1. Transportation System Development Charge Working Group
Meeting #6
November 17, 2016
SDC Project Lists and Growth Share Framework

2. Meeting Agenda Welcome Project History Work Group History
Determining SDC Eligible Amount
Review of Project Lists
Rate Discussion- Categories
Closing and Next Steps

3. Welcome & Introductions

4. Project History County last updated TSDC Methodology in 2006
Project involves Unincorporated Clackamas County and City of Happy Valley TSDC
Clackamas County updated Transportation System Development Plan(TSP) in 2013
County’s goals and objectives support equality, accessibility, and health in addition to more traditional transportation goals
Happy Valley’s 2012 TSP scheduled for update in 2016

5. Work Group History First meeting 12/15/2015 Second meeting 1/19/2016
Update and recommendations provided to Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners and Happy Valley City Council
Third Meeting 4/5/2016
Fourth Meeting 4/28/2016
Fifth Meeting 5/18/2016
County and City Path

6. Meeting Purpose
Review and discuss project team’s proposed framework and calculations for growth share.
Review Project Lists and SDC Eligible Expenses.
Discuss Rates

7. Framework for Determining SDC-Eligible Costs (“Growth Share”)

8. Growth Share Framework - Multimodal Capacity Projects
Current v/c or LOS vs. standard
SDC-Eligible Costs
ProjectCost
Auto $
No Deficiency
Bike $
Existing system-wide miles/capita vs. future miles/ capita
Ped $
Deficiency
Non SDC-Eligible Costs

9. Bike/Ped Level of Service
*Estimated 10-year population growth = 17,441

10. Growth Share Framework - Performance Projects
Share of Total Volume
SDC-Eligible Costs
ProjectCost
Auto $
Growth
Bike $
Share of Total Population
Ped $
Existing
Non SDC-Eligible Costs

11. Project Examples (Urban)
Project #1030 – Johnson Creek Blvd/OR 213 ($0.9m)
Intersection improvements (capacity improvements)
Current v/c – 0.84 (LOS E); Future v/c – 1.08 (LOS F)
Growth share = 100%
Project #1101 – Clarkes Four Corners Intersection ($4.5m)
Reconstruct intersection (performance improvements)
Current volume = 203, growth volume = 42
Growth share = 17%
Project #1099 – Canby-Marquam Hwy/Lone Elder Rd ($3.8 m)
Intersection improvements (new turn lanes)
Current v/c < 0.8; TSP indicates future deficiency

12. Project Examples (Rural)
Project #1049 – Amisigger/Kelso ($13 m)
Add paved shoulders & turn lanes
Current volume = 1384, growth volume = 1694
Growth share = 55%
Project #1088 – Stafford Rd ($8.6m)
Current volume = 4777, growth volume = 2049
Growth share = 30%

13. Project Examples (Other)
Project #1088 – I-205 Ped/Bike Overpass ($4.9m)
New overpass
Current deficiency, so not all costs related to growth
Growth share = 21% (based on growth share of future estimated population)

14. County Project List

15. Transportation System Plan (TSP)
$2.8 Billion
400+ Projects
$605 Million
111 Projects
$427 Million
77 Projects
$311 Million
37 Projects CC
TSP
TOTAL PROJECT LIST
PROJECTS MEETING BASELINE CRITERIA + LESS THAN 10-YR TIMELINE
REMOVE: FUNDED PROJECTS, STUDY & MULTI-USE PATHS
Clackamas County
Transportation System Plan (TSP)
KEEP: HIGH FUNCTIONAL CLASS
+8 OVERALL SCORE
Estimated Costs
& Project Count

16. Adjusting Prioritization for Additional Projects
Clackamas County TSDC List Prioritization Criteria
Previous
New
Goal 2, 3, 4
Score of 1 or 2
Time Frame
Tier 1 or 2
Alternative Funding
None
Total Goal Score
8 or higher
6 or higher, Collectors 8 or higher
Limit Functional Class
No Collectors
Collectors included (as above)
49 Projects
72 Projects
$326 million
$443 million

17. County Review/Discussion
72 Projects, $187 million SDC Eligible
Reasonable to increase $300 after 10 years?
Damascus

18. Happy Valley Project List

19. City Review/Discussion
32 Projects, $129 million SDC Eligible
Potential $1,300 increase reasonable?

20. Rate Discussion- Categories

21. County Current Approach
94 land use categories listed in schedule
6 residential
88 commercial
Issues
Many trip rates based on very limited data
Changing nonresidential uses cause changes in SDCs
Narrowly defined land uses

22. Alternative Approach: City of Monroe, WA

23. Alternative Approach: San Diego County
Single Family Residential Rate
Multifamily = 67% of SF rate
Mobile home = 33% of SF rate
Congregate care = 20% of SF rate
Commercial Rate
General industrial = 37% of commercial rate
Storage, warehousing = 14% of commercial rate
Offices = 56% of commercial rate
Schools, government, institutional = 32% of commercial rate
Furniture stores = 14% of commercial rate

24. Next Steps Community Survey Discussion of Category effect on Rates
Suggestions of interested parties
Discussion of Category effect on Rates
Review of proposed Ordinance
Adoption of new Ordinance

25. Upcoming Meetings January 2017, TBD February 2017, TBD
Review of Survey results; discussion of impact on rates
February 2017, TBD
Review of Ordinance
February/March, 2017, TBD
Adoption of new Ordinance