Special Mtg Agenda - 11/15/2007
WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 15,2007 - 7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of
general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City
Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda.
Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative.
A. Palomar Gas Transmission Project - Response to Environmental 1
Impact Statement
Recommended Action: Authorize Mayor Figley to sign letter to
respond to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about
the potential impacts of locating 36-inch diameter natural gas
pipeline within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary.
4. ADJOURN TO WORKSHOP
5. WORKSHOP
A. Conduct a Workshop On System Development Charges for 6
Transportation Improvements
**Hqbr~ interpretes qisponibles pqrq qquellqs personqs que no hqblqn Ingles, previo qcuerqo.
ComunTquese ql (503) 980-2485.**
November 15, 2007
City Council Special Workshop Agenda
pagei
(-..\ ,'\
~:"'~~
.".' ....rrr." '.... '.~\ .."
., 'i... .. .
WQ.Q.~B~lL~N
I,,(.)rparttttd 188'1
3A
A~'~
.
.
November 15, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Jim Allen, Community Development Director 9tJ.
SUBJECT: Palomar Gas Transmission Project - Response to Environmental
Impact Statement
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor Figley sign letter to respond to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission about the potential impacts to locating a 36-inch diameter natural
gas pipeline within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary.
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) is in the process of preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement that will address the environmental impacts
of the project that is proposed to include a terminal at Bradwood Landing near
Wauna in Clatsop County, Oregon and a 211-mile long natural gas pipeline to
the near Saniko, Wasco County. The current alignment includes bisecting the
southwest and southeastern portions of the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary,
including areas designated as the Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) that were
adopted by the City Council after an Economic Opportunities Analysis was
completed that identified industry types that would potentially locate in
Woodburn due to the opportunities available to industries in the City. The
industries chosen to be included in the SWIR area would typically create family-
wage jobs that would increase the incomes and living conditions of the
residents of the City of Woodburn.
This is a second proposed pipeline with similar routes from northwest Oregon to
central Oregon that bypass the City of Woodburn. The current map available
for this project continues to show the pipeline being located within the
Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary.
Agenda Item Review: City Administra
City Attorney
Finance
1
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 15, 2007
Page 2
.
.
DISCUSSION:
If located in the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, and specifically in the SWIR
area, there could be impacts to the livability of the residents; industries could
chose not to locate here as a result of not having adequate lands available
that are not burdened by such a pipeline.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no identified immediate and direct impact to City budget. Indirect
impacts to residents and continued socioeconomic impacts could result if the
pipeline were to locate in the Urban Growth Boundary and inhibit development
of family-wage jobs.
1:\Communily Development\Planning\2007\Correspondence\Council Memo 11-8-07 Palomar,doc
2
~
~
E '
~ t
~ , ". ~
~ nH "
"",,1
\.
,",
:",.."
",
"
,~,{~"""-"
, \1
. ,,;)1
/.,.::..,;~L,;"/' !
-.~-J
c
"
'~,~..
I' "
\'1,'
3
WOODBURN
ORE G 0 N
Incorporated 1889
November 16, 2007
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E. Room IA
Washington DC 20426
Attention:
OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2, PJ-11.2
Reference:
Docket No. PF07-13-000 - Palomar Gas Transmission Project
City of Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Impacts
Dear Ms. Bose:
This letter serves as the official position ofthe City of Woodburn regarding the Palomar Gas Transmission
Project and request for continued notification of the status of the project. The City of Woodburn is receptive to
the task of providing alternative energy sources to the residents and businesses of the region that is proposed by
Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC (PGT). However, the City has significant concerns about the location of the
pipeline facility in the immediate vicinity of the City of Woodburn and impacts that would occur as a result of
the pipeline being located within the City Urban Growth Boundary.
For some background, the City of Woodburn (City) recently adopted amended plans for the future growth of the
City to the year 2020. The City completed this planning process as a result of statutory provisions that require
the City to provide for expected growth and demands for an adequate supply of industrial, residential, and
commercial lands within the City Urban Growth Boundary. The City spent 8 years and over $1.5 million on
studies and consideration of alternatives to determine the appropriate locations, amounts, and types oflands to
be included in the urban growth boundary. Part of the project was an Economic Opportunities Analysis that
identified possible industrial uses that would create family-wage jobs and were likely to locate in Woodburn,
based on the unique qualities that Woodburn has to offer. Part of the analysis also identified the needs of such
industries, including topography, natural features, parcel sizes, and access to transportation systems.
The proposed pipeline alignment would also bisect the City of Woodburn urban growth boundary near Oregon
Highway 99E in a designated commercial area that contains existing development.
This background is important in that the proposed pipeline is depicted to bisect the southwestern portion of the
City Urban Growth Boundary, where the industrial lands are located. The development of industrial users in the
southwestern portion of the City is also critical to establish transportation improvements that will complete
connections that are critical to the success of the industries and residents of the City and surrounding rural areas.
Attached for reference is the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map that identifies the Woodburn Urban
Growth Boundary.
Office of the Mayor
270 IVlontgomery Street. Woodbllrn, Oregon 9707/
Ph,503-982-5228 . Fax 503-982-5243
Kimberly Bose
November 16, 2007
Page Two
The City staff has previously had discussions with Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC regarding the location of the
pipeline and impacts related to the needs of projected industrial users. Specifically, the location of the pipeline
through an industrial property would limit the ability of a large industrial building to be located on the property
just by virtue of the physical location of the pipeline. This would have an extraordinarily damaging impact on
the economic future of the residents of the City if the contemplated industrial users that would provide family-
wage jobs could not locate in the City.
For these reasons, the City of Woodburn officially requests that the Palomar Gas Transmission LLC pipeline be
located in a manner that bypasses the City of Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. In the scope of a project that
is 211 miles long, the relocation approximately 2,000 feet to the south would be a minor change that would
retain the planned facilities and uses associated with the City of Woodburn growth expectations to the year
2020. The location outside the Urban Growth Boundary would also minimize the land use impacts, costs to
transportation systems that would not be improved if industry does not locate in the designated areas, and the
socioeconomic impacts that would occur if industries that create family-wage jobs did not locate in the City.
In summary, locating the Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC pipeline outside the City of Woodburn Urban Growth
Boundary would eliminate the cumulative impacts associated with the pipeline bisecting properties and
transportation systems. I thank you for the opportunity to participate and comment on this matter and will be
interested in working with Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in
reviewing this project to ensure that impacts to local residents, land use, transportation systems, and
socioeconomics of the area are minimized.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map (2005), which depicts the area included
that we discussed. Please feel free to contact John Brown, the City Administrator at 503-982-5228 or Jim Allen,
Community Development Director at 503-982-5246 if you have any questions relevant to the City of Woodburn
or the location of the Urban Growth Boundary. Also, please continue to provide notifications to the City of
activities regarding this project so that the City and citizens can continue to be informed of the project. I thank
you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Figley
Mayor
Attachment: City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map (2005)
cc: John Brown, Woodburn City Administrator
Bob Shields, Woodburn City Attorney
Randy Rohman, Woodburn Public Works Program Manager
Jim Allen, Woodburn Community Development Director
Henry Morse, Palomar Gas Transmission Company, 1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900, Portland, OR 97201
5
, ,
~.'.'.\.'....'
. .r;r. . ... ..
WQODBURN
llt((1rp"rateJ 188'1
SA
~~
.
.
November 15, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Administrator
SUBJECT: SDC (TIF's) Workshop
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council conduct a workshop to consider
amendments to system development charges for transportation improvements.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adjusted System Development Charges for transportation
improvements (TIF's) in 1999. Changes have occurred since then that prompt
your consideration of fee revisions. Foremost was an update of the City's
Transportation System Plan (TSP) last year, including the imposition of an
interchange management area and modification of the capital improvement
program (CIP) associated with the TSP. Other factors include other CIP
modifications since 1999, and planning for an increased City-share of increased
construction cost estimates for the Woodburn interchange improvement.
DISCUSSION:
The City contracted with FCS Group (FCS), a consulting firm specializing in fee
and rate studies, earlier this year. Using the updated TSP, a revised CIP, and with
guidance from City staff, FCS prepared a fee analysis that recommends
increasing the City's TIFts. Examples of increases for various land uses are
provided on page 18 of the consultant's presentation (attached). Recom-
mended charges take into account the value of unused capacity of the existing
transportation system, and the anticipated cost of additional capacity needed
in the future to support growth. They also recover one-half of the cost of the
City's remaining share of interchange improvement costs. To recover the other
half, from the properties that most directly benefit by interchange improvement,
a separate interchange development charge is recommended. Examples of
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~3 City Attorney ~
Finance
6
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 15, 2007
Page 2
.
.
how this charge would affect various land use types are summarized on page
27 of the presentation.
Policy recommendations upon which the proposed charges are based are
provided. They are summarized on pages 10 and 110f the presentation.
Proposed charges also reflect a number of assumptions. They are summarized
on pages 13 and 14. One of the most significant of these anticipates developer
participation, and the use of funding from other agencies and from grants, to
offset capital costs. This reduction results in a lower TIF. If the assumption is
overstated, the City will fail to collect enough through TIFs to construct planned
facilities and will be required to abandon projects or subsidize development in
order to build them. Another significant assumption reduces the size of the
recommended TIF increase by splitting the cost of interchange improvement
between the properties developing in the interchange management area and
the remainder of the City.
A comparison of Woodburn's current and proposed T1F, and that of a select
number of other communities is also provided for your information. Additional
comparators can be provided upon your request.
Representatives of FCS and City staff will be available at your workshop to
discuss the fee study. In the meanwhile, if you have any questions, please call
me on Wednesday, November 14 or Thursday, November 15, 2007.
7
.y.
>d ....
~^"~" ' .J. J
,"" n
'"",H
......-,..,~
...."'" >
".. \.rJ
\,,,,,,,,,,.'
,-"",.
...,...."" 4
~.. .-v
_.~
.I' ~..,.,.,
'...,.-.
-<<",
"""0'
" ".~.".'.""""
-I
en'"
c~
otn
en"C
r+O
s:: :+
c.D)
'<~
o
::s
o
-.
~
o
......
:e
o
o
c.
0-
s::
..,
::s
~
o
(iJ
cc
o
::s
Study Purpose
· Update City's existing transportation
system development charge (SDC)
· Develop an interchange development
charge (IDC) to separately recover
eligible interchange project costs
~ ~:..!U.
. . ~~
. . ..
, -
s
Key Characteristics
1. SDCs are one-time charges, not
ongoing rates.
2. SDCs are for capital only, in both
their calculation and in their use.
3. Properties which are already
developed do not pay SDCs unless
they "redevelop".
4. SDCs include both future and
existing cost components.
5. SDCs are for general facilities, not
"local" facilities.
ORS 223.297 - 314, defines
"a uniform framework for the
imposition of' SDCs, "to
provide equitable funding for
orderly growth and
development in Oregon's
communities"
~,"'~",. ,.
. -. .'.'
. .', .-
)'S
-
-
..,
""!",,
--
3
"'Q
d
<
(I)
3
(I)
::s
......
~
(I)
-o~
- -"
0) ..
.....::s""
O::S':s'
.. CD 0)
cg a. ..
.. n CD
o 0) 0
~ -0 ......
~O).....
n C
-" ....
~~
CD
-
-
(f;
-
-
s-
"'0
a
~
:3
CD
::s
.....
~
CD
o
0)
;'~
n n
-. -.
- ....
:+'<
-. I
CD -.
tn ~
o ~
~ CD
-0)
'<tn
-.
~
cc
Credits against the improvement fee must be provided for
the construction of a qualified capital improvement, which is:
~ required as a condition of development,
~ identified in an adopted capital facilities
plan, and
~ is either off-site or, if on-site, is
required to provide more capacity
than needed by the development
in question.
~ )I'S
· Current SDC Credit Policy
- Full credit for project cost, up to 100oA> of the SDC,
if a developer constructs a qualified public
improvement
- Credit for only the cost that exceeds street
standards, up to 50% of the SDC, if project does
not meet criteria of a "qualified" improvement
· Recommended SDC Credit Policy
- Provide credits for the full excess capacity cost
qualified public improvements
- Provide cash reimbursement of credits fro S[
paid by subsequent development on the s te
....~ ,. ',", '. ~
~
)
Eligible cost of
unused capacity
in existing
facilities
Growth in system
capacity demand
..~ ,..."., ~ .
Improvement
Fee
Eligible cost of
planned capacity
+ increasing
facilities
per unit of capacity
Growth in system
capacity demand
',) S
Existing Transportation Soe
. Existing charge'. $343.32 per average
daily trip (ADT)
. Charge for a sing\e-fami\y residence is
9.57 AO'-s X $343.32 :: $3,286
. other individual customer types vary by
land use and resulting AO'- estimate
res
~~,',-'
~
Key Policy Recommendations
Reflected in the proposed charges
· Change the charge basis from average daily
to peak-hour trips (P-HTs)
· Include the planned costs of alternate modes
of transportation
- Bicycle facilities
- Pedestrian facilities
· Adjust trip generation estimates for retail land
uses to sustain allowance for pass-by or
diverted-linked trips
· Index the SDC to annual cost escalation due
to inflation (ENR Construction Cost Index)
...~ ~:'''.,...' ~ ,
). '5
Key Policy Recommendations
Reflected in the proposed charges
· Adopt an additional SDC to apply only in the
I nterchange Management Overlay District
- The Interchange Development Charge, or IDC,
would be assessed to development in the
Interchange Management Overlay District in
addition to the Citywide SDC
- Would recover future development's cost share for
improving the 1-5 Woodburn Interchange (based
on trip capacity demand)
-~~
,.
"
sern'
Q) Q)3.:
;:g.: '..
Q. ..~ ....
i~t,
sG:(h "
" i.o~, .
.... . .1.... ........ .':
, "', ~.' .".' ,'...'.'.
I.' . ','_ ',.'''"> ," ~': I
, '1'"
," " , '
,,' " .,'
::,.',~" ,....... ".,
, ",,,..,,',,'
......(>...
Cil
,~
~:
<D.."
.."." g,
'.1..'
v
Key Assumptions
Reflected in the proposed charges
· Planned projects (from the 2005
Transportation System Plan and 2007 TI F
project list) will provide system capacity to
2020 (planning horizon)
· Reimbursement fee basis limited to facilities
constructed with SDCs
· Anticipated developer participation in
projects, e.g., construction to local standards,
is adjusted for (deducted from the SDC
charge basis)
~
,. '5
Key Assumptions (continued)
Reflected in the proposed charges
· Citywide (and UGA) trip growth (4,677 P-HTs)
calculated from 2020 traffic modeling (2,177
new trips) plus additional development in
Interchange Management Area (limited to
2,500 trips)
· Eligible interchange costs split 50/50 between
Citywide SDC and I DC
· 49010 of traffic volumes originate or end
outside of City limits (deducted)
~
)>
v
Capacity Analysis
Projected Growth 4,677 Peak-Hour Trips
Reimbursement Fee Calculation
Allocable Unused Capacity Cost $ 2,459,662
Reimbursement Fee $ 526 per P-HT
Improvement Fee Calculation
Capacity Increasing Project Costs $ 12,924,665
Improvement Fee $ 2,764 per P-HT
..~..,.
) ,
System Development Charge
$ 526 per P-HT
2,764 per P-HT
$ 3,290 per P-HT
$ 26 per P-HT
$ 3,315 per P-HT
Reimbursement Fee
Improvement Fee
Subtotal
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery I 0.79%) I
Total SDC
~, . ~. ''''.'-,
' .. . . . .
, '
>FCS
Customer Type Adjusted Peak-Hour Trips SDC Basis
SFR 1.01 per DU $ 3,348 per DU
Apartments 0.62 per DU $ 2,055 per DU
General Office Building 1.49 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 4,939 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Specialty Retail 2.71 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 8,984 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Movie Theater wI Matinee 20.22 per screen $ 67,029 per screen
Supermarket 2.76 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 9,149 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Light Industry 0.98 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 3,249 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Manufacturing 0.74 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 2,453 per 1,000 sq. ft.
..,~ ,. '.' ~ .
~
,)
SDC: Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding
less: Grant Contributions
Subtotal
Original Unused Allocable
Cost Capacity [1] Cost
$ 2,937,550 84% $ 2,459,662
$ 0% $
0%
$ 0% $
$ 2,459,662
Prior SDC Expenditures (FY 2004-2006)
Allocable Unused Capacity
NOTES:
(1) Unused capacity percentage determined by peak-hour trip growth since year of each SDC expenditure.
..,~ ~. .""lrR,', d ,
)>
SDC: Improvement Fee Cost Basis
System Transportation Improvement Plan
Reconstruct 1-5 interchange (50%)
Subtotal
2007 Project
Cost Total
$ 116,702,016
$ 25,787,087
City
Share [1]
40.8%
10.7%
% Serving
Residents [2]
51.0%
100.0%
Capacity
Increasing [3]
68.8%
100.0%
Allocable
Cost
$ 16,710,430
$ 2,750,000
$ 19,460,430
less: Ending FY2007 TIF I SDC Fund Balance
Subtotal
$ 6,535,765
$ (6,535,765)
Allocable Capacity Increasing Cost
$ 12,924,665
NOTES:
(1) Only City-funded project costs are eligible for SDC recovery.
(2) Traffic modeling showed that 49% of City traffic volumes consist of trips originating or ending outside of City limits. Does not apply to the Interchange
Management Area (IMA).
(3) Represents growth's utilization of added capacity funded by the City, less the share of added capacity that will correct existing system deficiencies.
~",'."...
).
SDC: Transportation Improvement Plan
Project % City % Local % Capacity SDC
# Source Project Title Funding Trips Increasing 2005 Cost 2007 Cost Eligible Cost
2005 TSP Proposed Transportation Improvements
1 2005 TSP OR 214 widening from west of Broughton Way 40.0% 51.0% 48.8% 11,400,000 $ 11,758,912 $ 1,171,319
to Park Avenue
2 2005 TSP Park-and-ride near OR 214/1-5 interchange 15.0% 51.0% 100.0% 1,750,000 1 ,805,096 138,090
3 2005 TSP Upgrade of Parr Road to service collector 30.0% 51.0% 60.0% 7,500,000 7,736,126 710,176
standards
4 2005 TSP Upgrade Butteville Road south of Highway 219 30.0% 51.0% 80.2% 7,500,000 7,736,126 949,858
to minor arterial standards
5 2005 TSP Ext. Evergreen Road to Parr Road 25.0% 51.0% 56.3% 4,730,000 4,878,917 349,910
6 2005 TSP Ext Stubb to Evergreen 40.0% 51.0% 97.5% 3,900,000 4,022,786 800,132
7 2005 TSP Ext Ben Brown to Evergreen Extension 25.0% 51.0% 100.0% 4,700,000 4,847,972 618,116
8 2005 TSP Service class facility between Evergreen Road 25.0% 51.0% 100.0% 2,260,000 2,331,153 297,222
and Stacy Allison Drive extensions
9 2005 TSP Ext. Stacey Allison Drive to Parr Road 25.0% 51.0% 100.0% 5,980,000 6,168,271 786,455
11 2005 TSP Upgrade of Crosby Road to service collector 30.0% 51.0% 60.0% 3,300,000 3,403,895 312,478
standards
12 2005 TSP Upgrade Butteville Road north of Highway 219 30.0% 51.0% 100.0% 4,900,000 5,054,269 773,303
to minor arterial standards
13 2005 TSP OR 99E widening between Lincoln Street and 15.0% 51.0% 9.3% 5,750,000 5,931,030 42,112
south city limits
14 2005 TSP 5th Street upgrade to access street standards 70.0% 51.0% 82.9% 1,400,000 1,444,077 427,158
Add northbound right, southbound left,
15 2005 TSP eastbound right turn lanes and eastbound 60.0% 51.0% 48.4% 900,000 928,335 137,501
throuQh-lane to Boones Ferrv/OR 214
16 2005 TSP Signalize Meridian Drive/5th Street/OR214 40.0% 51.0% 48.8% 500,000 515,742 51,374
17 2005 TSP Signalize Park Street/OR 214 40.0% 51.0% 39.5% 500,000 515,742 41,524
18 2005 TSP Add eastbound right-turn lane to Parr 100.0% 51.0% 50.0% 380,000 391,964 99,951
Road/Settlemier Road
19 2005 TSP Signalize Front/OR 214 ramps 40.0% 51.0% 47.0% 600,000 618,890 59,401
20 2005 TSP Increase service frequency on transit routes 100.0% 51.0% 26.7% 180,000 185,667 25,251
~. ~"'~".' ~
~
,.
~
SDC: Transportation Improvement Plan
Project % City % Local % Capacity SDC
# Source Project Title Funding Trips Increasing 2005 Cost 2007 Cost Eligible Cost
22 2005 TSP Upgrade Front Street between Hardcastle and 70.0% 51.0% 60.0% 4,150,000 $ 4,280,656 $ 916,917
Harrison to minor arterial standards
23 2005 TSP Upgrade Boones Ferry and Front to provide 70.0% 51.0% 2.1% 975,000 1,005,696 7,510
continuous sidewalks and bicycle lanes
24 2005 TSP Add loop ramp in southwest quadrant of OR 40.0% 51.0% 39.5% 1 ,800,000 1 ,856,670 149,635
214/Front Street intersection
25 2005 TSP Add southbound right-turn and westbound left- 15.0% 51.0% 18.3% 580,000 598,260 8,383
turn lane to OR 99E/OR 214
26 2005 TSP Convert transit route to two-way operations 100.0% 51.0% 45.0% 180,000 185,667 42,611
27 2005 TSP Off-street pathway along Mill and Goose Creek 100.0% 51.0% 50.0% 750,000 773,613 197,271
Corridors
28 2005 TSP OR 99E widening between south city limits and 15.0% 51.0% 44.0% 2,900,000 2,991,302 100,687
south UGB
29 2005 TSP Signalize southern Butteville Road/OR 214 15.0% 51.0% 66.5% 650,000 670,464 34,085
intersection and add northbound right-turn lane
30 2005 TSP Signalize northern Butteville Road/OR 214 15.0% 51.0% 100.0% 750,000 773,613 59,181
intersection and add southbound right-turn lane
31 2005 TSP Signalize Cleveland Street/OR 214 15.0% 51.0% 20.0% 500,000 515,742 7,891
32 2005 TSP South Arterial between Parr (or Butteville) 70.0% 51.0% 100.0% 11,780,000 12,150,875 4,337,862
Road and OR 99E
33 2005 TSP Ext.lUpgrade of Brown to South Arterial 30.0% 51.0% 98.3% 1,780,000 1,836,041 276,232
35 2005 TSP Sidewalks on existing service collectors, 70.0% 51.0% 2.1% 540,000 557,001 4,159
access and local streets
36 2005 TSP Bicycle lanes on Garfield, Hardcastle, Young 70.0% 51.0% 70.0% 700,000 722,038 180,437
38 2005 TSP Proposed Transit Improvements 51.0% - -
41 2005 TSP Two Routes with One-Way Operations 100.0% 51.0% 72.5% 360,000 371,334 137,301
(alternative 3)
44 2007 TIF List 2007 TIF Project List 51.0% - -
47 2007 TIF List Upgrad~ Harrison Street between Front and 70.0% 51.0% 40.0% 900,000 928,335 132,566
Settlemler
.,.~ ~. '''',' ',' ~ ,
,.
SDC: Transportation Improvement Plan
Project % City % Local % Capacity SDC
# Source Project Title Funding Trips Increasing 2005 Cost 2007 Cost Eligible Cost
48 2007 TIF List Upgrade Hwy 211 from Hwy 99E to east City Lh 15.0% 51.0% 32.7% 2,400,000 2,475,560 61,870
49 2007 TIF List Upgrade Front Street from Hazelnut to the 40.0% 51.0% 60.0% 1,900,000 1,959,819 239,882
north City Limits
51 2007 TIF List Upgrade Hayes Street from Settlemier to 80.0% 51.0% 40.0% 1,200,000 1,237,780 202,006
Evergreen Road
52 2007 TIF List Upgrade Front Street between Cleveland and 80.0% 51.0% 50.0% 1,200,000 1,237,780 252,507
Harrison
53 2007 TIF List Add left turn lanes on Settlemier at Cleveland, 100.0% 51.0% 50.0% 700,000 722,038 184,120
Garfield and Harrison
54 2007 TIF List Highway 214 Environmental Assessment 20.0% 51.0% 48.8% 850,000 876,761 43,668
55 2007 TIF List Upgrade of Boones Ferry from Hazelnut to 40.0% 51.0% 66.7% 2,100,000 2,100,000 285,600
Crosby
56 2007 TIF List Upgrade of Young Street to minor arterial 100.0% 51.0% 50.0% 1,100,000 1,100,000 280,500
standards
57 2007 TIF List Upgrade of Boones Ferry from Dahlia to south 40.0% 51.0% 60.0% 1,300,000 1 ,300,000 159,120
City Limits
58 2007 TIF List Extend Woodland to Butteville Road 30.0% 51.0% 100.0% 1,100,000 1,100,000 168,300
59 2007 TIF List Upgrade Cooley road to collector standards 60.0% 51.0% 50.0% 900,000 900,000 137,700
60 2007 TIF List Upgrade of Country Club Court to collector 100.0% 51.0% 83.3% 300,000 300,000 127,500
standards
61 2007 TI F List Upgrade of Cleveland from Front to Settlemier 80.0% 51.0% 50.0% 900,000 900,000 183,600
to collector standards
Total
less: Ending FY2007 TIF / SDC Fund Balance
Total Future Citywide Capital Project Costs
plus: Applicable Interchange Development Costs
Total Future Capital Projects for TIF / SDC Calculation
40.8%
51.0%
68.8%
$ 113,375,000 $ 116,702,016 $
1$
$
$
$
16,710,430
6.535.7651
10,174,665
2.750.000
12,924,665
~.,'".,.
)
v
cr:
Capacity Analysis
I nterchange Management Area
2,500 Peak-Hour Trips
I mprovement Fee Calculation
Capacity Increasing Project Costs
Improvement Fee
$ 2,750,000
$ 1,100 per P-HT
~,..." ,
, lrP ,_
, .
) S
Interchange Development Charge
Improvement Fee
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery
$ 1, 1 00
0.79% $ 9
per P-HT
per P-HT
TotallDC
$ 1,109 per P-HT
"~,'.'~ .
res
Customer Type Adjusted Peak-Hour Trips IDC Basis
SFR 1.01 per DU $ 1,120 per DU
Apartments 0.62 per DU $ 688 per DU
General Office Building 1.49 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 1,652 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Specialty Retail 2.71 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 3,005 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Movie Theater wi Matinee 20.22 per screen $ 22,424 per screen
Supermarket 2.76 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 3,061 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Light Industry 0.98 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 1,087 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Manufacturing 0.74 per 1,000 sq. ft. $ 821 per 1,000 sq. ft.
~
IDC: Improvement Fee Cost Basis
Project % City % Capacity IDC
# Source Project Title Funding Increasing 2005 Cost 2007 Cost Eligible Cost
2005 TSP Proposed Transportation Improvements
1 2005 TSP Reconstruct 1-5 interchange and Improve OR 214 10.7% 100.0% $ 50,000,000 $ 51,574,173 $ 5,500,000
between Woodland Avenue and Oregon Way
10.7%
100.0%
$ 50,000,000 $
51,574,173 $
1$
$
5,500,000
2.750.000 1
2,750,000
less: Interchange development costs included in TIF /SDC
Total Future Capital Projects for Interchange Development Charge (lDC) Calculation
~
) oS
% of Interchange SDC IDC
costs in Citywide SDC
00/0 $ 2,723 $ 2,217
50% $ 3,315 $ 1, 109
100% $ 3,908 $ 0
~
Transportation SDC Comparison [1]
SFR General Specialty Retail Shopping Center Fast Food
Office Building With Drive- Thru
City Home (10,000 sq. ft.) (2,000 sq. ft.) (100,000 sq. ft.) (1,000 sq. ft.)
West Linn $ 4,897 $ 63,716 $ 24,594 $ 1,229,706 $ 12,297
Silverton 3,705 54,658 19,882 539,243 33,749
Woodburn - Proposed 3,348 49,394 17,967 487,305 30,498
Woodburn - Current [2] 3,286 40,060 18,140 609,100 22,995
Tigard [4] 3,200 47,951 6,590 539,622 8,100
Forest Grove [4] 3,200 47,951 6,590 539,622 8,100
Tualatin [4] 3,200 47,951 6,590 539,622 8,100
Wilsonville 3,147 42,510 15,463 419,391 26,248
Medford [2] 3,042 65,095 33,167 800,845 16,753
Phoenix 2,966 43,761 15,919 431,739 27,020
Newberg [3] 2,473 41,225 7,742 672,655 74,834
Albany 1,719 14,320 6,266 303,520 23,695
McMinnville 1 ,426 10,700 4,460 181,000 3,390
Springfield 1,058 10,952 7,348 294,452 27,418
NOTES:
[1] PM peak-hour trip and average daily trip estimates are based on land use type and adjusted for pass-by trips,
as reported in Trip Generation by Institute of Transportation Engineers, Seventh Edition.
[2] Source: 1999 TIF Update. Charge based on average daily trip rates.
[3] Proposed charges. Will be effective January 1, 2008.
[4] Based on Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), determined by Washington County.
'S