infrastructure survey report (water) - oregon.gov 08 loc water... · increase the response rate by...
TRANSCRIPT
INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY REPORT
(WATER)
TECHNICAL REPORT
JULY 2016
Published by the League of Oregon Cities
L E A G U E O F O R E G O N C I T I E S
2
Technical Report March 2016
A League of Oregon Cities’ study of city water and transportation infrastructure statewide found significant funding needs. Specifically, $11.4 billion is needed over the next 20 years for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. Water infrastructure needs are primarily for water and wastewater treatment plants and new, above ground water storage projects. Water accounted for a majority of the total infrastructure needs identified in the study: $7.6 billion.
3
In 2010, the Oregon section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) published a report on the state of Oregon’s infrastructure. In the report, the ASCE highlighted flaws and deficiencies in the state’s infrastructure by examining a select number of cities and counties. Overall, the grade given to Oregon’s combined infrastructure was a C-, with roads and bridges receiving a C- and drinking water and wastewater receiving a D. In water infrastructure alone, ASCE estimated $4.4 billion was needed to improve Oregon’s municipal water systems.
The League of Oregon Cities further explored infrastructure needs in the areas of water and transportation. A survey was sent to the League’s 242 members that would detail each city’s infrastructure needs and the estimated costs associated with these capital projects. The survey identified roughly 16,700 lane miles of roads within city limits in need of funding for paving, sign replacement, street sweeping etc. Additionally, a significant majority of the cities surveyed have demand for additional water system improvements including water and wastewater treatment and water storage.
The League survey was conducted from January 22 to March 4 and received responses from 120 cities. These cities represent 2,297,557 residents, or 85 percent of the population residing in Oregon cities. The League created the survey using Qualtrics software, and it was sent to city managers, city recorders, and other individuals with positions equal to city administrator. These individuals often relied on support from, or forwarded the survey to be completed by, city public works directors and other city staff.
Cities are divided into population quintiles or groups of cities representing roughly one-fifth of the 242 total cities. This is done to provide more accurate comparison of differences among city populations. If
Respondent Cities85%
4
LOC randomly selected cities from each quintile, we would expect 20 percent to come from each of the five quintiles.
Among respondent cities, there was over-representation in the fifth quintile population category (population greater than 10,000). The reason for this population skewing is most likely due to efforts to increase the response rate by targeting specific categories of cities, including: cities with a population greater than 10,000; cities from each legislative district; cities with League board members; and cities with policy committee members. This would also explain the underrepresentation in the first, second and third quintiles (populations under 3,100). Further, the survey had an overrepresentation for respondents in the Valley region, which is historically common in other League surveys.
Due to the nature of this survey, the report is divided into two parts to better accommodate the divergent infrastructure needs for water and transportation.
The survey identified $7.6 billion of water quality and water supply infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. The total estimated needs for water quality projects were $4.3 billion, with water supply needs at approximately $3.3 billion. The most common needs included drinking water and wastewater treatments plants (both new facilities and expansions of existing facilities) and water storage, including above ground reservoirs. Other needs identified included wastewater reuse projects, stormwater improvements, water and wastewater line repair and replacements, and pump station upgrades. In total, 67 percent of cities responded as needing additional water storage.
5
Cities in the Valley and Metro regions were more likely to need additional storage. This is likely due in large part to the large populations in these regions. This is further supported by the fact that 66 percent of cities that needed additional storage were in fourth and fifth quintile cities (population 3,101 and above). The identified needs for additional storage could also reflect geographic differences between communities that are dependent upon rainfall for water supply, which would include the Metro area and Willamette
6
Valley, versus those who rely on snowpack for natural storage of water supply. While there has been measured decline of Oregon’s snowpack in recent years, there remains increased certainty of capturing winter rainfall for peak season storage. It remains unclear, but seems possible, that the need for additional storage will increase if Oregon continues to experience ongoing declines in snowpack. Among those cities that needed additional storage, 82 percent plan for above ground water storage. This would also explain why the most common water supply projects identified in the survey were water reservoirs and water storage tanks.
City spending on water conservation education varied greatly, but showed a clear correlation with population and, therefore, city budget resources. When asked how much was spent on water conservation education in FY 2014-15, the average for cities with a population greater than 10,000 was $25,356. The average spent on water conservation by cities with a population less than 450 was $1,178 (see Appendix A). While larger cities intuitively spend more on conservation to educate larger populations, the Metro and Southern Oregon regions spent the most on conservation education.
Cities which spent more on conservation education budgets also typically spent more during FY 2014-15 on water system efficiency. System efficiencies include pipeline repair and replacement to increase system wide water conservation. When asked how much was spent during FY 2014-15 on conservation through water system efficiencies, such as leak detections and transmission line repair and replacement, the overall average spending for all cities was $200,028 (see Appendix A). Overall spending on such projects ranged from $2 million to $1,000 for one smaller community. Southern Oregon spent on average $372,000 last fiscal year on water system efficiency. This was the highest average cost of any region, with metro and the valley following suit with $267,000 and $259,000 respectively. Again, as in conservation education, larger cities spend more on system efficiency.
7
While water conservation expenses in the Metro region are not unexpected due to its large population, the Southern Oregon regional conservation efforts are most likely due to ongoing drought conditions and water supply shortages in that region. Southern Oregon was one of the first in the state to be affected by the drought in 2015, with several counties declaring states of emergency as early as May. All counties in the Southern Oregon region declared states of emergency in 2015. This indicates that water conservation, from education and system efficiency, are linked to the state of drought in the region and will likely continue to play a role in those communities that are most susceptible to drought.
The total identified infrastructure needs for both water and transportation are $11.4 billion. This is substantially more than was identified by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2010 report for Oregon. While including the infrastructure needs of counties, the report didn’t address issues faced by cities with populations of less than 10,000 people. Cities of this size constitute 80 percent of the incorporated cities in Oregon, therefore it was important for the League to adequately capture the needs of these members. While the majority of needs still come from large cities, small cities have important infrastructure needs as well. The needs of each of Oregon’s cities vary dramatically, from $4.6 billion asked for Portland, to Ukiah’s $49,000 need.
Cities in the fifth quintile need on average $252 million in combined infrastructure needs. This number falls off dramatically in other quintiles. By comparison, respondent cities in the fourth quintile have on average $37 million of combined needs. Regionally, Metro has, by far, the largest infrastructure needs with an average $264 million in needs. The next largest average regional needs include Central Oregon ($56.6 million) and the Valley ($51.3 million) regions. The fact that these regions need more infrastructure funding can be supported by examining the relationship between population and total infrastructure needs.
8
The median per capita need for combined infrastructure was $4,675. Water needs are $2,743 per person. While these averages vary dramatically across population and region, it is important to recognize the trends in this data. Each city, large or small, has infrastructure funding needs that amount to thousands of dollars per person over the next two decades. More importantly, per capita averages across all populations and regions are not equal.
Table 5 shows that the average first quintile city (cities of less than 450 people) have average needs of $10,664 per person for water infrastructure. This can be compared to those cities in the fifth quintile (cities larger than 10,000 population) with per capita infrastructure needs of almost $2,554 per person. For this reason, small cities need even more support for water infrastructure improvements proportionately. This means any solutions to city infrastructure needs must account for additional funding for smaller cities. In other words, costs of infrastructure improvements and repairs scale; the larger the population, the less per person costs associated.
Overall, population plays the largest role in infrastructure needs estimates. This is evidenced in Figure 3 on the next page.
9
The above figure shows a linear regression of the two variables, city population and total infrastructure needs.1 This shows that the percentage of total infrastructure needs increases proportionately to the increase in percent of population. While this does not account for all the variation in the data, it sheds light on why regions with higher population are more often those that have greater average infrastructure needs. Transportation needs appear to scale, but water needs increase geometrically, and increase at a fixed rate to city size. This makes intuitive sense as residents need an average amount of water for consumption, hygiene, food preparation, cleaning, etc.
Infrastructure needs in Oregon are a significant financial issue that must be addressed in the near future. Infrastructure funding of $7.6 billion is required for a number of critical projects, including drinking water and wastewater treatment, and water storage. While needs vary significantly from one city to another, several trends appear in cities across the state. Water needs are larger than transportation needs, and most of the need comes from two types of projects: water treatment and construction of water storage. Most of this storage is planned to be above ground in tanks and reservoirs.
It is also important to note from the analysis that the longer infrastructure needs are postponed, the more expensive they will become to address. It is important to recognize that for some communities, population growth is a key aspect of this issue. While growth in population in Oregon (and especially in cities) means additional ratepayers to bear the burden of the cost of infrastructure, the need to replace and expand city infrastructure will increase as well. In other words, the $7.6 billion dollars of water infrastructure needs will only escalate if left unaddressed in the future.
1 The regression above uses a natural log transformation of the variables to reduce skew in the data from large populations and/or large infrastructure needs.
10
For answers to open-ended and qualitative questions, see Appendix D. ----------------------------------------------------- WATER -----------------------------------------------------
Q4. Water Quality Estimates (Average)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $416,071.43 2nd Quintile $3,310,189.89 3rd Quintile $6,987,012.10 4th Quintile $17,445,461.74 5th Quintile $114,505,675.76
Overall Average $43,992,826.98 Region #
N. Coast $21,548,341.80 Metro $122,765,504.00 Valley $24,190,427.90
S. Coast $23,427,000.00 S. Valley $18,159,090.91
Central Oregon $19,091,172.46 NE Oregon $6,096,633.40 E. Oregon $4,930,555.56
Q4. Water Quality Estimates (Totals)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $5,825,000.00 2nd Quintile $31,291,709.00 3rd Quintile $139,740,242.00 4th Quintile $401,245,620.00 5th Quintile $3,778,687,300.00
Total $4,351,789,871.00 Region #
N. Coast $109,241,709.00 Metro $3,069,137,600.00 Valley $507,998,986.00
S. Coast $117,135,000.00 S. Valley $199,750,000.00
Central Oregon $248,185,242.00 NE Oregon $60,966,334.00 E. Oregon $44,375,000.00
Q5. Water Supply Estimates (Average)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $526,250.00 2nd Quintile $4,364,975.00 3rd Quintile $10,700,741.11 4th Quintile $11,857,482.42 5th Quintile $86,312,296.88
Overall Average $148,438,243.32 Region #
N. Coast $12,466,955.00 Metro $88,639,036.15 Valley $17,410,459.09
S. Coast $7,890,000.00 S. Valley $17,023,125.00
Central Oregon $15,701,906.50 NE Oregon $5,414,100.00 E. Oregon $7,377,777.78
Q5. Water Supply Estimates (Totals)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $8,420,000.00 2nd Quintile $41,784,775.00 3rd Quintile $192,613,340.00 4th Quintile $284,579,578.00 5th Quintile $2,761,993,500.00
Total $3,289,391,193.00 Region #
N. Coast $64,834,775.00 Metro $2,304,614,940.00 Valley $383,030,100.00
S. Coast $23,670,000.00 S. Valley $204,277,500.00
Central Oregon $188,422,878.00 NE Oregon $54,141,000.00 E. Oregon $66,400,000.00
11
Q6. Water Qual. Proj. #1 (Average)
Q6. Water Qual. Proj. #2 (Average)
Q6. Water Qual. Proj. #3 (Average)
Quintile # Quintile # Quintile # 1st Quintile $318,571.43 1st Quintile $611,000.00 1st Quintile $132,500.00 2nd Quintile $1,259,100.00 2nd Quintile $1,749,408.75 2nd Quintile $526,666.67 3rd Quintile $2,773,334.44 3rd Quintile $1,843,654.36 3rd Quintile $974,421.63 4th Quintile $6,561,982.61 4th Quintile $2,660,059.09 4th Quintile $860,016.67 5th Quintile $34,704,854.26 5th Quintile $10,447,771.43 5th Quintile $9,360,125.27
Overall Average $14,511,428.11 Overall
Average $5,115,848.45 Overall Average $4,437,668.41
Region # Region # Region # N. Coast $1,664,958.67 N. Coast $1,121,833.33 N. Coast $514,851.40
Metro $35,234,316.67 Metro $8,258,627.27 Metro $6,913,675.00 Valley $5,819,096.32 Valley $5,277,968.75 Valley $3,581,630.77
S. Coast $7,200,000.00 S. Coast $3,464,254.00 S. Coast $7,437,500.00 S. Valley $12,656,829.09 S. Valley $6,598,076.10 S. Valley $5,986,727.04
Central Oregon $13,170,611.11 Central Oregon $4,415,000.00 Central Oregon $1,121,666.67 NE Oregon $1,407,142.86 NE Oregon $881,666.67 NE Oregon $405,000.00 E. Oregon $2,075,757.14 E. Oregon $311,000.00 E. Oregon $85,000.00
Q7. Water Supply Proj. #1 (Average)
Q7. Water Supply Proj. #2 (Average)
Q7. Water Supply Proj. #3 (Average)
Quintile # Quintile # Quintile # 1st Quintile $503,818.18 1st Quintile $108,400.00 1st Quintile $178,400.00 2nd Quintile $1,394,614.29 2nd Quintile $2,250,610.71 2nd Quintile $1,485,429.17 3rd Quintile $2,588,205.88 3rd Quintile $1,734,211.77 3rd Quintile $680,206.25 4th Quintile $2,833,229.35 4th Quintile $1,747,045.65 4th Quintile $2,775,742.86 5th Quintile $15,027,429.03 5th Quintile $6,871,520.34 5th Quintile $3,599,949.23
Overall Average $6,495,777.25 Overall
Average $3,614,248.94 Overall Average $2,532,356.14
Region # Region # Region # N. Coast $8,066,666.67 N. Coast $1,691,851.00 N. Coast $6,635,000.00
Metro $10,552,577.33 Metro $6,050,559.09 Metro $2,391,466.00 Valley $7,272,912.50 Valley $4,094,642.86 Valley $2,855,211.43
S. Coast $3,065,825.00 S. Coast $3,177,250.00 S. Coast $1,900,025.00 S. Valley $4,544,787.73 S. Valley $2,381,739.22 S. Valley $3,123,206.25
Central Oregon $6,107,850.45 Central Oregon $2,910,256.25 Central Oregon $1,416,000.00 NE Oregon $1,685,250.00 NE Oregon $1,301,357.14 NE Oregon $1,059,083.33 E. Oregon $2,399,333.33 E. Oregon $853,666.67 E. Oregon $155,500.00
Q8. Water Conservation Education (Average)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $1,178.57 2nd Quintile $1,250.00 3rd Quintile $6,558.82 4th Quintile $4,383.38 5th Quintile $25,356.67
Overall Average $363,085.47 Region #
N. Coast $125.00 Metro $20,852.17 Valley $6,107.71
S. Coast $2,500.00 S. Valley $19,593.33
Central Oregon $5,641.67 NE Oregon $5,777.78 E. Oregon $4,666.67
Q12. Does your city have a Facilities Plan?
Yes No Unsure # % # % # %
87 79% 16 15% 7 6%
Q14. How many septic systems are within your city’s limits?
Median = 7
Q9. Water Conservation Efficiency (Average)
Quintile # 1st Quintile $5,492.00 2nd Quintile $42,551.89 3rd Quintile $41,453.13 4th Quintile $172,199.75 5th Quintile $460,043.36
Overall Average $200,028.48
Region # N. Coast $231,948.41
Metro $266,692.93 Valley $258,686.06
S. Coast $32,425.00 S. Valley $372,095.80
Central Oregon $126,393.75 NE Oregon $36,777.78 E. Oregon $9,277.78
Q11. Would this be above ground or below ground water storage?
Above Ground
Below Ground Unsure
# % # % # % 60 82% 3 4% 10 14%
Q10. Does your city foresee a future need for a water storage project in the next
twenty (20) years? Yes No Unsure
# % # % # % 73 67% 18 17% 18 17%
Q13. What year was your facilities plan last updates?
Median = 2012
Q15. How many septic systems are within your Urban Growth Boundary?
Median = 15
13
Q17. Does your city operate and maintain a levee?
Yes No Unsure # % # % # % 6 5% 103 94% 1 1%
------------------------------------------------------ TRANSPORTATION -------------------------------------------
For information on the Transportation Section of this survey, please visit www.orcities.org
Q18. What are the overall expected costs to maintain each levee
certification? Mean = $11,400
14
2016 LOC Infrastructure Survey The League needs your help—please respond to the Infrastructure Survey by the deadline: Friday, February 19th at 5pm. In preparation for the 2017 legislative session, the League is requesting assistance from member cities in gathering data to support our efforts to secure additional resources and improved policies with regard to water and transportation infrastructure. Votes on these issues, especially as they relate to increased fees and taxes, are always difficult for legislators. Therefore, it is important that they understand, with a fair degree of specificity, exactly what the benefits of such investments will be to the state, and especially to cities in their districts. It is critical that cities take part in this survey. The League needs the statistical data solicited in this survey. The League also needs the anecdotal stories that will augment our message of need and cost-effectiveness. High rates of participation will make the data statistically more valid, as well as show policy makers the importance of infrastructure funding to Oregon Cities. It is important that this survey be completed and returned as soon as possible. The League’s messaging at the Legislature is always stronger when it represents the collective wisdom and commitment of its members. This survey will provide the advocacy team with the information it needs to most effectively communicate the needs and benefits of the infrastructure investments that we will be proposing and supporting. Survey Link Below: http://orcities.co1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1HYGpmYwVAAwSY5 Please Note: The survey asks for financial estimates regarding water and transportation capital projects. Thank you in advance for your participation and quick response. If you have any questions regarding the survey please contact: Paul Aljets at: [email protected] (503)540-6590
Craig Honeyman, Legislative Director [email protected]
(503) 588-6550 | (503) 540-6573 direct | (503) 784-3344 cell 1201 Court St. NE, Suite 200 | Salem, Oregon 97301 www.orcities.org
Helping Cities Succeed
15
LOC Infrastructure Survey The following survey will provide the League with valuable information on your city's Water and Transportation infrastructure. Q2 Please fill out the following questions.
City Name: Your Name: Your Title: Email Address:
Water Infrastructure Q4 Over the next twenty (20) years, how money much does your city anticipate it will need to spend to repair, replace, or expand capacity for Water Quality capital projects? (ex. wastewater treatment, stormwater facilities, water reuse, etc.) Q5 Over the next twenty (20) years, how much money does your city anticipate it will need to spend to repair, replace, or expand capacity for Water Supply capital projects? (ex. drinking water treatment plant, distribution system storage, etc.) Q6 Please list your city's Top 3 Water Quality related capital improvement projects and the estimated budgets of these projects in Dollars.
Water related Capital Projects (i.e. Water Treatment Plant, etc.) Estimated Total Project Cost
#1 Project #2 Project #3 Project
Q7 Please list your city's Top 3 Water Supply related capital improvement projects and the estimated budgets of these projects in Dollars.
Water related Capital Projects (i.e. Water Storage Facility) Estimated Total Project Cost
#1 Project #2 Project #3 Project
16
Q8 How much money did your city spend in FY2014-15 for water conservation education? Q9 How much did your city spend in FY2014-15 for water conservation as it relates to system efficiency (such as pipeline repair)? Q10 Does your city foresee a future need for a water storage project in the next twenty (20) years?
Yes No Unsure
Answer If Does your city foresee a future need for a water storage project? Yes Is Selected Q11 Would this be above ground or below ground water storage?
Above Ground Below Ground Unsure
Q12 Does your city have a facilities plan?
Yes No Unsure
Answer If Does your city have a facilities plan? Yes Is Selected Q13 What year was your city's facilities plan last updated? Q14 How many septic systems are within your city's limits? Q15 How many septic systems are within the Urban Growth Boundary? Q16 What are your city's considerations and/or barriers to extending infrastructure into the Urban Growth Boundary? Q17 Does your city operate and maintain a levee?
Yes No Unsure
Answer If Does you city operate and maintain a levee? Yes Is Selected Q18 What are the overall expected costs to maintain each levee certification?
17
Transportation Infrastructure Q20 How many miles of road does you city maintain? (Please provide both center-line and lane miles) (Note: Center-lines miles are measured along the median on a road. Lane miles measure the length of each lane on a road. For example, 10 Miles of a two-lane center-line measured road is 20 lane miles.)
Center-Line Miles Lane Miles
Q21 Please list the amount of money your city budgeted to operate and maintain street infrastructure in each of the last three (3) fiscal years.
FY 2014-2015 FY 2013-2014 FY 2012-2013
Q22 Please list your city's Top 5 highway transportation related capital improvement projects and estimated costs. (Note: capital projects are new construction and/or re-construction projects)
Highway Capital Improvement Projects Estimated Total Project Costs
#1 Project #2 Project #3 Project #4 Project #5 Project
Q23 Please list your city's Top 5 non-highway transportation related capital improvement projects and estimated costs. (Note: capital projects are new construction and/or re-construction projects)
Non-Highway Capital Improvement Projects Estimated Total Project Costs
#1 Project #2 Project #3 Project #4 Project #5 Project
18
Q24 What are your city's Top 5 overall transportation operation and maintenance needs? (Note: Operation and maintenance is defined as managing and repairing streets and related equipment such as signage, signals, and pavement washing)
#1 Transportation Need #2 Transportation Need #3 Transportation Need #4 Transportation Need #5 Transportation Need
Q25 The following questions provide you with the opportunity to give feedback and opinions on upcoming transportation issues. Q26 Please provide comments and examples of Safety Needs in your city as it relates to Transportation Infrastructure. Q27 Please provide comments and examples of Multimodal Needs (bicycle, pedestrian, transit, etc.) in your city's transportation infrastructure. Q28 Please provide comments and examples of Disaster Resilience Needs in your city as it relates to Transportation Infrastructure (Disaster Resilience is the ability of cities to manage change in the face of shocks or stresses - such as earthquakes, drought or flood - without compromising their long-term prospects.) Q29 Please provide comments and examples of Jurisdictional Transfer Needs in your city as it relates to Transportation Infrastructure. (Note: Jurisdictional Transfer is the transfer of operations and management of transportation related infrastructure to another government entity. For example, a county road functioning as a city street.) Q30 Would you or any other representative of your city be willing to testify before the Oregon Legislature on any of the infrastructure issues in this survey?
Yes No
Answer If Would you or any other representative of your city be willing to testify before the Oregon Legisl... Yes Is Selected Q31 Please list the person's name and contact information
Name: Email Address: Phone Number:
Q32 This concludes the survey--please provide any further comments or feedback regarding transportation and/or water infrastructure issues.
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Ada
ms
$0.0
0 $1
,250
,000
.00
Alb
any
$2
3,00
0,00
0.00
A
mity
$1
2,00
0,00
0.00
$8
,000
,000
.00
Cor
rosi
on C
ontro
l $2
00,0
00.0
0 Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
$2
,000
,000
.00
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt
$473
,000
.00
Ant
elop
e $0
.00
$850
,000
.00
NA
Ash
land
$1
0,00
0,00
0.00
$2
2,62
7,50
0.00
2.
5 M
GD
Wat
er
treat
men
t pla
nt
$14,
490,
900.
00
2.5
MG
Cro
wso
n II
st
orag
e re
serv
oir
(tank
) $8
,136
,600
.00
Park
Est
ates
Pum
p St
atio
n an
d Lo
op
Roa
d re
serv
oir
(tank
)
$2,5
27,6
00.0
0
Ast
oria
$3
5,00
0,00
0.00
$2
5,00
0,00
0.00
W
ater
Filt
er
Rec
onst
ruct
ion
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 C
lear
Wel
l C
onst
ruct
ion
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0 C
hlor
inat
ion
Upg
rade
s $1
,000
,000
.00
Ath
ena
$3,0
00,0
00.0
0 $4
,000
,000
.00
Was
te W
ater
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
$2
,500
,000
.00
Nor
mal
Cap
ital
Proj
ects
$5
00,0
00.0
0
Bak
er C
ity
$16,
900,
000.
00
$39,
600,
000.
00
WW
Effl
uent
D
ispo
sal
Impr
ovem
ents
$8
,500
,000
.00
CIP
P lin
ing
of
colle
ctio
n pi
pes
$150
,000
.00
Rec
onst
ruct
'H'
Stre
et W
W li
ft st
atio
n $2
25,0
00.0
0
Ban
ks
$11,
140,
000.
00
$2,2
00,0
00.0
0 Tr
ansm
issi
on P
ipel
ine
$2,7
50,0
00.0
0 D
istri
butio
n Sy
stem
Lo
opin
g $3
72,0
00.0
0 Ta
nk R
epai
ntin
g $3
15,0
00.0
0
Bea
verto
n $5
,000
,000
.00
$156
,000
,000
.00
Mur
ray
stor
mw
ater
fa
cilit
ies
$400
,000
.00
Hal
l at B
eave
r Cre
ek
stor
mw
ater
trea
tmen
t $8
00,0
00.0
0 Su
rface
wat
er
treat
men
t vau
lts
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0
Ben
d $1
20,0
00,0
00.0
0 $6
3,00
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt
$70,
000,
000.
00
Boa
rdm
an
$5,5
00,0
00.0
0 $9
,000
,000
.00
Expa
nd T
reat
men
t C
apac
ity
$2,7
50,0
00.0
0 Tr
unk
Line
Cap
acity
U
pgra
des
$1,7
50,0
00.0
0 Li
ft St
atio
n U
pgra
des
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0
Bon
anza
$1
,500
,000
.00
$0.0
0 se
wer
lago
ons
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0
Bro
okin
gs
New
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Pl
ant
$14,
190,
000.
00
Was
tew
ater
TP
Rep
airs
$1
,957
,000
.00
Mac
klyn
Sew
er
Rer
oute
$7
50,0
00.0
0
Bro
wns
ville
$1
,000
,000
.00
$5,5
00,0
00.0
0 TM
DL
Impl
emen
tatio
n $1
,000
,000
.00
Bur
ns
$500
,000
.00
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 m
aint
/repa
irs
$300
.00
Can
yonv
ille
$12,
800,
000.
00
$19,
300,
000.
00
Upg
rade
was
tew
ater
$1
2,90
0,00
0.00
w
ater
pla
nt p
hase
1
$5,2
00,0
00.0
0
C
asca
de
Lock
s $5
,000
,000
.00
$4,0
00,0
00.0
0 R
epai
r pla
nt
$3,0
00,0
00.0
0 R
epai
r Col
lect
ion
Syst
em
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0
Cen
tral P
oint
N
A
$3,5
00,0
00.0
0
Cla
tska
nie
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0 $4
,000
,000
.00
Grit
Rem
oval
Sys
tem
$1
00,0
00.0
0 Se
cond
ary
Cla
rifie
r $1
,400
,000
.00
Mec
hani
cal a
nd
UV
upg
rade
s $2
50,0
00.0
0
Col
umbi
a C
ity
Unk
now
n $3
,298
,340
.00
Coo
s Bay
$8
0,00
0,00
0.00
N
A
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt #
2 $2
4,00
0,00
0.00
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
# 2
$1
3,00
0,00
0.00
Pu
mp
Stat
ions
$2
5,00
0,00
0.00
20
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Coq
uille
$2
,000
,000
.00
$3,0
00,0
00.0
0 W
ater
line
R&
R
$200
,000
.00
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Pl
ant
$100
,000
.00
Cor
valli
s $4
0,00
0,00
0.00
$4
2,00
0,00
0.00
w
aste
wat
er p
rimar
y cl
arifi
ers
$7,1
76,8
30.0
0 sa
nita
ry se
wer
pip
e re
plac
emen
t $1
5,59
3,80
0.00
st
orm
wat
er sy
stem
pr
ojec
ts $9
,303
,200
.00
Cot
tage
G
rove
$2
5,00
0,00
0.00
$2
3,00
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er re
use
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0 D
iges
ter b
asin
ex
pans
ion
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0 Pl
ant u
pgra
des a
nd
equi
pmen
t re
plac
emen
t $7
50,0
00.0
0
Cre
swel
l $3
5,00
0,00
0.00
$7
,500
,000
.00
Upg
radi
ng
Was
tew
ater
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
$1
3,50
0,00
0.00
R
epla
cem
ent o
f fa
iling
por
tion
of
colle
ctio
n sy
stem
$2
0,50
0,00
0.00
Se
curin
g ad
ditio
nal
wat
er ri
ghts
$1
,200
,000
.00
Cul
ver
$5,5
00,0
00.0
0 N
A
Stor
mw
ater
Sys
tem
$5
,000
,000
.00
Rep
air/r
epla
ce se
wer
lin
es
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0
Dal
las
$7,5
00,0
00.0
0 $7
,500
,000
.00
Purc
hase
wat
ersh
ed.
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0 ex
pand
wat
er st
orag
e $2
,500
,000
.00
repa
ir/re
plac
e w
ater
pi
pelin
es
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0
Dam
ascu
s $1
38,0
19,0
00.0
0 $9
3,30
9,00
0.00
Day
ton
$10,
000,
000.
00
$10,
000,
000.
00
Rep
lace
Mai
n Pu
mp
Stat
ion
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0 R
epla
ce M
ain
Trun
k Se
wer
Mai
nlin
es
$900
,000
.00
Rep
lace
Hw
y 22
1 Pu
mp
Stat
ion
$900
,000
.00
Dep
oe B
ay
$10,
000,
000.
00
$6,0
00,0
00.0
0 W
aste
wat
er
$7,5
00,0
00.0
0 St
orm
wat
er
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0
D
etro
it $0
.00
$0.0
0 N
A
N
A
N
A
En
terp
rise
$17,
500,
000.
00
$20,
000,
000.
00
Esta
cada
$1
0,00
0,00
0.00
$7
5,00
0,00
0.00
St
orm
wat
er
impr
ovem
ents
$5
,000
,000
.00
Was
tew
ater
trea
tmen
t im
prov
emen
ts
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0
Euge
ne
$195
,000
,000
.00
A
3 C
hann
el W
ater
Q
ualit
y Im
prov
emen
ts
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0 M
ill S
treet
Wat
er
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ents
$5
00,0
00.0
0 R
oose
velt
Wat
er
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ents
$5
00,0
00.0
0
Falls
City
$3
,000
,000
.00
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0 B
uild
Lag
oons
$1
,750
,000
.00
Dec
omm
issi
on F
air
Oak
s Lift
Sta
tion
and
Car
ey C
ourt
$215
,000
.00
INI r
epla
ce ta
nks
$750
,000
.00
Flor
ence
$2
6,43
5,00
0.00
$7
,170
,000
.00
Cla
rifie
r #1
Reb
uild
$9
0,00
0.00
O
ld S
torm
wat
er
Proj
ect
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 H
arbo
r Vis
ta S
ewer
Ex
tens
ion
and
Pum
p St
atio
n $1
,000
,000
.00
Fore
st G
rove
$2
0,00
0,00
0.00
$4
0,00
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er M
aste
r Pl
an
$200
,000
.00
Firw
ood
Lane
Sa
nita
ry
Impr
ovem
ents
$6
35,0
00.0
0 St
orm
wat
er M
aste
r Pl
an
$150
,000
.00
Foss
il $4
00,0
00.0
0 $7
00,0
00.0
0 W
ater
Tre
atm
ent
$200
,000
.00
Gar
ibal
di
We
estim
ate
plus
or
min
us $
1,50
0,00
0
We
estim
ate
plus
or
min
us
$2,5
00,0
00
Rep
lace
tele
met
ry,
PLC
s, so
ftwar
e an
d ha
rdw
are
$250
,000
.00
Red
uce
Infil
tratio
n an
d in
flow
$5
00,0
00.0
0 R
epla
ce m
ains
with
PV
C p
ipe
$750
,000
.00
21
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Gat
es
Gol
d H
ill
$11,
250,
000.
00
$2,2
50,0
00.0
0 C
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
re
habi
litat
ion
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0 W
WTP
$8
,500
,000
.00
Gra
nite
$2
50,0
00.0
0 $2
50,0
00.0
0 w
ater
line
s $1
80,0
00.0
0 ne
w st
orag
e ta
nks
$5,0
00.0
0 ne
w w
ell
$30,
000.
00
Gra
nts P
ass
$50,
000,
000.
00
$80,
000,
000.
00
New
wat
er tr
eatm
ent
plan
t $5
5,60
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er
expa
nsio
n $2
0,00
0,00
0.00
St
orm
wat
er sy
stem
ex
pans
ion
$20,
000,
000.
00
Gre
enho
rn
$0.0
0 $2
50,0
00.0
0 no
ne
$0.0
0 no
ne
$0.0
0 no
ne
$0.0
0
Gre
sham
$2
0,00
0,00
0.00
$6
6,00
0,00
0.00
LI
D P
ract
ices
Ret
rofit
Pr
ogra
m
$350
,000
.00
UIC
Impl
emen
tatio
n &
reha
b $4
00,0
00.0
0 Fa
irvie
w C
reek
W
etla
nd M
itiga
tion
Ban
k $5
,000
,000
.00
Hal
fway
$1
75,0
00.0
0 $2
50,0
00.0
0
H
appy
Val
ley
Har
risbu
rg
$6,2
98,9
86.0
0 $9
,330
,100
.00
Riv
er B
ank
Prot
ectio
n $2
,340
,000
.00
Col
lect
ion
Syst
em
Pipe
impr
ovem
ents
$7
17,7
00.0
0 Pu
mp
stat
ion
Impr
ovem
ents
$7
00,0
00.0
0
Hep
pner
$1
,665
,000
.00
$665
,000
.00
lago
ons
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0 ca
nnon
/mat
lock
wat
er
pipe
$4
0,00
0.00
C
hase
and
Gal
e W
ater
pip
e re
plac
emen
t $1
25,0
00.0
0
Her
mis
ton
$10,
000,
000.
00
$10,
000,
000.
00
7th
St. B
ottle
neck
$8
00,0
00.0
0 H
wy
207
Indu
stria
l Ex
pans
ion
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 La
goon
Exp
ansi
on
$250
,000
.00
Idan
ha
$1
,000
,000
.00
wat
er tr
eatm
ent
plan
t& d
istri
butio
n sy
stem
$1
,000
,000
.00
Inde
pend
ence
$1
8,00
0,00
0.00
$6
,100
,000
.00
Reu
se
$4,0
00,0
00.0
0 Tr
eatm
ent
$9,0
00,0
00.0
0 co
llect
ion
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0
Irrig
on
$15,
000,
000.
00
$6,0
00,0
00.0
0 W
ater
Sto
rage
Tan
k re
hab
$800
,000
.00
Jack
sonv
ille
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 $6
,000
,000
.00
Rep
lace
asb
esto
s lin
es
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0 R
ebui
ld p
ump
stat
ions
$1
,000
,000
.00
Oth
er re
plac
emen
t ol
der l
ines
$2
,000
,000
.00
John
Day
$1
0,50
0,00
0.00
$4
,650
,000
.00
Junc
tion
City
$1
0,00
0,00
0.00
$8
,000
,000
.00
new
wat
er T
reat
men
t Pl
ant
$3,0
00,0
00.0
0 ad
ditio
n to
exi
stin
g w
ater
trea
tmen
t pla
nt
$500
,000
.00
stor
m w
ater
mas
ter
plan
$2
50,0
00.0
0
Kei
zer
$10,
000,
000.
00
$9,5
00,0
00.0
0 Sy
stem
Rep
airs
$3
,500
,000
.00
Syst
em U
pgra
des
$6,5
00,0
00.0
0
K
lam
ath
Falls
$6
0,00
0,00
0.00
$3
4,00
0,00
0.00
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
U
pgra
des
$25,
000,
000.
00
TMD
L C
ompl
ianc
e $1
5,00
0,00
0.00
Pi
pelin
e re
hab
$500
,000
.00
La P
ine
$6,0
00,0
00.0
0 $6
,000
,000
.00
Wat
er S
yste
m
Expa
nsio
n $5
,000
,000
.00
Sew
er S
yste
m
Expa
nsio
n $5
,000
,000
.00
New
W
ell/W
aste
wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Ex
pans
ion
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0
22
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Lafa
yette
$1
,900
,000
.00
$8,8
00,0
00.0
0 sl
udge
rem
oval
$1
,200
,000
.00
Vac
tor T
ruck
$2
00,0
00.0
0 Pu
mp
Stat
ions
and
m
aint
enan
ce
$500
,000
.00
Lake
Osw
ego
$20,
000,
000.
00
$10,
000,
000.
00
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Pl
ant,
Inta
ke,
Res
ervo
ir, a
nd
trans
mis
sion
$250
,000
,000
.00
I/I fo
r Was
tew
ater
$2
1,00
0,00
0.00
W
W T
reat
men
t Pl
ant (
porti
on)
$25,
000,
000.
00
Lake
side
$6
,500
,000
.00
NA
w
wtp
upg
rade
$4
,000
,000
.00
stor
mw
ater
syst
em
Unk
now
n w
wtp
mai
nten
ance
$3
,000
,000
.00
Leba
non
$10,
000,
000.
00
$40,
000,
000.
00
WW
TP M
aste
r Pla
n
$250
,000
.00
UIC
rem
oval
$2
,000
,000
.00
WW
TP P
ower
U
pgra
de
$1,2
00,0
00.0
0
Linc
oln
City
$3
0,00
0,00
0.00
$1
6,00
0,00
0.00
Fo
rce
Mai
n R
epla
cem
ent
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 R
oads
End
Sou
th
Pum
p St
atio
n U
pgra
de
$1,3
00,0
00.0
0 R
egat
ta P
ump
Stat
ion
Rep
lace
men
t $4
00,0
00.0
0
Lone
rock
U
nkno
wn
$0.0
0
Lo
ng C
reek
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n N
one
N
one
N
one
M
adra
s $3
3,00
0,00
0.00
$2
,202
,878
.00
N/A
NA
N/A
Mal
in
Mau
pin
McM
innv
ille
$59,
000,
000.
00
NA
Sy
stem
I&I r
educ
tion
$12,
700,
000.
00
Solid
s han
dlin
g ex
pans
ion
$27,
600,
000.
00
Terti
ary
treat
men
t ex
pans
ion
$2,8
00,0
00.0
0
Med
ford
M
ilton
-Fr
eew
ater
$8
,301
,334
.00
$3,2
26,0
00.0
0 R
epla
cem
ent o
f old
co
ncre
te se
wer
mai
ns.
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0 R
epla
cem
ent o
f old
co
ncre
te o
utfa
ll lin
e.
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0 Li
ft st
atio
n re
plac
emen
t $1
50,0
00.0
0
Milw
auki
e $4
,898
,300
.00
$23,
177,
000.
00
Will
ow D
eten
tion
Pond
Ret
rofit
$6
8,00
0.00
St
anle
y/W
illow
UIC
D
ecom
mis
sion
ing
$100
,200
.00
Mee
k St
reet
Fa
cilit
y $3
,088
,200
.00
Mon
mou
th
Mos
ier
$350
,000
.00
$670
,000
.00
Stor
m W
ater
Sys
tem
WW
TP
repa
irs/re
plac
emen
ts
$50,
000.
00
Mt.
Ang
el
NA
$0
.00
Mt.
Ver
non
NA
N
A
Myr
tle C
reek
$7
,000
,000
.00
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0 Li
ft St
atio
n $1
,000
,000
.00
Sew
er L
ine
Rep
lace
men
t $3
,000
,000
.00
Bio
-sol
ids D
ryer
R
epla
cem
ent
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0
New
berg
$3
0,00
0,00
0.00
$3
0,00
0,00
0.00
20
16 R
eser
voir
Hyd
raul
ic/M
ixin
g Im
prov
emen
ts
$500
,000
.00
2018
Chl
orin
e G
ener
atio
n U
pgra
des
$500
,000
.00
2028
Wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt
Expa
nsio
n $2
0,00
0,00
0.00
New
port
$32,
000,
000.
00
$10,
000,
000.
00
GA
C a
nd F
loc
Tank
A
utof
lush
ing
at W
ater
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
$1
14,7
52.0
0 Y
aqui
na H
ts T
ank
inte
rior r
e-co
atin
g $4
01,0
00.0
0 Em
erge
ncy
gene
rato
r at W
ater
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
$3
44,2
57.0
0
Nor
th B
end
NA
N
A
N/A
NA
N/A
23
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Nys
sa
$15,
000,
000.
00
$10,
000,
000.
00
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Fa
cilit
y $5
,500
,000
.00
Dis
tribu
tion
impr
ovem
ents
$1
,000
,000
.00
Oak
ridge
$3
,500
,000
.00
$4,6
00,0
00.0
0 I a
nd I
Sew
er
$2,5
00,0
00.0
0 St
orm
Wat
er
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0
Philo
mat
h $1
0,00
0,00
0.00
$1
4,00
0,00
0.00
19
52 C
oncr
ete
Line
R
epla
cem
ent
$6,0
00,0
00.0
0 Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
Ph
ase
III
$435
,000
.00
Bas
in A
6 Tr
unk
Impr
ovem
ents
$4
08,0
00.0
0
Port
Orfo
rd
$2,2
00,0
00.0
0 $1
3,50
0,00
0.00
R
epai
rs &
Upg
rade
s $7
20,0
00.0
0 R
epai
rs &
Upg
rade
s $1
,264
,270
.00
Portl
and
$2,5
00,0
00,0
00.0
0 $1
,600
,000
,000
.00
Pipe
Reh
ab
$500
,000
,000
.00
Col
umbi
a B
oule
vard
W
aste
wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt
Impr
ovem
ents
$100
,000
,000
.00
Tryo
n C
reek
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
Im
prov
emen
ts
$56,
000,
000.
00
Prin
evill
e $2
5,00
0,00
0.00
$3
0,00
0,00
0.00
In
terc
epto
rs
$20,
000,
000.
00
Pum
p St
atio
ns
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0
Red
mon
d $4
7,00
0,00
0.00
$3
4,00
0,00
0.00
N
A -
No
treat
men
t fa
cilit
ies.
Riv
ergr
ove
NA
N
A
Rog
ue R
iver
$1
,000
,000
.00
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0 W
TP P
re-T
reat
men
t Eq
uipm
ent
$34,
220.
00
1.2
Mill
ion
Gal
lon
Res
ervo
ir M
aint
enan
ce
$444
,161
.00
500,
000
Gal
lon
Res
ervo
ir R
epai
rs
$616
,216
.30
Ros
ebur
g $2
7,00
0,00
0.00
$2
5,00
0,00
0.00
St
orm
wat
er D
eten
tion
$6,0
00,0
00.0
0 St
orm
wat
er W
Q
Man
hole
s $1
,000
,000
.00
Stor
mw
ater
C
apac
ity
$20,
000,
000.
00
Sale
m
$65,
000,
000.
00
$125
,000
,000
.00
Ger
en Is
land
In
take
/dam
re
plac
emen
t $1
3,50
0,00
0.00
R
ehab
. Tra
nsm
issi
on
Pipi
ng to
Sal
em
$21,
000,
000.
00
Add
ition
al
Tran
smis
sion
to
Sale
m
$25,
000,
000.
00
Sand
y $2
0,00
0,00
0.00
$1
0,00
0,00
0.00
Ex
pand
WW
TP
$15,
000,
000.
00
Rep
lace
col
lect
ion
syst
em p
ipin
g $5
,000
,000
.00
Sene
ca
$50,
000.
00
$400
,000
.00
Rep
airs
/Mai
nten
ance
$5
0,00
0.00
Sh
ady
Cov
e
Sher
woo
d $1
0,00
0,00
0.00
$3
4,48
0,00
0.00
W
ater
Tre
atm
ent
Plan
t sur
ge /
clea
r w
ell i
mpr
ovem
ent
$1,0
00,0
00.0
0 Pu
rcha
se C
apac
ity o
f ex
istin
g tre
atm
ent
plan
t $2
,000
,000
.00
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Pl
ant E
xpan
sion
$7,7
00,0
00.0
0
Silv
erto
n $2
6,00
0,00
0.00
$3
6,00
0,00
0.00
So
lids H
andl
ing
@
sew
er T
reat
men
t Pla
nt
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0 O
lson
s Ditc
h (s
torm
wat
er)
$500
,000
.00
Nor
th S
ilver
ton
Stor
mw
ater
Im
prov
emen
ts
$2,0
00,0
00.0
0
Sist
ers
$1,6
35,2
42.0
0
'''''''
Wel
l I Im
prov
emen
ts
$335
,500
.00
8” W
ater
, EO
P, E
C
asca
de to
Bla
ck
But
te A
ve
$555
,000
.00
8” W
ater
– O
ak
Stre
et, M
ain
Ave
nue
to A
dam
s A
venu
e
$65,
000.
00
Soda
ville
$0
.00
$1,5
00,0
00.0
0
Sp
ringf
ield
24
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
St. H
elen
s $2
5,00
0,00
0.00
$1
3,70
0,00
0.00
U
pgra
de/m
ove
WW
TP
$25,
000,
000.
00
St. P
aul
$5,0
00,0
00.0
0 $2
,000
,000
.00
WTP
Upg
rade
$1
,000
,000
.00
Dis
tribu
tion
Syst
em
Upg
rade
$3
,000
,000
.00
Ars
enic
Tre
atm
ent
Syst
em
$500
,000
.00
Sum
mer
ville
$0
.00
$0.0
0 N
one
Suth
erlin
$1
8,20
0,00
0.00
$1
,600
,000
.00
Was
tew
ater
Tr
eatm
ent F
acili
ty
Upg
rade
$1
8,20
0,00
0.00
R
euse
$3
,700
,000
.00
Col
lect
ions
syst
em
impr
ovem
ents
$1
,250
,000
.00
Swee
t Hom
e $4
0,00
0,00
0.00
$1
0,00
0,00
0.00
Tr
eatm
ent P
lant
U
pgra
de fo
r C
ompl
ianc
e is
sues
$4
0,00
0,00
0.00
Tang
ent
$2,7
00,0
00.0
0 $7
,000
,000
.00
Cul
vert
Mod
ifica
tion
$46,
000.
00
Cor
e A
rea
Stor
m
Sew
er
$986
,000
.00
We
don’
t see
m to
ha
ve a
wat
er su
pply
is
sue.
The
Fire
D
epar
tmen
t, w
ho
has t
heir
own
dist
rict,
has
inve
sted
in st
orag
e ta
nks a
ll ar
ound
the
city
.
The
Dal
les
$4,3
00,0
00.0
0 $4
7,00
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Pla
nt
upgr
ades
$1
5,00
0,00
0.00
St
orm
wat
er c
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
enh
ance
men
ts
$17,
300,
000.
00
Stre
am te
mpe
ratu
re
miti
gatio
n $1
,300
,000
.00
Tiga
rd
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Trou
tdal
e $2
70,0
00.0
0 $6
,400
,000
.00
Stra
wbe
rry
Mea
dow
s D
eten
tion
Pond
R
etro
fit
$100
,000
.00
Stua
rt R
idge
D
eten
tion
Pond
R
etro
fit
$71,
000.
00
Wel
l 8 V
ideo
and
R
ehab
$1
00,0
00.0
0
Uki
ah
$0.0
0 $0
.00
none
$0
.00
none
$0
.00
none
$0
.00
Val
e $1
,000
,000
.00
$10,
000,
000.
00
Was
tew
ater
Sys
tem
R
epai
r $3
00,0
00.0
0 W
aste
wat
er tr
eatm
ent
repa
ir $4
00,0
00.0
0
Was
co
$0.0
0 $0
.00
$0
.00
Wat
erlo
o $0
.00
$0.0
0
Wes
t Lin
n $2
0,00
0,00
0.00
$2
5,00
0,00
0.00
cu
red
in p
lace
pip
e re
habi
litat
ion
$10,
000,
000.
00
Nor
th si
de I-
205
sew
er p
ipe
repl
acem
ent
$600
,000
.00
John
son
Pum
p St
atio
n $5
00,0
00.0
0
Wes
t Lin
n $1
,000
,000
.00
$20,
000,
000.
00
Mis
cella
neou
s $1
,000
,000
.00
Wils
onvi
lle
$102
,700
,000
.00
$42,
800,
000.
00
Mem
oria
l Par
k Pu
mp
Stat
ion
Rep
lace
men
t $5
,100
,000
.00
Boe
ckm
an C
reek
Tr
unk
Rep
lace
men
t $7
,500
,000
.00
Cof
fee
and
Bas
alt
Cre
ek In
terc
epto
r $9
,600
,000
.00
25
City
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
oney
muc
h do
es y
our
city
an
ticip
ate
it w
ill
need
to sp
end
Ove
r th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0) y
ears
, ho
w m
uch
mon
ey
does
you
r ci
ty
antic
ipat
e it
will
ne
ed to
spen
d
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#1
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal i
mpr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#2
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
Wat
er
Qua
lity
rela
ted
capi
tal
impr
ovem
ent
proj
ects
#3
Plea
se li
st y
our
city
's T
op 3
W
ater
Q
ualit
y re
late
d ca
pita
l im
prov
emen
t pr
ojec
ts
(Est
imat
e)
and
Trun
k Pi
pelin
es
Woo
d V
illag
e $3
,210
,300
.00
$5,4
50,6
00.0
0 C
edar
Lan
e $4
55,6
00.0
0 N
E 23
6 $2
11,6
00.0
0 N
o N
ame
Cre
ek
$397
,300
.00
Woo
dbur
n $3
5,00
0,00
0.00
$1
5,00
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er P
lant
U
pgra
de
$12,
000,
000.
00
Wat
er T
reat
men
t Ex
pans
ion
$2,4
00,0
00.0
0 W
ater
Pla
nt W
est
$3,5
00,0
00.0
0
Yac
hats
$7
41,7
09.0
0 $5
,334
,775
.00
I & I
Reh
ab
$125
,000
.00
SCA
DA
Rep
lace
men
t $3
0,00
0.00
W
aste
wat
er M
aste
r Pl
an
$80,
000.
00
City
How
muc
h m
oney
di
d yo
ur c
ity sp
end
in F
Y20
14-1
5 fo
r w
ater
con
serv
atio
n ed
ucat
ion?
How
muc
h di
d yo
ur
city
spen
d in
FY
2014
-15
for
wat
er
cons
erva
tion
as it
re
late
s to
syst
em
effic
ienc
y?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
fore
see
a fu
ture
ne
ed fo
r a
wat
er
stor
age
proj
ect
in th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0)
year
s?
Wou
ld th
is b
e ab
ove
grou
nd
or b
elow
gr
ound
wat
er
stor
age?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty h
ave
a fa
cilit
ies
plan
?
Wha
t yea
r w
as
your
city
's
faci
litie
s pla
n la
st u
pdat
ed?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
your
city
's li
mits
?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
the
Urb
an G
row
th
Bou
ndar
y?
Ada
ms
$0.0
0 $2
0,00
0.00
N
o
No
15
0 0
Alb
any
$30,
000.
00
$1,5
70,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2015
A
mity
$3
00.0
0 $5
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
0
10
Ant
elop
e $0
.00
$12,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
No
39
38
A
shla
nd
$183
,179
.00
$42,
230.
83
Yes
U
nsur
e Y
es
1977
2
Unk
now
n A
stor
ia
$0.0
0 $2
50,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
1996
Le
ss th
an 1
0 Le
ss th
an 1
0 A
then
a $0
.00
$200
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15
0 0
Bak
er C
ity
$2,0
00.0
0 $2
7,50
0.00
Y
es
Bel
ow G
roun
d Y
es
2016
25
50
B
anks
$1
,500
.00
$20,
000.
00
Yes
U
nsur
e N
o
Bea
verto
n $5
5,00
0.00
$2
,000
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
No
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n B
end
$32,
500.
00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
33
00
3300
B
oard
man
M
aybe
U
nsur
e Y
es
2015
0
88
Bon
anza
$0
.00
$0.0
0 M
aybe
May
be
1
0
Bro
okin
gs
none
$4
4,20
0.00
Y
es
Bel
ow G
roun
d Y
es
Wat
er 2
014,
W
aste
wat
er
2015
, Sto
rm
Dra
in 2
016
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Bro
wns
ville
N
A
$300
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
10
0 30
B
urns
$0
.00
$0.0
0 N
o
No
0
10
Can
yonv
ille
$0.0
0
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
13
0 11
26
City
How
muc
h m
oney
di
d yo
ur c
ity sp
end
in F
Y20
14-1
5 fo
r w
ater
con
serv
atio
n ed
ucat
ion?
How
muc
h di
d yo
ur
city
spen
d in
FY
2014
-15
for
wat
er
cons
erva
tion
as it
re
late
s to
syst
em
effic
ienc
y?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
fore
see
a fu
ture
ne
ed fo
r a
wat
er
stor
age
proj
ect
in th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0)
year
s?
Wou
ld th
is b
e ab
ove
grou
nd
or b
elow
gr
ound
wat
er
stor
age?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty h
ave
a fa
cilit
ies
plan
?
Wha
t yea
r w
as
your
city
's
faci
litie
s pla
n la
st u
pdat
ed?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
your
city
's li
mits
?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
the
Urb
an G
row
th
Bou
ndar
y?
Cas
cade
Lo
cks
$500
.00
$10,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
14
0 0
Cen
tral P
oint
$5
,000
.00
$100
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
09
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Cla
tska
nie
$1,5
00.0
0 $7
5,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2007
0
85
Col
umbi
a C
ity
$1,0
00.0
0 $1
30,0
00.0
0 N
o
Yes
20
13
2 10
Coo
s Bay
N
A
NA
M
aybe
Yes
20
12
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Coq
uille
$0
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2008
64
U
nkno
wn
Cor
valli
s $1
4,50
0.00
$3
25,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2000
0
Unk
now
n C
otta
ge
Gro
ve
$25,
000.
00
$450
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15
5 15
4
Cre
swel
l $0
.00
$58,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
04
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Cul
ver
$0.0
0 $1
,500
.00
No
N
o
0 0
Dal
las
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
Dam
ascu
s $0
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Uns
ure
No
25
00
2500
D
ayto
n $5
,000
.00
$7,0
00.0
0 M
aybe
Yes
20
11
0 D
on't
know
. D
epoe
Bay
M
inim
al
$22,
250.
00
May
be
Y
es
2010
11
11
D
etro
it $0
.00
$3,0
00.0
0 M
aybe
Yes
20
08
380
0 En
terp
rise
$0.0
0 $0
.00
No
Y
es
2012
12
2
Esta
cada
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2008
Euge
ne
Yes
20
14
Ther
e ar
e ap
prox
imat
ely
100
prop
ertie
s with
in th
e ci
ty li
mits
that
app
ear
to b
e on
sept
ic sy
stem
s.
Unk
now
n
Falls
City
$5
00.0
0 $1
5,00
0.00
Y
es
Uns
ure
Yes
20
16
250
0 Fl
oren
ce
$10,
000.
00
$85,
500.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
10
10
3500
Fo
rest
Gro
ve
$1,8
00.0
0 $3
21,5
00.0
0 Y
es
Uns
ure
Yes
20
10
297
69
Foss
il $1
,500
.00
$12,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15
1 1
Gar
ibal
di
$0.0
0 $2
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2004
ze
ro
two
Gat
es
Gol
d H
ill
$7,5
00.0
0 $6
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2015
0
15
Gra
nite
$0
.00
$5,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d M
aybe
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Gra
nts P
ass
$5,0
00.0
0 $3
00,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n G
reen
horn
$0
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Bel
ow G
roun
d Y
es
2015
11
0
Gre
sham
$6
,000
.00
$62,
879.
22
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
298
5 H
alfw
ay
$0.0
0 $0
.00
May
be
N
o
0 15
H
appy
Val
ley
Har
risbu
rg
$14,
351.
00
$246
,969
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
08
0 U
nkno
wn
27
City
How
muc
h m
oney
di
d yo
ur c
ity sp
end
in F
Y20
14-1
5 fo
r w
ater
con
serv
atio
n ed
ucat
ion?
How
muc
h di
d yo
ur
city
spen
d in
FY
2014
-15
for
wat
er
cons
erva
tion
as it
re
late
s to
syst
em
effic
ienc
y?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
fore
see
a fu
ture
ne
ed fo
r a
wat
er
stor
age
proj
ect
in th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0)
year
s?
Wou
ld th
is b
e ab
ove
grou
nd
or b
elow
gr
ound
wat
er
stor
age?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty h
ave
a fa
cilit
ies
plan
?
Wha
t yea
r w
as
your
city
's
faci
litie
s pla
n la
st u
pdat
ed?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
your
city
's li
mits
?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
the
Urb
an G
row
th
Bou
ndar
y?
Hep
pner
$0
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2007
3
13
Her
mis
ton
$20,
000.
00
$100
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
19
96
200
720
Idan
ha
May
be
Y
es
2013
90
Inde
pend
ence
$3
,000
.00
$350
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Irrig
on
$30,
000.
00
$0.0
0 M
aybe
No
0
26
Jack
sonv
ille
$10,
000.
00
$4,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Bel
ow G
roun
d Y
es
2012
Jo
hn D
ay
$15,
000.
00
NA
N
o
Yes
20
01
5 85
Ju
nctio
n C
ity
$500
.00
$15,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
13
75
Unk
now
n K
eize
r $5
,000
.00
$400
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
May
be
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
Kla
mat
h Fa
lls
$2,4
41.0
0 $1
,300
,000
.00
Yes
U
nsur
e Y
es
Wat
er –
201
0 W
aste
wat
er
Col
lect
ions
–
2015
W
aste
wat
er
Trea
tmen
t - 2
009
Unk
now
n.
Unk
now
n
La P
ine
May
be
Y
es
2015
25
0 25
0 La
faye
tte
$1,0
00.0
0 $1
15,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2007
10
10
La
ke O
sweg
o $4
0,00
0.00
$4
00,0
00.0
0 N
o
Yes
20
15
200
800
Lake
side
$0
.00
NA
M
aybe
No
0
NA
Le
bano
n $0
.00
$200
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
07
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Linc
oln
City
$5
00.0
0 $1
,000
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
01
250
500
Lone
rock
$0
.00
$0.0
0 M
aybe
May
be
NA
Lo
ng C
reek
$1,0
00.0
0 N
o
Yes
20
15
1 0
Mad
ras
$0.0
0 $4
,725
.00
No
Y
es
2014
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n M
alin
M
aupi
n
M
cMin
nvill
e N
A
NA
Y
es
2009
M
edfo
rd
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Milt
on-
Free
wat
er
$2,0
00.0
0 $1
1,00
0.00
N
o
Yes
20
15
0 U
nkno
wn
Milw
auki
e $5
,000
.00
$514
,151
.00
No
Y
es
2010
1
100
Mon
mou
th
Mos
ier
Unk
now
n $1
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2016
1
1 M
t. A
ngel
N
A
$70,
000.
00
No
Y
es
2002
0
15
Mt.
Ver
non
May
be
M
aybe
1 1
Myr
tle C
reek
$0
.00
$91,
000.
00
May
be
Y
es
2016
5
50
New
berg
$5
,000
.00
$75,
000.
00
Yes
U
nsur
e Y
es
2004
Wat
er
Dis
tribu
tion
Syst
em P
lan
none
A
ppro
xim
atel
y 30
to
40.
28
City
How
muc
h m
oney
di
d yo
ur c
ity sp
end
in F
Y20
14-1
5 fo
r w
ater
con
serv
atio
n ed
ucat
ion?
How
muc
h di
d yo
ur
city
spen
d in
FY
2014
-15
for
wat
er
cons
erva
tion
as it
re
late
s to
syst
em
effic
ienc
y?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
fore
see
a fu
ture
ne
ed fo
r a
wat
er
stor
age
proj
ect
in th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0)
year
s?
Wou
ld th
is b
e ab
ove
grou
nd
or b
elow
gr
ound
wat
er
stor
age?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty h
ave
a fa
cilit
ies
plan
?
Wha
t yea
r w
as
your
city
's
faci
litie
s pla
n la
st u
pdat
ed?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
your
city
's li
mits
?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
the
Urb
an G
row
th
Bou
ndar
y?
2002
Wat
er
Trea
tmen
t Fa
cilit
ies P
lan
New
port
$0.0
0 $3
3,47
3.47
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d M
aybe
Nor
th B
end
NA
N
A
May
be
N
o
0 6
Nys
sa
$0.0
0 $2
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2010
4
50
Oak
ridge
$1
,000
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2010
40
80
Ph
ilom
ath
$200
.00
$22,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
04
1 1
Port
Orfo
rd
$0.0
0 $0
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15- F
acili
ties
Plan
and
Wat
er
Mas
ter P
lan
4253
0 U
nkno
wn
Portl
and
$240
,000
.00
$875
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
16
2000
50
0 Pr
inev
ille
$10,
000.
00
$100
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
12
200
1000
R
edm
ond
$2,0
00.0
0 $1
,300
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
14
380
110
Riv
ergr
ove
N
A
May
be
N
o
Unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Rog
ue R
iver
$2
2,00
0.00
$1
6,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
0
88
Ros
ebur
g $0
.00
$1,9
09,8
23.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2007
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
Sale
m
$4,2
80.0
0
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
07
674
This
dat
a is
not
av
aila
ble.
Sa
ndy
$7,0
00.0
0 $0
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
19
98
150
90
Sene
ca
$0.0
0 $1
0,00
0.00
N
o
No
1
0 Sh
ady
Cov
e
M
aybe
Sher
woo
d $1
2,50
0.00
$6
13,2
00.0
0 N
o
No
40
N
A
Silv
erto
n
$400
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
12
25
Unk
now
n Si
ster
s $2
00.0
0
1750
0
2016
0
0 So
davi
lle
$500
.00
$1,3
80.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
15
1 15
1 Sp
ringf
ield
St
. Hel
ens
$1,0
00.0
0 $1
75,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
1999
16
U
nkno
wn
St. P
aul
$1,0
00.0
0 $2
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Uns
ure
Yes
19
81
11
11
Sum
mer
ville
$0
.00
$0.0
0 M
aybe
No
47
49
Suth
erlin
$0
.00
$270
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
1. W
ater
Mas
ter
Plan
20
06
2. W
aste
wat
er
Mas
ter P
lan
20
13
3. S
torm
Wat
er
Mas
ter P
lan
20
14
115
STEP
syst
ems
75 S
tep
syst
ems
Swee
t Hom
e $5
,000
.00
$300
,000
.00
No
Y
es
2016
NA
29
City
How
muc
h m
oney
di
d yo
ur c
ity sp
end
in F
Y20
14-1
5 fo
r w
ater
con
serv
atio
n ed
ucat
ion?
How
muc
h di
d yo
ur
city
spen
d in
FY
2014
-15
for
wat
er
cons
erva
tion
as it
re
late
s to
syst
em
effic
ienc
y?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
fore
see
a fu
ture
ne
ed fo
r a
wat
er
stor
age
proj
ect
in th
e ne
xt
twen
ty (2
0)
year
s?
Wou
ld th
is b
e ab
ove
grou
nd
or b
elow
gr
ound
wat
er
stor
age?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty h
ave
a fa
cilit
ies
plan
?
Wha
t yea
r w
as
your
city
's
faci
litie
s pla
n la
st u
pdat
ed?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
your
city
's li
mits
?
How
man
y se
ptic
sy
stem
s are
with
in
the
Urb
an G
row
th
Bou
ndar
y?
Tang
ent
The
Dal
les
$6,0
00.0
0 $4
9,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2012
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n Ti
gard
Y
es
Uns
ure
May
be
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
Trou
tdal
e $3
,000
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
4187
8 W
e do
n't t
rack
this
th
ere
are
very
few
m
aybe
a d
ozen
at m
ost
We
do n
ot h
ave
a co
unt f
or th
is
Uki
ah
$0.0
0 $0
.00
No
Y
es
2005
0
0 V
ale
$25,
000.
00
$20,
000.
00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
15
unk
now
n U
nkno
wn
Was
co
$15,
000.
00
N
o
Yes
20
05
0 0
Wat
erlo
o $0
.00
$0.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d N
o
90
0 W
est L
inn
$65,
000.
00
$125
,000
.00
Yes
A
bove
Gro
und
Yes
20
08
10
1000
W
est L
inn
Min
imal
$5
00,0
00.0
0 Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2008
20
20
0 W
ilson
ville
$2
,000
.00
Unk
now
n Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2014
44
68
W
ood
Vill
age
$17,
500.
00
$201
,900
.00
No
Y
es
2014
8
NA
W
oodb
urn
$7,5
00.0
0 $5
0,00
0.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2010
U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n Y
acha
ts
Min
imal
$6
5,96
7.00
Y
es
Abo
ve G
roun
d Y
es
2002
6
6
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
Ada
ms
Non
e N
o
Alb
any
Exte
nsio
n of
infra
stru
ctur
e is
prim
arily
dev
elop
men
t driv
en, s
o co
nstru
ctio
n co
st of
the
exte
nsio
ns th
emse
lves
is
not t
ypic
ally
a b
arrie
r fro
m th
e C
ity’s
per
spec
tive.
Ade
quat
e ca
paci
ty o
f exi
stin
g in
frast
ruct
ure
to se
rve
the
addi
tiona
l dem
and
can
be a
bar
rier d
epen
ding
on
whe
re th
e ex
tens
ion
of se
rvic
e is
requ
este
d.
No
Am
ity
Wat
er p
ress
ure
at lo
catio
n / C
apac
ity o
f was
tew
ater
lift
stat
ion
No
A
ntel
ope
Doe
sn't
appl
y to
Ant
elop
e as
our
UG
B is
SM
ALL
ER th
an th
e C
ity L
imits
N
o
Ash
land
D
evel
opm
ent d
riven
N
o
Ast
oria
Sl
ide
area
s, to
pogr
aphy
and
Infra
stru
ctur
e lim
itatio
ns
No
Ath
ena
Mos
t of t
he la
nd in
the
Urb
an G
row
th B
ound
ary
is o
wne
d by
farm
ers,
who
are
unw
illin
g to
sell
prop
erty
for
hous
ing.
N
o
Bak
er C
ity
Hig
h co
sts a
nd la
ck o
f dev
elop
men
t dem
and
No
B
anks
No
B
eave
rton
Fund
ing,
Juris
dict
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ties
Uns
ure
Ben
d W
ater
Infr
astru
ctur
e - C
apita
l cos
t of e
xten
sion
s and
on-
goin
g op
erat
ion
and
mai
nten
ance
cos
ts T
rans
porta
tion.
Th
e pl
anni
ng p
erio
d fo
r the
Ben
d U
GB
goe
s onl
y to
202
8. C
onse
quen
tly, t
he c
ity w
ill b
e in
ano
ther
UG
B
upda
te p
roce
ss so
on a
fter i
t sub
mits
the
curr
ent U
GB
pro
posa
l to
the
stat
e Ju
ne 2
016.
• F
undi
ng—
mus
t cre
ate
No
30
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
fund
ing
polic
ies a
nd st
rate
gies
to im
plem
ent a
nd p
hase
the
trans
porta
tion
syst
em in
the
UG
B •
Con
cept
Pla
ns
and
Ref
inem
ent P
lans
--m
ust c
reat
e la
nd u
se a
nd tr
ansp
orta
tion
conc
ept a
nd re
finem
ent p
lans
for t
he a
reas
in
the
UG
B b
ut c
urre
ntly
out
side
the
city
lim
its •
Urb
an R
eser
ve P
lans
-cre
ate
new
urb
an re
serv
e pl
ans a
nd b
egin
ne
xt U
GB
upd
ate
• Upd
ate
the
Tran
spor
tatio
n Sy
stem
Pla
n (T
SP) -
-- w
ith th
e m
ajor
UG
B e
xpan
sion
whi
ch
incl
udes
sign
ifica
nt tr
ansp
orta
tion
plan
ning
insi
de th
e U
GB
the
TSP
shou
ld b
e up
date
d. T
he su
bseq
uent
pl
anni
ng m
entio
ned
abov
e re
quire
s sig
nific
ant p
lann
ing
fund
s in
the
rang
e of
$50
0,00
0 to
$2,
000,
000
for e
ach
of th
e ab
ove
men
tione
d bu
llets
.
Boa
rdm
an
Ann
exat
ion
resi
stan
ce o
f tho
se c
itize
ns in
the
UG
B, a
nd c
ost t
o ex
istin
g ci
tizen
s whi
ch a
re n
ot b
enef
ited
are
the
barr
iers
and
con
side
ratio
ns.
No
Bon
anza
N
one
No
B
rook
ings
Po
litic
al o
ppos
ition
. Ex
iste
nce
of a
Peo
ples
Wat
er U
tility
Dis
trict
with
in th
e U
GB
. N
o
Bro
wns
ville
D
evel
opm
ent i
s not
cur
rent
ly lo
okin
g in
the
UG
B a
reas
. Bar
riers
wou
ld b
e co
sts e
ven
with
priv
ate
deve
lope
rs
inst
allin
g in
frast
ruct
ure.
N
o
Bur
ns
not n
eede
d at
this
poi
nt
Yes
U
nkno
wn
at th
is ti
me.
Tr
ying
to g
et th
e le
vee
certi
fied.
C
anyo
nvill
e m
oney
N
o
Cas
cade
Lo
cks
Our
UG
B is
ver
y sm
all a
nd li
mite
d by
the
Nat
iona
l Sce
nic
Are
a (C
olum
bia
Riv
er G
orge
). W
e ca
n ad
equa
tely
se
rvic
e th
e C
ity a
nd th
e U
GB
. N
o
Cen
tral P
oint
Th
ere
are
curr
ently
no
issu
es w
ith e
xten
sion
s of s
ervi
ce w
ithin
our
UG
B.
No
Cla
tska
nie
Topo
grap
hic
cons
train
ts, a
vaila
bilit
y of
wat
er st
orag
e fa
cilit
ies,
lack
of g
row
th d
eman
d, q
uest
iona
ble
popu
lar
supp
ort f
or in
vest
men
t req
uire
d, a
nd p
oten
tial r
etur
n on
that
inve
stm
ent.
No
Col
umbi
a C
ity
We
don'
t ext
end
serv
ices
unl
ess t
hey
ente
r int
o a
cont
ract
of a
nnex
atio
n N
o
Coo
s Bay
Th
e C
ity's
UG
B is
the
curr
ent C
ity li
mits
, thu
s no
cons
ider
atio
n an
d/or
bar
riers
. N
o
Coq
uille
C
ost,
capa
city
, top
ogra
phy,
dem
and.
N
o
Cor
valli
s In
frast
ruct
ure
expa
nsio
n is
pai
d fo
r by
deve
lopm
ent,
the
City
has
no
cont
rol o
ver d
evel
opm
ent o
utsi
de th
e ci
ty
limits
. Rev
enue
s gen
erat
ed fr
om u
ser f
ees a
re p
redi
cate
d on
the
oper
atio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f the
cur
rent
sy
stem
, not
on
expa
nsio
n. S
o no
cap
acity
with
in re
venu
e st
ream
s to
fund
exp
ansi
on.
No
Cot
tage
G
rove
C
ost,
flood
zon
e co
nsid
erat
ions
, wet
land
issu
es, n
eed
for p
ump
and
lift s
tatio
ns.
No
Cre
swel
l D
epth
of s
ewer
line
is 2
3 fe
et a
nd to
o ex
pens
ive
for d
evel
oper
s to
acce
ss.
The
sew
er sy
stem
on
the
east
side
of
the
city
is o
wne
d by
a p
rivat
e de
velo
pmen
t com
pany
and
not
par
t of t
he c
ity's
sew
er in
frast
ruct
ure.
Lac
k of
fu
ndin
g is
a b
arrie
r to
exte
ndin
g in
frast
ruct
ure.
N
o
Cul
ver
Ther
e ar
e no
stru
ctur
es in
the
city
's U
GB
. N
o
Dal
las
Dam
ascu
s C
osts
, ina
bilit
y to
get
vot
er a
ppro
val o
f a c
ompr
ehen
sive
pla
n an
d ci
ty c
harte
r spe
ndin
g lim
it an
d re
quire
men
t fo
r vot
er a
ppro
val o
f SD
Cs.
N
o
Day
ton
Cos
t N
o
Dep
oe B
ay
N/A
N
o
Det
roit
NA
N
o
Ente
rpris
e O
ur u
rban
Gro
wth
are
a is
cur
rent
ly se
rved
N
o
Esta
cada
No
31
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
Euge
ne
Fina
ncia
l and
pop
ulat
ion
grow
th/d
evel
opm
ent p
ress
ure:
Can
we
affo
rd to
ext
end
it? I
s the
re e
noug
h de
man
d fo
r ser
vice
s in
the
parti
cula
r are
a th
at w
ill h
elp
pay
for i
t? W
ill it
giv
e us
the
mos
t ban
g fo
r the
buc
k in
this
tim
e of
shrin
king
bud
gets
? Is
it in
alig
nmen
t with
our
gro
wth
man
agem
ent g
oals
? /
Equ
ity: A
re w
e di
strib
utin
g in
frast
ruct
ure
equi
tabi
lity
with
in th
e U
GB
? / B
arrie
rs: c
osts
, top
ogra
phy,
nat
ural
reso
urce
pro
ject
ions
, ava
ilabl
e la
nd/ri
ght o
f way
with
in to
ext
end
infra
stru
ctur
e. /
Yes
Th
e es
timat
ed c
ost i
s $5,
600
annu
ally
Falls
City
N
eed
to c
reat
e a
new
bou
ndar
y.
No
Flor
ence
The
City
has
a 'n
o fo
rced
ann
exat
ion'
pol
icy
whi
ch h
as h
ampe
red
the
abili
ty o
f will
ing
prop
erty
ow
ners
in
anne
into
the
City
. A
dditi
onal
ly, a
larg
e po
rtion
of t
he U
GB
will
rely
upo
n gr
avity
col
lect
ion
syst
em a
nd
the
use
of re
gion
al p
umpi
ng fa
cilit
ies w
hich
driv
es th
e pr
opor
tiona
l cos
ts h
ighe
r tha
n a
stan
dard
gra
vity
co
llect
ion
syst
em.
No
Fore
st G
rove
O
ur c
urre
nt c
odes
requ
ire d
evel
opm
ent t
o ex
tend
the
publ
ic in
frast
ruct
ure
to a
nd th
roug
h a
deve
lopm
ent.
N
o
Foss
il W
e w
ould
love
to h
ave
mor
e in
fras
truct
ure,
but
we
have
to fi
nd a
noth
er w
ater
supp
ly a
nd u
pdat
e an
d re
pair
our
agin
g w
aste
wat
er sy
stem
in o
rder
to a
ccom
mod
ate
mor
e in
frast
ruct
ure
No
Gar
ibal
di
Lift
stat
ions
to th
e ea
st a
nd w
est
No
G
ates
Gol
d H
ill
We
wan
t to
expa
nd a
nd ta
ke in
the
othe
r sid
e of
the
river
whe
re th
ere
is si
gnifi
cant
faili
ng se
ptic
syst
ems.
the
DLC
D p
roce
ss a
nd p
eopl
e no
t wan
ting
to b
eing
in U
GB
N
o
Gra
nite
$0
.00
No
G
rant
s Pas
s Pr
imar
ily fi
nanc
ial.
N
o
Gre
enho
rn
N\A
-No
UG
B
No
G
resh
am
City
pla
ns to
ext
end
serv
ices
whe
n de
velo
pmen
t pay
s SD
Cs.
N
o
Hal
fway
fu
ndin
g N
o
Hap
py V
alle
y
Har
risbu
rg
Cos
t vs.
reve
nue
No
H
eppn
er
cost
and
ele
vatio
n N
o
Her
mis
ton
We
requ
ire a
nnex
atio
n in
ord
er to
rece
ive
city
wat
er o
r sew
er.
No
Id
anha
No
In
depe
nden
ce
Fede
ral a
nd S
tate
regu
latio
n of
nat
ural
reso
urce
s (w
etla
nds,
etc.
) N
o
Irrig
on
We
are
not e
xten
ding
unt
il "a
ll" it
ems (
issu
es) w
ithin
the
City
are
fixe
d.
No
Ja
ckso
nvill
e no
ne ri
ght n
ow
No
Jo
hn D
ay
Mon
ey
No
Ju
nctio
n C
ity
The
city
has
no
plan
at t
his p
oint
to e
xten
d to
the
Urb
an G
row
th B
ound
ary
No
Kei
zer
Infra
stru
ctur
e is
cur
rent
ly a
vaila
ble
for a
ll ar
eas i
nsid
e th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
Bou
ndar
y.
Yes
M
inim
al b
ecau
se it
is a
n ea
rthen
leve
e,
abou
t $5,
000
per y
ear.
Kla
mat
h Fa
lls
Wat
er is
alre
ady
exte
nded
into
the
UG
B.
Add
ition
al p
ipel
ine
cons
truct
ion
wou
ld li
kely
be
deve
lopm
ent d
riven
. Th
e ci
ty is
look
ing
at st
orag
e in
the
UG
B b
ut th
is m
ay n
ot b
e re
quire
d.
Th
e ar
ea o
utsi
de o
f the
City
lim
its a
nd w
ithin
the
UG
B is
serv
iced
by
anot
her s
ewer
age
agen
cy.
No
La P
ine
Fund
ing
No
La
faye
tte
The
only
hur
dle
is re
gard
ing
timin
g of
impr
ovem
ents
with
ann
exat
ion.
N
o
Lake
Osw
ego
Ann
exat
ion
is n
ot p
oliti
cally
acc
epta
ble,
unl
ess r
eque
sted
by
indi
vidu
al p
rope
rties
. N
o
32
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
Lake
side
Li
ttle
cons
ider
atio
n. W
e ha
ve a
vaila
ble
land
. Sur
roun
ding
ava
ilabl
e la
nd is
pre
tty d
arn
stee
p. N
ot v
ery
prac
tical
fo
r dev
elop
men
t. N
o
Leba
non
Util
ity e
xpan
sion
s are
typi
cally
com
plet
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t as i
t occ
urs.
Bar
riers
wou
ld b
e gr
owth
. N
o
Linc
oln
City
cu
rren
tly se
rve
wat
er o
utsi
de c
ity li
mits
, con
side
ring
exte
ndin
g se
wer
serv
ice
to s
ame
cust
omer
s N
o
Lone
rock
N
A
No
Long
Cre
ek
Ther
e ar
e no
jobs
ava
ilabl
e w
ithin
our
city
. Th
ere
is n
o in
dust
ry si
nce
logg
ing
has b
een
seve
rely
cur
taile
d. T
he
area
/ de
pend
s on
ranc
hing
at t
he p
rese
nt ti
me.
N
o
Mad
ras
The
City
has
land
dire
ctly
adj
acen
t to
its U
GB
whi
ch is
zon
ed o
n th
e Je
ffers
on C
ount
y C
ompr
ehen
sive
Pla
n an
d Zo
ning
Map
with
a n
on-r
esou
rce
desi
gnat
ion
and
zone
. Thi
s pro
perty
is w
here
the
Mad
ras A
irpor
t is l
ocat
ed
and
one
of th
e C
ity’s
gre
ates
t eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent a
sset
s. Th
e C
ity h
as e
xecu
ted
thre
e ve
ry si
gnifi
cant
leas
es
with
at t
he M
adra
s Airp
ort (
Eric
kson
Aer
o Ta
nker
, Eric
kson
Airc
raft
Col
lect
ion,
and
Dai
mle
r Tru
cks N
orth
A
mer
ica)
. The
City
wou
ld li
ke to
pla
n fo
r the
nec
essa
ry in
frast
ruct
ure
for t
hese
and
futu
re d
evel
opm
ent a
t the
M
adra
s Airp
ort b
ut d
ue to
the
rest
rictio
ns o
f Ore
gon
Adm
inis
trativ
e R
ule
rela
ted
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of
Stat
ewid
e Pl
anni
ng G
oal 1
1—Pu
blic
Fac
ilitie
s and
Ser
vice
s, th
e Ci
ty is
not
abl
e to
effe
ctiv
ely
plan
for s
uch
deve
lopm
ent.
This
put
s the
City
of M
adra
s is a
ver
y re
activ
e po
sitio
n w
hen
enga
ged
in e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t pr
ojec
ts o
n la
nd a
t the
Mad
ras A
irpor
t. Th
e is
sue
is th
at th
e C
ity c
anno
t ado
pt v
ario
us in
frast
ruct
ure
plan
s pu
rsua
nt to
Sta
tew
ide
Plan
ning
Goa
l 11
whi
ch th
en m
akes
it d
iffic
ult t
o co
mm
unic
ate
to b
usin
esse
s and
de
velo
pers
wha
t inf
rast
ruct
ure
is n
eede
d fo
r a d
evel
opm
ent a
nd h
ow o
ne d
evel
opm
ent m
ay a
ffec
t cap
acity
of
the
larg
e in
frast
ruct
ure
syst
em. I
n so
me
case
s, in
crea
sing
tran
spor
tatio
n, se
wer
, wat
er se
rvic
es m
ay b
e ne
eded
. H
owev
er, t
hat a
ssum
es th
at th
e Ci
ty h
as a
larg
er p
lan
that
fore
cast
s fut
ure
deve
lopm
ent n
eeds
. So
with
out s
uch
plan
, it i
s diff
icul
t to
plan
and
dev
elop
key
pro
perti
es th
at w
ill b
e de
velo
ped
anyw
ay, d
ue to
the
desi
gnat
ion
and
zoni
ng o
f the
ir pr
oper
ty.
No
Mal
in
M
aupi
n
McM
innv
ille
N
o
Med
ford
To
pogr
aphy
N
o
Milt
on-
Free
wat
er
Bar
riers
= fu
ndin
g to
con
stru
ct a
nd m
aint
ain.
N
o
Milw
auki
e Th
e ar
ea is
cur
rent
ly se
rved
by
othe
r Util
ity D
istri
cts.
Som
e of
thos
e sy
stem
s or p
ortio
ns o
f tho
se sy
stem
s w
ithin
the
UG
B a
rea
wou
ld n
ot b
e ea
sily
sepa
rate
d an
d an
nexe
d.
No
Mon
mou
th
M
osie
r C
ost w
ill b
e bo
rne
by th
e ap
plic
ant.
No
Mt.
Ang
el
The
amou
nt o
f fun
ding
it w
ould
requ
ire. I
t is h
appe
ning
as d
evel
opm
ent o
ccur
s as t
he d
evel
oper
is fo
otin
g th
e co
st o
f con
nect
ion.
N
o
Mt.
Ver
non
N
o
Myr
tle C
reek
V
ery
slow
gro
wth
into
UG
B, i
t is a
lread
y hi
gh d
ensi
ty w
ith w
ater
, sew
er, f
ire a
nd c
ount
y po
lice
prot
ectio
n so
th
e re
side
nts h
ave
little
reas
on to
ann
ex a
nd th
e ex
istin
g st
reet
infra
stru
ctur
e is
so p
oor t
hat i
t wou
ld n
ot b
e co
st
effe
ctiv
e to
ann
ex a
nyw
ay
No
New
berg
W
ater
mai
nlin
e up
sizi
ng, w
ater
rese
rvoi
r sto
rage
, wat
er tr
eatm
ent c
apac
ity, w
aste
wat
er tr
unk
line
upsi
zing
, w
aste
wat
er p
ump
stat
ions
, was
tew
ater
trea
tmen
t cap
acity
. N
o -
New
port
The
cust
omer
wou
ld b
ear t
he fi
nanc
ial b
urde
n of
inst
allin
g th
e in
frast
ruct
ure
to a
ny lo
catio
n ou
tsid
e of
city
lim
its. U
tility
rate
s are
abo
ut d
oubl
e w
hat t
hey
are
for i
n-ci
ty w
ater
and
sew
er.
No
33
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
Nor
th B
end
Ann
exat
ion
requ
ired
or if
faili
ng se
ptic
syst
em n
on-r
emon
stra
nce
agre
emen
t to
anne
x.
No
N
yssa
Fu
ndin
g N
o
Oak
ridge
In
rega
rds t
o w
ater
we
wou
ld b
e ab
le to
ext
end
wat
er o
ut to
the
maj
ority
of t
he re
side
nces
in th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary.
In re
gard
s to
sew
er it
wou
ld b
e di
fficu
lt to
get
sew
er p
ut in
due
to te
rrai
n w
ithou
t put
ting
in se
vera
l pu
mps
to m
ove
the
sew
er to
a h
ighe
r ele
vatio
n.
Yes
U
nkno
wn
need
to re
sear
ch
Philo
mat
h N
ot a
llow
ed o
utsi
de o
f city
lim
its w
ithou
t a v
ote
of th
e pe
ople
N
o
Port
Orfo
rd
Req
uest
s hav
e be
en m
ade
in o
ne a
rea
of th
e U
GB
by
citiz
ens w
antin
g to
pol
ice
prot
ectio
n no
t the
wat
er a
nd
sew
er
No
none
Portl
and
Plea
se se
e ht
tp://
ww
w.p
ortla
ndor
egon
.gov
/bps
/653
10 th
at d
escr
ibes
Por
tland
’s g
row
th st
rate
gy. /
Ext
endi
ng
infra
stru
ctur
e in
to th
e U
GB
requ
ires s
igni
fican
t pla
nnin
g an
d co
ordi
natio
n w
ith U
GB
resi
dent
s and
par
tner
ju
risdi
ctio
ns.
/ N
o
Prin
evill
e C
ost o
f lin
e ex
tens
ions
, sys
tem
impr
ovem
ents
. N
o
Red
mon
d Th
e re
spec
tive
trans
porta
tion
and
utili
ty m
aste
r pla
ns id
entif
ies i
nfra
stru
ctur
e ne
eded
to su
ppor
t bui
ld-o
ut to
the
Urb
an G
row
th B
ound
ary.
Ext
endi
ng in
frast
ruct
ure
to th
e U
GB
is d
riven
by
dem
and
for s
ervi
ces a
nd fu
ndin
g av
aila
bilit
y.
No
Riv
ergr
ove
N
o
Rog
ue R
iver
C
ost a
nd S
tate
Reg
ulat
ions
N
o
Ros
ebur
g O
ppos
ition
to a
nnex
atio
n N
o
Sale
m
Ann
exat
ion
or c
onse
nt fo
r fut
ure
anne
xatio
n.
No
Sand
y B
y po
licy,
San
dy d
oes n
ot e
xten
d in
frast
ruct
ure
to u
ndev
elop
ed a
reas
. As a
resu
lt, ti
min
g of
new
dev
elop
men
t de
pend
s on
loca
tion
and
avai
labi
lity
of e
xist
ing
infra
stru
ctur
e.
No
Sene
ca
Fund
ing-
The
city
has
two
loca
tions
con
sider
ed fo
r dev
elop
ing
but f
undi
ng th
e in
frast
ruct
ure
is a
bar
rier.
No
Sh
ady
Cov
e
Sher
woo
d V
oter
app
rova
l (an
nexi
ng) f
or e
xten
ding
City
Lim
its a
nd fu
ndin
g in
frast
ruct
ure.
N
o
Silv
erto
n A
nnex
atio
n by
ele
ctio
n; th
ere
have
bee
n no
ann
exat
ions
app
rove
d in
the
last
6 y
ears
. In
frast
ruct
ure
is n
ot
exte
nded
into
the
UG
B u
nles
s and
unt
il th
e pr
oper
ty is
ann
exed
. Y
es
$25,
000
per y
ear f
or th
e Si
lver
Cre
ek d
am
and
Petti
t Lak
e da
m (e
arth
fill
dam
s).
Mai
nten
ance
cos
ts a
re m
inim
al o
n ou
r wat
er
inta
ke d
am a
nd A
biqu
a C
reek
dam
(bot
h ar
e co
ncre
te d
ams)
Si
ster
s
Soda
ville
N
one
No
Sp
ringf
ield
St. H
elen
s N
eeds
of f
utur
e de
velo
pmen
t not
kno
wn,
esp
ecia
lly in
dust
rial;
costs
; exi
stin
g al
tern
ativ
e m
unic
ipal
wat
er
syst
em w
ithin
the
UG
B.
No
St. P
aul
City
shru
nk th
e U
GB
& h
as n
o pl
ans o
f fut
ure
grow
th &
cur
rent
ord
inan
ce th
at p
rohi
bits
serv
ices
out
of t
he
UG
B
No
Sum
mer
ville
W
e ha
ve n
o pl
ans
No
Suth
erlin
Pe
r EC
ON
orth
wes
t ana
lysi
s dat
ed 2
005
City
of S
uthe
rlin
has a
n es
timat
ed 9
26.8
bui
ldab
le a
cres
in th
e U
GB
. In
frast
ruct
ure;
wat
er d
istri
butio
n an
d sa
nita
ry se
wer
will
nee
d to
be
exte
nded
in th
e m
ajor
ity o
f the
UG
B.
Util
ities
will
be
driv
en b
y po
pula
tion
grow
th a
nd d
evel
opm
ent.
No
Swee
t Hom
e Le
gal r
estri
ctio
ns; w
e do
not
ext
end
serv
ice
outs
ide
City
Lim
its a
s we
enco
urag
e pr
oper
ty o
utsid
e C
ity li
mits
bu
t with
in U
GB
to a
nnex
into
City
.
No
34
City
W
hat a
re y
our
city
's c
onsi
dera
tions
and
/or
barr
iers
to e
xten
ding
infr
astr
uctu
re in
to th
e U
rban
Gro
wth
B
ound
ary?
Doe
s you
r ci
ty
oper
ate
and
mai
ntai
n a
leve
e?
Wha
t are
the
over
all e
xpec
ted
cost
s to
mai
ntai
n ea
ch le
vee
cert
ifica
tion?
Tang
ent
The
Dal
les
Cos
ts.
Con
cern
abo
ut a
nd re
sist
ance
to p
rope
rty o
wne
r fin
anci
al c
ontri
butio
ns to
infra
stru
ctur
e im
prov
emen
t/ext
ensi
on p
roje
cts.
Con
cern
abo
ut e
xten
sion
of u
tiliti
es in
to U
GA
lead
ing
to a
nnex
atio
ns th
at a
re
unw
ante
d by
pro
perty
ow
ners
. N
o
Tiga
rd
We
will
not
ext
end
publ
ic sa
nita
ry se
wer
into
are
as th
at h
ave
not a
nnex
ed in
to th
e ci
ty.
Ther
efor
e, if
ther
e is
la
nd in
side
of t
he U
GB
, and
the
desi
re fr
om a
dev
elop
er is
to d
evel
op a
nd c
onne
ct to
sew
er, t
hey
mus
t firs
t an
nex
befo
re th
ey g
o th
roug
h th
e la
nd u
se p
roce
ss.
No
Trou
tdal
e A
ntic
ipat
ed g
row
th a
vaila
ble
cash
nee
ded
to fu
nd th
e im
prov
emen
ts
No
U
kiah
A
ll pr
oper
ties w
ithin
the
UG
B a
re se
rved
by
wat
er a
nd se
wer
. N
o
Val
e A
nnex
atio
n ag
reem
ent,
acce
ss a
nd R
OW
agr
eem
ents
Y
es
10,0
00 p
er y
ear f
or A
CO
E ce
rtific
atio
n,
FEM
A c
ertif
icat
ion
will
cos
t in
the
1-2
mill
ion
rang
e
Was
co
Our
City
/Cou
nty
are
expe
rienc
ing
decr
easi
ng p
opul
atio
n an
d bu
sines
s ope
ratio
ns --
no
expa
nsio
n pr
ojec
ts a
re
antic
ipat
ed.
No
Wat
erlo
o no
ne
No
W
est L
inn
Bar
riers
are
lim
ited
by c
ity li
mits
, adj
acen
t city
lim
its, a
nd n
atur
al to
pogr
aphy
(riv
er, e
tc.)
No
W
est L
inn
Cos
ts is
a p
rimar
y ba
rrie
r as w
ell a
s ant
i-gro
wth
sent
imen
t N
o
Wils
onvi
lle
Ann
exat
ion
mus
t occ
ur b
efor
e se
rvic
es a
re e
xten
ded
or p
rovi
ded.
/ Fo
r a ro
ad, i
f dev
elop
men
t is o
ccur
ring
on
one
side
of t
he ro
ad w
hich
is in
side
the
UG
B a
nd th
e ot
her s
ide
of th
e ro
ad is
out
side
the
UG
B, i
f the
are
a is
sm
all e
noug
h, th
e C
ity c
an re
ques
t a m
inor
am
endm
ent t
o th
e U
GB
to a
llow
new
con
stru
ctio
n th
at w
iden
s or
impr
oves
the
road
on
the
non-
UG
B si
de o
f the
road
. For
larg
er a
reas
, UG
B e
xpan
sion
is fa
r mor
e co
mpl
icat
ed.
Roa
d im
prov
emen
ts th
at se
rve
the
new
dev
elop
men
t (in
side
the
UG
B) a
re n
ot to
be
cons
truct
ed in
are
as th
at a
re
outs
ide
the
UG
B. T
his c
an re
sult
in ro
ads w
ithou
t urb
an fe
atur
es (s
uch
as si
dew
alks
and
bik
e la
nes)
on
one
side
. / T
here
are
lim
its o
n th
e ty
pica
l pro
cess
for c
onde
mna
tion
and
poss
essi
on w
hen
addi
tiona
l rig
ht-o
f-way
(RO
W)
is re
quire
d to
con
stru
ct a
road
whe
re o
ne si
de is
out
side
the
UG
B a
nd o
utsid
e th
e ci
ty li
mits
. / C
osts
are
pla
nned
an
d al
loca
ted
that
add
ress
dev
elop
er re
spon
sibi
litie
s and
oth
er fu
ture
dev
elop
men
t tha
t may
be
serv
ed b
y th
e in
frast
ruct
ure.
No
Woo
d V
illag
e N
ot a
pplic
able
N
o
Woo
dbur
n O
rdin
ance
doe
s not
allo
w u
s to
do so
unl
ess C
ity C
ounc
il de
clar
es a
n em
erge
ncy
exis
ts
No
Y
acha
ts
the
city
lim
its a
nd th
e U
GB
are
the
sam
e in
Yac
hats
N
o