HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2009-09-22 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
2009 City Council City Hall
Jack Hoffman, Mayor 380 A Avenue
Donna Jordan, Council President
Roger Hennagin Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us
Kristin Johnson 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.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Metro Update — Councilor Carlotta Collette (no written report)
3.2 Hamlet Presentation (no written report)
3.3 Street Maintenance Fee/Pathways
4. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: watch this meeting 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. Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m. Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m. Monday 11:00 P.M.
New: Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms-//www.ci.oswego.or.us/live.
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
September 29
Water System Development Charges Methodology
• System Development Charge Overview
• WEB Refinance
October 1-3
League of Oregon Cities Conference
Monday,
Study Session, 3:00 p.m.
October 5
• Foothills/Streetcar Tour
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 6
LOIS Update
• Quarterly Financial Update — 2009/2010 Budget
• Watershed Hero Award to Palisades Girl Scout Troop 40447
• Fire Safety Week Proclamation
• IGA with the Bureau of Environmental Services for Tryon Creek
• Oregon Cultural Day Proclamation
Public Hearing
• Supplemental Budget
Friday,
LOIS Launch, 11:45 a.m. — 1:00 p.m.
October 9
Monday,
Study Session, 6:00 p.m. location tbd
October 12
Joint Meeting with Advisory Boards
Tuesday,
Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 13
• Public Safety Practices/Accreditation Process
• Review of Infrastructure Master Plans
• Wastewater Utility Rate Analysis
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 20
Public Hearing
Redevelopment Agency Meeting, following Council
Thursday,
Tour Luscher Farm and Stafford area, 4-6 p.m.
October 22
Monday,
Study Session, 6:00 p.m. location tbd
October 26
Joint Meeting with Advisory Boards
Tuesday,
Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 27
• Annexation Approach
• Clean Streams
October 28-
Railvolution Conference
November 1
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 9/16/09
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 3
LOIS Update
• Photo Contest Winners
• Assign Program manager for Tigard/LO Water project
• Master Fees and Charges Update (study session)
Public Hearing
Monday,
Cancelled
November 9
Tuesday,
Cancelled
November 10
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 17
Public Hearing
• Clean Streams
Wednesday,
Study Session, 6:00 p.m. location tbd
November 18
• City Design — Gordon Price, Simon Fraser University
Monday,
Study Session, 6:30 p.m. location tbd
November 23
• Preparation for Goal Setting
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 1
• LOIS Update
• Unsung Hero Awards
Public Hearing
• Master Fees and Charges Update
Monday,
Study Session, 6:00 p.m. location tbd
December 7
Joint Meeting
Tuesday,
Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 8
• Follow-up to Goal Setting Preparation
Monday,
Study Session, 6:00 p.m. location tbd
December 14
Joint Meeting
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 15
• Sustainability Update
Public Hearin
Tuesday,
Cancelled
December 22
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 9/16/09
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
To Be Scheduled
• Lake Grove Presentation (DKS)
• Streetcar Update (Doug Oblitz — may be combined with tour)
• Joint meeting with the Planning Commission and DRC - Visioning
• Joint meeting with the Lake Corporation Board
• Meeting with Boards and Commissions
• Attainable Housing (Councilor Hennagin and Paul Lyons)
• Refer Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning Commission
• IGA with Portland for Tryon Creek Restoration
• Union contracts
• Review Draft Economic Development Strategy
• First and B Project
• Joint meeting with the School Board
• Emergency response Plan (before the end of the year)
• Report on Intergovernmental Relations Program
• Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010)
• HRAB Work Session re Iron Industry Heritage Trail Plan — request by HRAB - Schedule
on a Monday — Joint meeting with Boards & Commissions
• Preservation=Sustainability PowerPoint Presentation — Marylou Colver (Jack H and
Jonna P Request) - Schedule on a Monday — Joint meeting with Boards & Commissions
• Foothills Redevelopment Agreement
• Real Estate Overview Seminar (Bruce Wood/Will Denecke) (removed from 10/19)
• Municipal Finance
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 9/16/09
uKc pswFrb
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
September 22, 2009
a�
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on
September 22, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson (6:39), Olson,
Moncrieff, and Tierney.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Erica Rooney, Assistant
City Engineer
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Metro Update — Councilor Carlotta Collette (no written report)
Metro Councilor Collette discussed the Making the Greatest Place project, which Metro has been
working on for the last three years. She noted the key elements of a regional transportation plan,
an urban growth report, and the urban/rural reserves process. She described Chief Operating
Officer (COO) Jordan's report as the place where those elements came together.
She discussed the three principal reasons why Metro has undertaken the Making the Greatest
Place project. She noted that Metro was the guardian of the UGB with a State -mandated
responsibility to make sure that the region had sufficient land within the UGB for citizens and jobs
both now and in the future. She described the real role of the UGB as protecting the regions'
farmlands, forests, and natural resources, which keeping a tight UGB enabled Metro to do.
She described keeping a tight UGB as investing in the local, existing communities, maintaining and
improving what already existed, and making the neighborhoods and cities on the inside better.
She contrasted this with spending the region's limited funds outside the UGB to extend
infrastructure beyond the existing communities. She indicated that the third element was
protecting jobs and building downtown and regional centers for job creation and expansion, as well
as making sure that the region had jobs close to where people lived.
She acknowledged that there were many ways to accomplish these goals. She described the
COO's report as the staffs best analysis of how to move forward. She mentioned the upcoming
public process through which the Metro Council would hear input from its constituents before
weighing in on the report itself.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Metro Council has already approved pieces of the report,
such as the regional transportation plan, a freight plan, and a high capacity transit plan, although
none of it was final. She mentioned an additional key piece of the urban/rural reserves process,
which was also not final, as the CORE 4 has not yet made its recommendation.
Ken Ray, Metro Communications, stated that he represented Chief Operating Officer Michael
Jordan. He directed the Council to the 36 -page summary of the report, and noted that the details
behind the summary were available on CDs or at the Metro website.
He reviewed the report recommendations listed on pp. 14-15, which fell into three main categories.
He explained that the first general category recommendations focused on how to build a new
greater regional investment strategy as a means of making the most of the region's limited land
and financial resources through encouraging more private development and by concentrating on
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12
September 22, 2009
existing resources and revitalizing dilapidated or underutilized sites to generate employment and
residential opportunities inside the UGB.
He indicated that the new regional transportation plan fell under this category. He explained that
this regional transportation plan focused more on what kinds of communities the region wanted to
result from the transportation investments it made. It also dealt with the new climate change
issues.
He described the second category as recommendations focusing on job creation and development
activities within the UGB, and focusing on protecting the UGB to the greatest extent possible. He
spoke of focusing more growth inside the UGB. He noted that this strategy helped protect the
valuable farm and forestland critical to the region's quality of life and economy, as well as allowing
the region to focus its limited resources on the existing communities instead of spreading them out
in new areas currently without much infrastructure.
He noted that there was a set of recommendations dealing with the UGB expansion, as protecting
the UGB did not mean that Metro would never move the UGB. Instead, Metro's intent was, if it had
to move the UGB, to do so in a way that complemented the growth and development already
occurring inside the UGB. He spoke of completing the planning, identifying who would pay for the
infrastructure, and deciding who would govern the area before moving the UGB. He pointed out
that this strategy came out of lessons learned from Metro's previous strategy of doing the planning
after moving the UGB, which left unresolved issues.
He noted the COD's general recommendations on urban and rural reserves, which included setting
aside employment and residential lands in a range of 15,000 to 29,000 acres throughout the region
for possible UGB expansion over the next 40 to 50 years. He acknowledged that that was
significantly less acreage than the counties have requested collectively. He mentioned that the
Reserve Steering Committee has not yet made its recommendations, nor has Metro and the three
counties yet had the broader policy discussion.
He mentioned accommodating more growth within the UGB through local zoning strategies and
other local investment strategies. He noted that the Urban Growth Report referenced in the COO's
report indicated a need to expand the UGB in 2010 unless the region took steps to provide more
capacity over the next 20 years within the existing UGB.
He commented that next year would be a long conversation between Metro and the local
governments on finding ways to close the capacity gap and to minimize the need for expanding the
UGB. If they were not successful, then the Metro Council would consider expanding the UGB into
urban reserves.
He discussed the third category of recommendations regarding accountability and performance
measures to use in evaluating how well the strategies were working for investing the region's
resources. He indicated that these performance measures were tied closely to a set of six
outcomes for the region, which Metro felt defined what a great community was (p. 9), and which
the Metro Council adopted in 2008. He read the six outcomes, which described building vibrant,
walkable communities, providing safe and reliable multi -modal transportation choices, taking a
leadership role regarding climate change actions, taking a leadership role in protecting clean air
and water, and sharing the benefits and burdens of growth equitability around the region.
He reviewed the schedule of upcoming public hearings/open houses to obtain feedback regarding
the COO's report. He reviewed the list of outcome decisions coming before the Metro Council this
year (p. 32), including adopting the Regional Transportation Plan, accepting the Urban Growth
Report, and coming to agreement with the counties regarding the designation of urban and rural
reserves. He indicated that next year Metro would formally designate the urban reserves through
Regional Framework Plan amendments, following a public hearing process, while the Counties
would amend their Comprehensive Plans to adopt the rural reserves.
Councilor Hennagin pointed out that, based on Metro's strategy of local jurisdictions working to
take in additional density in order to minimize the UGB expansion, if a jurisdiction wanted to
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12
September 22, 2009
maintain its existing density, then it could sit on its current zoning and force Metro to expand the
UGB. He wondered how Metro would protect the UGB if cities did so.
Mr. Ray indicated that Metro staff's best analysis found that the market was not likely to respond
as much as Metro would like to see it respond to local governments wanting to increase density
within the UGB. Even so, Metro would work with the local governments to do what they could to
encourage taking advantage of their existing zoning, much of which was currently underutilized,
and helping to direct the market to invest in certain areas with certain types of developr!ents that
would bring more capacity inside the UGB. He reiterated that the more they could increase the
capacity within the UGB, the less they would need to expand the UGB.
Mr. Ray indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the COO's report currently recommended expanding the
UGB in 2010 but did not provide a specific acreage number for that expansion.
Councilor Jordan commented that the information in the report came out of the input Metro took
from local jurisdictions and service districts at various public forums regarding communities'
aspirations, visions, and redevelopment strategies. She noted that, even so, it did not match up
with the expectations of some areas regarding the size of their reserves because it took the
viewpoint of how much a jurisdiction could do within the area that it already had, as opposed to
what a community's expectations and aspirations were for growing beyond the UGB.
She observed that, while those involved might say that they wanted to hold the UGB as tightly as
possible and use the land within the UGB, when push came to shove for the possibility of obtaining
more land, then a community's interest became getting more land.
Councilor Collette concurred with Councilor Jordan's comments. She indicated that the long
process at MPAC and JPACT gave the Metro Council a strong sense from the communities of
where they were willing to make the needed future investments. She pointed out that, since the
creation of the UGB in 1979, 95% of development in the region has taken place inside that original
1979 boundary. She indicated that certain cities in the region were now starting to grow, citing
Hillsboro as an example of a community seeing considerable growth due to the regional
investment in the light rail system.
She explained that one of Metro's big tools in its limited resources was the light rail and transit
money and transportation money. She indicated that Metro staff was recommending focusing the
region's money where the region could also build communities, rather than simply extending
transportation projects willy-nilly and not linking them to building communities. She reiterated that
the report reflected what the Metro Council heard from the other elected leaders in the region, the
neighborhoods, and the business community.
Councilor Tierney observed that this process would be a tremendous challenge because Metro
had to get it right. He asked what tools Metro had in place to assess whether it was getting the
outcomes right, and what tools it had in place if they got it wrong. Councilor Collette indicated
that that was the third section of the strategy, on which Metro was working.
Mr. Ray explained that Metro staff was working on developing some comprehensive, measurable
performance outcomes for the region in terms of measuring how well the region's investments and
policies for generating certain types of growth outcomes were working. He said that he did not
have specifics at this point, but the Regional Transportation Plan had a comprehensive set of
performance measures on transportation investments that tied into federal and state transportation
dollars by meeting certain greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Councilor Tierney commented that, in his short tenure on the Council, he has come to realize that
Metro had a lot of power and authority over the City Council, given the amount of time that the
Council spent on issues that came down to `because Metro said so.' He referenced Lake
Oswego's current debate over sensitive lands regulations. He mentioned that his research has not
found anything assessing the outcomes of Metro's sensitive lands regulations since they have
been in place, and what the expectations were going forward. He asked what the outcomes were
and how could a jurisdiction determine whether it has been successful in achieving them.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12
September 22, 2009
Councilor Collette mentioned the monitoring systems that Metro has in place, especially for
environmental issues. These included an auditor's report on environmental issues and a report on
Title 13. She commented that Metro was simply the enforcer of State land use regulations, and not
necessarily the genesis of those regulations. She stated that Metro had monitoring in place for all
of the major environmental pieces. She mentioned the new photo technology available to Metro,
which provided detailed imagery regarding tree cover, a major indicator of the environmental health
of the community.
She commented that Metro has not done a good job of keeping the local jurisdictions informed on
how successful it has been in protecting the region's natural resources. She pointed out that they
were setting a new model regarding sustainability and prosperity. Oregon was a national leader,
visited by people from all over the world who wanted to see how the region was accomplishing
what it was accomplishing. She mentioned an example of the decrease in vehicle miles traveled,
even though the population was increasing.
She argued that they could not expect to accommodate a growing population with jobs and a
transportation system and achieve sustainability unless all the pieces were in place, including the
natural resources piece. She held that all the pieces worked together to make this the Greatest
Place. She agreed that it was not an easy job trying to figure out how to get this many people
living successfully in vibrant cities and neighborhoods. She stated that she had no doubt that they
could do it but it would take everyone engaging on a heart level, as well as on the political level.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Lake Oswego was receiving mixed messages regarding Stafford.
Mr. Ray said that the COO's report recommended some of the area around the Wankers
Corners/1-205 interchange for employment lands in urban reserves, but without a specific acreage
number. Councilor Collette referenced Chapter 3 under Urban/Rural Reserves as possibly
recommending more land in Stafford for urban reserves than the County has recommended. She
noted that Metro's intent was to bring in sufficient land to create a complete community.
3.2 Hamlet Presentation (no written report)
Jay Minor, Hamlet Board Chair, reviewed the background of hamlets and villages, which were a
new concept in Oregon that tried to fill in a void left by the CPOs. He said that Clackamas County
allowed Stafford, Molino, and Beavercreek to form hamlets. He mentioned the Government Camp
Villages along the Mt. Hood highway.
He recalled that the Stafford Hamlet formed out of controversy, as some had wanted a Village with
its taxing authority, instead of a Hamlet with its strictly advisory capacity to the County
Commission. He mentioned this area's contentious battles in the past and the use of the
Clackamas County Dispute and Mediation process.
He held that forming the political entity of the Hamlet provided a foundation for working with the
three surrounding cities and the county to end the battles. He noted that the Stafford Triangle was
once again in the middle of the reserves debate.
He described the set up of the Hamlet as a political entity with a 10 -member board. He noted that
their bylaws mandated determining the vision and trying to work together. He mentioned that the
demographics of their area contained many small, older neighborhoods as well as larger acreage
landowners. He mentioned that, while they had no taxing authority, they did raise $20,000 last
year from the residents to pay for writing the vision statement and for outside facilitation.
He described the process that the Hamlet used in determining its values statement over the past
18 months. He directed the Council's attention to the handout listing the Hamlet's values and
vision statement. He noted that they had 87% buy in on the values and vision statement. He
reviewed the values, which included the Stafford character, a desirable place to live, balance and
fairness, the Tualatin River, thoughtful change, a strong community, and the legal rights of property
owners. He indicated that they were committed to making this work.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12
September 22, 2009
He commented that the EFU designation of 1200 acres in the middle of the Triangle had the
unintended consequence of keeping everything open. He explained that the minimum acreage
requirement on which to build a home has crept up from 20 acres in 1979 to 80 acres today. He
pointed out that many large land parcels purchased for investment return were lying fallow
because all land in the EFU zone received an automatic farm deferral, which made the costs of
holding land out there next to nothing.
He mentioned an additional value of their connection to each other, the surrounding communities,
and their resources. He commented that the vision they developed, following their values
statement work, was something that the community agreed upon and was proud of.
Scott Richman, Vision Committee Chairman, recalled that they did some mapping work with
Clackamas County because the area was told that it would be included in the next UGB expansion,
and that it had better get ready. He mentioned the common assumption that, given its location
surrounded by urbanization, somebody should be doing something with the Stafford Triangle, as it
was prime for development.
He pointed out that, in all the discussions over the years about developing the Stafford Triangle, no
one actually researched how much developable land was in the Triangle. He described the
process they went through in identifying the various types of land uses in the Triangle. He noted
that the Stafford Triangle had the largest unprotected block of Class A upland wildlife habitat in the
region.
He indicated that, once one took out the already developed land, the undevelopable land, and the
natural resource areas, there was not much developable acreage left in the Triangle. He said that
the bulk of the developable land was down along Borland Road, north of 1-205 and south of the
Tualatin River, and along Johnson Road. Other than that, developable land was patchy throughout
the Triangle.
He discussed the Hamlet's visioning process, which involved many community meetings. He
reviewed the resulting six points of their vision statement. He mentioned infrastructure needs,
ground water, clustering, develop the Borland Road area first, freeing up the EFU land for
development, and not redeveloping the previously developed neighborhoods.
He noted that the existing infrastructure was inadequate for any kind of development. He indicated
that amount of ground water in the Triangle varied by location, with some areas not having
sufficient ground water to service a development. He explained what the Hamlet meant by
clustering, using Ashdown Woods as an example of putting houses on smaller lots and leaving
open space around them for wildlife habitat, agriculture, and public enjoyment. He mentioned not
developing wildlife habitat areas or steeply sloped areas.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that many residents felt that the EFU land was locked up because
they could not develop below 80 acres and because ground water availability varied considerably
from location to location. He mentioned the landowners' feeling that if this became a private park
for other people to enjoy, then Metro should either buy the land or let the owners develop it. He
noted the strong feeling in the community that this situation was not fair. He reiterated that if the
regulations locked up the land, then either it should be developed or released for some density
greater than one house for every 80 acres.
Mr. Minor referenced a handout showing a preliminary GIS quantitative map updated with the
latest Metro 63 -acre purchase. He noted the outlines of the Borland area, which had a couple
hundred acres of developable land. He indicated that the 3900 acres of the Triangle translated to
1300 acres of developable land.
Councilor Jordan mentioned a new type of zoning under consideration for lands next to urban
areas that would allow small farms, equestrian uses, vineyards, etc. Mr. Minor indicated that the
Hamlet has discussed that zoning concept with the County Commissioner Lehan. He said that his
personal vision for the area supported that kind of zoning, given that Stafford had conflicted
agricultural land. He spoke of doing a new master plan for the area that clustered houses
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12
September 22, 2009
surrounded by open space, and provided incentives to lease out the open space areas for farming,
equestrian activities, athletic fields, etc.
Mr. Minor held that, should the Triangle end up as undesignated lands, then it was important that
the Hamlet and the three cities form a formal partnership in order to plan the area. He noted that,
while West Linn called the Triangle its backyard, it has not been willing to look at it over the years.
He contrasted this with Lake Oswego's pursuit of an opportunity in the area over the last 15 years.
He referenced a handout showing the areas targeted by Metro for open space purchases. He
mentioned that for the past eight years, he has been trying to get a pathway from West Linn to
Lake Oswego finished. He said that the Three Rivers Land Conservancy has taken the area from
the Farr property on and could use any help that the City could give it.
Councilor Tierney asked how much more the residents should be able to do in the EFU land. Mr.
Minor said that his personal opinion was that they should zone it rural residential with a 5 -acre
minimum under a new master plan. He indicated that if they rezoned 1,000 acres to a 5 -acre
density and took out the existing homes that would leave sufficient land for something less than
100 homes. He commented that he doubted that there would be much push back from the
development community.
He confirmed to Councilor Olson that West Linn was building a new elementary school inside the
UGB on Rosemont.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break. He reconvened the meeting
3.3 Street Maintenance Fee/Pathways
Mr. Graham introduced Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer. He thanked Ms. Rooney and
Crystal Shum, Project Engineer for putting together the staff report. He gave a PowerPoint
presentation updating the Council on the street fund and street program, presenting capital funding
options and strategies, and discussing the status of pathways and funding options
He presented a slide showing an overview of the street fund with its $4.3 million budget this fiscal
year. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that a `lane mile' referred to a mile of lane, but not a mile
of street. One mile of a two-lane road had two lane miles.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the franchise fees allocated to the street fund were from PGE
and not the other franchise holders. Mr. McIntyre indicated to the Mayor that the
intergovernmental transfers were funds from the State and federal governments, involving the
State gas tax and other vehicle -related fees, as well as the federal money coming for Kerr and
McNary Parkways.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Allied Waste paid 5% of its gross revenues in
franchise fees. He clarified that staff changed the method of dealing with franchise fees by
consolidating them into the general fund, as opposed to calling them out separately as was done in
the past.
Councilor Jordan commented that she thought that the State had regulations restricting the use
of franchise fees. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would confirm the allowed use of franchise
fees. Mr. Graham indicated his understanding that State law allowed the cities to do whatever
they wanted to do with the franchise fees, although the original intention might have been to use
the fees for roadways. Mr. Powell noted that the telecommunication companies have been trying
for years to get the legislature to limit the amount of franchise fees to the actual costs of using the
right-of-way, but they have been unsuccessful in Oregon. He noted the Qwest litigation's
confirmation of the cities' right to charge franchise fees for the rental value use of the public
interest by a private entity.
Mr. Graham presented a summary of the programs funded by the street fund, including
operations, ongoing maintenance, and street engineering. He indicated to Councilor Olson that
staff was in the process of clarifying the City's policy regarding street trees. Mr. McIntyre
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12
September 22, 2009
mentioned that the City used street fund monies to deal with street trees when the trees pushed up
the sidewalks and presented liability issues. He emphasized that staff was very careful in limiting
expenses on things like street trees because there was not enough money in the fund to meet all
the City's needs.
Mr. Graham confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the City Code did say that the adjacent
property owner had the responsibility for pruning street trees and cleaning up debris in the right-of-
way. However, there was a City Manager policy from several years ago that amended that
understanding to some degree. He agreed with Mr. McIntyre that street trees were another policy
discussion issue for the Council.
He presented a break out of the street fund revenues from the budget document. He noted that
the State revenues have dropped off over the last several years, although the projections for next
year projected that people would buy more gas as the price dropped. He mentioned the possibility
that the legislature might increase some fees and the gas tax in order to raise additional revenues.
He presented a series of slides illustrating the street maintenance fee, which has been flat for the
past five years. He mentioned that no one on staff remembered what a general fund transfer of
$1.5 million from ODOT in 2004/2005 had been for. He noted the $300,000 from economic
stimulus money to fund the McNary and Kerr Parkway projects. Councilor Jordan speculated that
the ODOT money might have been for the railroad crossing work on Bryant Road, which occurred
around that time.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the money from the Bridgeport Village supplement
for sidewalks was sitting unspent in reserves.
Mr. Graham presented a pie chart showing the allocation of the $4.3 million for this fiscal year. He
noted the large chunk for capital outlay.
Mr. McIntyre discussed the graph comparing the capital outlay from the street fund and the street
maintenance fund revenues over the past five years. He explained that the reason why the City
spent so little on street maintenance this past year was because it spent most of the money
allocated for the biennial budget in the first year.
Mr. Graham presented a graphic illustrating the erosion of the City's buying power with a flat street
maintenance fee against the rising costs of construction.
He showed a chart listing the overall condition of the roads in Lake Oswego using the four
condition categories of good, satisfactory, fair, and poor, which were based on the pavement
condition index (PCI). He noted that, with the street maintenance fee, the City has been able to
increase the percentage of good roads and maintain the percentage of fair roads, but the number
of satisfactory roads has dropped and the number of poor roads has increased. He indicated that
the system wide PCI average was 68, which was less than the Councils goal of 70.
He stated to Mayor Hoffman that the system wide average did include the roads within the City's
USB that were still in the county. He said that he continued the past practice of including those
roads, as the City would inherit them upon annexation. He indicated to the Mayor that staff could
separate out the Lake Oswego roads from the non -Lake Oswego roads, and show how Lake
Oswego tax dollars paid for the city roads. He agreed that the City spent no tax dollars on county
roads.
Councilor Jordan recalled that the previous Council had expressed a similar concern, and
reduced the PCI goal to 70 from 80 because the PCI included the poor county roads.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he thought it would be useful to know what the condition of the
roads within the USB were, separate from the City roads, as part of informing an annexation
decision. Ms. Rooney indicated that staff could provide that information for the upcoming
annexation discussion. She noted that taking the USB roads out of the picture would increase the
PCI average by only one or two points.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12
September 22, 2009
Councilor Tierney observed that separating the roads out was not to improve the PCI average but
rather to obtain a better picture of the City's responsibility, and how the revenues correlated to the
expenses. The City had no responsibility for areas outside the city limits. He compared it to Lake
Oswego putting time and resources into neighborhood associations with 8% Lake Oswego
residents and 92% county residents who did not intend to annex into the city.
Councilor Jordan commented that this information would be important to have in light of a
possible new county or region wide transportation revenue source. It would help determine what
the dollar amount needed to be in order to maintain those roads.
Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff could break out the information for Council.
Mayor Hoffman commented that the information would also help in the Metro discussion about
maximizing growth within the region. An infusion of Metro money to improve a poor road in the
USB, such as Atwater, might encourage the unincorporated residents to annex.
Mr. Graham presented the national report card on infrastructure from the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Roads received a D minus. He noted that he would rate Lake Oswego's roads higher
than a D minus. He pointed out the $2.2 trillion dollars that the country needed to invest in its
infrastructure over the next five years.
He showed photo slides of roads to illustrate what the PCI looked like for a good, a satisfactory, a
fair, and a poor road. He reviewed a graph showing PCI trends based on funding. He pointed out
that the PCI would drop while the deferred maintenance backlog increased. He indicated that if the
Council doubled the funding for the pavement preservation program, then the City could arrest the
decline in pavement condition and keep the backlog at $10 million. Tripling the funding would
increase the PCI from 70 to 80 in 10 years and eliminate the maintenance backlog.
He reviewed potential options for addressing pavement conditions. He mentioned a goal of
achieving a sustainable level in order to maintain the City's current status. He noted the options of
reducing the PCI to below 70, supplementing street funding with general fund money, increasing
the street maintenance fee and indexing it annually for inflation, and a one-time bond (GO or
revenue).
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City could fund a revenue bond from the
street maintenance fee by bonding against future revenues. He said that that would be a lower
recommended approach, as the City would have to spend its street maintenance fee on debt
service instead of on ongoing road maintenance.
Mr. McIntyre reminded the Council that the previous Council authorized staff to adjust the street
maintenance fee for inflation only one time. He indicated that the street maintenance fee was now
frozen at $1.2 million plus 6.6% with the City's buying power continuing to erode. He noted that
the question was how the Council wanted staff to come back in November/December during the
master fees schedule discussion.
Councilor Tierney asked staff if he gave them $10, how they would spend it within the context of
the capital improvements program and the strategic asset management program so that the City
got the most for its money. Mr. McIntyre indicated that that was a policy question for the Council
on infrastructure priorities. He noted that the engineers could identify where the best additional
expenditure would be on a particular piece of infrastructure.
Mr. Graham pointed out that, in terms of the strategic asset management plan, streets were further
along because the City knew what the pavement condition and remaining life of the roads were.
He indicated that they did not have that information for the other utilities, and any
recommendations were informed guesses at best. Mr. McIntyre observed, in light of the national
report card of D minus, that Lake Oswego had a system wide average of a 68 PCI.
Councilor Tierney spoke to integrating the other capital and infrastructure assets into the
conversation in order to look at streets within the context of all the City's needs. He noted that the
increased gas tax money promised by the State next year became Option 5. Mr. McIntyre
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12
September 22, 2009
indicated to Councilor Olson that staff did not take the proposed additional gas tax money into
account.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that, before the street maintenance fee, the City
paid for streets out of the gas tax, the general fund, and a GO bond for streets.
Councilor Olson agreed with Councilor Tierney that they should not look at the streets in isolation.
She spoke of including it in the Council's preliminary goal setting discussions and its budget
process. She commented that the option of increasing the general fund monies was a matter of
setting priorities. She gave an example of spending part of the $900,000 in the last budget
process differently. She spoke to deciding how to use general fund money in the context of all the
City's needs.
She advocated for Mr. Graham's recommendation that the City start to set aside money now to
replace and maintain its existing assets. She pointed out that the City built pathways and set aside
nothing to maintain or replace them, and now it needed to fix them all.
Mr. Graham indicated that historically the City has funded pathways outside of the public right-of-
way out of the general fund. He mentioned a 2003 bond issue that included money to build
pathways and sidewalks. He said that funding for pathways inside the public right-of-way came
from gas tax revenues and the street fund. The City could fund Sidewalks outside the right-of-way
from the street maintenance fee. He noted that the current CIP document identified over 30
unfunded pathway projects, representing a need of over $10 million.
He reviewed the potential funding sources for pathways. He mentioned reallocating general fund
dollars to pathways, increasing street maintenance funds to pathways, and looking for alternative
funding sources, such as bike licenses, local improvement districts, or federal and state grants.
He asked for Council suggestions for other ways to find money for the pathway projects. He asked
for Council direction on what it wanted staff to do regarding funding pathways. He agreed with the
Councilor that the Council should consider setting aside funds for the ongoing operations and
maintenance of these facilities, including a rehabilitation fund. He pointed out that their society has
not taken this approach, and the country now had a D minus in its infrastructure.
Councilor Moncrieff complimented Mr. Graham on the four -point test for the use of general funds
for pavement preservation as outlined on p. 12. She spoke to looking at the comparatives on the
last page with respect to the City's ranking in the region on its street maintenance fee amount.
She noted that Lake Oswego was in the middle of the nearby cities. She mentioned the Metro
report (p. 5), which showed that Oregon ranked last in auto taxes collected compared to other
Western states.
She concurred with Mr. Graham's suggestion in the report to prioritize pathways first for inclusion in
the five year CIP. She referenced an article she read in the Parks & Rec magazine today about
how Salt Lake City had a complete streets policy. She encouraged staff to evaluate street
improvement projects in terms of whether they could fit a bike lane on an existing road, even by
just repainting the lines.
Mr. Graham spoke of including pathways in the City's Transportation System Plan, which staff
hoped to update using a TGM grant. He agreed with considering multi -modal transportation usage
while developing their motor transportation facilities. He concurred with looking for leveraging
opportunities in street projects to build in multi -modal opportunities.
Councilor Olson wondered whether the City should explore collecting the higher franchise fee
from PGE, as noted earlier by Councilor Tierney that the City was collecting only 3.5% of a
possible 5% fee. She observed that the graph showing the gas tax revenues has not gone down
significantly over the years. Mr. Graham concurred that the dollar amount has not gone down
appreciably but reiterated that the cost of materials has increased and eroded the City's buying
power.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12
September 22, 2009
Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that he could not make a guesstimate on the dollar
amount needed for pathway maintenance, as he did not know how many miles of pathway the City
had. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the City had different types of pathways, many of which
were not linked. She argued for creating linkages between existing pathways before building new
pathways. She spoke of looking at the overall picture of connectivity in bringing bicyclists and
pedestrians from one area to another area.
Councilor Jordan spoke of the upcoming conversation among the jurisdictions about the
possibility that ODOT might turn State Street over to the local jurisdictions, and provide some
dollars with the transfer. She mentioned the conversation at Metro and the local jurisdictions about
new funds dedicated to transportation from taxes voted on region -wide that would be similar to the
library district: what Metro collected in one county would be spent in that county. She commented
that there were larger things happening because the need for transportation dollars was so great
that no one community could generate sufficient money to take care of it on its own.
Councilor Johnson concurred with the earlier point about looking at street maintenance needs in
the larger context of asset management and the general fund budget. She spoke to discussing it
during the Council's goal setting process.
She referenced Mr. McIntyre's earlier point about the street maintenance fee as an independent
funding source that the City needed to manage properly She emphasized the need to index the
fee permanently as a minimum Council action. She asked the question of whether the City should
catch the index up to where it should be, had the City indexed the rate originally, or should the
Council make up the difference from the general fund.
Mayor Hoffman agreed with indexing the fee. He suggested considering the inclusion of
sidewalks and pathways, as the City had responsibility for those items. He wondered what other
jurisdictions were doing. Mr. Graham reported on his conversation with Craig Prosser at Tigard.
The Tigard City Council endorsed the staff recommendation to increase their street maintenance
revenues to $2.5 million with an additional $300,000 for sidewalk/landscape maintenance within
the right-of-way.
Mayor Hoffman commented that cities were recognizing that pathways and sidewalks were part of
a sustainable city and part of the walkable city outcome identified by Metro. He noted that it was
difficult to walk along Kruse Way due to the poor condition of the pathway.
Councilor Hennagin spoke to staff telling the Council which walkways needed repair, as repairing
pathways might take priority over building new pathways. He agreed that the City should maintain
the pathways it already had, especially from a safety standpoint.
Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Olson that Tigard raised their street maintenance fee last
week to $3.73 with the expectation of it reaching $6.06 by 2011. She reviewed the increases
enacted by Oregon City and West Linn. She noted that Lake Oswego was still at $4 a month.
Councilor Moncrieff asked staff to return with a proposal for a street maintenance fee indexed for
inflation that showed what rates the City needed to charge in order to maintain its current level, or
to improve it. Mayor Hoffman recalled an analysis that showed that deferring maintenance cost
more in the long run. For every dollar spent in slurry, they saved $25 in reconstruction costs.
Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Jordan that the 68 PCI included the resurfacing of the streets
following the sewer construction. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the report therefore did not
show what the City was buying with the street maintenance fee alone but included leveraging other
funds. Mr. Graham indicated that staff made an effort to look at how to leverage other funds in
improving streets.
Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olson that the talk about doubling the fee referred to investing
more in the capital outlay for the street itself (such as more asphalt), as opposed to paying for
beautification and ongoing maintenance. He noted that the street fund included more revenue
sources than simply the street maintenance fee.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12
September 22, 2009
Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Jordan that the City could use state funds on transportation
improvements and maintenance. Mr. McIntyre said that staff would confirm whether the City could
use State funds for maintenance.
Mayor Hoffman spoke of having a conversation about adding on an increment to the street
maintenance fee for pathways and pathway maintenance. Mr. Graham indicated that he would
find the data regarding the number of pathway miles the City had and estimate a dollar amount
needed per year to maintain the paths. He confirmed to the Mayor that this was tied to the asset
management program, the first step of which was to develop an asset registry, followed by a
condition assessment.
Mr. McIntyre referenced Councilor Tierney's earlier question about how to target the $10. He
reminded the Council that he had told them during the strategic asset management presentation
that the City did not have sufficient staff resources to develop the program or the plans. He
recalled the Council's affirmation that this was the direction to go in. He indicated that to the extent
that he could, he would reallocate staff resources to focus on this.
He explained that the reason why staff did not look at the full picture first was because they would
not have the full picture for many more years. In the meantime, since they had a clear picture on
the street system, focusing on this asset at this time made sense. He indicated that he got
Councilor Tierney's message loud and clear that the Councilor, as a taxpayer and ratepayer,
wanted to make sure that the street maintenance fee went towards the right investment.
He referenced Councilor Olson's question regarding the franchise fee. He recalled that, as part of
the previous Council discussion of franchise fees around the furnace restoration, staff found that
there was room in the City's legal authority to adjust a franchise fee. He mentioned that other
cities charged themselves a franchise fee, which Lake Oswego did not do, by charging the utility to
pay back the general fund. He suggested discussing these topics during goal setting.
He observed that, however the Council chose to get the revenue, it ended up costing a ratepayer
more to live in this community than before the Council enacted the fee. He indicated that it was a
policy question of where the Council wanted to have the fees reflected and where it wanted to
spend the monies. He recalled that staff told the Council during the CIP presentation that they
would give the Council their expert opinion because that was what the Council had hired them for,
but he reiterated that it was still a policy decision for the Council.
He confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that staff would provide the Council with the information on the
pathways.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned his known concerns regarding indexing and how indexing was
internally inflationary in and of itself, and created more inflation. Councilor Johnson reiterated
that she supported indexing the rate. Mr. Graham noted that another option was to increase the
street maintenance fee annually, as the Council did its other utility rates, based on the capital
needs and services provided.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that Tigard had taken a different approach of estimating how much
money they would need for the next five years and setting the rate to increase annually in order to
meet that goal.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the hotel/motel tax was not a revenue source
for streets, as the City has allocated it for the next three years to pay for the furnace restoration. In
addition, it was not part of the general fund because those revenues were restricted and tied to
tourism. He mentioned a conversation going on around whether pathways could be considered as
attracting tourists to a walkable city. He concurred with Councilor Hennagin that HRAB would
next ask to use the hotel/motel tax revenue for the Iron Heritage trail. However, it was up to the
Council to prioritize the use of that revenue.
Councilor Tierney asked what known information staff could bring back on the capital elements
prior to developing a sophisticated asset management plan. He held that the Council needed to
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12
September 22, 2009
have that information before discussing a component of the plan, which, in this case, would be
street maintenance. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would provide snapshots for the two big
projects -- finishing LOIS and moving ahead with the water partnership with Tigard — as well as the
Clean Streams plan. He acknowledged the difficulty of prioritizing a clean stream against good
roads.
Councilor Tierney complimented staff on the excellent report that provided the foundation for a
good discussion this evening.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
nN.-Decembier 1. 2009
Hoffman,
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12
September 22, 2009
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
so
Ij0$
September 15, 2009
Overview and
recommendations
MAKING THE GREATEST PLACE
Strategies for a sustainable
and prosperous region
A report from
Metro's Chief Operating Officer
September 15, 2009
Metro I People places. Open spaces.
(0 Metro I People places. Open spaces.
Clean air and clean water do not stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does
the need for jobs, a thriving economy and good transportation choices for
people and businesses in our region. Voters have asked Metro to help with the
challenges that cross those lines and affect the 25 cities and three counties in the
Portland metropolitan area.
A regional approach simply makes sense when it comes to protecting open
space, caring for parks, planning for the best use of land, managing garbage
disposal and increasing recycling. Metro oversees world-class facilities such as the
Oregon Zoo, which contributes to conservation and education, and the Oregon
Convention Center, which benefits the region's economy.
Metro representatives
Metro Council President — David Bragdon
Metro Councilors
Rod Park, District 1
Carlotta Collette, District 2
Carl Hosticka, District 3
Kathryn Harrington, District 4
Rex Burkholder, District 5
Robert Liberty, District 6
Auditor — Suzanne Flynn
www.oregonmetro.gov
Metro
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-2736
503-797-1700
Printed on recycled content paper. 093.36 September 2009
NEXT STEPS
This recommendation kicks off the decision-making phase of Making the Greatest Place. It is intended to
stimulate public discussion of possible courses of action to improve our communities.
Concerted action by Metro and the other local governments of the region can put us on track to build great
communities, limit expansion of the UGB, support a strong economy, and achieve important outcomes on
behalf of the people of the region. Action by cities and counties to encourage higher levels of development in
their centers, corridors and employment areas can help local communities to achieve their own aspirations
to become more livable, lively and prosperous, and can also help the region to accommodate growth
efficiently.
This recommendation, then, is a call to action. Action comes next.
For Metro's part, the Council will "accept" the 2005-2060 Regional Population and Employment Forecast,
the Urban Growth Report and performance indicators to evaluate possible courses of action by resolution
in December of this year. Immediately thereafter, Metro will work with its partner local governments and
many others to improve each of the draft elements of the three ordinances. Then the Council will take its
actions to adopt the ordinances in 2010.
To download the complete report, find out about open
houses and public hearings, or to provide comments, visit
www.oregonmetro.gov/greatestplace
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 33
PUTTING THE STRATEGIES IN PLACE
Regional Transportation Plan - accepts policies, projects
and funding strategy as the long-range blueprint for the
region's transportation system
• Revise the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
• Adopt new and revised components: the Transportation System
Management and Operations Plan, the Regional Freight Plan,
and the High Capacity Transit System Plan
• Adopt new transportation policies
• Adopt a list of transportation projects the region
expects to undertake during the planning period
• Revise the Regional Transportation Functional Plan to prescribe
how cities and counties help implement the
new RTP
December 2009 Joint Policy Advisory Committee
on Transportation and Metro Policy
Advisory Committee make
recommendations to Metro Council;
Metro Council votes
Urban Growth Report - estimated capacity of the metro region December 2009 Metro Policy Advisory Committee
to accommodate population and job growth over the next 20 years makes recommendation to Metro
Council; Metro Council votes
20 -year capacity ordinance - describes how the region will
accommodate the next 20 years of population and employment
growth
Urban reserves - land outside the urban growth boundary
identified for potential future urban development
Rural reserves - land outside the urban growth boundary
identified for continued use as farmland or natural area
Urban reserves designated
Rural reserves designated
Regional Transportation Plan - final adoption, which initiates
local plan updates
December 2010 Metro Policy Advisory Committee
makes recommendations to Metro
Council; Metro Council decision
December 2009 Metro Council and three counties
identify potential urban reserves
through intergovernmental
agreements
December 2009 Clackamas, Multnomah and
Washington counties identify
potential rural reserves through
intergovernmental agreements with
Metro
Spring 2010 Metro Council designates urban
reserves by amending framework
and functional plans
Spring 2010 Clackamas, Multnomah and
Washington counties designate
rural reserves by amending
comprehensive land use plans
Summer 2010 Joint Policy Advisory Committee
on Transportation and Metro Policy
Advisory Committee make
recommendations to Metro Council;
Metro Council votes
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
32 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
• Gresham installed an "adaptive traffic signal timing system" that reduced travel time by ten percent
and saved 74,000 gallons of fuel in a year.
• Portland used an "individualized marketing program" to inform residents along the new MAX Yellow
Line about alternatives to drive -alone trips. Auto trips have declined nine percent and transit ridership
has increased 24 percent among residents who participated in the program.
Programs such as these increase system efficiency, reduce demand, conserve energy, and reduce carbon
emissions. This recommendation proposes a comprehensive program of system and demand management -
from incident response to congestion pricing - in the Transportation System Management and Operations
Action Plan, part of the Regional Transportation Plan.
Parking management has proven successful in reducing congestion in portions of centers with dense
concentrations of retail, professional and civic services. Communities should employ a range of parking
management techniques - shared parking, lower minimum and maximum parking standards, structured
parking and metered parking - in the Regional Transportation Functional Plan and the investment strategy.
Service agreements can reduce the time and cost of providing urban services to developing areas. For
example, the cities of Happy Valley and Damascus signed an agreement to determine which city would
annex unincorporated territory between them to avoid time-consuming and expensive case-by-case disputes.
To achieve similar benefits, areas designated urban reserves should be covered by service agreements as a
pre -requisite to their addition to the UGB. This recommendation also proposes amendments to Metro's
boundary change code to ensure that new cities are capable of providing a level of urban services that
enables them to be great communities.
These tools, particularly if integrated into an overall strategy of investments and incentives, can facilitate,
encourage and support development in centers, corridors and employment areas that will help the region
achieve multiple desired outcomes.
STRATEGY 3: WALK OUR TALK
Be accountable for our actions and responsible with the public's money
Both our experience and extensive modeling give us confidence that investing in the downtowns and
main streets of our existing communities, maintaining a relatively tight UGB, and using the various policy
and financial tools described above will help us achieve the outcomes we desire and close the capacity
gap identified in the Urban Growtb Report. But empirical evidence will be needed to tell us whether the
strategies are succeeding and to inform future decisions as the region moves forward.
For that reason, it is critical that we establish a system to measure our progress toward achieving our
desired outcomes and respond to the results.
Accordingly, the region should:
Develop and adopt a set of performance targets specifically based on the region's desired outcomes. For
example, one of the region's desired outcomes is leadership in minimizing contributions to global warming.
A performance indicator associated with this outcome is reduction of carbon emissions. The logical target
might be the reduction levels adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2007.
Measure performance on a periodic basis and report the results to the region. Evaluation against the
performance indicators agreed to by regional partners could be conducted by an objective third party.
Adapt our policies and investment strategies based on what we learn.
Be accountable to each other and the people of the region for achieving the outcomes we have agreed to
pursue.
Ensure that public investments are consistent with the publics values and priorities.
....................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 31
Financial tools
Financial incentives encourage private investment in downtowns, main streets and employment areas. Cities
across the region use these tools to stimulate housing and employment in key locations, but they are not
being used to their fullest potential. Accordingly, local governments across the region should increase the use
of these existing tools to prepare for and support investment in efficient development. Examples show the
variety of incentive programs available to local governments:
• Gresham and Milwaukee have used the state's Vertical Housing Tax Credit in their downtowns to
incentivize private investment in high-density, mixed-use projects by reducing developers' up-front
costs through temporary tax relief. Wood Village is applying to the state to establish such a program.
• Portland and Gresham have employed the multiple unit housing tax exemption to encourage private
investment in transit-supportive, multi-family housing in their light rail station communities.
• Clackamas County, Beaverton, Sherwood, Milwaukie and Portland are a few of the Iocal jurisdictions
who have taken advantage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Assessment and
Cleanup funds to clean up "orphan" sites and get them back on the market for private employment and
housing projects. Metro uses brownfields funds to assess potential contamination at sites across the
region and provide information and other resources to assist local cleanup of the sites.
• System development charges (SDCs) are a principal source of funding for water, sewer and storm water
systems, streets and roads, and parks. Oregon City and Gresham have adopted Impact-Based SDCs
that vary the charges to more equitably reflect the lower costs associated with development in their
downtowns as compared to less urbanized areas and to provide an incentive to develop there.
• Property Tax Abatement programs can entice industries to targeted employment areas. Forest Grove
uses tax abatement (three.and five-year exemptions) to attract new industries to its Enterprise Zone.
• Main Street programs make funds available for "sprucing up" main streets - adding street trees and
benches, pedestrian improvements and new building facades, for example - to attract people and
businesses.
• Excise Tax Planning Grants, new in 2009, will help local governments develop action plans for
revitalization of their centers.
These financial incentives can stimulate the private market to use land in centers, corridors and employment
areas more efficiently, particularly if the incentives are used in concert with investments and other tools.
Today, these programs are underutilized. Cities and counties across the region should make more aggressive
use of these tools to achieve their aspirations for their centers, corridors, and employment areas while
helping the region to close its "capacity gap" and to protect farm and forest land from development.
Efficiency tools
There are many other actions Metro and other local governments can take to encourage efficient use of land
and transportation systems. The region should make widespread use of the following tools and strategies:
Land assembly, used by Hillsboro in its remarkably successful strategy to attract high-tech development (a
former large proposed residential development today is the site of Intel's Ronler Acres facilities), can provide
larger properties that are more attractive to the industries that need large sites.
Transportation system and demand management conserves the capacity of our existing transportation
system and yields benefits analogous to energy conservation: by getting more performance out of the same
investments, it is often less expensive than creating new capacity by, for example, building a new freeway
interchange.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
30 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
We should prepare for and support private investment in efficient development
through greater use of existing zoning strategies, financial incentives, and other tools.
Zoning tools
The "seeds" of investment will grow best if they germinate on fertile ground. There is much fertile ground
in the region as the result of thoughtful planning and zoning by cities and counties to put the 2040 Growth
Concept into place. But not all centers, corridors and employment areas are ready for investment. To help
make these places ready, the region should work in partnership with cities and counties to link regional
investments with local "readiness" actions, including the following:
• Change zoning regulations in centers and corridors to allow use of substandard lots, a broader mix of
uses, less parking and higher densities.
• Re-examine current zoning limitations on those corridors identified for future high capacity transit
investments in the High Capacity Transit System Plan and make changes to achieve levels of housing
and employment capacity needed to support and justify the projects.
• Change zoning regulations in industrial areas to protect these prosperity assets from encroachment by
non -industrial uses.
Local governments are already making changes to their zoning codes to achieve higher levels of urban
activity in their centers and corridors and to put more of residents' daily needs within walking distance of
their homes. These actions will bring more residents and workers to regional and town centers to share the
costs of operating and maintaining services and community assets, such as transit and parks. More residents
and workers will also support the restaurants, bakeries, coffee shops and other businesses that make our
centers lively and prosperous. This recommendation urges cities and counties to take the additional actions
that will stimulate the private sector to invest in ways that realize the potential capacity of our centers to
accommodate future job and population growth.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 29
Rural reserves
Rural reserves are the companion to urban reserves. Designation of urban reserves signals where the region
will expand the UGB when necessary. Designation of rural reserves identifies areas where the region will not
expand.
The reserves partners have been working for many months to identify the agricultural lands, forests and
natural landscape features that should not be added to the UGB at any time during the next 40 to 50 years.
Rural reserves will provide the same certainty and security to farmers and foresters that urban reserves
provide for investors in urban development: working farms and forests can invest in their operations with
confidence that the metropolitan region will not add their farms or woodlots to the UGB for decades. This
security for the farm and forest industries - the oldest industries in the region and major employers in our
urban communities (in processing, for example) - will help the region achieve the economic competitiveness
and prosperity that constitutes one of our key desired outcomes. When the time comes to designate rural
reserves, the region should exercise the same caution we would use when designating urban reserves:
• The reserves partner governments should designate the region's most important and threatened
farmland as rural reserves to help maintain the critical land base needed to support the agricultural
industry, from growers to processors to distributors.
• Because of growing concern for a local supply of safe and healthy food, the reserves partner
governments should keep in mind for designation of rural reserves those areas near the UGB with
farms that market fresh local food to urban dwellers through the growing network of farmers'
markets, co-ops, restaurants and grocery stores.
• The reserves partner governments should designate as rural reserves those important natural landscape
features that help define our place, are worthy of protection in their own right, and provide "hard
edges" to limit long-term urban expansion.
• The reserves partner governments should use rural reserves to protect our sense of place by ensuring
some rural separation remains between our metropolitan region and our neighboring cities.
• The same uncertainties that should cause us to limit the amount of urban reserves we designate should
also cause us to leave some land near the urban reserves undesignated as rural reserves.
Designation of rural reserves is evidence of a strong regional commitment to protect these lands from
urbanization over the long term. The four partner governments should make good on this commitment
to working farm and forest families by pursuing additional actions to keep the farms and woodlots in the
reserves available for food and fiber production. For example, voluntary "transferable development credits"
programs would reduce the number of new non -resource dwellings in these areas by paying farm and forest
landowners for their development rights and selling the rights to developers in centers and corridors within
the urban growth boundary.
28 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
The following recommendations are made with great respect for the work that has already been done by
the many public officials and other parties who have been working for over a year to designate reserves, and
with the expectation that many, if not most, of these comments are generally consistent with the direction of
that process:
• Acknowledging the uncertainties we face predicting the long-term future, the reserves partner
governments should designate an amount of urban reserves sufficient to accommodate growth in the
middle third of the population and employment forecast ranges.
• Our long-term success in focusing growth in our centers and corridors inside the UGB will reduce the
amount of urban reserves we need and use over time.
• We ought to anticipate that communities of the future will develop in patterns that use less land and
emit less carbon than communities of the past. Communities that are ultimately built in reserves added
to the UGB should provide a more complete array of services near where people live and make it easier
for people to choose walking, transit and biking for everyday travel.
• The location of designated urban reserves should complement and reinforce our strategy to focus
investment in existing centers, corridors and employment areas.
• We should ensure that the designated urban reserves contain land suitable for industrial use adjacent to
or near the existing UGB.
• Our designation of urban reserves should minimize loss of our best farmland, our source of food and
many other products that make agriculture one of our steadiest and most important industries.
• When designating urban reserves, we should leave space - including rural reserves when appropriate -
between them and our neighbor cities so those cities can retain their identities and achieve their own
aspirations.
If the reserves partner governments make the assumptions and apply the recommendations above, the region
will be able to accommodate our longer-term residential and employment growth with urban reserves in
the range of 15,700 to 29,100 acres. Selecting from the areas described in the Reserve Area Assessments
and Recommendations contained in Exhibit 3E -A of this report should enable the designated reserves to
fall within that range. These areas include the lands deemed most suitable for future urbanization as great
communities by advisory committees in the three counties.
Selection from among lands in these areas will ensure a long-term supply of land for future industries and
jobs without undermining the critical farm and forest industries outside the UGB. Selection from these lands
will also reinforce our strategies to create great communities inside the UGB.
Finally, Metro and the counties should require that "concept plans" be completed before we add urban
reserve land to the UGB. These plans should firmly guide critical decisions about eventual urbanization
of this land so it yields the communities that achieve the region's long-term goals. Concept plans should
include:
• The location of centers, employment areas, major transportation routes, and public facilities, and how
these elements will link to communities and roads, sewers, water systems, trails, parks and open spaces
already inside the UGB.
• Formal agreements among responsible local governments that determine which cities will govern the
land and who will provide urban services once it is brought inside the boundary.
• A plan to finance public works (e.g., sewer, water, and roads) and essential services (e.g., schools,
parks, sidewalks and trails).
Completing this planning before adding land to the UGB, rather than after, will ensure that future expansion
areas can quickly and efficiently develop into great communities that achieve the region's desired outcomes.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 27
We must recognize there is a risk associated with maintaining a tight urban growth boundary (little or
no expansion). If we hold the UGB and fail to use land inside the boundary more efficiently, some of the
households that would otherwise be expected to locate within our region will instead spill over to our
neighbors: Vancouver, Sandy, Canby, Newberg, North Plains, Banks, and Scappoose. This spillover could be
costly: it may use up more farmland if our neighbors do not use land as efficiently as we do; it may outstrip
public services in those cities; and it would likely create many new trips between our neighbor cities and the
Portland area, which would require expensive new highway capacity and increase carbon emissions. Just as
holding the boundary tight is a complement to the investment strategy, so the investment strategy and the
zoning tools and financial incentives discussed below are essential complements to the UGB strategy. These
tools will help us use more of the zoned capacity we have inside the UGB to make room for people who
would like to live in our communities.
We should use urban and rural reserves to achieve the region's long-term goals.
Urban reserves
In 2007 Metro and the local governments of the region concluded that the best way to ensure that land we
add to the UGB over time produces great communities is to plan ahead for a longer time horizon than the
20 -year UGB planning period. A broad coalition of partners from government, business, agriculture and the
environmental community worked together to pass legislation allowing the region to establish urban and
rural reserves directing where the region will and will not grow during the next 40 to 50 years. Since then,
members of that coalition, led by Metro and Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties, have been
working to identify the best areas in which to establish these reserves. We are on track to designate them in
2010 as part of our Making the Greatest Place initiative.
Designation of urban reserves constitutes a key strategy in achieving the region's desired outcomes. Because
land in urban reserves receives the first priority under state law for addition to the UGB, we will be able
to select land from urban reserves when needed, with greater certainty that the expansion will survive a
legal challenge. This increased predictability sends clearer signals to investors from all sectors, private and
public, about where the region will expand. In addition, it means the region will be better prepared to add
land to the UGB quickly if the opportunity should arise to recruit a targeted new industry that cannot be
accommodated inside the existing UGB.
The four governments who have authority under state law to jointly designate urban and rural reserves
(Metro and the three counties) have completed their assessments of the suitability of land outside the UGB
for urban reserves and are currently working to prioritize among suitable land to prepare for designation of
reserves in 2010. When the time comes to designate urban reserves, it is expected that the partners will use
the same caution we would exercise when adding land to the UGB.
Forecast for Metro urban growth boundary
Low
Bottom third
Upper third
High
2060 population 2,313,900
2,496,500
2,606,300
2,787,800
2060 households 968,500
1,043,300
1,088,300
1,162,700
2060 jobs 1,345,355
1,473,792
1,608,109
1,754,885
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
26 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
STRATEGY 2 1 PROTECT OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
To the maximum extent possible, ensure that growth is accommodated within the
existing UGB.
Residents of this special place understand the relationship between our management of urban growth and
the quality of life we enjoy. Metro and its local government partners should employ available policy tools to
use land within our existing urban growth boundary more efficiently and avoid adding land to the boundary
whenever possible to achieve the outcomes desired by the people of the region. Specifically:
We should manage the urban growth boundary to protect farm and forest land,
support a strong economy, and maintain and create great communities.
A complement to the strategy of investment in centers, corridors and employment areas is a policy of
maintaining a "tight" urban growth boundary. Expanding the UGB means extension of expensive streets
and roads, as well as public water, wastewater and storm water systems, to new areas. Extension of services
to new UGB expansion areas diverts limited public dollars from our existing centers and corridors, working
against our investment strategy. A tight UGB supports the creation of great communities by sending a signal
to the private sector that investments in our downtowns and main streets are investments that will hold
their value.
To be clear, this recommendation does not represent a firm resolution against any expansion of the UGB.
The Urban Growth Report tells us we have a capacity gap; state law tells us we must close the gap.
Certainly, we should close as much of the gap as possible by increasing our investments from all levels of
government in centers, corridors and employment areas. But if we cannot fully accommodate projected
growth through our strategy of investment and the other tools recommended here, we will have to expand
the UGB. If we must expand the UGB, we should add land only from our designated urban reserves, and
only land that can help us achieve our desired outcomes for our centers, corridors, and employment areas.
The greatest uncertainty facing the region is predicting our industrial capacity needs during the next 20
years. A look back demonstrates how rapidly needs for industrial capacity have changed, how difficult those
needs are to predict, and how vulnerable the region is to national and international trends, such as global
warming and economic globalization.
In the face of this uncertainty and mindful of our firm desire for a prosperous regional economy, a
committee of regional leaders is forming to identify approaches that will allow us to take advantage of real
opportunities to attract traded -sector, family -wage jobs in a way that is consistent with the region's overall
vision. Options under consideration include:
• Pursuing land assembly and brownfield redevelopment in existing industrial areas;
• Targeting infrastructure investments to make land inside the UGB shovel -ready, and identifying
approaches to protect the public's investment;
• Bringing large parcels into the boundary under conditions that severely restrict conversion to non-
industrial use; and
• Designating key parcels as urban reserves and creating a fast-track process to bring them into the
boundary when needed.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report— Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 25
Natural areas land acquisitions are preserving thousands of acres of critical habitat and other special
places across the region. Investments in protecting natural areas provide refuge and recreation to current
and future residents of our urban region, enhancing our sense of place; there is a direct link among these
investments and increased property values. These areas also support the healthy function of rivers and
streams, filter our water, provide connectivity for wildlife, improve our air quality, and sequester carbon.
Parks and Nature in Neighborhoods grants restore and enhance these local and regional assets. These
grants support the nature close to hoine that makes our centers and corridors more livable and connects
them to the rest of the region.
Metro and its local government partners should develop an action plan for making the regional and local
investments needed to implement Strategy 1, and for linking the investments with the tools described in
Strategy 2.
New funding
The region currently lacks the resources to repair and maintain our existing public facilities, let alone
build the new sewers, water systems, roads, parks and schools our communities will need to accommodate
population and employment growth. The governments of the region must commit to seeking new sources of
funding for needed investments in public works and community assets, including local and regional dollars
to match federal funds for transportation improvements. This action plan will become the basis for realizing
our aspirations and enabling us to protect our urban growth boundary by accommodating growth in our
existing communities.
An integrated regional investment strategy would include two major elements:
Transportation investment Implement the transportation investment strategy identified in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
The RTP identifies existing revenues as well as aspirational revenue targets to fund a prioritized list of
planned transportation projects. Local and regional follow-up actions are required to enact new revenue
sources. The region's transportation leaders should create a "road map" identifying the local and regional
action steps to generate the levels of revenue envisioned in the RTP.
Other community investments Develop a regional action plan to make focused investments in the region's
downtowns, main streets and employment areas.
To maintain our existing infrastructure and community assets, and to meet the region's collective aspirations
for population and employment growth, regional leaders should develop a strategy for closing the finance
gap between our aspirations for development and our current means. This strategy should:
• Refine the investment needs identified in the "Regional Infrastructure Analysis" and "Investing in
Great Places Matrix" to begin serving as a "project list" for targeting regional and local resources.
• Identify and recommend local and regional revenue actions to increase the resources available to make
the public investments required to implement Strategy 1.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
24 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Many cities and counties in the region have developed action plans to bring life to their downtowns and
other centers. Complementary regional and local investments and actions can shepherd these aspirations to
reality. Metro has assembled an inventory of the aspirations of cities and counties for their centers, as well
as investments that can help achieve these aspirations (see "Investing in Great Places Matrix" in Section 3 of
this recommendation). These collective aspirations, and the investments and policy actions needed to realize
them, are ambitious and will require sustained leadership and collaboration to implement.
The region should make use of the full range of existing regional and local investment tools and strategies,
including the following:
Tax increment financing (TIF) in urban renewal districts has revitalized many lagging urban areas by
raising funds to pay for upgrades to public works and community assets that, in turn, attract private
investment that generates new tax revenues to pay for the upgrades. Nine cities and Clackamas County use
TIF in urban renewal districts.
Local improvement districts have helped local governments pay for public works and community assets
by assessing fees on properties in the districts that benefit from the services.
Economic and business improvement districts have stimulated private investment in industry and
businesses in the region's employment areas.
System development charges (SDCs) currently cover a portion of the costs of providing a limited list of
public facilities to new development: transportation, water supply, sewer, storm water management, and
parks. Revisiting local government capital improvement plans in light of the stated aspirations of local
communities could result in SDCs that more accurately reflect the full anticipated costs of accommodating
growth.
High-capacity public transit lines have drawn very significant private investment to the corridors along
the lines. The region has endorsed an ambitious program of expanding the region's high capacity transit
system to connect regional centers and other centers along principal corridors in the High Capacity Transit
System Plan. The plan's "System Expansion Policy" sets targets for cities, counties, Metro and TriMet that
signal financial and community readiness for new lines.
Transit -oriented development investments by the region have demonstrated that mixed-use, higher
density development can succeed in places the private sector has been reluctant to invest. In Gresham,
Portland, Milwaukee and other places, transit -oriented development supported by the region's flexible
transportation funds is helping to revitalize communities and leading the way for private investment.
Transportation network improvements are under -appreciated investments that close gaps in street,
bicycle and pedestrian (sidewalks and trail) networks. Adding these missing links increases mobility and
accessibility in our centers and corridors throughout the region, while improvements to the network
of freight routes are essential to regional prosperity, especially traded -sector industries that rely on the
movement of freight. These connections help the region achieve its desired outcomes for transportation
choice, vibrant communities, healthy ecosystems, and reducing carbon emissions.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 23
Energy and climate — Concentrating development in centers and corridors reduces and shortens our trips,
thereby reducing energy consumption and the amount of carbon emissions produced by our travels.
Neighborhood stability — By absorbing most of the forecast growth in centers and corridors, we can
protect our existing residential neighborhoods from the impact of this growth.
Regional equity — Because there are centers and corridors in every part of the region, this approach will
distribute the benefits of community investments equitably across the region. For example, our Housing
Needs Analysis shows a growing number of households in parts of the region spending more than they can
afford on housing and transportation during the next 20 years. Investment in new high-capacity transit lines
to centers and corridors with disproportionally large numbers of "cost -burdened" households can reduce
transportation costs for those households and leave them more money to spend on housing and other
essential needs.
Link investments
Second, we must link investments in the following ways:
• Link regional investments to local investments and actions to achieve both regional and local
aspirations.
• Link investments to achieve multiple outcomes.
• Link investments to make each investment more effective.
• Link public investments to private investments.
The following examples from across the region teach us that linkages make investments greater than the
sum of their parts. These successes are stimulating coordinated investments elsewhere.
Current and future successes
Portland's 1988 plan for the River District (north of downtown) called for 1,800 new dwelling units. Pursuant to the plan,
the city and the region made a coordinated set of investments: replacement of the Lovejoy ramp from the Broadway Bridge;
a streetcar line to downtown; upgrades to public works; a system of new parks connected to one another and eventually to a
trail along the river; bike lanes and sidewalks; and other community assets.
As a result of these investments, private investment has increased dramatically, adding 7,600,000 square feet of new building
space within three blocks of the streetcar line. By 2008, the district had added 8,000 dwelling units, several hundred of them
"affordable" and rendered more so by access to transit, walking and biking facilities. When currently anticipated projects are
completed, the district will have added a total of 10,000 dwelling units and 21,000 jobs. Outcomes: the city has built a vibrant,
economically prosperous community, rated one of the most walkable in the country.
Tigard wants to revitalize its downtown — a designated town center under the 2040 Growth Concept, which calls for higher
density housing and employment there. The city has adopted a vision plan that calls for 2,500 new housing units and 900,000
sq. ft. of new commercial floor space. The city has also established an urban renewal district and uses tax increment financing
to upgrade public works. In partnership with Metro, Tigard is investing in parks and trails along Fanno Creek, using funds
secured through the 2006 natural areas bond measure. As provided in the proposed High Capacity Transit System Plan, Metro
will invest regional funds to extend light rail to Tigard's town center when conditions justify the investment. City investments
make light rail more feasible financially, and the region's investment in light rail will encourage the new housing and job
development the city desires.
Cornelius hopes to add jobs to offer more employment opportunities to its residents, who travel long distances to jobs in other
cities, and to boost its tax revenues to pay for community assets that would add vitality to its center. The 2040 Growth Concept
calls for greater employment and residential capacity along Cornelius' designated main street. The city has asked Metro to
designate an area around its main street as a town center to stimulate greater investment. The proposed High Capacity Transit
System Plan would provide regional funds to extend light rail from Hillsboro to Forest Grove, passing along Cornelius' main
street, when conditions justify the investment. Redesignation of the city's main street as a town center under the 2040 Growth
Concept would complement the city's strategy.
22 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
The region should make transportation investments that increase safe, affordable
and convenient travel options for everyone, help the region's businesses and traded
sector industries remain competitive, and reinforce the region's desired outcomes.
The region has effectively used, and should continue to use, a range of approaches to achieve these
outcomes. These approaches include repairing and maintaining our previous investments in transportation
facilities and using both market-based and technological means of getting the most out of our existing
system. We should also make strategic investments both in transportation facilities that improve freight
mobility and in transit, biking and walking facilities to provide residents with more ways to get around.
Perhaps most critically as a stimulus for private investment, we must significantly expand the region's high-
capacity transit system to give residents more options than the private auto to travel to work and other daily
destinations, to free -up road capacity for movement of freight, to attract and support compact development
and to reduce our carbon emissions.
There is not enough money to make all the investments we need. For decades, investments in public facilities
have been declining in communities nationwide, and our region is no exception. Despite the current flow
of federal "stimulus" dollars, the heyday of nearly limitless federal largesse is over, and state property tax
restrictions have further depleted public coffers.
This recommendation, therefore, proposes that we focus public investments in those places around the
region where the investments are most likely to help us achieve the outcomes we desire. Moreover, we must
link the investments to our desired outcomes, and to one another, to maximize the value of each investment.
Finally, we will need to identify the local and regional actions necessary to pursue new sources of funding
if we are to maintain and improve our existing communities, accommodate growth efficiently and create
favorable conditions for private investment and job creation.
Focus investments in centers, corridors and employment areas
First, we must concentrate investments within the 2040 Growth Concept's places of highest potential
density and established infrastructure. These include centers across the region (areas designated as town
centers, regional centers, central city and light rail station communities), important employment areas, and
the principal highways and roads ("corridors") that connect centers with frequent bus service. Focusing
investment in these places will yield the following benefits, each of which supports outcomes the region
seeks to achieve:
Local aspirations - The region will invest in the very places cities and counties want to invest local funds to
achieve their community aspirations. Regional investments will complement and enhance local investments,
and vice versa.
Existing infrastructure -This focus will encourage growth in places where sewer, water, storm water
facilities, parks and streets already exist, using these services more efficiently and bringing more ratepayers
to share their costs.
Public transit - The region will be able to accommodate a larger share of forecast growth where we have
already made major investments in public transit. Concentrating growth in centers and corridors will give
more residents access to transit for commuting and other daily travels, thereby reducing their transportation
costs and freeing up road capacity for freight movement. More transit rides means more fares paid and
more cost-effective transit.
Walking and biking - Higher levels of housing and jobs in centers and corridors will also bring jobs
and everyday needs - stores and professional and civic services, for example - within walking and biking
distance of many more residents.
........................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................ I.........................
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 21
CLOSING THE GAP
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAKING THE GREATEST PLACE
But there is another message in the Urban Growth Report: we can close the gap between the current
capacity of the UGB and our forecast growth by investing in our existing communities. That is, we can
turn our potential capacity into real capacity by increasing the levels of our investments and taking
complementary actions at the policy level. But we must invest at every level — city, county, regional, state,
federal and private sector — and we must invest wisely to stimulate private investment.
This recommendation calls for strategic investments and policy actions by all level of government to use
land inside the existing urban growth boundary as efficiently as possible to minimize expansion of the urban
growth boundary, to make the most of our existing communities and to help make good jobs available to
our citizens.
STRATEGY 11 MAKE THE MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE
Invest to maintain and improve our existing communities
A strategy of investment is the essence of this recommendation. First and foremost, we must find new ways
to invest in our future. Specifically:
By December, 2010, the region should adopt an integrated regional investment
strategy focused on revitalizing our downtowns, main streets and employment areas
consistent with the 2040 Growth Concept.
The region must maintain, replace, and in some cases expand, the public works — water, wastewater and
storm water systems, and streets and roads — that are essential to support redevelopment in existing urban
areas and new development in areas previously added to the UGB. We must also invest in the community
assets essential to making our urban communities better places to live and work: parks, schools, natural
areas and trails; town squares and gathering places; and bicycle facilities and sidewalks, for example.
By committing ourselves to maintain and improve these public works and community assets, we will
attract complementary investments by the private sector to take advantage of the value added by public
investments. By collaborating strategically with private investors and, when appropriate, entering into
public-private partnerships, we can further ensure that we will invest the public's dollars in ways that
provide the greatest overall benefit to our communities.
Moreover, the region should increase its investments in the reuse and revitalization of old buildings and
vacant and underused lots in already developed areas. These investments will bring increased activity and
private investment to those areas and support efforts to efficiently accommodate growth within the UGB.
Consideration of the natural environment, impacts on personal and public costs, individual and regional
equity, and public health should be factored into all of our investment decisions.
20 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Capacity analysis — Where will they go?
Our next step was to determine whether our urban growth boundary has sufficient capacity. to
accommodate the ranges of population and employment projected in our forecast.
The draft Urban Growth Report (UGR) gives us a good idea where our existing policies and level of effort
would take us during the next 20 years. The UGR finds that, at least "on paper" (in city and county plans
and zoning ordinances), the region has the capacity to accommodate population and job growth within the
projected ranges over that period.
However, the UGR also concludes that under current market conditions and the policies and financial
structures that we have in place today, the region will not be able to actually realize that potential capacity
and accommodate projected growth to the year 2030. We face a gap between the UGB's theoretical capacity
and the number of housing units and jobs we can reasonably project will actually be created by the private
sector under current conditions.
More importantly, the UGR tells us we are falling short of our targets and aspirations for achieving some of
the most fundamental objectives of the 2040 Growth Concept. Development in many of the areas we have
targeted for more growth - our designated regional centers, town centers, station communities and main
streets within the UGB - is lagging: while there has been some progress, there are not yet enough residents
and workers to make these areas the centers of vibrant urban life envisioned in our plans and hoped for by
our local partners.
State law says that if we cannot accommodate projected growth within the UGB, we need to add land
to the boundary. But this does not solve our capacity problem. Areas added to the UGB since 1998 -
Pleasant Valley, Damascus, North Bethany and others - are not urbanizing or attracting new homes and
jobs because, among other reasons, we have not found a way to pay for the sewers, water systems, parks,
streets and roads needed to make them work as urban places. We also have not yet found the right tools
to provide full city governance to these new areas. The region would face the same costs and obstacles on
any new land added to the UGB. Moreover, expanding the UGB involves other tradeoffs, including loss of
productive farmland, diversion of limited public dollars from our existing communities, longer commutes,
and increased carbon pollution.
Lagging development also impedes our efforts to provide transportation options to the region's residents,
including efforts to connect centers with high capacity transit; this requires more residents and workers
plugging the farebox, and therefore higher densities in a given transportation corridor, to be cost-effective.
Failing to provide travel choices leaves more people reliant on the most expensive - and most carbon -
intensive - mode of surface transportation, the private automobile. Lack of alternatives to auto travel also
fills our roads with cars that impede the movement of freight and reduces our economic competitiveness.
In short, our existing policies and levels of investment in our communities will not bring us the outcomes
we desire.
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 C00 Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 19
Growth forecast - How many people and jobs are we expecting?
With these outcomes in mind, we began the process of developing an integrated regional development
strategy with a growth forecast. State law requires Metro to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate
the growth in population and employment expected in the next 20 years. To do that, we need to know how
many people and jobs to plan for.
The current growth forecast departs from past practice in two ways:
• Taking advantage of an opportunity provided by the Oregon Legislature, the Metro Council decided
to look farther into the future — 50 years — to support the designation of "rural reserves" for long-
term protection of farms, forests and natural areas, as well as "urban reserves" to identify long-term
opportunities for urban expansion (see pages 25-28).
• Acknowledging the uncertainties inherent in long-term forecasting, the Council requested a range
of possible growth scenarios rather than a single estimated number of people and of jobs ("point
forecast"). The range forecast allows the region to focus less on "chasing numbers" and more on how
best to achieve our desired outcomes and create jobs and great communities.
In May, 2008,.Metro published the "2005-2060 REGIONAL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
FORECAST." The forecast predicts likely ranges in the numbers of people and jobs in the region to the
year 2030 (to fulfill the state's 20 -year capacity requirement), and also to the year 2060 (to inform the
designation of urban and rural reserves).
Depending upon the many factors that will influence our growth, the forecast tells us to expect the seven -
county region' to have between 2.9 and 3.2 million residents and between 1.3 and 1.7 million jobs by 2030.
For the longer term, we should expect between 3.6 and 4.4 million in population and between 1.6 and 2.4
million jobs by 2060.2
This recommendation focuses on the middle third of this range as our most likely future. This smaller range
will sharpen our options and help the region understand the issues we face.
Forecast for Metro urban growth boundary
Metro's forecasts begin with the federally -defined seven -county Portland -Beaverton -Vancouver Metropolitan
Statistical Area. In order to estimate what share of this growth is expected to locate within the Metro urban
growth boundary, a "capture rate" is applied based on historical and forecast growth trends.
' The Portland -Beaverton -Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) consists of Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill
counties in Oregon as well as Clark and Skamania counties in Washington.
2 Historically, in -migration has accounted for two-thirds of the region's population growth. In the year 2030 in -migration is expected to account for about
half of population growth, with births making up the other half.
18 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Low
Bottom third
Upper third
High
2030 population
1,877,700
1,947,000
1,989,600
2,060,700
2060 population
2,313,900
2,496,500
2,606,300
2,787,800
2030 households
789,700
818,100
835,600
864,700
2060 households
968,500
1,043,300
1,088,300
1,162,700
2030 jobs
1,083,200
1,142,600
1,211,600
1,273,500
2060 jobs
1,345,355
1,473,792
1,608,109
1,754,885
Forecast for Metro urban growth boundary
Metro's forecasts begin with the federally -defined seven -county Portland -Beaverton -Vancouver Metropolitan
Statistical Area. In order to estimate what share of this growth is expected to locate within the Metro urban
growth boundary, a "capture rate" is applied based on historical and forecast growth trends.
' The Portland -Beaverton -Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) consists of Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington and Yamhill
counties in Oregon as well as Clark and Skamania counties in Washington.
2 Historically, in -migration has accounted for two-thirds of the region's population growth. In the year 2030 in -migration is expected to account for about
half of population growth, with births making up the other half.
18 RECOMMENDATIONS I September 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Section 2 1 Recommendations
STRATEGIES FOR A SUSTAINABLE AND PROSPEROUS REGION
A report from Metro's Chief Operating Officer
For the last four years, public officials from throughout the Portland metropolitan area have worked hard
to lay the groundwork for major decisions about the future of the region. Together, Metro and its local
partners have analyzed past performance and current trends, looked into the future, developed a range of
policy alternatives, and sought advice from citizens. We established a set of six outcomes that matter to
residents of the region, posed optional courses of action, and studied the contributions of these actions
toward the desired outcomes.
We have come to understand that Making the Greatest Place will require many actions by many players,
coordinated to take full advantage of everyone's efforts and to wring the most public value from the public's
dollars. Now we have reached the point at which we must lay some proposals on the regional "table" to
allow us to see the whole and how its parts might fit together.
As noted in the previous section, the set of strategies and actions proposed here brings together several
strands of policy in order to maintain and improve our existing communities, protect the urban growth
boundary and support prosperous economy. This recommendation is intended to set the stage for discussion
among the people of the region about the choices we face.
SETTING THE STAGE FOR MAKING THE GREATEST PLACE
Knowing where we're going - the region's desired outcomes
The region has long agreed on its vision of the future, and the people who live here have remained
remarkably consistent in their commitment to the values that underlie that vision, as expressed in the
2040 Growth Concept. In the summer of 2008, the region agreed that our planning efforts should start
by defining in clear and simple terms the outcomes that residents tell us they want. To that end, the Metro
Council and our regional partners in local government adopted the six desired outcomes described in
Section 1 of this recommendation to guide our regional planning for the future. Briefly, those outcomes are:
• Vibrant and walkable communities
• Economic competitiveness and prosperity
• Safe and reliable transportation choices
• Leadership in addressing climate change
• Clean air, clean water and healthy ecosystems
• Equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of growth
RECOMMENDATIONS I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 17
FULFILLING THE PROMISE
OF OUR REGION
For longer than we can remember, this special place has nourished the bodies
and the souls of the people lucky enough to have found their way here. The
abundance and splendor in our common backyard inspire not just awe, but
action, as the land invites us to engage with it in myriad ways.
Our relationship with our surroundings remains at the heart of every
resident's experience of life in this evolving region. Today, we enjoy not only
the richness of our natural endowment, but also the dynamic communities we
have built upon its foundation.
We have been entrusted with this wondrous place at a critical time.
Residents of this region have always confronted challenges that tested their
resourcefulness and commitment, and we are the beneficiaries of wise
decisions made in the face of change by those who came before us. Now
we bear the responsibility of carrying forward the legacy of courageous
innovation that we have inherited.
However, the changes we face today are unprecedented in their magnitude
and complexity. Paradoxically, clinging to our past - or even to things as
they are - imperils our future; if we fail to act decisively in anticipation of the
upheavals on the horizon, we will squander the opportunities that come with
change, and risk losing the very nature of this region.
The decisions we make today will have profound consequences, not only for
our descendents but for the land itself, as well as its waters, its wildlife and
the very air we breathe. Luckily, the people of this region have the smarts, the
guts and the dedication to chart a new and successful course.
Together, we can continue to fulfill the promise of this place.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16 OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
0 ......................................................................... :
• PROTECT OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
To the maximum extent possible, ensure that growth is accommodated
within the existing boundary. :
Manage the urban growth boundary to protect farm and forest land, support a
strong economy, and maintain and create great communities.
: Accommodate most growth through investment within the existing UGB. :
Use land inside the boundary more efficiently to reduce residents' transportation costs, get the most
from our public investments, and limit unnecessary urban expansion into farmland, forest land and ;
natural areas.
: Support job creation and economic opportunity and enhance development in existing communities :
by making strategic UGB expansions as needed to take advantage of real opportunities to attract key ;
employers.
Protect the region's industrial land supply from conversion to non -industrial uses and improve and
protect access to major industrial areas.
Require rigorous urban and financial planning prior to UGB expansion to address land use,
infrastructure, and governance issues. ;
Protect farms, forests and natural areas outside the boundary.
: Use urban and rural reserves to achieve the region's long-term goals.
Designate urban reserves based on successful implementation of Strategy 1 calling for strong ;
investment within existing communities, where most growth will occur. ;
Establish urban reserves in areas that will:
• Strengthen and complement existing downtowns, main streets and employment areas.
• Protect the agricultural industry from the impacts of urban development.
• Support good jobs and a healthy economy by facilitating addition of industrial land to the urban ;
growth boundary when needed. ;
• Use less land and less carbon and offer citizens more
economical living choices.
Designate rural reserves to provide long-term protection ;
for the agriculture and forest industries and for important
• natural landscape features. 0 " " " " " " • • " " " • " " '
WALK OUR TALK
: Prepare for and support private investment ; ;
: Be accountable for our actions and
in efficient development through greater use ; ;
of existing zoning strategies and financial ; responsible with the public's money.
incentives. Ensure that public investments are consistent
Use existing financial incentives more aggressively with the public's values and priorities.
and creatively to help local communities achieve their Develop and adopt performance targets
aspirations for their downtowns, main streets and specifically based on the region's desired '
employment areas. ;
outcomes. •
Encourage innovative approaches to zoning to : Measure our performance against these targets.
encourage development of downtowns and town centers, ;
• make transportation corridors ready for high capacity transit, Adapt our policies and investment strategies
and protect industrial land for industrial use. based on what we learn.
• Hold ourselves accountable to achieving the
••••••••••'••••••••'•'•" region's desired outcomes.
• .......................................
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 15
Strategies for a sustainable
and prosperous region
......................................................................
• MAKE THE MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE
Invest to maintain and improve our existing communities.
By December, 2010, adopt an integrated regional investment strategy focused on
revitalizing our downtowns, main streets and employment areas consistent with
the 2040 Growth Concept.
: Place the highest priority on maintaining the public investments we have already made, including our ;
roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, and parks.
Reuse and revitalize dilapidated buildings, vacant and under -used lots, and decaying infrastructure
in already developed areas, accommodating growth within the urban growth boundary and bringing
increased economic activity to those areas.
Get more for the public's money by ensuring that regional investments are coordinated with each ;
other, and with the goals and investments of local communities. ;
Leverage private investment through strategic coordination of public investments with the private ;
• sector.
Protect existing residential neighborhoods by focusing new residential and commercial development
in downtowns and along main streets.
Consider the natural environment, personal and public costs, individual and regional equity, and
• health in all of our investment decisions. :
Identify local and regional actions needed to pursue new sources of funding to maintain and improve
: existing communities, accommodate growth and create favorable conditions for job creation within ;
the UGB.
Make transportation investments that increase safe, affordable and convenient
travel options for everyone and help the region's businesses and industry remain
• competitive.
Get the most out of the transportation system we already have by:
• Repairing and maintaining our existing roads, bridges, public transit and bicycle and pedestrian
• facilities. :
• Employing market incentives and pricing strategies to use our transportation system as efficiently
as possible. ;
• Investing in smart technological solutions to reduce and manage congestion.
Attract and retain businesses and family -wage jobs through strategic investments in roads and transit
as well as critical air, marine and freight rail facilities.
Increase transportation choices, protect air quality, and reduce congestion by accelerating
development of transit, biking and walking facilities. ;
Maintain compact communities that allow for more cost-effective transportation investments and :
make it easier for residents to perform the tasks of their day-to-day lives.
••.........................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
14 OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
My specific recommendations, which are summarized on pages 14 and 15 and
detailed in Section 2 of this report, represent the integration of several policy
areas that, until now, have been considered in discrete processes, sometimes
with conflicting results. During the last four years, the region has explored
the linkages among various policy "streams" and the ways they inform each
other. This recommendation represents the "confluence" of those various
streams into a coordinated strategy.
It is important to remember that this document does not represent a decision
by anyone; it is a set of recommendations that are intended to invite, and
give focus to, the regional conversation that will ensue. And once these
recommendations have been acted upon by the decision makers of the region,
we will not be finished. Many questions will remain, but the choices we make
today will determine the choices we are able to make in the future.
integrating
habitats and
greenspaces
Wel
Sixty-four percent of metro
area residents live within
1/4 mile of a public park,
greenspace or regional
trail. Ninety-seven percent
of Boston's children live
within 1/4 mile of a park.
53
Approximately 53 percent
of the region's park
land and 60 percent of
land within 50 feet of
streams and wetlands are
deforested.
About 10 percent of the
region's floodplains are
developed, substantially
degrading ground and
stream water quality.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 13
RECOMMENDATIONS
Today, I am recommending the following three categories of actions:
Make the most of what we have. Our top priority must be to improve
the quality of life for the people who live here now by investing in our
existing communities. We should leverage previous investments, rebuild
dilapidated buildings and decaying infrastructure, revitalize town and
city centers and maintain community assets before taking care of people
who are not here yet.
Protect our urban growth boundary. Second, by leveraging both
strategic investment and innovative policies, we should accommodate
most of our population growth in our existing communities rather than
by adding large amounts of farm and forest land to the boundary at the
edge of the region.
Walk our talk. Finally, to ensure that our actions and investments
are responsive to the values and priorities of the region's residents, we
must develop and adopt performance targets specifically based upon
the region's desired outcomes, and use those targets to hold ourselves
accountable for achieving those outcomes.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
12 OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Don't chase numbers. We need to devote our energy to creating great
communities. We can't allow ourselves to get bogged down in a numbers game
where we squabble about how many dwelling units can fit on the head of a pin.
Work together. We have come this far because of our history of public
involvement and collaborative governance. Future success will require us
to forge new partnerships and will entail a range of highly interdependent
decisions and actions by many players beyond Metro — chiefly city and county
governments, but also other public agencies and the private sector.
114501000 residents living within the urban growth boundary
65,600 businesses
33,229 acres of public parks and natural areas
830 miles of rivers and streams
25 cities
3 counties
1 region
Some people want to
live in the suburbs and
feel strongly that their
quality of life, their
American dream, is a
house and a yard and a
fence. Others want to
live in a vital city where
they're a regular at
the coffee shop down
the street. It's not that
one is better than the
other, but it is a fact that
within this region, you
can choose either, and
that's what we're trying
to achieve - not that
everyone chooses the
same, but that people
can find what they want.
— Ethan Seltzer, director,
Toulan School of Urban
Studies and Planning,
Portland State University
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region 11
Guiding principles
All of this work has contributed to the emergence of a common understanding
of what we need to do to realize our shared vision. We have learned that
"making the greatest place" will require many actions by many players. Now
we begin the task of weaving together these different threads to strengthen the
fabric of our existing and future communities.
In developing these recommendations, I have been guided by several key
principles that have emerged from the conversations in which the region has
been engaged for the last four years:
Focus on outcomes. Our actions should be specifically designed to achieve
six desired outcomes that matter to the people of the region: vibrant
communities, economic prosperity, safe and reliable transportation choices,
clean air and water, reduced contributions to global warming, and fair
distribution of the benefits and burdens of growth.
Move from "what" to "how." Having agreed on what we are trying
to achieve, we must accelerate the fundamental shift in emphasis from
developing a vision of the future to making the vision we have already
embraced a reality.
Minimize risk. Even with Metro's tremendous forecasting capabilities,
the future remains uncertain. We should act based on the best available
information, but in ways that leave future generations the flexibility to make
adjustments if our assumptions are wrong.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I
10 OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Since 2005, the region has:
Embraced a comprehensive new definition of the attributes that comprise
successful communities (see box).
Completed the "Shape of the Region" study, which evaluated the importance
of land outside the urban growth boundary for agriculture, forestry and
the protection of natural landscape features,
and identified the common attributes of great
Attributes of great communities:
communities The region's desired outcomes
Collaborated to obtain legislative authority to
The "Making the Greatest Place" initiative represents
jointly establish urban and rural reserves directing
where the region will and will not grow over the
a renewed effort to attain objectives the region has
long sought to achieve. However, policy documents
of the past often focused on strategies (e.g.,
next 40 to 50 years
"compact urban form") rather than on the actual
outcomes that are important to people's lives.
Required major construction projects to support
planning for the development of areas included in
the urban growth boundary
Analyzed the region's long-term need to increase
public investments in infrastructure
Undertaken a new, outcome -oriented approach to
transportation planning
Endorsed a long-term plan to expand the region's
high-capacity transit system
Initiated a conversation about the local aspirations
of communities throughout the region
Begun to integrate the imperative to reduce carbon
pollution into our land use and transportation
plans
Developed and refined a series of "scenarios" to
illustrate the implications of various land use and
investment choices
Produced 20- and 50- year population
and employment range forecasts that
illustrate the need to make decisions in
the face of uncertainty
Generated an analysis of the capacity of
the current urban growth boundary to
accommodate growth while anticipating
potential changes in both policy and
market behavior
In 2008, the region agreed on a set of desired
outcomes that not only reflect what really matters
to the citizens of the region, but also may be used to
develop benchmarks against which we can measure
our progress toward creating great communities.
It is these outcomes that this recommendation is
designed to achieve:
Vibrant communities — People live and work in
vibrant communities where they can choose to walk
for pleasure and to meet their everyday needs.
Economic prosperity — Current and future residents
benefit from the region's sustained economic
competitiveness and prosperity.
Safe and reliable transportation — People have
safe and reliable transportation choices that enhance
their quality of life.
Leadership on climate change — The region is a
leader in minimizing contributions to global warming
Clean air and water — Current and future
generations enjoy clean air, clean water, and healthy
ecosystems.
Equity — The benefits and burdens of growth and
change are distributed equitably.
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Meeting the challenge:
MAKING THE GREATEST PLACE
For all of these reasons, the region has been working for four years to develop
a new, integrated approach to guiding the growth and development of our
communities.
This new approach builds on the strong foundation of the 2040 Growth
Concept, which calls for focusing development in city and town centers,
along transportation corridors and near employment areas. But while that
plan reflects a regional agreement about what we want the future to look like,
the new approach — known as "Making the Greatest Place" — represents a
concerted effort to decide how we are going to get there. It responds to new
challenges with new tools and marks a renewed commitment to making this
region the greatest place to live, work, learn and play.
In September 2005, the region's leaders received a wake-up call: a
forecast that more than one million more people would live here
within 25 years. This dose of reality stimulated a burst of activity
region -wide that will culminate during the coming year in a series of
major decisions that will change the way we tackle the challenges —
and seize the opportunities — that come with growth.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Our fragmented governance structures and antiquated
public finance systems frustrate our ability to deliver on our
regional development goals. Many areas of the region are
served by a hodgepodge of local governments and service
providers whose jurisdictions are often artifacts of history
that do not coincide with current community boundaries,
infrastructure capacity or demand. This situation raises
questions of equity and hampers coordination of regional
development.
Our economy is globalizing, greening and changing in other
getting from
ways we cannot anticipate. Our region's status as both a hub for domestic
Transportation activities are
commerce and a gateway for international trade provides tremendous benefits
here to there
but also makes us highly vulnerable to global economic changes. We are
,70
also rapidly becoming an international epicenter of the movement toward a
approximately 34 percent
sustainable economy. While these and other factors confound our abilityto
)'
More than 70 percent of
the region's residents live
predict the character of future employment, it is clear that the future will not
within 1/4 mile of public
look like the past.
transit.
Energy instability and climate change require us to rethink everything — from
34
where we live to where we get our food to how we get around. Even though
Transportation activities are
our region is a national leader in stabilizing carbon emissions, our current
the second largest source
of greenhouse gases in
efforts fall far short of what is needed to meet carbon reduction targets
the state, accounting for
established in state law.
approximately 34 percent
contaminated and underutilized
of the state's carbon
dioxide emissions.
In the face of these and other challenges, we will need to be smarter, work
71 percent of the Portland region's largest
harder and dig deeper to achieve the aspirations of our communities and
100 million
truly realize our regional vision. Now is the time to adopt new approaches
Commuters here spend
that will enable us to maintain and improve our communities, protect our
100 million fewer hours
urban growth boundary and our natural environment and support a strop
g y PP g
per year getting h work
compared with the 33
economy that benefits all of the people of our growing region.
other largest metro areas in
the nation. People here are
twice as likely to use transit
and seven times as likely to
bike than other large metro
areas, leaving more room
on the road for moving
jobs and the economy
goods and freight.
1.0 to 1.3 MON $1.1 billion
� The region's shorter
The region must plan for between 1.0 and
There are nearly 10,000 acres of vacant
commute translates into
1.3 million total jobs by 2030.
employment land inside the UGB and
$1.1 billion in savings on
thousands more acres of dilapidated,
transportation costs, most
71
contaminated and underutilized
of which is reinvested in
employment sites.
the local economy.
71 percent of the Portland region's largest
employers originated here.
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
REGION -- — — —FW
his is a
D—)w7� - — \ _ J• aypia• imna 1cr 1
2040 G,ro.,m concept
AdoPlod IM,
Ord— M. 96e25 -A --
L" —nded 2005
Ordlnrur. No. 05.1076A
IL
SA yM.: uu� �7 """7•eR
-0�lu Ave -. 3`R° V) 1 k�� �_ � ir!•
YrY
� I�wA_ IFe�Ow•seMey ' t ��K� a _
s'
greenspaces
8,100
Acres purchased by Metro
through bond funds
approved by voters in 1995.
Thousands more acres will
be purchased by Metro
through a second bond
measure approved by voters
in 2006.
i
Based on population
projections, the region will
likely need 5,000 acres of
urban parks and 8,000
additional acres of open
space by 2035.
The 2040 Growth Concept — In 1995, the Metro Council adopted the 2040 Growth
Concept, a long-range plan designed with the participation of thousands of Oregonians.
This innovative blueprint for the future acknowledges population growth as a fact of
life, but expresses the region's intent to incorporate growth within existing urban areas
as much as possible and expand the urban growth boundary only when necessary.
Implicit in the plan is the understanding that
compact development is more sustainable,
more livable and more fiscally responsible
than low-density sprawl, and will reduce
the region's carbon footprint.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
6 OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report — Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
But patting ourselves on the back will only take us so far.
Yes, our long-range plan, the 2040 Growth Concept (see
box, page 6), enjoys local support and national admiration
and our planning expertise gives us a leg up on many other
urban regions. But a decade and a half after the adoption
of our long-range plan, we have yet to fully achieve our
regional vision. We have reached a point where planning
alone will not suffice.
Put bluntly, the tools of the past are not enough to address
the increasingly complex challenges of the future.
For example:
Our population is growing and changing. Within 25 years, we can expect to
be joined by one million new neighbors - a much faster rate of growth than
was forecast when the region developed its long-range plan. We are becoming
more diverse, we are growing older, our household size is shrinking and there
is a growing gulf between haves and have-nots.
-` -44
..
7910 ; 1940 1960 n.. 2000
We are failing to maintain our existing public facilities, and can't afford
the investments we need to protect our livability as we grow. Meanwhile,
the costs of providing, maintaining, and replacing pipes, pavement, parks
and other public facilities and services are skyrocketing, even as traditional
sources of funding - including federal dollars that have financed much of the
region's infrastructure - are drying up.
public
assets and
investments
27
Since 1965, government
spending on transportation,
sewers and water systems
has declined from 39 cents
to 25 cents for every dollar
spent on private residential
construction.
10 billion
our region will need
approximately $10 billion
during the next few
decades just to repair
and rebuild our existing
infrastructure. To meet the
demands of anticipated
growth in jobs and housing
in the region through 2035,
we will need as much as
$31 billion in additional
funding.
8th place
Oregon ranks last in
total auto taxes collected
compared with other
Western states (Arizona,
California, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Washington and
Utah).
..................................................................................................................._.......................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
WHERE WE'VE BEEN
AND WHAT WE'VE LEARNED
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. For years, the Portland region
has been widely celebrated for its dedication to planning for the future. Our
successes are well-known and defy national trends:
By accommodating rapid growth while limiting expansion of the
urban growth boundary, we have reaped many benefits. Unlike
most communities nationwide, we are consuming land at a rate
less than our rate of population growth. Our efficient use of urban
land protects valuable farms, forests and natural areas, makes our
communities more vibrant, reduces the region's carbon footprint, and
saves both public and private dollars.
By increasing travel choices, we have made it possible for people to
meet their needs while driving less. Our transit use and biking are
increasing much faster than our population, and compact growth has
helped to shorten trips and make our communities more walkable.
As a result, while the average American drives more miles every year,
the average amount each of us drives has been declining for more
than a decade. Because we are able to drive less, more than $1 billion
a year remains in our pockets, most of which returns to our regional
economy.
We have acted to protect our region's natural heritage. By purchasing
thousands of acres of natural areas with voter -approved funds, we
are protecting and restoring wildlife habitat and water quality and
enhancing access to nature for current and future residents. Now a
broad coalition of public, private and nonprofit partners is working to
link the region's parks, trails and natural areas into a seamless system
that makes the experience of the outdoors more accessible to all.
We have cleaned up our air and stabilized our greenhouse gas
emissions. Portland's air quality violations have declined from
180 days a year in the 1960s to zero today. While greenhouse gas
emissions nationwide have increased by 17 percent since 1990, in
Portland and surrounding Multnomah County they have declined by
0.7 percent.
The bottom line is that we've created a place where people want to live.
Longtime residents fiercely defend the livability of their communities, and our
excellent quality of life continues to attract new residents, including members
of the highly sought-after cohort of educated young adults - even during the
current economic downturn.
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
It is in this spirit of innovation, partnership and service that I offer my
recommendations for the next phase of our efforts to make this region the
greatest place it can be.
These recommendations have many elements, but they
revolve around a single imperative: we must invest in
our communities to secure the future the people of the
region desire. This means we must invest existing dollars
strategically; focus our investments for maximum
impact; elevate our level of overall investment; and
deploy our public resources in a way that supports
private investment. Only if we do all of these things can
we ensure a strong economy, a healthy environment and
communities that serve the needs of all.
We must invest in our
communities to secure
.the future the people of
the region desire.
...................................................................................
Investing in public priorities
Specifically, I recommend that we invest in ways that:
Focus our growth in city and town centers and main streets within
the current urban growth boundary to the greatest extent possible
- to preserve farms, forests and natural areas outside the boundary
while protecting single-family neighborhoods within our existing
communities.
Repair and maintain our existing public works and community assets
- roads, water and sewer lines, schools, parks and public places - to
get the most out of what we already have, bring increased vitality to
our communities and create a solid foundation for meeting the needs
of the future.
Protect and create good jobs for the people who live here now, and
those who will come.
thriving,
compact
communities
155000
There are 15,000 acres
of vacant, buildable land
within the urban growth
boundary, a combined
area roughly 35 times the
size of downtown Portland.
95
In the last ten years,
almost 95 percent
of all new residential
development occurred
inside the original 1979
urban growth boundary.
33
In a nationwide study,
compact communities
were shown to reduce
average driving by as
much as 33 percent.
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 COO Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE
a high
These are difficult times in our nation and our state. Unemployment is
Eighty-three percent of
high, trust in traditional institutions is low, and an unprecedented array of
quality Of
challenges loom over our future.
life
essential tool to protect
the region's quality of life.
Yet even in the face of extraordinary economic difficulties, the people of
80
the greater Portland metropolitan region remain optimistic. We value the
Eighty percent of
exceptional quality of life that is supported both by our unmatched natural
residents of the Portland
metropolitan region
setting and by the creativity and civic spirit that have enabled us to build lively
mention the environment
communities throughout our region. We understand that in the long run, our
when asked what they
livability provides a competitive advantage that allows us to attract and keep
enjoy most about the
quality of life in the region.employers.
a talented work force and cutting-edge
83
We also understand that while the place we call home is the envy of people
Eighty-three percent of
across the nation, we face both local and global changes that will require us
residents believe that land
to do better.
use regulations are an
essential tool to protect
the region's quality of life.
The people of the region expect leadership that respects our common values
and builds upon the legacy we have inherited. We deserve government
83
that is careful with our money, responsive to our needs and sensitive to the
Eighty-three percent
challenges we face.
of residents agree that
maintaining the region's
The city and county governments of the region reflect the aspirations of the
quality life will bring
jobs to the region.
people they serve. They want to cultivate great communities that can thrive
in a changing world. Their relationship with their residents is direct and
immediate, and when times are tough they get squeezed between budget cuts
and increased demand for services. They expect their regional government to
be a partner in serving their communities.
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 X00 Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
Dear Friend,
After four years of study, analysis, number crunching and hard work with
our local government partners - and people like you from around the
region - I am pleased to provide you with a comprehensive set of proposed
strategies for creating a sustainable and prosperous region.
This document contains a brief overview, with a summary of
recommendations located on pages 14 and 15 For more detailed
information, including supporting documents and appendices, visit
www.oregonmetro.gov/greatestplace.
I want to stress that these are recommendations from Metro's staff - not
decisions. They are intended to spark conversation and promote dialogue
to inform future decisions by the Metro Council and other elected officials
around the region.
One of the primary reasons our region is successful is because Metro does
not make decisions or plan in a vacuum. Instead, we work with our local
partners and the region's residents to achieve the outcomes we value as a
community. Those outcomes include preserving our urban growth boundary
to protect farmland, forestland and outdoor recreation opportunities
while ensuring we have enough land to accommodate new residents and
businesses for at least the next 20 years; making the most of our existing
roads, sidewalks, sewers, parks, schools, and other public investments; and,
perhaps most importantly, doing everything we can to ensure there are
enough good jobs for the people who are here now and those who will come.
As Metro's chief operating officer, I present these recommendations to you
and invite you to voice your opinion. Each of us bears responsibility for
helping make our region the greatest place it can be.
The Metro Council and all the elected policymakers from our region look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Michael Jordan
Metro Chief Operating Officer
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OVERVIEW I September 15, 2009 C00 Report - Strategies for a sustainable and prosperous region
tirM-4
_
IW O _
a map,
Oki
to
4
WELCOMEToTHE!
'1 he Stafford Hamlet
was born out of the idea that
change is inevitable,
including changing the way we
develop.
We have seen the defining character of many Oregon communities be destroyed because
they were unable to make their voices heard. So in 2006 we came together—as landown-
ers and neighbors, as developers, conservationists, and people in the middle—to create a
model of limited self -governance recognized by Clackamas County as
The Stafford Hamlet.
The Hamlet community solidly supports preserving the Stafford Character, which
includes open space, pastoral views, native trees and wildlife, and the Tualatin River and
its tributaries. The community feels that growth and development, should it occur in
Stafford, must be done thoughtfully, and in a fair and balanced manner that builds a
strong, complete community and respects the rights of property owners.
This statement expresses the essence of our desire to provide
long-term stewardship of the Stafford Hamlet.
Our purpose is not to formulate a plan for development, nor to refuse one. Our purpose
is simple but challenging: to unite in crafting meaningful recommendations for change
that serve both individual interests and the common good in a manner that is just, fair,
and reasonable for all.
Out of a mutual respect for a wide spectrum of opinions, and a firm commitment to find-
ing common goals and interests, the Stafford Hamlet has crafted this
Values and Vision Statement to serve as
our road map to the future.
Vision
Infrastructure Needs
Existing infrastructure, including transportation, water, sewer facilities, parks, and
schools, is not adequate to accommodate a significant increase in density anywhere in the
Hamlet. There are concerns that the Hamlet's groundwater may be limited, so provision
of new sources of drinking water may become a priority for further development here.
Provision of adequate facilities must be addressed before significant development occurs.
Clustering to Preserve Open Space
Clustering, which concentrates development so that open land is preserved without sacri-
ficing economic viability, is a desirable style of development for some parts of the Hamlet.
Clustering appears to have the potential to preserve the Stafford Character while still
allowing some development.
Areas of Limited or No Development
There are significant areas of the Hamlet that will not be developed or will have very lim-
ited development. These include: riparian zones, flood plains, wildlife habitat, steep
slopes, and slide areas. These areas are shown on county and regional maps (see the
attached map), and development options are determined by state, county, and regional
statutes and policy. This is also consistent with the Hamlet's Values Statement.
Borland Development
The Borland area—south of the Tualatin River and north of I-205, not including the
Halcyon neighborhood—is the most reasonable to develop for the purposes of residential
densities and employment opportunities. Great care must be taken to protect the Tualatin
River and to maintain the Stafford Character.
EFU Lands and Large Parcels
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land and other large parcels, currently limited to one house per
SO acres, should be permitted to divide into smaller parcels for the purposes of both
development and preservation. We are committed to developing these lands in a thought-
ful manner that allows economic viability while preserving their value as a resource for
agriculture, wildlife habitat, and open space.
Previously Developed Neighborhoods
Already developed residential neighborhoods—Halcyon, Mossy Brae, Shadowwood,
Tualatin Loop/ Johnson Road south of I-205, and Ashdown Woods—should not be rede-
veloped to greater density. Existing lot sizes have already been established, are well
accepted, and provide value to the community with their individuality and character.
Values
We value the qualities—the "Stafford Character"—
that make our community a desirable place to live.
The Stafford Hamlet is quiet and peaceful,
and residents have a sense of privacy. The
Hamlet offers open space, pastoral views,
and freedom from city lights. Native trees
and wildlife enhance the experience of liv-
ing here. The Tualatin river and tributaries
such as Wilson Creek are an essential part
of the community's character. Accessible
natural areas keep people connected with
the natural world. Our air is clean and our
groundwater is of good quality, although
limited. Old barns and farms are still visible and keep people in touch with Stafford's his-
tory. Most neighborhoods contain a variety of residential styles and lifestyles, and some-
times include agriculture and livestock. Some parts of Stafford have quality agricultural
soils. Residents feel secure and safe here.
We value balance and fairness in our community.
The needs and desires of individuals, the Stafford community, and the surrounding region
are sometimes in conflict. Similarly, economic, social, and environmental goals can be at
odds. Our community decisions will strive for a balance between these competing inter-
ests, and we will work for common purposes. Competing interests can give rise to syner-
gy and lead to creative solutions. New infrastructure and services should be efficient, cost-
effective, and installed with minimal disruption; the cost of new services and infrastruc-
ture should be apportioned fairly, and development should pay for itself. Different parts
of Stafford are suited to different uses; these potential different uses afford us the opportu-
nity to create a Complete Community where people can live, work, and play.
We value the Tualatin River and its tributaries and wetlands.
The Tualatin River is a peaceful and scenic
stream with some public access. It is a nat-
ural corridor for wildlife. Riparian areas
and tributaries are essential to river health
and wildlife. The river needs to be protect-
ed from pollution and excess stormwater
runoff. Existing flood plains and natural
wetlands function as pollution filters and
should not be disturbed.
We value thoughtful change.
We must be good stewards of the Stafford Character, not just for ourselves but for future
generations. When change is planned and predictable it maintains a strong, stable com-
munity. Changes shall comply with state laws and seek to achieve state land -use goals,
while maintaining the best of the Stafford Character. Planning should incorporate the best
ideas from similar communities, both national and local, where appropriate. Building
practices should reflect good stewardship.
We value a strong community.
A strong community is fostered by interac-
tion around a set of common goals and val-
ues. We have chosen to be guided by trans-
parent, consensus -based decision-making
in order to best reflect community priori-
ties. Every citizen's voice is worth hearing.
There is strength in unity and in maintain-
ing the integrity of our community; frag-
mentation and divisiveness weaken our
voice in regional decisions. Physical reali-
ties such as parks and public places provide gathering places, which help build a healthy,
vibrant, and connected community. Quality education for young people is essential to the
future of the community. We do not exist in isolation, and need to work with surrounding
cities and jurisdictions.
We value the legal rights of property owners.
Property owners have legal rights for development or preservation, as well as other rights
of usage. Fair compensation is due when private land is used for the public's good.
We value our connections to each other
and to surrounding communities and resources.
Stafford's proximity and access to urban
services and resources should not be
diminished through congestion or poor
traffic planning. Accessibility and mobility
within the Hamlet should be optimized,
safe, and multi -modal (auto, public, bike,
pedestrian).
This Values and Vision Statement declares the
core community values of the Stafford Hamlet,
as well as general principles for future develop-
ment, if necessary.
The Values and Vision Statement was developed
through a consensus process that included 20
neighborhood meetings, several Town Halls, and
surveys of the community. This process took
place over two years and involved hundreds of
community members.
In March, 2009, this Values and Vision State-
ment was approved by 87% of the 225 communi-
ty members who voted on it.
.j / l
J?�r'9 Togetijer To C-rente Our LNC ::
COUNTY
• 1 • • • •
•
PO Box • 97062
It"7 W-g-'s-fi. -
PA RMI&
RA
Raso, FOR,,
3- Act -
jFj"
C. O."A FLO si 1!
NOV
RIN v MOIR,
i itins
tjLpi
rZ_
\Ku�f, i° _� �:.v,=�p'�'' {�f N
All
NEI
AMR:
r ZVI
a
Ym
'j]
Wlki
sit
Pic
v r
wifkk`*.�x "M I U!"MI. 4
M
— „t
VAN'Som L
kv
air.
IV
yi 11P41 It
�ry16
tv
"HWIRS, 0 M
_t At I
Al
I - . �
`� I it
'A
ww"i I
mm a IF
IEEIFau PIS)
.- M 0 .
i• -I - 60
MAL.
ali
M, M, PON 1 111
I
"IS �
STAFFORD HAMLET
PRELIMINARY AREA QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
REV 7/27/09 based on Clackamas County GIS
Hamlet Total Area, All in Acres
• Total Hamlet
• EFU
• RRFF5/Other
• Public Owned Open Space
• Private Owned Open space
• Public Schools (Incl bare land)
• Church Land
• Utilities/Public Service
• Roads/Freeway Right of Way
• Existing Small Lot Neighborhoods, Total
o Halcyon 55
o Shadow Wood 34
o Mossy Brae 43
o Ashdown 244
o Tualatin Loop 96
• Natural//Riparian/Flood Plain/WHA (Net)
• Net Unrestricted EFU
• Net Unrestricted RRFF-5/Other
• Total Net Unrestricted
Borland Area (Included in Above Areas)
• Gross Area (All RRFF-5/Other)
• Public Open Space
• Schools
• Church Lands
• . Halcyon Neighborhood
• Natural/Riparian/Flood Plain/WHA (Net)
• Net Unrestricted
3,930
1,170
2,750
269
108
72
76
8
225
472
Additional 63 Acre Metro Purchase
1,436
580
737 Incl. Small Lot Neighborhoods
1,317
556
31
51
45
55
182
192
Natural Features, All Areas, Overlaps included
• Tualatin River Flood Plain 189
• Steep Slopes/Slide 182
• Stream Corridors/Riparian, Class I and II 745
• Wild Life Habitat, Class A, B 1,211
Demographics
o
Hamlet Population
1,884
2000 Census
o
EFU
272
Estimate
o
RRFF-5/Other
1,612
Estimate Incl. Small Lot
o
Existing Small Lot Neighborhoods
675
Estimate
o
Tualatin
25,650
2006 Estimate
o
Lake Oswego
36,502
2005 Estimate
o
West Linn
25,094
2005 Estimate
o
Clackamas County
367,040
2006 Estimate
Other
o Measure 49 Claims Unknown
7
Stafford Basin Target Area
Goal
• Protect lands in the Stafford basin along tributary creeks to the Tualatin River to enhance
water quality protection, provide floodplain storage, secure diverse natural areas for local
residents and provide regional trail connections.
Objectives
Tier I Objectives
• Preserve lands along Wilson Creek to link existing protected lands and to create corridors
for wildlife habitat and future trail use.
• Protect lands along Pecan Creek to link existing protected lands and to create corridors
for wildlife habitat and future trail use.
Tier II Objective
• Protect lands along the south bank of the Tualatin River from Fields Creek to Willamette
Park for wildlife connectivity.
Partnership Objective
• Work with Three Rivers Conservancy, City of Lake Oswego, City of West Linn, City of
Tualatin, and other partners to leverage regional bond funds.
Help make our region the greatest place
Public comment period, noon Sept. 15 through Oct. 15, 2009
The Metro Council seeks public comment on an integrated set of recommendations to sustain economic
competitiveness, protect farms and natural areas, and enhance the quality of life in our communities.
Read the Metro Chief Operating Officer's recommendation at www.oregonmetro.gov/greatestplace
and tell us what you think.
Transportation priorities for the next 25 years
Comment opportunity on policies, projects and funding strategies within the long-range blueprint for our transportation
system, the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Approval of the final, complete 2035 RTP expected in June 2010.
Criteria for selecting urban and rural reserves outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Early chance to weigh in on general criteria for selecting reserves for the next 50 years. Formal comment period expected to
start in late October and the final decision in 2010.
Regional employment and population forecast for the next 20 and 50 years
Final comment opportunity on the Urban Growth Report which contains population and employment forecasts that affect
urban growth boundary decisions made in the next two years.
...........................................................................................................................................................
Open houses and public hearings
Monday, Sept. 21
Hillsboro Civic Center, room 113 A and B
150 E. Main St., Hillsboro
Open house 2 to 4 p.m.
Spanish interpreter
Tuesday, Sept. 22
Multnomah County Library,
North Portland branch
512 N. Killingsworth St., Portland
Open house 5 to 7:45 p.m.
Spanish interpreter
Thursday, Sept. 24
Beaverton City Hall
4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton
Open house 4 p.m.; hearing 5:15 p.m.
Thursday, Oct. 1
Gresham Conference Center,
Oregon Trail room
1333 NW Eastman Parkway, Gresham
Open house 4 p.m.; hearing 5:15 p.m.
Thursday, Oct. 8
Happy Valley City Hall
16000 SE Misty Dr., Happy Valley
Open house 4 p.m.; hearing 5:15 p.m
Tuesday, Oct. 13
Clackamas County Public Service Bldg.
2051 Kaen Road, Oregon City
Open house 4 p.m.; hearing 5:15 p.m.
Thursday, Oct. 15
Metro Regional Center, council chamber
600 NE Grand Ave., Portland
Open house 4 p.m.; hearing 5:15 p.m.
Oral testimony limited to two minutes. Come prepared to submit your remarks in writing.
..........................................................................................................................................................
Other ways to comment
E-mail: greatestplace@oregonmetro.gov
Mail: Greatest Place Comments,
Planning and Development,
600 NE Grand Ave.,
Portland, OR 97232
Web: www.oregonmetro.gov/greatestplace
All Metro meetings are wheelchair accessible. Listening
devices for people with a hearing impairment are
available in the council chamber upon request.
Interpreters for people with limited English or a hearing
impairment are available with 48 hours advance notice.
Call 503-797-1551 or TDD 503-797-1804 to request
these services. For transit service and schedules, go to
www.trimet.org.
0 Metro I www.oregonmetro.gov
30
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Guy R. Graham, P.E., Public Works Director
PREPARED BY: Erica Rooney, P.E. , Assistant City Engineer
Crystal M. Shum, P.E., Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Street Funding and Programs
DATE: September 22, 2009
Introduction
This report provides background and an overview of the City's Public Works Street Fund Program and
the state of the City's street network. The operational and financial structure of the program is
discussed as well as the sources of revenue. The report closes with an overview of options for the
potential to expand the level of service.
Background
The City's street network of nearly 380 lane miles includes streets within the City's Urban Services
Boundary. The City is responsible for maintaining the roadway and all the supporting infrastructure
including: traffic signals, signs, street lights, medians, landscaping, catch basins, and street trees on the
majority of the overall system. Streets are the most visible, and therefore usually the most demanding,
infrastructure system that the City maintains. It's mere visibility and the fact that people see or use the
system every day demands a high level of service and response from the residents of the community. It
takes a significant number of staff to meet the daily demands for the Street Program.
The City of Lake Oswego has a street network of 380 lane miles including streets within the City's urban
services boundary. All streets are classified as either arterials e.g., (e.g., Boones Ferry Road), collectors
(e.g., South Shore Boulevard), or local streets (e.g., Troon Road). Within the network, there are 41 lane
miles of arterial streets, 85 lane miles of collector streets, and 252 lane miles of local streets, including
approximately 50 lane miles of county roads (and public non -maintained roads) not currently under the
City's maintenance jurisdiction.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 2
Organization & Responsibilities of the Street Program
The City's Public Works Department is responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining the City's
street network. Operationally, the Public Works Department conducts these activities through the
Engineering and Maintenance Services Divisions. Both divisions have significant responsibilities within
the overall Street Program.
The Engineering Division provides administration, design, inspection, analysis, and capital planning
services for the street system, including managing the construction contracts for roadway
improvements projects. Engineering staff also coordinates with private engineers, developers,
contractors, and city personnel for carrying out these activities. Furthermore, the Engineering Division
includes the Traffic Engineering Section, which is responsible for managing the traffic signals, signs,
striping, and a myriad of citizen request for traffic improvements throughout the City. Approximately
3.5 FTE in Engineering are involved in the various responsibilities of the Street Program throughout any
given year.
The Street Services section of the Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the street
network through such work as resurfacing, patching, street sweeping, pathway maintenance, snow and
ice removal, street tree care, right-of-way beautification, and installing, repairing, and replacing traffic
signs, lane striping, markers, and guardrails. Additionally, the maintenance staff is responsible for traffic
signal operations and maintenance as well as coordination with PGE regarding the City's street lighting
program. They work in concert with the engineering staff to ensure the infrastructure improvements are
properly installed in accordance with national and state standards. Some of the other responsibilities,
such as repairing and cleaning catch basins, are shared with the Surface Water Division. The Street
Service Section is staffed with 5.3 FTEs and is operated out of the Maintenance Division Building on Jean
Road.
Essentially, the Engineering Division staff plan, design, and construct the system and the Street
Maintenance Section staff maintain the network for the future.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 3
Financial Structure of the Street Program
Financially, the Street Program's revenue and expenses are tracked in a specific fund — The Street Fund.
This is a special revenue fund used to account for all financial activity associated with the
operation/engineering and maintenance of the City's streets. The diagrams below show the relationship
between the operational structure of the Public Works Street Program and the Street Fund structure.
Operational Diagram
Public Works
Street Program
Construction Removal,
and Project Service Calls,
Management, Tree Service,
Traffic Sweeping
Management
Financial Diagram
Street Fund
$4,386,031
r
Street Operations Street
Maintenance
$3,515,031
Includes:
Transfers to
Engineering,
General, and
Maintenance
Funds, capital
projects,
professional
services , studies
and surveys,
landscape
contracts
$870,000:
Includes: Salaries
and benefits,
equiptment,
contracts for
specialized
services, repairs
and fuel costs for
maintenance
fleet
Engineering Division
Maintenance Division
Street Operations
Street Services
3.5 FTE
5.3 FTE
Engineering,
Design,
Patching, Traffic
Inspection,
Signs and
Capital
Symbols, Snow
Planning,
and Ice
Construction Removal,
and Project Service Calls,
Management, Tree Service,
Traffic Sweeping
Management
Financial Diagram
Street Fund
$4,386,031
r
Street Operations Street
Maintenance
$3,515,031
Includes:
Transfers to
Engineering,
General, and
Maintenance
Funds, capital
projects,
professional
services , studies
and surveys,
landscape
contracts
$870,000:
Includes: Salaries
and benefits,
equiptment,
contracts for
specialized
services, repairs
and fuel costs for
maintenance
fleet
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 4
The total Street Program budget for FY2009-10 is $4,386,031. This includes $800,000 in one-time
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus) funds for two street rehabilitation projects.
2009-10 Street Fund Requirements
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Transfers
Capital Outlay
Contingency
The Street Operations budget includes transfers to the Engineering, General, and Maintenance Services
and Motor Pool Funds to account for personnel and overhead costs. The Operations budget also
accounts for the Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) expenses and other street capital projects, and
professional consulting services with various firms for traffic studies, engineering, and design services.
2007-08 2008-09
2004-05
2005-06
Actuals
2006-07
Street Operations
977,191
1,815,505
308,024
Personal Services
$ -
$ -
$ -
Materials and Services
485,984
$ 554,483
$ 577,758
Transfers
763,196
871,267
918,579
Capital Outlay
1,040,877
3,387,028
1,298,192
Total Street Operations
$ 2,290,058
$4,812,778
$2,794,529
2007-08 2008-09
Budgeted
2009-2010
$ 840,000
689,000
1,732,000
$ 3,516,031
Street Maintenance
-
$ 647,487
$ 684,319
907,343
977,191
1,815,505
308,024
$3,370,336
$1,969,535
Budgeted
2009-2010
$ 840,000
689,000
1,732,000
$ 3,516,031
Street Maintenance
Personal Services
$ 392,729
$ 437,785
$ 393,349
$ 463,222 $ 519,229
$ 446,000
Materials and Services
248,105
332,553
278,222
224,896 357,518
363,000
Capital Outlay
21,960
43,344
26,060
73,698
61,000
Total Street Maintenance
$ 662,795
$ 813,682
$ 697,631
$ 761,816 $ 876,748
$ 870,000
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 5
Street Program/Street Fund Revenues
Street activities, including the Pavement Preservation Program, are funded primarily by three sources:
State Motor Vehicle Fees, a portion of PGE Franchise Fees (General Fund), and the Street Maintenance
Fee (SMF). In 2009, the City will also receive $800,000 in one-time American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Federal Stimulus) funds for road projects. Revenue trends for the Street Fund are
shown below:
$6,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
v
$3,000,000.00
a
$2,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Street Fund Revenue 2004-2009
o`O
Fiscal Year
Pavement Preservation Program
Federal Stimulus & Other Intergov
ODOT
Transfer from General Fund
Miscellaneous Revenues
■ PGE Franchise Fee
■ Street Maintenance Fee
■ State Motor Vehicle Fees
The major capital expense in street operations each year is the Pavement Preservation Program. This
program is an annual construction program that includes slurry seals, pavement overlay, and pavement
reconstructions for street improvements. In the 2007-09 biennium, the PPP program accounted for
approximately $2.1 million in street projects, although most of the projects were completed in fiscal
year 2007-08.
Selecting streets for the annual projects is aided by the Pavement Management Program (PMP)
automated software system. The PMP system compiles information gathered during visual field
inspections and produces condition analyses for the entire network. When the streets are visually
inspected, the inspector looks for distresses that may be present on a street. There are 7 major
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 6
distresses: alligator cracking, block cracking, distortions, longitudinal and transverse cracking, patching
and utility cut patching, rutting and depressions, and weathering and raveling.
After all the data is reviewed and entered, the streets are rated depending on their functional class and
Pavement Condition Index (PCI). With the use of the PMP software, all streets within the network have
been assigned a PCI. The PCI is a measurement of the health of the street network and condition. PCTs
range from 0 to 100, a newly constructed street will have a PCI of 100, while a completely failed street
will have a PCI of 10 or less. In October of 2008, the City Council agreed to lower the system -wide PCI
goal from 80 to 70. Examples of Lake Oswego Streets and their corresponding PCI's are shown in
Appendix A.
During the past five years, many street segments have been either slurry sealed, overlayed, or
reconstructed. Not all projects are equal, and some projects have been more complicated than others.
It's not always possible to complete the same number of miles each year. For perspective, the
pavement work completed (in miles) during the past five years has included the following:
2009-10
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 (Proiected)
Slurry Seals 5.1
4.86
4.52 4.21 4.03 4.72
Overlays 0.01
2.35
4.01 1.66 - 1.44
Reconstruction -
0.65
- 2.35 - -
Historically, the City has struggled to find adequate funding for street rehabilitation and preventative
maintenance. Adoption of the Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) in 2004 substantially improved that
situation. Still, the City now finds itself losing ground in the effort to improve the overall system -wide
PCI and provide some level of service for the worst streets in the system.
Street Maintenance Fee
The City began collecting the SMF on July 1, 2004 (see Ordinance 2373 in Appendix B). Residential use
classifications (single-family and multiple family) started paying the SMF at the full rate and the non-
residential fee was phased in over a one-year period, paying their full rate beginning July 1, 2005. In its
first year, the SMF generated approximately $815,000 and since July 2005 has generated about $1.1
million each year. Last year, the City Council voted to adjust the SMF to the Engineering News and
Record cost index, which was approximately a 6.7% increase effective July 1, 2009.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 7
Current Street Maintenance Fee Charges (as of July 1, 2009):
Residential use
Single Family
$4.00 per unit / month
Multi -Family
$2.86 per unit / month
Non -Residential Use
Group 1
$2.45 per 1000 SF of GFA / month
< 29 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA
Group II
$5.51 per 1000 SF of GFA / month
29!5 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA
Group III
$20.56 per 1000 SF of GFA / month
> 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 SF of GFA
GFA = Gross Floor Area
For comparison, the City of Lake Oswego's Street Maintenance Fee for the residential customers is mid-
way between the highest and lowest rates amongst the 19 cities in the state that have similar fees. The
highest is Ashland is at $7.50 per month, and the lowest is North Plains at $0.90 per month for single
family residences. Appendix C provides more detail of this comparison.
Other Sources of Funding for Streets
Meanwhile, the revenue the City has received from the State for motor vehicle fees and gas taxes has
declined steadily. The increase in the budget for 2009-10 is due to the anticipation that gas tax revenue
will increase as gas prices have dropped.
Despite one time infusions from sources such as ODOT and Federal Stimulus monies, the revenues for
the Street Program have changed very little since 2004. At the same time, operational and construction
costs have continued to increase and the City's buying power to complete street projects has decreased.
ODOT estimates that transportation construction costs have increased over the last five years such that
buying power is now only about 60% of what it was in 2004. The increased costs can be attributed to
the increased costs of oil, other materials and labor.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 8
The graph below shows the relationship between construction costs and the City's buying power over
the last several quarters.
3.00
2.50
2.00
X
d
� 1.50
C
1.00
0.50
0.00
Cost Trends
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
As buying power declines, the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow. Deferred
maintenance refers to the amount of maintenance and rehabilitation work that should have been
completed to maintain the street in "good" condition (PCI 70-100), but was deferred due to funding
deficiencies. This is also considered a "backlog". According the City's Capital Improvement Plan FY
2009-2014, the backlog for roadway improvements over the next 5 years is approximately $5.7 million
for Annual Pavement Preservation Program. There is another $26.6 million identified for special
projects involving major roadway projects.
As the backlog grows, at the current funding level, the City-wide pavement condition with continue to
decrease. Under the current street maintenance fee rate, the streets will continue to degrade and the
network PCI will fall to 60, and the deferred maintenance backlog of streets will grow to approximately
$23 million within the next 10 years. This is shown in the following graph:
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 9
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Deferred Maintenance and City Wide Pavement Condition at
Current Annual Funding Level ($1.2 Million)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Current State of the Streets
Pavement
Condition Index
(PCI)
- - Deferred
Maintenance (in
Millions)
In the fall of 2006, Engineering Information Services, Inc. (EIS) of Salem, Oregon was retained by the City
to conduct a condition assessment of the street network and to generate a new system -wide PCI. EIS
has reported that even though as of 2006, twenty-seven (27) lane miles of streets have received
pavement maintenance, the system -wide average PCI is currently 68, a drop from the average PCI of 75
in 2004. The system includes those streets currently within our Urban Services Boundary. It is important
that these streets be included in the network because it is anticipated that these County streets will
eventually be annexed into the City. This does not imply that the City will provide maintenance to
streets until they have been accepted by the City for maintenance.
The table below provides a more detailed look at the system -wide condition based on lane miles and
functional classification.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 10
Current State of the Streets — Pavement Condition Index:
Condition 2004 Percent of 2007 Percent of 2009 Percent of
PCI Range
Category Network Network Network
Good 70-100 73% 61% (231 lane
miles)
Satisfactory 50-69
Fair 25-49
18% 20% (76 lane miles)
6% 14% (53 lane miles)
-..._.._...._..- ........ -.... -.......
65% (246 lane
miles)
14% (53 lane
miles)
14% (53 lane
miles)
Poor <25 3% 5% (19 lane miles) 7% (27 lane miles)
This table clearly shows that the number of "good" street is decreasing while the "poor" and "fair" are
increasing. In October 2008, the City Council established a city-wide goal of 70 PCI. As noted earlier, the
average PCI has dropped to 68.
In the Future
It is obvious that due to the rise in costs, the city will not be able to keep up with the street preservation
needs for achieving and maintaining a PCI of 70 without an increase in revenue or shift in service
priorities.
Additionally, the City is faced with increasing demands for improvements, maintenance, and
construction of pathways, guardrails, sidewalks, alleys, and traffic engineering improvements. Many of
these demands have not yet been clearly identified and categorized. However, as an example of the
growing needs, the requests for pathways in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2009-14 identified
over 30 pathway projects that will cost over $11.5 million in today's dollars.
Funding Options
Given the current street funding scenario, the City's PCI will continue to decline. There are some
options the City Council may want to consider regarding the pavement preservation program including:
1. Decrease the established PCI goal of 70
2. Supplement street funding by transfers from the General Fund
3. Supplement street funding by increasing SMF rates and indexing the rate annually for inflation
4. Consider one-time bonding options such as G.O. Bonds or revenue bonds.
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 11
Option 1 really isn't viable or sustainable, since the roadway assets would continue to erode.
Options 2 impacts the already financially challenged General Fund, therefore is not very practical in the
long term.
Option 3 appears to the most practical and viable approach to increasing funding to achieve the City
Council's PCI goal.
Option 4 is alternative financing, which could be provided by issuing general obligation bonds (secured
by the City's General Fund, presuming the financial capacity exists) or revenue bonds (secured by the
street maintenance utility) that could potentially provide millions of dollars up front to complete
"backlogged" projects.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathways (including, Trails and Sidewalks)
Currently there are over 80 existing different pathways, either in right-of-way or public easements.
These are maintained through the Street Fund. A few of these were installed through the one-time
2003 general obligation bond effort, which built park improvements and pathways throughout the City.
In that $14.7 Million bond, we completed Lakeview, Lake Grove, Rosemont, and the Country Club
Boones Ferry Road pathway and sidewalk projects. However, no maintenance dollars were set aside to
maintain those structures. Many of the older projects, such as those in easements, and the pathway
along Kruse Way are in need of significant investments for repair and replacement.
The current 5 -year CIP identifies over 30 pathway projects, the vast majority being "unfunded",
representing a capital investment need of over $10 million. Given the large number of projects and the
potential price tag, it is important that prioritization criteria be established to rank projects (i.e. based
on Council Goals, overall community benefit, master plans, financial "leveraging", etc.), so that once
funding sources are identified, projects can be completed in a meaningful way.
The funding for pathways could be provided via the previously noted options, competing against other
City operational and capital investment needs, subject to the same conditions. There may be some
"alternative" funding options including (and not limited to), creation of a new "pathway utility' (similar
to the SMF) and establishing user fees (i.e. City bicycle licenses, "sustainability" or "carbon footprint
fee", etc.), or increasing the percentage of Motor Vehicle Fees that are allocated to the Bicycle Path
Fund. One additional option for funding could be through the formation of a local improvement district
(LID) where property owners within a "zone of benefit" would be assessed a proportionate share of the
cost of the pathway improvement.
Summary and Recommendations Regarding Next Steps
Currently, there is a significant financial gap between the level of transportation services (including
pavement condition and pathways) the City Council and city staff would like to provide and what the
community may expect to the reality of available existing resources. Often the focus of infrastructure
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 12
capital investment is on "new and/or improved" projects which enhance levels of service, not
necessarily on reinvestment in those infrastructure assets that have reached the end of their useful
lives. The City's pavement preservation program is intended to address the latter, where the pathways
discussion focuses on the former. Candidly, this may be the most significant capital spending issue that
policy makers struggle with regarding how and where to make those strategic investments.
As the City Council considers how Transportation Fund and General Fund dollars are invested in capital
improvements regarding street and/or pathway infrastructure, several questions should be asked
including:
1. Does the capital investment(s) support sustainability of the asset(s) or services provided by the
asset(s)?
2. Will the capital investment create a greater operational and maintenance demand on City staff
(i.e. goods and services) that may diminish the level of service(s) or increase the cost to provide
that level of service(s)?
3. Will future financial resources be placed in an asset "reserve account" to fund
replacement/renewal of the asset when it reaches the end of its useful or service life?
4. Will the capital investment reduce the cost of providing service(s), saving dollars to be allocated
elsewhere or to provide enhanced level of service(s)?
Staff would like to recommend the City Council consider increasing pavement preservation program
funding to a "sustainable" level that can be maintained. The current Council objective is a pavement
condition index (PCI) value of 70. This would essentially require a "doubling" of the current dollars
dedicated to the program and could be achieved through raising SMF fee rates, reallocating existing
Transportation Fund dollars (i.e. from the operating budget) or from the City's General Fund and/or a
combination of all these options.
Regarding funding for new pathway (i.e. enhanced service) projects, staff would appreciate any
suggestions or direction from the City Council on potential options to explore, then provide Council with
a report on findings of the options considered.
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Council Report
9/22/09 Page 13
Appendix A — Examples of PCI's in Lake Oswego:
What do the different pavement conditions look like?
Good Condition Streets - PCI = 70 to 100
Hallinan Street -PCI = 92
Fair Condition Streets - PCI = 25 to 49
C Avenue - PCI = 34
Satisfactory Condition Streets —
PCI = 50 to 69
Parrish Street - PCI = 62
Poor Condition Streets - PCI < 25
Blue Heron Road - PCI = 1
Appendix B — Ordinance 2373, December 4, 2003 —
Establishing the Street Maintenance Fee:
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Effective Date: December 4, 2003
ORDINANCE NO. 2373
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AMENDING THE LAKE
OSWEGO CODE TO ADD LOC CHAPTER 37 ESTABLISHING A STREET
NLkINTEN_ANCE FEE
WHEREAS, a street system in a state of good repair is critical to the efficient movement of
vehicles within the City for private and commercial use and critical to the safety of the non -
motoring public; and
WHEREAS, deterioration of the City's street system, if not managed through a program of
periodic condition assessments, preventive maintenance and repair, can lead to large-scale disrepair
and destruction of the street system with serious consequences to local commerce and public safety;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that a safe, well-fimctioning City street system is a
priority need; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that a street maintenance fee is the most equitable
method to recover the costs of maintaining the City's street system from users according to their use
of the system,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 37 as follows:
37.01.10 Title.
LOC Chapter 37 shall be known as the Street Maintenance Fee Ordinance.
37.01.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms are defined as follows:
City Street System or Street System. All transportation -related components
located on City -owned property, City right-of-way or City easements within the
City limits that the City is contractually or legally obligated to operate and
maintain. The components include streets, alleys, curbs and gutters, bridges,
sidewalks and paths, including improvements and installations related to any and
all components, which are designated for use by motor vehicles, pedestrians,
bicycles or other vehicle use.
Developed Property or Developed Use. A parcel or lot of real property upon
which any improvement exists, and upon which activities occur that generate or
receive motor vehicle traffic. Improvement on developed property includes, but
is not limited to, buildings, parking lots, landscaping and outside storage.
Dwelline or Dwellinp- Unit. One or more habitable rooms that are occupied or
that are intended or designed to be occupied by one family with housekeeping
facilities for living. sleeping, sanitary facilities, cooking and eating.
Ordinance No. 2373
Page 1 of 6
Gross Floor Area or GFA. The sum (in square feet) of the area at each floor level,
including cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses, corridors, lobbies, stores and
offices that are included within the principal outside faces of exterior walls, not including
architectural setbacks or projections. Included are all stories or areas that have floor
surfaces with clear standing headroom (6 feet, 6 inches minimum) regardless of their use.
For the purposes of trip generation calculations, the gross floor area of any parking
garages within the building shall not be included with the gross floor area of the entire
building.
ITE Manual. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6t"
edition, or most current edition as appropriate.
Multi -family Residential. Property with a building consisting of two or more
dwelling__units�._mcluding,._.. but.. Rot,l guted_ to,._ apartments,__townhouses,
condominiums and duplexes.
Non -Residential. A use of property that is primarily not for single-family or
multi -family dwellings.
Person Responsible. The utility customer under LOC Chapter 38, if the street
maintenance fee is billed with the utility billing under that Chapter, otherwise the
person having possession or control of the property.
Sin,le Family Residential. Property with a building consisting of a single,
detached dwe111r unit.
37.01.030 Street Maintenance Fee Established.
A Street Maintenance Fee is hereby established, in an amount to be
determined, and adjusted from time to time, by resolution of the City Council.
The fee shall be based upon the relative direct and indirect use of, or benefit
from, the City street system that results from activities within the City, as
determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, and shall be
imposed upon the persons responsible for each developed property upon which
such activities occur.
37.01.040 Use of Funds.
All funds collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to pay costs of
operation, maintenance, repair, engineering, improvement, renewal, replacement
and reconstruction of the City street system.
37.01.050 Street Maintenance Fee Structure.
1. The Street Maintenance Fee shall be based upon the relative usage of the
City's street system generated by developed properties within each of the
following use classifications. Each classification shall be assigned an appropriate
rate, based on average estimated use of the City's street system resulting from
activities on properties in that classification.
Classifications shall include:
Ordinance No. 2373
Page 2 of 6
a. Residential use classifications:
i. Single family
ii Multi -family (includes each unit of a duplex; triplex;
condominium; townhouse or apartment)
b. Non-residential use classifications:
i. Non-residential Group I; (Q9 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000
square feet of GFA).
ii. Non-residential Group H; (29 to 5 90 vehicle trip miles per day per
1,000 square feet of GFA).
iii. Non-residential Group III; (>90 vehicle trip miles per day per
1,000 square feet of GFA).
2. The City Manager shall determine the use classification from the ITE
manual for each non-residential developed property within the City.
3. In the absence of a specific use classification within the ITE Manual for a
nArt*rn lar ripvelr n,md nrnnPrtV the City. Manatrpr ChYll gcclrm.. tf1P 11T/1T1PTtl! +1P .� Jn
classification that, in the City Manager's determination, most closely reflects the
usage of the street system generated by the property, considering factors that
include, without limitation, the following:
a. the size of the site and building;
b. the number of employees;
c. other developed sites operated by the same or an affiliated owner for a
use generating comparable amounts of traffic;
d. the number of work shifts;
e. the hours of operation;
f. pass -by trips;
Cr. modes of transportation;
h. heavy vehicle usage;
i. transportation strategies that reduce or increase usage of the street
system;
j. targeted traffic studies;
1. trip generation surveys.
The City Manager may require a traffic study, conducted in conformance with
the methodology outlined in the ITE Manual, and including on-site traffic counts
not less than twice nor more than four times during the year immediately
following the beginning of operation on site. Pending determination of an
appropriate permanent use classification, the Manager may assign a use
classification on an interim basis, provided it is not less than the lowest
classification among residential or non-residential groups.
37.01.060 Billing and Collection of Fee.
1. The Street Maintenance Fee shall be billed and collected with and as part
of the combined utility user charge billing pursuant to LOC 38.06.020 and
38.06.030
2. In the event funds received from the City's utility billings, described in
subsection (1) of this section, are inadequate to satisfy in full all of the water,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and Street Maintenance Fees, credit shall be given
first to the Street Maintenance Fee, second to the storm surface water
Ordinance No. 2373
Page 3 of 6
management utility, third to the sanitary sewer utility and last to the water
services utility.
3. If the Street Maintenance Fee is not paid when due, the City Manager may
proceed to collect such charges in any manner provided by law.
37.01.070 Waiver of Fee in Case of Vacancy.
1. When any property within the City becomes vacant, and water service is
discontinued, a waiver of the Street Maintenance Fee may be granted by the City
Manager upon written application of the person responsible, including a signed
statement, affirming under penalty of perjury that the property is vacant, and
upon payment of all outstanding water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street
maintenance charges;
2. For purposes of this section, "vacant" shall mean that an entire building or
utility billing unit has become vacant or continuously unoccupied for at least 30
days. `'Vac.a t".sk►a l nq _m an_tbat.only_a_ps�rlion�f a_prot�earty_without a.s aat te.........
water meter has become vacant or unoccupied.
3. Fees shall be waived in accordance with this section only while the
property remains vacant. The person responsible shall notify the City within 5
days of the premises being occupied, partially occupied or used, regardless of
whether water service is restored.
37.01.080 Appeal.
1. Any person responsible who disputes the City Manager's decision
assigning a use classification for property, may appeal such decision to the City
Council by filing a written notice of appeal within 15 days of the date of the City
Manager's decision, together with payment of the appeal fee established by
resolution of the City Council. The notice of appeal shall specify the reasons for
the appeal,
2. The City Manager shall notify the appellant not less than 10 days prior to
the date of the City Council consideration of the appeal. The decision of the
Council shall be limited to whether the appellant's property has been assigned the
appropriate use classification. The Council decision as to the appropriate use
classification shall be final.
3. In the event that the City Council changes or otherwise overturns the City
Manager's decision on appeal, any appeal fee paid by the appellant shall be
refunded.
37.01.090 Exceptions.
The following shall not be subject to the Street Maintenance Fee:
1. City -owned parking lots, which are not associated with public services
other than parking.
2. Parkina lots owned and operated by Tri -Met for mass transit passengers,
such as "Park and Ride" lots.
3. Publicly owned parkland, open spaces, and greenways, unless public off-
street parking designed to accommodate the use of such areas is provided.
4. Areas encompassed by railroad and public rights-of-way, except for
developed railroad property such as maintenance areas, non -rolling storage areas
Ordinance No. 2373
Page 4 of 6
and areas used for the transfer of rail -transported goods to non -rail transport shall
be subject to Street Maintenance Fees.
Section 2. LOC 38.06.020 is hereby amended by adding Subsection (4) as follows (new material
shown as bold and underlined):
4. Street maintenance fees shall be billed and collected with and as a part of
the utility user charge, as provided in LOC 37.01.060.
Section 3. Subsections (3) and (4) of LOC 38.06.030 are hereby amended as follows (new
material shown as bold and underlined, deleted material shown with `tfiket4eu ):
3. In the event that a utility customer fails to pay the utility charge in full, credit
shall be given first to the street maintenance fee as provided in LOC 37.01.060,
second to the storm surface management utility user charge. seseRd third to the
sewer services utility user charge, and lash to the water services utility user
charse.
4. In the event that any utility account shall become delinquent, the City Finance
Director may direct that water service to the customer be terminated and
discontinued until all delinquent street maintenance fees and all delinquent user
charges for the use of the surface water management service, sanitary sewer service
or water service shall have been paid in full. The provisions for collection herein
shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies w4k4that the City may have
under the laws of the State of Oregon.
Section 4. LOC 38.06.040 is hereby amended to read as follows (new material shown as bold
and underlined):
The City Finance Director shall establish a fund or account within the City budget
for each of the three component utility charges. Moneys received as a result of the
City Utility User Charge shall be allocated to the respective funds or accounts in
the amounts established in the Utility Charge Resolution of the City Council.
Except as otherwise provided or allowed by State law, the utility funds or accounts
shall be used solely for the purposes outlined in LOC 38.06.020(2).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, monevs received as a result of street
maintenance fee charges shall be used as provided in LOC 37.01.040.
Section 5. Severabilitv. In the event any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or phrase of
this is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity
of the remainder of the ordinance shall continue to be effective. If a court of competent
Jurisdiction determines that this ordinance imposes a tax or charge, which is therefore unlawful
as to certain but not all affected properties, then as to those certain properties, an exception or
exceptions from the imposition of the Street Maintenance Fee shall be created and the remainder
of the ordinance and the fees imposed there under shall continue to apply to the remaining
properties without interruption.
Ordinance No. 2373
Pace 5 of 6
Section 6. Limitation of Authority. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting
the City's authority to levy special assessments in connection with public improvements pursuant
to applicable law.
Section 7. Taxes. The fees and charges herein are not intended to be taxes nor are they subject
to the property tax limitations of Article XI, Section 11(b), of the Oregon Constitution.
Section 8. Review. The provisions of this Ordinance, and the fees established pursuant to its
terms, shall be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing in November of 2007 and shall
be periodically reviewed at subsequent public hearings no less frequently than every three years
following that date.
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on November 4 , 2003.
AYES: Mayor Hammerstad, Graham, Peterson, McPeak, Rohde, Hoffman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Turchi
//Judie Hammerstad, Mayor
Date: November 5, 2003
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
by ,lane Mc Garvin, Deputy City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2373
Page 6 of 6
RESOLUTION 03-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING STREET
MAINTENANCE FEE RATES.
WHEREAS the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2373, amending the City Code to
authorize the establishment of Street Maintenance Fees; and
WHEREAS the ordinance provides that the rate of Street Maintenance Fees shall be established by
Resolution of the City Council; and
VvT=AS the ordinance also provides that Street Maintenance Fees shall be based upon the
relative usage of the City street system generated by developed properties within each of certain use
categories; and
WHEREAS the City Council finds that the Street Maintenance Fee rates proposed by the City
Manager are necessary to enable the City to maintain a safe, well-functioning street system; and
WHEREAS the City Council also finds that the proposed Street Maintenance Fee rates are
equitable, are appropriately based upon the relative usage of the City street system by developed
properties within each category, and meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 2373.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. Street Maintenance Fees are hereby imposed at the following monthly rates:
i. Single family: $ 3.75 per unit, effective July 1, 2004.
it Multi -family (includes each unit of a duplex; triplex; condominium;
townhouse or apartment): $2.68 per unit, effective July 1, 2004.
Non-residential Group 1 (<29 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area): $1.15 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
effective July 1, 2004; increasing to $2.30 per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area, effective July 1, 2005.
ii. Non-residential Group H (29 to < 90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area): $2.58 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area, effective July 1, 2004; increasing to 55.17 per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area, effective July 1, 2005.
Resolution 03-89
Page 1 of 2
ill. Non-residential Group III (>90 vehicle trip miles per day per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area): $9.65 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,
effective July 1, 2004; increasing to $19.31 per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area, effective July 1, 2005.
Seetion 2. The rates established in Section 1 of this Resolution shall be added to the City's
Master Fees and Charges Schedule.
Seems This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the
4th day of November , 2003.
A=C NLvor_ Hn--ergtad.y.. Gra}�aa ,.. Peterson.,.. McPeak, Rohde, Hoffman
NOES: None
EXCUSED: Turchi
ABSTAIN: None
udie Hammerstad, Mayor
ATTEST:
e McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 03-89
Page 2 of 2
Appendix C — Fee Comparison Chart:
City
Population
(2006)
Monthly Fee for
Single Family
Detached Units
(1)
Rank
High
w
Ashland
21,430
$7.49
1
Wilsonville
16,885
$6.92
2
Medford
73,960
$5.70
3
Tualatin
25,650
$5.42
4
Dufur
630
$5.00
5
Bay City
1,195
$5.00
6
Hubbard
2,960
$4.50
7
La Grande
12,540
$4.00
8
Lake Oswego
36,350
$4.00(2)
9
Talent
6,415
$3.93
10
M ilwaukie
20,835
$3.35
11
Eagle Point
8,340
$3.00
12
Clatskanie
1,675
$2.50
13
Tigard
46,300
$2.18
14
Philomath
4,460
$2.00
15
Phoenix
4,740
$1.85
16
Corvallis
53,900
$1.36
17
North Plains
1,755
$0.90
18
Grants Pass
30,930
varies
Source: TUF Solutions for Local Street Funding —A Survey on Transportation
Utility Fees (TUFs), League of Oregon Cities, January 2008
(1) Since each City defines the use of their SMF differently, a wide range of rates
exists between the different cities.
(2) Rate increased to $4.00 on July 1, 2009.