HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-02-02 PM co LAKE os„,
t,
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
v�-�-
6:30 p.m.
OREGON Council Chambers
Lake Oswego City Council City Hall
Jack Hoffman, Mayor 380 A Avenue
Kristin Johnson, Council President
Donna Jordan Also published on-line: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us
Roger Hennagin Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Mary Olson E-Mail: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us
Sally Moncrieff Phone: 503-675-3984
Bill Tierney
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations,
please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page#
. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (10 minutes)
3.1 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Craig Diamond,
for his service on Natural Resources Advisory Board and
Sustainability Advisory Board
3.2 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Niland
Shatsky, for her service on the Library Advisory Board
3.3 Proclamation honoring the League of Women Voters on its 90th
Anniversary
3.4 LOIS Update
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
• The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require
no discussion.
• An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
• The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the
consent agenda.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1
February 2, 2010
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation of Craig Diamond from the Sustainability Advisory
Board, effective February 28, 2010
Action: Accept resignation
4.1.2 Service contract renewal to provide temporary workers for
Parks Maintenance activities
Action: Approve renewal of service contract with The
Personnel Department in the amount of $185,000
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 10-07, authorizing an amendment to the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Clackamas County
Department of Human Resources, Social Services Division, for
Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-07
4.2.2 Resolution 10-11, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement
with the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for
the purpose of facilitating a habitat enhancement project on
Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by the
City of Lake Oswego
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-11
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information
or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda
items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes
per citizen shall apply.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2
February 2, 2010
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 hour)
7.1 Resolution 10-03, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
approving a change in the methodology relating to system
development charges for the water utility
and,
Ordinance No. 2547, amending Chapter 39 of the Lake
Oswego Code relating to Water System Development Charges
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Joel Komarek, Project Director
Testimony will be taken in the following order: those in support, those in
opposition, and neutral testimony.
• 5 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association,
homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated
public interest organization;
• 3 minutes for other persons.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
Motions: Move to adopt Resolution 10-03 and,
Move to enact Ordinance 2547
8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the
agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes.
8.1 Councilor Information
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and
Intergovernmental Committees
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (5 minutes)
9.1 City Manager
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
9.2 City Attorney
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3
February 2, 2010
• •
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
10.1 Closed session under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (d) conduct deliberations
with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30
p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m.
Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Monday 11:00 p.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.osweao.or.us/live.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4
February 2, 2010
J
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 1/28/10
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Study Session. 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers
February 9 • Mayor's Institute on Design (1 hour video)
• Vancouver B.C. Tour Presentation
Redevelopment Agency
• North Anchor Update
• Update on Redevelopment Agency Projects
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 n.m.. Municipal Courtroom
February 16 • Strategic Investment Zone Presentation
Regular Meeting, 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers
• Contract for the Waste Water Master Plan
• Lifelong Learning Program
• Council Award for Pavement Design Services
• Adoption of Police Contract
• IGA with Lake Oswego School District for collection of the
Construction Excise Tax (Res. 10-12)
• An amendment to a public improvement contract relating to
the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer (LOIS) upgrade project
Lake Full Phase and authorizing the City Manager to execute
the contract amendment
• Adoption of 2010 Council Goals
Public Hearing
• Resolution 10-02, approving a special procurement of a
contract amendment for engineering design and construction
management services relating to replacement of the Lake
Oswego Interceptor Sewer(LOIS)
Tuesday, Cancelled
February 23
Tuesday, Work Session. 5:30 p.m.. Municipal Courtroom
March 2 • City's Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
Regular Meeting. 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers
• LOIS Update
Public Hearing
• Street Maintenance Fee Hearing - tentative
• Supplemental Budget
Redevelopment Agency
• Oswego Lakefront Park Contract Award
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 9 • Update of the City's Water Conservation Program
• Infill Recommendation
Tuesday, No Meeting, National League of Cities, March 13-17
March 16
BOLD ITEMS-New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 1/28/10
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
March 23 • Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• Sustainability Update
• Street Maintenance Fee Decision - tentative
• Adoption of Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
• Economic Development Strategy
Public Hearing
•
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers
March 30 • Review of Capital Improvement Plan
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
April 6 •
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• LOIS Update
• Adoption of Infill Recommendation
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 13 •
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
April 20 •
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
•
Tuesday, Study Session. 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 27 •
To Be Scheduled
• Emergency Response Plan
• Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010)
• Foothills Redevelopment Agreement
• Municipal Finance
• LOIS Bond Sale
• Tour of Willamette River to see Foothills Dock and Water Treatment Plant intake
• Lake Down Phase of LOIS Project Bid Award
• Streetcar line tour (Council, Staff, DTAAC, Streetcar Citizen Advisory Com.)
• Neighborhood Planning Kit
• Prepare for Rail-volution Conference (Oct 19-21, 2010)
• Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative Process
• Infill recommendation from the Planning Commission
• Percent for Art
• Clarification on referring Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning Commission
Regular Updates
• LOIS Update, 1st meeting every month
• Sustainability Update, quarterly
• Financial Update, quarterly
BOLD ITEMS- New issues added to schedule
of,gar osw`� Cit V1
Lake
1
- ) Oswego
OREGON
Proclamation
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters of Clackamas County is the organization
where hands-on work to safeguard democracy leads to civic improvement; and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization, that
has fought since 1920 to improve our system of government and impact public policies
through citizen education and advocacy; and
WHEREAS, League members are constantly striving to serve their communities to
make strong, safe, fair and vibrant places to live; and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters of Clackamas County believes in
representative government and in the individual liberties established in the
Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters of Clackamas County collaborates with other
organizations to achieve mutual goals, increase civic participation, create lasting change
in the community and to Make Democracy Work; and
WHEREAS, The League, for 90 years, has held the public trust by respectfully bringing
elected leaders and the public together through nonpartisan, civil means and through
thoughtfully advancing solutions; and
WHEREAS, this community has benefited from the countless volunteer hours donated
by League members over its 90 year history of enhancing our democracy
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego, do hereby
proclaim the 14th day of February, 2010, as
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK DAY
in honor of the League of Women Voters 90th Anniversary.
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
February 2, 2010
.
t . i . l
Al
c,„_,
,S
01 LAeirKE°site_
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resignation of Craig Diamond from the Sustainability Advisory
Board
DATE: January 26, 2010
ACTION
Accept the resignation of Craig Diamond from the Sustainability Advisory Board.
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Reviewed e •
Alex D. ►i 7 tyre
City Manager
.
``Ay OF LAKE os.,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
Jeff Munro, Parks Superintendent
SUBJECT: Approve service contract renewal in the amount of $185,000 to The
Personnel Department to provide temporary workers for Parks
Maintenance activities
DATE: January 25, 2010
ACTION
Approve the renewal of a service contract in the amount of $185,000 to "The Personnel
Department" to provide temporary workers to the Parks Maintenance Division.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Park Maintenance provides a variety of services throughout the community including
mowing, landscape maintenance, tree care, trash removal & restroom cleaning, ball
field maintenance, special event staffing, golf maintenance, open space maintenance &
city beautification, just to name a few. These service levels increase on a seasonal
basis requiring an increase in staff during these times, which extend from April through
October of each year. Contracting with an outside agency to provide temporary
workers to assist permanent staff in providing these services has proven to be the most
effective and least costly means of accomplishing the goal of providing excellent service
to the community.
In 2008, staff advertised a Request for Proposals for providing temporary employee
services for one year with the option to renew for four successive years should the city
want to continue service. Two proposals were submitted by the required deadline.
Staff evaluated the proposals based on experience, length of time in providing the type
of service requested, thoroughness of the submitted proposal, ability to reliably perform
the type of service requested in a thorough, quality efficient and economical manner
and within service deadlines, references, and cost.
Council Report
01/25/10
Page 2
On April 21, 2008, the City Council approved the original contract with The Personnel
Department for $185,000 to provide temporary staffing services for one year.
DISCUSSION
The contract is now entering its third year of the five year term of the original contract.
The contract terms allow the City to make the determination whether to extend the
contract for another year, or to terminate the agreement. Based upon the contractor's
demonstrated ability to successfully perform the services requested in a thorough, high
quality, efficient and economical manner, staff is recommending the contract be
extended for an additional year to The Personnel Department.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of renewing the contract for an additional year is not to exceed $185,000,
which is the original bid amount received from the contractor. 50% of this amount is
included in the remaining Parks & Recreation Department FY 09-10 budget. The
contract can be terminated if funds are not appropriated for FY10-11.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the contract with The Personnel Department, not to exceed
$185,000, be extended for an additional year.
ATTACHMENTS
None
I
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. G
Reviewed by:
Department Dactor
/t
2f .
pityey I
Alex ..1 rntyre
City Manager
LI 2 . 1
``l{OF LAKE OSWfCO
air
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
Ann Adrian, Adult Community Center Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Contract with Clackamas County Social Services
DATE: January 22, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-07 authorizing the Mayor to sign an amendment to the
intergovernmental agreement for geriatric services provided by the Lake Oswego Adult
Community Center (LOACC) and reimbursed by Clackamas County Social Services.
This represents supplemental funds for the senior nutrition program.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The annual renewable contract between the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas
County Social Services, describing the scope of services, compensation, manner of
performance, general conditions and various service agreements was approved as
Resolution 09-27 at the June 16, 2009 City Council meeting.
This amendment approves additional funding for senior nutrition meals, a key social
service at the LOACC. Meals on Wheels are provided to homebound/disabled elders
and congregate meals are provided at the LOACC. It helps seniors meet nutritional
requirements and offers socialization opportunities.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Additional home delivered and congregate meals can be billed for reimbursement. This
will lessen the amount of City funds necessary for these meals. The amount for this
amendment is $1,575.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 10-07, authorizing the Mayor
to sign an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with Clackamas County
Social Services.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-07
2. Amendment to Service Contract
Reviewed by:
l - n�
r\
Deprtx n ;{Director
Alex E\ n`fyr
City Marg1
RESOLUTION 10-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE CLACKAMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010
WHEREAS Clackamas County has funding available to provide social services to citizens
of Lake Oswego through the Older Americans Act; and
WHEREAS the City and Clackamas County have previously entered into
intergovernmental agreements whereby the City has provided social services in exchange
for funding through the Older Americans Act; and additional senior nutrition money is
available;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Lake Oswego City Council that the Mayor is authorized to
execute an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with the Clackamas County
Department of Human Resources Social Services Division for fiscal year 2009-2010, in
the form attached as Exhibit A, increasing funding for senior nutrition by $1,575. This
Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council on February 2,
2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
elL(
David Powell /
City Attorney
Contract Amendment
Department of Human Services
DHS Contract Number SSD-32-09/10 Board Order Number 072309-A2
Division Social Services Amendment Number 1
Contractor City of Lake Osweao/Lake Oswego Adult Community Center
Amendment Requested By Brenda Durbin, CCSS Director
Changes: (X) Contract Budget
Justification for Amendment:
This is a budget adjustment. This adjustment increases the Nutrition Services Incentive
Program (NSIP) Reimbursement per meal rate to $.65 and adjusts number of
contracted meals. This results in a total increase to the contract budget of $1,575.
AMEND: II. COMPENSATION AND RECORDS
A. Compensation. County shall compensate the Agency for satisfactorily performing
the services identified in Section I on a fixed unit rate reimbursement basis as
described in Exhibit 3 - Budget and Units of Service - attached hereto. The
maximum compensation allowed under this contract is $14,118 in Older
Americans Act III-B funds, $1 681 in Older Americans Act III-D funds, $4,500 in
Older Americans Act III-E funds, $11,100 in NSIP funds, $9,496 in Ride
Connection funds, and $1 015 of County general funds for a total net
compensation of $41,910.
TO READ: II. COMPENSATION AND RECORDS
A. Compensation. County shall compensate the Agency for satisfactorily
performing the services identified in Section I on a fixed unit rate reimbursement
basis as described in Exhibit 3 - Budget and Units of Service - attached hereto.
The maximum compensation allowed under this contract is $14,118 in Older
Americans Act III-B funds, $1,681 in Older Americans Act III-D funds, $4,500 in
Older Americans Act III-E funds, $11,100 in NSIP funds, $9,496 in Ride
Connection funds, and $1 015 of County general funds for a total net
compensation of $41,910.
AMEND: Page 2 - Unit Cost Schedule
TO READ: Page 3 — Unit Cost Schedule
1
1
Amend:
Lake Oswego Adult Community Center
Fiscal Year 2009-2010
OPI NSIP Ride Con OAA III B OAA III D OAA III E OAA County Program NO. OF TOTAL REIMBURSE-
Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Match Gen. Fund Income UNITS COST MENT RATE
Service Category (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Assessment 2,400 267 78 2,667 $30.90
Case Monitoring 3,080 342 105 3,422 $29.45
Info. &Assistance 3,781 420 233 4,201 $16.23
C G/F Services 1,015 1,015 *see noted
Transportation- III-B 4,857 540 486 971 5,883 $5.00
Exercise Program 900 100 45 1,000 $20.00
N) Wellness Education 781 87 20 868 $40.00
Caregiver Assistance 0 0 0 0 $32.71
Respite Program 4,500 120 4,500 $37.65
Trans-Ride Con In Dist 9,496 665 1,330 10,161 $7.14
NSIP Meals 11,100 18,500 11,100 $0.60
TOTALS $0 $11,100 $9,496 $14,118 $1,681 $4,500 $1,757 $1,015 $1,151 $44,818
Total Cost Equals (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 11)
Reimbursement Rate ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 8 / 10 = 12)
Source of OAA Title Ill B, Ill D and Ill E match -Center Manager's time devoted to program supervision and administration.
* County General Fund provided Services as specified in Section I.B. will be paid at OAA Reimbursement Rate listed above for same
Service Category.
Total Contract Amount: $41,910
1
To Read:
Lake Oswego Adult Community Center
Fiscal Year 2009-2010
OPI NSIP Ride Con OAA III B OAA III D OAA Ill E OAA County Program NO. OF TOTAL REIMBURSE-
Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Match Gen. Fund Income UNITS COST MENT RATE
Service Category (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)- (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Assessment 2,400 267 78 2,667 $30.90
Case Monitoring 3,080 342 105 3,422 $29.45
Info. &Assistance 3,781 420 233 4,201 $16.23
C GIF Services 1,015 1,015 *see note
Transportation- III-B 4,857 540 486 971 5,883 $5.00
Exercise Program 900 100 45 1,000 $20.00
W Wellness Education 781 87 20 868 $40.00
Caregiver Assistance 0 0 0 0 $32.71
Respite Program 4,500 120 4,500 $37.65
Trans-Ride Con In Dist 9,496 665 1,330 10,161 $7.14
NSIP Meals 12,675 19,500 12,675 $0.65
TOTALS $0 $12,675 $9,496 $14,118 $1,681 $4,500 $1,757 $1,015 $1,151 $44,818
Total Cost Equals (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 11)
ReimbursementRate ( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 8 / 10 = 12)
Source of OAA Title III B, III D and III E match -Center Manager's time devoted to ram ro supervision and administration.
p 9
* County General Fund provided Services as specified in Section I.B. will be paid at OAA Reimbursement Rate listed above for same
Service Category.
Total Contract Amount: $43,485
All other terms and conditions of the original contract remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed by their duly authorized officers.
AGENCY CLACKAMAS COUNTY
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Chairperson: Lynn Peterson
Vice Chair: Bob Austin
Commissioner: Jim Bernard
By Jack Hoffman Commissioner: Charlotte Lehan
Mayor Commissioner: Ann Lininger
Signing on Behalf of the Board
Date
PO Box 369 Cindy Becker, Director
Street Address Health, Housing, and Human Services
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
City/Zip Date
(503) 635-0215 (503) 699-7462
Phone Fax
93-6002231
Tax ID Number
A70 ` ■ ,S TO ORM
Attorney
City Attorney's Office
4
i . 2_
L�it� wECO
-+IA► CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-11 authorizing the Mayor to sign an
intergovernmental agreement with the City of Portland Bureau of
Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat
enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real
property owned by the City of Lake Oswego.
DATE: January 25, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-11 authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat
enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by the City of
Lake Oswego.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Staff made an informational presentation to the City Council on January 16, 2009 regarding the
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services' (BES) desire to do a fish enhancement
project on Tryon Creek near the confluence with the Willamette River. A portion of the BES
project is proposed to be located on City of Lake Oswego (City) property (Exhibit A — Project
Limits). At this meeting, staff reviewed the project scope and discussed various components of
the project that the City would be interested in and want to address in a future
intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Staff received general guidance from the City Council in
preparation for entering into negotiations with BES for the IGA.
The elements of particular importance discussed with the City Council on January 16, 2009
were:
a. Allow BES to use approximately .7 acres of City of Lake Oswego property on the north
shore of Tryon Creek for the restoration project;
b. Allow up to approximately 2.5 acres of City of Lake Oswego property for mitigation
planting;
■ r
Council Report
1/25/10 Page 2
c. Provide BES with access across City property during design and construction;
d. Allow BES to dispose of clean soils removed from the project site onto City property in
Tryon Cove Park;
e. To allow for a future pedestrian bridge alignment through the project area, including a
bridge pier abutment;
f. Maintain City access to the upper and lower levels of the garage;
g. Provide the City an opportunity to review and comment on the restoration design at
30%, 60%, and 90% completion;
h. To require the City of Portland to provide the City of Lake Oswego with an easement
across City of Portland property for a future pedestrian trail and bridge;
i. Provide BES with and access for post construction maintenance and monitoring of the
project site through 2015; •
j. Be responsible for all costs associated with the project, including long term
maintenance; and
k. To maintain the site in a visually appealing manner and respond to maintenance
problems in a prompt manner.
DISCUSSION
Staff has completed its negotiations with BES and is presenting a final draft of the IGA for City
Council approval. Throughout the negotiations, BES continued to develop and refine the
project design, which is now complete. The drawings used in this staff report as exhibits, are
from the 100% completed construction documents, which gives an accurate view of what the
project intends to accomplish once complete.
A majority of the items discussed at the January 16, 2009 City Council meeting have been, from
the City's perspective, satisfactorily negotiated with BES. Some modifications to total acreage
for various elements of the design shifted as design development progressed. Below is a chart
to illustrate what was discussed on January 16, 2009 versus what has been incorporated into
the final draft IGA.
Page 2 of 6
Council Report
1/25/10 Page 3
Topic Discussed Discussed Final Draft IGA
Jan.16,
2009
Allow use of City property on the north shore of Tryon Creek for the project . 7 acres 1 acre
Approx.
Allow use of City property for mitigation planting (Exhibit B) 2.5 acres 3.5 acres
Provide BES with access across City property during design and discussed included
construction
Dispose of clean soils removed from the project site onto City property in 2 ft. depth Deposit on no
Tryon Cove Park more than 2.5
acres; ave.
depth no more
than 2 ft., no
more than 6 ft.
in any one
place. Final
grade of soil to
improve
development of
future regional
trail.
Design to allow for a future pedestrian bridge alignment through the project discussed Included and
area, including a bridge pier abutment(Exhibit A) shown on
design
drawings
Maintain City access to the upper and lower levels of the garage. discussed Included.
Design
accommodates
access
Design
BES to provide the City opportunities to review and comment on the design discussed complete. City
at 30%, 60%, and 90% stages commented at
each stage
Provide BES with an access for post construction maintenance and discussed Included;
monitoring through 2015 pertains only to
project area in
Tryon Creek,
not mitigation
areas.
BES is responsible for all costs associated with the project, including long discussed BES pays for all
term maintenance project costs,
except not
obligated to do
long term
maintenance
Page 3 of 5
Council Report
1/25/10 Page 4
Topic Discussed Discussed Final Draft IGA
Jan.16,
2009
BES to maintain the project site in a visually appealing manner, and discussed included
respond to maintenance problems in a prompt manner
Easement not
Require Portland to provide Lake Oswego with an easement across City of discussed included in IGA.
Portland property for a future pedestrian trail and bridge.** Modified to
state that BES
& City will
"negotiate in
good faith to
determine the
location of a
mutually
agreeable route
for a pedestrian
path across
BES property"
ADDITIONS:
Not Design
Design must accommodate future canoe/kayak access to Willamette discussed accommodates
Not BES shall place
Tree removal (trees removed on City property to accommodate project) discussed in mitigation
area as habitat
trees
Not If contamination
Contaminated soils on City property discussed is found, BES &
City will share in
costs of clean
up or choose to
terminate
project or
modify design
to address
contamination
Maintenance of mitigation area Not City may mow,
discussed at its discretion.
BES has no
obligation
Not BES must
Insurance discussed require
(General liability, auto, Worker's Comp &name City of LO as add'I insured) contractor to
carry applicable
insurance to
protect City
Page 4 of 5
Council Report
1/25/10 Page 5
* Mitigation Area
A drawing showing the mitigation area and the types of plantings to be planted is
shown on Exhibit B — Mitigation Area-Planting Plan.
**Pathway Easement
BES is in the process of developing a new master plan for their Water Treatment
Plant and would like as much flexibility for future site development or modification.
Therefore, BES would prefer to work with Lake Oswego to identify the best location
for a pathway/bridge easement during its mastering planning process. In addition,
the City of Lake Oswego will be working closely with BES during the Foothills
planning process. Modifications to the Water Treatment Plant property as a result of
master planning and the Foothills redevelopment process may result in a more
desirable location for a pedestrian bridge crossing and pathway easement.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The financial impacts of entering into an IGA with the City of Portland to facilitate the restoration
project results in very little, if any, increase in on-going costs to the City of Lake Oswego. The
City of Lake Oswego currently is responsible for maintaining the area, which presently involves
periodic mowing (2-3 times per year). The IGA states that the City may choose to mow the
native grass mitigation area, which is the area currently being mowed, but does not require the
City to do so.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 10-11.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Exhibit A— Project Limits
B. Exhibit B — Mitigation Area
C. Intergovernmental Agreement Tryon Creek Confluence Habitat Enhancement Project
istK
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. (I
Reviewed by:
Deztment Direc r
City A '•' -
Alex D:': cl yfe
City Mariagef
Page 5 of 5
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
30 0 15 30 60
LEGEND: 6s.-
.o c
EXISTING TREES
TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR SITE GRADING-
SEE TABLE.THIS SHEET.
EXISTING CONTOUR•1 FOOT INTERVAL
-....."."^"......- PROJECT LIMITS LINE
_ MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET G3.2
_44 - f� f,' 'Yrr r}{1 t ( ! ..._• FLOWSTREAM
ECTTHALWEG WITH
`te �' �� / .�. -EJJ / ' y . '.•. ----.� ORDINARY! ExIsnNG
A 1
----,_c \ `M \ •. I \ _ 1'• A --- ORDINARY HIGH WATER MART(-FINAL GRADING
I
~�4 _� ' \ A ��i�/ i --- 1988 fLooD LIMITS
N. C \ \ f
—-- 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAN BOUNDMY
\ -,\ 1a \ 1�` 11l'1 , 1.; _.... _// W ---- FLOODWAV
' --CJ_) {( / PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EWE.
\ ' / ' I -� EXISTING / h sn DIMING STORM GRAIN
+ I ON SITE / 1 W
' _I-� j PAVEMENT 1 a EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
W i
EXISTING 30' \ . I( \.\ ) �•�� \ i 0 I EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
CONCRETE SANITARY��J//���"'/// 1 1J . EXISTING BRICK -•• \ EXISTING ON-SITE PAVEMENT
SEWER PIPE(AERIAL) 13 I 1 RETAINING WALL I -
\ \1, \\ '�•�--7'� ' .. •�? \ \ I„...,........,,....,,,./-F OO/ IWV \ (AREAS OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
...4?\
I._ ` \ I \ 1 ' ! .4AGENERAL NOTES:
EXISTING UNPAVED 1 /�
100-YEAR FLOOD DRIVE.PLAIN BOUNDARY fl ! I x 1 all
\ 1. TREES TO
LONSTRUDBE CTiON WILL E STOLKPILED BY OWNER D O 6RE AS
•1 \ L I I N SALVAGED SITE LOGS.SEE TABLE SHEET G32
"/ ,\ { S ' I i \\ \ te7(..., 1S�TTNG 15'CONCRETE \• N \ ... _..
tl \ ITARvSEWER PIPE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
1 REMOVE TREES SHEET BY PULLING DTHEM DOWN WITH THEIRICATED FOR REMOVAL�TMIS
\ ,� \ \ S -. ,� \\ ROOTWAD INTACT.STOCKPILE TREES ON SITE AS
EXISTING 46'STEEL ., ' \ !�,.'' \
I \ \\ SSTTOCKPILE LOCATION.SEE SHEET G32 FOR
➢UTI.FT IE=13 26-
1 1 N
\ •
' '\ 2 cg•LSF♦ EXISTING . •\ \ 091
' • \.\;� BUILDING - • \ • \ J'
EXISTING ABANDONED�I\ .....\
. '� \ I-4:
\ \ TREE REMOVACOMMONL AND STOCKPILE TABLE
/ rR !
ID SPECIES DIAMR
e1l'*. MH ADN157 FUTURE BICYCLE AND NAMF.-i
- • OSALIXf)RA20'OUTLET(S)--IE=11 BN. \ , \\ J 2 WILLOW I SALIXLABUNDRA I 11'
,i /, J kA• 1 I \`, • �..` _ MHADNISB i ./. / . \
A • 6.06 ._� RMI ELEV=21.5' __� I
/y�JI"�,((/1�f/ �. _ \. INLET )IE=75' - ^!” 9.00
1 ?�1/i' H() tA,I. \ J '�1��`OUTLET{S)IE=7.3' /.� /.. JIE '�-
I • imp;' I{1 _� \�\ �•`: �• �'
y `ti�1(I1J7. 1996 FLOOD LIMITS - \- __ f �- ISTIFIG J6' ONCRETE l� 2/NW bq Avenue
T J
S ((, {.:: - -I�`^ MH ADN162 E_Z 'SANITARY SEWFR P-.PE
�� Bib 201
'a ENDER SON ;4 pi) .e PttBenU°ege^
I ( // ! !..'"*.':'''''‘..,YL::::: '
y ' 1 I RIM ELEV-325' 97208
(..1.N T)`f'.R1 I,.I' ! 1 '; �" y7 L2'�''t' C '‘-L_.-".`Y'Z'^/l:{ ((( INLET(V)IE 47.9 F..�^-.../♦ .^/NIM 50}22BJ301
I.c .,c.. .....• .S, 'V ,\ 1 OUT-ET(5)IF-6.9' \ N /� LE ISI IE-19x' 503-2283373 FAX
l' /! 11 \ V OUTLET(NE)IE=196 HERRERA
x•.,.. `^-� - CITY OF PORTLAND DATUM AND NAD 1983-91 `c'ON ULTAN s 1418.1... rnFm,,,
1.
to' I , o . I III! ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TRYON CREEK CONFLUENCE 4431
W 1 -
t OWN T
I wao.•-- � E08958
I( .,..... HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
,.1E �.,, .�...I1. ,'e eanlmm w i°e �"' 1a I.I EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREE REMOVAL PLAN SNErkk NO
G3.1
MOON I Rec .. 995YJ.1.0N9 I f I 3 0<19
M
/
� '�-� - j 5m Rn
,. l ;
,"),,R .1-
�`'- ... - STgMP R \' LEGEND. Ext3TwGTREE3
0 15 30 60
L W
T
\ : ] -. __._�.__ Hf ROgO / EXISTING CONfOUR•1 FOOT INTERVAL
//
�' ti +NN/V�, PROJECT LIM178 UNE
y
f jC. MHADN162. = STREAM THALWEG WITH
�^ !f Jr /1 / FLOW DIRECTION
V /f` g 1996 FLOOD LIMITS 1996 FLOOOPLAM LIMITS
�{ . {.."'fir =
✓- 'V I ``I! — 100-YEAR FLOOD PIAN BOUNDARY
n ,..S�: P 5 \ — PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I PROJECT LIMITS / ,1 \ ``
'II —so — STORM DRAIN
_ 6 SANITARY SEWER
ED
\8 1. . 47-'41 �- ' �1I \ \, c' AREAS OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
it \ / / '/•1'/i 17IP '
I
--S } % ! ` -`I' ` r/M L'/�. TREE STOCKPILE LOGTION
fir'
8 , / \� l,J _ ` p `.1 tppVEAR FLOOD i�
`�' > • PO /�5�/ -/y- �' PLAIN BOUNDARY //
e \ ` /
' ` =tl `.\n
/ .-`f A\ ' EXISTING TABLE
TREE
STOCKPILE
' `
COMMON
2 \ :...e.,,,-.. ./..,/ // \' oI --~ - _�; NAME I SPECIES DIAMETER
J - f MNAONt53
RED ALDER ALNUS RUBRA 8•,12.2X14•
'I r;s
i.
Y, fir{ + .f .... 1 OREGON ASH UFNUS 24'
f ` � `�. /' EXISTING UNPAVED DINE OLIA
1 J SHORE PINE RNUSCONTORTA — ..M ._...
'/{�.�� .�,� \ / JJ 8 ' WILLOW SAIDfUSIANDRA 12
& `M5{/ f EXISTNG 6'56'CONC BOX
, ! CULVERT OUTLET IE•?2 1' TREE STOCKPILE LOCATION \j\
W ` YYl'", .M \ '' al. f• -_—-- L
- GENERAL NOTES:
1. TREES TO BE REMOVED BY OWNER PRgR TO
$ fr l�1,„, II �t l CONSTRUCTION VALI BE STOCKPLED ON SITE
-7l til, - - lvM� - AS SALVAGED SITE LOGS.SEE TREE STOCKPILE
I -V Ji ,. `. \ ` TABLE.THIS SHEET.
_ ir;. •std_ - _'-'4-IN" co
b MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET G3.1
5
0
•
g I
20 NW 2M Avenue
Suite 204
Portland 0.39.1on
IMI SON 97209
.:W 0 SERVICL9111' 503-228-4301
`f HERRERA 5°3-"'373"`x
CITY OF PORTLAND DATUM AND NAD 1983-91 ro,�a..N s nm,'.6..,.M.50
-- I�NSN/usm ;.�- —CITY OF PORTLAND — — _._.__� 7raultr
_ - ""m" C`" qiii: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TRYON CREEK CONFLUENCE .443..
1
'- a�„ HABITAT ENHANCEMENT E08958
I IMP m
w zlP®fis�
0,N EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN G3.2
''�.Ilwlo,.w I. I. „_.—__ .__. ..REVISION .._., _ __ .,
„
30 0 15 30 60
LEGEND: R.,
MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET L1.2 ,.L
. ..: —� ++.,.:•:.:•”••• , , : _ EXISTING TREES
+�� .♦i 1 : �� : ... .:. - .'. .:'.. .....'}._. PROPOSED CONTOUR
\ ♦e♦i••♦�♦•• '' \ EXISTING CONTOUR
9iF
.!,,,...••••••••••••• BARE-ROOT SHRUBS LIST
i \ •'*;;;••♦♦ . ��� ~ % SPECIES li COMMON NAME I PLANT DENSITY I — F�oRwDaEgNc
':**:*::.:4'::44'.
•••� •♦
.�`I :4444••••••:•:.:•:*,,/ ' �y;. AGER CIRCINAIUM VMERANT —___--
�_' , I — 10OVEAR FLOOD PLAM BOUNDARY
1� ,4444:::::::•:•:•:+:44 % : \ i I REO FLOWERING
• :::::.:::X444:::::::::
♦♦ ��� ft18ES SANGUINEVM — 1838 FLOOD LIMITS
\ •••�••♦••♦ Il' CURRANT
'\ i ♦ •••:••• • SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA RED ELDERBERRY ———— FLOODWAY
0 1 •O•..❖.0.•.e..•
.......4`...,..........*..,...: % DIXIG I PIREA — ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
1 1i - • ♦♦•♦��:i!•�•�i•• SPI OELEMARN
: � ••••••. ♦.;. INDIAN PLUM BOO PER ACRE '.r
S, + •••♦♦♦ ♦• ♦ ° CERASIFORMS I — --- PROJECT LIMITS USE
♦• 4.4.,:•••••••••••••:‘,..%••• �• ♦•. ,+� PHYSOCMPUS I PACIFIC NINEBARK M
l '. I .......„.4....:.:..) ♦ CMRATUS m PROPERTY BOUNDARY
1
♦ ♦ :.:.:.:.:4 .1
. } e ••�+•1•• 444:••• •i/ .� STORM DRAIN
. ♦•••♦♦♦♦ ♦••♦••♦ .-:. SANITARY SEWER
SYMPHOCARPUS ALBA I SNOWBERRV
�� �� •• ♦ \ _ SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
.',.N.' 1•• • •f•�•♦•�••�r, :: + PROJECT EXCLVSgN AREA
1 •y 1 T .. •• I •••••••••:.:44, DRIVE
1 ♦ ...:+4........-...
I I
�:. . •••♦•♦••••• REVEGETATgN AREA-NATIVE GRASS SEED.
T ♦ I ♦♦•�••♦0♦.i % SEE UST ON SHEET LI2
; n .....,:•:•:•:•:.:+:.....
i♦� iii�i•iii�i • • ry
I _.'• >'♦••••;♦•♦%•••O•••••• O Q� v�O LA REVEGETATgN AREA-BARE-ROOT SHRUBS.
:r :# "":4.4•••••••••••••••••:•X•• ••• ti � IIVI SEE UST THIS SHEET
L ••-•••,........................♦ • O O
�. ♦ ♦�•••;�•i•�.• EXISTING ,.:�O O • \ 9�•;••••••.,......;.,.......0......9...
;•;♦•••••LgRGEL SHRUBS.SEE LIS TMs SHEET ES AND
J •
•%+:.:•:•:•:•:+..
.❖♦••••♦•♦ f BUILDING '• - \ �i•••••••••
$o } .� \ ♦:•♦••rte•• ♦ O O” /
T •• s•:,:* • •.. ► • t ACTUAL
NOTES:
:"i;j
',:,:,/,-.S.:... j ADJUSTED
,� •,.F ''t::::::
:; / 0 0 • sLwNrr�iv ANo�sPEOF
es usBbm"L4vYr oroNs MA EBvAADE
.. �'\ .+ $ •♦•• • %♦.I DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY OF PLANT STOCK AT THE
1 ♦•♦•♦ •••.. / • TIME OF PLAMNG.
C ....sr..
. '.":.':::........./.. I �..,\;•:•:-.F"..,:::1j •O•• ♦••••j% °i••� O O O O O• �� Z. TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON APPROXIMATELY B FOOT
�1k.�: .♦<♦♦••. ♦•• • is
:.:..... L � ii ♦♦♦•♦♦••♦. ••♦ PAGNG.MID EACH 7REEWLL BE PROTECTED WITHA
:"...............'+::'..•:':::::::::::::::/,:',...! !J �• �,•i♦�•••••1:�••••♦;♦•�.... j ••••�•i•♦••••�•••••••�••. ♦ �\OO OOOOO .. VEXARMESHTUBE TO REDUCE MORTALRV DUETO
x
• .♦:••••••A•
t♦•••!••••�••••♦•♦•i**♦i•••:i•••••i•♦•••♦••••••••••♦♦•♦•••••••••%•••••••••
O i•♦••i� O O / �•� HERBIVORE DAMAGE.
':: ::. a .: ll .• �\ .0.. '•0. ••♦ ♦ •♦ ♦ ♦ .♦ ♦ •♦♦.. •
. ♦ ♦ - S. SHRUBS ITH BE ABOO EASN CLUSTERS ISTHREE MA
........ 0.1 �. -•i .•,O♦.••••:;.....•1 i•••i 44♦i••••••i•:: i♦•:f•••♦ �•�..••♦♦i•.••••.. ee•O / STAKED WRH BAMBOO.APPROXKMTELV 15 FOOT SPACMO
% :::::.......:....:a.: _ -:.l4' •.. I''''''.'...--.._ .., a _•.4;11:10:44:44.:,:,::+;.:+:+:44,,,:+:...,::...1.......
11:1 .♦O•••♦•:♦•:.:♦•:;.•0 • :•O.•.,♦:.....-.•♦•____::•• .: .:
.. i is e•O••O••♦•••••�•••O••OO•i•O�<� �•1 — BETWEEN CLUSTERS
•
N E
J K / y
--
T
��'�- � ` :::::-+.:+,:'..1:::......: ' ter—' - _. SPECIES O �RCOMMON AMEE�SPLANT DENSITY
EL ! .: . L � PSEUDOTSUGA MENDEBII DOUGLAS FIR
\,. FRAXINUS UTIFOLIA OREGON ASH I
.......:..N.d.. r .-:':. ... ...': :. ,1 ....... ` i. POPVLVS TRICHOCARPA BLACKCOTTONWOOD I
RHAMNUS PUILSHLNAA CASCARA I 800 PER ACRE
ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER I
THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR I
LJ DG1�SO�� SALIX UISVWORA PACIFIC
i■� OVM1p PERMIT SET
l
I
A ^h I i�-E401"O11H Mb,LB" ""`��'.�"""°. -CITY OF PORTLAND el
24 NW 2nd Avenue
�!•s4431
8 CIMARVIIED� � , ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SteTRYON CREEK CONFLUENCE
.P-2r.'"'"'" HABITAT ENHANCEMENT 8958
Mr"°"®" `"� ��er 0703i'Pit I
HERRERA `03-228-33S03-228-43775 FAX
PLANTING PLAN L1.1
FOUL YAP MTA -
u NA OR 020MIIIB AT0. ,,,,vox mm *5,W*F:wrs hq'/.M.•nnNcmn 1 a
SDI, 011501.1.1.0,08
1
30 0 20 30 60
C —
LEGEND:
EXISTING TREES
.•....j:Y.::::.�:::::. ^`4. , ',$, - / t.> PROPOSED TREES
Ll..:::.:r.-..�:•' PROPOSED COMWR
4.
1; l •V-4 V ' St.. _ EXISTINGCONTWR
S�`: ••:' :.. �.: - STREAM THALWE
,: ...-...,.F: ::. J -- 3"ImAk /% ``'�` 1oavEAn FLooD PUlN eouNDAftr
�tl-w, / . S 5 F-. .' ... .:.:. .F"•.{Q'W .:. -CL�i tS,�ECIDUOU$fREES _..—.._.._.._ 1996 FLOOD LIMRS
X11: ...... .. .. .......:........ /
11 1 I J �
FLOODWAY
.. ...{.. J�'' ... / �'' ORDNARY HIGH WATER MARK
JX .. r / �j �� - • ------— IN WATER WORK EXCLUSION BOUNDARY
. / I v♦!♦jam/
�'�f��, y��f _- --.II \ PROJECT LIMRS LNE
-\',.. •. J/ / /_.J. ,,,/ If..`JJ Al ,.`I ' , PROPERTY BOUNDARY
F �' / / _+ �� I I I -j //-c�sTea of a DeclooEs/ �" I �.\.'.1IIJ JO1 � 1 :. 1 '7I2'1fF.
1 ?� ..Y ! ... /- \ % /? / 1 SI .: �/. EXISTNO PAVED DRNE
/r
3 _., O '. / / _..I 1.:.
/� :: j BREVE IGETTMTXMI AR .tUTNE GRAss SEED,
.� , I 'V .. O REVEGETATION AREA-BME-ROOT SHitUBS.
/ QP / /� `/ / ` 1O^O�sEEL18TONSHEEPu.1s r / / --1?
,7i♦ ♦♦iETATION AREA-BARE-ROOT TREES�, \‘':'''''.-:.`11 � ��__-__ ♦♦♦♦i♦i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦AND LAR BSSEE UST ON SHEET 111L •
:.._____'/;/..7)...
_~ NATIVE GRASS SEED LIST
)
NATIVE COMMON LBS/
��'�,+� GRASSES NAME I ACRE
`\ ': BROMUS SRDHEN$LB 16
r� � ELYMVS GIAUCUS 10
yl
\ \
,-----s.,,,...,..,,......,.
V'_ i// ��, _ 1AGROSTISEXARATA :Bs.wiSn:LLEUEEKAN:oWILD.E:B.rsi:GRLB,AssYER,
1DESCNAMPSIA• /.. ,4ty' `s.?.�.. J�. A/♦�, / EIONGATA I{{f �/ ` .L v"� .. ,� '/////
' / '''� —1 BRACHYANTHE Y 2
_..: .I 1 .:. �% .:...' '.. l ',� �, RUM TOTAL I 2a
FI
S MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET Lt 1
8
HI<NDERSON
E.
IlshKVIC ur PERMIT SET
�
s': I I ��aTJy0.�c.LcoNrourss.FBASE�ais� "'. CITY OF PORTLAND z4 NW 2nd Avarua
P Q ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES el SPS 0090 TRYON CREEK CONFLUENCE 4431
PROEM 87 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT assn
CONSINLCISO
503.2264301
CONK,.
DN 0,116 � HERRERA 5032263373 FAX PLANTING PLAN Li.2
-•iIS I mL �m�w,al B93BL,2 0W0 T + cwrna rArcr3 np.nwhymn..mm 2 2
RESOLUTION 10-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
PORTLAND BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FACILITATING A HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ON TRYON CREEK IN AN
AREA THAT INCLUDES REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF LAKE
OSWEGO.
WHEREAS, the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) desires to conduct a
habitat enhancement project in an area that includes certain real property owned by the
City of Lake Oswego at the confluence of Tryon Creek and the Willamette River; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego desires to allow BES to conduct the habitat
enhancement project under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to work cooperatively to achieve the public benefits that
will result from improving habitat for native species in the Tryon Creek confluence area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
that:
Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement with the
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, in the form attached as Exhibit "A," for
the purpose of allowing a habitat enhancement project to be conducted in an area
including certain real property owned by the City of Lake Oswego.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption by the City
Council.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 2nd day of February, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Page 1 of 2 - Resolution 10-11
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPOVED ORM:
`David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2 - Resolution 10-11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
TRYON CREEK CONFLUENCE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this day of
, 2009 by and between the CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal
corporation, acting by and through its Bureau of Environmental Services ("BES"), and
the CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, an Oregon municipal corporation("Lake Oswego").
RECITALS
A. BES desires to conduct a habitat enhancement project in an area that
includes certain real property owned by Lake Oswego at the confluence of Tryon Creek
and the Willamette River.
B. Lake Oswego desires to allow BES to conduct the habitat enhancement
project under certain conditions, including allowances for a future pedestrian bridge
alignment through the project area.
C. The parties desire to work cooperatively to achieve the public benefits that
will result from improving habitat for native species in the Tryon Creek confluence area
and from improving pedestrian trail connectivity in Lake Oswego and throughout the
region.
AGREEMENT
1. License for BES Enhancement Proiect. Effective upon execution of this
Agreement Lake Oswego hereby grants BES a license to access the real property
described on attached Exhibit A (the "Construction Contract Documents"), Sheets G3.1
(3 of 19) and G3.2 (4 of 19), subject to the teens of this Agreement, for the purpose of
performing, constructing, maintaining and monitoring a habitat enhancement project
consisting of re-grading the northern bank of Tryon Creek to improve floodplain
connectivity, placing large woody debris, boulders, grade control and streambed material
in the channel to improve spawning and rearing of ESA-listed salmonids, species of
concern lampreys and other native species, placing logs in upland areas for terrestrial
habitat, removing invasive plants and installing native plantings in order to improve
conditions in the riparian area, all as generally described in Exhibit A, Sheets C1.1 (9 of
19) and C1.2 (10 of 19) and Exhibit B (the"Planting Plan"), Sheets L 1.1 and L1.2.
These activities, construction and improvements by BES are referred to collectively
herein as "the Enhancement Project." This license shall expire upon the earlier of five
years following the completion of the Enhancement Project or December 31, 2015.
2. Review and Approval. The Enhancement Project, including all activities,
construction, improvements, revegetation, and maintenance, shall be consistent with
Exhibits A and B.
Page 1 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
■ r
3. Future Pedestrian Bridge. The Enhancement Project is designed and shall
be constructed to allow for a future pedestrian bridge to be constructed and maintained
through the Enhancement Project area by Lake Oswego, including construction of a
bridge and pier abutment, at the locations and alignment shown in Exhibit A., Sheet G3.1
(3 of 19). The Enhancement Project is designed and shall be constructed so as to
minimize the future habitat impacts of, and the anticipated mitigation requirements for,
the future bridge project. As shown in Exhibit B, Sheet L1.1, no trees shall be planted
within the 50' bridge corridor shown on Exhibit A, or in the location of the pier abutment
also shown on Exhibit A, in order to facilitate future construction of the bridge and pier
abutment.
4 Future Pathway. As shown in Exhibit A, Sheet C1.1 (9 of 19), the
Enhancement Project is designed and shall be constructed to allow for future
development of a canoe/kayak pathway to access the northern beach near the
Enhancement Project area. BES shall not place woody debris or plant trees within the
future development area for the canoe/kayak pathway.
5. Storage License., In addition to the license granted in Section 1 of this
Agreement, Lake Oswego also hereby grants BES a license to store equipment and
materials for the Enhancement Project in an area of approximately 4.5 acres. Storage will
occur only in areas within construction limits. Areas outside of construction limits are
shown as hatched in Exhibit C. The license granted pursuant to this Section 5 shall
commence upon execution of this Agreement, and shall expire upon the earlier of the
completion of the Enhancement Project or October 31, 2011.
6. Proiect Mitigation. Subject to the requirements of Sections 3 and 4 of this
Agreement, BES shall be allowed to use up to 3.5 acres of Lake Oswego City-owned
property for mitigation purposes for the Enhancement Project in the revegetation areas
shown in Exhibit B. Mitigation shall meet Lake Oswego's tree removal permit
mitigation requirements. Mitigation plantings shall include native grasses, shrubs, and
trees. Any adjustments to the agreed upon mitigation area, and the proposed plant
materials and locations for planting, shall be approved of by Lake Oswego in advance.
7. Soil Disposal. As shown in Exhibit A, Sheets C1.1 and C1.2 (9 and 10 of
19) and Special Provisions Specification Section 00330—Earthwork, Lake Oswego shall
allow BES to dispose of soil removed from the project area in the course of the
Enhancement Project on up to 2.5 acres of Lake Oswego property in Tryon Cove Park.
Soil deposited within the top 24" of the deposition zone shall be native material, and shall
not include debris or hazardous materials or other contaminants.
In addition, soil deposits in the deposition zone shall not exceed an average of two feet in
depth over the entire approved deposit area, and shall not exceed a depth of six feet in
any location on the site, as shown in Exhibit A, Sheet C2.2 (12 of 19). The final
placement and grading of the deposited soils will be done by BES according to Exhibit A,
and shall be deposited in manner that minimizes the existing site grades for a future
regional trail.
Page 2 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
8. Tree Disposal. Placement of upland logs shall be consistent with Exhibit
A, Sheet C1.2 (10 of 19).
9. Pathway/Bridge Alignment. BES and Lake Oswego agree to negotiate in
good faith to determine the location of a mutually agreeable route for a pedestrian path
across the BES Wastewater Treatment Plant property connecting Lake Oswego's existing
Foothills Park Trail to the future pedestrian bridge at the alignment described in Section 3
of this Agreement. Such negotiations will occur in connection with Wastewater
Treatment Plant facility master planning. This is the preferred option if both parties
determine it is feasible and practicable within their technical and financial constraints.
However, the parties will also work in good faith during master planning for the
Wastewater Treatment Plan and/or Foothills redevelopment discussions to consider other
options for the pathway route and bridge crossing that may be more desirable and less
costly, and that may minimize impairment of Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion
options. The pathway route and bridge alignment should be designed, to the extent
practicable, to buffer pedestrians and bicyclists from wastewater treatment plant
processes. The intent of the parties is to utilize the existing BES-City of Lake Oswego
Foothills Park recreational easement dated December 22, 2004 to the maximum extent
practicable. The parties desire to work cooperatively to achieve the public benefits that
will result from completing this segment of the Willamette River Regional Trail,thereby
improving pedestrian trail connectivity in Lake Oswego and throughout the region.
10. Sign. Subject to the requirements of Article 47 (Sign Code) of the Lake
Oswego Code, BES may post an interpretive sign at the Enhancement Project describing
the project and contributors. Sign details, including, but not limited to, size, content and
location, shall be mutually agreed upon by BES and Lake Oswego staff.
11. Responsibility for Costs. Except as otherwise specified in this Section 11,
BES shall be responsible for, and shall assume, pay and hold Lake Oswego harmless
from, all costs and expenses related to design and construction of the Enhancement
Project and the use of the licenses granted pursuant to this Agreement. If contaminated
or hazardous substances are encountered on Lake Oswego property, BES shall
immediately notify Lake Oswego. BES will handle these materials in accordance with
Exhibit D, Section 00291 of the City of Portland Standard Construction Specifications.
Costs associated with contaminated or hazardous substances discovered in the course of
construction shall be shared equally between Lake Oswego and BES. In the alternative,
Lake Oswego and BES may mutually agree to terminate the project or modify the
project's design to address contaminated or hazardous substances. BES is not
responsible for costs incurred by Lake Oswego for review or administration of this
agreement or the Enhancement Project.
BES shall be responsible for acquiring all permits related to the Enhancement Project at
its expense. The obligation to proceed with the project is contingent upon receipt of
permits and appropriations of funding by Portland City Council.
Page 3 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
12. Monitoring and Maintenance. Following construction of the Enhancement
Project, Lake Oswego may mow, at its discretion, areas designated as "Native Grass
Seed" in Exhibit B. BES shall have no responsibility to mow.
Following construction of the Enhancement Project, Lake Oswego shall grant BES a
license to cross property owned by the City of Lake Oswego, in the location described in
Exhibit B, for the purpose of maintaining the Enhancement Project improvements along
the Tryon Creek corridor. BES shall use this license to perform adaptive maintenance
activities, such as cutting large woody debris, moving and or removing large wood, and
performing localized grading in the creek corridor, all at the expense of BES. BES shall
be responsible for all required notices to local, state and federal agencies when
maintenance is deemed necessary.
Following construction of the Enhancement Project and until December 31, 2015, BES
shall be responsible for monitoring the project area improvements at its expense.
Monitoring activities may include,but are not limited to, photo monitoring, fish counts,
vegetation establishment, survey cross-sections, aquatic and terrestrial observations, and
water quality testing.
BES shall notify Lake Oswego in advance of entering the project area for monitoring or
maintenance activities.
13. Insurance. BES shall require any contractor for the Enhancement Project
to acquire prior to, and to maintain throughout the Enhancement Project,insurance with
coverage and limits as follows:
a. Automobile Liability Insurance for Contractor's/Subcontractor's activities on
the Project Site and off the Project Site:
$1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage per
occurrence for Contractor's/Subcontractor's owned, non-owned, and hired
vehicles.
b. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance for activities off
the Project Site:
Oregon statutory coverage and limits for Workers Compensation Employers
Liability insurance with limits not less than:
$500,000 for each accident-bodily injury by accident.
$500,000 each employee-bodily injury by disease.
$500,000 annual aggregate-bodily injury by disease.
c. Commercial General Liability insurance for activities off the Project Site.
Page 4 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
The policy shall not contain exclusions for Blanket Contractual, Broad Form
Property Damage, Personal Injury, Premises-Operations, Products-Completed
Operations, Independent Contractors, Fire Legal Liability, and Explosion,
Collapse, and Underground (XCU) property damage liability. Policy limits shall
not be less than:
$1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage per
occurrence.
The automobile and general commercial liability insurance coverage obtained by the
Contractor shall name the Owner, the City of Lake Oswego, Metro and the officers,
employees and agents of these parties as additional insureds, and shall not be terminated
or canceled or materially reduced prior to the completion of the Contract without thirty
(30) days written Notice to the Owner, with a copy of such Notice being sent to the City
Auditor. For purposes of computing time, the first day of the thirty days written Notice
shall begin on the day that the Notice is actually received by the City Auditor. Prior to
entry of any Subcontractor onto the Project Site, the Contractor shall provide the Owner
with two originals of each certificate of insurance in force evidencing insurance coverage
of such Subcontractor with limits and conditions as described herein. BES shall provide
the City of Lake Oswego with one of the original certificates of insurance, shall provide
Metro with a copy of the certificate of insurance, and shall provide both City of Lake
Oswego and Metro with copies of any notices received pursuant to this section.
BES shall furnish the City of Lake Oswego and Metro with certificates of insurance
naming both as additional insureds under the City of Portland's Owner Controlled
Insurance Program (OCIP) for Commercial General Liability, with coverage as specified
as follows:
Bodily injury and property damage: $2,000,000 for each occurrence.
General aggregate: $4,000,000 maximum for each annual period.
Products and completed operations: $4,000,000 maximum for each annual
period.
Further discussion of OCIP can be found in Section 170.70 of Exhibit A.
14. Amendments. The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered,
modified, supplemented or amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written
instrument signed by both parties.
15. Captions. The Captions or headings in this Agreement are for
convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any
provisions of this Agreement.
16. No Third Party Beneficiary. BES and Lake Oswego are the only parties to
this Agreement and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing
Page 5 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
contained in this Agreement gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit,
direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties.
17. Indemnification. Within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act,
codified at ORS 30.260 through 30.300, and Article XI, Section 9 of the Oregon
Constitution, each party agrees to indemnify and defend the other and its elected officials,
officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against all claims, demands
penalties and causes of action of any kind or character relating to or arising from this
Agreement, including the cost of defense or attorney fees, arising in favor of any person
on account of personal injury, death or damage to property and arising out of or resulting
from the negligent or other legally culpable acts or omissions of the indemnitor, its
employees, agents, subcontractors or representatives.
18. Termination.
The parties may agree to an immediate termination of this IGA, or at a time certain, upon
mutual written consent.
Either party may terminate this IGA effective not less than 30 days from delivery of
written notice to the other party.
Either party may terminate this IGA effective not less than 10 days from written notice or
at such other date as may be established by both parties under any of the following
conditions:
a. If funding is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for
purchase of the specified services. When possible, and when agreed upon,
the IGA may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds.
b. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or
interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or
appropriate for purchase under this IGA, or are no longer eligible for the
funding proposed for payments authorized by this IGA.
Either party may terminate this IGA in the event of a breach by the other party. Prior to
such termination, however, the party seeking termination shall give the other party written
notice of the party's intent to terminate. If the party has not cured the breach within 10
days or a longer period as granted in the cure notice, the party seeking compliance may
terminate this IGA.
In the event of termination, BES agrees to remove debris and equipment associated with
the Enhancement Project in a manner agreeable to both parties.
/ / /
/ / /
Page 6 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
CITY OF PORTLAND CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Dean Marriot, Bureau Director Jack D Hoffman, Mayor
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
Linda Meng, City Attorney David Powell, City Attorney
Page 7 of 7 Tryon Creek Habitat Enhancement Project IGA
ty O,LAK[
�� co
;' �► CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGON
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director - LOIS
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-03, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council
Approving a Change in the Methodology Relating to Systems
Development Charges ("SDC's") for the Water Utility.
DATE: January 26, 2010
ACTION
Move to approve Resolution 10-03 approving a change in methodology relating to
SDC's for the water utility.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Please see attached Exhibits 'A', 'B', and 'C' for background and context on information
presented by Staff at prior study sessions on this subject.
DISCUSSION
At the close of the prior September 29, 2009 study session, the Council directed staff to
publish notice that a public hearing regarding a proposed modification to existing SDC's
would be held not less than 90-days from the date of the notice. On November 10,
2009, a report supporting a change in SDC methodology was prepared by FCS Group,
and made available for public review and comment as required by LOC 39.04.041.
Since November, staff has engaged members of the development community in
discussions regarding the proposed new SDC methodology. On January 11, 2010,
staff made a presentation to the Home Builders Association (HBA) and then responded
to concerns and questions expressed by members in attendance. On January 19,
2010, staff made a similar presentation to individuals representing the local commercial
development community.
U
Council Report
January 26, 2010
Page 2
From these meetings staff learned that:
• The HBA and local developers are generally supportive of local governments'
collection of SDC's;
• The analysis performed by FCS group supporting the change to Lake Oswego's
SDC methodology is robust, reasonable and is technically based;
• The HBA and local developers we spoke with are opposed to a methodology that
includes debt financing costs; and
• The HBA and commercial developers prefer that any new fees be phased in over
a period of time and preferably over a period of time spanning 3 years.
ALTERNATIVES/FISCAL IMPACTS
Resolution 10-03 as presently drafted reflects the concerns and preferences expressed
by the Home Builders Association and the local development community by:
1. Not including debt financing in the proposed methodology; and
2. Phasing in the proposed new fees over a three-year period.
There are a variety of alternatives available to the Council should it choose not to adopt
Resolution 10-03 as written. They include:
SDC Fee Alternative:
1. Include debt financing costs in the proposed SDC fees.
SDC implementation Alternatives:
1. Phase in the proposed new fees over some period of time other than three
years; or
2. Do not phase in the proposed new fees.
Analysis of Alternatives
Including debt service costs (Pros):
• Including debt financing costs in the proposed new SDC fully captures all costs
necessary to provide system capacity for new development;
• Including debt financing costs in the SDC also has the potential to reduce the
growth of rates/taxes if new development (and associated SDC revenue for debt
service) is lower than expected; and
• Including debt financing adds $2,764 to the water SDC charge for a new single
family home built in Lake Oswego.
r
Council Report
January 26, 2010
Page 3
Cons
• Until such time as new debt is secured, assumed interest costs, issuance costs
and other related issuing costs are speculative and could be subject to
challenge;
• New development may again pay for financing costs through ongoing utility rates
or property taxes;
• If future debt financing costs are collected with each SDC charge, such
additional revenues should be held in reserve and only used for debt service
costs. Reserving this part of the fee has the net effect of equalizing the revenue
streams between a fee with and a fee without debt financing costs;
• There is potential that future debt service costs could be reduced if other sources
of financing become available to fund growth related capital improvements e.g.
grants, low interest loans or developer contributions in aid of construction
(CIAC). In this case, the City will have collected fees in excess of costs.
Implementation Period
Staff has conducted an analysis of the fiscal impact of phasing in the proposed new
fees over a three year period versus charging 100% of the proposed new fees upon
enactment of Resolution 10-03 (see Exhibit 'C'). Assuming the low growth scenario
best reflects historic and near future patterns, the analysis forecasts SDC revenue
reductions totaling about $207,000 over the three year period.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analyses and considering the concerns expressed by the HBA and
local developers, staff recommends the Council approve Resolution 10-03 as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit 'A' — Council report dated July 6, 2009;
2. Exhibit 'B' — Council report dated September 14, 2009;
3. Exhibit 'C' - FCS Group Memorandum from John Ghilarducci to Joel Komarek,
dated September 10, 2009; and
4. Exhibit 'D' — Resolution 10-03
Council Report
January 26, 2010
Page 4
Reviewed by:
� . 6.
•l•artment Director
Fina ce Dire o
/1.4,,(\/
City A 'sr 'e\\
Alex D.42644oilre
City Manager
T
► ►� CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
oeecc$
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director- LOIS
SUBJECT: Water Systems Development Charges Update
DATE: July 6, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to concur with Staff recommendations regarding modifications to
existing methodology for the City's water utility Systems Development Charges("SDC").
These modifications would result in a change in the fees collected at the time new
connections are made to the City's water system. The adoption of a new methodology
for water SDC's is a Council Goal.
INTRODUCTIONIBACKGROUND
LOC 39.02.011 —"The purpose of the system development charge is to impose a
portion of the cost of capital improvements for water, wastewater, drainage, streets,
flood control, and parks and :Al 40 Y upon those developments that create the need
for or increase the demands on capital improvements.'
ORS 223.299(4)(a)—"System development charge" means a reimbursement fee, an
improvement fee or a combination thereof J or collected at the time of
increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit,
building permit or connection to the capital improvement. "System development
charge"includes that portion of a sewer or water system co . . . charge that is
greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average
cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities
EXHIBIT
I 'A '
r
Council Report
July 6, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The last time Systems Development Charges (`SDC')for the water utility underwent
review and updating was in 1998. At that time, staff did not have sufficient knowledge
of the capacity of the existing system to determine whether a change to the
reimbursement portion of the SDC was appropriate and so focused only on updating
the improvement portion of the SDC based upon the then current 1988 Water Master
Plan ("WMP').
In early 2008, Council established a goal and directed staff to undertake a review and
update of all SDC's for its enterprise utilities. Because the water utility had the most
current master plan (2001 and updated through 2007), staff proceeded to undertake a
review and update of water SDC's first. In May 2008, the technical analysis was
complete, but concurrently the City was negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the City of Tigard wherein Tigard would jointly plan, fund and own a portion of the
City's water supply system. The water SDC technical analysis was conducted for two
scenarios - with'and "without'Tigard. Until an agreement with Tigard was finalized,
the water SOC analysis could not be completed and thus, staff took possession of the
consultant's work products completed to date and terminated the contract.
In August 2008, the City executed an agreement with Tigard forming a water supply
partnership. in February 2009, the City retained FCS Group, a municipal finance
consulting firm to resume and complete the water SDC update effort. In May 2009 FCS
Group completed the technical work. The basis for the SDC alternatives and fiscal
impacts discussed below will be explained in detail as part of Staffs presentation on
July 14th.
ORS 223.304 requires local government desiring to establish or modify a
reimbursement fee or improvement fee to do so pursuant to resolution or ordinance_ At
its Jury 14, 2009 study session, staff will present the findings of the technical analysis to
Council along with recommendations for modifications to the existing SDC methodology
and applicable City Code. The proposed modifications are based on:
3 Rate making principles;
• Prior contributions of existing users of the system;
• The value of unused capacity available to future users of the system.
▪ Recognition of grants, gifts or other contributions toward development of the
system by federal or state government or private persons;
• The projected cost of capital improvements identified in the plan and Iist
adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity
of the systems for which the fee is related; and
• The need for increased capacity in the system to served demands placed on
the system by future users.
r
Council Report
July 6, 2009
Page 3
Before a local goy can establish or modify a SDC any persons that have made
written request for notification prior to adoption or amendment of a methodology for a
SDC must be provided written notice at least 90 days prior to the first hearing to
establish or modify a system development charge. The methodology supporting the
system development charge must be available at least 60 days prior to the first hearing.
Legal action contesting the methodology used for calculating a SDC may not be filed
after 50 days following adoption or modification of the system development charge
ordinance or resolution by the local government.
ALmRNATTVES
At the Juy 14t study session, Staff will seek:
1. Council direction to proceed with the statutory noticing of the p.,.r y.] change in
water SDC methodology and make available the proposed „,:ology to
1,....w::.d parties. The proposed water SDC methodology is based on the
following:
a The construction of the expanded facilities for the Lake Oswego/Tigard
water supply partnership as recommended in the"Joint Water Supply
System Analysis", Carollo Engineers, July 2007 ("Carollo Reports);
b. A policy that the City will not attempt to recover future debt service costs
as a component of the proposed new water SDC;
c. Construction of the capital improvements as currently . ended in
the approved 2001 (updated through 2007) Water Master Plan;
d. Customer growth based on demand forecasts as contained in the Carollo
Report;
e. Inclusion of administrative costs in the SDC;
f. Meter equivalent based on standard 3/4-inch residential service; and
g. Full cost recovery and impact based SDC.
2. Council Direction to propose at a future public hearing, certain amendments to
Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 39 regarding SDC credits.
Alternatives for Council consideration include:
t. Accepting the proposed new water SDC methodology as recommended by Staff;
2. Rejecting the proposed new water SDC methodology and directing Staff to
modify the proposed methodology to:
a. Include future debt service costs in the proposed water SDC and/or;
b. Remove certain projects from the CiP as recommended in the 2001
Water Master Plan (as updated)and/or;
c. Exclude recovery of expenses associated with administering the SDC
program.
Council Report
July 6, 2009
Page 4
3. Accepting the proposed new water SDC methodology as ended by Staff
but phasing the new fees in over a period of two calendar years beginning
January 1, 2010.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal impacts of the various alternatives enumerated above are:
Alternative 1
Fees for each new 3/4-inch water service would ' January 1, 2010 from $2,485
to$6,404. Existing rate payers would no longer subsidize new development in the City.
Instead, new growth would reimburse those residents who contributed to the
construction of the water system now serving new growth and would contribute their
proportionate share to construct new facilities to serve future growth.
Alternative 2
2.a.— Fees for each new 3/4-inch water service would increase January 1, 2010 from
$2,485 to$9,168. It is not knowable with certainty whether this SDC would over or
under collect relative to future debt service costs.
2.b.—The fiscal impact of this sub-alternative is unknown and depends upon which CIP
projects were removed from the approved list. Assuming any project associated with
the Lake Oswego/Tigard partnership is not subject to such action, remaining p...;:...:s
primarily are focused at addressing existing deficiencies in the City's water supply
system. It is assumed that recommended CIP projects to serve future growth could be
eI urinated, thus creating a defacto moratorium on future growth.
2.c. —Selecting this alternative would reduce the proposed new SDC fee for a 3/4-inch
service from $6,404 to $5,988 and would not recover costs to administer the SDC
program.
Alternative 3
Fees for each new 3/4-inch water service would increase January 1, 2010 from $2,485
to $4,445. On January 1, 2011, the fee would increase again to the proposed full SDC
amount of$6,404. During the first year of imple , existing rate payers would
continue to subsidize new growth albeit at a smaller scale than currently is the case.
Council Report
July 6, 2009
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
It is :J that Council direct staff to : :J with the required public n.
of a proposed change to its existing water SDC that reflects the methodology of
Alternative 1.
Reviewed by:
D4partment Director
Finance Director
City Attorney
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
�Syat LAKE ask,
40
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director- LOIS
SUBJECT: Water Systems Development Charges Update
DATE: September 14, 2009
ACTION
Staff seeks direction from Council regarding the following issues first discussed with
Council at a Study Session heid July 14, 2009:
1. Whether or not to move forward with implementation of a change in the current
methodology used to calculate water utility SDC's as recommended by staff in
the prior presentation;
2. Whether or not to phase in implementation of the staff recommended
methodology over a period of time greater than one year; and
3. Whether or not to initiate additional planning and financial analysis and public
outreach as may be necessary in order to implement a water utility SDC
methodology different than that proposed by staff and one that is intended to
promote certain types of development in the City.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Please see the Council report attached as Exhibit'A' for background and context on
information presented by Staff at the prior July 14, 2009 study session on this subject.
At the close of the prior meeting, the Council asked staff to conduct further research
into SDC methodologies and return at a future study session to present the findings of
its research. The attached Exhibit 'B' reviews the direction given to Staff by Council at
its prior study session and provides a brief discussion on the findings of the additional
research.
TE,XHI7lr
r
Council Report
September 14, 2009
Page 2
This new information and a brief historical perspective on SDC's in Oregon will be
presented by Staff in the upcoming September 29th study session through use of a
PowerPoint presentation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council direct staff to proceed with the required public noticing
of a proposed change to its existing water SDC that reflects the methodology as
presented by Staff at the July 14th study session (otherwise known as "Alternative 1") in
Exhibit 'A'.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit 'A' —Council report dated July 6, 2009.
2. Exhibit 'B' —FCS Group Memorandum from John Ghilarducci to Joel Komarek,
dated September 10, 2009.
Reviewed by:
Department Director
Finance Director
City Attorney
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
EXHIBIT
3
Y '
•:;> FCS GROUP
Memorandum
To: .Joel Komarek Date: 5 10, 2009
From: John Ghilarducci
RE: July 14 Council meeting follow-up
As stated in your e-mail dated July 15, 2009, the following points summarize City staffs
understanding of Council's direction following the SDC presentation and discussion on.July 14,
2009. A . :, is included after each item.
1. Staff understands we are not to publish the 9o-day notice until further discussion with the
Council takes place at a study session to be scheduled in September;
The 90-day notice has riot been published to date and will he published only as directed by
Council.
2. Staff understands the Council is interested in being presented with information in September
about what other municipalities are doing . .. adopting and implementing technical vs
policy-based SDC's for their enterprise utilities;
We found that very.few if any water utilities offer what could be called policy-based SDCs or
SDC adjustments. [We, >.u.Jed Portland, Gresham, West Linn.Milwaukie, Eugene,and
the League of Oregon Cities.] This conclusion was confirmed in our meeting with Metro,
where it was noted that most policy-based SI)C adjustments are provided for stormwater—
for varying levels and types of on-site mitigation. Some on-site mitigation can be
documented to reduce the need for system facilities, a technical-based adjustment. Some
on-site mitigation,lout-impact development, etc., reduces local:,. __, in non-storm events
but does little to reduce system needs and costs. Such on-site facilities / activities are
sometimes rewarded by policy-based SDC adjustments.
For example. the City of Gresham authorizes the Council to establish an SI)C credit "to j
further the objective of promoting low impact treatment best t practices, as
described by the Water Quality Manual, that will ,y.:..:...:.r or a:. :a ,., the discharge of
stormwater carried pollution from developed T. r y."
The most common adjustment allowed for transportation SDCs authorizes a new customer
to provide a traffic study documenting trip generation, 1the Institute
of T;..,._�r ..anon F.'., :. (I7E) Trip Manual trip a,.,l., statistics.
commonly used to calculate transportation system impact and associated SDCs. This is a
technical-based SDC adjustment,however. An example of a policy-based adjustment would
be providing an SDC reduction for the implementation of traffic demand management. We
did notfind any examples ofsuch an...1.,,, . ., ..`t.
3. Staff understands Council is _.-,. . 1 in exploring other implementation alterna e.g.,
phasing in over a longer period of time say 3 or 4 years instead of two in an attempt to delay
Redmmmd TOWN Center, '325 166 Ave NE,Solite J :15 Redmond WA 98052 • 425.867.1802
?2S Bush Street,Suite 1825,San Francisco,CA 94104 • 415.445.8947
4380 SW Macadam Ave.,Site 220,Portland,OR 9?:'39♦ 503.841.6543
9/10/2009 FCS GROUP Memorandum
Joel Komarek
Council meeting follow-up
the full cost impact on new development and time that full impact with improved economic
conditions;
We have developed a 3-year phasing scenario Pr consideration (below). In addition to
showing the phased charges, the table provides estimated cost recovery / revenue losses
under low (5%/year), medium (.73%/year), and high (1%/year) growth. Total projected
revenue lost ranges from $207,536 under low growth to $414.855 under high growth, due
to phasing.
WATER SDC PHASE-IN SCHEDULE&FORECASTED REVENUE LOSS
FY 2009 I FY 2010 FY 2011 I FY 2012 Total
Projected Revenues with No Phasing
Low Growth(0.50%I year) $ 486,845 $ 489,279 $ 491,726 S 1.467,850
Medium Growth(0.73%/year) $ 710,794 $ 715.982 $ 721,209 $ 2,147,985
High Growth(1.00%/year) S 973,690 $ 983,427 $ 993,261 $ 2.950,378
3-Year Phase In
Adopted Water SDC I $ 2,485 I $ 3,989 I$ 5,494 I $ 6,998
Low Growth $ 303,273 $ 419,719 $ 537,322 $ 1.260,313
Medium Growth S 442,7/8 $ 614,192 $ 788,085 $ 1,845.055
High Growth S 606.545 $ 843,614 $ 1,085,363 $ 2,535.523
Revenue Difference Over Proposed SDC
Low Growth(0.50%/year) S (183,572) $ (69,560) $ 45,596 $ (207,536)
Medium Growth(0.73%/year) S (268,016) $ (101.791) $ 66,876 $ (302,931)
High Growth(1.00%/year) S (367,145) $ (139.813) $ 92,102 $ (414,855)
4. Staff understands Council is interested in understanding what the fiscal implications are of
various implementation alternatives on rate payers and the development community;
Under a 3-year phased implementation, the current charge of $2,485 per 3/4" meter
equivalent(ME)would increase to $3,989 for the remainder of Moto, then to$5,494 for
Mott, and_finally to $6,998 per 3/4"ME for F12012. The revenue losses detailed above
would be made up by rates,but the increases would not be dollar for dollar. In fact,the lost
revenue in the next three years would likely require larger debt issues later. The resulting
annual rate impacts would be minimal.
5. Staff understands the Mayor would like us to have a conversation with Dorothy Atwood
regarding the information contained on pg. 21 of the Metro SDC report,that relates to impact
based SDC's;
City staff and the consultant met with Metro staff(Chris Deffebach(md Miranda Bateschell)
to discuss the recommendations provided in "Promoting Vibrant Communities with System
Development Charges"and opportunities to incorporate their recommendations into the
Water SDC analysis.
6. Staff will provide the Council with the CIP projects list from the 2001 Water Master Plan(this
will be forthcoming in hardcopy to each councilor due to the large file size that makes
•:;> FCS GROUP
r
9/10/2009 FCS GROUP Memorandum
Joel Komarek
Council meeting follow-up
emailing impractical), a copy of last evening's presentation (attached) and the listing of the
LO/Tigard partnership projects(also attached to this email). For those interested in more in-
depth review of the Carollo report,let me know and I can provide it to you on CD;
Staff has provided the requested information to the Council.
•::) FCS GROUP Page 3
•
. r
RESOLUTION 10-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CHANGE
IN THE METHODOLOGY RELATING TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR
THE WATER UTILITY.
Whereas, the City of Lake Oswego owns and operates a municipal water supply system;
and
Whereas, ORS 223.297 to 223.314 provides a uniform framework for the imposition of
system development charges by local governments, to provide equitable funding for
orderly growth and development in Oregon's communities and to establish that the
charges may be used only for capital improvements; and
Whereas, ORS 223.309 requires that prior to the establishment of a system
development charge by ordinance or resolution, a local government shall prepare a
capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan or comparable plan that
includes a list of the capital improvements that the local government intends to fund, in
whole or in part, with revenues from an improvement fee and the estimated cost, timing
and percentage of costs eligible to be funded with revenues from the improvement fee
for each improvement; and
Whereas, the City, in anticipation of establishing a system development charge for its
municipal water supply system, did prepare a water master plan ("Plan") that includes a
list of the capital improvements the City intends to fund, in whole or in part, with system
development charges and that Plan titled "City of Lake Oswego Water System Master
Plan, Final Report, January, 2001" is on file with the Public Works Director; and
Whereas, the City, having prepared a plan for capital improvements financed by system
development charges, did establish by enactment of Ordinance 2030, a system
development charge; and
Whereas, pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Tigard, the City
has modified the Plan to include additional capital improvements that will be funded in
whole or in part from system development charges; and
Whereas, pursuant to LOC 39.04.041 modification of the Plan has created the need for
an amendment of the methodology used to calculate system development charges and
the City Council elects to comply with the requirements of LOC 39.04.041 by approving
this Resolution 10-03 following a public hearing; and
Whereas, the City has complied with LOC 39.04.041(4) and ORS 223.307 by notifying
interested parties by written notice on November 11, 2009 of the proposed change in
methodology and by making available to interested parties the report titled "Water
System Development Charge Study, Final Report, Lake Oswego, Oregon, November
10, 2009", which documents the methodology supporting the amendment.
Resolution 10-03
Page 1 of 3
r
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL
THAT:
Section 1. The 2001 Water Master Plan capital improvements list is hereby amended to
include the list contained within Appendix B of the report titled "Water System
Development Charge Study, Final Report, Lake Oswego, Oregon November 10, 2009,"
and the amended list is hereby adopted as the list of capital improvements to be funded
with water system development charge improvement fee revenues; and
Section 2. The system development charge fees currently charged for new connections
to the municipal water system as shown on page 45 of the City's 2010 edition of Master
Fees and Charges are hereby replaced by the schedule of charges (excluding debt
financing costs) attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'; and
Section 3. "Attachment A" of the 2010 edition of Master Fees and Charges is replaced
by Appendix B of the report titled "Water System Development Charge Study, Final
Report, Lake Oswego, Oregon November 10, 2009"; and
Section 4. The 2001 Water Master Plan as modified by this Resolution is hereby
adopted pursuant to LOC 30.04.071 and ORS 223.309; and
Section 5. The new system development charge fees established by this Resolution
shall be implemented in a series of three (3) annual step increases with each step above
the current charge equal to 1/3 of the arithmetic difference between the new charge and
the current charge for each meter size listed in Exhibit 'A'. An example for a 3/4-inch
meter follows:
Date of Enactment (a) + 365 calendar days (b) + 365 calendar days
(a) (b)
1/3 x ($6,404 - $2,478) + (A) + 1/3 x ($6,404 - $2,478) (B) + 1/3 x ($6,404 - $2,478)
$2,485 + indexing charge for + indexing charge for
(A) inflation on sum of(A) + (B) inflation on sum of(A) + (B)
(B)
New fee = $3,787 New fee = $5,095 New fee = $6,404
Note: Totals in last row rounded to near whole dollar and excluding indexing for inflation.
Section 5. Effective Date: This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego held on the 2nd day of February, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Resolution 10-03
Page 2 of 3
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED FORM:
David Powell, City Attornby
Resolution 10-03
Page 3 of 3
■' l�ts /O l.O 3
■' �`l div
■
■
■
•
■
•
■
■
■
■
■
• Lake Oswego,
■ Oregon
■
Final Report
■
■ WATER SYSTEM
CONSULTING SERVICES PROVIDED BY: DEVELOPMENT
■ •:;> FCS GROUP CHARGE STUDY
■ Solutions-Oriented Consulting
■
WASHINGTON:
■ Redmond Town Center
7525 166th Ave. NE,Suite D-215 November 10, 2009
■ Redmond,WA 98052
T: 425.867.1802 F: 425-867-1937
i
. OREGON: r-4614-taa
4380 SW Macadam Ave.,Suite 220 °
Portland,Oregon 97239 \
■ T: 503.841.6543 F: 503.841.6573
�� -0141
CALIFORNIA:
� 225 Bush Street, Suite 1825
San Francisco,California 94104
■ T: 415-445-8947 F: 415-398-1601
■ This entire report is made of readily recyclable materials,including
the bronze wire binding and the front and back cover,which are
made from post-consumer re(-ycled plastic bottles. www.fcsgroup.com
— r
■
■
•::> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
■
November 10, 2009
Mr. Joel Komarek
r LOIS Project Director
City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
r Lake Oswego, OR 97034
✓ Subject: Water System Development Charge Study
✓ Dear Mr. Komarek:
■
r FCS GROUP is pleased to submit this final report summarizing the results of our water system
development charge (SDC) study for the City of Lake Oswego. Our findings indicate that the
■ City can increase its water SDC to $9,168 per 3/4-inch water meter equivalent (ME) should it
choose to recover expected debt financing costs, or$6,404 per ME should it not.
■
Mi It has been a pleasure working with the City on this important project. Please do not hesitate to
contact us at (425) 867-1802 ext. 225 if you have any follow-up questions.
■
Sincerely,
■
i24_
r John Ghilarducci
Principal
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
City of Iake Oswego,OR
■ Water SDC Study
■
■
■ TABLE OF CONTENTS
■
■
I. Introduction 1
■
■ II. System Development Charge Methodology 1
■ III. Water SDC Calculation 3
■
■
■
■ APPENDICES
■
SDC Presentation Appendix A
■ Technical Analysis Appendix B
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■ •:;>FCS GROUP
■
■
City of Lake Oswego,OR
■ Water SDC Study
■
■ I. INTRODUCTION
In March 2009, the City of Lake Oswego contracted with Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc. (FCS
GROUP), to perform a system development charge (SDC) study for its water service. Lake Oswego is a
■ mature but growing city experiencing increasing demands on its water infrastructure. The City's latest water
system plan identified a number of improvement projects that are needed to meet the needs of buildout
. development. With this study, the City wished to implement equitable, adequate, and defensible SDCs that
would generate funding to meet the needs of future users without unduly burdening existing residents and
■ business owners.
. Consistent with these objectives, the following general approach was used to calculate the water SDC:
. Conduct Technical Analysis. In this step, we compiled the list of SDC-eligible project costs and worked
with City staff to isolate the recoverable portion of existing and planned facility costs. The technical
analysis is included as Appendix B.
■ Assemble Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we wrote the report describing the resulting
charges, identified applicable Metro recommendations, and participated in Council and public meetings.
The SDC presentation packet is included as Appendix A.
■ II. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
■
Legal Authority and Conceptual Basis
■ A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new development (and some types of re-
development) at the time of development. The fee is intended to recover growth's fair share of the costs of
existing and planned facilities that provide the necessary capacity to accommodate future development.
■ Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297 - 223.314 defines SDCs and specifies how they shall be calculated,
applied, and accounted for. By statute,an SDC is the sum of two components:
■ a reimbursement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements already
constructed or under construction,and
an improvement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements to be
■ constructed in the future.
. The reimbursement fee methodology must be based on "the value of unused capacity available to future
system users or the cost of the existing facilities", and must further consider prior contributions by existing
■ users and gifted and grant-funded facilities. The calculation must also "promote the objective of future system
users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities." Reimbursement fee
proceeds may be spent on any capital improvements related to the systems for which the SDC is applied—
i.e., water SDCs must be spent on water improvements.
• The improvement fee methodology must include only the cost of projected capital improvements or portions
of improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words, the cost(s) of planned
projects or portions of projects that correct existing deficiencies, or do not otherwise increase capacity for
■ future users, may not be included in the improvement fee calculation. Improvement fee proceeds may be
■ spent only on capital improvements, or portions thereof,which increase the capacity of the systems for which
they were applied.
■
■ •:> FCS GROUP
■
■
City of Lake Oswego,OR
■ Water SIC Study
■ Calculation Summary
In general,an SDC is calculated by adding the applicable reimbursement fee component to the applicable
improvement fee component. Each separate component is calculated by dividing the eligible cost by the
appropriate measure of growth in capacity demand. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the charge.
i A sample calculation is shown below.
. I Reimbursement Fee I Improvement Fee SDC
■ Eligible cost Eligible cost of planned
of capacity in capacity-increasing
existing facilities + capital improvements = SDC ($ / unit)
. Growth in system Growth in system
capacity demand capacity demand
■
■ SDC (Improvement Fee) Credits
The law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee for the construction of qualified public
a improvements. Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum, credits be provided against the
improvement fee for
• "the construction of a qualified public improvement.A`qualified public improvement'means a capital
■ improvement that is required as a condition of development approval,identified in the plan and list adopted
pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
■ (a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval;or
■ (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and
required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to
■ which the improvement fee is related."
The law further states that credits
"may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local government's
■ minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development project or property."
. The City's current SDC credit policy appears to meet all statutory requirements, however we understand its
current application may exceed minimum legal requirements. This is due to the provision of cash
reimbursement on the basis of the cost of developer-provided improvements, as opposed to reimbursement
■ based on the assessed improvement fee. For example, if a development requires a 6" main and the developer
installs an 8" main, the City will provide cash reimbursement for the extra 2". Because this may lead to a
. credit that is greater than the improvement fee, and because it includes cash reimbursement, this crediting
procedure may exceed minimum statutory requirements.
a We recommend that the City revise its crediting procedures to meet minimum legal requirements. We believe
■ it is important for the City to retain as much control as possible over the prioritization and implementation of
its capital plan(s). These plans are created to address total system needs—not just the needs of growth.
Without control over how and when those needs are addressed, the re-prioritization of projects over time can
leave important capacity needs unmet. To avoid this outcome, credits should:
• be only for the portion of the agreed-upon or planned cost of capacity in excess of that needed to
serve the particular development•,
■
■
• FCS GROUP
■
II
City of Lake Oswego,OR
111 Water SDC Study
• be for planned projects only;
r include cash reimbursement only from improvement fees generated by the build out of the
■ development in question; and
• be provided only upon completion of a"qualified public improvement".
1111
Indexing Charge for Inflation
Oregon law (ORS 223.304) allows for the periodic indexing of system development charges for inflation, as
• long as the index used is
• "(A)A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for
materials, labor,real property or a combination of the three;
• (B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for reasons that are
. independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate ordinance,
5 resolution or order."
■ We recommend that the City continue to index the water SDC to the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-
City Average Construction Cost Index (CCI), and adjust the charge annually as per that index. For reference,
• the April 2009 20-City CCI was 8,528.39.
• III. WATER SDC CALCULATION
• The City's existing water SDCs are applied by meter size, as shown in the charge schedule below:
• Meter Size SDC
5/8"x 3/4" $ 2,485
3/4" $ 2,485
1" $ 4,139
.
1 '/2" $ 8,283
•
2" $ 16,565
3" $ 39,757
4" $ 69,574
6" $ 152,403
• 8" $ 265,048
■ 10" $ 414,138
Both the existing and the proposed charges are based on meter flow capacity as expressed by the number of
• meter equivalents (MEs). Meter flow capacity is directly linked to each customer's potential water demand—
not just average use. As meter sizes increase, flow capacity increases exponentially, as does necessary system
• sizing. Therefore, associated charges increase significantly from meter size to meter size—with the exponential
• change in potential demand.
The calculation of the proposed water SDC is summarized below and provided in detail in Appendix B.
capacity basis
In order to estimate the number of meter equivalents to be generated by build out development growth— the
• denominator in both the reimbursement and improvement fee calculations—the following approach was
taken.
•:;> FCS GROUP
111
. _ �
■
City of Lake Oswego,OR
■ Water SDC Study
■ The City's June 2009 Water Cost-of-Service Rate Study projected that the water utility would serve
15,204 MEs in 2009.
■ The 2007 Joint Water Supply System Analysis forecasted that population growth within the City's urban
service boundary(USB) would average 0.73% per year through 2030. Accordingly, the 2009 population
for the City's USB was determined to be 42,762 by applying this annual growth rate to the 2005 USB
population of 41,528.
• The Joint Water Supply System Analysis also forecasted a City build out population of 61,016—
II including Metro's high build out estimate for the Stafford Triangle.
. Total 2009 meter equivalents were then grown proportionately with the forecasted population growth to
build out, resulting in a projected total of 21,695 meter equivalents. This represented growth of 6,490
meter equivalents. It is important to note that forecasted growth in MEs may not occur proportionally
with population. Absent specific projections, however, this is a necessary simplifying assumption.
Reimbursement l ee Calculation
In order to estimate the cost of unused capacity in the existing water system—the numerator in the
reimbursement fee calculation —the following approach was taken.
. The City provided a fixed asset listing which reported capital assets in service totaling$60,860,799 for
the water utility as of FY 2008.
• Projects completed in FY 2008 — totaling$1,574,911 —were then added.
Costs from the FY 2008 asset listing were allocated to growth based on a 2007 review of system capacity
■ by component (raw water intake, pipeline, treatment, transmission,distribution, pumping, storage, etc.).
This amounted to 16.7% of total costs, after accounting for customer growth to FY 2009. Similarly, the
cost of assets added in FY 2008 was allocated to growth based on improvement capacities reported in the
City's 2001 Water System Master Plan. This amounted to 16.3%, after adjusting for customer growth to
■ FY 2009. Growth's share of total existing asset costs amounted to $10,436,307.
The existing unused capacity cost total of$10,436,307 was then adjusted as follows:
■ A pro-rata share of contributed assets as of FY 2009, totaling $15,438,027,was deducted;
■ For the charge including financing costs, a pro-rata share of net utility debt interest outstanding,
$3,653,134 at the time of the study,was added;
And for the charge excluding financing costs, a pro-rata share of net utility debt principal
outstanding, $10,205,000 at the time of the study,was deducted.
The sum of the costs of unused capacity, $10,436,307, less a pro-rata share of contributed assets of
■ $2,580,758 and either (1) including a pro-rata share of outstanding debt interest of$611,049 or (2)
111 $8,466,748
a pro-rata share of outstanding debt principal of$1,706,961, resulted in net unused capacity of
$8,466,748 including financing costs and $6,148,588 excluding financing costs. These became the
■ reimbursement fee cost bases for the two charge scenarios.
. Based on forecasted growth of 6,490 meter equivalents, the resulting reimbursement fee was $1,305 per ME
including financing costs and $947 per ME excluding financing costs.
■
IN
■
•: FCS GROUP
City of Lake Oswego,OR
Water SDC Study
Improvement Fee Calculation
in The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity-increasing capital improvements for
inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis.
• The 2001 Water System Master Plan and the 2008 Water Partnership Agreement Between The City of
111 Lake Oswego and The City of Tigard provided the combined list of capital projects needed to meet build
■ out capacity demand. To determine a current dollar cost for the projects, the ENR's 20-City Average
Construction Cost Index of 8,528.39 for April 2009 was applied to Master Plan project costs and a 6%
annual escalator was applied to Water Partnership project costs—as directed by the Joint Water Supply
System Analysis. The sum of this list of project costs in current dollars was $78,310,971.
Debt financing for improvements was forecasted by the City's 2009 water rate study. Adjusting for
✓ current project cost estimates, total debt of$65,234,766 is expected to be issued. The water rate study
assumed revenue bond terms of 4% interest, 2% issuance cost, and a 20-year repayment. The resulting
sum of interest costs in current dollars was $32,071,694.
. Project cost allocations to growth for 2001 Master Plan projects were determined by the amount of
capacity for future users provided by each project. Allocations to growth for improvements related to the
Lake Oswego-Tigard partnership were based on the excess capacity share of the total capacity allotted to
Lake Oswego.
a
The growth share of future interest costs was determined by the average unused capacity percentage of all
in Partnership project costs: 48.7%.
. The resulting sum of all "SDC-eligible" project costs was $49,206,775 including financing costs and
$33,582,063 excluding financing costs.
■ Finally, the beginning FY 2009 Water SDC Fund Balance, $867,116,was deducted from the total
eligible cost to (1) recognize that the fund balance is available for spending on the project list and (2)
prevent new customers from paying for those project costs twice. The resulting improvement fee cost
basis was$48,339,659 if financing costs were included and $32,714,947 if financing costs were not
■ included.
Based on forecasted growth of 6,490 meter equivalents, the resulting improvement fee was $7,448 per ME
including financing costs and $5,041 per ME excluding financing costs.
Recommended System Development Charge
The recommended water SDC is the sum of the reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, adjusted by an
administrative cost recovery factor of 4.75% if financing costs are included or 6.94% if they are not. The
administrative cost recovery factor was derived by dividing annual SDC program accounting and
■ administrative costs, including the amortized cost of this study, by forecasted annual SDC revenues. The
resulting recommended SDC schedules are provided below.
a
a
a
a
a
■
•:;> FCS GROUP
U
City of Lake Oswego,OR
• Water SDC Study
Ill Recommended Charge Including Financing Costs
a
Meter Size Reimbursement Fee Improvement Fee Total
II 3/4" $ 1,366 $ 7,802 $ 9,168
1" $ 2,277 $ 13,002 $ 15,280
12 1.5" $ 4,555 $ 26,007 $ 30,562
II 2" $ 7,288 $ 41,610 $ 48,898
3" $ 14,576 $ 83,220 $ 97,796
■ 4" $ 22,775 $ 130,032 $ 152,807
6" $ 45,550 $260,062 $ 305,612
111 8" $ 72,873 $416,057 $488,929
U 10" $104,766 $598,145 $ 702,911
II
Recommended Charge Excluding Financing Costs
II
Meter Size Reimbursement Fee Improvement Fee Total
III
3/4" $ 1,013 $ 5,391 $ 6,404
II 1" $ 1,689 $ 8,984 $ 10,673
1.5" $ 3,377 $ 17,971 $ 21,348
• 2" $ 5,404 $ 28,752 $ 34,156
3" $ 10,808 $ 57,504 $ 68,312
II 4" $ 16,887 $ 89,851 $ 106,738
■ 6" $ 33,774 $ 179,701 $213,475
8" $ 54,033 $287,493 $ 341,525
■ 10" $ 77,680 $413,315 $490,995
U
II SDC Application
in approaches
July 2007, the Portland Area Metropolitan Service District (Metro) published a report detailing the various
approaches to crafting system development charges that meet regional objectives. While noting that the
■ applicability of each approach varied by jurisdiction, the report provided a number of recommendations
designed to achieve impact-based SDCs and full cost recovery within the framework of current Oregon
a legislation. In updating the water SDC methodology for the City of Lake Oswego, the project team
considered the following five key SDC practices and policies-and their associated criteria-from the Metro
U report:
in Full Cost Recovery,
■ capital improvements plan projecting needs for at least 10 years
iiia reimbursement fee component
inclusion of planning and financing costs, as well as the costs of calculating the SDC and
U accounting for their expenditures and revenues
U an annual charge adjustment to account for changes in land and materials costs
a
a
NI •:;> FCS GROUP
■
City of Lake Oswego,OR
1111 Water SDC Study
Impact-Based SDCs,
land use—vary fees by land use (homes, apartments,grocery stores, offices, etc.)
development size—vary residential charge by lot size (related to irrigation)
■ density—vary residential fee by units per lot (higher density results in lower charge)
■ Recognition of Cost Variations by Location,
area-specific charges recommended where cost differences may be significant (particularly
relevant for growth in currently unserved areas)
Green Design,
• reduced SDC for on-site facilities that reduce demand
. and Technical vs. Policy-Based Solutions
give preference to technically-based (cost-justified and quantifiable) considerations over
r policy-based approaches.
With the goal of full cost recovery in mind, the recommended charges are based on comprehensive project
lists that meet system needs for over twenty years and include planning costs, reimbursement fee components,
and the costs of calculating the SDCs and accounting for their expenditure and receipt. Additionally,we have
a recommended that the charges be adjusted annually to account for changes in materials and labor costs.
Charges that included the financing costs that were expected to be incurred as the water project lists were
■ completed have been calculated and presented.
. However, the water SDC is not impact-based in the sense that the charge does not vary by land use. This is
due to the fact that land use is not readily applicable to the water SDC, especially given the significant
✓ complexity such a distinction would add to the water SDC calculation.
■ Also, a consideration for residential lot area was not included in the charge calculation as it was determined
that the installed meter size would be an acceptable indicator for irrigation activity.
■ We also reviewed the relevancy of area-specific charges for the City. It was determined that an area-specific
■ charge would not be appropriate for the City, as capital improvement needs for currently unserved areas have
not been fully identified and reviewed.
Regarding discounted fees for on-site design features and facilities that reduce demand, we have
■ recommended that the City adjust the charge only to the extent that on-site facilities reduce potential water
demand as measured by the meter flow capacity.
Finally, to promote charges that recover the full cost of meeting the demand needs of new development,we
. also recommended that the City give preference to technically-based considerations over policy-based
approaches. As a result, the proposed SDCs do not include policy-based discounts for any type of targeted
development.
a
a
■
•:;> FCS GROUP
•
•
0
II
QU
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
7
�- 11111111111 • 111111 • 111111111 MIME ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ II
'
of LAKE oS , ~3' i I i i. I^'
`\1V f C0 1 %e
E w;
i '4 -- -- lal *tif"Viliih. ' -=.. - '
''''-. --A 6- i- _,T.d•r.—--,..0 1:y2-— 44, ,... ---....-_. __......,— „um
✓: T
1
Water System D
Charge (SDC) Update
Presented by
John Ghilarducci, FCS GROUP Principal
•.;> FCS GROUP 14020 SE Johnson Road, Suite 205, Milwaukie, OR 97267 (503) 353-7440
solid , nripot,,!(nnsuIting 7525166Eh Ave. NE, Suite D-215, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 867-1802
I
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Background
Key Characteristics
kciw1. SDCs are one-time charges, not
ongoing rates.
ORS 223.297 - 314, defines 2. SDCs are for capital only, in both
"a uniform framework for their calculation and in their use.
the imposition of" SDCs,
3. Properties which are already
"to provide equitable funding developed do not pay SDCs
for orderly growth and unless they "redevelop".
development in Oregon's
I
p g 4. SDCs include both future and
communities" existing cost components.
5. SDCs are for general facilities,
not "local" facilities.
• FCS GROUP
Snlutiurn-Oriented Consulting 2
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m i i m ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s ® a ■ ■ i w A ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Components and Calculation
Reimbursement Improvement System Development
Fee Fee Charge
a
Eligible value of Eligible cost of
unused capacity planned capacity mom
in existing facilities increasing facilities
!� per unit of capacity
Growth in demand Growth in demand
for system capacity for system capacity
•:;> FCS GROUP
Sulution4-Oriented Consulting
3
City of Lake Oswego
Credits against the improvement fee
must be provided for the construction
of a 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, 11' �
is required to provide more
capacity than needed by the (0,-4 �
11+
development in question. �l
❖,> FCS GROUP
4
i
City of Lake Oswego
Key Points / Assumptions
II Customer growth based on build-out demand forecast from 2007
Joint Water Supply System Analysis
R
All project costs updated to current dollars
Partnership projects escalated to reconcile with Joint Water Supply
System Analysis (6% per year)
• All other projects escalated by Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index
"Base" scenario does not include project financing (interest) costs
"Meter equivalent" based on 3 4" x 3 4" meter size
q / / , per current
development standards
The following Metro recommendations were incorporated into the
analysis:
1) Full Cost Recovery
2) Impact-Based SDCs
3) Technical vs. Policy-Based Solutions
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
5
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Calculation
Base Scenario: Without Financing Costs
I q I
/ ; mg 111; II ilk
/
fil Mr 191 1.k sk
I •:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting 6
w
■ ■ ! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ oi ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •
City of Lake Oswego
1 Fee Calculations
1
1 . Capacity Analysis
Projected Growth 6,490 Meter Equivalents
Reimbursement Fee Calculation
Allocable Unused Capacity Cost $ 6,148,588
Reimbursement Fee $ 947 per ME
Improvement Fee Calculation
Capacity Increasing Project Costs $ 32,714,947
Improvement Fee $ 5,041 per ME
•:> FCS GROUP
Solution-Oriented(:unuilting
7
■ I I I U ■ ! ■ I ■ / R ■ ■ ■
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Calculation
System Development Charge
Reimbursement Fee $ 947 per ME
Improvement Fee 5,041 per ME
ii Subtotal $ 5,988 per ME
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery 1 6.94% 1 $ 416 per ME
Total SDC $ 6,404 per ME
• FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Application
Meter Flow Meter-Based
Meter Size Factor SDC
3/4" 1 .00 $ 6,404
1 " 1 .67 $ 10,673
1 .5" 3.33 $ 21 ,348
2" 5.33 $ 34,156
3" 10.67 $ 68,312
4" 16.67 $ 106,738
6" 33.33 $ 213,475
•:;> FCS GROUP
iiitii>n,-Oric nted Consulting 9
• ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ Wadi
City of Lake Oswego
Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
Original Unused Allocable
Component Cost Capacity [4] Cost
Raw Water Intake/Pumping /Pipeline (1) $ 2,362,810 43% $ 1,016,565
Source Reliability(1) 65,000 28% 18,011
Plant Treatment/Clear Well/Transmission (1) 12,745,610 27% 3,378,969
Distribution Pumping /Pipelines/Storage (1) 30,536,005 11% 3,232,138
All Other(1) 15,151,374 17% 2,534,327
plus: Recently Completed Projects (2) 1,574,911 16% 256,296
Subtotal $ 62,435,710 17% $ 10,436,307
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding (3) $ 10,205,000 17% $ 1,706,961
less: Developer Contributions (1) 15,438,027 17% 2,580,758
Subtotal $ 25,643,027 17% $ 4,287,719
Allocable Unused Capacity $ 6,148,588
NOTES:
(1) Source: Water SDC Analysis, Fixed Asset Allocations, as of year-end FY 2007. Amended to include FY2008
and FY2009 developer contributions. 1
(2) Source: December 2008 update of capital improvement project plan. 1
(3) Source: FY 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (pg. 121). Schedule of Future Bond Requirements,
through 2028.
(4) Unused capacity by system component based on 2007 review. Reduced proportionately with customer growth
•::> FCS GROUP from 2007 to 2009.
k,n!i itu,n.-()ri'n1 'rl Consulting
1
• ■ ■ ■ a ■ 1 1 1 u, .
City of Lake Oswego
rove
Imp ment Fee Cost Basis
2009 Project Capacity Allocable
Improvement Type Cost Total [1] Increasing [2] Cost
Pipeline Hydraulic Capacity Improvements $ 4,084,530 30.4% $ 1,243,010
Pipeline Fireflow Improvements 4,955,190 3.8% 185,977
Non-Standard Pipelines 1,656,247 0.9% 15,493
Other Projects from Water Master Plan 2,380,238 15.0% 356,463
Water Partnership Projects 65,234,766 48.7% 31,781,121
Subtotal $ 78,310,971 42.9% $ 33,582,063
less: Beginning FY2009 SDC Fund Balance $ 867,116
Subtotal $ (867,116)
Allocable Capacity Increasing Cost $ 32,714,947
NOTES:
(1) 2001 Water System Master Plan. Montgomery Watson. Project costs reported in 2000 dollars (June 2000).
Water Partnership Agreement Between The City of Lake Oswego and Tigard. Project costs reported in 2006 dollars.
(2) Capacity-increasing allocations for projects from the 2001 WMP were determined by the amount of excess
capacity provided by each project. Allocations for improNeements related to the Lake Oswego-Tigard partnership
U
t j� were based on the excess capacity share of allotted Lake Oswego capacity.
4) FCS (T t�
lrljil if„,,,-( )Ii nI ri( ,„ll`.II1t IIID
mai
City of Lake Oswego
Alternative SDC Calculations
SDC per
Meter Equivalent
Without
Financing Costs $ 6,404
• less risk of overcharging developers
• charges are more reasonable
With
Financing Costs $ 9,168
• increases charges
• revenues should be used for debt service
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting 12
isionisamanol • imisaanalisisimailadiamikaliadi
City of Lake Oswego
SDC Comparison
for a typical single family residence [1
Jurisdiction Water SDC Jurisdiction Water SDC
Wilsonville $ 7,002 Gresham 4,153
Lake Oswego -- Proposed 6,404 Forest Grove 4,000
Hillsboro 5,586 Gladstone 3,311
Clackamas River Water 5,219 Tualatin 3,143
Oak Lodge Water District 4,965 Tigard 2,763
Tualatin Valley Water District 4,755 Lake Oswego -- Current 2,485
West Linn 4,628 Rockwood PUD 2,400
Oregon City 4,495 Portland 1 ,760
Beaverton [2] 4,237 Milwaukie 992
NOTES:
[1] Charges shown are for standard SFR meter size or, if available, 3/4" meter size. In Lake Oswego, the standard is 3/4".
[2] Will be implemented September 2009.
• FCS GROUP
ti„dntiun,-Orir'nteri C nnsultink, 3
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■
City of Lake Oswego
Key Recommendations
Adopt SDC of $6,404 per ME
Modify Code
Allow annual charge adjustment per ENR
Construction Cost Index
1' Refine credit language to clarify applicability
■ Implementation
Consider phasing in the updated charge
Provide SDC credits against the over-sizing cost of
the developer-provided improvement and limit cash
reimbursement
• FCS GROUP
nlution,.-(hienterl( (milting 14
l —
City of Lake Oswego
Next Steps
90-Day Notice of Public Hearing to Modify SDC
Methodology per ORS 223.304
Meet with Home Builders Association
Present SDC Methodology & Resulting Charges
Review Any Proposed Credit Changes
Schedule Public Hearing per ORS 223.304
■ Take public testimony on change in methodology
and proposed fees
Approve change in methodology as recommended or
direct Staff to modify
■ Incorporate Council approved change in SDC
methodology into annual update of Master Fees &
Charges in December 2009
• FCS GROUP
5r lu(ions-(uric n1d Consulting 15
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 ■ ■ i n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 1
City of Lake Oswego
Discussion
•:;> FCS GROUP
ti('iutior1 Oriented Consulting 16
7
V J
M
W
X C
•
C -�
V
CZ •-
Q C
U
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
11111111 • 111111 • 111111111111 • • • • • • 11111 • • • • • 111 • 1111111. • • 111
City of Lake Oswego
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Fee Calculation: Without Financing Costs
' Table 1
Reimbursement Fee
Cost of Net Unused Capacity $ 6,148,588
Growth to End of Planning Period 6,490 Meter Equivalents
Reimbursement Fee $ 947.36 per ME
Improvement Fee
Capacity Expanding Projects $ 32,714,947
Growth to End of Planning Period 6,490 Meter Equivalents
Improvement Fee $ 5,040.65 per ME
Total System Development Charge
Reimbursement Fee $ 947.36 per ME
Improvement Fee 5,040.65 per ME
SDC Subtotal $ 5,988.01 per ME
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery 6.94% 415.73 per ME
Total Water SDC $ 6,404 per ME
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425) 867-1802 Water SDC 062509 -scenario/.xls Fee Calc - Page 1
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
City of Lake Oswego
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Customer Data
Table 2
Current:
FY 2009(1) End of Period(2) Net Growth
#of Fixture #of Meter #of Fixture #
of #of Fixture #of
q Units MEs Units MEs
,.
Customers Units E uivalents
All Classes 505.939 15 704 721,907 9.1 695 215.968 6 490
Total 505,939 15,204 721,907 21,695 215,968 6,490
NOTES:
Source:2008 Water Cost-of-Service Rate
(1) Study.Projection of FY 2007 customer data.Flow factors based on current residential standard meter size
FY 2009 Projection of Customers byMeter Size Fixture Unit Calculation
Meter Size Connections Flow Factor Total MEs Fixture Units Total
5/8"x 3/4"and 3/4"x 3/4" 10,605 1.00 10,605.04 30 318,151
1" 1,193 1.67 1,988.36 39 46,529
1.5" 310 3.33 1,033.58 151 46,818
2" 177 5.33 941.91 370 65,342
3" 50 10.67 535.17 500 25,085
4" 4 16.67 66.90 750 3,010
6" 1 33.33 33.45 1,000 1,003
Totals 12,340 15,204 _ 505,939
(2) Future customer base is estimated based on proportional growth with population to end of study period(estimated from 2005-2030 growth rate).
# Year Note
Initial Population 41,528 2005 Source:2007 Joint Water Supply System Analysis.Page 1-14.
Forecasted Population 49,870 2030
Build-Out Population 61,016 2057 Bufidout year estimated based on 0.5%annual population growth within City limits.
Annual Growth Estimate 0.73% 2005-2030
Current Population42,762 I 2009
. _. _, 29.92% growth shape 12009 to 2030)
Note:2030 population is projected to total 47,275 within the Urban Services Boundary(USB)and 2,595 within the Stafford area.
Note:The 2001 Water Master Plan states that"no costs for Stafford development have been included in the Capital Improvement Program"(pg ES-12).
USB Growth
Stafford-HIgh-Growth Scenario # Year # Year
Initial Population 1,707 2005 Source:2007 Joint Water Supply System Analysis.Page 1-14. 39,821 2005
Forecasted Population 2,595 2030 47,275 2030
Build-Out Population I 6,918 2057 3.70% 54,098 2057
Annual Growth Estimate I 1.69% 2005-2030 0.69% 2005-2030
Current Population 1,825 1 2009 _ 40,929 2009
FCS GROUP 1W28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenariol.xls Cust Data-Page 2
1
City of Lake Oswego r...,. - ..
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Existing Assets
Table 3
Original Non-Capacity Capacity Unused Unused% Used
Utility Plant-in-Service Cost Related Related Capacity(4)(5) Allocated(4)(5) Capacity
Raw Water Intake(1) $ 1,871,701 SO $1,871,701 $ 964,010 51.5% $907,691
Raw Water Pumping(1) 176,833 - 176,833 19,648 11.1% 157,185
Raw Water Pipeline(1) 314,276 - 314,276 32,906 10.5% 281,369
Source Reliability(1) 65,000 - 65,000 18,011 27.7% 46,989
Plant Treatment(1) 12,397,235 - 12,397,235 3,378,969 27.3% 9,018,266
Plant Clear Well(1) 111,318 - 111,318 - 0.0% 111,318
Plant Transmission(1) 237,057 - 237,057 - 0.0% 237,057
Distribution Pumping(1) 1,639,281 - 1,639,281 650,046 39.7% 989.235
Distribution Pipelines(1) 8,315,884 - 8,315,884 - 0.0% 8,315,884
Distribution Storage(1) 20,580,840 - 20,580,840 2.582,092 12.5% 17,998,748
All Other(1) 15,151,374 - 15,151,374 2,534,327 16.7% 12,617,047
plus: Recently Completed Projects(2) 1,574,911 - 1,574.911 256,296 16.3% 1,318,615
less: Net Utility Debt Principal Outstanding(3) 10,205,000 - 10,205,000 1,706,961 16.7% 8,498,039
less: Contributions In Aid of Construction(1) 15.438.027 - 15,438.027 2.580.758 16.7% 12.857.269
Allocable Plant-in-Service $36,792,683 $0 $36,792,683 $6,148,588 16.7% $30,644,095
_NOTES:
(1)Source:Water SDC Analysis,Fixed Asset Allocations,as of year-end FY 2007.Amended to include FY2008 and FY2009 developer contributions.
(2)Source:December 2008 update of capital improvement project plan(initially reported in the City's Water System Master Plan,January 2001).
Original cost estimates were updated to July 2008,based on Engineering News Review 20-City Average Construction Cost Index.
Description I Zone 2008 Initial Unused Current Unused
Proj.Number Cost Estimate Capacity Capacity
Wembley Park Rd from GlenEagles PL.to Fir Ridge Rd. I Forest Highlands . P-004 S 79.797 0.0% 0.0%
Along Femwood Dr.from Mapleleaf Rd.to Treetop Ln. I City View/Bergis P-007 11.041 53.5% I 52.7%
Treetop Way from Overlook Dr.to Treetop Ln. I City View/Bergis P-008 77.287 0.0% 0.0%
Femwood Dr.from Greentree Ave.to Marjorie Ave.,Marjd City View I Bergin P-001 177.278 0.0% 0.0%
Virginia Ln.near Cumberland Pl. I Knaus-Reg P-001 19,922 0.0% I 0.0%
Fernwood Dr.from Treetop Ln.to Firwood Cir..Femwood City View/Bergis P-001 180,587 0.0% 0.0%
Mapleleaf Rd.from Greentree Ave.to Fernwood Dr. I City View/Bergis P-001 116,083 0.0% I 0.0%
Phantom Bluff Ct.near South Shore Blvd. I Palisades P-001 81,866 0.0% 0.0%
Virginia Way near West Bay Rd. I Waluga/Southside P-001 54,661 0.0% 0.0% _
Waluga Pump Stations 479,925 32.8% 32.1%
Kerr Pump Stations I 296,463 33.3% 32.6%
Totals 8 1.574,911 16.6% 16.3%
(3)Source:FY 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(pg.121).Schedule of Future Bond Requirements,through 2028.
Future Principal
Debt Issue Payments(FY09-281
Water Revenue Bond-8/1/1999 S 645.000
Water Revenue&Refunding Bond-10/18/2007 9.560,000
Total Debt Principal Outstanding $ 10.205,000
(4)Unused capacity by system component based on 2007 review.Reduced proportionately with customer growth from 2007 to 2009.
System Component I FY 2007 Annual Growth I FY 2009 EDU Capacity
p EDUs lAva Day Dem.t EDUs Rv Component Unused Capacity
Raw Water Intake 18.642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 38,972.0 i 51.50%
Raw Water Pipeline 18,642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 21,110.0 I 10.47%
Source Reliability 18,642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 26,144.0 27.71%
Plant Treatment 18,642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 25,981.0 27.26%
Plant Clear Well 18.642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 6,495.0 ,. 0.00%
Plant Transmission 18.642.0 0.69% 18,899.7 16,238.0 0.00%
Distribution Pumping 18,642.0 I 0.69% I 18,899.7 I 31,319.0 39.65%
Distribution Pipelines 18.642.0 0.69% I 18,899.7 18,331.0 0.00%
Distribution Storage 18,642.0 0.69% I 18,899.7 1, 21,611.0 12.55%
(5)Unused capacity in Raw Water Pumping:32 MGD of initial capacity.Due to Water Partnership Agreement with The City of Tigard,18 MGD will be
allocated to Lake Oswego.Of the 18 MGD,2 MGD is available for growth.Source:April 2009 staff review.
Unused capacity of recently completed projects based on improved capacity for growth and net of subsequent development.
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanol.xls Existing Assets-Page 3
■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ :_
City of Lake Oswego
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Existing Asset Detail
Table 4
Ending FY 2007 System Assets
iFunction Allocation
Description Original %Raw Water %Raw Water %Raw Water %Source %Plant %Plant %Plant %Distribution %Distribution %Distribution Funding %Not
Cost Intake Pumping Pipeline Reliability Treatment Clear Well Transmission Pumping Pipelines Storage %All Other
Source Eligible
Particle Counter WSottware $ 10.009.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0' Purchased 0%
Phase 1-A SctubberSystem Eqp $ 824.714.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% c,estr„cted 0%
Land Acquisition __ $ 200,243.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% Conversion 0%
Wto-Kenthome Way $ 3,575,601.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% Conversion 0%
ClearwellLadder/lnstallation $ 4.025.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
W,•o•' Ir• ,;int Exp $ 1.305,164,00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Common 0%
Land-Old Swr Dispsl $ 24,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% coevesae 100%
Clr Well Baffle $ 107,293.00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Land Arm-Adjacent To WV _ $ 154,887.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% constructed 0%
Sludge Dewtr/ScrubSys Phse1-A $ 1,538.392.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% 00% Constructed 0%
PICKUP-FORD F-1502000 4X2 FUL $ 18,297.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% Purchased 0%
VARIABLE FREOUENCYDRIVE $ 25,976.00 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% Purchased 0%
ELECTRONIC SECURITYSYSTEM $ 19,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Prctrsed 0%
ELECTRONIC SECURITYSYSTEM $ 2,984.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
GENERATOR-EMERGENCY _ $ 14,770.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
SLUDGE DEWTP LAGOONSPH 1-B _ $ 1.879.274.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Corot:acted 0%
WTP SEISMIC.SFTY&ADA IMPROV $ 625,151.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Coreboted 0%
WTP FILTER&PROCESCTRL UPGR 9 372,625.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constricted 0%
WTP FILTER&PROCESSCTRL UPGR $ 708,484.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% Cmstnoted 0%
WTP FILTER&PROCESSCTRL UPGR $ 877.467.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
2001 STREET MAINTOVERLAYS___ _ I$ 55,971.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
WTP TELEMETRYUPGRADE $ 214,222.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Generator-Kato-Cummi ___ $ 12,708.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% Conversion 0%
Generator-Kato-Cummi $ 17.495.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% Connoted 75%
Generator-Kato-Cumml $ 12.708.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
GeneratorConverslon-Cummins $ 20,175.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Backhoe-John Deere $ 34,718.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7rerelwnd 0%
Oce Reader/PdmerMod 3200 $ 21,554.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Ford RangerPickuo-94 $ 10,643.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Chev Cheyenne 3/4Ton Pickup $ 15,180.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Service Body-95Chev 3/4 T Pu $ 3,670.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Propane Conversion $ 2,095.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1000% 00% Purchased 0%
Ford Bronco 4X4 213rt995 $ 23,749.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purcro,.d 0%
Bumper-Heavy Duty $ 2.001.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.06 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Punt.sed 0%
Ford Pickup F-1501/2 Ton $ 18,828.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 00% Contributed 0%
Utility Body/TruckMount Crane $ 15,489.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Pardoned 0%
Dumo Truck 33 00ItGvw Cab $ 50,538.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% comeuud 0%
Ford Expedition-'98 $ 31,844.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Pardoned 0%
' ' • ITruck C60-78 $ 8,476.00 0.0% 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Canna= 0%
iydraulic Lift-ForC60.78 _ $ 3,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
)UMP TRUCK-20001NTL 5YD 4X4 $ 78,456.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 00% Purchased 0%
>ICKUP-2000 FORDRANGE 4X4 0 16,993.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
IACKHOE LOADER-JOHNDEERE 410 $ 66,750.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Puctused 0%
/AN-10'CUBE $ 23,891.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Puchesed 0%
)UMPTRUCK-INTERNATIONAL $ 96,354.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
TOYOTA PRIUS 2002 $ 20,500.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
SERVICE BODY-'95FORD $ 11,918.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Pardoned 0%
PICKUP-2003 CHEWSILVERADO $ 20,252.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1000% 0.0% Purchased 0%
MINI EXCAVATOR-2005 CATERPILLAR I$ 37,780.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
APPARATUS-MINI EXCAVATOR I$ 11,110.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 00% Purchased 0%
PICKI IP-Preto F-4502005 I$ 37,038.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
BACKHOE LOADER-JOHN DEERE 410G $ 67,544.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 00% Purchased 0%
Brush Vehicle ..._.. _... $ 28,232.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% P,rdased 0%
Mcnary#2 Res S0eAcq. $ 282,766,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Land-Waluoa PkReservoir $ 8,417.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Reservoir Site-MtPk/McNary#2 $ _112,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Cameron 0%
FCS GROUP
10/28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanot.xls Asset Detail-Page 4
a
Description
Original %Raw Water %Raw Water %Raw Water %Source %Plant %Plant %Plant %Distribution %Distribution %Distribution YAg Other Funding %Not
Cost Intake Pumping Pipeine Reiabibty Treatment Clear Well Transmission Pumping Pipelines Storage Source Eligible
'Land-Clack Rlv VWFacil $ 83,797.00 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% conversion 0%
Waluga PumpSte/Quarry Rd $ 141.833.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Mcnary Res N1&PumpStetion $ 489,197.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% conversion 0%
Southside Resvr $ 256,500.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% conversion 0%
Clackamas River Intake $ 203,300.00 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Waluga Pump StaPhaee I _ $ 65,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Berg's Reservoir.5Mg $ 60.189.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% cmvereion 0%
Southside Pump StaPhs 1 $ 78,200.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Summit Reservoir&Pump Ste $ 478,050.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% • 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
McnayResvr#1 __ $ 266,500.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Cor wabn 0%
VKndfeld Estates NWlrin _ _ $ 61,016.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Corwaneed 100%
Bay Creek No 5Waterline_ $ 10.591.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Black Forest EstatesWldn I$ 24,799.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Water Lines-CenterPointe _ . $ 116,463.00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Canoeutsd 100%
ManAhurst FireProtectlon $ 211,733.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cono-auted 100%
1 'r i :1,1.1. 'HL ($ 38,401.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
!11 e'ulii'nii.iri InfApts283 'E 51,968.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% eontributea 100%
''kit' l).A-6! 'I ae'sl.ake S 28,055.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed100%
Albervlew EstatesWlr Line ,$ 24,896.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% c«tanev 100%
Water Line-StedingHts I$ 48,665.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Westwood Wtr Line _ I$ 89.600.00 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% cantrtrbaed 100%
Waterlines-Ridpepointe I$ 69,764.00 0,0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cooweraud 100%
Water Lines-TheGreen $ 35,696,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cordbnted 100%
Lily Park W1r Line __ $ 22,269.00 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Cost Water Pipe I$ 448,731.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% conb%,sod 100%
Waterline-PleiterFarms I$ 41,324,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Waterlines-Kingsgate Villge _ ___ $ 33,045.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed100%
Waluga Resvr Rebuild _ _ $ 253,962.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% conrersmn 0%
retrace Drive WaterMain 15 43,081.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conssrned 100%
Vaterine-Bay Creek! I$ 80,507.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cwvo,oe d 100%
Yater Lines-VillageOn Lake _ $ 153,195.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Yater Line-Westlake $ 48,013.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% conaibned 100%
lost Water Pipe I$ 1,811,276.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
-Dater Lines-HentageHills I$ 30,503,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrbteed 100%
-dater Lines-RiverRun 11 $ 45,274,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Kens Landing WtrLine $ 51.402.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
-rater Lines-CarmanOaks $ 22,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CaabWd 100%
'Vatertine-Monroe&Boons F $ 35,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% coeea,ned 100%
Kerr Road Water PumpAdd _ _ $ 33,130.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Calvet-bon 0%
Waterlines-Parkddge Apts $ 34,815.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Water lines-WestlakeMeadow $ 85,315,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Water Lines-Mt ParkTerr $ 25,170.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Nleledines-GalenPark Est_ _ $ 44,761.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-WestbrookEet $ 89,114.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
WtrlineOversize-Westlake $ 12.982.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Wlrin OversizingPteiter Fr $ 17,462.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Waterlines-CarmanEstates $ 54,773.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Melrose WtrlineExtension $ 72,847.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Water Line-PalisadesPk Iii $ 58,044,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Cntry Club WaterCross $ 22.663.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% consaurod 100%
WaterLine-Westminster Dr $ 16,413.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cmmauted 100%
Spruce St Water Impr _ $ 19,954.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% co,aauted 100%
Waterline-OswegoPolnte Iv $ 46,440.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% convvoeed 100%
Summit-Spmgbrk:5ThSt Wer $ 172,497.00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Water Line-TaylorsCrest $ 36,600.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Melrose PerkWatedine $ 38.146.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Water Lines-Westlake#2 $ 84.675.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
W1rLine-Fosberg,Carmen $ 111.450.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributes 100%
Waterlines-OakndgeApts $ 33,296.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Brian Meadows WlrLine $ 12,900.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Boones Ferry Water $ 49,790.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WaterLines-Forestbrook $ 31.216.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Waterline-OswegoPointe Iii $ 12,339.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
't' ' •"'en Ctr $ 69,531.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
'Melrose 12'"wtrtine Ext'" $ 79,428.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Water Line-So ShoreEstates $ 48,238,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrtuted 100%
Waterlines-ConradMinor_ _ $ 13.780,00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contiemed 100%
Cost Water Pipe _ $ 64.883.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
FCS GROUP 10/2812009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanol.xls Asset Detail-Page 5
I II IIIII IIS
10111111. • . . . . . . . . . ■ . . . ■ . . . . . . . . ■ ■ . . •
Description Original %RawWater %RawWater %RawWater %Source %Plant %Plant %Plant %Distribution %Distribution %Distribution %All Other Funding %Not
Cost Intake Pumping Pipeline Reliability Treatment Clear Well Transmission Pumping Pipelines Storage Source Eligible
e
Egan Way Wtdine tmpry $ 63,343.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% comuaned 100%
Waterlines-Kruse Creek Est $ 96,777.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-Temple $ 44,541.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% comnaded 100%
Waterline-Baycreeklii $ 58,075.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conubun.d 100%
Water Lines-Marcourt $ 14,862.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% , 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100% 1
Westlake 1-C-1 WtrLine $ 91.464.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cono-bnsd 100%
Cost Water Plpe ______ f 1,871,962.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-WestlakeMeadow _ _ E 38,198.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrawed 100%
Waterlines-Glenmorrie Hts $ 44,905.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterline-Bay Creekti $ 71,605.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Water Line-RoyalHelghts $ 24.415.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% D.0% Conmeuted 100%
Waterlines-Oswego Shore Estate $ 16,430.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% coy a-butes 100%
Cost Water Pipe _ $ 662,382.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gamboled 100%
Waterlines-OswegoPolnte $ 189,192.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Cost Water Pipe $ 837,631.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cambuted 100%
Misc Nr•a ,. nent 8 247,415.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Co,meurod 100%
Waterlines-Palisades Terr 5 74,262.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% carob ted 100%
Waterline-CrestviewEstates 8 11,857.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% canntbuted 100%
Water Line-Carman BQuany 8 12,257.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Park Road Waterline $ 86,857.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Cost Water Pipe $ 37,291.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Dorts.Diane,PyllisWateriin i 81,496.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterline-Wesdake891 $ 73,908.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-Centerpoi 55 $ 14,765.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conin sited 100%
Misc Water MalnReplacemnts $ 282,002.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
Waterline-HalsethAddition 8 10,880.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterline-HeatherEstates $ 23,956.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrbttrod 100%
Ridge Lake Park WtrLine $ 32,372.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cmebaed 100%
Diamond Head Watertmpr $ 59,138.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterline-Bay Creekiv $ 12,461.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrbuted 100%
Oswego Pointe Ph 182 Wldn S 169,192.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commm,ted 100%
Water Lines-StaffordOake $ 32,284.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Bradford HetghtsWaterline 8 14.960.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-Westlaket-C•2__ 8 84,775.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% constoud 100%
Water Lines-WestlakeSi $ 94,185.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% consmuted 100%
WtrlineOversize-Westlake $ 13,827.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% cwreroton 0%
Cost Water Pipe $ 593,355.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cammurd 100%
Palisades St Stm Dr/WIt $ 42,172.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conbouted 100%
Palisades Sl Stm DrNNr $ 218,403.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% caw-band 100%
Glenmorrie Rd Walerlmpry $ 25,735.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cono6 ud 100%
Brian LandingWatedine I$ 26,556.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed - 100%
Cooks ButteReservoir I$ 172,951.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
City View Reservoir 1$ 764,141.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Waluga Reservoir $ 1,281,427.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Knaus Road Reservoir $ 595,023.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Touchstone ResevoirNo 1 $ 683,012.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.096 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
Forest Highlands Resvr $ 684,170.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Com ion 0%
Tenth St Pump Station $ 86,299.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Converse. 0%
Palisades PumpStation $ 202,792.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Chy View Pump Station $ 57,980.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Comeniun 0%
Touchstone PumpStation $ 270,264.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Douglas Cir Mr LnReplace $ 47,044.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cambuted 100%
South Side PumpStation $ 57,770.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Reroof South SidePump Station $ 10,510.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
Waluga Pump Station $ 99,017.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Reroofing-WalugaPump Station $ 9,537.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
Mcvev WaterlineReolace $ 19,483.00 0.0% 0.096 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% conversion 0%
WIr Main-UpperDr.lron Mtn $ 575,398.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
West View Dr PrvStation 8 17,433.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Wlr MainReplacements $ 173,648.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% conorsm 0%
Water Main-BoonesFry $ 35,783.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Evergreen-Fourth Mr Impry S 65,779.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Benvick/Ellis/Flelding Rep S 133,587.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Common 0%
Up CherryLn/Hallinan Main I$ 29,427.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
Reservoir Paint 10Th8 Pal $ 208,216.00 0.0% 0.096 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% conv<rsmo, 0%
Iron Mt Pressure Valve $ 43,981.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.096 0.095 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% conversion 0%
State St Water System Work _ $ 51,849.00 0.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% convmsmn 0%
Cedar Ct 8 Greet CtWaledn $ 96,437.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% camcu ed 100%
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanol.ods Asset Detail•Page 6
L -_ _ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Description Original %Raw Water %Raw Water %Raw Water %Source %Plant %Plant %Plant %Distribution %Distribution %Distribution Funding %Not
COSI Intake Pumping Pipeline RWebifity Treatment Clear Well Transmission Pumping Pipelines Storage %All Other Source Eligible
8Th St-0 To FWatedine Rpl $ 33.647.00 0.0% 0.0" 0.0% 0.0% 00% 00% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% .am-c-' 0%
Waterlinelmprv-Greenbrier $ 76.709.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100% !,
Waterlinelmprv-Conifer Rd $ 56.978.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% comiaaed 100%
Wlr Svelmorv-Tualatin St $ 58.789.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Wtrin RolcLords/RedfemMe _ $ 172,840.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
Touchstone#2 ResSite $ 355,827.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Conversion 0%
WALUGA RESERVOIR#2 $ 288,949.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Purchased 0%
BLDG-4800 S.W.CARMAN DRIVE $ 35,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
Watellne-NorlhviewHelghts $ 23,475.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% r ntoa d 100%
Waterline-WestiakeStage II _ 8 85.884.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
Waterline-WestlakeStage III $ 20,397.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Camaoed 100%
Palisades ResevoirRecoating $ 64,406.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100,0% Purchased 0%
Wlrin-Ridaewv/Middle _ _ 8 170.807.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Waterzonelmprovement I$ 605,563.00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Wtr Improvement- WalugalKna I f 730,128.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Wtp TransmIssIon-Main I$ 42,618.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
'1h i• .nN`rn.'n•12k 1ge $ 172,593.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Combated 100%
Waterline-Country Ridge $ 19.250.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% corrotwd 100%
Waterline-Oswego Bay Apts 5 23,304.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contained 100%
Waterline-Mickle Place $ 13,800.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contras.' 100%
Waterline-Mt.ViewEstates $ 12,360.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contrmuted 100%
Waterline Oversizing $ 10,731.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Gap San Swr 8 WalerRelocation 8 71,420.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
A Avenue Waterlinelmpry $ 70.000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Waterline-GreemreeHeights _ f 11.608.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Corw*aasd 100%
'V I Iiui'.i ri5r rt I a'II Park 8 54.916.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%' 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Treetop/Femwood/Gre W 8 152,335.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% caeeunad 0%
8-In Water PipelineRehab $ 283,730.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100,0% 0.0% Constricted 0%
Peters Rd.&Arrowhead Water M $ 182.003.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Coseucted 0%
WaterlineOverslzing-Cabanas $ 12,087.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Edgecli0 TerraceWaterline $ 30,369.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Waterline-KimberlyWoods f 31.978.00 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
Waterline-KruseCommons Apts $ 77.750.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
WaterlineReplacements $ 287.232.00 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Waterline-Chlli'SRestaurant $ 10,300.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cammot. 100%
Waterline-BrightonEstates $ 29,427.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WatedineReplacements 96-97 $ 485,120.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Waterlines-FairwayRoad $ 14,142.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Contributed 0%
Waterlines-FairwayRoad_ $ 7,458.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% constructed 0%
Waterlines-Woodhurst _ $ 16,251.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contre,aed 100%
Waterlines-Lowenberq _ $ 25,500.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% conmauted 100%
Water Line-Mcvey/SShore X $ 14,361.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Water Line-ComellReplacmnt $ 97,638.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
Water Line-Brierwood $ 33,073.00 0.17% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% constructed 0%
Waterlines-MelrosePlece $ 17,280.00 0.0% 0.096 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% caroiaaed 100%
Waterlines-BergisFarms $ 33,138.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% cmbaaad 100%
Waterlines-SkylandHelghts $ 98.526.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
Waterlines-CarmanRidge $ 47,925.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Watedines-LutheranChurch ___ $ 32.850.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
Waterlines-Centerpointe 3 $ 18,974.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% camieuted 100%
Skylands Wtr Booster Pump Station $ 203,324.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% cormiauted 90%
Skylands Wtr BoosterPump Station $ 26,852.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 90%
Touchstone No 2Reservoir $ 1,848,437.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Constructed 0%
Touchstone No 2Reservoir f 2,118,919.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.096 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% constructed 0%
•
Cost Water Pipe $ 11,088.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% carversor 100%
Cost Water Pipe $ 70,829.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% coverston 100%
WATERLINES-GRIGSBYOFFC BLDG $ 10.440.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
WATERUNES-RIVERBEND $ 73,560.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES-RIVERBEND $ 22,820.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% constructed 100%
WATERLINES-TWOCENTERPOINTE $ 18.400.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES-HASSONOFFICE BLDG $ 12.066.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES-DEVONSHIRE $ 44.675.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
rarerORI lucc CHRISTCHURCH PRSH I$ 32,499.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
FY 98/99 ANNL WTRLINE REHAB I$ 543,281.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% contracted 0%
CATHODIC PROTECTIONRAW/FINISH $ 312,069.00 0.0% 0,0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
PUMP CONTROI.VALVE $ 10,361.00 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
WATERLINES-SUMMITRIDGE I$ 38,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES-ALPHACOMPUTERS I f 10.860.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% commuted 100%
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867.1802 Water SDC 062509-scenariol_zls Asset Detail-Page 7
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Original %Raw Water %Raw Water %Raw Water %Source %Plant %Plant %Plant %Distribution %Distribution %Distribution Funding %Not
Description .. Cost Intake Pumping Pipeline Relability Treatment Clear Well Transmission Pupping Pipelines Storage All Other Source Eligible
STATE ST SAN SEWERREPLACEMENT $ 26,880.00 0.0'. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 00% _ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 100%
FASTENDUTILITYIMPROVEMENTS $ 257,580.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
HUNT CLUB WATERLINE $ 119,886.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% _ 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Contacted 0%
MILLENNIUM PLAZAPKWATERLINES I$ 50,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
MISC UNIDENTIFIED LAND PITS _ I$ - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Conversion 0%
WATERUNES-CHRISTCHURCH PRSH $ 17.000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contrma.d 100%
MCNARY RESERVOIRN0.2 $ 3,407,764.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Constructed 0%
FAIRWAY RD SAN SEWEREXT _ __ _ $ 10,906.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% constructed 100%
FY 00/01 WATERLINEREHAB 8 1,078.031.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
WATERLINES-U.M.C. _ _ $ 39,230.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
WATERLINES-MARYSWOODS $ 271.535.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contrmoted 100%
WATERUNES-CANALWOODS _ _ $ 21.843,00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Commuted 100%
WATERT INFR-RI M;K 138 S 66,790.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Contributed 0%
WATERLINES-DILLAVOUSUBDV S 13,380.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
WATER INTAKC DI Sip .1$ 176,833.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% constructed 0%
WATERLINES/FYE1983-2000 $ 194,247.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% contributed 100%
WATER METERS/FYE1983-2001 $ 2,727,795.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Contributed 0%
'MODEUTILITYSOFTWARE $ 32,155.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Puech.sed 0%
PATER INTAKE-ESACOMPLIANCE $ 1,558,628.00 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
:ATHODIC PROTFCTPHASE II S 174,029.00 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
AKEFRONT RDWATERLINE REPLCMT S 138,279.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
-TREET RELATED WTRIMPRV-1983 .S 42,172.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
-TREET RELATED WTRIMPRV-1987 $ 104,043.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
STREET RELATED WTRIMPRV-1990 $ 55,980.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
STREET RELATED WTRIMPRV-1997 S 13,799.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% constricted 0%
LAND-WATERUNEEASEMENT S 22.617.00 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
FIRST STIMPRVMTSIABB AVES $ 38.582.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100,0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
WATERUNES-ATHERTONHTS _ $ 119,343.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES•DELANOSUBDMSION S 35.130.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
WATERLINES-PETERS RDSUBDIV S 32.452.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% Contributed 100%
1 LAND-900 CORNELLST.LOTS 12813 S 25,743.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 100%
WATER SYSTEMINTERTIE $ 65,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
C1lt'11a1 -i,.',I "1DOWSRDIMPROV-WATER $ 99.000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
CHANDLER ROAD WATERLINE REPLACEMENT $ 63,297.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Constructed 0%
LAND-SUN'..V c'i-o^ e' $ - 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% oonet.d 0%
AND-IRON MT BLVD. S 4,489.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
)EVELOPERS WATER CONTRIB FY 2005 $ 165,346.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cantles/tad 100%
'AUSADES RESERVOIRA2-BLDG S 1,549,742.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Constructed 0%
'AUSADES RESERVOIR82-WATER IMPRVMT S 1,855,360.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% _ 100.0% Construct.] 0%
'ALISADES RESERVOIR112-BLDG EQUIPMENT S 62,000.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% constructed 0%
PALISADES RESERVOIR#2-OTHER IMPRnVFMF $ 177,567.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Constructed 0%
WATERLINE OVERSIZING-ROWNG HILLSFARM ESTA$ 21,379.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Purchased 0%
DEVELOPERS WATER CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2006 S 651,048.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Contributed 100%
PALISADES RESERVOIR $ 28,750.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Pnea,as.d 0%
ADDENDUM'DEW!OPER CONTRIBUTIONS FY 2008 $ 20,185.00 100.0% Contrasted 100%
a nnFNnl ee not tct nocP nnornadI mnNR Fy?Mr $ 266448.00 100.0% connoted 100%
Total $110.11510.799.00 5 15,438,027
Raw Water Intake $ 1,871,701.00
Contributed
Raw Water Pumping $ 176,833.00
Raw Water Pipeline $ 314,275.80
Source Reliability $ 65,000.00
Plant Treatment $12,397,235.00
Plant Clear Well $ 111,318.00
Plant Transmission $ 237.057.20 -
Distribution Pumping S 1,639,281.35
Distribution Pipelines $ 8,315,884.00
Distribution Storage $20,580,640.00
All Other $15,151,373.65
Source:Water SDC Analysis,Fixed Asset Allocations,as of year-end FY 2007.
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867.1802 Water SDC 062509-scenariol.ds Asset Detail-Page 8
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ w ■ ■ ■ ■
City of Lake Oswego
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Capital Improvement List
Table 5
Eligible Serving Original 2009 SDC
Proj. Project Capacity Existing Project Project Eligible
Priority # Source(1) Zone Project Title Increasing%(2) Deficiency Cost(1) Cost 131 Cost
Pipeline Hydraulic Capacity Improvements - -
1 P-002 2001 WMP Touchstone Quarry Rd.off of Heritage Ln.(Waluga PS) 0.0% 100.0% _ $ 13,509 $ 18,469 $ -
1 P-003 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Laurel St.from Willamette Dr.to Bullock St,Bullock St.from Laurel St.to Ash SI.,Ash St.from Bullock St.to Oak SL.
9 Oak St.from Ash St.to Comet St(20"to 24") 38.4% 61.6% 976,549 1,335,106 512,956
1 P-003 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Oak St.from Cornell St to South Shore Blvd. 0.0% 100.0% 508,132 694,701 -
1 P-003 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Near South Shore Blvd. 44.8% 55.2% 30,613 41,853 18,742
1 P-005 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Crest Dr.from SW RidgeCrest Dr. 53.5% 46.5% 4,908 6,710 3,588
1 P-006 2001 WMP McNary SW Jefferson Near Cervantes 0.0% 100.0% 26,575 38,332 -
1 P-008 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Along Treetop Ln. 0.0% 100.0% 23.582 _ 32,241 -
1 P-008 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Discharge side of Palisaes Pump Station to Treetop Ln. 0.0% 100.0% 23,676 32,389 1 -
1 P-009 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Upper Cherry Dr.Near S.Upper Cherry Ln. 44.8% 55.2% 5,896 8,061 I3,608
1 P-009 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Upper Cherry Dr.from S.Upper Cheny Ln.to Hallinan SL 44.8% 55.2% 139,225 190,344 85,208
1 P-010 2001 WMP 10th S.State St.From North Shore Rd.to Wilbur St. 44.8% 55.2% 86,528 118,298 52,955
1 P-010 2001 WMP 10th Middle Crest Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 4,606 6,297 1 -
1 P-010 2001 WMP 10th S.State St.From Wilbur St to Willamette Dr. 38.4% 61.6% 86,624 118,4301 45,511
1 P-012 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Near South Shore Blvd. 0.0% 100.0% 13.458 18,399 -
1 P-014 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Touchstone near Yorick to Tempest Dr.,Tempest Dr.to Duncan Dr.,Duncan Dr.to Majestic Cl..Majestic Ct to Mountain 0.0% 100.0% 269.478 395,762 -
Cir.,Mountain Cir.to The Grotto,The Grotto to Kerr Pkwy.
2 P-015 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Bergis Rd.near Cornell St 71.4% 28.6% 107,275 146,663 104,645
2 P-015 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Bergis Rd.near Comet St 53.5% 46.5% 218,062 298,127 159,408
2 P-015 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Near Bergis Booster 53.5% 46.5% 109,763 _ 150,064 80,23-1-
2 P-016 2001 WMP McNary McNary Pkwy near McNary Reservoir 33.7% 68.3% 3,489 4,770 1,605
2 P-017 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Parallel Existing 18"with 24"along Iron Mountain Blvd.near Fairway Rd. 53.5% 48.5% 6,889 9,418 5,037
2 P-018 2001 WMP Knaus SW Atwater Rd.near Atwater In. 44.8% 55.2% 70,746 96,722 43297
2 P-019 2001 WMP 10th Near 10th SL Pump Station 38.4% 61.6% 11,513 _ 15,740 8,049
2 P-019 2001 WMP 10th Near 10th St Pump Station 33.7% 66.3% 9,969 13.6294,586
W
2 P-020 2001 MP 10th Lake Bay Ct.from 5th St.to Ellis Ave. 53.5% 46.5% 37,373 51,095 I 27,324
2 P-021 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Hillside Dr.near Hillside Ln.to Palisades Crest Dr. 53.5% 46.5% 21,518 29,419 I 15,732
2 P-021 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Along Palisades Crest Dr. 33.7% 66,3% 157,632 215.509 I 72,519
- I -
Pipeline Fireflow Improvements - I -
1 P-022 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside From Lakeview Blvd.to Jean Rd.,Jean Rd.to Jean Way,Jean Way to Boones Ferry Rd..Boones Ferry Rd.to Willow 0.0% 100.0% 352,136 481,429 I -
n.
1 P-026 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Marylhurst College 0.0% 100.0% 63,490 86,801 t -
1 P-044 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Sundeleaf Dr.from SW Country Club Rd.to Lake Oswego Junior High 0.0% 100.0% 35,088 47,971 -
1 P-044 2001 WMP Forest Highlands From Sundeleaf Dr.through Lake Oswego Junior High- 0.0% 100.0% 26,864 36,728 -
1 -044 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Through Lake Oswego Junior High 0.0% 100.0% 70,176 95,942 _ -
1 P-045 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Through Uplands ES- 0.0% 100.0% 35,307 48,271 I -
1 P-045 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Through Uplands ES 0.0% 100.0% 43,860 59,964 I -
1 P-046 2001 WMP City View/Bergis Greentree Ave.near Campus Way- 0.0% 100.0% 1,381 1,881 I -
2 P-029 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside SW Lakeview Blvd.near SW Kennycrof Way 26.9% 73.1% 259,236 354,419 I 95,371
2 P-030 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy to Kerr Pkwy 0.0% 100.0% 113,432 155,081 I -
2 P-030 2001 WMP Summit Along Kerr Pkwy. 0.0% 100.0% 80,524 110,090 1 -
2 P-030 2001 WMP Summit Kerr Pkwy to Jefferson Pkwy,Jefferson Pkwy to Mt.Jefferson Terrace,Mt.Jefferson Terrace to Kerr Pkwy. 0.0% 100.0% 286,695 391,960 I -
2 P-030 2001 WMP Summit Kerr Pkwy from Mt.Jefferson Terrace 0.0% 100.0% 26,800 36,640 1 -
2 P-031 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy from Hildalgo to SW Jefferson Pkwy 0.0% 100.0% 115,675 158,147 I -
2 P-031 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy near SW Jefferson Pkwy 0.0% 100.0% 66,065 90,322` -
2 P-031 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy to Eagle Crest Dr.,along Eagle Crest Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 308,655 _421,983 I -
2 P-031 2001 WMP Summit Eagle Crest Dr.near the Eagle Crest Condominiums 0.0% 100.0% 13,712 18,747
2 P-031 2001 WMP Summit Into the Eagle Crest Condominiums 0.0% 100.0% 75,538 102"7'l{ -
2 P-032 2001 WMP McNary Reg SW Monroe Pkwy.from McNary Pkwy to Green Ridge Dr.,along Green Ridge Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 94,983 129,858 1 -
2 P-032 2001 WMP McNary Reg Green Ridge Dr.to Green Ridge Ct 0.0% 100.0% 74,562 101,939
Kerr Pkwy to Tanglewood Dr.,Tanglewood Dr.to Mozarteum Ct..Mozarteum Ct.to Churchill Downs.Churchill Downs to
2 P-033 2001 WMP McNary Pimlico Ct..Pimlico Ct.to McNary Pkwy.,McNary Pkwy to Condolea Terrace,Condolea Terrace to Condolea Dr.. 0.0% 100.0% 554,667 758,323 I -
Condolea Dr.to Eaglecrest Dr.
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanol.xls CIP-Page 9
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Eligible Serving Original 2009 SDC
Proj. Project Capacity Existing Project Project Eligible
Priority # Source(1) Zone Project Title Increasing%(2) Deficiency Cost(1) Cost(3) Cost
2 P-034 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Hillside Dr.from Hillside Ln.to Palisades Crest Dr.,along Palisades Crest Dr. 0_ 100.0% 169,972 232,380 -
• 2 P-035 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Reg Hideaway Ln.from Boca Ratan Dr.to Hideaway Ct. 0.0% 100.0% 75,802 103,634 -
2 P-036 2001 WMP McNary Reg.Near SW Green Ridge Dr.between McNary Pkwy and Boones Ferry Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 84,979 118,181
2 P-037 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Ray Ridge Dr.to Ridge Pointe Dr.into Cook's Butte Park 0.0% 100.0% 120,268 184,426
2 P-038 2001 WMP Forest Highlands SW Knaus Rd.from Atwater Ln.to Country Commons Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 256,581 350,789 -
2 P-038 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Country Commons Rd.near Knaus Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 63.049 _ 88,199 -
2 P-039 2001 WMP 10th E Ave.from 8th St.to 9th St. 74.3% 25.7% 29,115 39,805 29.578
2 P-040 2001 WMP 10th 9th St.from E Ave.to F Ave. 0.0% 100.0% 34,277 46,862 -
2 P-041 2001 WMP 10th 1st St.from D Ave to E Ave. 0.0% 100.0% 31,333 42,837 -
2 P-042 2001 WMP City View 4 Tyndall Ct.near Wall St. 84.2% 15.8% 19,404 _ 26,529 22,331
2 P-043 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Hillside Ln.near Hillside Dr. 74.3% 25.7% 38,094 52,081 38,898
2 P-043 2001 WMP Cook's Butte Hillside Ln.near Hillside Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 2,721 3,720 -
- I -
Non-Standard Pipelines -
1 P-001 2001 WMP Palisades Parelius Cir.from Palisades Terrace Dr.to Kenola Ct. 0.0% 100.0% 40,263 55,048 -
1 P-001 2001 WMP 10th SW Stampher Rd.near Riverside Dr 0.0% 100.0% 39,196 53,587
1 P-001 2001 WMP Summit Bolivar from Hildago to Becket 0.0% 100.0% _ 38,067 52,044 ____
1 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone(425) SW Tracy Ave.from SW Washington Ct.to SW Frost St. 0.0% 100.0% 34,744 47,501 -
1 P-001 2001 WMP Summit Masaryk near Becket 0.0% 100.0% 33,774 46,175) -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Summit Ct.near Summit Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 31,913 43,630 I. -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Yarmouth Circle near Bumham Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 31,750 43,408 I -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Eena Rd.from Kelok Rd.to Cedar Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 31,142 42,576 I -
2 P-001 2001 WMP McNary Oriole Ln from SW Peacock Pl.to Pheasant Run 0.0% 100.0% 26,457 36,171
2 P-001 2001 WMP 10th Durham St.to Furnace SL between Ladd SL and Wilbur Si 0.0% 100.0% 26,042 35,804 I -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Lake Oswego School District Number 7(Lake Oswego High School) 0.0% 100.0% 23,454 32,066 -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone Colts Foot La.near Orchard Way 0.0% 100.0% 17,293 23,642 I -
2 P-001 2001 WMP City View-Reg 1 Dover Way near Hillshire Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 14,528 19,882 -
2 P-001 2001 WMP City View-Reg 4 Wall St.near Quail Ct. 0.0% 100.0% 9,447 12,916
2 P-001 2001 WMP Summit In McNary Highlands 0.0% 100.0% 3,909 5,344 -
2 P-001 2001 WMP 10th Near Bridgeway Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 3,127 4,275 -
2 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Willamette Dr.near Burnham Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 1,824 2,494 -
3 P-001 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy. 0.0% 100.0% 68,701 93,928 1 -
3 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone Spring Brook Ct.near Summit Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 45,240 61,851
3 P-001 2001 WMP McNary Tempest Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 54,726 _ 74,820 1 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone(425) SW Baleine Si from SW Inverurie Ave.to SW Parker Rd.,Parker Rd.from Baleine St.to 5W Lake Forest Blvd. 0.0% 100.0% 26,060 35,628 I -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone(425) SW Burma Rd from SW Carman Dr.past Partridge Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 102,820 140,572 1 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside SW Firwood Rd from Boones Ferry Rd.to SW Waluga Rd.,SW Waluga Dr.from SW Firwood Rd.to SW Oakridge Rd. 0.0% 100.0% 98,197 134,252 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Summit-Booster NansenSummitloop 0.0% 100.0% 95,433 130,473 -
•
4 P-001 2001 WMP Forest Highlands Sundeleaf Dr.near SW Country Club Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 55,013 75,212
4 P-001 2001 WMP Touchstone(425) Shakespeare St near SW Carman Dr. 0.0% 100.0% 52,979 72,431 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Palisades Meadows Dr.to Hallinan SI..Hallinan St.to Cherry Ln. 0.0% 100.0% 48,863 66,804 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Summit McNary Pkwy 0.0% 100.0% 47,683 65,191 I -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Pallisades Lund St.from Laurel St.to Wells St. 0.0% 100.0% 45.279 61,904 1 -
4 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside Reese Rd.from Sunset Dr.to Lake Grove Ave. 0.0% 100.0% 50,947 _ _ 89,853 I -
5 P-001 2001 WMP Waluga/Southside In the Marylhurst Education Center
84.2% 15.8% 5,407 7,392 1 8,223
5 P-001 2001 WMP City View Reg.3 Across Canyon Dr.near Delwood Dr. 94.6% 5.4% 1,824 2,494 I 2,360
5 P-001 2001 WMP McNary Near Independence Ave. 94.6% 5.4% 1,303 _ _ 1,781 I 1.686
5 P-001 2001 WMP Palisades Reg.2 Laurel St.at Lund St. 94.6% 5.4% 977 1,336 P 1,264
6 P-001 2001 WMP McNary-Reg Bankers Trust Co Tr near SW Monroe Pkwy 94.6% 5.4% 1,629 2,227 1 .2,107
6 P-001 2001 WMP 10th Church St.across Durham Si 94.6% 5.4% 1,433 1,959 1 1,854
MISo-01 2001 WMP PRVs 94.6% 5.4% 5,000 6,836 I 8,468
I
Reservoirs
- I -
M s-O2 2001 WMP Waluga.1 MG-Replaced by Tigard partnership
- I
2001 WMP Pump Stations - ""' -
MIso-03 2001 WMP Touchstone 100.0% 0.0% 96,000 131.248 131,248
M sc.04 2001 WMP McVey 100.0% 0.0% 160,000 218,747 218.747
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenariolids CIP-Pape 10
• ■ • ■ ■ ■ 111 . ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■
Eligible Serving Original 2009 SDC
Proj. Project Capacity Existing Project Project Eligible
Priority # Source(1) Zone Project Title Increasing%(2) Deficiency Cost(1) Cost(3) Cost
2001 WMP interne -- _
M,sc-04 2001 WMP Portland—Replaced by Tigard partnership
2001 WMP Source Capacity
Mise-04 2001 WMP Replaced by Tigard partnership _ - - -
2001 WMP Other Projects
Ml,-05 2001 WMP Reservoirs 0.0% 100.0% 1.080,000 1,476,541 -
Misc-06 2001 WMP PRVs 0.0% 100.0% 100,000 136,717 -
Misc-o7 2001 WMP Master Plan update 0.0% 100.0% 300,000 410,150) -
2008 LO-Tigard Water Partnership Agreement Between The City of Lake Oswego and The City of Tigard ) -
1 2008 LO-Tigard Water Treatment Plant-32 mgd Expansion.2 mgd of 16 mgd increase allocated to Lake Oswego.2 mgd allocated to 100.0% a0% 4,928,750 5,670,220 5,870,220
growth.
2 2008 LO-Tigard Raw Water Intake and Pump Station-24 mgd of 38 mgd allocated to Lake Oswego.10 mgd allocated to growth. 41.7% 58.3% 2,804,211 3,339,860 1,391,608
3 2008 LO-Tigard Raw Water Transmission Main-24 mgd of 38 mgd allocated to Lake Oswego.10 mgd allocated to growth. 41.7% 58.3% 15,107,368 17,993,118 7,497,132
4 2008 LO-Tigard Finished Water Transmission Main(Reaches 7-10)-24 mgd of 38 mgd allocated to Lake Oswego.8 mgd allocated to
grown,. 33.3% 66.7% 24,138,947 28,749,873 9.583,291
5 2008 LO-Tigard Finished Water Transmission Main(Reaches 11-12)-8 mgd of 22 mgd allocated to Lake Oswego.Assumed 6 mgd 75.0% 25.0% 6,189,091 7,371,306 5,528,480
allocated to growth.
6 2008 LO-Tigard Storage-1 mg of 2.5 mg allocated to Lake Oswego.1 mg allocated to growth. 100.0% 0.0%_ 1,604,000 1,910,390 1,910,390
2001 WMP Stafford Extension -
1 2001 WMP Route A-GlennMorrie:Pipeline Upgrades(Brookhurst to Bergis;Bergis to Cornell) 100.0% 0,0% - - I -
2 2001 WMP Route A-GlennMonie:Pump Station Upgrade(Brookhurst Drive) 100.0% 0.0% - - I -
- I
t
Total 42.9% 57.1% $ 64,336,819 $ 78,310,971 $ 33,582,063
less: Beginning FY2009 SDC Fund Balance(4) L$ 867,116
'
Total Future Capital Projects for SDC Calculation $ 32,714,947[..
2 714 847
NOTES.
(1) 2001 WMP=City of Lake Oswego Water System Master Plan.January 2001.Montgomery Watson.Project costs reported in 2000 dollars(June 2000).
2008 LO-Tigard=Water Partnership Agreement Between The City of Lake Oswego and The City of Tigard(Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Water Supply Facilities,Design,Construction,And Operation).Project costs reported in 2006 dollars.
(2) Capacity-increasing allocations for projects from the 2001 WMP were determined by the amount of excess capacity provided by each project.Allocations for improvements related to the Lake Oswego-Tigard partnership are based on the excess capacity share of
allotted Lake Oswego capacity.
(3) Source:Engineering News Review,April 20,2009 issue.Partnership project costs escalated to current year at an annual rate of 6%,per Joint Water Supply System Analysis.
Year 2000 2006 2007 --. 2009
20-City Avg.Construction Cost Index 6,238 7.660 7.865 8 528 1
(4) Source-City staff.
FCS GROUP 10128/2009
(425)867-1802 Water SDC 062509-scenanolxls CIP-Page 11
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■
City of Lake Oswego •
Water SDC Update Study Preliminary
Administrative Cost Recovery Calculation
Table 6
Net Annual Administrative Cost related to Water SDC (1) $ 50,000
Amortization of SDC Study Cost over 5 years (2): 6,212
Net Annual SDC Administrative Cost: $ 56,212
Estimated Annual Proposed SDC Revenues before Admin. Cost $ 809,657
Admin. Cost! Total Annual SDC Revenues: 6.94% on all SDCs
NOTES:
(1) FY 2008 administrative cost. Source: City staff. April 2, 2009 meeting.
(2) Cost of: $ 28,450
at: 3.0%
over: 5 years
FCS GROUP 10/28/2009
(425) 867-1802 Water SDC 062509 -scenariol.xls Admin Cost- Page 12
Pr"
HBA
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
February 2, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman
City Councilors
City of Lake Oswego •
City Hall
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RE: Agenda item 7.1
Resolution 10.03
Water System Development Charges (SDC )
Dear Mayor Hoffman and Councilors:
My comments this evening are on behalf of the 1000+members of the Home Builders
Association of Metro Portland. First, let me say we are very appreciative of city staff as
well as your consultant for taking the time to brief our members on the essentials of this
proposal.
There is no doubt that the capital improvements envisioned in this proposal are extensive,
and the resulting increase in the (SDC) is large, it is also understood that the city really
has little choice but to go forward with its implementation.
The proposal is for a net increase of the SDC for a basic 5/8"x3/4"meter of$ 3,919, from
$2,485 to $6,404, a 157% increase. Similar and proportional increases are also proposed
for larger meter sizes.
In light of the magnitude of this proposed increase, the HBA supports the staff
recommendation and urges the council to phase in this increase, 1/3 now, 1/3 in Feb,
2011, and the balance in Feb 2012. This will provide a reasonable transition and enable
those who might have development projects on the drawing board to get underway
without having to absorb the 157% increase for which they have not been able to plan.
Further, the HBA supports the staff recommendation that the cost of any debt financing
not be folded into the capital costs embodied in this proposal. To do so would
15555 SW Bangy Road • Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Phone: 503.684.1880 • Fax: 503.684.0588 • www.homebuildersportland.org
•
Striving for Affordability,Balance and Choice
dramatically increase the resulting SDC, it is not certain just how much of the
improvements will actually need to be financed by debt, but most importantly, it would
be an administrative nightmare. A person who connected to the system in the future
would be paying some part of the debt via the SDC he paid,but would also be paying an
overlapping part of the debt via the rates he will pay, resulting in a double charge for
some portion of the debt.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincere , divL
E ie Platt
Director of Local Government Affairs
I
(GRAMOR
• DEVELOPMENT
February 1, 2010
Mayor Jack D. Iloffman
City of Lake Oswego
P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
RE: Comments on the Proposed Water System Development Charge Fee Increase
Dear Mayor Hoffman and members of the Council:
Gramor Development was invited by staff engineer Joel Komarek to participate in a round table
discussion about the impacts of the proposed water SDC fees under consideration. We attended the discussion
session on January 19, 2010 and met the City's consultant PCS Group who explained the methodology and
legal foundations for the increased fees.
We understand that the fees have not been raised in many years and the City is preparing for the future
in the most economical expansion methods available. The 3/4 inch meter fee of$2,478.00 is recommended to
escalate to $9,168.00 with financing costs and $6,404.00 without financing costs. In comparing the fee increase
• to surrounding communities the proposed $6,404.00 fee places Lake Oswego with the second highest water
meter SDC fees next to Wilsonville. This represents a massive increase in one step that is not easy to manage
when development is already very difficult to pursue in this economic climate.
Staff has done an excellent job at exploring the expansion alternatives and the respective costs. It
appears that staff has selected the least costly approach, in particular with the water partnership project with
Tigard that represents the single largest capital cost of$65.0 million out of the $78.3 million total 2009 costs.
Given the state of the economy and the need to keep development costs lower in the short term, we
suggest a staggered increase over a three (3) year time frame using the methodology without financing costs.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important public service to the community.
If you or the Council members have questions we can be reached at 503-245-1976.
Sincerely,
Gramor Development, Inc.
}
'/ / / /1�c6
Matt Grady, AICP
• Senior Project Ma ager
cc: Joel Komarek
19767 SW 72nd AVE,STE 100 TUALATIN,OR 97062-8352 503.245.1976 503.654.9188 I www.gramor.com
ccb#159250
r
``�{O{tAK[o w,
O
flA► CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director - LOIS
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2547, Amending Lake Oswego Code (LOC) Chapter 39
Relating to Systems Development Charges (SDC).
DATE: January 23, 2010
ACTION
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 2547, an ordinance amending Lake Oswego Code
Articles 39.02 and 39.06 relating to Systems Development Charges.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Current staff practice has been that when a developer constructs a "qualified public
improvement" and that improvement is constructed larger than what is required to serve
the subject development, the developer is cash reimbursed for the additional
construction cost to construct the larger public improvement. Historically, such cash
reimbursements have been infrequent and relatively small and made from funds
budgeted in the City's SDC fund. In the last few years, due to a slowdown in
development activities, no funds have been budgeted for this purpose.
Regardless, this practice exceeds the requirements of ORS 223.304(4)(a) and staff is
recommending that LOC Section 39.06.111 be amended to clarify that credits given
cannot exceed the amount of the improvement fee for the qualifying improvement and
that credit payments by the City to a developer can only be made from cash proceeds
received by the City from SDC's generated with build-out of the development. With
these amendments, the City eliminates the possibility of making cash reimbursements
in excess of the improvement fee and reduces the financial risk of making payments to
the developer before SDC's related to further development are collected and paid to the
City.
For additional background on this subject, please see Exhibit `A' attached.
d
Council Report
01/23/2010
Page 12
DISCUSSION
In addition to updating the City's water SDC methodology, staff directed that FCS group
undertake a review of the City's current codes and practices regarding the granting of
SDC credits. This review was conducted and a memorandum was prepared
documenting the findings of the review and providing recommendations (see Exhibit
`B'). This memorandum was shared and reviewed with staff from the Public Works
Department and City Attorney's Office.
Ordinance No. 2547 has been prepared in response to the findings and
recommendations regarding SDC credits and if enacted would 1) correct a minor
inconsistency that exists between related Articles of LOC 39.02 and 39.06 specific to
the definition of"Qualified Public Improvement", and 2) clarify and codify the
administration of SDC credits in LOC Section 39.06.111 (see Exhibit 'C' attached).
ALTERNATIVES/FISCAL IMPACT
The alternatives are:
1) To accept staffs recommendation to enact Ordinance 2547 amending LOC
Chapter 39 relating to Systems Development Charges; or
2) Not accept staff's recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council enact Ordinance No. 2547.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit 'A' — Council report dated July 6, 2009;
2. Exhibit 'B' —July 14, 2009 Memorandum from FCS Group
3. Exhibit 'C' — Ordinance 2547
Reviewed by: 4c
D artment Director
Fin ce 're or
CityA
0
Alex D\ cln re
City Man er
EXHIBIT
cL u►xc os�f`o a A
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
o.LGO
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
fr
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director- LOIS -�
SUBJECT: Water Systems Development Charges Update
DATE: July 6, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to concur with Staff recommendations regarding modifications to
existing methodology for the City's water utility Systems Development Charges ("SDC").
These modifications would result in a change in the fees collected at the time new
connections are made to the City's water system. The adoption of a new methodology
for water SDC's is a Council Goal.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
LOC 39.02.011 —"The purpose of the system development charge is to impose a
portion of the cost of capital improvements for water, wastewater, drainage, streets,
flood control, and parks and recreation upon those developments that create the need
for or increase the demands on capital improvements."
ORS 223.299(4)(a) -"System development charge" means a reimbursement fee, an
improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of
increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit,
building permit or connection to the capital improvement. "System development
charge" includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is
greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average
cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities
Council Report
July 6, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The last time Systems Development Charges ("SDC") for the water utility underwent
review and updating was in 1998. At that time, staff did not have sufficient knowledge
of the capacity of the existing system to determine whether a change to the
reimbursement portion of the SDC was appropriate and so focused only on updating
the improvement portion of the SDC based upon the then current 1988 Water Master
Plan ("WMP").
In early 2008, Council established a goal and directed staff to undertake a review and
update of all SDC's for its enterprise utilities. Because the water utility had the most
current master plan (2001 and updated through 2007), staff proceeded to undertake a
review and update of water SDC's first. In May 2008, the technical analysis was
complete, but concurrently the City was negotiating an intergovernmental Agreement
with the City of Tigard wherein Tigard would jointly plan, fund and own a portion of the
City's water supply system. The water SDC technical analysis was conducted for two
scenarios—"with" and "without" Tigard. Until an agreement with Tigard was finalized,
the water SDC analysis could not be completed and thus, staff took possession of the
consultant's work products completed to date and terminated the contract.
In August 2008, the City executed an agreement with Tigard forming a water supply
partnership. In February 2009, the City retained FCS Group, a municipal finance
consulting firm to resume and complete the water SDC update effort. In May 2009 FCS
Group completed the technical work. The basis for the SDC alternatives and fiscal
impacts discussed below will be explained in detail as part of Staffs presentation on
July 14th.
ORS 223.304 requires local government desiring to establish or modify a
reimbursement fee or improvement fee to do so pursuant to resolution or ordinance. At
its Jury 14, 2009 study session, staff will present the findings of the technical analysis to
Council along with recommendations for modifications to the existing SDC methodology
and applicable City Code. The proposed modifications are based on:
a Rate making principles;
• Prior contributions of existing users of the system;
• The value of unused capacity available to future users of the system.
• Recognition of grants, gifts or other contributions toward development of the
system by federal or state government or private persons;
• The projected cost of capital improvements identified in the plan and list
adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity
of the systems for which the fee is related; and
• The need for increased capacity in the system to served demands placed on
the system by future users.
EXHIBIT
t
s
• FCS ( ii;( ) ( I' r
Memoranduiiri
To: John Ghilarducci Date: July 14,2009
From: Michael Dean
RE Lake Oswego Credit Policy
One of the City objectives for this SDC study is to establish a clearly defined approach to
granting SDC credits. As part of this goal,we reviewed the City's current SDC credit policy and
procedures,resulting in the following summary:
• Current City code meets all requirements of the state Statute regarding SDC;credits.
o Note that the definition of"qualified public improvement" matches the Statute in
Section 39.06.111 of the City code, however there is a different definition of the
term in the Definitions section of the Chapter(39.02.021).
• Current City procedures that are not required by the City Code nor the Statute:
o Cash reimbursement. Currently, if a development requires a 6" main and the
developer installs an 8"main, the City provides cash reimbursement for the extra
2". This issue relates to an uncertainty about granting credits: should they be
granted towards the project cost, or the improvement fee? We recommend that
credits be granted against the improvement fee, and not the cost of the developer-
provided improvement(i.e.,cash reimbursement).
o Possible over-crediting. A consequence of cash reimbursement can be over-
crediting for developer-provided improvements. This results in credits being
granted in excess of the amount of the improvement fee that the development
would be assessed.
• Summary for Council: the City's SDC credit policy does meet Statutory minimum
requirements, however its current application exceeds both the City and Statutory
requirements.
• Recommendations:
o Allow credits up to the oversizing portion of the planned project cost.
o In order to allow full compensation to developers while also minimizing the
financial risk to the City, we recommend that the credit policy include cash
reimbursement only from SDCs generated by the build out of the development in
question.
Redmond fawn Cent=,, ?5 16oAve NE,Suitt'D 21S.Redmond,WA 98057 •425 861.18n"
��Rutih
Street,Suite 1S San Francisco,CA 94104 • 415.445.894/
1402G Si-.Johnson Ro..Suir; 2r.“-) Mikvaukie,OR 9/21,7• 01.353./440
ORDINANCE 2547
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 39
OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CODE RELATING TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES.
Whereas,the City of Lake Oswego owns and operates a municipal water supply system; and
Whereas, the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 223.302) establish that governmental units are
authorized to establish system development charges that are collected at the time of increased usage
of a capital improvement, or issuance of a development or building permit, or connection to the
capital improvement; and
Whereas,ORS 223.304(4) establishes that an ordinance or resolution creating a system
development charge for a governmental unit shall also provide for a credit against such a fee for the
construction of a qualified public improvement; and
Whereas,the City Council finds that it is appropriate to amend certain sections of LOC Article
39, relating to system development charges;
Now, therefore,the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 39.02.021 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended to replace the
definition of"Qualified Public Improvement"in its entirety with the following:
"Qualified Public Improvement means a capital improvement that is:
a. Required as a condition of development approval; and
b. Identified in the Improvement Plan adopted pursuant to LOC Section 39.04.071; and is
either:
i. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subiect of development approval;
or
ii. Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subiect of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related."
Section 2. Subsection 3(a) of Section 39.06.111 of the Lake Oswego Code is herebyamended
as follows(new material underlined,deleted material in stl ):
"3. a. The credit provided for in subsection 2 of this section shall be only for the
improvement fee charged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for
qualified public improvements under subsection 2(b) of this section may be granted only
for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the City's minimum
standard facility size or capacity needed is built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary to serve the particular development project or property to which the
improvement fee is related. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a
particular improvement qualifies for credit under subsection 2(b) of this section."
Page 1 of 2—Ordinance No. 2547
Section 3. Section 39.06.111 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended to add new
subsection(7)as follows:
"7. Cash reimbursements of credits earned under subsections 2(b)of this section shall be
made by the City only from the improvement fee portion of system development charges
that are generated by the build-out of the development for which such credits are earned."
Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
Enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the
day of , 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffinan,Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APP OVED ORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2—Ordinance No. 2547
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
• , COMMUNITY
MNEWSPAtitiCS
6805a Like Read,Portland,OR 91222•PO Box 22100•Portland,0697269
Phone:503-084-0360 Fax 503-620-0433
E-mail:legals@commaewspapers.com
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Oregon, County of Clackamas, SS �w �w
I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, � ;N City of Lake Oswego
depose and say that I am the Accounting ' ► NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF
Manager of the Lake Oswego Review, a ORDINANCE 2547
newspaper of general circulation, published
at Lake Oswego, in the aforesaid county and G
state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and
193.020, that The Lake Oswego City Council will consider Ordinance 2547 at
its regular meeting of Tuesday,February 2,2010. The meeting
City of Lake Oswego will convene at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 380 A
Notice of Consideration/Ordinance 2547 Avenue.
LOR12534
ORDINANCE NO 2547
A copy of which is hereto annexed, was AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY
published in the entire issue of said COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 39 OF THE
newspaper for LAKE OSWEGO CODE RELATING TO SYSTEMS
1 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
week in the following issue:
January 21, 2010 Copies of this Ordinance will be available one week before the
meeting in the City Recorder's Office and will also be available
at the February 2,2010 meeting. For more information,contact
�. a 1 a 0 Robyn Christie,City Recorder,at 503-675-3984.
Publish 01/21/2010. LOR12534
Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
January y2010.
OFFICIAL SEAL
RQBtAI-A.BUPGESS
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR ORE01 N a: NOTARY P18LIC-OREGON
Mycommission expires COMMISSION NO.437285
P MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,2013
Acct#400519
Attn: Robyn Christie
City of Lake Oswego
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Size: 2 x 3.5
Amount Due $55.65*
`Please remit to the above address.
}Ad
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
s :irpor February 2, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on
Febru-.+ry 2, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney,
and Jordan.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS
Communications Director; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Craig Diamond for his service on the
Natural Resources Advisory Board and Sustainability Advisory Board
Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Craig Diamond and thanked him for
his service. He mentioned that Mr. Diamond served on the Natural Resources Advisory Board
from 2006-2009 (co-chair, 2006-2007). His passion for sustainability led him to create the
Sustainability Advisory Board, on which he also served as co-chair. He has been an articulate
spokesman for sustainability and encouraged the Council and City staff to adopt sustainability.
Mayor Hoffman noted that Mr. Diamond was moving to Hartford, CT.
Mr. Diamond thanked the Council and the City for giving him the opportunity to form the
Sustainability Advisory Board. He recognized the Councils leadership in sustainability and Ms.
Papaefthimiou and Ms. Millhauser for their great work.
3.2 Presentation of Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Niland Shatsky for her service
on the Library Advisory Board
Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Niland Shatsky and thanked
her for her service. He indicated that she joined the Board in March 2007 and served as chair from
July 2008. He spoke of her work on the Library Planned Giving Program and the LO Reads
Steering Committee, as well as representing the library at citywide events.
Ms. Shatsky thanked the library staff and her family for their support. She commented that
serving on the Board has been a great experience. She invited the Council members and
audience to attend the many LO Reads events occurring this month.
3.3 Proclamation honoring the League of Women Voters on its 90th anniversary
Mayor Hoffman introduced Lynn Gordon, League of Women Voters. Ms. Gordon gave a brief
overview of the history of the League, which began in 1920 with the conversion of the National
American Women's Suffrage Association to the new organization. She described the League's
work as political but non-partisan in educating voters on issues, advocating for the passage of
legislation, and initiating get out the vote campaigns, as well as other activities as part of their effort
to make democracy work. She mentioned that the League sponsored the first Meet the Candidate
forum in 1928.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
February 2, 2010
U
She described how the League grew in Lake Oswego, beginning in 1955, to become the League of
Women Voters in Clackamas County with expansion into Milwaukie and east Clackamas County in
2002. She thanked the Council for recognizing the League on its 90`h anniversary.
Mayor Hoffman read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Gordon.
3.4 LOIS Update
Ms. Heisler mentioned that many barges would leave the lake once the contractor finished
installing the less than 50 anchors remaining. She indicated that they were just under 57% on the
pipe fusing and replacement. She explained that what Councilor Hennagin saw regarding the pipe
fusing machine at the trestle had been the contractor bringing in a smaller machine because they
have finished fusing the 42-inch pipe.
Mr. Komarek indicated that the contractor expected to complete the ground installation work
around February 15. He mentioned that staff was working closely with the Lake Corporation and
the contractor to manage the marine traffic congestion that would occur at the entrance to Half
Moon Bay and near the entrance of the East Arm when the contractor began focusing on the pile
work in those areas. He spoke of the completion of the manhole installations this week and the
progress on the placement of the buoyant tether brackets, to which the contractor would attach the
42-inch pipe by mid-February.
He mentioned the Council's contract award to J.W. Fowler on January 5 for the Bryant Road and
Foothills Road pump stations, and the bid opening on the Lake Down Phase scheduled for mid-
February with a tentative Council contract award in early March. He spoke of the Council's
authorization to include the cured in place plastic (CIPP) pipe rehabilitation of West Bay, Lakewood
Bay, and Foothills into the Lake Down phase for potential cost savings, and the seismic retrofit of
the elevated pipe in the Foothills Road area.
Ms. Heisler mentioned scheduling Meet the Contractor meetings for the Bryant and Foothill
neighbors. She indicated that they were also working with different easement associations to work
out the details of the LOIS work, including Village on the Lake, Forest Hills, and Springbrook. She
noted the Council LOIS subcommittee meeting last week, a new video on the website on pipe
bending, an article about the pump station contractor, the soon completion of the third webisode,
the placement of videos on Facebook and YouTube, an upcoming article in Hello LO on the Lake
Down Phase, and the Council weekly update in the Digest. She presented several photos of
various aspects of the project work.
Mr. Komarek noted the acceleration in the schedule of the CIPP work and the Foothills seismic
upgrade work from the later part of 2011/2012 to the second or third quarter of 2011. He explained
that the project cost estimate was now just under $100 million, with the good bidding climate and
the deferral of a portion of the Foothills sewer replacement until they knew more about the
redevelopment and streetcar activities in the Foothills area.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Heisler thanked Mayor Hoffman for his report that the shareholders at the Lake Corporation
Shareholders Meeting had been complimentary with respect to the contractor and the staff, as staff
did try to stay on top of any issues.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that it was likely that staff would nominate the project
for national and international engineering awards, as it was an innovative use of materials and an
application not done before.
Councilor Hennagin congratulated staff that the cost of this project has come down from an
original estimate of$120 to $124 million to under$100 million. Mr. Komarek commented that staff
was proud of that and always looking for ways to economize and improve efficiencies, such as
packing in as much work as they thought could reasonably be done while the bidding climate was
good.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11
February 2, 2010
i r
Councilor Jordan commented that the City's change of direction on the project, which occurred
shortly after Mr. McIntyre came on board, has proved to be the right action and made a major
contribution to the reduction in cost. She expressed her appreciation for the staff advice and
willingness to undertake this difficult task.
Councilor Tierney observed that the project was under budget, on schedule, and looked terrific.
Mr. Komarek, on behalf of the LOIS team and Brown & Caldwell, thanked the Council for its
continued support and interest in this project.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Hennagin moved adoption of the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan seconded
the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman,
Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation of Craig Diamond from the Sustainability Advisory Board, effective
February 28, 2010
Action: Accept resignation
4.1.2 Service contract renewal to provide temporary workers for Parks Maintenance
activities
Action: Approve renewal of service contract with The Personnel Department in the
amount of$185,000.
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 10-07, authorizing an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Clackamas County Department of Human Resources, Social Services
Division, for Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-07
4.2.2 Resolution 10-11, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City of
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat
enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by
the City of Lake Oswego
Action: This item was pulled for discussion.
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
5.1 Resolution 10-11, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the City of
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services for the purpose of facilitating a habitat
enhancement project on Tryon Creek in an area that includes real property owned by
the City of Lake Oswego
Ms. Gilmer recalled that last January she had discussed with Council the components of an IGA
with the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) regarding a stream restoration project
along Tryon Creek that included City property. She reviewed the project location on a combination
of Metro, Portland, and Lake Oswego properties along the creek in Tryon State Park. She
described the proposed work to grade back the bank and to slow the creek down through
increased meandering, as well as through wooden structures and boulders placed in the creek
(p.21).
She mentioned that BES's initial cost estimates came in at more than their grant, and, therefore,
they scaled back the amount of debris that they would place in the creek. She used plans of the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11
February 2, 2010
■ r
project area (pp.22-23) in describing the proposed restoration work. She used plans of the project
area (pp.23-24) in describing the proposed mitigation measures that BES would take in different
areas on the project site. She mentioned the use of shrubs, trees, and native grasses. She
indicated that the mitigation on the Lake Oswego property would improve the bank and create a
little grassy meadow that would be easier for the City to maintain in the long run.
She pointed out the area on Lake Oswego property where BES would deposit the soil that it had to
remove from the project site. She explained that this would minimize the grading that the City
would have to do eventually in building a trail at that location. She mentioned the removal of 13
trees, which BES would either chip on site or lay down as wildlife habitat.
She mentioned the environmental testing that BES had done at the park site in 1999. The
insignificant amounts of hydrocarbons and heavy metals found would not require clean up when
the City built its pathway. She indicated that staff negotiated with BES that, in the event of any
necessary clean up, the two organizations would either share the costs, modify the project, or
terminate the project.
She described the provision in the BES project design for a 50-foot corridor without trees along a
desirable trail alignment for a pedestrian bridge crossing from Foothills Park to Tryon Cove Park.
She explained that the City stood a better chance of getting permits from the environmental
agencies along this alignment, which also allowed an ADA-accessible pathway. She indicated that
BES did not grant a trail easement to the City for the narrow portion of its property that the
preferred trail alignment crossed because they were not yet certain about the results of their re-
master planning of the water treatment plant. However, they did agree to work in good faith
towards getting a pathway. Mr. Powell concurred, noting that the language in paragraph 9, p. 29,
was not a guarantee but rather a good faith obligation on Portland's part.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Ms. Gilmer confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that what BES intended to accomplish with the
project was to lay back the steep slope next to the creek to provide for a wider creek channel. She
noted that it affected about 50 linear feet of City property. Mayor Hoffman commented that the
idea was to allow the stream to find the most efficient way to get from the pipe under Hwy 43 to the
Willamette River, which could include finding a new channel.
Mayor Hoffman observed that one of the problems that they had with many creeks was that the
creeks were channelized. A goal of watershed management was to unchannelize the smaller
creeks and eliminate the culvert. Ms. Gilmer recalled an Oregon Fish & Wildlife project from last
summer that created a series of steps up to the culvert as a way for fish to get up to and through
the culvert.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Metro, Portland, and Lake Oswego pooled
their money to purchase the Jarvis property in 2002, with the property divided up according to
contribution amount.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that the increased acreage from the mitigation should
not increase the City's maintenance level because those areas would return to a natural state, and
the City was not maintaining what was there now anyway.
Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-11. Councilor Johnson seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors
Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
Councilor Johnson moved to suspend the Council rules and set the time limit at three
minutes per citizen. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and
the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney,
and Jordan voting "aye." Councilor Olson voted 'no.' [6-1]
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11
February 2, 2010
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Resolution 10-03, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council approving a change
in the methodology relating to system development charges for the water utility,
and,
Ordinance No. 2547, amending Chapter 39 of the Lake Oswego Code relating to
Water System Development Charges
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Komarek indicated that staff was seeking Council approval of Resolution 10-03 to modify the
City's current water SDCs methodology. He introduced Jon Ghilarducci, a principal with FCS
Group, a municipal financial consulting firm. He recalled the July 2009 staff presentation to the
Council of the findings of the technical analysis, and the September 2009 staff report to Council on
staff conversations with Metro staff regarding how to use SDCs to encourage vibrant communities
and different types of development. He mentioned Council's direction in September for staff to
publish the 90-day notice.
Mr. Ghilarducci gave an abbreviated presentation of the technical analysis findings. He
discussed the calculation methodology for the two components of an SDC, the reimbursement fee
and the improvement fee, which represented one share of system capacity to serve each
increment of new growth. He reviewed their key assumptions behind the SDC methodology,
including the use of the demand forecasts from the 2007 Corolla Report, improvement fee cost
estimates updated to current year dollars, and a 20-year CIP but not future financing costs.
He indicated that they calculated the charges on a meter equivalent basis (Lake Oswego used a %
inch meter). He mentioned their use of a technical, cost-based, solution, as opposed to a policy-
based solution. He reviewed the fee calculations resulting in a reimbursement fee of$947 per
meter equivalent and an improvement fee of$5,041 per meter equivalent, plus an additional $416
for administrative cost recovery, for a total SDC of$6,404 per meter equivalent. He presented the
schedule showing the charges increasing by meter size.
He presented a comparison of area water SDCs. He pointed out that it was an apples to oranges
comparison, as each system was different. He recommended Council adoption of the $6,404 per
meter equivalent SDC, clarification of Code language regarding the application of credit to new
connections, and consideration of phasing in the charge.
Mr. Komarek indicated that staff presented this same information to the Homebuilders Association
and local developers so that they would understand the City's approach and numbers. He
reported that both groups expressed concern with the City enacting the fee all at once (they
preferred a phased approach) and including speculative future debt financing costs. He noted that
Resolution 10-03 phased in the fee in three parts and did not include debt financing in the fee.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would report back on the percentage
increase in the cost estimates from the master plan costs to 2009 dollars, per the Engineering
News-Record construction cost index.
Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Councilor Tierney that Wilsonville reduced its SDC temporarily to
give relief to the development community.
Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the 40% of the $78 million allocated to
growth was roughly proportional to what was left to grow to build out, according to the forecasts in
the Joint Water Supply report. He said that the $78 million included more than Lake Oswego's
share in the LO/Tigard water project, as it included the master plan projects as well.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11
February 2, 2010
i r
Councilor Hennagin asked what the logic was behind not including the debt service for a bond.
Mr. Ghilarducci indicated that the two main concerns were the speculation inherent in trying to
determine how much debt the City would issue in the future and what the interest costs would be,
and double-charging new homes through a one-time SDC that included those costs, in addition to
the ongoing water rates that repaid the debt.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Olson that the number of new units included the projected
growth in the City's USB outside the city limits (including Foothills) plus some development in the
Stafford area.
Councilor Olson asked if the difference between the $32 million and the $78 million represented
system upgrades needed regardless of whether the city grew. Mr. Komarek explained that each
project had a different cost allocation for growth-related costs and for capacity for existing
customers costs, although the bottom line was roughly proportional. He gave an example of the
raw water transmission main cost allocation of 60% for serving existing customers and 40% for
growth.
Mr. Ghilarducci clarified to Councilor Tierney that because the improvement fee reduced the rate
burden for every ratepayer in the future, a homeowner paying both an SDC and the ongoing water
rate was not charged twice.
Mr. Powell recommended re-inserting the word `capital' before `improvement plan' in Section 1.b of
the proposed ordinance (p.61) for consistency with other references to the `capital improvement
plan' in the ordinance.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.
• Ernie Platt, Homebuilders Association (HBA)
He thanked staff for the considerable time they spent in helping the Homebuilders Association to
understand this complex SDC. He mentioned his appreciation of the Council asking similar
questions to what the HBA members had asked. He noted that it was a 157% increase over the
current rate, which was a lot for anyone in business to absorb, especially during these tough
economic times when developers did not have the additional financing to pay for such a large
increase.
He stated that the Homebuilders Association fully supported the staff recommendation to phase
the SDC in three parts, reaching the final number in two years, and not to include the debt
financing costs. He commented that they were not happy about the increase but understood that
those who used the water needed to pay for it.
Mr. Platt indicated to Mayor Hoffman that developers paid the SDC when the City issued the
building permit. Mayor Hoffman observed that the challenge from a builder's perspective was up
fronting the SDC fee and then waiting until the house sale closed for payback. Mr. Platt
commented that more and more often they were finding construction financing sufficient to cover
the construction but not the upfront fees; a builder had to use operating capital extracted from his
business while the project was under construction. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the
cause was a combination of tighter construction loans and the loan to value calculation.
• John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliffe Terrace
He asked a series of questions. Mr. Komarek indicated that staff did not include SDC revenue in
the water rate forecast because the bond rating agencies did not allow inclusion of that revenue
when bonding. Mr. Ghilarducci explained that the bond market required a jurisdiction to set its
water rates to recover the debt service and would not even consider using SDC revenues. Mr.
Komarek noted that the bond market did not like the variability in the collection of SDC revenues.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11
February 2, 2010
Mr. Komarek directed Mr. Surrett to the Corolla Report for the projected population growth figures
for Lake Oswego and Tigard. Mr. Surrett commented that Tigard had an aggressive population
growth and expansion program, (looking to increase from a mid-40,000 population to 100,000)
while Lake Oswego's growth projection of half of one percent a year was quite conservative.
Mr. Ghilarducci indicated to Mr. Surrett that Tigard was due to update its SDCs to reflect the
costs of the partnership agreement.
Mr. Komarek stated that the forecasted number of residents in the Stafford Triangle at build out
was around 6,900. Mr. Surrett asked how the City would be able to show beneficial use for the
purposes of increasing water rights on the Clackamas to 16 mgd when the people in the Stafford
Triangle did not exist. He mentioned that LONAC submitted testimony endorsing the Stafford
Triangle as rural reserve. Mr. Komarek indicated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Surrett
to discuss the population forecasts.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that the City could not put SDCs towards the cost of a project that it
was anticipating right now in its rate calculation, but somewhere down the line, it could apply the
SDCs to the expansion part of a project.
Mr. Ghilarducci observed that the issue with SDCs was always cash flow. The City needed to
build the projects now, yet it collected the SDCs incrementally over time. He discussed how this
related to rates. He explained that water rates needed to meet all the utility's cash needs, such as
operating expenses, debt service, and capital cash funding, and to meet revenue bond coverage
requirements. Since bond market did not allow the City to count SDCs in meeting the coverage
test, SDCs did not have a dollar for dollar impact on the water rates, even though the City could
use them to pay the debt service.
Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 10-03 and to enact Ordinance 2547. Councilor
Johnson seconded the motion.
Councilor Moncrieff thanked Mr. Platt, the Homebuilders Association, and staff for working
cooperatively on this matter.
Councilor Tierney indicated that he supported the resolution with some hesitancy. He discussed
his concern that the City continue to look at SDCs across the entire spectrum of housing growth in
Lake Oswego, especially with regards to attainable housing. He commented that SDCs were an
impediment to some of the Council's goals.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
Councilor Olson asked to see the comparison to other jurisdictions table again. Mr. Komarek
confirmed that Lake Oswego would hit the high end on SDCs in a year. Councilor Olson asked
staff to let the Council know when Tigard updated its SDCs.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff presented the full range of SDCs across all
utilities to the Council last July. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council needed to keep track
of that information when it discussed attainable housing. Councilor Jordan pointed out that there
were alternatives that the Council could take with respect to SDCs in order to make things work in
favor of affordable housing projects. Mayor Hoffman recalled that, at a meeting with Metro staff,
they identified opportunities to promote certain types of developments, with the big benefits coming
from the transportation SDCs and surface water fees.
8. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
8.1 Councilor Information
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
February 2, 2010
8.1.2 Centennial Celebration
Councilor Jordan announced that the new website, LO100.com, with the Centennial events
schedule, was up and running. She mentioned that the video of Lake Oswego history was also
available at the website.
8.1.3 LO Reads
Councilor Hennagin reminded the audience that February was LO Reads month. He mentioned
an open house this Thursday at Graham's Stationary and Chrisman Framing Galleries and the -
unveiling of 18 paintings done by local artists reflecting their thoughts after reading LO Reads book
selection, The Whistling Season.
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
8.2.1 National League of Cities (NLC) Annual Meeting Report
Councilor Tierney reported that, as a consequence of attending some sessions associated with
First Tier Suburbs (a special group within the NLC), the new NLC president appointed him to the
group's Steering Committee. He said that he asked staff to check with their Washington lobbyists
to see what value this appointment might have. He mentioned that he would talk with Mr. McIntyre
about potential travel costs associated with his participation.
He observed that active participation in an organization probably meant getting more out of the
organization for the community. Mayor Hoffman mentioned the benefits in learning from other
people, as opposed to keeping a narrow focus.
8.2.2 Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) Report
Mayor Hoffman reported that MPAC made its last recommendation with respect to urban and rural
reserves to leave Stafford undesignated. He indicated that it was now up to Metro and the Core 4.
He mentioned the anticipation of a decision by the end of February. If they made no decision, then
the process reverted to the old method based on soil types. In that case, Stafford would
undoubtedly come in 2010 or 2015.
8.2.3 Mayors' Streetcar Summit
Mayor Hoffman announced that he would attend the Mayors' Streetcar Summit in Washington,
D.C., at the end of this month. This involved ten mayors from around the country meeting with
Rep. Blumenauer and various agencies to discuss streetcars and the New Starts program.
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
Mr. McIntyre announced that the City received notice today from the State that it has funded the
City's Safe Routes to School project of Pilkington Road/Jean Road to Dawn Street. He explained
that staff would use the funds for the preliminary engineering with construction slated for next year.
He indicated to the Mayor that he would notify the interested parties.
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
9.2 City Attorney
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:17 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
8:24 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11
February 2, 2010
■ r
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
10.1 Closed session under authority of ORS 192.660 (2) (d) conduct deliberations with
persons designated to carry on labor negotiations
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 8:24 p.m. He reviewed the
Executive Session parameters,
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman reconvened the regular meeting at 9:02 p.m.
The Council reviewed the remainder of the draft goals at Councilor Olson's request.
The Council discussed the goal relating to the City's financial audit. Councilor Tierney
suggested striking the word `strive' from `Strive for the audit...'. He held that the goal should be the
City having no material weaknesses in light of the audit. Mr. McIntyre mentioned Ms. Euler's
concern that she was inheriting the `material weaknesses,' and that she did not want to be held
accountable for those errors. Councilor Tierney pointed out that all the material weaknesses
were date specific events. Councilor Olson commented that Ms. Euler was addressing those
identified areas, which were fixable; Council would check back in March and expect a lot of
progress in fixing them.
Mr. McIntyre acknowledged that ultimately he was accountable for the situation. He indicated that
Ms. Euler, as she unearthed the non-computer financial systems in place now at the City, was
seeing a need for a big fix in order to get on rock solid financial ground again. He clarified that all
the money was accounted for, but Ms. Euler was giving the rudimentary, fundamental elements of
the organization's non-computer financial systems `F grades.'
Councilor Tierney mentioned goal language indicating that the Council understood that the issues
were systemic, and that the solutions would fix the problems.
Councilor Johnson suggested a compromise goal of the City achieving an audit without any
material weaknesses or errors in the next two years. Mayor Hoffman commented that that was
not a goal for the Council, as the Council would not do that work.
Mr. McIntyre recalled the Council discussion of a goal as something achievable. He suggested
that Councilor Tierney's goal was not achievable as of today, although it would be in two years. He
observed that an unspoken expectation was that the City would have a clean audit. He noted that
the City has always had a clean audit, even though it had some material weaknesses showing up
in this year's audit. He indicated that staff was struggling in the financial arena to strengthen the
foundations.
Councilor Jordan observed that they were trying to support the identification of system changes
that would eliminate material weaknesses. Councilor Olson indicated that her goal was to
strengthen the Financial Department to the point where the City no longer had material
weaknesses. Councilor Moncrieff agreed. Mayor Hoffman described the goal as telling the City
Manager that the Council would give him the tools that he needed to succeed, as opposed to the
Council controlling things.
The Council agreed on a goal of strengthening the financial systems in order to eliminate material
weaknesses in future audits.
Councilor Olson mentioned another goal of the Council receiving rock solid financial reports from
the Finance Department in order to do its job.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that Council had asked staff to identify untapped
funding opportunities, which he acknowledged might not be a goal.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
February 2, 2010
■ r
Councilor Tierney asked to see a summary of the cost allocation study before the Council
adopted the report's recommendations. He noted that the recovery of the indirect program costs of
implementing the cost study allocation study recommendations would be in the budget. Mr.
McIntyre explained that this involved an internal administrative policy, which he would provide to
the Council. He confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this was not a new policy, as the new study
updated the figures in the previous cost allocation study.
Mr. McIntyre indicated that the five-year capital improvement plan (CIP) would come to Council in
March for approval; the first year of the ClP would then go into the FY 2010/2011 budget.
Councilor Tierney referenced "Department budgets will fully fund all positions in budget
reasonable amounts in line item accounts for unforeseen circumstances." He asked whether
departments had contingency funds. Mr. McIntyre clarified that the City funded contingencies by
fund, and not by department. He explained that the idea was to provide some flexibility within the
budget in order to allow him to respond to unforeseen circumstances. He mentioned that, per
Council direction, the budget was lean; the only thing left to cut were people. He commented that
a budget could be so tight that it was inflexible and effectively hamstrung the entire organization.
Councilor Tierney concurred on having a contingency, provided that it was done under Mr.
McIntyre's control and not on a department basis.
Councilor Tierney referenced "Fund streets and Comprehensive Plan improvements from
revenues generated in the street funds." He spoke to using other funding sources, such as
franchise fees, to fund street improvements. Mr. McIntyre clarified that this bullet meant that
whatever revenues were coming into the street fund he would use on the streets. He would not
use other revenue sources unless the Council directed him to do so. He indicated that all franchise
fees currently went into the general fund, but he would check into whether some of the PGE
franchise fee was supposed to go to the street fund.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that he would "fund the balance of the Foothills
Framework Plan from the general fund reserves" (p.4, #4) because he could not pay that amount
of money out of operations. He said that he called this out explicitly in order to verify that what he
heard Council say at goal setting regarding funding one-time costs was correct. He confirmed that
the City would get the money back.
He indicated to Councilor Olson that the language about"developing a baseline budget unless
otherwise directed" (p.3) was the same language that staff presented at goal setting. Since he did
not hear anything different, he was presenting it again for verification. He mentioned his intention
to have the department heads (on a monthly basis) brief the Council on what services each
department provided. He referenced his earlier comment about how the organization has
absorbed many services that were now part of the baseline. He described another staff pilot effort
to plug performance measures into the budget in order to give Council a sense of measures for
City services.
Councilor Olson expressed her concern that if they added services in one area (such as
strengthening the Finance Department), then they needed to cut somewhere else. She
commented that she hesitated to agree to the baseline budget.
Councilor Jordan recalled her concern at goal setting that she did not know what the baseline
services were. She observed that if Clackamas County Social Services did reduce the amount of
money it gave to Lake Oswego to provide services, the City would still have to provide those
services unless it had a filter in place that eliminated the service because the cost benefit was not
worth it. She indicated that she trusted that staff was using filters to decide whether to end a
service or not. Since she did not know what those were, she would like information on the filters.
She commented that the City has provided services to its citizens through projects funded for a few
years, and then continued the service after the funding ran out because the people liked the
service.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
February 2, 2010
l J
Mayor Hoffman mentioned his assumption that the City would aspire to meet Lake Oswego citizen
needs and expectations, which the City Manager would do through building a baseline budget.
Councilor Jordan concurred but pointed out that citizens often had no perspective that if the City
did not offer a program that only 10 to 12 people used, then the City might have money to maintain
the streets and fill potholes. She reiterated that she wanted to know what services were truly
baseline at this point in time.
Councilor Tierney mentioned the need to fund increased personnel costs and PERS. He
indicated that the other part of the equation was finding more revenue or reducing services.
Councilor Moncrieff recalled that Ms. Gilmer tried to do that through the budget, and the Council
pulled her down. She spoke to having respect for the process and the plan for addressing the
many legitimate needs in the community, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction when one need came
forward.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff would write up the Council's direction and
return on February 16.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
2,(Atfiiri 0/7
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
O Ma 18 2010
n .,1 . ►
Jacic. Hoffman`'Ma' r
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11
February 2, 2010