DOCSLIB.ORG

Ordinance No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AS AMENDED 5/18/16 Exhibit A substituted ORDINANCE NO. Amend Park System Development Charge Capital Improvements Plan to update the project list (Ordinance, amend Ordinance No. 187150) The City of Portland ordains: Section 1. The Council finds: 1. Ordinance No. 172614, passed by the Council on August 19, 1998 authorized establishment of a Parks and Recreation System Development Charge (SDC) and created a new City Code Chapter 17.13. 2. In October 1998 the City established a Parks SDC program. City Code required that the program be updated every two years to ensure that programgoals were being met. An update was implemented on July 1, 2005 pursuant to Ordinance No. 179008, as amended. The required update reviewed the Parks SDC Program to determine that sufficientmoney will be available to fund capacity-increasing facilities identifiedby the Parks System Development Charge Capital Improvement Plan (Parks SDC-CIP); to determine whether the adopted and indexed SDC rate has kept pace with inflation; to determine whether the Parks SDC-CIP should be modified; and to ensure that SDC receipts will not over-fund such facilities. 3. Ordinance No. 181669, passed by the Council on March 12, 2008 updated Parks and Recreation System Development Charge, increased the calculated Park SDC recovery rate to 75%, established a Non-Residential Parks SDC fee, and implemented a two tiered SDC feestructure consisting of the Central City and the non-Central City areas, and created a new City Code Chapter 17.13. 4. Ordinance No. 187150, passed by the Council on May 27, 2015 adopted the updated Portland Parksand Recreation System Development Charge Methodology Update Report dated April 15, 2015 establishing both a residential and non-residential Parks SDC beginning July 1, 2016, adopted the Parks SDC­ CIP, and adopted an Amendment to Portland City Code Chapter 1 7.13, effective July 1, 2016. 5. City Code Section 17.13.160 allows the City Council to amend its Parks SDC-CIP fromtime to time to add or remove projects the City deems appropriate. Portland Parks and Recreation has proposed an update to its Parks SDC-CIP based on new information about growth needs as reflected on the Portland Parks 20-year Capital Improvement Plan. This update to the Parks SDC-CIP does not change the residential or non-residential Park SDC fee. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs: a. Ordinance 187150 is hereby amended to replace the Park System Development Charge Capital Improvements Plan with the Parks SDC-CIP set out in Exhibit A to this Ordinance. Passed by the Council: Mary Hull Caballero Commissioner Fritz Auditor of the City of Portland Prepared by: Trang Lam By Deputy New Exhibit A Exhibit A 2016 PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 20-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (SUMMARY) As required by ORS 223.309 Portland Parks and Recreation maintains a list of capacity increasing projects intended to address the need created by growth. These projects are eligible to be funded with Park SDC revenue. The total value of projects summarized below exceeds the potential revenue of $552 million estimated by the 2015 Park SDC Methodology and the funding from non-SDC revenue targeted for growth projects. The project list and capital plan is a "living" document that, per ORS 223.309 (2), may be modified at any time. Changes to this list will not affect the SDC rates, unless the Council holds a public hearing and authorizes the changes, as provided in ORS 223.309(2). TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT INCREASE CAPACITY: Land acquisition Develop new parks on new land Expand existing recreation facilities, trails, play areas, picnic areas, etc Increase playability, durability and life of facilities Natural area restoration Develop and improve parks to withstand more intense and extended use Construct new or expand existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities Increase capacity of existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities SDC Zone Program Site Project Name % Growth Years 1 - 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 11 -10 Total 20 Years Total * Growth % Central City Acquisitions Central City Unidentified Central City Acquisitions 100% $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 Central City Acquisition Placeholder Downtown 100% $ 1,682,831 $ 1,682,831 $ 1,682,831 Goose Hollow 100% $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 Inner Northwest 100% $ 6,731,323 $ 6,731,323 $ 6,731,323 Inner Southeast 100% $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 Lloyd District 100% $ 13,462,646 $ 13,462,646 $ 13,462,646 Northwest Waterfront 100% $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 ODOT Half-Blocks 100% $ 6,731,323 $ 6,731,323 $ 6,731,323 Old Town / China Town 100% $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 University District 100% $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 Waterfront 100% $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 $ 10,096,984 West End 100% $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 $ 3,365,661 City Central City Park Acq 100% $ 7,500,000 $ - $ - $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 ZRZ Yards ZRZ Yards Park - New park acquisition South Waterfront 100% $ - $ 6,500,000 $ - $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 Acquisitions Total $ 7,500,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 77,361,722 $ 91,361,722 $ 91,361,722 Buildings/Pools Gov Tom McCall Waterfront Park Salmon Springs Loo (Replacing Hawthorne Restroom) 100% $ - $ 319,200 $ 319,200 $ 319,200 Simon & Helen Director Park Bird Deterrant 100% $ - $ 46,800 $ - $ 46,800 $ 46,800 Washington Monroe Property Design and Development 100% $ - $ 48,018,959 $ - $ 48,018,959 $ 48,018,959 Buildings/Pools Total $ - $ 48,384,959 $ - $ 48,384,959 $ 48,384,959 Developed Park Centennial Area New Park Development 100% $ 1,491,530 $ 1,491,530 $ 1,491,530 Central City Unidentified Capacity Increasing Improvements in Existing Parks 100% $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Unidentified Central City Development Projects 100% $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Central City - Downtown Area New Park Development 100% $ 1,856,134 $ 1,856,134 $ 1,856,134 Central City - Goose Hollow Area New Park Development 100% $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 Central City - Inner Northwest New Park Development 100% $ 7,424,536 $ 7,424,536 $ 7,424,536 Central City - Inner Southeast Area New Park Development 100% $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 Central City - Lloyd District New Park Development 100% $ 14,849,072 $ 14,849,072 $ 14,849,072 Central City - Northwest Waterfront New Park Development 100% $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 Central City - ODOT Half-Blocks New Park Development 100% $ 7,424,536 $ 7,424,536 $ 7,424,536 Central City - Old Town / China Town New Park Development 100% $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 Central City - Rose Quarter / Coliseum New Park Development 100% $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 Central City - Ross Island Bridge Park New Park Development 100% $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 Central City - University District New Park Development 100% $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 Central City - Waterfront Area New Park Development 100% $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 $ 11,136,804 Central City - West End Area New Park Development 100% $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 $ 3,712,268 City Central City Park Development 100% $ 7,500,000 $ - $ - $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 Con-Way Property Slabtown Park Development 100% $ - $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 Gov Tom McCall Waterfront Park Bowl to Hawthorne Bridge 100% $ - $ 2,700,000 $ - $ 2,700,000 $ 2,700,000 Burnside Bridge to Steel Bridge 100% $ - $ 11,100,000 $ - $ 11,100,000 $ 11,100,000 Hawthorne Bridge to Salmon Street Springs 50% $ - $ 4,200,000 $ - $ 4,200,000 $ 2,100,000 Exhibit A SDC Zone Program Site Project Name % Growth Years 1 - 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 11 -10 Total 20 Years Total * Growth % Morrison Bridge to SW Ash; the Meadow 100% $ - $ 7,200,000 $ - $ 7,200,000 $ 7,200,000 Salmon Street Springs to Morrison Bridge; Waterfront Plaza 50% $ - $ 11,250,000 $ - $ 11,250,000 $ 5,625,000 Lan Su Chinese Garden Lighting, security and event improvements 100% $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Park General Upgrades - Contribution towards Friends Group project 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Non-Central City Unidentified Non-Central City Development 100% $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 North Park Blocks Installation New Fencing 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - North Park Block Park Development (northern most 1 acre parking lot) 100% $ - $ 3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 O Bryant Square Renovate Square 50% $ - $ 10,100,220 $ - $ 10,100,220 $ 5,050,110 Simon & Helen Director Park Director Electrical Capacity Upgrade 50% $ - $ 64,312 $ - $ 64,312 $ 32,156 The Fields Build new River District Park 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - The Fields (River District Neighborhood Pk) 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ZRZ Yards ZRZ Yards Park - New park development South Waterfront 100% $ - $ 6,500,000 $ - $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 Developed Park Total $ 7,500,000 $ 59,664,532 $ 109,578,898 $ 176,743,430 $ 163,936,164 Recreation Features Gov Tom McCall Waterfront Park Ankeny Dock Replacement 50% $ - $ 775,000 $ - $ 775,000 $ 387,500 Inner Southeast Willamette River Access 100% $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 North Park Blocks Expand and replace playground equipment 100% $ 954,058 $ - $ - $ 954,058 $ 954,058 Portland Tennis Center Portland Tennis Center - Expand tennis facility 50% $ - $ 3,309,000 $ - $ 3,309,000 $ 1,654,500 PTC AIR Structure 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - South Waterfront Greenway Central District SW Greenway Dock 100% $ - $ 1,170,000 $ - $ 1,170,000 $ 1,170,000 Swan Island Boat Ramp Swan Island Boat Ramp and Dock Repairs 100% $ - $ 767,970 $ 767,970 $ 767,970 Washington Monroe Property Washington Mornroe Community Garden Development 100% $ - $ 64,800 $ - $ 64,800 $ 64,800 Recreation Features Total $ 954,058 $ 6,086,770 $ 3,500,000 $ 10,540,828 $ 8,498,828 Utilities, Roads, Trails South Waterfront Greenway Central District Construct the central district section of S Waterfront Greenway - Gibbs to Lane 100% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - South Waterfront Greenway North District SOWA - Marquam Bridge to Gibbs St.
Recommended publications
  • Download PDF File Parks Capital and Planning Investments

    Download PDF File Parks Capital and Planning Investments

    SWNI Commissioner Amanda Fritz Interim Director Kia Selley INVESTMENTS IN SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS, INC. ANNOUNCED 2013-2018 August 2018 | Since 2013, Commissioner Amanda Fritz and Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) have allocated over $38M in park planning and capital investments in the Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc. coalition area. Funded by System Development Charges (SDCs), the Parks Replacement Bond (Bond), General Fund (GF), and in some cases matched by other partners, these investments grow, improve access to, or help maintain PP&R parks, facilities, and trails. Questions? Please call Jennifer Yocom at 503-823-5592. CAPITAL PROJECTS, ACQUISITIONS & PLANNING #1 APRIL HILL PARK BOARDWALK AND TRAIL Completed: Winter 2017 Investment: $635K ($498K SDCs; $83K Metro; $25K neighborhood #5 PORTLAND fundraising; $19K PP&R Land Stewardship; $10K BES) OPEN SPACE SEQUENCE Info: New boardwalks, bridges, trails; improves access, protects wetland. #2 DUNIWAY (TRACK & FIELD) #2 DUNIWAY PARK TRACK & FIELD DONATION #4 MARQUAM, #8 SOUTH Completed: Fall 2017 TERWILLIGER, WATERFRONT GEORGE HIMES Investment: Donation of full renovations provided by Under Armour (ACQUISITION & Info: Artificial turf improvement and track re-surfacing. RESTORATION) #3 MARSHALL PARK PLAYGROUND & ACQUISITION Completed: Summer 2015 | 2018 Investment: $977K (Play Area - $402K [$144K OPRD, $257K SDCs] + #11 RIEKE (FIELD) Acquisition - $575K [$450K SDCs, $125K Metro Local Share]) #6 Info: Playground, access to nature and seating improvements | two- #12 GABRIEL RED #9 WILLAMETTE
  • Portland Parks and Recreation

    Portland Parks and Recreation

    Portland Parks and Recreation CBO has posted the online, interactive version of the bureau’s performance dashboard here: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/523266 The following questions were asked during the bureau’s budget work session. Responses are included in the attached packet. 1. Please provide a breakdown of scholarships by community center. 2. What facilities and parks would be closed if there were no increase in major maintenance funding? 3. Did the increase in the value of scholarships granted correspond to the number or participants in the program? Was there an increase in workload or did the cost of the programs go up? 4. List/plans of the following: Five-year major maintenance queue Five-year SDC funded projects Prior five-year SDC fund projects 5. Please provide descriptions and budget amounts for the two new requests: (1) parks rangers expansion and (2) tree code implementation PP&R Council Budget Questions – Follow up from March 17th Budget presentation: 1) Breakdown of scholarships by community center See Attached Scholarship PDF File 2) What facilities and parks would be closed if there were no increase in major maintenance funding? Rather than close whole facilities or parks when there is inadequate major maintenance funding we reduce levels of service (thin the soup) across the system and we also delay repairs and replacements, thus allowing the risk of failure to increase. Examples are the sewer back up at Sellwood, the sewer failure at Buckman Field House, the emergency culvert failures, etc. The one counter example that resulted a full closure and demolition was the wood play structure at Couch Park.
  • District Background

    District Background

    DRAFT SOUTHEAST LIAISON DISTRICT PROFILE DRAFT Introduction In 2004 the Bureau of Planning launched the District Liaison Program which assigns a City Planner to each of Portland’s designated liaison districts. Each planner acts as the Bureau’s primary contact between community residents, nonprofit groups and other government agencies on planning and development matters within their assigned district. As part of this program, District Profiles were compiled to provide a survey of the existing conditions, issues and neighborhood/community plans within each of the liaison districts. The Profiles will form a base of information for communities to make informed decisions about future development. This report is also intended to serve as a tool for planners and decision-makers to monitor the implementation of existing plans and facilitate future planning. The Profiles will also contribute to the ongoing dialogue and exchange of information between the Bureau of Planning, the community, and other City Bureaus regarding district planning issues and priorities. PLEASE NOTE: The content of this document remains a work-in-progress of the Bureau of Planning’s District Liaison Program. Feedback is appreciated. Area Description Boundaries The Southeast District lies just east of downtown covering roughly 17,600 acres. The District is bordered by the Willamette River to the west, the Banfield Freeway (I-84) to the north, SE 82nd and I- 205 to the east, and Clackamas County to the south. Bureau of Planning - 08/03/05 Southeast District Page 1 Profile Demographic Data Population Southeast Portland experienced modest population growth (3.1%) compared to the City as a whole (8.7%).
  • The Fields Neighborhood Park Community Questionnaire Results March-April 2007

    The Fields Neighborhood Park Community Questionnaire Results March-April 2007

    The Fields Neighborhood Park Community Questionnaire Results March-April 2007 A Community Questionnaire was included in the initial project newsletter, which was mailed to over 4,000 addresses in the vicinity of the park site (virtually the entire neighborhood) as well as other interested parties. The newsletter was made available for pick-up at Chapman School and Friendly House and made available electronically as well. A total of 148 questionnaires were submitted, either by mail or on the web, by the April 20 deadline. The following summarizes the results. 1. The original framework plan for the River District Parks suggested three common elements that would link the parks together. Which do you feel should be included in The Fields neighborhood park? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Boardwalk Pedestrian Gallery Aquifer 2. This park is envisioned as a “neighborhood park no answ er – over two square blocks providing more traditional spaces for neighborhood residents. Do you agree ? with this overall concept? no yes Comments Regarding Question #2 “Traditional Neighborhood Park” #1 - None (of the original “framework concepts” are important What to you mean by "traditional" As long as this park does not become filthy (ie. bad terrain, homeless) like the waterfront, I'm for it. Excellent idea. A traditional park will be a nice complement to the other two parks. I don't know if my selections were recorded above. A continuation of the boardwalk is essential to making the connection between and among the parks. The design of the buildings around the park has narrowed the feeling of openness so it is beginning to look like a private park for the residential buildings surrounding it.
  • Downloads.Gigl.Org.Uk/Website/Parks People and Nature1.Pdf 8 Flores, T

    Downloads.Gigl.Org.Uk/Website/Parks People and Nature1.Pdf 8 Flores, T

    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Michelle Lee Talal for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science presented on May 7, 2019 Title: Exploring Urban Parks: Plant Communities, Visitor Experiences, and Manager Perspectives in Portland, Oregon Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Mary V. Santelmann Urban parks are biodiversity hotspots within cities and have the potential to provide a range of socio-cultural benefits for people, but may not always meet the needs and desires of park visitors. A variety of land use practices and environmental factors affect urban park biodiversity and vegetation structure, composition, and ecological function, but more studies are needed to compare plant taxonomic composition, biodiversity patterns, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces. Additionally, there is a lack of research that explores park user experiences, vegetation perceptions, and accessibility issues in a range of urban park types interspersed throughout Portland using qualitative methods to observe and interview visitors on-site. More research is also needed that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and management. The findings of my interdisciplinary dissertation may assist managers in their aims to achieve various ecological goals, as well as meet the needs and desires of park visitors within increasingly developed urban areas. The purpose of this research is three-fold, and includes examining: 1) The relationships between plant community composition, biodiversity patterns, environmental variables, and species traits in a range of urban parks in Portland, Oregon; 2) how the vegetation in these urban parks currently meets the needs and desires of visitors; and 3) how park managers currently manage vegetation in the parks to meet the needs and desires of visitors.
  • A Report on the 2003 Parks Levy Investment Objective 1: Restore

    A Report on the 2003 Parks Levy Investment Objective 1: Restore

    A Report on the 2003 Parks Levy Investment In November 2002, Portland voters approved a five-year Parks Levy to begin in July 2003. Levy dollars restored budget cuts made in FY 2002-03 as well as major services and improvements outlined in the Parks 2020 Vision plan adopted by City Council in July 2001. In order to fulfill our obligation to the voters, we identified four key objectives. This report highlights what we have accomplished to date. Objective 1: Restore $2.2 million in cuts made in 2002/03 budget The 2003 Parks Levy restored cuts that were made to balance the FY 2002-03 General Fund budget. These cuts included the closure of some recreational facilities, the discontinuation and reduction of some community partnerships that provide recreational opportunities for youth, and reductions in maintenance of parks and facilities. Below is a detailed list of services restored through levy dollars. A. Restore programming at six community schools. SUN Community Schools support healthy social and cross-cultural development of all participants, teach and model values of respect and inclusion of all people, and help reduce social disparities and inequities. Currently, over 50% of students enrolled in the program are children of color. 2003/04 projects/services 2004/05 projects/services Proposed projects/services 2005/06 Hired and trained full-time Site Coordinators Total attendance at new sites (Summer Continue to develop programming to serve for 6 new PP&R SUN Community Schools: 2004-Spring 2005): 85,159 the needs of each school’s community and Arleta, Beaumont, Centennial, Clarendon, increase participation in these programs.

  • Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry Learning Landscapes Plantings

    View this email in your browser Share this URBAN FORESTRY January 2016 Get Involved! | Resources | Tree Permits | Tree Problems | Home In This Issue Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry Learning Landscapes Plantings, Urban Forestry in the Schoolyard Hiring Youth Conservation Crew (YCC) Summer Crew Leader, Apply by Thursday, March 3, 2016 Upcoming Urban Forestry Workshops, Free and Open to the Public Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry You may have recently heard about the upcoming 5% budget cuts proposed for Parks programs. Among the difficult reductions proposed, Urban Forestry could be effected by elimination of the $185,000 Dutch Elm Disease (DED) Treatment program. The City of Portland has minimized the spread of DED and avoided the decimation of the American elm (Ulmus americana) with a successful elm monitoring and treatment program. Without advanced warning, rapid detection and removal, the American elm could ultimately vanish from our landscape. Eastmoreland, Ladd’s Addition, the South Park blocks, Lents Park, Laurelhurst Park, and Overlook Park are areas where elms play a significant role in neighborhood identity. "Many communities have been able to maintain a healthy population of mature elms through a vigilant program of identification and removal of diseased elms and systematic pruning of weakened, dying or dead branches" -Linda Haugen, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service Eliminating this program will also require adjacent property owners to cover the cost of removing DED- infected street trees themselves. The cut will also reduce citywide 24/7 emergency response to clear roads of trees which have fallen during storms, and reduce regular maintenance of publicly-owned trees- additional activities performed by some of the same staff .
  • PP&R's FY 2021-22 Requested Budget

    PP&R's FY 2021-22 Requested Budget

    Requested Budget FY 2021-22 Portland Parks & Recreation PP&R Staff FY 2021-22 Requested Budget Maximo Behrens, Recreation Services Manager Tonya Booker, Land Stewardship Manager Carmen Rubio, Commissioner-in-charge Jenn Cairo, Urban Forestry Manager Tim Collier, Public Information Manager Adena Long, Director Margaret Evans, Workforce Development Manager Todd Lofgren, Deputy Director Vicente Harrison, Security and Emergency Manager Lauren McGuire, Assets and Development Manager Claudio Campuzano, Manager Kenya Williams, Equity and Inclusion Manager Finance, Property, & Technology Department Kerry Anderson Andre Ashley Don Athey Darryl Brooks Budget Advisory Committee Tamara Burkovskaia Krystin Castro Board Members Riley Clark-Long Paul Agrimis Mara Cogswell Mike Elliott Dale Cook Jenny Glass Terri Davis Juan Piantino Leah Espinoza Paddy Tillett Rachel Felice Bonnie Gee Yosick Joan Hallquist Erin Zollenkopf Erik Harrison Britta Herwig Labor Partners Brett Horner Sadie Atwell, Laborers Local 483 Don Joughin Luis Flores, PCL Brian Landoe Yoko Silk, PTE-17 Robin Laughlin Sara Mayhew-Jenkins Community Representatives Todd Melton Pauline Miranda Jeremy Robbins, Portland Accessibility Advisory Council Soo Pak Andre Middleton, Friends of Noise Dylan Paul Chris Rempel, Native American Community Advisory Council Nancy Roth JR Lilly, East Portland Action Plan Victor Sanders Joe McFerrin, Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center Jamie Sandness Brian Flores Garcia, Youth Durelle Singleton Sabrina Wilson, Rosewood Initiative Chris Silkie Jenny
  • BEECN Guidelines and Code of Conduct

    BEECN Guidelines and Code of Conduct

    Basic Earthquake Emergency Communications Node (BEECN) Guidelines (first edition) Published: April 2019 Photo credits: Ernest Jones and Jeremy Van Keuren Graphics and layout: Jeremy Van Keuren Contents SECTION 000 - PROGRAM ORGANIZATION. .4 100.35 BEECN Cohort Coordinators ..................10 000.05 Section Numbers .............................4 100.40 BEECN Cohort Responsibilities ...............10 000.15 City Employees and BEECNs ...................5 100.45 Fire Station Cohorts. .11 000.20 Elements of a BEECN ..........................5 100.50 BEECN Volunteers and NETs ..................11 000.30 Location of BEECN Sites .......................6 100.55 Indemnification ..............................11 SECTION 100 - BEECN VOLUNTEERS ..............7 SECTION 200 - EQUIPMENT CACHES. .12 100.05 Role of BEECN Volunteers .....................7 200.05 Equipment Caches - General .................12 100.10 Persons with Disabilities ......................7 200.10 Equipment Caches - Placement ...............12 100.15 Volunteer Qualifications. 7 200.15 Supplementary Equipment in BEECN Caches .13 100.20 Relevant Volunteer Experience ................8 200.20 BEECN Cache Inventory ......................13 100.25 BEECN Training ...............................8 Troubleshooting the cache lid. 15 100.30 BEECN Volunteer Cohorts .....................9 BEECN radio frequencies ............................21 Page last updated: December 14, 2019 1:35 PM Page 1 of 58 SECTION 300 - OPERATIONS: BEECN SITES .......30 SECTION 400 - OPERATIONS: FIRE STATIONS. .38 300.05
  • Download the PDX Celebrate It’S Two Year Anniversary on June 7 at 6:30 Pm

    Download the PDX Celebrate It’S Two Year Anniversary on June 7 at 6:30 Pm

    Our Where’s Growing Early 28th Ave. Q Revolution Newspaper Year Page 14 Page 8 Page 3 JUNE SOUTHEAST EXAMINER 2017 southeastexaminer.com “Your Neighborhood News Source” Vol 28 No 6 Portland, OR Infill on Steroids Gains State Traction: Riles Residents BY MIDGE PIERCE and old. But opponents say the Oregon A bill known as a “Build Baby Build” Home Builders Association (OHBA) legislative bill under the idea of addressing and others twisted it into a bill that over- emergency housing statewide is fueling rides local zoning and undermines city what critics call a widespread assault controls. The bill would allow building to on Oregon cities’ self-determination maximum density and heights potentially and livability. Adding insult, the bill is disregarding critical local planning tools barreling through the state legislature like discretionary design reviews. without adequate public hearing. As outrage mounted last month at House Bill 2007 would essentially an informational meeting in Salem, House Overview of the proposed cascading soaking pools between reservoirs 5 and 6. eliminate single family residential Speaker Tina Kotek slammed opponents as Designed by Jennifer Moran neighborhoods by making multi-plex infill racist NIMBYS. Arriving late to advocate housing mandatory across the state. The for the “high-yield” housing bill she Mt. Tabor Park Thermal Baths bill would permit duplexes and ADUs sponsored, she condemned “race-based everywhere in cities and towns of at least housing policies” and said opposition is An Idea for Preserving the Reservoirs, Creating 2500 residents. “grounded in Nimbyism” by well-heeled Energy, and Raising Revenue Critics call it a stealth bill that is residents using discriminatory practices Infill inflation modeled after Portland’s that restrict others from building wealth BY AMY PETERSON PSU SCHOOL OF ARCHI- in 2006, the city cannot use the open controversial Residential Infill Project and power.
  • 2015 DRAFT Park SDC Capital Plan 150412.Xlsx

    2015 DRAFT Park SDC Capital Plan 150412.Xlsx

    2015 PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 20‐YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (SUMMARY) April 2015 As required by ORS 223.309 Portland Parks and Recreation maintains a list of capacity increasing projects intended to TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT INCREASE CAPACITY: address the need created by growth. These projects are eligible to be funding with Park SDC revenue . The total value of Land acquisition projects summarized below exceeds the potential revenue of $552 million estimated by the 2015 Park SDC Methodology and Develop new parks on new land the funding from non-SDC revenue targeted for growth projects. Expand existing recreation facilities, trails, play areas, picnic areas, etc The project list and capital plan is a "living" document that, per ORS 223.309 (2), maybe modified at anytime. It should be Increase playability, durability and life of facilities noted that potential modifications to the project list will not impact the fee since the fee is not based on the project list, but Develop and improve parks to withstand more intense and extended use rather the level of service established by the adopted Park SDC Methodology. Construct new or expand existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities Increase capacity of existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities ELIGIBLE PROJECTS POTENTIAL REVENUE TOTAL PARK SDC ELIGIBLE CAPACITY INCREASING PROJECTS 20‐year Total SDC REVENUE CATEGORY SDC Funds Other Revenue Total 2015‐35 TOTAL Park SDC Eligible City‐Wide Capacity Increasing Projects 566,640,621 City‐Wide
  • Professional Cost Estimating

    Professional Cost Estimating

    PORTLAND, OR | 503.675.4383 COST SEATTLE, WA | 206.775.8707 CONSULTING Email: [email protected] Web: www.jldllc.com PROFESSIONAL COST ESTIMATING Statement of Qualifications February 2021 “ JLD Cost Consulting managed the budget and project completion for a Federal Navy Project, and estimated changes in accordance with Federal standards. JLD was extremely honest, fair, and always displayed a willingness to find a solution that would work for everyone. This professionalism, integrity, and technical knowledge would be a benefit to any organization. ” PAUL WEYANT, U.S. NAVY, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS COVER: SEATAC AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS JLD Cost Consulting FIRM BACKGROUND JLD Cost Consulting LLC (JLD), headquartered in Portland, Oregon, with an additional office in Seattle, Washington, is a well-established cost consulting firm, rooted in the Pacific Northwest. Founded in 2011, with the purpose of delivering high quality JLD COST CONSULTING WAS HONORED WITH and accurate estimates to clients, JLD is THE 2019 SMALL BUSINESS AWARD BY CV focused on maximizing value, reducing MAGAZINE FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS project risk, and building confidence, value AND EXEMPLARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE and quality in construction projects. JLD AEC (ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, AND specializes in: CONSTRUCTION) INDUSTRY. • Cost Estimating • Cost Control • Value Engineering • Life Cycle Costing JLD RANKED AMONG THE TOP 25 MANAGEMENT The firm’s professional staff of seven CONSULTING FIRMS IN THE PORTLAND BUSINESS average between 15-30 years of JOURNAL, 2019 BOOK OF LISTS. construction cost estimating experience, and bring a diverse skillset of expertise in construction, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. This collective housing projects to hospitals, high-tech knowledge allows the firm to serve a variety cleanrooms, and water treatment plants of clients and projects.