City Council Packet - 07/21/2020 lAiCity of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: July 21,2020 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: The meeting will be virtual with attendees participating remotely.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
In accordance with the City of Tigard's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19 and Oreton House Bill
4212,this will be a virtual meeting where Council and staff will participate remotely.
There will be no in-person public testimony during this meeting.How to comment:
'Written public comment may be submitted electronically at www.tiL!ard-or.zov/Comments.All
comments must be submitted before 4:30 p.m. the day of the meeting.
'If you prefer to call in,please call 503-966-4101 between 6:30 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. to be placed in the
queue. We ask that you plan on limiting your testimony to three minutes.
VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE:
http:;/w .tit. _ov cit _hall/ ck. _il_meeting.php
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings-Channel 28
•Every Sunday at 12 a.m.
•Every Monday at 1 p.m.
•Every Wednesday at 2 p.m.
'Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
•Every Friday at 10:30 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
114
City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: July 21,2020- 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: The meeting will be virtual with attendees participating remotely.
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
A. Call to Order-Tigard City Council
B. Roll Call
C. Pledge of Allegiance
D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Follow-up from Previous Public Comment
B. Summary of Written Public Comment
C. Phone-in Public Comment
3. RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM COMMUNITY PROVIDERS ABOUT EMERGENCY
SHELTER COVID-19 RESPONSE 6:35 p.m. estimated time
4. RECEIVE UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEES AND CHARGES
AGGREGATE REPORT 7:05 p.m. estimated time
5. DISCUSSION ON WATER UTILITY RATE MODELING 7:50 p.m. estimated time
6. DISCUSSION ON RACIAL JUSTICE AND CITY ACTION 8:35 p.m. estimated time
7. NON AGENDA ITEMS
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss the
employment-related performance of of a government official under ORS 192.660(2) (i).All
discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to
the public. 9:05 p.m. estimated time
10. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m. estimated time
■
-•
TIGARD
Meeting of the
Tigard City Council
July 21, 2020
Public Comment Received
Agenda Item No. 6
Discussion on Racial Justice and City Action
1. David, regarding Citizen Commission
Carol Krarier
From: noreply@revize.com
Sent: Tuesday,July 21, 2020 4:08 PM
To: Carol Krager
Cc: Caroline Patton
Subject: Public Comments
Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender
Name= David
EmailAddress=
Address=
Topic=citizens commission
Yes, I support=Yes
FeedBackText= Mayor; May I suggest you require all people on the citizens commission to read and understand the
United States Constitution. it is the foundation of our country and is the "supreme law of the land" because no law may
be passed that contradicts its principles. it is easy to read, it's the size of a pamphlet, and it would be nice if we were all
on the same page while making decisions on the fundamentals of our laws and civil rights.
Client IP=73.157.189.123
1
AIS-4317 3.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 07/21/2020
Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes
Agenda Title: Receive Presentation from Community Providers about Emergency
Shelter COVID-19 Response
Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By: Carol
Krager,
Central
Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Shall the Council hear from community homeless shelter providers about their response to
COVID-19?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
This is a briefing and no action is requested.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
This briefing is provided by a partnership of Project Homeless Connect,Just Compassion,
City of Hillsboro, City of Beaverton and Community Action. Council will receive a
presentation with a summary and discussion on lessons learned about providing services
during a pandemic.
Presenters include Kim Marshall, Project Homeless Connect; Katharine Galian,Community
Action Association; Vernon Baker,Just Compassion; and Mike Espig, Community Volunteer.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
N/A
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
N/A
Attachments
Report
Presentation
r
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
f p At
PROJECT Hillsbor•
Just Beaverton ommunityActio HOMELESS OREGON
Iv Son.BrM.a,d.BV Ymwn- CONNECT
WASHINGTON county
The Severe Weather Shelter network began providing emergency shelter to individuals during
the winter months (November to March) in 2008. Led by Washington County Department of
Housing Services, the network of primarily faith based organizations opened their doors and,
staffed and managed entirely by volunteers, provided a warm, dry, safe place to sleep, meals,
and supports to individuals who would otherwise be unsheltered in our communities. In 2008,
the shelter system was activated only during periods of extreme weather which resulted in a
total of 18 days of activation and 171 bed stays provided by 442 volunteer hours. Over the
course of the last 12 years, the system has grown into a fully developed winter shelter system
offering safe accommodations to nearly 800 individuals at 8 sites during the winter months.
In January 2020, the membership of the Housing and Supportive Services Network completed
our Continuum of Care's Point in Time Count, the annual census of shelter and unsheltered
homeless individuals and families in our community. This year's count identified a total of 618
individuals in 491 households, of whom 307 individuals in 270 households were unsheltered at
the time of the count. The unsheltered individuals consisted of 23 children under the age of 18,
13 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, and 271 adults over the age of 24 including 44
older adults over the age of 55. 102 individuals were identified as chronically homeless. The
US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines Chronically Homeless in 24 CFR
Parts 91 and 578:
A "chronically homeless"individual is defined to mean a homeless individual with a disability
who lives either in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency
shelter, or in an institutional care facility if the individual has been living in the facility for fewer
than 90 days and had been living in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in
an emergency shelter immediately before entering the institutional care facility. In order to meet
the "chronically homeless"definition, the individual also must have been living as described
above continuously for at least 12 months, or
Forest utner 3.60% on at least four separate occasions in the
Grove/Cornelius last 3 years, where the combined occasions
Not 6.20% Hillsboro total a length of time of at least 12 months.
Specified 32.90%
12.10% The Point in Time Count also assess the
geographic distribution of unsheltered
Outside of homeless individuals within Washington
Washignton County both by where individuals were
County contacted during the count and where they
12.40% report being their primary location. Figure 1
Beaverton identifies the distribution of the unsheltered
19.21Y population by primary location during the
Point in Time count period.
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of unsheltered population—2020 PIT
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
The 2019-2020 Severe Weather Shelter season began on November 1, 2019 with 8 Faith
Based shelter provider partners funded by Community Action through a contract with Oregon
Housing and Community Services. Still primarily volunteer driven, the programs operated
independently under the collaborative model established by the Department of Housing
Services. Seven of the 8 providers were open 1 to 2 nights per week at locations throughout
the county and beds were offered on a first come, first served basis with people seeking shelter
gathering at the entrance to each shelter awaiting entry. On nights when there were more
individuals seeking shelter than the number of available beds, people were turned away at the
door. One shelter program, at Sonrise Church, operated for 90 consecutive days with beds
offered on an enrollment basis offering any empty beds remaining each night on a first come,
first served basis.
Due to the growing threat of infection from COVIDI9, the State of Oregon issued guidance that
communities should enact social distancing practices, and instituted a 'Stay Safe, Stay Home
order". The threat of COVIDI9 and resulting building closures lead to the early closure of
several of the Severe Weather shelter programs. On March 16th, most programs were shut
down due to lack of access to buildings, lack of volunteers, and concern regarding the spread of
COVID19 in their communities—particularly in spaces not large enough to allow for adequate
distancing. The SOS program operated by Project Homeless Connect out of the Sonrise
Baptist Church in Hillsboro had already closed their 90 day program on April 30th but was
continuing to engage with unsheltered people through the operation of a day center out of the
church building. The Beaverton Severe Weather Shelter also continued to operate one night
per week out of building owned by the City of Beaverton.
The Beaverton Severe Weather Shelter, operated by Just Compassion and Sonrise Severe
Weather Shelter, operated by Project Homeless Connect, were able to continue to operate in
their buildings and retain paid staff. Due to the closure of the other programs in the network and
the need to ensure access to shelter, food, basic human sanitation, and to prevent the spread of
COVID in the homeless community, the shelter season was extended to May 31, 2020. On
March 18, 2020 Oregon Housing and Community Services provided an additional $250,000 to
Community Action to support the additional cost of extending the severe weather shelter
season.
After consideration of the operating capacity of the existing network and the geographic
distribution of unsheltered individuals in the January 2020 Point In Time Count, Just
Compassion and Project Homeless Connect were asked to expand their services to provide
emergency shelter 7 nights per week and to extend their operations to include daytime hours to
reduce the risk of exposure and provide a more stable daily census in shelter. With the
additional funding and the support of the Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro, both programs
agreed and began to adjust their programs, intake processes, and staffing levels to meet the
need.
To mitigate the risk of COVIDI9 exposure and infection in the congregate settings, three
significant adjustments to the program operations were identified as necessary for the safety of
shelter residents and staff:
1. Real-time data available about shelter stays to facilitate contact tracing should an
individual test positive for COVIDI9.
2. Divert symptomatic or medically vulnerable individuals from congregate settings.
3. Enhanced intake and screening procedures at shelter entry to identify and divert newly
symptomatic individuals.
Wage Report produced by Community Actio
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Through a phone-based screening and entry process, individuals seeking shelter who reported
symptoms of COVIDI9 were diverted to testing sites and respite shelter at the Comfort Inn in
Hillsboro operated by Washington County. Those who reported an underlying medical condition
that would place them at additional risk for complications or death from exposure to COVID in a
congregate setting were diverted to local motels across the county. Individuals were screened
at shelter entry for newly developed symptoms after initial screening. The process used to
determine placement is outlined in the flowchart below.
Provide information about
Hospital/Clinic will
available testing sites. arange transport to
Use Symptom Checker to / Yes test 7o Arrange Transportation to Comfort Inn
determine if r!lent needs testing site:503 84o 831 I,503
I• • - • to he referred for testing: .: 846-'3594
breath/Fever(all or https://clgoregon.com/st
any of the above) art
Call Sect of herheabh 'met Motel _ Enter Expected motel
503 726 0850 discharge date to
_ _ _ .
Service Point Record
Central
sws
Waitlist
line ServicePoint Secured Email to
Answered
by CAO _ Add to WAITtiST (ShekerPotntI SWS
--_ Place cheer in one of the SK5 Print unit list from SP and
(complete form with beds send it(PD”via secured
all information) emaris both contacts at
If beds are occupied place client the SWS
in the reseraauon int under the
specdic SVJS
CAO Screeners update Unit hist in
Ss
Questions about testing,controlling spread,Identifying SP.Remove In Shelter
clients thatedidn't ngSSWS
Stay In Shelter ibex[morning Svhs send back
symptoms or other issues related to COVID-19 Contact: fn can srreeners/Par{ a Clients that solve at the
• secured email;PDF of updated SWs with any of the
Washington County unit 1w confirming.sho described condrtions
stayed in slither the prior
503-846-5327 night
Shortly after reopening, Sonrise Church was no longer able to host the shelter and Project
Homeless Connect worked with the City of Hillsboro and Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation
District to quickly operationalize two new sites—the Salvation Army site in Hillsboro, and the
Elsie Stuhr Center in Beaverton.
From March 18 to June 1, the collaboration provided 4,795 bed stays to 291 individuals. With
initial screening and diversion procedures in place, the response successfully mitigated the
spread of COVIDI9 in the homeless population. Between March 25, 2020 and June 1, 2020, all
partners participated in brief, virtual meetings 3 times per week to address emerging concerns
and share rapidly changing information, consult with Washington County Public Health, ensure
effective processes, staff complex client situations, and facilitate strong communication and
program support. As a result of the frequent communication, emerging needs in the sheltered
population were identified and relationships were in place to problem solve and adjust
processes or enhance services as needed. Ongoing consultation with Washington County
Wage Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Health and Human Services staff helped ensure that shelter programs had access to the
information and materials needed to safely operate a congregate shelter setting in the midst of
the pandemic. During the last two weeks of shelter operations Washington County Health and
Human Services provided on site access to mental health and substance use assessments and
supports on-site at each program. This partnership was remarkably supportive to the shelter
guests and staff and resulted in improved engagement in services by several individuals.
The active participation of City staff in the collaboration meetings provided a direct line of
communication between the cities and the programs.
The following is a summary of the impact of this expansion including lessons learned and
recommendations for current and future consideration.
What Worked Well:
• Partnership & engagement from local jurisdictions -additional sites and expanded hours
could not have been operationalized without the support of the cities and park district.
• Consolidated sites—reducing the number of sites made logistics and staffing easier&
reduced potential spread of the virus. It also removed the burden of traveling across the
county to access shelter day to day from people experiencing homelessness.
• Paid staffing ensured consistent and reliable coverage of additional shifts
• Expanded days and hours—operating 7 days/week and extending day-time hours
allowed for more stability in shelter and enhanced the safety of the sheltered population
by reducing potential exposures. Extended hours also provided more awake, non-meal
time to engage with guests and supported access to services including engagement in
Coordinate Entry processes (Community Connect), access to health, mental health, and
substance use treatment programs, and provided shelter guests a place to be during
daytime hours reducing complaints of loitering in surrounding neighborhoods.
• Reduced Shelter Census - Smaller number of individuals per site allowed for better
engagement & relationship building, better oversight, and reduced the risk of virus
spread.
• Coordinated enrollment facilitated access, reduced exposure, improved data quality and
supported contract tracing.
• Providing mental health and addictions services on site —LifeWorks and 4D staff on-site
facilitated access to services and resulted in improved engagement
• Ongoing coordination, regular communication, staffing individual client situations
improved ability to be responsive and improve health, safety and efficiency
• Built for Zero— Having shelter services in place supported the efforts of the Built for Zero
initiative by providing both a safe place to engage with individuals and additional contact
points to help facilitate housing program enrollment processes.
• Mobile Shower Trailer—The expanded use of the one shower trailer operating in
Washington County enabled shelter providers to ensure access to basic sanitation that
we necessary for maintaining the health and safety of sites that did not have access to
shower facilities. A schedule was developed to share access to showers for both
sheltered and unsheltered people across the county.
Opportunities for improvement:
• Hotel placement for medically fragile individuals resulted in less support for those
individuals due to lack of staffing. Individuals who are not able to care for themselves
Wage Report p o d u c e d by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
independently and are not well enough to manage in a congregate shelter setting need a
safe place to be with adequate supports as permanent solutions are developed.
• The delay in connecting with Hawthorne and 4D staff was a missed opportunity to
engage people early on. Having these agreements in place as well as dedicated liaison
staff at opening will ensure no delay.
• There remains a significant need for access to day shelter services. For a variety of
reasons, a percentage of the homeless population cannot safely engage in congregate
shelter settings. However, there is still a need for access to showers, laundry, basic
health assessments, and support services. Expanding access to Day Shelter services
and Street Outreach wide would allow for regular contact with the unsheltered population
for the purposes of ensure health and safety and engaging in housing plans.
• Training at startup and on-going for shelter staff and volunteers —with expanded days
and hours resulting in more time spent in the congregate setting with others, having staff
trained in maintaining a safe and healthy environment, recognizing mental health crisis,
and de-escalating conflict is essential.
• Siting — identifying and gaining access to facilities in which to provide shelter was
challenging. Siting issues resulted in delays in implementing programs. Opportunity for
education and engagement
• Access to basic sanitation, including bathrooms and showers were a significant issue for
the unsheltered population. Not having consistent access to these basic resources
poses a significant health risk.
• Access to phones, charging stations and internet was essential for accessing services,
including shelter, applying for benefits, and having reliable information about COVID in
the community. Without reliable access to these modern essentials, unsheltered
individuals are at a significant disadvantage during the Pandemic.
Recommendations:
Mitigate siting challenges in advance— Identify locations that could serve as emergency shelter
for homeless individuals in a public health crisis, in periods of severe weather, and as a full-time
year-round asset in your community. Consider what conversations need to happen to engage
stakeholders, build political will, and secure potential sites.
Engage in preparations for the winter shelter season now. The Severe Weather Shelter system
will need to function differently this coming season as we may not be able to rely on church
buildings or volunteers and will likely need to reduce the number of sites, reduce movement
across the county, and limit exposure by operating 7 nights in a smaller number of smaller sites.
This will require investment of additional resources as well as engagement from local
jurisdictions to identify and support shelter sites.
Support street outreach and harm reduction efforts. We cannot shelter or house all homeless
people in our community. Therefore, for the duration of the COVID 19 threat and until additional
resources are available to address the permanent housing and shelter needs of our community,
increased access to basic sanitation services—specifically restrooms, showers and laundry—
through a combination of expanded day shelter hours and the purchase of two additional
shower trucks.
Increase Street Outreach to maintain contact with unsheltered populations, monitor for
symptoms and make referrals for testing within unsheltered populations to prevent spread within
camps and general populations.
Wage Page Repo t produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Combined Impact of All Efforts
Total Unduplicated Individuals 291 Total Unduplicated Households 261
Chronically Homeless Individuals 60 Individuals with disabling 124
conditions
Youth 18-25 12 Veterans 15
Participants by Gender: Participants by Age:
Data not Data not 18-24
er(MTV), collected, collected 4%
0.37% arming, 2% 62+ :%
7°% 9% 25-34
19%
Female,
31%
55-61
15%
Male,67%
35 S-^.
21%
Participants by Race and Ethnicity:
■White
Client
3% .
2% 1°6 10%
•Black or African American Doesn't
ata rf '
Know/Client collect•
Refused
Asian
1%
Hispanic/ Non-
American Indian or Alaska Native Latino Hispanic/
6% • 15% Non-
is Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Latino
Islander
74%
•Multiple races
75% ■Client Doesn't Know/Client Refused
IN Data not collected
6IPage Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Sources of Income:
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 37
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 20
Earned Income 14
IOther Source 11
Exit Destination:
Place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an abandoned building,
bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside) 254
Rental by client, no ongoing subsidy 8
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter
voucher 6
Substance abuse treatment facility or detox center 3
Staying or living with friends,temporary tenure(e.g., room apartment or house) 3 1
Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher 3
Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure 1
Staying or living with family,temporary tenure (e.g., room, apartment or house) 1
Staying or living with family, permanent tenure 1
Owned by client, no ongoing subsidy 1
Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility 1
Participant Stories
Tricia is 61 years old. She was evicted from her apartment for non-payment of rent in February
and, having no place else to go,began living in her car. She was working with a career coach to
improve her employment and income while she searched for a new place to live. In March, she
lost her job at McDonalds due to COVID19. With no income, a recent eviction and landlord
debt on her rental history, Tricia entered shelter unsure how she would be able to fmd a place to
live and wondering how long she would be homeless. With assistance from shelter staff and a
Housing Navigator, she completed the application for the Metro 300 housing assistance program,
was approved for housing and signed a new lease on April 8. She is settled into her new home
and preparing to return to work.
Monique is 64 years old, has been homeless in Washington County since January of 2019. Due
to her physical needs and fragile health, she was diverted from the congregate shelters and placed
in a motel. She has significant health issues and dietary restrictions that required additional
supports during her stay. It became clear that Monique was not able to manage activities of daily
living and would not be able to live independently. Working collaboratively, staff at Community
Action, Just Compassion, LifeWorks NW and Washington County advocated for her to be
connected to the Medicaid resources needed to secure placement in an assisted living facility.
With the stability of a safe place to stay, she was able to seek medical assistance and she was
admitted to the hospital. She will be moving permanently to an assisted living facility in
Sherwood upon her discharge putting an end to years of struggling to maintain her health and
safety on the street.
7 I Page Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Bradley is in his early 40's reports experiencing homelessness for the first time. Being separated
from his wife after many years of marriage, he found himself homeless with no resources.
Despite having several health issues Bradley made use of all services available to him. Working
closely with him he disclosed being a Veteran. Shelter staff begin seeking services for Veterans.
Bradley moved to a 24-hour shelter for Veterans - Do Good Multnomah -with housing services
attached.
Al is in his late 40's has been homeless in Washington County for several years. He managed to
keep a full-time job while staying at the Shelter. While in the shelter he worked closely with the
staff regarding his use of alcohol. With support and encouragement from shelter staff, he
attended zoom AA meetings at least twice each week while in the shelter. On May 31st he had
30 days clean and maintained full time employment.
Sebastian is in his mid-twenties and has experienced homeless since the age of 15. Living from
tents to doorways he reports working and attending school while homeless. BSWS was a safe
place which provided him with services that allowed him to be successful with his employment
he was promoted to assistant manager. With the assistance of shelter staff he was able to move
into his first apartment with a roommate.
Vince is in his late 30's he reports being homeless for a few years. He was very motivated
seeking employment and working odd jobs while in the shelter. He was unable to obtain housing
while at the shelter due to time restriction, but has remained engaged in his housing plan and is
actively working to regain stability.
Ally had been homeless for many years, she was willing and determined to find permanent
housing and full time employment. With he support of shelter staff she was able to use of a
computer,receive daily bus tickets and a lunch to start her day. Despite dealing with some
unseen disabilities she obtained employment at Amazon and is staying at the SOS in Portland.
"Scooter"is a 69-year-old man living outside in Washington County, Oregon. Once a promising
musician, Scooter sustained a serious traumatic brain injury in the early 1980's. This injury
changed the course of his life. With the help of his family,he was able to obtain Social Security
Disability benefits. However,because of the effects of his disability, Scooter has been unable to
manage his own finances and has needed the assistance of a payee; this has made him an easy
target for predatory individuals interested in gaining access to his money. In the spring of 2020,
Scooter mentioned some confusion about not receiving any money. Working collaboratively
members of the Project Homeless Connect staff, ASSIST staff', the Hillsboro Police Department
and Luke-Dorf staff learned that Scooter's former significant other had taken control of his
finances, having his SSDI check deposited into a checking account that he did not have access to.
As a result, the Hillsboro Police Department opened an investigation into this possible fraud. The
ASSIST team worked with Scooter to connect with the Social Security Administration,return his
benefits to him and start the process of obtaining a payee who will not fraudulently use his
benefits. Project Homeless Connect and Luke-Dorf staff have worked together to connect
Scooter with his brother in Arizona, and are working with him to get a phone and a replacement
ID to achieve his goal of moving to Arizona to live with his brother.
Wage Page Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Appendix 1: Beaverton Severe Weather Shelter
Total Unduplicated Individuals 96 Total Unduplicated Households 93
Chronically Homeless Individuals 14 Individuals with disabling 45
conditions
Youth 18-25 2 Veterans 5
Participants By Gender
Data not collected. 18-24
vasa 3%
Female 62+
28% 9% 25-34
20%
55-61
12%
35-44
45-54 19%
Male 32%
71%
Participants by Race and Ethnicity
•White
3% 4% Client Doesn't
•Black or African Know/Client Refused
7% American 2% Data not
3% collected
Asian
7%
American Indian or 'ispanic/Latino
Alaska Native 13%
•Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
Non-
▪ Multiple races
Hispanic/N
4% Latino
White •Client Doesn't
75% Know/Client Refused
•Data not collected
9IPage Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Sources of income
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 8
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 4
Earned Income 3
Unemployment Insurance 1
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) 1
Exit Destination
Place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an abandoned building,
bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside) 93
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter
voucher 3
10IPage Repot produced by Community A, iion
Appendix 2: Project Homeless Connect—Eslie Stuhr Center
Total Unduplicated Individuals 59 Total Unduplicated Households 56
Chronically Homeless Individuals 15 Individuals with disabling 25
conditions
Youth 18-25 3 Veterans 2
Participants by Gender Participants by Age
Data not Data not
collected T 62+ collected
-
3% 7%
18-24
7%
Female
30% 55-61 25-34
25%
Male
63%
4S-54 35-44
24% 14%
Participants by Race & Ethnicity
Client Doesn't
Know/Client
Data not •White Refused Data not
• ollected 2% collected
9% 8%
•Black or African American
Hispanic/Latino
15%
Multiple races •
Non-
Client Doesn't Know/Client Hispanic/Non
Refused Latino
75%
White
83% •Data not collected
111 Page Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Sources of Income
Supplemental Security Income(SSI) 6
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 2 I
Earned Income 1
Pension or retirement income from a former job 1
Exit Destination
Place not meant for habitation 33
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter
voucher 7
Data not collected 5
Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 4
Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher 3
I Staying or living in a family member's room, apartment or house 3
Staying or living in a friend's room, apartment or house 2
Jail, prison,or juvenile detention facility 1
Client Doesn't Know/Client Refused 1
12 ( P a g e Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Appendix 3: Project Homeless Connect Salvation Army Center
Total Unduplicated Individuals 103 Total Unduplicated Households 99
Chronically Homeless Individuals 20 Individuals with disabling 51
conditions
Youth 18-25 5 Veterans 7
Participants by Gender Participants by Age
Trans Male _ 18-24
{FTM or _ 5%
Female to 62+
Male) 9°l0
1%
55-61 25-34
16% 22%
Female
32%
Male 45-54
65% 23% 35-44
25%
Participants by Race& Ethnicity
White Data not
collected
3%
1%\ it Black or African American
Hispanic/
Latino
American Indian or Alaska 15%
Altiek
Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
■Multiple races Non
Hispanic/
in Client Doesn't Know/Client Non-
85% Refused Latino
■Data not collected 82%
13IPage Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Sources of Income
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 16
, Earned Income 10
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 9
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) 2
General Assistance (GA) 1
Other Source 1
Exit Destination
Place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an abandoned building,
bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside) 98
Rental by client, no ongoing subsidy 2
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter
voucher 2
Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility 1
141 Page Report produced by ommunity Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Appendix 4: Motel Vouchers—Scattered Site
Total Unduplicated Individuals 37 Total Unduplicated Households 31
Chronically Homeless Individuals 15 Individuals with disabling 28
conditions
Youth 18-25 2 Veterans 3
Participants by Gender Participants by Age
18-24
not exclusively o
5%
3% "Mk 35-44
16%
=Fa
Female
54%
Participants by Race & Ethnicity
Hispanic/
White Latino
8%
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska
Native Non-
Hispanic/Non-
Latino
races Latino
92%
15IPage Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Sources of Income
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 9
Supplemental Security Income(SSI) 6
Earned Income 2
Private Disability Insurance 1 1
Pension or retirement income from a former
job 1
Alimony and other spousal support 1
Other Source 1
Exit Destination
Place not meant for habitation (e.g.,a vehicle, an abandoned building,
bus/train/subway station/airport or anywhere outside) 23
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter
voucher 8
Owned by client, with ongoing subsidy 1
Rental by client, no ongoing subsidy 1
Staying or living with friends,temporary tenure (e.g., room apartment or house) 1
Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher 1
Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric medical facility 1 I
16IPage Repot produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Appendix 5: Comfort Inn Respite Shelter for COVID Symptomatic/Positive
Total Unduplicated Individuals 24 Total Unduplicated Households 12
Chronically Homeless Individuals 3 Individuals with disabling 2
conditions
Youth 18-25 0 Veterans 0
Participants by Gender Participants by Age
25-34
9%
35-44
Female 8%
23%
Data not
collected
46% 45-54
25%
Male
62+
8%
Participants by Race& Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
13%
Data not White
collected 50%
46%
Non-Hispanic/Non-
Latino
87%
Black or
African
American
4%
17 [ Page Report produced by Community Action
Emergency Shelter COVID 19 Response: Summary and lessons learned
Income Sources
, Earned Income 1
Supplemental Security Income(SSI) 4
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 2
Exit Destinations
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid for with emergency shelter voucher 8
Rental by client, no ongoing subsidy 2 1I
Staying or living with friends,temporary tenure (e.g., room apartment or house) 2 ++1
Owned by client, no ongoing subsidy 1
Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure 1 1
Staying or living with family,temporary tenure (e.g., room, apartment or house) 1
Place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an abandoned building, bus/train/subway
station/airport or anywhere outside) 1
Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter voucher 1
18 ( P a g e e p o r t produced by Community Action
EMERGENCY SHELTER COVID 19
RESPONSE
S UMMAR Y AND LESSONS LEARNED
•P211ft6y'
° _ . Beaverton
4.4,41, $EGD OR EGON
PROJECT „ ��iXX
HOMELESS Just Compassion ; n r
CONNECT - of Eost Washr�,ys�a6n CcvitlY C o m m u n i t y Act o Hilisbor .
.......„..,,....•*..i M H Ifr.Mi l r4AM.
WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON
OREGON
AGENDA
• COVID19's impact to the shelter program
• Challenges to getting people off the street
• Case studies
• Next steps, needs
Combined Impact of All Efforts
AHITGE THANKS ! Total Unduplicated Individuals 291 Total Unduplicated Households 261
Chronically Homeless Individkials 60 Individuals with disabling 66
conditions
Because of your support and additional funding,we were able to: Youth 11-25 12 Veterans 15
• Shelter 291 adults experiencing homelessness including: Pficipants by Age: Participants by Gentler:
• 15 Veterans
Data not 1B-24
• 66 with Disabilities oollect•d 4%
:..
• Quickly open three congregate shelters supporting 150
people over 77 days
55-61
- Made possible through additic 15%
funding from Oregon Housing an Male,67%
J_1
Community ��rvices
• Take over a hotel for quarantine of COVID+ and
asymptomatic people white
1%4 Washington County filing for FElY 10% oBlack orAfrican American
Asian
supporx
6% American Indian or Alaska Native
• Transition 13 people into permanent housing ■Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
4 Process is enabled by consistent 75% •Multiple races
■Client Doesn't Know/Client Refused
contact in the shelters
■Data not collected
SHELTERING BEFORE AND AFTER
COVID
• Before COVID: 8 faith-based and non-profit partnership shelters, How has supporting the homeless population changed in the last
each open 1-2 nights per week three months?
• People experiencing homelessness required to move locations • Community-wide effort-> a first!
throughout the county to seek shelter on a first-come, first-served • Supporting tent camps with sanitation,food services
basis
• Quarantine of positive and asymptomatic patients
• Makes tracking and contact difficult
• County-wide coordinated, 7-day congregate shelters
• Guarantees that job locations and shelters will not be co-located
• Additional shelter funding and resources from Oregon
• COVID pandemic forced most shelters to close March 16 Housing and Community Services, Beaverton and Hillsboro
• Beaverton managed to stay open during transition to full-time Governments
• Comprehensive plan: sheltering, outreach, services, Built
et�d•w.•-�.ht n. MU SW ar••••nH eiw. ,.
Ye:Sou-9,1OWWI,...ro.n._I„ For Zero
M41:RT 51op••Sl;*GT napl]5,5 tow
*cm,dnie.,Vowne us*,pew*
...drove
+++M Mum',of 01.1 aCH Cons,Way •p.+ .t.
hM:)pm
Sar.nn o .-Slume,. klut
.•1•w, TM
Orcew
•
.d•rSMbC•m uhlly SUM 51•I1.eMtM R! - .•
M.1e:53,_•6p',411..ro.rkmW!
Tr1-Mr,1'Frwn T•w•nnpMv GrmwwTr•i,4w IMn•lo+an w W+.�
Smies:D.ner SM...%t 6v.Rre.klw.:.k
•wrl+
r 5
WSMnnChlneh •..•hA -. ...— n.' ..,�.h.I .�1
1.Make:YS.
Serv4n•
*ten nu[un••d•n ISSSO SW Sena ern•
•npTml.lWe.....er—U•.rwn l-. •ia .pun CIL
fen4«:oiner.eu•1141•talp
Igggl
•.414.CeM.n Shalt am SW q.nt•rM.0 V.• �.
nl.k1,•Sp•4 9,.5,•pTTyiTN.IF.e!•Sln... r,....
to•••••••feniors.0nnefff3lXn.b .•..•
Il.e.laetlre.nn'4tmr�eYYrPM.ek'nnYfeF y n+r•Ywi p1
!.,• m�gm•a e.rNm,alxAW15(anrt:
u Ardfmr/aGnidleaumnit 5l11555•TAeC.n11.A - -
nC•lie:s.3gnr(W115•.'Amu .h • ., r.
FROM HOMELESS TO HOUSED
• Barriers to Exiting Homelessness: Instability, sporadic access
to communication, health & mental health challenges
• Maintaining timely contact between agencies and clients
problematic
• Navigating the system both organizationally and
logistically more difficult when moving from shelter to
shelter daily.... Or with no shelter at all
• Lack of adequate supports to for mental health & substance
abuse
• Environmental stressors make treatment less effective
• Advocacy is important
• Housing First model - It works
• Shared responsibility
• Complicated web of touchpoints
CASE STUDY: SKEETER'S STORY
Background How you helped!
•
• Once a promising musician, Skeeter Skeeter entered a PHC shelter.
sustained a traumatic brain injury. • Washington County CoC and community
partners became aware of Skeeter
• Unable to sustain Autonomous Daily Living
• Hillsboro PD open investigation into possible
• Managed to get SSDI fraud
• Unable to manage finances • ASSIST team worked with Skeeter and SSA to
stop misdirection of funds, designate new
• Vulnerable to fraud, predation trustee
• Former partner took over finances • Project Homeless Connect, Luke-Dorf connect
Skeeter with family
• SSDI direct deposited to her account
• Outcome:Replacentent ID, phone in process,
• Ended up on the street goal to move Skeeter to Arizona to live with his
brother!
CASE STUDY: MADELINE
Background: How you helped!
• Well known in the SWS system since January • Madeline entered the Beaverton shelter
2019.
• The process:
• However,many years of prior homelessness
throughout Oregon • Because of health and other restrictions,
Madeline was moved to a hotel while
• Many barriers to moving her to a stable various organizations worked to a
living arrangement: successful placement.
• 64 years old • Community Action,Just Compassion,
• Physical disabilities LifeWorks NW and Washington County
• Fragile health advocated for her to get Medicaid
support of placement in an assisted living
• Dietary restrictions facility
• Not capable of living independently
• Outcome: Permanent placement for
• Health deteriorated and ended up Madeline into an assisted living facility in
hospitalized Sherwood upon discharge from hospital!
NEEDS
1 . First and foremost, this is a life-saving endeavor that is the best interest of the
homeless *and* the community. C OVID 19 will require the system to function
differently and we must engage in preparations for winter shelter season now.
2. Support street outreach, day shelters, and harm reduction efforts - maintain
contact with unsheltered populations, monitor for symptoms, and connect to
services and housing.
3. Mitigate siting challenges in advance - Identify locations that could serve as
emergency shelter for homeless individuals in a public health crisis, periods
of severe weather and a full-time year-round asset in your community.
AIS-4124 4.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 07/21/2020
Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes
Agenda Title: Solid Waste Franchise Fees and Charges Aggregate Update
Prepared For: John Goodrich, Public Works Submitted By: John
Goodrich,
Public
Works
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
This is a Council briefing on solid waste management franchise fees and charges, recent
aggregate report, and discussion on council options pertaining to drop box rates and charges.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action requested.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff is briefing council on solid waste management franchise requirements pertaining to the
municipal code, franchise provisions, and the setting of rates, fees, and charges. Additional
information will be provided relating to the recent franchise aggregate report, and options for
council consideration regarding rates, fees and charges for compactors and drop boxes.
The city contracted with our financial consultant Bell and Associates to review the drop box
fees and charges, and provide analysis and options for council review. Council will have an
opportunity to review the findings and options, and provide staff direction regarding next
actions.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Not applicable.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES,APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Tigard Muncipal Code 11.04 - Solid Waste Management
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council was briefed on October 8, 2019 during a study session regarding solid waste
management franchise issues pertaining to rates, franchise renewal, and franchise renewal
periods. During this agenda item, it was recommended to provide additional information to
council after the completion of the March 2020 solid waste aggregate report.
Attachments
2019 Aggregate Report
Aggregate Report Memo
Presentation
ll 1 i
, . • : ' ' :-2 ' till III .
.,
1
-07,44,2i,7 • , . • ,, ....7--....1a---_-,
III ;., '• '-- t .7,..' '1,..
Off"? it,.
_ no*
kThin CI . .,,
• - ..), ,.
G -- r _._ , , ,..., Fop_
reent i
ii . . . .. • . ,. .,.!... ,
rt's . • • ‘
Ne run on dean bil gas
ini„enaaturan, iii, Ti .
. ,
iliCAUTION ;::-. * , • 1 - . -,.,,L,
.:
riarzumirasux..
4/11111114 ' - 1._ .._
1 wm.ccun MIR 6 ..milki I .
0 Obe ' cod .:: . - mi.-
a - .:,
_11 .1 •-------
1k ,
C S ..-
7 , r • 1.kt-71
Alia.it--ethi-d_i. BAi _ Ftwere ph, 4, .;:,..4
Clea-'
,„, ; .
_ A--
Solid Waste &
111 .15 Recycling Rate
,_ -
TIGARD
Report
Bell & Associates, Inc. June 2020
Background
The City of Tigard (City) contracted with Bell &Associates, a consulting firm with expertise in solid
waste collection operations, to provide the City with solid waste and recycling consulting services. In
April 2020, Pride Disposal and Waste Management submitted their annual detailed cost reports to the
City for the calendar year 2019.
Annual Cost Report
Pride Disposal and Waste Management provide waste and recycling collection services to the City's
residential and commercial customers under an exclusive franchise agreement. The annual report
submitted by both franchisees provides line-item costs and revenues associated with providing
service within their collection territories as well as combined line item totals for their non-Tigard
operations. The format of the annual report provides the capacity to calculate the cost of service for
each line of business (cart, container, and drop box). Cart collection is offered primarily to residential
customers, whereas business customers are serviced with a container, drop box, or roll off
compactor. The submitted reports from both franchisees were analyzed and the following tasks were
completed for the rate review:
a. Analyze reported route collection hours to the reported customer counts for each line of
business.
b. Using a predictive test of revenue for each line of business, ensure the reported revenues are
reasonable for the number of reported customers.
c. By thoroughly reviewing the reported direct cost line items, determine if the expense is
reasonable in relation to the customer and operational data entered from the detailed cost
report.
d. Utilize a predictive test of disposal to determine if the reported disposal expense is reasonable.
e. Using the reported administrative line items, determine if the expense is reasonable in relation
to the operational data entered from the detailed cost report.
f. Review the costs between the City and Pride's other franchised collection operations to
determine if the allocations are reasonable.
Adjusted Report
The consolidated report allows the calculation of the Tigard system's return-on-revenue and provides
the City a measure of the adequacy of rates.Table 1 details the return for each collection service
provided within Tigard's franchise collection system.
Table 1: Adjusted 2019 Tigard Results
Cost Components Roll Cart- Container Drop Box Composite
Revenue 5,527,487 4,674,548 3,950,132 14,152,167
Allowable Costs 4,984,648 4,176,337 3,523,090 12,684,075
Franchise Income 542,839 498,211 427,042 1,468,092
Return on Revenue 9.8% 10.7% 10.8% 10.4%
Revenue Projections in 2020 Due to Reduced Business
Before the Oregon statewide lockdown for the Corona Virus, financial and operational results for the
first quarter for both collection companies were comparable to the prior quarter.With the business
disruption, the decrease to commercial and drop box service within the Tigard franchise is estimated
at $120,000 for the second quarter of 2020. The reduction in business activity from the lockdown is
expected to affect the financial performance of both franchisees throughout the remainder of the year.
Disposal and franchise fees comprise approximately 44% of every dollar of commercial container
revenue. Other direct variable costs of providing container and drop box services such as fuel, truck
repair, and equipment maintenance were reduced to varying degrees. However, labor remained
comparable to 2019 because neither franchisee laid off any employees. Assuming each collection
company still incurred $0.50 of expense for every dollar of lost revenue, a revenue reduction of
$470,000 reduces the margin to 9%. In contrast, a revenue reduction of more than $800,000 would
reduce the composite return on revenue to below 8% as detailed in Table 2.
Table 2: Rate of Return Impact from Reduced Collection Revenue
'019 2020 , $ ■ 2020
Revenue 14,152,167 470,000 13,682,167 800,000 13,352,167
Allowable 12,684,075 235,000 235,000 400,000 12,284,075
Franchise Income 1,468,092 235,000 235,000 400,000 1,068,092
Return on Revenue 10.4% 9.0% 8.0%
pg.2
)14
I " City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
City Manager Marty Wine
From: Director of Finance and Information Services Toby LaFrance
Re: Annual Solid Waste Financial Report Finding for 2019
Date: May 5, 2020
The Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 11.04.090, requires the two franchised solid
waste haulers (waste haulers) submit their annual financial reports on or before March 15 for
the calendar year ending December 31 in order to determine annual rate adjustments. City
code sets a target aggregate profit for waste haulers between 8 percent and 12 percent,with
rate adjustments based upon the profit percent and CPI-U for the region.
Per TMC,if the aggregate profit for all waste haulers is between 8 percent and 12 percent,
the rates will be adjusted annually with a start date of January 1St. TMC indicates the rate
adjustments will be indexed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
CPI-U Over-the-Year Percent Change Annual Average for Portland-Salem. Due to the 2018
Geographic Revision, the Portland CPI has been discontinued. The current CPI-U Over-the
Year Percent Change Annual Average for the Portland area is the Pacific division of the
West region. For 2019, the annual average index for the West region is 2.7 percent.
If the aggregate profit for waste haulers is less than 8 percent or more than 12 percent the
City will undertake a rate study to recommend new rates. If the aggregate profit is between 8
and 9 percent, then 1.25 times the index will be applied. If the aggregate profit is from 9 to
11 percent, then the index will be applied. If the aggregate profit is between 11 and 12
percent, then 0.75 times the index will be applied.
TMC requires that the findings are reported to the council annually. The aggregate financial
report for the year-ended December 31, 2019 shows a profit rate of 10.37 percent. No rate
study is needed as the profit margin fell between 8 to 12 percent. The solid waste collection
rates increase by 2.7 percent effective January 1, 2021.
The recommended fee changes will be included in the Master Fees and Charges schedule to
be presented with the 2021 budget hearing on June 16, 2020.
cc: Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal
Mike Jefferies,Waste Management
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
111 .
TIGARD
Waste and Recycling Collection
Franchise Discussion
Chris Bell, C.P.A. I John Goodrich
Bell &Associates Executive Manager, Public Works
CITY OF TIGARD
Presentation Outline
Introduction — Objectives & Goals of City of Tigard
Code and Franchise Agreements
Summary of 2019 Aggregate Report
Drop Box Rates & Fees — Methods of Providing Service
Franchise Renewal Overview — 7-year Rolling Renewal
Council Questions
1<,.
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
IWeekly Carts Container Customer Drop Box Hauls -
�
l .
3668 127 1963 ,f'
------ r ,
CITY
Weekly Carts I Container Customer Drop Box Hauls
! I irg
0 ■? 14535 I 797 7526
r
'n1 CZI
— ��
`6
] PRIDE DISPOSAL l�
Weekly Carts Container Customer Drop Box Hauls j
10867 670 5563
Tigard Sill FrancCl;3e
i
Boundary Map /'
/
Jl -,,fi f
N
51
A0 0.5 1 Miles
CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard Municipal Code
Chapter 11.04:
1 Provides how Solid Waste & Recycling is to be
managed
Grants exclusive Franchises and Service Area to Pride
and Waste Management
1 The Code is the Agreement between the City and
Franchisees
R
CITY OF T I G A R D
Tigard Municipal Code
Chapter 11.04:
Franchise agreements are automatically renewed on
January 1 of each year for a term of 7 years
Council can suspend, modify or revoke the agreements
under certain conditions
In exchange for exclusive rights, city receives 5% gross
cash receipts (Franchise Fee)
CITY OFTIGARD
Tigard Municipal Code
Chapter 11.04:
Rates charge by the franchisees are set by the City
Council
Annual financial report and rate review process
established in the code
t' Revenue target is between 8% to 12% with 10%
Optimum
CITY OF TIGARD
Franchise Agreement Objectives
Achieve waste recycling recovery goals established by
the city, county, State Department of Environmental
Quality, and Metro
Ensure reliably safe accumulation, storage, collection,
transportation, disposal or recycling recovery of solid
waste
Ensure a dependable and financially stable waste
collection, recycling recovery, and disposal service
CITY 01, TIGARD
Franchise Agreement Objectives
Rates based on cost of service to provide just, fair,
reasonable and adequate revenues necessary to
provide service to the public
Service provided in sustainable manner to conserve
energy and material resources
1 Eliminate overlapping service to reduce traffic impact,
improve air quality, and reduce noise
1 Provide solid waste recycling recovery opportunities to
the public
C I: T Y 0 IF T I G A R 1)
Rate Setting Policy
Operating Margin/Return on Revenue:
0 Policy targets an aggregate operating margin of 10%
to If Aggregate profit margin falls below 8% or exceeds
12%, Council considers rate adjustments to the target
of 10% based on Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
I If no COSA is conducted within a 6-year period, Cost of
Service Analysis is automatically performed with
recommendations to Council
CITY OF TIGARD
Rate Review Process
Analyze both franchisees for:
Route collection hours to the reported customer
counts for each line of business.
Predictive test of revenue for each line of business,
ensure the reported revenues are reasonable for the
number of reported customers.
Determine if the expense is reasonable in relation to
the customer and operational data .
CITY OF TIGARD
Rate Review Process
Analyze both franchisees for:
161 Predictive test of disposal to determine if the
reported disposal expense is reasonable.
Determine if the expense is reasonable in relation to
the operational data .
81 Review the costs between the City and other
franchised collection operations to determine if the
allocations are reasonable.
CITY OF TIGARD
2019 Adjusted Results
Cost Components Roll Cart Container Drop Box Composite
Revenue 5,527,487 4,674,548 3,950,132 14,152,167
Allowable Costs 4,984,648 4,176,337 3,523,090 12,684,075
Franchise Income 542,839 498,211 427,042 1,468,092
Return on Revenue 9.8% 10.7% 10.8% 10.4%
Impact of State shutdown from Corona Virus is still being calculated
• Loss of business customers
• Expecting increases in bad debt
Metro's proposed 10% disposal rate increase for July 1 has been
postponed until further notice
CITYOF TIG ARD
Drop Box Service
Regulated Franchise — Current Tigard System
Regulated rates and service
Limited service providers but guaranteed service
CITY OF TIG ARD
Drop Box Service
► Competitive Market — City of Portland
Variable / Negotiated rates and variable service
Several service providers but without guaranteed
service
Rates for one-time service can be higher than regular
customers
CITY OF TIG ARD
Drop Box Service
Hybrid Franchise / Competitive Market — City of
Gresham
All drop box / roll off compactors are regulated by City
Permitted construction is a competitive market
f City doesn't have the capacity to monitor / regulate the
construction hauls
CITY OF TIGARD
Drop Box Service
Total Cost Tigard Gresham Portland®
Delivery to the Customer $78.34 $40.00 $200.00
Haul Fee from Customer to Disposal Site $168.00 $141.12 $200.00
Drop Box Rent for 5 Days $17.28 $21.15 $35.00
Disposal of 2.5 Tons @ $109.75 per tont $322.79 $296.38 $360.00
Fuel Surcharge @ 11% of Total Fees $87.45
Environmental Fee @ 17.5% on Total Fees $139.13
Regulatory Recovery @ 3.6% on Total Service $28.62
Total Cost $586.41 $498.65 $1,050.20
Table Notes
1.The rate quote from Waste Management was for an address in the SW Hills area of Portland,which requires a longer
drive time due to the terrain and accessibility.
2. Includes the franchise fee and margin for the Tigard tons,which adds$48.84 to the disposal cost.The Portland tonnage
fee is$120 per ton with a 3 ton minimum.
CITY O I{ TIGARD
Drop Box Service Comparison
Description Franchise Competitive
Regulated by the City Negotiated
Rates Transparent—Same rate for Can be lower than regulated
the same service and will vary
Regulation & Reporting Full Accountability Limited
Franchise Fees Measurable / Reliable Can Fluctuate / Not as
reliable
Hauler Provided City Included with franchise Excluded
Services
Service Delivery Close to guaranteed Will vary by the service
provider
Collection Efficient Routing / Less traffic More single trips
Customer Service Only one point of contact Customer can choose the
service provider
CITY OF TIGARD
Drop Box Service — Hillsboro Method
Hillsboro's rate structure was unnecessarily complicated and was changed
to the following costs:
1. Haul Fee / Delivery Fee
2. Drop Box Rental Fee
3. Mileage (if assessed)
4. Disposal (pass-through)
Customer can easily match their invoice to the City's regulated fee schedule
Rate is calculated on the cost of providing the hauling service
The disposal is a pass-through fee - no franchise fee or margin is added
Rate is set on the service only — disposal is excluded from calculation
Reduced the income to the franchised haulers and the City; however, the
primary reason for the change was to service the needs of the customer.
CITY OF TIGARD
Drop Box Service — Hillsboro Method
Hillsboro's rate structure was unnecessarily complicated and was changed
to the following costs:
1. Haul Fee / Delivery Fee
2. Drop Box Rental Fee
3. Mileage (if assessed)
4. Disposal (pass-through)
Customer can easily match their invoice to the City's regulated fee schedule
Rate is calculated on the cost of providing the hauling service
The disposal is a pass-through fee - no franchise fee or margin is added
Rate is set on the service only — disposal is excluded from calculation
Reduced the income to the franchised haulers and the City; however, the
primary reason for the change was to service the needs of the customer.
CITY OF TIGARD
Franchise Renewal / Review
Two Types in Metro — Fixed or Rolling
Fixed amount can vary from five to ten year.
Some cities have evaluations to determine if
the franchise should be extended
Beaverton has evaluations every three
years (franchise term is 10 years)
CITY OF TIGARD
Franchise Renewal / Review
Rolling Benefits:
Rolling renews and adds an additional year if no action
is taken by the regulatory body.
1 The franchise evaluation is the opportunity for the
regulatory body to determine if a change is necessary
0
0
}rM,
N
AIS-4308 5.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 07/21/2020
Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes
Agenda Title: Discuss Water Utility Rate Modeling
Prepared For: John Goodrich, Public Works Submitted By: John
Goodrich,
Public
Works
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Shall Council consider various policy options relating to the Water Cost of Service Analysis
and Water Rate Project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff is requesting council guidance on three policy topics relating to water utility services
provided by the city.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Background
The water utility serves nearly 65,000 people with 20,000 metered accounts throughout Tigard
and its surrounding areas, collecting fees based on the services received. As a best practice for
financial management of the utility, it is recommended to conduct rate studies on a routine
basis. A rate study should provide the utility with sufficient revenue to meet its expenditure
requirements and should allocate those revenues in an equitable manner.
The city is in the beginning stages of conducting a cost of service analysis and rate study for
the Water Utility Division in the Public Works Department. The city last completed a similar
project in November 2010. The adopted recommendations from the 2010 study included
significant structural changes to the water service pricing model to ensure adequate and stable
revenues. During this time, the city was initiating construction of the Lake Oswego-Tigard
Joint Water Supply Project. The pricing model and rates were effective January 1, 2011.
Significant changes were necessary to fund approximately $160 million in construction costs
for the water project. The changes ensured greater fairness and equity by allocating costs
based on customer classification, by meter sizes and in using an inclining tiered consumption
rate. This provides adequate financial stability to meet the revenues required for operations,
debt service, maintenance, replacement and capital improvements over a long-term forecast.
Introduction
The water utility's policy objectives for financial planning are to meet operating, debt service,
and capital needs, allocate costs equitably across customers, and balance costs between the
fixed and volumetric components of rates in order to provide appropriate incentives for
customers while mitigating fiscal risk to the City. Cost of service analysis and rate studies
follow guidance from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the provisions of
Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 3.32 — City Fees and Charges. In summary, the key drivers of
financial planning that guide this project are equity, conservation, and financial stability.
Staff is requesting guidance on three major topics prior to conducting the cost of service
analysis modeling: the booster pump charge, residential customers with private fire
suppression, and residential customers with 1" meters. Input prior to the project analysis will
ensure that the options and recommendations from the project align with council's goals to
address customer concerns and related suggestions on water utility service rates, fees, and
charges. The Water Advisory Board considered the three discussion topics at the June 10th
meeting and provided recommendations for each topic. Those recommendations are listed in
the content below.
Policy Question #1: Booster Pump Charge
Shall the City of Tigard continue charging the booster pump charge to those customers in
higher elevation service zones?
Information:
The city's current water rate structure includes a booster pump charge for customers in areas
of higher elevation. The city first implemented the booster pump charge in 2002. The
surcharge was designed and implemented to recover the costs of pumping water to higher
elevations —including the construction, operation, and maintenance of pump stations. At the
time the booster charge was created the City of Tigard was purchasing its water from the City
of Portland. Most of the water was moved throughout the system by gravity and the city only
pumped water to serve those customers in higher elevations. Now that the City of Tigard's
source water has changed, water is pumped throughout the system; from the intake facility to
the treatment plant, and from the treatment plant to pump stations, reservoirs and nearly
every customer in the city's service area.
The booster pump charge is assessed based on a customer's meter size (see chart below). The
last adjustment to these charges occurred in 2015.The typical residential customer has a
5/8-inch meter, therefore those residential customers in higher elevation zones would pay
$5.15 per month.
Meter Size Monthly Booster Monthly Booster
(diameter Meter Size cont.
inches)
5/8" $ 5.15 4" $ 241.65
3/4" $ 7.42 6" $25723*
1" $ 13.72 8" $411.57*
1 1/2" $ 41.16 L 10" $ 804.11*
2" $ 66.82 I 12" $ 1,15791*
3" $ 117.83 f I
*Currently no accounts paying the fee
The city currently does not discretely track the costs associated with moving water to higher
pressure zones; however, the data available in the city's financial system indicates that average
annual costs are roughly $300,000 (including O&M and capital). The City currently recovers
approximately $515,000 from the booster pump charge per year.
The use of elevation surcharges in the water industry remains relatively uncommon; however,
there are other examples in Oregon. This includes but is not limited to the City of Corvallis,
City of Medford, and Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB).
Staff recommends eliminating the booster pump charge in order to simplify the current
pricing model. Lower elevation zone customers need pumped water to provide service
(Bonita Pump Station) but are not charged a fee for this additional pumping. The city
generates approximately $21 million in water revenues, and the amount of revenue generated
from this fee is 2.5% of total revenue. Should the city remove this fee, the costs associated
with pumping would be allocated across all customers as a general revenue requirement for
the water utility. A phased approach to eliminating the fee is also an option to rebalance the
revenue requirements over time.
Options:
1. Continue the current practice of including the booster pump charge to customers in
higher elevation services areas.
2. Discontinue surcharge — all customers inside the City would share pumping costs.
The Water Advisory Board passed a motion during their regular meeting on June 10, 2020 to
recommend to the city council, that during the Water Rate Cost of Services Analysis, that the
booster pumping charge remains in the Fee & Charges Schedule, but that the amount itself
will be recalculated.
Policy Question #2: Residential Customers with Private Fire Suppression
Should the cost of service analysis evaluate residential customers that have 1" water meters
due to the required capacity for private fire suppression systems?
Information:
Water meters are sized based on the Oregon plumbing code requirements for fixture counts.
Properties with more fixtures require a larger diameter meter to provide enough flow to meet
the customer's water demands. The standard meter sizes for residential customers are
5/8-inch, 3/4-inch, and 1-inch.
The City provides water for private fire protection services (fire suppression devices, like
sprinklers, located on a customer's premises) based on the required "stand-by capacity"
associated with providing the service. Stand-by capacity is the upsizing of the system to
provide adequate fire flow in case of a fire event. The City must have enough capacity within
the system to meet the fire flow requirements and maintain the ability to meet the overall
systems demands that occur simultaneously.
Residential fire suppression systems, regardless of the home's other fixtures, require a 1-inch
diameter water meter to meet a minimum of 50 gallons per minute fire flow capacity. Until
recently, the only residential customers with 1-inch meters were those required by Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) standards to have fire suppression systems in the homes.
Based on the size of the homes, these residences had a fixture-count close to the
requirements for a 1-inch diameter water meter city pricing structure. However, new
developments (especially related to River Terrace subdivision development) have installed
residential fire suppression systems in smaller townhomes that are separately metered for
water service. Based on the size of these townhomes,without the fire sprinklers, they may
only require a 5/8-inch meter to meet the capacity for the fixtures.
Project Impact:
The cost of service analysis identifies how the water service area equitably distributes costs
among its customers based on the unique uses and demands on the system by each customer
type. Therefore, the allocation of costs associated with serving customers with private fire
suppression will be evaluated as a standard part of the project. The cost of service analysis
would not, unless directed, evaluate options for providing non-cost-of-service-based relief to
these customers or changing the methodology of cost allocation to address this area of
concern.
Options:
1. Evaluate residential private fire suppression as a normal part of the cost of service, but
do not request scenarios for different discounts or alternative rate methodologies.
2. Explore scenarios for revising the methodology used to charge residential private fire
protection base rates.
3. Explore discount programs for customers that have private fire suppression systems
with lower fixture counts.
The Water Advisory Board passed a motion during their regular meeting on June 10, 2020 to
recommend to the city council, that the homes with Fire Suppression Systems pay the base
fee in recognition of the number of fixtures in their unit not based on having the Fire
Suppression Systems and create a separate class of charges for those units.
Policy Question #3: Residential 1" Meter Customers (without fire suppression)
Shall the City of Tigard consider a change in policy regarding residential customer's base rates?
Information:
City staff and City officials have heard and responded to concerns from customers regarding
the base charge for residential customers that have 1-inch meters. Tigard's water rates have
two main components — a fixed customer charge and a volumetric usage charge. The fixed
customer charge is paid monthly by all customers based on the size of their meter. The
consumption charge is based on the actual amount of water a customer uses.
Base charges are proportionate to the demand a meter can place on the system, meaning the
size of infrastructure required to meet the peak needs of the system's users. Water meters are
installed according to the Oregon plumbing code requirements for fixture counts. Properties
with more fixtures require a larger diameter meter to provide enough flow to meet the
customer's potential water demands. The standard size for residential customers 5/8-inch,
3/4-inch, and 1-inch.
As of June 30, there were 17,904 residential customers, 1,560 with 1-inch meters and 16,334
customers with either 5/8-inch or 3/4-inch meters (there were also 2 customers with 1 1/2 inch
meters). Based on the most recent years of consumption, 1-inch meter customers use an
average of 9.4 units of water per month, compared to 6.8 units on average for 5/8-inch
customers. The data indicates that those customers with fixture counts requiring a 1-inch
meter are using more water on average than a customer with a smaller meter size. One unit
of water equals 100 cubic feet volume or 748 gallons.
Project Impact:
The city's water utility requires a certain amount of revenue to cover the costs of the utility.
When the costs for one customer class is reduced, other customer classes must make up for
that lost revenue. The cost of service analysis and rate study will evaluate the rates needed to
cover the costs of providing potable drinking water to customers, as well as evaluate how
those costs are allocated between different customer classes, different meter sizes, and
between the fixed and volumetric portion of the rates. This project could result in changes to
the base rates for residential customers with 1-inch meters. However, the cost of service
analysis would not, unless directed, consider changing the methodology for issuing base
charges to customers. The options below provide a few examples for types of scenarios that
could be explored, but additional scenarios could be requested or recommended by the WAB,
City Council, and the city's rate consultant.
Options:
1. Evaluate the costs allocated to all customer classes and meter sizes, including residential
1-inch meter customers, as a normal part of the cost of service, but do not request
scenarios for different rate methodologies.
2. Explore scenarios for revising the methodology for charging residential customers with a
1-inch meter different base rates, such as:
a. Charging one base rate for all residential customers, potentially resulting in the
16,334 residential customers with smaller 5/8-inch or 3/4-inch meters subsidizing
the 1,560 residential customers with 1 inch meters and creating the need to explain
to commercial customers why their base fees are on a different standard than
residential customers.
b. Charging a base rate for residential customers using a different criterion than meter
size, separating the study from cost of service and resulting in allocation of revenue
requirements via means that may be less equitable.
c. Change the percentage of costs the city wishes to collect from the base charge
versus the volume charge, lowering the impact of the base fee and increasing
reliance on volume charges increasing risk that the city would not meet bond
covenents to cover 1.1x the cost of operations and debt service.
The Water Advisory Board passed a motion during their regular meeting on June 10, 2020 to
recommend to the city council that during the rate study process the city review multiple
different scenarios, including the current scenario, to provide base rate relief to 1-inch
customers, in order to give council a better understanding before moving forward with an
option to charge the customers.
Summary
The city uses a comprehensive water utility rate model to ensure fairness and equity for all
customers that receive water within the Tigard Water Service Area. Over the last nine years,
the rate model has been successful in ensuring strong financial stability while delivering high
quality water on demand in adequate supply and pressure. During the last few years, three
major topics of concern have been provided by numerous customers relating to the pricing of
water utility service.
Staff is requesting guidance on these policy questions prior to conducting the cost of service
analysis modeling.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Briefing and discussion only. Council may wish to provide other alternatives to policy
discussion or introduce other policy issues relating to customer charges for water utility
service.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Council adopted the 2010 Water Master Plan and 2014 Water Master Plan Addendum. Both
plans include capital improvement projects with funding requirements that impact water
utility customer's rates, fees, and charges.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council has not considered any changes to the water utility rates pricing model.