jurisdiction may request, through the WCTCC,
an amendment to the MSTIP project list. Such an action (i .e. , removing
an original MSTIP project and replacing it with a more recent priority)
shall first be considered and approved by the jurisdiction' s elected
officials. The jurisdiction shall then formally indicate to the WCTCC
their intent to alter their original project priorities. Additionally,
the jurisdiction shall demonstrate to the WCTCC why an amendment is
appropriate, what the objective of the new project is, and what the cost
of the new project is in relation to the original project request. The
WCTCC will formally act upon all MSTIP project amendment requests.
FA:db
r WASHINGTON COUNTY
Inter—Department Correspondence
Date July 17, 1985
To Washington County Transportation Coordinating Committee - Technical Group
From : Frank Angelo, Senior Planner
Subject MSTIP TRANSIT PROJECTS
At the July 12th WCTCC Policy Group meeting , the committee voted to
eliminate specific transit projects from the MSTIP project list.
The committee voted to, instead, increase the MSTIP Reserve by
$1 ,000,000 (to $6,000,000) and to use that $1 ,000,000, if necessary,
to match the remaining Section 3 projects. Those remaining Section
3 projects which lack local match are:
TOTAL FEDERAL LOCAL
1 . Beaverton P & R $1 ,500,000 $1 ,200,000 $300,000
2. Washington Square T.C. 400,000 320,000 80,000
3. Tualatin T.C. 900,000 720,000 180,000
4. Central Beaverton TSM 2,000,000 1 ,600,000 400,000
$4,800,000 $3,840,000 $960,000
The intent of removing specific reference to transit projects was to
wait to see if funding becomes available at TriMet to provide the
local match on their own. Allocation of MSTIP reserve funds for
transit projects will require approval cf the WCTCC Policy Group.
FA:db
TRI-CO'UINTY
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT
OF OREGON
�OG?
&OD
TRI-MET
4012 S.E.17TH AVENUE
PORTLAND,OREGON 97202
July 8, 1985
Frank Angelo
Washington County
Land Use and Transportation
150 N. First Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
RE: Sec. 3 Letter-of-Intent Projects Not Currently Funded
Dear Mr. Angelo:
This letter responds to your request for a list of the original Letter-of-
Intent Section 3 projects which do not yet have an identified source of local
match funding. Following is the list of those projects, with the cost
estimates, which were in the original letter of intent:
Total
Project Federal Local
Cost Share Share
*Beaverton Park and Ride $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000
Washington Square Transit Center 400,000 320,000 80,000
Tualatin Transit Center 900,000 720,000 180,000
Downtown Portland TSM 81000,000 6,400,000 1,600,000
Central Beaverton TSM 2,000,000 1,600,000 400,000
Sunset Trunkline Transit Transfer Points 500,000 400,000 100,000
Westside Buses 10,434,542 8,347,634 2,086,908
*Milwaukie Transit Center 1,714,355 1,371,484 342,871
McLoughlin Transit Improvements 1,305,421 1,044,337 261,084
Southern Corridor Buses 1,612,820 1,290,256 322,564
Northwest Transit Station 100,000 80,000 20,000
Other Buses 31,227,808 24,982,247 6,245,561
TOTAL $59,694,946 $47,755,958 $11,938,988
Let me know if you have any further questions.
*The federal funding for these projects has been reprogrammed (only $25,000
remaining for Milwaukie TC)
Sincerely, D �J z,N
D
Lee Hames, Manager J U L 12 1985
Capital Program
Planning and Grants DEWASHINGTON
RTt4EN GOFO LOW!COUNTY
AND
ZRANSPORFAT ION
LH/cwg
'
PAGE NO. 00001
07/16/85
MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ID Project Location MSTIP Amount Total Amount
1 Maple Street Pacific to T. V. Hwy. 650000 1300000
2 24th Avenue Hawthorne to Quince 850000 1750000
3 4th Avenue Base ine to Adair 41000 91000
4 12th Avenue Baseline to Adair 8000 17000
5 N. 14th Avenue Baseline, north to BNRR 41000 87000
6 N. 19th Avenue Baseline to BNRR 340000 ~-340000
7 Rural Overlay Various Locations 3000000 » 3000000
Program
8 Highway Bridge Various Locations 250000 2500000
Replacemnt
9 East Main 9th to Brookwood ' 3500000 3500000
Street
10 28th Avenue Cornell to East Main 800000 800000
11 Tualatin Valley 21st Ave. to Oak St. 2050000 3850000
Hwy. '
12 Cornell Rd. 185th to Cornelius Pass 2800000 2800000
Rd.
13 Cornell Rd. 158th Ave. to 185th Ave. 1900000 1900000
14 Cornell Rd. Saltzman Rd. to 158th 3200000 3200000
Ave.
15 185th Avenue Rock Creek Blvd. to T. V. 6550000 16150000
Hwy.
16 Murray Blvd. Cornell Rd. to Sunset 500000 500000
Hwy.
17 Murray Blvd. Sunset Hwy. to Jenkins 900000 6100000
Rd.
18 Murray Blvd. BNRR Overpass 2100000 2100000
19 Farmington Rd. Murray Blvd. to 209th 4400000 8800000
Ave'
20 Cedar Intersection 300000 300000
Hills/Walker
Rd.
21 Uptown Central Beaverton 300000 300000
Improvements Locations
22 Lombard Farmington Rd. to Canyon 1100000 1100000
Extension Rd.
23 Hall Blvd. Allen Blvd. to Greenway 1500000 2400000
24 Hart Rd/Bany Murray Blvd. to 185th 2000000 2000000
' Rd. , Ave.
to 25 Scholls Ferry Fanno Creek to Murray 1770000 3770000
Rd. Blvd.
26 Greenburg Rd. '' 99W at Greenburg Rd. 250000 250000
'"27 Hall Blvd. Bike 99W to Durham Rd. 500000 500000
Trail
~.
28 Bull Mt. /99W ' Intersection 380000 500000
1 -19 Durham Rd. ^ 99W to Carmen 3700000 3700000
- 30 Lower Boones Tualatin River to I-5 1265000 1265000
Ferry Rd.
31 Tualatin-Sherwo Edy Rd. to Boones Ferry 6230000 6230000
od Rd. Rd.
'
`
-
PAGE NO. 00002
07/16/85
MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ID Project Location MSTIP Amount Total Amount
32 Edy Rd. Tualatin-Sherwood to 99W 2300000 2300000
33 Oregon Street Pine to Murdock 600000 600000
34 Western Bypass Engineering Study 300000 300000
Study
35 MSTIP Reserve All Projects Eligible 6000000 6000000
** TOTAL **
62375000 90300000
'
:`3121',-bun - f L�nWl `%'a �,c�7E�Z.cSr X2+4-i c = �a f O�Cr`O'O, D-8•d �-*�-v 7��/�S
..912r,i•Green ,p��
C oho) (d. 5-+G +--7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
utic-i' Ito I 1JtlQ Pt u S
iI ��lti,ia«T `X J�J7�C2cS7-
1 1 2 114 96 1 -�d- -lol I I Sod 11 1 111 1 I 1
2
37 -7 4 Zl 1 1 k 111 111 z 4 SI A4 S 1 c 610 'Zj41010 I 11I Ito 1i 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 3
.'1 78 7 I I I 1 �4-151 11 17.1 I 6iq� Z 1 4
it 5 Flo I I I I �I� r1 oId ��I i L Li i I71�1 !ro! 11 F 1 III I I 5
0/ oI k'1411115 II I I I I I II z 3'1,5 11 I 1 11 I 1 1 1 11 11 I I 16
3o ill I P;A4131,05 113 I I/ -1Id1 11 111 11 !SOI 3* 111 11 I 7
1 8 < 4 16 I 1 Z f 8, g 1 of 71 �87D 111 �z17 X17151, I 1 8
II 514 -71 I - I 3 1 FIs 1 s Il a s 11 d 11� 11 1 z z z1� i I I I I I I I 1 1 9
iii O i 46 7 0 I ! 11 1 - 9"I, 101010 1 4�1 g610 11 1 1 11 1 1 13,2W3134' I 1 1I I I 1 11 1 1 1 110
��I i I I III I II I II I I I I I 11
'!1 11 1 1 I 1 1 12
311 1 i 1 1 1 13
11� 1 1 1 I 1 I 14
15-
;il 2- ob o z -d I Z X24 ' I I I 16
s a i
17
2i I = 1 °p ZIo 7 D - - o} 3712-
18
ail 78 812
=:= 3 a
1 t3 3 ] 19
1898 7 I 1 I -_ � o� of o- I /I/3
° 71 1 71� o 2 ( 1 1 120
14 16 I _ 8� 113k Q . . d 11 I SI6s I I I I I 1 1 21
211 1 1 S / Io 11 / �/1 f 3 5 °Io 7 11 I0 1 61 61116 1 ( 22
311 I I 1 = -< I 23
,!I 5/ 9 0 1 1 24
25
_ 1 I I II
�t1 z6
27
31 1 1 I 28
3 i I 1 1I I I 29
1 I I 30
1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I 1 1 11 I 111 11 ( 1 it I 11 11 11 Ii 11 11 1 11 31
� IT II1 11II 1111 1I III 11
REPORT TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ON
A FEE-BASED
TRAFFIC IMPACT
SYSTEM
W A S H I N G T O N
COUNTY
PREPARED BY
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
JULY 31, 1985
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
KIMBALL FERRIS, CHAIRMAN
WAYNE ATTEBERRY
LINDA DAVIS
BOB RAPP
STU MOORE
LINDA PETERS
HANS VATHEUER
STAFF
JOHN E. ROSENBERGER, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TOM TUSHNER, TRAFFIC ANALYST
PAULA CALVIN,ASSISTANT PLANNER
EDNA McGAUVRAN, SECRETARY
RON TALACA, GRAPHICS
Report to Board of Commissioners
on
A Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Table of Contents
1 . Introduction
II. Recommendations:
A. Cost Recommendations
B. Background for Cost Recommendation
C. Policy Recommendations
III. Conclusion
Attachments: List of participants contacted ------ Appendix #1
Calculation of Base with
Recommended Reductions ------------- Appendix #2
Revenue Estimate Based
on Proposed Fees ------------------- Appendix #3
Land Use Absorption and
Trip Rate Assumption --------------- Appendix #4
County Road Costs Included in
the Base Within Cities -------------- Appendix #5
Report tr Board of Commissioners
Fee Bast -raffic Impact System
Page 2
I. Introduction:
On March 26, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners reactivated the
Growth Management Task Force to review the January 15, 1985 document
prepared by the Department of Land Use and Transportation entitled
"Analysis and Methodology for the Creation of a Fee Based Traffic Impact
System". The Task Force was requested to (a) review the policy choices
identified in that document and those additional choices presented to
the Planning Commission on February 15, 1985, and (b) make
recommendations and propose alternatives for the Board of Commissioners
and Planning Commission consideration regarding the adoption of a system
by which new development would be assessed a Fee designed to pay for the
costs of improvements to the arterial and collector road system in
Washington County caused by that new development.
The Task Force was directed to consider the impact to the road system in
terms of the number of vehicle trips per day generated by the new
development. It was recognized that all the citizens of the County, and
not only those involved with new development, are responsible for the
needed repairs to and future maintenance of the arterial and collector
road system. Consequently, the Task Force was directed to consider the
cost of bringing the existing County road system into compliance with
required County standards only insofar as such consideration was
necessary to accomplish its primary task.
II. Recommendations:
A. Cost Recommendations:
1 . The Growth Management Task Force recommends that the Board
consider adoption of the following schedule of fees for new
development within Washington County:
Residential (All ) $100.00 per trip
Retail Development (all types) $ 19.00 per trip
of retail and commercial )
Office Development $ 91.00 per trip
Industrial Development $ 96.00 per trip
Institutional Uses $ 37.00 per trip
It is anticipated that the fee will be collected at the
time of issuance of the building permit. It is estimated
that adoption by the Board of the above recommended fees
should generate sufficient revenue to improve the
arterial and collector road system in Washington County
consistent with the impact caused by the new development
between now and the year 2000. If experience indicates
that the fees are insufficient they should be adjusted
upward. If the fees generate excess revenues, abatement
in the fees may become appropriate.
Report to Board of Commissioners
Fee Base Traffic Impact System
Page 3
The recommended fees are based upon anticipated trip
generation from new development as assumed in the
Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan. . The
fees, however, do not include trips generated within
incorporated areas. The Task Force views enactment of a
flat fee for all Washington County, including
incorporated areas, as administratively convenient, but
respects the integrity of the separate jurisdictions in
the incorporated areas of the County, and recognizes the
jurisdictional inability of the County unilaterally to
adopt such a system County-wide. If a flat fee is
enacted County-wide, however, by negotiated agreement, the
Task Force recommends reducing the level of the fees
imposed by an amount equal to the new trips generated in
cities less those arterial and collector improvements
anticipated within cities between now and the year 2000.
2. The Task Force recommends that if the Board implements the
recommended impact fee for new development, that fee should
replace the existing Growth Management Standards and systems
development charge (SDC) currently assessed on new development.
The recommendations presented above are based upon a review of the
information presented in the January 15, 1985 document prepared by
the Department of Land Use and Transportation, and information
presented to the Task Force by the Department and representatives
of interest groups within Washington County. Those interest groups
included the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and
the cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton. All cities in Washington
County, CPO's, Chambers of Commerce and parties previously
expressing an interest in these matters were notified of the Task
Force deliberation and invited to participate. Appendix 1 is a
list of those persons, agencies and interest groups contacted.
B. Background for Cost Recommendations:
The cost recommendations presented in the preceding pages are based
upon information provided to the Task Force by the Department of
Land Use and Transportation. The information is based upon the
January 15, 1985 document prepared by the Department of Land Use
and Transportation as well as a report prepared by Wilsey and Ham
regarding the methodology and distribution for creation of a fee
based traffic impact system.
Based on review and analysis of the information presented, the Task
Force has recommended fees for various land use categories within
the County based upon trip generation caused by new development.
The amount of the fees recommended was based in part on assuming
that the projected land use absorption identified by the Community
Plans of the Washington County Comprehensive Framework Plan will
occur between now and the year 2000.
Report to Board of Commissioners
Fee Base 'raffic Impact System
Page 4
The total investment required to improve the arterial and collector
system within Washington County between now and the year 2000 was
initially estimated by staff to be $189 Million in 1984 dollars.
That total was intended as a conservative estimate incorporating
all reasonably foreseeable improvement costs based upon current
adopted County road standards and certain other assumptions
identified in the January 15, 1985 staff document. It was the view
of the Task Force that this conservative approach, while
theoretically justifiable, was unrealistic. The Task Force
determined that the underlying assumptions of the staff
recommendation should be rigorously examined to determine if the
$189 Million number could be reduced to make a fee per trip system
more realistic and feasible. The Task Force members agreed that an
unrealistically high cost would deter development from locating in
the County, which was contrary to County policy.
The Task Force reviewed the Staff cost estimate and assumptions as
a frame of reference and concluded that certain reductions in the
$189 Million estimate are warranted and recommended: (A graphic
presentation of the recommended reductions is presented as Appendix
2. )
1. The original base estimate of $189 Million included a 40
percent contingency factor, reflecting projected engineering,
survey, administration and financing costs. After careful
deliberation and analysis of the line items comprising the 40%
contingency factor, the task force recommends that this
contingency factor be reduced from 40 percent to 13.5
percent. The recommended reduction amounts to a $34 Million
reduction in the base while still prioritizing an adequate
contingency reserve.
2. The Staff base estimate included an assumption that all roads
analyzed would include bicycle improvements on both sides of
the road. The cost of that assumption was $28 Million. The
Task Force considered that bicycle improvements of this
magnitude, equallying approximately 15 percent of the Staff
projected base cost, was unrealistic. Metro estimates that
approximately 5 percent of existing home-to-work trips are
made on bicycles. The Task Force recommends that an
equivalent percentage of the base can be applied to bicycle
improvements. Consequently, the Task Force recommends that 5
percent of the cost of improvements, excluding bicycle
improvements, be added back to the base figure as a more
equitable amount of bicycle improvements. The Task Force
further recommends that the allocation of that sum should be
determined only after the County reviews its road standards
and transportation plan and identifies those arterial and
collector routes most suited for bicycle trips. The Task
Force recommends additional input from the bicycle riders to
establish priority needs in this area, consistent with the
available funding.
Report ' 3oard of Commissioners
Fee Baseu Traffic Impact System
Page 5
3. The Task Force recommends use of a more optimistic estimate
for outside State or Federal funding of improvements to the
arterial and collector roads within Washington County. The
Task Force considers that outside funding for arterial and
collector improvements may be forthcoming between now and the
year 2000 and that such anticipated revenue could be used to
reduce the base in order to reduce the overall fee per trip
assessment for new development. The Task Force has
recommended the base be reduced by $1 Million per year for
funding from outside sources. This recommended reduction
should be monitored on a periodic basis to ensure that the
anticipated outside revenues are actually received for county
improvements. In the event that outside funding is not
available, the fee per trip should be adjusted accordingly.
4. The Task Force recommends a 10 percent reduction of the base
estimate to reflect that a portion of the improvements are
estimated to be made by the private sector. This reduction is
based upon an indication that County construction projects
appear to have extra built-in cost factors that do not
normally exist when projects are built entirely by the private
sector. County construction projects which are subject to
State and Federal hiring requirements have a tendency to
increase overall construction costs by as much as 25 percent
over private sector construction costs. The Task Force has
assumed that 50 percent of the total construction anticipated
in the year 2000 improvements will be built by the private
sector. The Task Force has used a 20 percent factor for the
cost differential between public and private construction. If
50 percent of the new improvements are made by the private
sector, 10 percent of the base may be reduced to reflect that
difference.
5. The Task Force recommends the base be reduced by $2.8 Million
to reflect committed lottery funds the County will receive for
transit improvements that were assumed within the original
$189 Million base.
6. The Task Force recommends the base be reduced by approximately
3 percent to reflect development that will occur due to infill
and land use changes (e.g. , zone changes and plan amendments)
that were not included in the Staff base estimate.
7. The original fee per trip system recommended by Staff in the
January 15, 1985 document was predicated on an assumption that
development would occur regardless of costs, and was intended
to project the maximum cost of improvements based on projected
new trip generation for all land uses. After review and
consideration of that assumption by the Task Force, it is
recommended that the proposed system must also be sensitive to
market place considerations for office, commercial and
Report Board of Commissioners
Fee Baseu traffic Impact System
Page 6
industrial development. The Task Force was advised that a fee
in excess of 1 .5 percent of total construction cost for
commercial , office, and industrial projects would act as a
competitive disincentive for these types of development to
occur in Washington County. The Task Force concluded that a
1 .5 percent threshold for office, industrial and commercial
developments is approximately the percent of "tax" that could
be absorbed and still make the project of this kind feasible.
Using the 1 .5 percent threshold the Task Force factored the
percent of new trips anticipated from these land uses against
the overall base with the reductions outlined above to arrive
at the recommended fee per trip for office, industrial and
commercial uses. The fee recommended for these uses is an
average fee and does not differentiate between high and low
trip generators within these categories.
The balance of the projected cost was absorbed by the
residential development community. Representatives of those
development interests indicated that costs at the resulting
level probably could be absorbed in the cost of housing
without deterring residential development. The calculations
are reflected in Appendix 3.
C. Policy Recommendations:
The Board of County Commissioners directed, at the request of the
Planning Commission, that the Task Force give its opinion on the
Policy choices identified in the January 15, 1985 Staff document.
The majority of the time spent by the Task Force was in the area of
cost recommendations. It was in this area that the Task Force
considered it could be of maximum assistance to the Board and
Planning Commission. Policy determinations are more amenable to
the public hearing procedures of the Planning Commission and do not
require the work session approach used by the Task Force.
Nevertheless, in order to be responsive to the direction made the
Task Force makes the comments indicated below with the
understanding that the comments made reflect deliberations
incidental to the making of the cost recommendations.
1 . The Board must determine that the costs to correct existing
deficiencies in the existing system are the responsibility of
the County as a whole, not of new development. Fiscal
implication . .. . $232 Million to the County
• The Task Force has assumed that the cost of correcting
existing deficiencies is the responsibility of existing County
residents. The cost reduction recommendations presented in
this report can in some areas be transferred to the existing
deficiency problem and thereby reduce the existing problem
base. The Task Force operated on the assumption that the
development community would be responsible separately only for
the additional burden placed on the transportation system
caused by the new development.
Report ' Board of Commissioners
Fee Bast traffic Impact System
Page 7
2. The Board must determine that new development has only the
responsibility of building new road capacity to accommodate
year 2000 growth. Fiscal implication .... $190 Million to
developing properties.
The Task Force recommends that the Board determine that new
development is responsible for building new road capacity to
accommodate the growth associated with that development and
that the recommended fee per trip identified in the previous
pages be adopted to meet that anticipated need.
3. The analysis and the total cost for year 2000 capacity
improvements include collector and arterial roadways under
County jurisdiction inside city limits. The Board must
determine whether or not these costs are the responsibility of
development in the unincorporated area. Fiscal implication
. ... $31 Million. (This figure is included in the $189
Million need identified in #2 above.)
The Task Force recommends that the Board strongly encourage
cities to participate in the fee per trip system in order to
improve all city and county arterial and collector roads and
to reduce the overall fee charged per trip.
4. The-Board must determine that costs to developers for past
conditions and improvements for off-site arterials and
collectors can be credited against the fee-per-trip for
developments that have multiple phases. (Examples would
include Tanasbourne Commerce Center, National Semi-Conductor,
Riviera Motors.) Fiscal implication Dollar for Dollar
credit to developer.
The Task Force finds that implementation of the fee per trip
system will cause certain inequities to development projects
that utilized a multiple phase approach to complying with
Growth Management Policies after September 1983. Such
inequities contravene County policy of encouraging
development. The Task Force recommends that the Board
consider these inequities and establish certain criteria and
standards to provide a credit to those developers against the
fee per trip that would otherwise be charged under the fee
per trip system.
5. The Board must determine that refunds or credits will be given
for developments which construct improvements needed by the
year 2000 but are installed early as a convenience to the
proposed development. (An example would be a signal which is
not warranted today but is installed to make a development
more attractive or accessible.) Fiscal implication ...
Dollar for Dollar credit if the project is identified as
needed by the year 2000.
Report L. Board of Commissioners
Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Page 8
The Task Force recommends that credits be given for
improvements constructed by development that are part of the
base used for development of the fee per trip system, but are
put in place at developer's expense prior to the time
otherwise established for installation of that improvement
under the Capital Improvements Plan. These credits should be
allowed on a dollar for dollar basis.
6. The Board must determine that safety improvements would be
mandatory at the time of development and that these safety
improvements can be credited against the fee-per-trip charge.
Fiscal implication .. . . Dollar for Dollar credit.
The Task Force recommends that safety improvements included as
part of a development proposal that are part of the base used
to calculate the fee per trip system should be eligible for
credits on a dollar for dollar basis.
7. The Board must determine time limits for off-site credits. 1
year, 5 years, 10 years, or indefinitely. (Staff assumed 16
years time frame 1984-2000 to time from our analysis. )
The Task Force recommends that credits be allowed for a period
of years.
8. The Board must determine whether the fee-per-trip is to be a
flat fee assessed County wide or a variable fee assessed
within specific districts. (The consultant's recommendation
to the County is outlined in Section III of this report. )
The Task Force recommends that the fee per trip system
identified above be a flat fee.
9. The Board must determine if the County will dedicate funds
collected to specific road district accounts. (Staff assumed
"yes" based on advice of Counsel .)
The Task Force recommends that the funds collected from the
fee-per trip system be dedicated to specific funds for
specific road projects. Fund disbursement shall be determined
by the Board of Commissioners under the Capital Improvements
Plan.
1.0. The Board must determine if it is the responsibility of
developers to dedicate necessary rights-of-way required by the
Comprehensive Plan. Fiscal implication ... $10 Million to $20
Million. (Staff assumed we would require dedication but would
still have to purchase $10 Million of Right-Of-Way over time.
The Task Force recommends that right-of-way identified as 'part
of the fee per trip system be dedicated as part of all
development proposals.
Report Board of Commissioners
Fee Base- Traffic Impact System
Page 9
11 . The Board must determine the responsibility of developing
properties to provide the ultimate year 2000 improvement with
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage and bikepaths. Fiscal
implication . . .. $94 Million. (Staff assumed "yes" since
these are current road standards.)
The Task Force recommends that the road standards of the
County be scrutinized to determine if current standards are
realistic and consistent with the desires of the citizens of
the County. For example, the Task Force recommends that the
level of service required by the County Transportation Plan be
adjusted as a method of reducing the overall improvement needs
for the year 2000.
12. The Board must determine if center turn lanes are required as
part of the fee-per-trip or should be considered a frontage
improvement. Fiscal implication . . . . $35 Million. (Staff
assumed "yes" and included this cost in the overall estimate.
The Task Force has assumed that center left turn lanes are
included as part of the fee per trip. The adjusted fee per
trip recommended in this report includes the center lane
facility.
13. The Board must determine if State facilities improvement costs
should be included in the fee-per-trip. Fiscal implication
.... $50 Million. (Staff has assumed State facilities are the
responsibility of the State. )
The Task Force recommends that State facilities and
improvements to those facilities not be included within the
fee per trip since the facilities are not included within the
base.
14. The Functional Classification Component of the Transportation
Plan assumes 7% of the future trips in Washington County will
be on transit and the Westside Corridor project includes $13.8
Million for transit improvement in Washington County. The
Board must determine if the local match to insure the transit
improvements needed to achieve a 7% ridership be included in
the fee-per-trip. Fiscal implication .. $2.8 Million.
(Staff has included the local match in the cost figures for
year 2000 capacity. )
The improvement costs associated with Policy number 14 have
been excluded from the fee per trip base, based upon actions
by the Legislature and the Governor to appropriate the local
match of $2.8 Million for transit facility in Washington
County.
15. The Board must determine if the Light Rail Transit
right-of-way should be included in the fee-per-trip. Fiscal
implication . . $1 .75 Million. (Staff has assumed this
Right-of-Way in the total cost figures for year 2000 capacity.
Report L„ Board of Commissioners
Fee Based Traffic Impact System
Page 10
The Task Force did not have the opportunity to address this
issue and consequently takes no position on it, other than to
note that the Task Force accepted the Staff assumption stated
for purposes of numerical calculation only.
III. CONCLUSION
Because of time limitation imposed on the Task Force, no empirical or
detailed study has been made into the specifics of any of the
recommendations presented in this report. The recommendations represent
a consensus of the opinion of the members of the Task Force based upon
the information presented by Staff and by those individuals who have
participated in the process to date.
The recommendations are intended to arrive at a fee per trip system that
would 1 ) provide sufficient revenues to pay for the needed improvements
to the Washington County road system caused by new development occuring
between now and the year 2000; 2) develop a system that meets the needs
of the County while continuing to attract new development; and 3)
balance the needs and responsibilities of existing and future residents.
emc
Appendix #1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTED
Cities in Washington County
Community Planning Organizations
Committee for Citizen Involvement
Sunset Corridor Association
Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce
Beaverton Chamber of Commerce
Forest Grove Chamber of Commerce
Tualatin Valley Economic Development
Group
Metropolitan Home Builders Association
of Portland
Quadrant Corporation
The Koll Company
Landsing Properties
1000 Friends of Oregon
Oregon Graduate Center
Local Engineering & Planning Firms
Interested Groups & Individuals
Appendix 2
Calculation of Base with Recommended Reductions
$189 Million Base (Taken from 1-15-85 document "Analysis and Methodology
for the Creation of a Fee-Based Traffic Impact System") .
- $31 Million County roads (arterial & collector) identified for
improvement inside city limits.
158 Million
- $28 Million Bike Lanes (page 4, item #2 of document) .
130 Million
- $34 Million Contingency (page 4, item #1 of document) .
$96 Million
- 16 Million Possible funding for improvements from unidentified sources.
80 Million Federal , State, Lottery, Infrastructure (page 5, item 3 of
document) .
- $8 Million 10% of Base for the difference between public and private
72 Million construction costs.
+ $4 Million 5% of Base for Bike facilities (page 4, item #2) .
$76 Million New Base used to generate recommended fees.
Appendix #3
Revenue Estimates Based on Proposed Fees
Residential
$100 per trip x 355,070 trips $35,507,000.00
Office
$91 per trip x 158,904 trips 14,460,000.00
Industrial
$96 per trip x 107,632 trips 10,333,000.00
Retail
$19 per trip x 398,574 trips 7,573,000.00
Lottery Funds 2,800,000.00
Institutional
$37 per trip no estimate can be made
Infill
3% of $76 Million Base 2,280,000.00
Total $72,953,000.00
Appendix #4
Land Use Absorption and Trip Rate Assumptions
Residential :
5851 acres of SF & MF land will develop and create 44,885 units.
44,885 units will generate 355,070 vehicle trips.
A typical unit for calculation purposes was 1500 square feet and cost
$40 per square foot to build. A typical unit will average $60,000.00.
1 .5% of $60,000.00 = $900 or $90 per trip based upon a typical SF unit.
The $90 per trip figure was adjusted upwards by $10 to achieve the base
number.
Recommended trip rate for residential trips is $100 per trip.
Office:
304 acres developing at 50% lot coverage with two-story buildings will
generate 13,242,240 square feet of office space and generate 158,904
vehicle trips based upon 12 trips per 1000 square feet.
At $65 a square fcrot to build, 13,242,240 square feet would cost $860,745,000.
1 .5% of this equals $12,911 ,184.00.
158,904 vehicle trips divided into $12,911 ,184 = $81 .25 per trip.
The $81 .25 per trip was adjusted upwards by $9.75 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for office trips is $91 .00 per trip.
Industrial :
707 acres at 50% lot coverage will generate 15,376,668 square feet of
industrial space and generate 107,632 trips at 7 trips per 1000 square
feet of space. At $40 per square foot, industrial space will cost
$615,066,720.00 to build. 1 .5% of this equals $9,226,000.00.
107,632 vehicle trips divided into $9,226,000.00 = $85.75 per trip.
The $85.75 per trip was adjusted upwards by $10.25 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for industrial trips is $96.00 per trip.
Appendix #4 cont'd.
Retail :
305 acres at 30% lot coverage will generate 3,985,740 square feet of
retail space and generate 398,574 trips based upon 100 trips per 1000
square feet of space. At $60 per square foot to build, retail space
will cost $239,144,400.00. 1 .5% equals $3,587,166.00.
398,574 divided into $3,587,166.00 = $9.00 per trip.
The $9.00 per trip was adjusted upwards by $10 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for retail trips is $19.00 per trip.
Institutional :
No assumption was made for institutional land use absorption.
Building Values per sq.ft. Trips by Use
Hospital $108 16 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
Hotel $67 10 trips per room
School $51 1 .4 trips per student (High)
1 .0 trips per student (Elem)
Gov't. Bldg./Office $71 68 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
Library $66 41 trips per 1000 sq.ft. gross*
---------------------------------- -------------------------------
Average - $73 *Average trips 41 per 1000 gross sq.ft.
3 story, 60,000 sq.ft. x $73 = $4.4 Million
41 trips per 1000 sq.ft. = 2460 trips
1 .5% _ $66,000
2460 $66,000 = $26.80 per trip
The $26.80 figure was adjusted upwards by $10.20 to achieve the base number.
Recommended trip rate for institutional trips is $37.00 per trip.
Appendix #5
County Road Costs Included in the Base Within Cities
Hillsboro $6,500,000.00
Beaverton 4,500,000.00
Tigard 7,600,000.00
Tualatin 5,400,000.00
Sherwood 7,000,000.00
$31 ,000,000.00