iP Davis \lrightIi!! Tremaine LLP

Suite 24001300 SW Fifth AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5610

John DiLorenzo, Jr.503.778.5216 tel503.276.5716 fax

johndilorenzo(¡dwt.com

September 5, 2013

BY HAND-DELIVERY

Honorable Stephen K. BushongMultnomah County Circuit CourtMultnomah Co Courhouse

1021 SW 4th Ave, Office 736Portland OR 97204

Re: Anderson, et al. v. City of PortlandMultnomah County Circuit Cour Case No. 1112-05957

Dear Judge Bushong:

Enclosed please find Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion toAmend the Case Management Order controllng the progression of this case. We wish to eitherdiscuss amending the Case Management Order or scheduling a time to resolve this issue durngour conference with you on Friday at 11 :30am.

Than you for your time and couresies concerning this matter.

Enclosurecc: Terry Thatcher

DWT 22551 163vl 0094650-000002

I AnchorageBellevueLos Angeles I NewVork

PortlandSan Francisco I Seattle

ShanghaiWashington, D.C. ww.dwt.com

(~

2

3

4

5

6

7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MUL TNOMAH8

9 LLOYD ANDERSON, PAIGE CRAFORD,and MILLARD CHRISTNER,

10 Case No. 1112-15957

11Plaintiffs,

v.PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TODEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TOPLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMENDCASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

12

13CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon MunicipalCorporation,

14 Defendant.

15

16i. INTRODUCTION

17Plaintiffs have asked this Court for the opportunity to obtain deposition testimony

from Defendant with respect to the limited discovery materials which had been fuished by the

Defendant relating to utility relocation costs for streetcar and light rail projects (downtown

transit mall), documents relating to land acquisitions (Riverview Cemetery Land) and the source

of non-mission critical program lists obtained from the Portland Water Bureau. Plaintiffs have

also asked the court to require Defendant to produce a privilege log, to require production of

18

19

20

21

22

23documents from the commissioner's offices relating to utility line relocations, and to schedule

24parial sumary judgment motions and briefing on matters pertaining to expenditues made from

the Water Fund and the Sewer Fund for the city voter owned elections program and for25

26expenditures made from the Water Fund for Loos.

Page 1 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

Based on the representations made by the Defendant's counsel in his

2 correspondence to Plaintiffs' counsel and in Defendant's response, Plaintiffs wil no longer

3 require a privilege log.

4 However, Plaintiffs are of the view that depositions are sorely needed to explain

5 contradictions, ambiguities and omissions which are apparent in the documents that have

6 previously been produced by Defendant.

7 A. Deposition Testimony is Necessary to Explain Ambiguities, Contradictionsand Omissions in Documents Produced Regarding the Riverview Cemeteryland acquisition.8

9 Defendants have fuished Plaintiffs voluminous documents related to the

10 puroses for the Riverview Cemetery land acquisition. Plaintiffs appreciate the City's admission

11 that "it bought the cemetery land precisely so that it would not be developed and could thereby

12 serve the City Council's announced environmental purposes, to use the cemetery land 'as (a J

13 natural area because it was in the public interest. . for watershed health and access to nature.'"

14 Response at p. 7. Plaintiffs fuher appreciate Defendant's admission that Commissioner Fish, a

15 co-sponsor of the resolution authorizing the acquisition, noted that "there was significant private

16 sector interest in this site, but we know...the only way to make sure it was protected...was to

17 place it in public ownership.. ..", Response at p. 7, and that "the City Council has acknowledged

18 that the reason to purchase the cemetery land was to prevent its development and to reap the

19 benefits of the land in its natural condition. The only legal question is whether the Council

20 complied with the charter when it used Sewer Funds to acquire land in order to maintain natual

21 and beneficial drainage patterns." Response at p. 8.

22 Defendant apparently takes the position that, so long as maintenance of "natual

23 and beneficial drainage patterns" is ancilary to other purposes, the $6 milion taken from the

24 Sewer Fund to purchase the Riverview property is authorized under the City Charer

25 notwithstanding provisions therein that limit the use of the Fund for sewer-related purposes.

26

Page 2 -PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAI LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

The Declaration of Dean Mariot, dated July 24,2013, submitted in connection

2 with Defendant's Motion for Partial Sumary Judgment, further suggests that land acquisitions,

3 like the Riverview Cemetery acquisition, are essential components of the storm water

4 management plan maintained by the City. Mr. Marriot contends that under its MS4 permit, the

5 City must design and implement a storm water management plan subject to DEQ approvaL.

6 Decl. ~6. However, what is not stated is that the MS4 permit does not cover natural stream

7 systems or direct storm water discharges from private property to natural stream systems. See

8 Exhibit 1 at BES 1 03262.

9 Mr. Marriot also states that the City is required by DEQ rules to develop and

10 implement a separate plan to deal with those water ways within its jurisdiction that are water-

11 quality limited, and for which the DEQ has designated total maximum daily loads. Decl. ~7.

12 However, nothing in the DEQ rules requires the City to utilize segregated fuds-like the Sewer

13 Funds-to implement such a plan. Any such responsibility is that of the City in general and

14 should be a general fund obligation.

15 Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to question Mr. Mariot with respect to these

16 discrepancies and contradictions.

17 In its memorandum in support of its motion for partial sumar judgment, the

18 City justifies the use of Sewer Funds to purchase the Riverview Cemetery property to protect

19 important terrestrial wildlife connectivity and critical fish habitat in the lower Wilamette River.

20 Mem., at p. 33. The City also cites Mr. Marot's testimony that reduction of water temperature

21 in the Wilamette River from the Riverview Cemetery property which introduces colder water

22 from various streams justifies expenditure of Sewer Funds for acquisition of the property.

23 Mem. at pp. 33-34.

24 This is echoed by Mr. Marott's statement on April 29, 2011 that the Sewer Fund

25 is "paying a large share (of the acquisition cost of the Riverview Cemetery property J because of

26 the presence of streams that drain the area and deliver cold water directly to the Wilamette. This

Page 3 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DA vis WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

is beneficial to fish as well as helping to meet the DEQ temperatue limits in the river. If the

2 area were developed, we would have lost those benefits." See Exhibit 2 at BES105223. This

3 potential mission drift away from what is conventionally considered sewer service was further

4 confirmed by the Bureau of Environmental Services' (BES) public information officer in

5 answering questions posed by The Oregonian newspaper in connection with the acquisition: "the

6 PWMP (Portland Watershed Management Plan) marked a strategic shift to our approach to

7 managing our infrastructure and water quality obligations in that the strategies and actions

8 identified are applied in the watershed to address several issues and provide multiple benefits,

9 sometimes a long ways from the water and infrastructure we are working to improve." See

10 Exhibit 3 at BES105347.

11 The Riverview acquisition was a top priority of the Parks Bureau, according to

12 Commissioner Nick Fish, then commissioner in charge of the Parks Bureau. See Exhibit 4 at

13 BES105355. This view was echoed by the Portland Parks and Recreation Bureau when its

14 program manager stated, "Why is this important: biggest park acquisition in decades." See

15 Exhibit 5 at BES 1 05296.

16 Most notably, while seeking sources of fuding to acquire the Riverview

17 Cemetery property, the BES made a grant application to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement

18 Board (OWEB). OWEB is a state agency that provides grants to help take care oflocal streams,

19 rivers, wetlands and natural areas. OWE:t uses scientific criteria to decide what needs to be

20 done to conserve and improve rivers and natural habitat. OWEB grants are funded from the

21 Oregon lottery, federal dollars, and salmon license plate revenue. The City requested a grant of

22 $1.5 milion from OWEB for the purchase of the Riverview Cemetery property. The City's

23 application stated that the City had twice received land use applications from the curent property

24 owner proposing large residential developments which would substantially impact wildlife

25 connectivity between north and southwest Portland, a condition of the relatively undistubed

26 subwatershed, and critical fish habitat in the Wilamette River. See Exhibit 6 at BES105382.

Page 4 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

However, OWEB's review team rejected the application when it stated that it felt

2 "the application significantly overstated the project's ecological merits." Ex. 6 at BES105383.

3 OWEB felt the project did not have a strong ecological connectivity benefit, that the property

4 would only offer connectivity benefit to birds, and that the application overstated the project's

5 fish benefits because the streams contribute a relatively small amount of cool water to the

6 Wilamette River. "Nearly all of the RRT members felt that it's unlikely that fish are afforded

7 meaningful thermal refuge at the confluence of the streams and the Wilamette River, although

8 some juvenile fish have been found there. The RRT pointed out that it appears that several of the

9 streams do not originate on the property, and thus canot be fully protected by the project."

10 Ex. 6 at BES105383-105384.

11 Although the Acquisition Subcommittee acknowledged that the propert had

12 good open-space value, it concluded that the property's marginal habitat values for OWEB

13 priority species made the property less competitive for the acquisition program, and therefore

14 declined to even request due dilgence for the proj ect. The staff said that if the applicants elected

15 not to withdraw the application, the Acquisition Subcommittee and staff could not recommend

16 the project for fuding. See BES105384.

17 In its response to Plaintiffs' motion to amend the case management order, the City

18 explains that it had overlooked "certain BES materials, primarily staff emails, related to the

19 purchase of the cemetery land." Response at 2. The City fuher explained that in releasing the

20 391 more pages of documents on July 1,2013, "None of (the recent material) changes the basic

21 story that we told in the proposed stipulation." Response at 2 and 3.

22 All of the above exhibits were derived from the production of July 1,2013. These

23 examples certainly do suggest a different story, one in which restricted Sewer Funds were used

24 to assist the Parks Bureau to acquire the City's "biggest park acquisition in decades" and make

25 "the top priority within the Parks Bureau's acquisition strategy" a reality. These documents

26 further suggest that the contribution of Sewer Fund proceeds towards this acquisition did little if

Page 5 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

anything to further the mission of the Sewer Fund. Even assuming for the puroses of this

2 discussion that lowering the water temperatures in the Wilamette River and preserving salmon

3 habitat might possibly be permitted uses of the Sewer Fund, the OWEB evaluation suggests that

4 these rationales were mere subterfuge for accessing Sewer Fund dollars to assist in park

5 acquisition programs. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs surely should have an opportnity to

6 take depositions to determine whether the City's "story" is true or whether the Riverview

7 Cemetery Land acquisition was all about a new park for the Parks Bureau fuded by sewer

8 ratepayers. Summary judgment is improper where material facts are in dispute and, we submit

9 the Court should afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue meaningful discovery so the whole

1 0 truth can be ascertained.

11 B. Deposition Testimony is Also Necessary to Explain Ambiguities,Contradictions and Omissions in Documents Produced Regarding UtiltyLine Relocations, Expenses Paid for by the Water Fund, to Assist in theDevelopment of the Downtown Transit Mall.

12

13

14 Plaintiffs believe that the contributions of money from the Water Fund to relocate

15 water facilities was motivated entirely by the desire to meet the mayor's mandate that the City

16 provide a 40% match for federal funds devoted to the downtown transit mall project. Defendant

17 responds, "(t)he City has always acknowledged that the Council's decision to spend Water

18 Bureau money to help move water facilities was part of the City's contribution to the local

19 matching funds to construct the MAX line." Resp. p. 6. Defendant fuher states, "(t)here is no

20 dispute that the Water Bureau's contribution. . . was part of the City's financial assistance to help

21 build the south corridor light rail line. The only legal question was whether the City Council

22 complied with the City Charter when it spent Water Bureau fuds to move and protect Water

23 Bureau pipes in order to allow light rail construction to proceed." Response at 7.

24 On March 18, 2004, an internal communication within the Water Bureau stated

25 that "the total amount allocated to BES and Water was $5m. The previous proposal had

26 indicated a range from $4.6m to $15m. The Mayor would like to meet with Dan Saltzman and

Page 6 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

three of us to discuss this portion of the funding plan. She wants to do this the first par of April,

2 since the transit mall conceptual design and funding plan are scheduled to go to Council in

3 May." See Exhibit 7 at WATR102570.

4 On March 22,2004, another official of the Water Bureau responded that "none of

5 that $$ is in our CIP." ¡d.

6 The Declaration of Steve Yeung in Support of the City's Motion for Parial

7 Summary Judgment suggests that the decision of the Water Bureau to relocate water lines in

8 exchange for superior ones was discretionary. Mr. Yeung states "if the Water Bureau decided

9 that it wanted to upgrade a 16 inch water line, the Water Bureau would be responsible for the

1 0 difference in price between a 12 inch and a 16 inch main. The increased size was considered a

11 betterment. Of course, when paying for relocation, protection and strengthening, Tri-Met could

12 and did use the $3.9 milion the City had contributed at project commencement." Decl. ~ 6.

13 What Mr. Yeung fails to mention is that the money contributed from the Water Fund to support

14 this transportation project was preordained. As far back as 2004, the conceptual design report

15 for the Portland Mall Revitalization provided that City utilty contributions would be

16 approximately $5 milion towards the project. Ex. 8 at WATR-ARCH100704. The conceptual

17 design report further stated, "(i)t is estimated that this work will result in increased value by

18 extending the useful life of these facilties, which approximately equates the local fuding

19 requirement for the project of$5 milion to $7 milion based on a 60/40 (federal/local) split." ¡d.

20 at WATR-ARCH100705.

21 In a June 25, 2004 email, Water Bureau staff observed that "(a) meeting with Dan

22 Saltzman, Dean Mariott, and Dick Steinbrugge (fillng in for Mort Anoushiravani) (the former

23 director of the Water Bureau) resulted in a general agreement that the two bureaus would be

24 wiling to contribute to the project in the ballpark of $5 millon with the caveat that their

25 contributions added like value to the respective water and sewer systems. Tri-Met is curently

26 working with both the Water Bureau and BES staffs to determine the overall amount of utilty

Page 7 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

work necessary and to estimate the value-added portion added to each system. Additional

2 meetings wil be needed with the bureaus to determine the final contribution amount." Exhibit 9

3 at WATR-ARCH100712.

4 Of course, pre-ordaining the Water Bureau's contribution for a transportation

5 project created confusion within the Bureau. On April 26, 2005, a Bureau official wrote, "(i)n

6 the previous Light Rail projects, BWW has been able to issue the design RFP for water

7 relocation and had gotten re-imbursement (sic) for the design cost. Could you tell us what has

8 changed since the last rail project (MAX)...that is preventing BWW from using the same RFP

9 procurement process? We are a little confused by all this and wonder if you could shed a little

10 light into the situation." See Exhibit 10 at WATR-ARCH100724.

11 Numerous other documents produced by the City make quite clear that the Water

12 Bureau was expected to make an approximate $3 to 5 milion contribution towards a

13 transportation project and to come up with excuses and justifications later. See, collectively,

14 Exhibit 11, for examples.

15 In addition, it appears that the "betterments" contributions made by the Water

16 Bureau for the downtown transit mall significantly exceeded those "betterments" contributions

17 made by the Water Bureau for other light rail projects. In his letter of June 20, 2012 to

18 Plaintiffs' counsel, counsel for the City indicated that the Portland Water Bureau contributed

19 approximately 7.6% of the total estimated costs associated with its overall facilty relocation for

20 the Central City Streetcar project. It contributed approximately 18.7% of the total estimated

21 costs of facility relocation for the Portland Streetcar Eastside Loop. It contributed 13.7% of the

22 estimated relocation costs for the I-205 light rail project and 21 % of the total estimated

23 relocation costs for the Interstate Light Rail project. However, when it came to the Transit Mall

24 Light Rail project, the Water Bureau contributed approximately 36.8% of the total facilty

25 relocation costs for that project, a percentage very close to the 40% local match required by then-

26

Page 8 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

1 mayor Vera Katz from city bureaus to justify federal fuding for the Downtown Transit Mall

2 project.

3 In light of these disparities, ambiguities and omissions, Plaintiffs believe that

4 deposition testimony is necessary and should be allowed to divine the truth. Briefing on related

5 matters concerning Defendant's Motion for Parial Sumar Judgment should also be deferred

6 until after discovery.

7 c. Plaintiffs Have Also Requested Production of Documents fromCommissioner Offces Relating to Utilty Line Relocations. This is BecauseThere is a Dearth of Communications from Commissioners-in-Charge Withthe Exception of Vague References to Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who ledthe Bureau of Environmental Services During a Portion or Most of the TimePeriods Affected. We Seek the Same Assurances Related to Files of OtherCommissioners Concerning The Riverview Project.

8

9

10

11 In Exhibit 5 to the Thatcher Declaration, the City states that it searched for

12 documents, including email file searches in Commissioner Saltzman's office, Mayor Adams'

13 office, and administrators and staff. Commissioner Nick Fish was a key architect for the

14 Riverview Cemetery land acquisition. It is notable that few, if any, communications were

15 produced from his office. Plaintiffs seek confirmation that Defendant has made a full and

16 complete search of the fies of all City Commissioners relevant city offcials in responding to the

17 Cour's order that limited discovery be produced.

18 D. Proceeding With Respect to Voter-Owned Elections and Loos.

19 Finally, Plaintiffs have offered to schedule the briefing and hearing for cross-

20 parial summary judgment motions on matters pertaining to expenditues from the Water Fund

21 and the Sewer Fund on the City's voter-owned elections program and for expenditues made

22 from the Water Fund for Loos. Defendant protests and suggests that all four programs must be

23 examined concurently. Defendant complains that conducting the first round of sumar

24 judgment motions on the voter-owned elections and Loos programs wil deprive the Court of an

25 opportnity to address all of the legal issues which can better inform resolution of the remaining

26 claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs believe that focusing on voter-owned elections and the Loos

Page 9 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DA vis WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

programs wil provide the Cour suffcient opportunity to determine the following legal issues

2 raised by City:

3 1.

4 and Sewer Funds?

5 2.

6 Charer provisions?

7 3.

8 discretion?

9 4.

What is the meaning of the Charter provisions regarding use of the Water

What deference, if any, should be given to Council interpretation of

Are Council decisions reviewable only for fraud and manifest abuse of

Do the Charer limitations only restrict transfer of Water Funds to "other

10 funds" and not to direct appropriations for unelated programs?

11 5.

12 certain puroses create a limitation at all or merely reference permissive authority?

Does Charer language stating that Sewer Funds "may be expended" for

13 6.

14 his numerous letters of advice to the City the appropriate standard?

Is the "primary purpose" test embraced by the City attorney for decades in

15 7.

16 to "reject," after this action was fied, the long applied "primar purose" test?

What is the effect of Resolution No. 36976 in which the Council attempts

17 8.

18 between equity and law and abolishing the doctrine of latches as the City advocates?

Should this Court issue a landmark decision eliminating the distinction

19 9.

10.20

What is the analogous statute of limitations for a latches analysis?

21 taxpayer/ratepayer standing as the City advocates?

Should this Court overt Hinkley and create new law regarding

22 11. Other latches issues raised by the City.

23 There is no reason to delay resolution of these important matters. Briefing and oral argument

24 can proceed on the voter-owned elections and Loos programs while discovery is proceeding

25 concurrently with respect to the Riverview Cemetery acquisition and utility line relocation

26 expenditures.

Page 10 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRGHT TREMA LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300

II. CONCLUSION

2F or the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request this Court modify the Case

Management Order as requested in Plaintiffs' motion.3

4

5DATED this 5th day of September, 2013.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 11 - PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TOAMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAE LLPDWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 9720 i . (503) 241-2300

City of Portland, Oregon

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit

Permit Number: 101314

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT NO. 16

Fiscal Year 2010-2011(July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011)

Prepared for:

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

November 1,2011

Submitted by:

City of PortlandPort of Portland

EXHIBIT

I 1.BES_103247

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.~

.

.,.~

.~

.

.

.

.

.~

~

.

.!)

.l.It

lt.t......

.

.

.

.

.

~ -CITY OF PORTLAND~ ENVIRONMEfNTAL SERVICES1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Room 1000, Portland, Oregon 97204 . Dan Saltzman, Commissioner . Dean Marriott, Director

November 1, 2011

Benjamin Benninghoff

Municipal (MS4) Storm water CoordinatorOregon Department of Environmental Quality811 SW Fourth AvenuePortland, OR 97204

Dear Mr.Benninghoff:

On behalf of the City of Portland and the Port of Portland, I am pleased to submit the enclosedNPDES Annual Compliance Report No. 16. This report fulfills reporting requirements for thePortland NPDES Municipal Separate Storni Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit. Itidentifies accomplishments for the 16th fiscal year of the permit program (July 1, 2010 throughJune 30,201 I).

The repoii demonstrates the co-permittees' progress toward meeting the permit requirementsand storm water program goals for the past year. Each co-permittee's section of the report(Section II for the City of Portland and Section II for the Port of Portland) details the activitiesimplemented, program status, and any initiated or proposed program changes. A MonitoringCompliance Report that summarizes monitoring activities and results is included as Section iv.

. The raw monitoring data are available upon request on CD-ROM.

Please call me at 503 823-5275 if you have any questions concerning this report.

Sincerely,,......_...,....')/ J . ~ ~ /~r. r-~... /:...~L.... ç-.77,,~ ~"- .r.--'Patrice MangoStorm water Program Manager

cc: Dorothy Sperry, Port of Portland

Ph: 503-823.7740 Fax: 503-82.1-6995 . www,c1eanriverspdx.org . Using recycled paper. - An Equal Opportunity Employer.

For disabilty accommodation requests call 503-823-7740, Oregon Relay Service at 1-800-735-2900, or TDD 503-823-6868., BES_103249

Co- Permittee:

Address:Contact Person:

Telephone No.:E-mail Address:

Co-Permittee:Address:Contact Person:

Telephone No.:E-mail Address:

Permit Holder Information

City of PortlandBureau of Environmental Services1120 SW Fifth Ave., Room 1000, Portland, OR 97204Patrice Mango503-823-5275patrice.mango~portlandoregon.gov

Port of Portland7200 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97218Dorothy Sperry503-415-6641dorothy .sperrygyportofportl and.com

BES_103250

REPORT CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

II. CITY OF PORTLAND

III. PORT OF PORTLAND

IV. MONITORING COMPLIANCE REPORT

1-1

11-1

111-1

IV-L

BES_103252

Section IGENERAL INTRODUCTION

This 16th Annual Compliance Report is submitted to the Oregon Department of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ) to fulfill reporting requirements for the National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharge Permit (hereinafterreferred to as the stormwater permit or permit) issued to the City of Portland and the Port ofPortland (the co-permittees). The report provides information about activities that have beenaccomplished in accordance with the co-permittees' Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs)during the 16th fiscal year (July 1,2010 through June 30,2011) of the permit program. It alsoincludes a monitoring compliance report that summarizes monitoring activities conducted duringthe fiscal year.

DEQ issued the current (third-term) NPDES MS4 permit on January 31,2011. The City andPort submitted final SWMPs, which are consistent with the permit requirements and are adoptedby reference into the permit, to DEQ on April 1, 2011. Because the current permit and SWMPswent into effect partay through the FY 2010-11 reporting term, this annual report reports on thebest management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals that are contained in the April 2011SWMPs.

The monitoring requirements in the current permit did not come into effect until July 1,2011,when DEQ gave conditional approval to Portland's monitoring plan (which the City submitted toDEQ June 1, 2011). The monitoring compliance report included in this Annual ComplianceReport therefore reports on monitoring activities that were conducted in accordance with themonitoring requirements in the previous (second-term) permit.

PERMIT AREAS

The permit areas for the two co-permittees are described below.

· City of Portland: Approximately 15,627 acres within the City of Portland's urban servicesboundary drain to a separate storm sewer system Portland's MS4 permit does not cover:- Stormwater areas that flow to sumps

Stormwater areas that flow to combined sewersNatural stream systemsDirect stormwater discharges from private propert to natural stream systems (withoutentering the MS4)Areas with no public stormwater infrastructureAreas with individual, general, or industrial storm water permits

· Port of Portland: The Port owns approximately 6,218 acres within the City ofPortland's urban services boundary. Much of this propert drains to the Port's municipal

separate storm sewer system and is regulated by the MS4 permit. This acreage includesPortland International Airport (PDX), four marine terminals, several industrial parksoccupied by commercial tenants, mitigation sites, and undeveloped land.

Section I: General Introduction 1-1

BES_103262

Archived: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:30:18 AMFrom: Marriott, DeanSent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1 :39:40 PMTo: Fritz, AmandaCc: Bizeau, TomSubject: RE: River View CemeteryImportance: Normal

Appreciate the up to the minute news. We should not have asked them to endorse the acquisition, sincethey had not been part of the process. That was unfair to them.

We are paying a large share because of the presence of streams that drain the area and deliver coldwater directly to the Wilamette. This is beneficial to fish as well as helping to meet the DEQ temperaturelimits in the river. If the area were developed, we would have lost those benefis.

We should talk sometime about stormwater costs for street improvements in SW. Street improvementseveryhere must follow the stormwater management manual, which sets standards for how water qualityand stream hydrology is protected. If PBOT is proposing street or ROW improvements, they must followthe manuaL. It's the way it's been for more than a decade. In my view transportation projects shouldinclude the cost of doing the project properly, so there is no adverse impact to the environment. I don'tthink this issue automatically falls to BES.

I can put this topic on our agenda for our next briefing if you'd like. Of course, if you want to discuss itsooner, just let me know.

Dean

-----Original Message-----From: Fritz, AmandaSent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:24 PMTo: Marriott, DeanCc: Bizeau, TomSubject: RE: River View Cemetery

Thanks. I was at the SWNI Board on Wednesday. While the Collns View rep knew a few weeks ago andthey are very supportive, the rest of the Board was troubled by being asked to endorse something that hadonly been announced to them that afternoon. They also wondered why BES rates rather than Parks orMetro Greenspaces money is providing the bulk of the funding, and noted the Capitol Highway sidewalksfrom Taylors Ferry to Multnomah are (they said) being held up due to stormwater costs adding $8m to the$11 m cost of the sidewalks, and asked why couldn't BES pay for those costs instead or as welL.

I didn't participate in the discussion, just passing the information along FYI.

Amanda

Amanda FritzCommissioner, City of Portland

The City of Portland is a fragrance free workplace. To help me and others be able to breathe, pleaseavoid using added fragrances when visiting City offces.

To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland wil reasonablymodify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services to persons with disabilties. Call 503-823-2036, TTY 503-823-6868 with such requests or visit http://ww.portlandonline.com/ADA Forms

-----Original Message-----

EXHIBIT

I 2. BES_105223

From: Marriott, DeanSent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11: 15 AMTo: Fritz, AmandaCc: Bizeau, TomSubject: River View Cemetery

Amanda:

I spoke to Tom on Tuesday to alert you that Dan and Nick will be announcing publically on Monday theacquisition of 146 acres of River View Cemetery. I understand you heard from some local folks recentlythat they were concerned about not being told sooner of the City's plans. BES and Parks have cobbledtogether the funding plan which includes some support from Metro and State Parks. Metro was adamantthat no word be released until the Metro Council voted to approve their contribution. That occurredyesterday. We scheduled the announcement for Monday. We did let the neighborhood association knowa few weeks ago, and asked them to keep the news as quiet as possible.

Please let me know if you have any questions or want to talk about this.

Dean

BES_105224

Archived: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:22:12 AMFrom: Mann, Linc

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:28:38 AMTo: Marriott, Dean; Cargil, Daniela; Bacchieri, Jane; Callahan, Megan; Ketcham, Paul;Anderson, ShannahCc: Ryan, Bil; Lev, DeborahSubject: Oregon response

Response requested: YesImportance: NormalAttachments: Oregonian Questions_05061 i (2).doc

Here's is the latest version. This may not completely address all your comments but I'd like to getthis to Brad to give him time to read it over before coming in to talk to Dean this afternoon.

Linc

Linc MannPublic Information OffcerEnvironmental Services1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000Portland OR 97204phone: 503-823-5328fax: 503-823-6995Linc. Mann~portlandoregon. gov

EXHIBit

l .3 BES_105346

Oregonian QuestionsMay 6,2011

1) Formal policy/guidelines governing the Grey to Green Initiative. (AmyTrieu sent me the 2008-09 budget explanation, which essentially createdthis program and 8 FTE positions. But I did not see any formal policyoutlining the Grey to Green Initiative. Today's council ordinance notes thatthere are "guidelines" that have been met.).

· We do not have a separate Grey to Green policy because the initiative isan acceleration of strategies and projects the bureau has been and isimplementing to improve watershed health as identified in the PortlandWatershed Management Plan (PWMP).

· The PWMP identifies strategies and actions to improve overall watershedhealth in Portland. The seven areas of focus for Grey to Green areecoroofs, green streets, urban canopy, natural area revegetation, invasiveweed management, culvert removal, and natural area land acquisition.These actions were developed from the strategies and principles in thePWMP

· The Portland City Council adopted the Portland Watershed ManagementPlan (PWMP) by resolution in 2006 (Res. 36384). The plan document andsubsequent annual reports are available athttp://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm7c=38965. One mainPWMP focus is mitigating the harmfl impacts of stormwater runoff bymanaging stormwater as close to its source as possible and protecting andrestoring watershed functions.

· Guidelines are outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the PWMP (pages 12 and 13of the online PDF). For more scientific guidelines to restoring watershedfunctions, see Portland's December 2005 Framework for IntegratedManagement of Watershed Health athttp://ww.portlandonline.com/bes I fish I index.cfm 7c=33528.

· The PWMP marked a strategic shift to our approach to managing ourinfastructure and water quality obligations in that the strategies andactions identied are applied in the watershed to address several issues

and provide multiple benefits, sometimes a long ways from the water andinfastructure we are working to improve.

· Mayor Adams, who was the City Commissioner in charge ofEnvironmental Services at the time, proposed the Grey to Green intiativeto accelerate city investment in green stormwater managementinfastructure. In 2008, the City Council voted to approve the initiative.Grey to Green established specific, measurable targets for key action areasidentified in the PWMP. A major focus of the initiative is leveragingpartnerships to achieve the aggressive Grey to Green goals.

BES_105347

· In addition to protecting rives and streams, an enhanced greeninfastructure supports the traditional pipe system. Green infastructuremakes the pipe system operate more efficiently, reduces the amount ofstormwater flowing to the treatment plant and protects ratepayerinvestments in combined sewer overflow control facilities by keepingstormwater out of the combined sewer system.

· BES works closely with community partners as it builds greeninfastructure into the city's urban fabric. Fostering social infrastructure

not only increases community networks and livabilty but also ensures thepublic's investment is cared for and people understand their connection tothe rivers and streams.

2) Program benchmarks and progress reports. (I see that there's an August2010 update online, but I'm guessing that info is outdated.)

The following numbers are totals for the first 2.5 years of the Grey to Greeninitiative, with the exceptions of invasive weed removal which covers only thecurrent fiscal year.

Ecoroofs: Added 6.7 acres (additional ecoroof information is athttp://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm ?c=4422)

Urban Canopy: planted 13,500 street trees and 13,100 yard trees (26,600 total)

Green Streets: constructed 432 green street facilties

Revegetation: more than 300 new acres planted - no Grey to Green funds areused for revegetation. Revegetation work has been funded though acombination of BES capital and operating dollars, partnership agreements withother public agencies, partnership agreements with private businesses andindividuals, grants, and DEQ State Revolving Fund loan dollars.

Invasive Weed Removal: Over 2,600 new acres of invasives treated and 1,160acres re-treated though the Protect the Best program, plus 400 acres of the worstweed species controlled though the Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR)Program

The invasives removal effort also funds youth outreach programs such as theYouth Conservation Crew which employs about 60 youth from variousneighborhoods each year.

Land Acquisition: 107 acres acquired; 155 acres in escrow

BES_105348

Culverts: Completed replacing one culvert; four replacement projects in designfocusing on opening up all of Crystal Springs Creek to fish passage

3) A list of specific projects and related expenses that have been completedthrough the Grey to Green Initiative. It's my assumption that $6 millon forthe River View purchase is the largest expenditure to date, and I expectthat the data provided wil corroborate that. Additionally, please breakdown the project by the program type. (Note: I want the specific project forland acquisition but surely not a list of every tree planted, if that makessense).

(The following numbers are for Grey to Green dollars rounded to the nearest1,000. Ths list is of total expenditures to date in each project category. Thenumbers do not include staff wages which are $942,000 for eight FTE positionsand six seasonal employees.

Ecoroofs: $701,000

Project Examples:

· International Harvester Building in central east side industrial area;includes solar panels

· Umpqua Bank ecoroof at SE 13th and Bidwell

Also, four large ecoroofs were approved for Ecoroof Incentive funding inDecember 2010:

· OHSU Mackenzie Hall- 16,193 sf· Killngsworth Station LLC - 20,614 sf· Fred Meyer in NW - 25,000 sf· Price Mart warehouse - 30,000 sf

Urban Canopy: $3,717,000

· Contract with Friends of Trees and other contractors· Partnership with PP&R to revive the school yard tree program and tree

steward program· Treebates for ratepayers who plant a tree on their property

Green Streets: $933,000

Revegetation: no Grey to Green funds used for revegetation (see revegetationresponse in question 2)

BES_105349

Invasive Weed Removal: $797,000

Land Acquisition: $6.1 millon spent; does not include acres in escrow; leveraged$5 millon non-BES funds for a bureau average cost per acre of $54,000 (seeattached map for properties acquired to date using G2G funds)

Examples:

· Baltimore Woods in Wilamette watershed - 7.4 acres· East Buttes in Johnson Creek watershed - 10 properties totaling 48

acres· Wilkes Creek Headwaters in the Columbia Slough watershed - 21

acres

Culverts: $1.6 milion spent (leveraged $5.2 millon in grants and federalfunding)

· Retrofitted Culvert with new bridge at SE 28th and Crystal Springs

4) Total initiative costs to date, including or excluding the $6 milionpurchase ... please just let me know which one you provide.

The above numbers do not include the $6 millon for River View because the salehasn't yet closed.

5) A specific explanation about the funding source of the initiative. DeanMarriott today was unable to answer Commissioner Leonard's questionabout funding. Today's ordinance specifically says that $6 milion is comingfrom the Sewer System Operating Fund. To be clear, are ratepayer dollarsbeing used in any way for this purchase, or for any of the Grey to GreenInitiative?

Yes. Revenues from sewer fees and the stormwater fees both go to the SewerSystem Operating Fund, which is the bureau's general operating fund. Note thatthese dollars are leveraged to produce the results listed in the progress reports.Not all results are 100% funded by ratepayer dollars. Heaviest leveragedprogram areas are acquisition, culverts, and ecoroofs.

6) Explanation of why the BES budget from 2008-09, when the initiativewas launched, said it would cost $40 millon but also said $50 millon.Explanation of why the initiative is now expected to cost $55 millon.

BES_105350

The initiative was originally launched with the expectation that the privatesector, non-profit and other governmental partners would bring a total of $10millon in resources to the table. When the economic slowdown challenged thatassumption, the City Council decided to fund the remaining $10 millon as part

of the local stimulus package included in the adopted FYl0 budget. Grey toGreen trees, ecoroofs and invasives removal were part of a package of requestswhich included other infastructure invesbnents. The additional $5 milloncommunicates the true cost of the program by adding staff costs.

7) Budget assumptions for Grey to Green for future years.

We wil continue to have PWMP implementation needs and wil continue tohave conversations with Council about funding levels. Grey to Greenexpenditures are scheduled though 2013. Environmental Services wil evaluate

spending options at that time as part of its regular budget process.

The original $50 millon expenditure has been spread beyond the original five-year timeline, so some of the dollars are in financial plans beyond the 5 yearwindow. Ths is especially true for ecoroofs and trees where implementation cannot ramp up as quickly as originally planned.

8) A list of properties that are targeted for acquisition through the program.(This was mentioned during today's council meeting).

Properties targeted for acquisition are pursued on a willing seller basis only;Landowners must be wiling to sell at a fair market value and the property mustmeet as many of the following criteria as possible:

Acquisition wil result in:1. Protection and enhancement of water quality2. Protection and enhancement of hydrologic processes3. Protection and enhancement of aquatic habitat and biological

communities4. Protection and enhancement of terrestrial habitat and biological

communities5. Passive recreational use potential

6. Equitable distribution of services and benefits (across city)7. Acquisition of sites identified as priorities by PPR and Metro

stakeholders

The information provided below is at the watershed level so as to notcompromise negotiations in process:

BES_105351

Columbia Slough Watershed - 24 acres acquired to date. 50 acres targeted.Objectives: Protect and enhance special status habitats including wetlands andriparian areas to improve habitat value for wildlife and support naturalhydrologic processes

Fanno and Tryon Watersheds - 7 acres acquired to date; 10 acres targeted.Objectives: Connect to existing natural areas, protect riparian habitat, andincrease stream and floodplain connectivity

Johnson Creek Watershed - 62 acres acquired; 90 acres targeted. Objectives:Preserve East Butte upland areas that function as natural stormwatermanagement infrastructure, and protect downstream critical habitat in theJohnson Creek mainstem

Wilamette Watershed -13 acres acquired; 170 acres targeted. Objectives: Protectintact headwaters streams and special status habitat types including forestedwetlands and oak woodland

9) Why is River View a priority acquisition for BES?

River View contains seven intact streams that provide cool, clean water to theWilamette River. Acquisition of the property protects the streams in perpetuityfrom development or conversion to cemetery use, both of which would degradewater quality. The reach of the Wilamette River that captures River View'sdrainage is severely temperature limited, with temperatures exceeding waterquality standards in summer, late spring and early fall. The creeks andgroundwater seeps flowing off River View Cemetery into the Wilamette providea considerable source of cool water, on average five degrees Celsius cooler thanthe Wilamette River in the summer month.

Powers Marine Park, where the seven streams on River View discharge to theWilamette, provides critical shallow water habitat for salmonids listed under theEndangered Species Act (ESA). For juvenile salmon migrating downstream fromthe upper Wilamette, ths is one of the first extensive stretches of shallow waterhabitat along the lower Wilamette mainstem.

The River View subwatershed is one of the most intact subwatersheds in the city,with only 9% impervious surface. Ths is because the proposed acquisition area,which encompasses almost half of the subwatershed, is undeveloped. TheRiverview Subwatershed Impravement Strategies Report (BES, 2009) identied

acquisition of River View as the number one improvement strategy in thssubwatershed (out of 42 identied strategies). This report identifies opportunities

BES_105352

that wil contribute to cumulative improvements for Portland's WilametteWatershed and the Wilamette River channel as a whole. The plannng processincluded input from local neighborhood associations, friends groups, state andlocal parks officials, and fish and wildlife experts.

Lack of vegetation management has degraded the site's plant communities.Without treabnent and management, the forest canopy wil be irreversiblydamaged as invasive vegetation chokes out native trees and plants to harm thestructure and diversity of riparian areas and upland trees. Failure to remove ivyand clematis wil likely result in loss of stand diversity, and wil negatively affectthe biodiversity of the entire site. The BES Watershed Revegetation staffdeveloped a restoration plan which would reduce invasive plant species on RiverView to less than 5% withn five years of treabnent. The city cannot implementths restoration plan without acquiring the land.

The River View forest provides an upland corridor between natural areas inForest Park, Washington Park, and Marquam Nature Park to the north, andTryon Creek State Natural Area to the south. The forest is a crucial link in thecorridor due to extensive forest habitat and prime location near the Tryon Creekwatershed and the natural areas along the Wilamette River.

The property contains five types of special status habitats (habitat types that arelocally signficant): herbaceous wetlands, forested wetlands, interior forest,riparian habitat, and open water.

There are also several informal trails on the River View property, many of whichare poorly located adjacent to sensitive streams and are causing severe erosion.The property needs a sound recreation plan and active management to preserveand enhance natural functions. The River View property wil provide muchneeded nature-based recreation near downtown and a dense population base.Public ownership wil make social trails available for pedestrian use. Cityenvironmental educators wil work with local schools to use the property and itsrestoration activities as an outdoor classroom.

10) Are there precedents of the city granting zone changes from OpenSpace (OS) to other zoning for development purposes (which is what wouldbe required for River View Cemetery to develop residential property in the Czone)?

Here is a list of land use cases that included a Comprehensive Plan MapAmendment request to change from an as zone to another zoning designation.Note that the 1996 cases were associated with major subdivisions.

BES_105353

LU 91-008344: Zone change from OS to R10 LU 91-008408: Zone change from OSto R5 LU 96-013121: 103 lot subdivision with Comprehensive Plan mapamendment and Zone Change from OS to R5 and R2 LU 96-014024: 95-LOTSUBDIVISION PUD WITH ADJUSTMENT FOR BUILDING COVERAGE,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT & ZONING MAPAMENDMENT (FROM OS TO R10) & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

LU 96-01296: 60 lot subdivision and comp plan map amendment from OS to 20on part of the Skyline Memorial Gardens Cemetery grounds that had not beendeveloped for cemetery use.

LU 99-016669: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments from OpenSpace and Low-Density Single Dwellng, and from OS to R10.

LU 00-007245: The applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan Mapand Zoning Map in order to revise the boundary line between CentralCommercial and Open Space zones and their Comprehensive Plan mapdesignations. Ths change is intended to reflect lot boundaries created with arecent land division (LUR 98-00681 MP). Ths change would increase the OpenSpace designation and zone, adding 15,254 square feet of Open Space to Parcel 2and change about 393 square feet on Parcell from Open Space (OS) to CentralCommercial (CX).

For more information contact Ross Caron, Bureau of Development Services, 503-823-4268, ross.caron(fportlandoregon. gov.

BES_105354

Archived: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:08:52 AMFrom: Commissioner FishSent: Friday, May 13,2011 2:03:39 PMTo: 'barusseêhotmaiL.com'

Cc: Commissioner Saltzman; Commissioner Fritz; Leonard, Randy; Adams, Mayor; Trieu, Amy;Ketcham, Paul; Anderson, Shannah; Lev, Deborah; Dragoy, Astrid; Hicks, Emily; Blackwood,Jim; 'TLCllêmindspring.com'; 'abenisraelêavamere.com'; Bogert, SylviaSubject: River View Propert AcquisitionResponse requested: YesImportance: NormalAttachments: SWNIRiver View. pdf

Dear Brian Russell and members of SWNI,

Thank you for your letter (attached) regarding the River View property acquisition.

As you can imagine, the process of purchasing property is sensitive. Although we werenot able to include the community in the negotiations, our team is committed tofollowing our Natural Area Acquisition Strategy which included considerable communityinvolvement. The River View property is a key piece of the Westside wildlife corridorand a top priority within Parks' acquisition strategy:

http://www.portlandonline.com/pa rks/i ndex. cfm ?a= 130583&c=43222

Our team (made up of both BES and Parks staff) are happy to meet with you to providemore information about the property and answer any questions you may have about thetimeline.

To arrange a meeting please contact our Natural Areas Bond Program Manager:

Deb Lev

deb.levßYportlandoregon .gov

503-823-6183

EXHIBIT

I 4 BES_105355

Again, thanks for contacting us for more information.

Sincerely,

Nick Fish

Parks Commissioner

Dan Saltzman

BES Commissioner

BES_105356

Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc.7688 SW CapiÍo1HighwaYr Portland, OR 97219 (50~) 823-4592

RECÈIVED

May.3,2011 MAY .05 20ll

Commissioner Nick Fish

Portland City Council1220 SW 5thPortland, OR 97219

Dear Mayor ard City Commssioners .

Southwest Neighborhoods Inc, a coàiition of sevellteen member neighborhoodassociations recently leared that Metro. and the BureaU: ofEnvironmenta Servicesintend to purchase propert from the Rivervew Cemetery ~ssociatiori.

Southwest Neighborhoods Inc support greenspaces and we would very much liketls area to be kept as a natual area with public access; however, the board felt

that befòre we could fully support ths land purchase we would need moreinformation. We look forward to learg more about tms proposal.

Sincerely,7l/~Brian Russell, presidentSouthwest Neighborhoods Inc.

BES 105357

i

I

iiI

i

,!

Archived: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:19:57 AMFrom: Lev, Deborah

Sent: Friday, October 07,2011 4:36:00 PMTo: Ross, Mark; Sinclair, MathewSubject: FW: River ViewResponse requested: YesImportance: NormalAttachments: River View fact Sheet final AULI I_cropped.pdf

Mark,

Thanks for your reply. We are keeping this quiet from general and immediate mediaattention while we embark on major restoration activities. Following up on aconversation we had had, the email below was sent with a specific thought of pitching astory idea to Oregon Field Guide to follow the restoration work over the next few yearsfor a comprehensive look at restoration of a degraded urban forest into the gem of anatural area that we anticipate. This is an idea that I had discussed with Beth but shedidn't have a chance to pitch it before leaving. She had suggested I call directly but Ithought it was best to let our professional media staff make the contacts. As we arecurrently engaged in the initial restoration work, it seems like a good time to engage onthe topic. I would be happy to get together with you and Mat to discuss further.

Deb

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Ross, MarkTuesday, September 06,2011 9:04 AMLev, DeborahRe: River View

Deb,

Thanks again for your continued enthusiasm about Riverview, and for keeping me updated on itsconditions and plans.

At this time, we've been directed to NOT do any publicity or media push on the Riverview Property.

I'm sure that in the future there wil be a lot of great chances to promote this new, important acquisition.

Best,

Mark

Mark Ross

Media Relations I Portland Parks & Recreation

1120 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1302

EXHIBIT

l 5" BES_105295

Portland, OR 97204

Offce = 503-823-5300 Cell = 503-823-6634mark. ross(áPortlandOregon.Govwww.PortlandParks.org

Lev, DeborahFriday, September 02,2011 4:36 PMRoss, MarkRiverView

From:Sent:To:Subject:

~river'vie"vf=t shee

fin:i :n~...

Why this is important:Biggest park acquisition in decadesLarge natural area close in to Portland's urban coreDifficulty in managing urban natural areas- degraded condition from invasive species,inappropriate usesCommitment to restore (5 year plan budgeted at ;: $500,000)Habitat management and Trail plan with public involvement coming 2012-13. Expecteduses are trails and environmental educationRestoration beginning Sept 2011

Deb

Deborah LevProgram Manager, Natural Areas BondPortland Parks & Recreation1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland OR 97204503-823-6183Note new email address:Deborah. Lev(fportlandoregon. gov

BES_105296

regan Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board775 Summer Street NE, Suite 360

Salem, OR 97301-1290

(503) 986-0178FAX (503) 986-0199wwwmegon.

OWES

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor

August 19, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

FROM: Lauri Aunan, Grant Program ManagerWendy Hudson, Wilamette Basin Regional Program RepresentativeMiriam Hulst, Acquisitions Specialist

SUBJECT: Agenda Item F: OWEB Grant Award RecommendationsRegion 3, Wilamette BasinSeptember 14-15,2010 OWEB Board Meeting

I. IntroductionThis staff report describes the WiIlamette Basin Regional Review Team recommendations andstaff recommendations for funding.

II. Background and SummaryApplicants submitted 33 applications for a total request of about $8.2 milion, including $5.2million for three Acquisition application (see Section iv below). The Wilamette Basin RegionalReview Team (RRT) recommended 22 applications for funding. Staff recommend 13applications for a total award of$I,337,001: $1,256,754 for Restoration and $80,247 forTechnical Assistance.

At its March 16-17, 2010, meeting, the Board approved a staged award for the Sodom Ditch-Calapooia River Fish Passage Improvement project (210-3067). When completed, the projectwil open 70 miles to spring Chinook and winter steelhead. The Board awarded part of thefunding in March 2010, and deferred the remaining $320,035 to be awarded in September 2010.The grantee has advised OWEB staff that the second phase of funding wil not be needed untilMarch 2011. The grantee wil provide a progress report to the Board prior to requesting theremainder of the staged award in March of2011.

III. Regional Review Team

The Wilamette Basin RRT met in Salem on June 8, 2010, to review Restoration applications;Technical Assistance applications were reviewed via conference call on June 23, 2010. TheRRT reviewed all Restoration and Technical Assistance applications for technical merit and gavea "do fund" or "no fund" recommendation to each. The RRT recommended budget reductionsand funding conditions for some of the applications, as described in the Region 3 Evaluations forApril 19, 2010, Applications. The RRT then prioritized the applications recommended forfunding.

EXHIBIT

lBES_105381

(p

The Willamette River and Johnson Creek Confluence Salmon Habitat Improvement project(211-3014) was the top-ranked Restoration application. Located in Clackamas County, theproject will provide increased habitat complexity for numerous species, including federally listedcoho salmon, steelhead trout, and spring Chinook salmon. All of the fish produced in the upperand mid- Willamette Basin migrate past the confluence with Johnson Creek, and therefore, wilbenefit from improved cover and resting habitat resulting from the project.

iv. AcquisitionsThree acquisition applications were received from Region 3 this grant cycle. One waswithdrawn, one was transferred to the Wilamette SIP, and one is not recommended for funding.

A. South Eugene Hils Acquisition Project (211-101)The City of Eugene submitted an application requesting $1.2 milion to purchase two non-adjacent, primarily upland properties totaling 400 acres south of Eugene, in Lane County.The application was previously submitted to OWEB (application 208-115), but waswithdrawn by the city because it could not secure the necessary match.

The application states that the project is a key component of a multi-year partnership effort toconserve oak and prairie habitats, identified as a high priority for protection in numerousstudies. The properties also have small amounts of riparian habitat. If the properties areacquired by the city, they wil provide recreational and habitat connections between Eugene'sRidgeline Park System and the West Eugene Wetlands.

The Acquisitions Subcommittee and staff felt that the properties present an importantopportunity to further protect ecological connectivity of oak and prairie habitats in SouthEugene. The Subcommittee also recognized the city's capacity to accomplish high-qualityrestoration and education on the properties it acquires for conservation. The RRT felt thatthe project has high ecological value, with one of the properties contributing more strongly tothe high value than the other. The RRT felt that the project has medium educational value.

The Acquisitions Subcommittee declined to request due dilgence for the project because ofthe issues described in Section IV of the Overview, even though the Subcommittee felt thatthe project is a valuable one. The Subcommittee recommended that staff encourage the cityto resubmit the application next biennium. The city has withdrawn its application rather thanhave staff make a no-fund recommendation to the Board.

B. River View Cemetery Acquisition Project (211-103)The City of Portland requests $1.5 millon to purchase a portion of River View Cemetery,adjacent to Highway 43 and Lewis and Clark College in Multnomah County. Theapplication states that a total of 146 acres wil be acquired in three phases. Each phase wilpurchase approximately 50 acres. Staff were told by the Trust for Public Land (TPL), whichis coordinating the transaction, that the city wishes to use OWEB funds for the first phase.

The application states that the city has twice received land-use applications from the currentpropert owner proposing large residential developments, which would substantially impact

2

BES_105382

wildlife connectivity between north and southwest Portland, the condition of a relativelyundisturbed subwatershed, and critical fish habitat in the Wilamette River.

1. Ecological Benefits

The application states that the project wil benefit depressional wetland broadleafforestand riparian forests and shrub lands, both of which are OWEB priority ecological systems.The application also states that the propert, the majority of which is very steep, containsseven streams totaling 2.2 miles. Four of the streams are perennial and three are seasonalor intermittent. The streams flow out of the property in culverts. The culverts pass underHighway 43 and a railroad grade, and then drain to the Wilamette River via PowersMarine Park, a narrow shoreline area adjacent to the railroad.

The application states that the project wil benefit the following rare or at-risk plantcommunities: Oregon ash/dewey sedge - stinging nettle, black cottonwood - redalder/salmonberr, bigleafmaple - red alder/sword fern-fringecup, and grand fir - bigleafmaple/vine maple-hazelnut. The application does not clearly state whether each of theseplant communities is known to occur on the propert.

The propert has been used for informal recreation for many years. The recreational usehas created considerable soil disturbance and poses associated water quality impacts.The propert has also been degraded by extensive infestations of invasive species.

The application states that the project wil benefit red-legged frog and western graysquirrel, both OWEB priority species. The application also states that the project is veryimportant for fish because protecting the propert's streams wil conserve crucial cold-water inputs to the Wilamette River.

The application indicates that the proposed project is consistent with all ofOWEB'sconservation principles, and therefore wil: protect a large intact area, stabilze an area onthe brink of ecological collapse, secure a transition area, require active restoration,protect a site with exceptional biodiversity, improve connectivity of habitat, andcomplement an existing network of conservation sites.

The RRT acknowledged that the opportunity to conserve 146 acres in the Metro area isnoteworthy, but felt that the application significantly overstated the project's ecologicalmerits. The RRT felt that invasive species on the propert present a large and possiblyintractable problem. The RRT also felt that the project does not have a strong ecologicalconnectivity benefit. The RRT acknowledged that if the propert is protected, thedistance between natural areas will be reduced, but felt the propert wil nonetheless beisolated in an urban area, affording a connectivity benefit only to birds.

The RRT felt that the application overstated the project's fish benefits because thestreams contribute a relatively small amount of cool water to the Wilamette River.Nearly all of the RRT members felt that it's unlikely that fish are afforded meaningfulthermal refuge at the confluence ofthe streams and the Wilamette River, although somejuvenile fish have been found there. The RRT pointed out that it appears that several of

3

BES 105383

the streams do not originate on the propert, and thus cannot be fully protected by the

project.

Despite the land-use applications fied by the landowner, the RRT felt that as a whole, thepropert is not significantly threatened by development. Zoning, riparian set-backs, and

liability associated with steep slopes would likely preclude development on most of thepropert. The RR T expressed concern that the three-phase nature of the acquisitiondoesn't seem to be structured to purchase the most threatened part ofthe propert first.The RRT was also concerned that if fewer than all phases are completed, the project'srelatively modest ecological benefits would be compromised.

2. Capacity to Sustain Ecological Values

The application states that the propert wil be managed by Portland Parks andRecreation's City Nature West division. City Nature West has seven fulltime staffresponsible for managing natural areas and trails on the west side of the WillametteRiver.

The RRT acknowledged the city's efforts to manage its natural areas, but had seriousconcerns about the city's capacity for success. The propert's invasive species and long-standing incompatible recreational use wil present significant, long-term, and costlychallenges. The city's parks staff and funding are already stretched thin by largeresponsibilities such as Forest Park, which a recent report by the City Club of Portlandconcluded is being degraded by invasive species.

3. Educational Benefits

The application does not specifically state what educational activities wil beimplemented ifthe propert is acquired for conservation. However, it does state that in2009, more than 18,000 people participated in environmental education programs offeredelsewhere by the city. The application suggests "environmental education opportunities"such as amphibian surveys and water quality testing. The application also states that"educational opportunities exist with partner institutions such as- Lewis and Clark Collegeand local organizations such as Friends of Tryon Creek," and that a flat area on thepropert wil offer an appropriate location for an interpretive traiL.

The RRT felt that the project would not result in significant educational activities, andthat schools and the public would continue to pursue safer, better educationalopportunities at the nearby Tyron Creek Natural Area.

4. Partners, Project Support, and Community EffectsThe application states that the city wil contribute $5 milion to the acquisition, and wilown, manage, steward, restore, and lead environmental education on the propert. TPLhas taken the lead on negotiations and contracting for the purchase of the propert, aswell as due diligence. The application states that TPL estimates its in-kind contributionwill be valued at $163,300, not including stafftime costs. No explanation is given toexplain why these costs are so high.

4

BES 105384

The application states that because the propert is currently owned by a non-profit, notaxes are paid on the propert, and thus acquisition by the city wil not affect the local taxbase.

The application states that acquisition of the propert wil have a positive impact on the

local and regional economy by securing significant habitat, "thereby reducing futureenvironmental liabilities." The application also states that acquisition ofthe propert wiladd to the region's infrastructure of parks and natural areas, "thereby strengthening theregion's economic competitiveness by improving quality oflife." Lastly, the applicationstates that acquisition of the propert wil provide an important new site for

environmental education.

5. Legal and Financial TermsThe application states that for Phase I, match is secured from the city. For Phases 2 and3, partial match is secured from the city, and additional match is being sought from BPA,West Multnomah SWCD, Metro, OPRD, and TPL. The application states that the cityhas approached "three of the five partners," but does not identify which partners, or thefunding amounts sought. Without knowing which funders wil be involved and theprograms from which funds wil be used, it's not possible to know what legal issues, suchas easements required by other funders, might arise.

The application states that River View Cemetery plans to retain a portion ofthe land thatit currently owns. If the retained portion were to be developed, residential run-off, pets,and other threats posed by development would increase existing urban impacts to the 146acres proposed for conservation.

6. Conclusion

The Acquisitions Subcommittee and RRT both acknowledged that the propert has goodopen space value. The RRT felt that for this reason, if all three phases are completed, theproject will have medium ecological value. The RRT concluded that ifless than allphases are completed, the project wil have low ecological value. The RRT felt, overall,that the propert has marginal habitat values for OWEB priority species, and thus is not apriority investment for OWEB. The RRT also felt that the project has low educationalvalue, regardless of the number of phases completed.

The Acquisitions Subcommittee concluded that the propert's marginal habitat values forOWEB priority species make the propert less competitive for OWEB's acquisitionsprogram relative to the other applications evaluated this cycle. For that reason and theissues described in Section IV of the Overview, the Subcommittee declined to requestdue diligence for the project. The applicant elected not to withdraw its application. TheAcquisitions Subcommittee and staff do not recommend funding for the project.

C. Wilamette Confluence Acquisition Project (SIP 208-3090-8358)The Nature Conservancy (TNC) submitted an application requesting $2.5 milion to purchasea 1,270-acre propert at the confluence of the Middle and Coast forks ofthe WilametteRiver. The propert contains floodplain habitat along more than six miles of river, andtherefore presents significant restoration opportunities. Staff and the Acquisition

5

BES_105385

Subcommittee felt that the project would be an appropriate Board investment through theWilamette SIP and has transferred the application to the Wilamette SIP process where itwill be evaluated for funding.

V. Staff Recommendations for Project Funding

A. Capital Applications

· Restoration. Because RRT-recommended applications for the six OWEB regionsexceed available funding, staff recommend funding for only 11 of 15 applicationsrecommended by the RRT.

· Acquisitons. Staff do not recommend funding for the River View Cemetery

Acquisition (211-103).

B. Non-Capital Applications

· Technical Assistance. Due to limited non-capital funding, staff recommend fundingonly two of the seven applications recommended by the RRT.

Attachment A shows the applications, funding amounts, conditions (if any), and priority rankingsrecommended for funding to OWEB staff by the RRT. The table also indicates, by means ofshaded entries, the OWEB staff recommendations to the Board. For some applications, theamount shown in the table is the staff or RRT funding recommendation rather than the amountrequested in the application. The conditions shown in the table also may reflect staff or RRTfunding conditions; staff conditions may differ from RRT -recommended conditions. Stafffunding recommendations and funding conditions are contained in the Region 3 Review TeamEvaluations for the April 19, 2010, Applications.

Attachment B shows those applications not recommended for funding at this time by the RRT orby OWEB staff.

Staff recommend the Board approve the staff funding recommendation as contained inAttachment A to this report.

AttachmentsA. Applications Recommended for Funding

8. Applications Not Recommended for Funding

6

BES 105386

Oregon Watershed Enhancement BoardRegion 3 (Willamette Basin) Review TeamEvaluation for April 19, 2010 Applications

APPLICATION NO.: 211-103PROJECT NAME: River View CemeteryAPPLICANT: City of Portland

BASIN: LOWER COLUMBIAOWEB FUNDS REQUESTED: $1,500,000

PROJECT TYPE: Acquisition

COUNTY: MultnomahTOTAL COST: $14,173,300

APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:The City of Portland requests $1,500,000 to purchase a portion of River View Cemetery, adjacent toHighway 43 and Lewis and Clark College. The application states that a total of 146 acres wil be acquiredin three phases. Each phase wil purchase approximately 50 acres. Staff was told by the Trust for PublicLand, which is coordinating the transaction, that the city wishes to use OWEB funds for the first phase.

The application states that the city has twice received land-use applications from the current propertyowner, proposing large residential developments that the application states would substantially impactwildlife connectivity between north and southwest Portland, the condition of a relatively undisturbedsubwatershed, and critical fish habitat in the Wilamette River.

The application states that the project wil benefit depressional wetland broad leaf forest and riparianforests and shrublands, both of which are OWEB priority ecological systems. The application also statesthat the property, the majority of which is very steep, contains seven streams totaling 2.2 miles. Four ofthe streams are perennial and three are seasonal or intermittent. The streams flow out of the propert inculverts. The culverts pass under Highway 43 and a railroad grade, then drain to the Wilamette River viaPowers Marine Park, a narrow shoreline area adjacent to the railroad.

The application states that the project wil benefit the following rare or at-risk plant communities: Oregonash/dewey sedge - stinging nettle, black cottonwood - red alder/salmonberr, bigleafmaple - redalder/sword fern-fringecup, and grand fir - bigleafmaple/vine maple-hazelnut. The application does notclearly state whether each ofthese plant communities is known to occur on the property.

The property has been used for informal recreation for many years. The recreational use has createdconsiderable soil disturbance and poses associated water quality impacts. The property has also beendegraded by marked infestations of invasive species.

The application states that the project wil benefit red-legged frog and western gray squirrel, both OWEBpriority species. The application also states that the project is very important for fish because protectingthe property's streams will conserve crucial cold-water inputs to the Wilamette River.

The application indicates that the proposed project is consistent with all ofOWEB's conservationprinciples, and therefore will: protect a large intact area, stabilize an area on the brink of ecologicalcollapse, secure a transition area, require active restoration to achieve its conservation purpose, protect asite with exceptional biodiversity, improve connectivity of habitat, and complement an existing networkof conservation sites.

BES 105393

The application does not specifically state what educational activities would be implemented iftheproperty is acquired for conservation. However, it does state that in 2009, more than 18,000 peopleparticipated in environmental education programs offered elsewhere by the city. The application suggests"environmental education opportnities" such as amphibian surveys and water quality testing. It alsostates that a flat area on the property wil offer an appropriate location for an interpretive traiL.

The application states that the property wil be managed by Portland Parks and Recreation's City NatureWest division. City Nature West has seven fulltime staff responsible for managing natural areas and trailson the west side of the Willamette River.

REGIONAL TEAM REVIEW:The RRT felt that, overall, the project has good open space value, but that the property has marginalhabitat values for OWEB priority species, and thus is not a priority investment for OWEB. The RRTacknowledged that the opportunity to conserve 146 acres in the Metro area is significant, but felt that theapplication significantly overstated the project's ecological merits.

The RRT felt that invasive species on the property present a significant problem. They also felt that theproject does not have a convincing ecological connectivity benefit. They acknowledged that if theproperty is protected, the distance between natural areas wil be reduced, but felt the property wouldnonetheless be isolated in an urban area, affording a connectivity benefit only to birds.

The RRT felt that the application overstated the project's fish benefits because the streams contribute arelatively small amount of cool water to the Wilamette River. The majority felt that it's unlikely that fishare afforded meaningful thermal refuge at the confluence of the streams and the Wilamette River,although some juvenile fish have been found there. The RRT pointed out that it appears that several ofthe streams do not originate on the property, and thus cannot be fully protected by the project.

Despite the land-use applications fied by the landowner, the RRT felt that as a whole, the property is notsignificantly threatened by development. Zoning, riparian set-backs, and liabilty associated with steepslopes would likely preclude development on most ofthe property. The RRT expressed concern that thethree-phase nature ofthe acquisition doesn't seem to be structured to purchase the most threatened part ofthe property first. The RRT was also concerned that if fewer than all phases are completed, the project'srelatively modest ecological benefits would be compromised.

The RRT acknowledged the city's efforts to manage its natural areas, but had serious concerns about thecity's capacity for success. The property's invasive species and long-standing incompatible recreationaluse will present significant, long-term, and costly challenges. The city's parks staff and funding arealready stretched thin by large responsibilities such as Forest Park.

The RRT felt that the project would not result in significant educational activities, and that schools andthe public would continue to pursue safer, better educational opportunities at the nearby Tyron CreekNatural Area.

REGIONAL TEAM RECOMMENDATION: if all three phases are completed: medium ecologicalvalue. Ifless than all phases are completed: low ecological value. Low educational value,regardless of the number of phases completed.

BES_105394

From:To:CC:Sent:Subject:Attachments:

Steinbrugge, Dick

Greenberger, Stu; Miler, Lloyd; Elliott, Teresa; Kipper, Darren; VandeBergh, StanWBENGRMGRS3/22/2004 11 :53:46 AMFW: Streetcar Exension Project to GibbsMemoToBrant re UtiiStans.doc

FYI. The attachment is the same memo that Teresa shared last week. Note that PDOT's financial plan calls for $5M total fromBES and Water. None of that $$ is in our CI P.

Dick

-----Original Message-----From: Anoushiravani, MortSent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:38 AMTo: Steinbrugge, Dick

Subject: FW: Streetcar Extension Project to Gibbs

FYI.

---Original Message--From: Willams, Brant

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20045:52 PMTo: Marriott, Dean; Anoushiravani, MortSubject: Streetcar Extension Project to Gibbs

Dean and Mort- As you know, there are a couple different rail projects currently in design: the streetcar extension to Gibbs St. inS. Waterfront, and the 1-205/Transit Mall light rail project. The typical questions that come up with these types of projects (utiltyrelocation/modification design and cost sharing) need to be answered for both of these projects.

Regarding the Transit Mall project, the proposed funding plan has been refined since we last talked. The total amount allocatedto BES and Water is shown as $5m. The previous proposal had indicated a range from $4.6m to $15m. The Mayor would like tomeet with Dan Saltzman and the three of us to discuss this portion of the funding plan. She wants to do this the first part of Aprilsince the Transit Mall Conceptual Design and Funding Plan are scheduled to go to Council in May. I wanted to give you a headsup that Amie Birkle in the Mayor's Office wil be sending out a meeting request to set this up. If you'd like, I'd be happy to meetwith you to review the project prior to the Dan/Mayor meeting.

With the streetcar project, PDOT and Portland Streetcar Inc. are required as part of the S. Waterfront Central DistrictDevelopment Agreement to have the streetcar extended to Gibbs Street by December 31, 2006. Existing funding gaps for theproject along with this deadline present us with a significant challenge in delivering on this obligation. For this reason, I would liketo sit down with both of you fairly soon to review the status of the project and look at possible ways we might be able to reduceutility costs. We could take care of two things at once by combining this with a discussion about the Transit Mall project. I'veattached a memo from Vicky Diede that outlines some of the design issues and cost sharing options that would provide a basisfor the streetcar discussion. I'LL ask Sandy Boardman to arrange this meeting unless I hear from you otherwise.

i appreciate your time and wilingness to discuss these two projects. -Brant

EXHIBIT

I Ì WATR_102570

PROPOSED ELECTRIC RAIL STANDARS

BWW and BES propose a 10' rule for all parallel pipes. That is, a 10' separation from the centerof the pipe to the edge of the track slab. Further, all water line crossings, both main and servicelines, are to be cased with the casings extended 10' on each side of the track slab, regardless of thepipe materiaL. Sewer mains crossing the tracks do not appear to require reconstruction as long asthe pipe is in good condition.

For the Streetcar RiverPlace Extension, our design follows the Electric Rail Standards for waterlines only. (We entered into a maintenance agreement with BES related to a very new pipe in SWRiver Parkway where conflct exists.) BWW has agreed to apply the City's Utility Relocationpolicy and the "pipe life credit" that reflects the life of the pipes being replaced. PDOT agreed tothis only for RiverPlace and as a result ofBWW's insistence and our own schedule requirements.

Beyond the cost implications, there often isn't enough space within the street to accommodate thisseparation. I believe that main reason as to why BWW and BES feel the separation criteria isnecessary is primarily for unimpeded access to the facility at any time of the day. It should be

noted that private utility companies have been working on their facilities that are below or crossingthe trackway since streetcar revenue service began.

COST IMLICATIONS

Portland Streetcar, Inc. design consultants, the City's Streetcar CMfGC and PDOT staff have used

the Portland Streetcar Gibbs Extension Project as the means to examine the impact to project costsof the two approaches to public utility relocation policy.

Both BWW and BES reviewed our preliminary conceptual plans for the Gibbs Extensionalignment. Based on the conflicts they identified, streetcar staff and consultants estimated the costof relocations for the least expensive of three alternatives presented. Here are the results:

"STREETCAR" STANDARS BWW BES Total(Phase 1 and Phase 2 Standards) Facilities Facilties

With Pipe Life Credit $1,058,445 $1,136,200 $2,194,645

Without Pipe Life Credit $1,274,490 $1,926,000 $3,200490

"ELEC. RAIL" STANARS BWW BES TotalFacilities Facilities

With Pipe Life Credit $2,663,966 $1,865,100 $4,529,066

Without Pipe Life Credit $3,303,595 $2,801,580 $6,105,175

WA TR_1 02572

j ! i 'i '. I . ( : i

..~ -0-;- ..

(§(t'::i:

~ ~m

::(t.. -;

VI

~e

" (~' ( '. i

, I .."

'; I. "

..~....

,-;"

',. ;

's:,i;.

:.ri',d'~:

¡,."~ . -_...;...,-

'",,; " .. .¡ 1'J

.. r.a d,riO:.; .... "i-i~'

, ,

: " "

\. .I .

!:

i"

1,;1f

,I"

,I.

. I . I . I '( ,( 1 ( I 'I \' (

¡.. /;

.' ..

I B

Figure 36: P

RO

PO

SE

D F

UN

DIN

G F

OR

TH

E

SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT

(Includes Portland M

all Segm

ent)

SOU

RC

E

Federal Transit A

dministration

MT

IP/Metro

TriM

et

City of P

ortland

Clackamas County

STIP/O

DO

T

Other

Figure 37: P

RO

PO

SE

D F

UN

DIN

G F

OR

POR

TL

AN

D M

AL

L R

EV

ITA

LIZ

AT

ION

PRO

JEC

T

SOU

RC

E

Cos

($M)

$297.0

Federal Transit A

dministration

TriM

et

Metro

City of P

ortland

Urban R

enewal Funds

Bonding of N

ew O

n-Street P

arking Meter R

evenues

Public Utility C

ontributions (towards facilit reloc.)

Local Im

provement D

istrict

Portland S

tate University

Subtotal

Other L

ocal Funds

39.4

20.0

60.0

35.0

20.0

23.6

TO

TA

LT

OT

AL

$495.0

page 56 I financial sttegy funding sources

Cost ($M

)

$96.0

5.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

5.015.0

5.0

50.0

4.0

$160.0

WA

TR

-AR

CH

_100704

.~

The follow

ing summ

arizes the proposed fundingsources for

the Portland Mall portion of

the Project.

(

. TriMet and Meto Contrbutons. TriMet and Metro

have a long-term interest in com

pletion of the fullD

owntow

n alignment and have already allocated

$20M and $39.4M

respectively to the SouthC

orridor Project, som

e of which is show

n in Figure

37 as allocated to the Mall project. C

ontingent ondevelopm

ent of a final strategy (including. propert ow

ner and PS

U participation) for

completion of the full alignm

ent, these agenciesm

ay be able to increase regional participation tothe overall S

outh CorrIdor P

roject These funds

may be In the form

of local working capital or

formula F

ederal funds dedicated to the region.

.~

.. Urban Renewal Funds. The Downtown alignment is

within or adjacent to several exisng urban

renewal district including the R

iver District,

Dow

ntown W

aterfront and Sout P

ark Blocks.

Through reprogram

ming of existng project, it

appears that $10 million could be m

ade availablefor the P

roject (an additional $10 million in

Portand urban renew

al funds from E

astide.urbanrenewal district is proposed to contrIbute to the

1205 portion of the South C

orridor Project).

'-.· Bonding of Downtown Parking Meter Revenues

The policy

for collection of revenues from parking

meters in the D

owntow

n area has not changed. inm

any years despite changes to downtow

nshopping and general usage patterns. Aprelim

inary analysis of opportunities for enhancedrevenues indicates that approxim

ately $15M could

be raised through the bonding of a program of

enhanced parking revenues in the Dow

ntown area.

PD

OT

will involve the com

munity and dow

ntown

busineses to evaluate the various parking optionsto evaluate w

hIch option or options would best

manage dow

ntown parking concerns and yieid the

..-

revenue needed to support the Portland M

allRevitalization Project

for capital financing andongoing m

anagement and m

aintenance.

The follow

ing revenue enhancement options could be

considered:

1. Exended M

eter Hours. M

eter operation currentlyceases at 6:00 P

M w

hile many retail

establishments are open until at least 8:00 P

M.

Exending m

eter hours until 8:00 PM

would create

additional turnover while not disadvantagingthe

entertinmentsector. It should be noted that this

is already done in the Lloyd District.

2. Metering on Sundays. Several decades ago, few

retail stores were open in the D

owntow

n onSundays. T

oday, with the exception of a few

major

holidays, many D

owntow

n businesses operate ona daily basis. B

ecuse the meter sysem

is only inoperation six days a w

eek, retail and offce usesdo not fully benefit from

the parking turnoverm

etering is designed to create.

3. Long-Term Meter Rates. The long-term meter rate

is currently 60 cents/hour and has not beenincreased since F

Y1997-98. C

onsiderationshould be given to increasing the rate to $1.00/hour.

4. Short-Term Meter Rates. The short-term meter

rate is $1.00/hour and has not been increasedsince 1997-98. C

onsideration should be given toincreasing the rate to $1.10/hour.

5. Metering of Truck Loading Zones. Truck loading

zones have become increasingiy busy and, to

some degree, abused over the past several years.

This has resulted in an increasing num

ber oftrcks "double parking" and causing congestion

and driver frustration in the downtow

n. Metering

the loading zones would increase the turnover

rate and create better utilzation.

. Cit Utilit Relocation Cost. Current project

estimates include approximately $17.8M for

therelocation, reconstruction and upgrading ofm

unicipally owned sew

er and water facilities. It is

estimated that this w

ork wil result in increased

value by extending the useful life of these facilities.w

hich approximately equates to the local funding

requirements for the project of $5-7 m

illion basedon a 60/40 (federal/local) split.

. Propert Owner Partclpation through a Local

Improvem

ent Disrict (LID

). Most recent m

ajorinfrastructure investm

ents have included some level

of participation from the benefiting propert ow

ners.This was the case with recent transportation

improvem

ents in the Lloyd District, construction of

the current downtow

n MA

X lines and P

ortandStr~etcar. In considering

the amount of direct

propert owner participation in the projec it is

importnt to be cognizant of the cost and value of

other improvem

ents propert owners can and

should be encouraged to make w

ith respect tobuilding frontages. Sensitivit to the existing

business climate is also w

arranted. How

ever, theformation of a Local

Improvem

ent District is at least

two years away and assessments to propert

owners are not levied until com

pletion of theP

roject. Paym

ent programs for assessm

ents, at tax-exem

pt interest rates, are available for periods up to20 years.

funding sources financial strategy I page 57

WA TR-ARCH_100705

Iwata, Steve

From:. Sent:'To:Subject:

Wiliams, Brant

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:27 PMIwata, SteveDraft Update for Mall Financing Strategy

Steve- I was going to share this with Mayor's staff, Micheal, and PDOT directors. Please review and comment. We coulduse this as a reference or a handout when we meet with the other Commissioner offices, which we should do fairly soon.In fact, would you set up briefings for Dan, Erik and Randy (or their staffs) for sometime in the next week or week and ahalf? Thanks.

Portland Mall project staff is working on all elements of funding for the local match portion of the Portland MallRevitalization Project.

Conceptual Design Report Financing Strategy

As you'll recall, the Council approved Conceptual Design Report includes various funding elements for the City ofPortland's share of the project. The total project cost is $160 millon. FTA would pay for 60%, or $96 million, and the localshare would be $40%, or $64 millon. Thé elements of the local match are:

$10m$15m$5m

/\ $15m\. "'5j$5m

$5m$4m

TIF from the three downtown URDsRevenue bonds backed by increased revenues from downtown parking metersBES and the Water Bureau funds for covering relocation otutiities and improvements to their systemsDowntown Local Improvement DistrictPSUTriMetMetro'Shortfall/

'The funding stratetgy also calls for increased parking revenues to pay (or an enhanced Mall Management andMaintenance program to the tune of $500,000 per year.

Changes to the CDR Financing Strategy

There have been a few changes made to the funding strategy as indicated below:

· Business representatives from the CAC have asked that the LID be increased by $2 million to $17 million in order toprovide the local share to cover the $5 milion cost for new bus shelters on 5th and 6th Avenues.

· PSU has indicated that it is willng to contribute an additional $2 millon to cover half of the $4 milion shortfall. (Notethat PSU will most likely want their contribution included in the LID which will make the actual LID $24m.)

· The Portland Streetcar Inc. Board has requested that as part of the increase in parking revenues, enough funds begenerated in order to provide enhanced service to the streetcar system. This enhanced service would result in adecrease in headways from 14 minutes to 11 minutes for most of the day. The additional revenue needed is $300,000per year.

· The City still needs to find an additional $1.33 millon to cover part of the Mall project shortall as well as part of the 1-205 light rail project shortfall.

· The remaining shortfalls for both the Mall and '-205 projects are being covered by TriMet, Metro, ODOT, andClackamas County. A portion of the shortfall is being reduced by eliminating elements of the project, thus droppingthe overall project cost.

This results in a total cost for the Portland Mall project of $165 milion. The local match increases by $2 million to $66milion. This additonal $2 million plus $4 milion to cover the shortall results in an additional local match of $6 millon __$2m from the LID, $2m from PSU, and $2m from a combination of COP, TriMet, and Metro. (Note that the COP's share ofthis $2m wil depend on the type of funds used to cover the additional $1.33m and whether they would be allocated to theMall or 1-205.)

1 EXHIBIT

~Ä TR-ARCH_1 0071 0

I

( .Schedule for Approving a Final Financing Strategy

TriMet needs to submit the New Starts Report for the South Corridor Project (Mall plus 1-205) to FTA on August 18. This isthe critical date that must be met. Not doing so will result in a delay of at least one year. TriMet will need to have IGAs

. with all the funding partners by this date. They are planning to have an IGA directly with PDC for the $20 milion of TIFcontributions to the South Corridor project ($1 Om for the Mall and $10m for 1-205). The proposed date for taking the IGAfor the remaining City contribution to City Council is August 5. Council action will also need to include the approval of theNotice of Intent to Form an LID and approval of the parking revenue increases that would take effect in time to sellrevenue bonds by July 2006. .

Status of Resolving Critical Financing Elements

Local Improvement District

Doug Obletz is working with both TriMet and PDOT to develop the $24 million LID for the project. Again, $7 milion willcome directly from PSU with the remaining downtown property owners being responsible for $17 millon. The boundariesof the proposed LID are basically: the Wilamette River to the east; 1-405 to the south; to the west, 1-405 south of Burnsideand NW 12th north of Burnside, and NW Northrup to the north. This LID encompasses over 1000 properties.

The following is the schedule for the formation of the LID:

Week of June 28

Mail out project informational letter on project letterhead signed by 6 large downtown property owners who are also projectsupporters. These six are: MarkDodson, George Passadore, Eric Parsons, John Russell, Scott Andrews, and PhilKalberer. Letter includes brief description of the LID and a reference that more information will follow.

Week of July 5

Mail out specific LID information with LID petition and information on how to calculate individual assessments. It isanticipated the the same property owners will sign the cover letter for this mailing. Notice wil include schedule of eventsfor forming the LID including an informational Open House and City Council actions.

Week of July 26

Hold the Open House for property owners to learn more about the project, the LID, and their potential assessments.

August 5

City Council hearing on the Resolution of Intent to Form the LID. The expectation is to have over 50% signed petiionsupport for the LID based on the assessment amount and over 40% based on land area at the time of this hearing.

August 16

City Auditor to mail formal 21-day notice for forming the LID to all property owners and commence' remonstrance period.

September 6

Last day for receipt of remonstrances

September 29

City Council hearing on LID formation

One important point to note is that the LID will not be formed by the time the City Council needs to approve an IGA withTriMet. Again, this IGA guarantees the City's contribution to the project. It is hoped that the Council wil be wiling toapprove the IGA on August 5 as long as there is sufficient petition support to guarantee that the project will not beremonstrated once it is formed on September 29. This support would need to included signed petiions for over 40% ofthe LID land area.

2WATR-ARCH_100711

Parking Revenue Increases

The parking revenue package needs to include enough new annual revenues to cover four elements:

1. $2.1 million which is the annual debt service on $15 million of revenue bonds;

2. $500,000 for the Mall Management program;3. $300,000 for PDOT for the lost meter revenue due to the elimination of parking spaces on 5th and 6th avenues;and4. $300,000 for the enhanced streetcar service.

The total annual new revenue necessary is $3.2 million.

The proposed downtown meter program changes that would fund this amount are:

$2.1 m Increase in short-term meter rates from $1.00 to $1.25$0.6m Increase in long-term meter rates from $.60 to $1.25$O.5m Increase in evening hours of operation from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

PDOT staff is currently meeting downtown stakeholders regarding these changes. Even though increasing meter ratesand times are not viewed positively, the overall feedback has not been significant. The most reluctance is with theextended one-hour operation in the evening.

BES and Water Bureau Contribution

A meeting with Dan Saltzman, Dean Marriott, and Dick Steinbrugge (filling in for Mort Anoushiravani) resulted in a generalagreement that the two bureaus would be wiling to contribute to the project in the ballpark of $5 million with the caveat thattheir contributions added like value to the respective water and sewer systems. TriMet is currently working with bothWater Bureau and BES staffs to determine the overall amount of utility work necessary and also to estimate the value-added portion of the project for each system. Additional meetings will be needed with the bureaus to determine the finalcontribution amount.

3WATR-ARCH_100712

Boyle, Teresa

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Yeung, Steve

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:00 PMBoyte, TeresaVillanueva, Vii; Miller, Lloyd; Simon Cooper (CooperS (ftri-met.org)FW:TriMet RFP (RFP for BWW Water Design)

Teresa,

-lowever, Bruce Watts of Tri-Met has told COP Bureau Df Purchasing that the specificTri-Met DBE language needs to be in the RFP. In the previous Light Rail projects, BWW has been able to issue theDesign RFP for water relocation and have gotten re-imbursement for the design cost. Could you tell us what has changedsince the last rail project (IMAX) that is preventing BWW from using the same RFP procurement process? We are a litteconfused by all this and wonder if you could shed a litte light into the situation. Thanks.

Steve S. YeungCity of Portland - Bureau of Water Works1120 SW 5th Avenue - 5th FloorPortland, OR 97204-1926Phone (503)823-7645Fax (503)823-4500email: veung(èù.water.ci.port!and.or.lls.l1aifto:veung0!water.ci.portland.or.us?

Thank you,

Christine Moody, CPPB

Procurement SupervisorBureau of PurchasesCity of Portland(503) 823-1095

-----Original Message-----From: Moody, ChristineSent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:08 AMTo: White, CorbettCc: Vilanueva, VII; Yeung, Steve; Dabashinsky, Annette; Palmer/AnnetteSubject: RE: TrIMet RFP

Hi Corbett,I am currently waiting for legal advise on what we need to do. Here is the e-mail I have sent to the

attorney's office and the questions that need to be worked out.

EXHIBIT1 l

/0WA TR-ARCH_100724

Christine Moody, CPPB

Procurement SupervisorBureau of Purchases

City of Portland(503) 823-1095

-----Original Message----From: White, CorbettSent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:11 AMTo: Moody, ChrlstlneCc: Villanueva, Vii; Yeung, Steve; Dabashlnsky, Annette

2 WATR-ARCH_100725

Subject: TriMet RFP

Christine, I've received several inquiries into the status of the above RFP. Would you provide us withan update? Thanks.

Corbett WhiteContract Compliance SpecialistPortland Water Bureau

3 WA TR-ARCH_100726

City of Portland, Oregon

BUDGET/FINANCIAL COUNCIL ACTION IMPACT STATEMENT

INTIATOROS SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION (Deliver original to Financial Planning Division. Retain copy.)1. Name of Initiator 2. Interoffce Mail Address 3. Telephone No.

/4. Bureau/Offce/Dept.Stephen Iwata 106/800 503.823.7734 PDOT/OTDrrRP

5a. To be fied (date) 5b. Calendar (Check One) 5. Date Submitted to OFA Budget 6.Fund Name & NumberRegular Consent 4/5ths Analyst:

August 4, 2004 l' I 0 I 0 Doug Le 112

Please check appropnate box and list dollar amount.If using electronic MS Word version; underline appropriate category and type and list dollar amount after.

Category 1 No financia1 Impact ( J

Category 2 Routine Budgeted Items ( J

æ Contracts-lOA between TriMet and City of

PortlandGrants

Call for bids on purchasing contracts

ReporL~ to Council regarding completion of projects

~ Anual supply contractsClaims payment under $15,000

Creation of a Local Improvement

Other- Resolution of Intent to form LID - $24.0 milion max

Category 3 Non-Routine or Unbudgeted Item ( X J

SUMMARY OF ACTION: In concise teons, describe what is to take place through the enactment of this council action. Where applicable,narrative should include answers to the following questions. Add space as necessary below each question. Multiple page responses are acceptable ifnecessary to answer all relevant questions.

A. What action(s) is proposed?

City Council's adoption of the Portland Mall Revitalization Conceptual Design Report, Resolution No. 36216 on May 19, 2004,directed PDOT to prepare a financial plan for the South Corridor Project for City Council's review. The lOA specifies Portland's$45.333 funding contributions. The following summarizes the financial elements of this lOA:· $ 1.0 Milion from PDOT's SDC Funds for Prelimnary Engineering,

· $15.0 Milion from increases in on-street parking rates for Final Design and Construction,· $ 1.1 Milion from Sewer System Fund to fund project costs associated with designing and relocating sewer lines along the Mall,· $ 3.9 Milion from Water Fund to pay for portion of project costs associated with designing and relocating water lines along the

Mall,· $ 1.333 from Transportation System Development Charges to be spend on the Mall, and

· $24.0 Millon from the Portland Mall Revitalization Local Improvement District.PDC's $20.0 Milions is contained in a separate lOA between the urban renewal agency and TriMet.

ß. Who wil be affected by the proposed action? (List other City bureaus? Citizens? The business community?)The IGA is a result of a plannng process that started in early 2003. Public meetings, citizen advisory committee, and City bureaushave been involved with the project design and financial strategies to implement this project. The increase in parking meter rates wilbe considered as part of a separate ordinance. The LID wil be par of a separate public process as defined by City Codes.

C. What wil the action cost? In this fiscal year? Subsequent year(s)? How much revenue wil it generate? In this fiscalyear? In subsequent year(s)? If there are indirect costs or future commitments implied as a necessary accompaniment orresult of this action, include an estimate of these costs even if the action does not formally authorize any expenditure.

D. Is the cost included in the current year's budget? If so, which Fund or AU? If not, identify funding sources and amounts

- i.e. interagency, contingency/unforeseen, grants, administrative transfer, etc.

E. What alternatives to this action been explored?

Brant Wiliams, Director, Office of TransportationEXHIBIT

I (

WA TR-ARCH_1 00877

I

t.,

1~~ý;Portland MaD Local Fnnding Options / ~ Jv'1 ~

A. PDC -- $20m (Rver District, Downtown W;terfront, South Park Blocks, ~Lents, Gateway)

..'

B. BESlWater -- $4.6m to $15m

C. PSU -- $5m to $10m

D. Transportation SDCs -- $3.65m

E. LID -- $4m to $10m

F. TriMet and Metro -- $5m to $10m

. G. Bonding Parking Revenue Increases -- $10m plus $500klyear for Mall

maintenance program (need $2inyr to do this)Extended meter hours (Sundays, holidays, evenings) $1.54m/yrLong-term meter rate increases ($0.40) $0.2m1yrShort-term. meter rate increases ($0.10) $0.95m1yrMetered truck loading zones $1.24rnyrTotal $3.9inyr

Possible FundingScenario

PDCBES/WaterPSUSDCsLIDTM/MetroParkingTotal

$20m$8m$8m$3.5m$7m$5m$10m$61.5m

WA TR-ARCH_1 00879

South Corridor Financial PlanPortland-TriMet Intergovernmental Grant Agreement: Ordinance 178964, December 15, 2004'

Following summarizes the City's financial contributions to fund Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, andConstruction of the South Corridor Project, as amended to reflect the modifications to the localim provem ent district.

Preliminary EngineeringCity of Portland's = $1.0 million from SOC.· City retain $550,000 to pay for PDOT staff and consulting expenses

City Contribution to Local MatchTotal South Corridor Budget $488.7 million

City of Portland Local Match: $42.333. $15 millon, revenue bonds from Parking Meters increase

o Parking Meter increase provided the following annual revenue:

$2.1 Million for Portland Mall$500K for Mall Management post-construction (portion up to 2009 to address projectshortfall due to lower amount of LID)$300K for lost meter revenue$300 K for enhance streetcar service

. $5.0 Million from BES and Watero $3.9 M from Bureau of Water Workso $1.1 M from Bureau of Environmental Services

. $1.333 from SOC

. $19 M from Local Improvement Districto $7 Million from Portland State University Districto $12 Million property assessment to downtown properties.o TriMet provides for construction financing.

o Final Assessment Process to start upon completion of civil work and agreement between TriMetand PDOT. Estimated date 2009.

Portland Development Commission Contribution to Local Match: $20 Million· Portland Mall Revitalization Project: $ 10M

· 1-205 LRT: $10 M

WA TR-ARCH_1 00925

Funding sources for the entire South Corrdor Project and for the Downtown Portland segmentare shown in Figure ßl and B2 respectively. For purposes of determining potential sources oflocal funding for the downtown segment, a match ratio of 60% Federal/40% Local has beenassumed. Therefore, the local funding requirement for the Downtown segment at a total cost of$160M is approximately $64M. A detailed description of the proposed local resources isoutlined below.

Figure BlPROPOSED FUNDING FOR SOUTH CORRDOR PROJECT

COST($$M)SOURCE

Federal Transit AdministrationMTIP/MetroTriMetCity ofPoitland/Other Local Funds:

Clackamas CountySTIP/ODOTOther

$297.039.420.060.035.020.023.6

$495.0TOTAL

Figure B2PROPOSED FUNDING FOR

PORTLAND MALL REVITALIZATION PROJECT

COST($$M)SOURCE

Federal Transit Administration'City of Portland/Other Local Funds:

TriMet/MetroSystem Development FeesUrban Renewal FundsBonding of New Parking Meter RevenuesPublic Utility ContrbutionsLocal Improvement DistrictPSUOther

$96.0

TOTAL

5.04.0

10.0+M14.0

5.015.05.0-Í

$64.0

. ..-1/' 't\.r.,k -\L.~~~

WA TR-ARCH_100973

CITY OF James H. Van Dlke, City Attorney.1221 S.W.4t Averiue, Suite 430

Portland, Oregon 97204Telephone: (503) 823-4047

Fax No.: (503) 823-3089

PORTLAND, OREGONOFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNY

June 20, 2012

John DiLorenzo, Jr.Davis Wright Tremaine LLPSuite 23001300 SW Fifth AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5630

RECEIVED

JUN 2:1 2012

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE

Re: Anderson v. City of Portland.

MCCC Case No. 11 i 2-15957

Dear John:

I wrte to provide revised information for two of the categories of expenditues Idiscussed in my letter to you of March 19,2012.

Furer research has shown that Water Bureau expenditues on the Loos Project,including anticipated expenses for the last Loo constrcted, total $516,954. This is more than thenumber I originally provided.

I have also discovered that the numbers I provided for costs associated with light rail andstreet car lines were too high. Here is what we believe to be the most accurate assessment ofWater Bureau expenses for that purose.' .

A. Central City Street Car (expenses after December 1,2001): Net cost to PortlandWater Bureau for water facilty relocation related to this project was $120,533. Ths wasapproximately 7.6% of the total estimated costs associated with facilty relocation; the remainderof the costs were met by the street car project. Here, as elsewhere, the Water Bureau did pay forcosts of "betterments," that is pipe upgrades and improvements not occasioned by the need torelocate. .

B. Portland Street Car East Side Loop: Net cost to the Water Bureau for water

facility relocation was $1,389,721. This was approximately 18.7% of the total estimated costsfor facilty relocation; the remainder of the costs were met by the street car project.

C. 1-205 Light Rail: Net cost to the Water Bureau for facilty relocation was

$229,483. This was approximately 13.7% of the total e§Iimated relocation costs; the remainderof the costs'Were met by TriMët.

EXHIBITI \-0 \759-1850 i 9.doc

I J 2.

John DiLorenzo, Jr.June 20, 2012Page 2 of2

D. Interstate Light Rail: Net cost to the Water Bureau for facilty relocation was$2,651,883. This was approximately 21 % of the total estimated relocation costs; the remainderof the costs were met by TriMet.

E. Transit Mall Light Rail: Net cost to the Water Bureau for facilty relocation was

$6,255,088. This was approximately 36.8% of total relocation costs for that project; theremainder of the costs were met by TriMet.

TLT/jIt

l~Terence 1. ThatcherDeputy City Attorney

--

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2I hereby certify that, on September 5, 2013, I served one copy of the foregoing

3 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

4 AMEND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by causing a copy thereof to be mailed by US

5 mail, hand-delivered, and by electronic mail to the following:

6

7 Terence L Thatcher, OSB #841229Deputy City Attorney

8 Portland Offce of City Attorney1221 SW 4th Ave, Ste 430

9 Portland, OR 97204terence. thatcherßYportlandoregon. gov

10

11

13

12

14

15

ByJ DiLorenzo, Jr., OSB #802040

JO dilorenzo~dwt.comAa n Stuckey, OSB# 954322aaonstuckey~dwt.comTelephone: (503) 241-2300Facsimile: (503) 778-5299

16

17

18

19 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 12 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

DWT 22549692vl 0094650-000002DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAIE LLP

1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue' Suite 2400Portland, Oregon 97201 . (503) 241-2300