City Council Packet - 01/12/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 12 , 1981 , 7 : 30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LECTURE ROOM
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAI; ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN
'HH EIR NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE SIGN-UP SHEET(S) LOCATED AT THE
BACK OF THE ROOM. PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK WILL THEN BE
CALLED FORWARD BY THE CHAIR TO SPEAK ON THE INDICATED ITEM(S) .
AGENDA:
1 . CALL TO ORDER
2 . ROLL CALL
3 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4 . CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS .
5 . CONSENT AGENDA: (All matters under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted in
one motion in the form listed below. There will be
no separate discussion of these items . If discussion
is desired by any Council member or member of the
audience, that item will be removed from the consent
agenda and will be considered separately. )
(a) Approval of Minutes : December 22 , 1980 & January 5 , 1981
(b) Approval of Expenditures and Investments : $171 ,623 . 24
(c) Street Dedications : Approve and Authorize Mayor and City Recorder
to Execute.
Common Wall House/Girod - Frewing Street
Clifford Leonard - 12800 & 12810 SW Walnut Street
Washington County - 72nd Avenue at Boones Ferry Road
(d) Ratify Council Action of January 5 , 1981
Approval of payment to Senior Center - D. M. Thompson - $48 ,835 .00
(e) RESOLUTION No. 81-01 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF A
STRIP OF LAND LYING ADJACENT TO DURHAM ROAD
ON THE NORTH, RUNNII`:G WESTERLY FROM HALL
BOULEVARD.
6. OLCC APPLICATION - Request for approval
Silver Palace (Former trade name Canterbury Inn)
14455 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon 97223 - Dispenser Class A
New License.
(a) Recommendation of Chief of Police
7. RESOLUTION No. 81- DECLARING AN INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN STREET
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE A
STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN
AS SOUTHWEST 72ND AVENUE AREA LID No. 21 ; DESCRIBING
THE PROBABLE TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST THEREOF; DEFINING
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED AND
ASSESSED; APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS FOR THE WORK AND ESTMIATES OF THE CITY ' S
ENGINEER, AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING
THE GIVING OF NOTICE THEREOF.
(a) Recommendation of Director of Public Works .
8. RESOLUTION No. 81- A RESOLUTION APPROINTING LOREEN WILSON AS DEPUTY
CITY RECORDER AND AUTHORIZING HER TO ACT AS CITY
RECORDER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES .
(a) Recommendation of City Administrator.
9. ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE
DISTRICT No. 1 FIRE PREVENTION ORDINANCE .
(a) Recommendation. of City Administrator.
10. STATE LONG-RANGE REVENUE & EXPEDITURE PROJECTIONS
(a) Recommendation of Finance Director
8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
11 . FAIRHAVEN STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
(a) Public Hearing Opened
(b) Summation by Director of Public Works
(c) Public Testimony
Proponents
Opponents
Cross Examination
(d) Recommendation of Director of Public Works
(e) Public Hearing Closed
(f) Consideration by Council
(g) ORDINANCE No. 81- AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NOVEMBER 24, 1980
WITH RESPECT TO SW FAIRHAVEN STREET SEWER IMPROVE-
MENT DISTRICT (LID ##23) ; APPROVING, RATIFYING AND
ADOPTING PLANS , SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM; DECLARING
RESULTS OF HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT THERETO;
DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION;
PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS ,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
8 :00 P .'t\1. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
12, SUMMERHILLS L. I.D. PUBLIC MEETING FOR ASSESSMENTS .
(a) Public Meeting Open for Questions from Audience.
13. FOI;LMAT ANNEXATION MEETING DISCUSSION - South of Walnust Street/Fonner &
121st.
(a) Request of Mayor Bishop
PAGE _Z w- ;`. {)I3IrTC AG� 7i3trtNlAftY � ,; 3_E1
14. REPORT ON MAYOR ADVISORY COUNCIL RETURNS
(a) Request of Mayor Bishop.
15 . 92ND AVENUE HALF STREET IMPROVEMENT - BOUMAN AGREEMENT
(a) Report by Legal Counsel
16. OTHER
17 . EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council will convene into an executive session under the provisions of
ORS 192.660 (2) (a) to consider a counter proposal for acquisition
of available downtown property.
18. ADJOURNMENT
t
r`
i
PAGE 3 — COUNCIL AGENDA — JANUARY 12 , 1981
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, JANUARY 12 , 1981 , 7 :30 P.M.
1 . ROLL CALL: Present : Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilmen John
Cook, Kenneth Scheckla , Tom Brian (arriving at 8 : 25 PM)
Councilwoman Nancie Stimler ; Legal Counsel , Joe Bailey;
City Administrator, Raeldon R. Barker; Director of
Public Works , Frank Currie; Finance Director/City
Recorder, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldie Howard;
Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson .
2 . Mayor Bishop announced that item #11 would not be heard due to
petitions received from 71% of the citizens requesting no improve-
ments be made in the Fairhaven Street area .
3 . CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR THOSE DESIRING TO SPEAK ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS .
(a) Mr. Floyd Olson, Manager of Radio Cab, 1613 NW Kearney, Port-
land, appeared to request Council amend the taxi franchise
ordinance in the City to allow more than one cab company to
service the area .
(b) After brief discussion, the consensus of Council was to have
this item considered at the January 19th study session. Staff
was requested to prepare information on this issue .
Councilman Scheckla requested 5e be removed from consent agenda .
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : December 22 , 1980 & January 5 , 1981 .
(a) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilwoman
Stimler to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
5 . APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS : $171 ,623 .24
(a) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilwoman
Stimler to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6 . STREET DEDICATIONS : Approve and Authorize Mayor and
to Sign. City Recorder
. Common Wall House/Girod-Frewing Street
. Clifford Leonard - 12800 & 12810 SW Walnut Street
Washington County - 72nd Avenue at Boones Ferry Road
(a) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilwoman
Stimler to approve -and authorize Mayor and City Recorder to
sign.
(b) Councilwoman Stimler requested that staff note the p) ?nr.ing
application number ( i . e SDR 5-80) on the street dedication
requests so that Council will have more information available .
Motion to approve was passed by unanimous vote of Council .
present .
7 . RATIFY COUNCIL ACTION OF JANUARY 5 , 1981 : Approval of payment to
Senior Center - D.M. Thompson - $48 . 835 .00 .
(a) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilwoman
Stimler to approve payment to senior center - D.M. Thompson
$48 ,835 .00 .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present .
8 . OLCC APPLICATION - Request for approval .
Silver Palace (former Canterbury Inn) 14455 SW Pacific Highway
Dispenser Class A License - New Application.
(a) City Administrator stated the Police Department had completed
a background search on the applicants and requested approval .
(b) Motion. by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Scheckla to
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM approve .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present .
9 . RESOLUTION No. 81-01 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF A
STRIP OF LAND LYING ADJACENT TO DURHAM ROAD
ON THE NORTH, RUNNING WESTERLY FROM HALL
BOULEVARD.
(a) Legal Counsel reported hsitory of project and requested
Council accept dedication as a condition of improvements .
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - S .W. Fairhaven St Sewer Improvement Proposal
10. Mayor Bishop noted that this item would not be heard at this time .
8:00 P.M. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
11 . SUMMERHILLS LID PUBLIC MEETING FOR ASSESSMENTS .
(a) Director of Public Works advised Council of background infor-
mation on the LID and stated the assessment amount would be
$3 ,495 . 80 per lot .
(b) Mayor Bishop stated this meeting was for information on the
distribution of the assessment .
PAGE 2 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12., 1981
(c) Ms . Nancy Robbins , 12185 SW Summer Street and David Osborne ,
12330 SW Summercrest Drive, appeared to speak on the sewer
assessments . Their questions covered areas of how the assess-
ment will be charged, and what costs were included in the
assessment total .
(d) Staff noted that assessment notices would be sent out to the
citizens within two weeks .
(e) Councilwoman Stimler expressed her appreciation for the citizens
in the area . Their attitude through the whole LID process has
been one of patience and gratitude .
12 . RESOLUTION No. 81-02 DECLARING AN INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN
STREET IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA DETERMINED
TO BE A STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
TO BE KNOWN AS SOUTHWEST 72ND AVENUE AREA LID
NO. 21 ; DESCRIBING THE PROBABLE TOTAL ASSESS-
ABLE COST THEREOF; DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED AND ASSESSED;
APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE WORK AND ESTIMATES OF THE CITY' S ENGINEER,
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE
GIVING OF NOTICE THEREOF.
(a) Director. of Public Works recommended approval for a public
hearing.
(b) Motion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Cook
to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present
(c) Councilman Cook requested that Council discuss this public
hearing on the January 19th study session agenda .
Consensus of Council was to hold discussion on the 19th .
Councilman Brian arrived 8: 25 P.M.
13 . RESOLUTION No. 81-03 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING LOREEN WILSON AS
DEPUTY CITY RECORDER AND AUTHORIZING HER TO
ACT AS CITY RECORDER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES .
(a) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to
approve.
(b) Councilwoman Stimler expressed her concern regarding the fact
that Loreen Wilson does not live within the city limits and
would be unable to serve as City Recorder unless she were
willing to move into the City. Councilwoman Stimler requested
staff try to train someone else to fill the City Recorder
position that lives within the city limits .
PAGE 3 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES January 12 , 1981
(c) City Administrator and Legal Counsel stated that this was
only a housekeeping resolution as Mrs . Wilson is only serv-
ing in this capacity when needed . It was noted that there
was no one on staff at the present time that lived within
the city limits who was willing to assume this type of position.
Motion to approved Resolution No. 81-03 was passed by unanimous
vote of Council .
14. ORDINANCE No. 81-01 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 FIRE PREVENTION ORDINANCE.
(a) City Administrator recommended approval , noting that fire code
was approved as to form in July of 1980 .
(b) Mo.tion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to
table until January 19 , 1981 for information regarding the 40%
surcharge on all building plans .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
(c) Staff to gather information on item and request either Will
Dodge of the Fire District or Ed Walden, Building Official
of Tigard to be present at the meeting.
15 . STATE LONG-RANCE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
(a) Finance Director stated this form was just an estimate of
expenditure-revenue projections for the next five fiscal years
and was required by the State in order to receive State
Revenue Sharing. She recommended Council approval and
authorization to forward to the appropriate state offices .
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to
approve and authorize Mayor to sign and forward to the State .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
16 . Mayor Bishop introduced several members of the audience to the
Council and Staff.
Mr. Bob Bellinger - Tigard Park Board
Mr. Cliff Speaker - Tigard Planning Commission
Mr. & Mrs . Jim Smith-former Lake Oswego Councilmember and currently
City of Tigard resident.
17 . FORMAT ANNEXATION MEETING DISCUSSION - South of Walnut Street/Fonner
& 121st.
(a) Mayor gave brief history of annexation requests in area and
noted that 445 letters had been sent to residents advising
them of the January 21st public information meeting.
PAGE 4 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12 , 1981
(b) Lengthy discussion followed regarding format of the meeting ,
what would be on the agenda , what type of graphics would be
used and what type of information would be appropriate to
discuss .
(c) Mayor Bishop requested other Council members check the list
of names the letters were sent to and notify any individuals
personally known by the Council . This might encourage more
positive input by the citizens at the meeting .
(d) Councilman Brian noted that his goal was for an annexation to
include the whole area and requested this approach be used at
the public information meeting.
(e) Consensus of Council was to have staff prepare detailed agenda
for meeting and bring back for Council approval at the January
19 , 1981 meeting.
18. REPORT ON MAYOR ADVISORY COUNCIL RETURNS
(a) Mayor Bishop discussed the results of the Mayor ' s Advisory
Council returns . Council expressed their desire to read
and discuss the -results at a later date .
19 . 92ND AVENUE HALF STREET IMPROVEMENT - BOUMAN AGREEMENT
(a) Legal Counsel reported that he has initiated a law suit against
Ken Bouman for the half street improvement that he was supposed
to complete on 92nd Avenue next to the high school .
20 . OTHER
(a) City Administrator reported that TMEA;OSEA mediation has been
cancelled for January 13 at 9 am and will be held on January
16th at 10 am.
(b) City Recorder stated that the League of Oregon Cities is hold-
ing a workshop for newly elected officials in Tualatin on
January 31 , 1981 to discuss the budgeting process .
(c) City Recorder requested Council direction in negotiating
the 1980-81 audit contract with Coopers & Lybrand.
Consensus of Council was to offer $9 ,000 as the fee for the
year. If auditors were not willin¢ to accept that offer,
Council wishes to go out to competitive bidding.
EN
(d) Councilman Cook questioned whether any cable TV companies
were putting cable in the City Limits .
Planning Director stated that he was unaware of any work currently
going on in the City. He requested Council study the new re-
port from the Cable TV committee. A copy is available for
Council perusal .
PAGE 5 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12 , 1981
(e) Mayor Bishop requested Council hold meetings with both the
Park Board and Planning Commission to discuss areas of con-
cern with both boards .
Consensus of Council was to meet in special meeting with the
Planning Commission on February 3 , 1981 at 8 :00 P.M. at Fowler
Junior High School .
Meeting with Park Board is to he scheduled for March 2 , 1981
study session.
Council requested a specific agenda be set up so that a few
questions may be solved at each meeting .
(f) RESOLUTION NO. 8004 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTING AN ANNEXATION PETITION BE
FORWARDED TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW COMMIS-
SION (SHORT TITLE - GENTLE WOODS) .
Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to approve .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council ,
(g) Planning Director requested Council allow recent appeal file
by Mr. David Church to be remanded back to the Planning Commis-
sion. He noted that there was a possibility that this item
could be resolved by that body, saving the Council from an
appeal hearing .
Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler
to remand the appeal back to the Planning Commission.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
(h) Director of Public Works stated that Council would receive a
copy of the Comprehensive Street Plan within the next week
and would like to schedule this for discussion at Council ' s
convenience . He advised Council that this would be a prelimin-
ary draft .
RECESS : 10 : 15 P.M.
RECONVENED 10: 35 P.M.
Councilwoman Stimler brought to Council ' s attention the need for a sign
for the new Senior Citizen Center . When request for funding was prepar-
ed this item was not included and she felt a location sign was desirable .
She noted that Si.gncraft will donate sign materials for a temporary sign
but consideration should be given to our future needs .
PAGE 6 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12 , 1981
9
10:35 P .M.
Council went into executive session under the provisions of ORS 192 .660
(2) (a) to consider a counter proposal for acquisition of available
downtown property .
City Administrator distributed report on condition and valuation of
property under consideration and stated he accompanied the Broker ,
City Building Official and Tualatin Rural Fire Department representa-
tive on their inspection. Council and City Administrator discussed
possible action and long range plans for the City . Concensus of
Council was to meet with Broker and Property Owner to discuss the matter
further.
Meeting adjourned 11 :00 P.M.
City Recor er
ATTEST:
Mayor
PAGE 7 - REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12 , 1981
i
Date__.Zl2 ,q],
I
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
_. Council on the following item.-
(Please
tem:(Please print your name)
AGENDA ITEM! ## 4 - CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS
Name, Address & Affiliation Item Descriptipn
iItm ,�- X ,L t C -F
Date 1/12/81
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
t Council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
AGENDA ITEM # 12
SUMMERHILL-S LID ASSESSMENTS
N e, AddresAf i�.iation 1-. 1 $ S S �� S 'JItm �e�iption
&
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
PROGRAM BUDGET
Community Protection
Police
Public Works 3 . 639 .89
Municipal Court
Planning 4 1 s
Building
Total Community Protection
33 ,433 . 51
Home & Community Quality
Public Works
Social Services
Library 1 298-50
Aged Services 1 , 598 . 71
Youth Services 9 4 2-0-5-
Historical n5Historical
Total Social Services 18,E 26
Policy & Administration
Mayor & Council RRi AL
Administration 606. 6 7
r.
Finance _1 ,364. 38
Total Policy & Administration 2 ,82 . 99
City Wide Support Functions
Non-departmental
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) _ 23 ,52 3 74
CAPITOL BUDGET
Community Protections
Road Acquisition & Dev.
Parks Acquisition & Dev.
Storm Drainage
Total Community Protection
Support Services
Building Improvements 48 ,896.47
DEBT SERVICE
General Obligation Bond
Bancroft Bond
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Con trac t
SRR S3
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 171 ,623. 24
Avoid Verbal Messages A-1
CITY OF TIGARD
To: Chief o;_ Police From: ;oris
Subject: OLCC T:enevial Application Date:! " l >
Please investi,'atc? an(I have recoi-I—:F ndl t io;- rC^cly L-oI i('Ci.i::%•£'Y _'� , i`_
Council neetin<*.
Tracie narne Of �,)770Tii1SCS : ',)ilver Palace_'
Former trade na: -(_,: k:an t.eruury I"C;
24455 .';' Pathic ;wy
Ti ) r.ri , C)r �,o 3722
Type of': appl icy: tion : ',isj)eiiser -'lase A
Avoid Verbal Messages
CITY OF TIGARD
To: Chief of Police From;� Det. Sgt. L. Branstetter
Subject: Business License ApplLeation Date: 1-7-81
APPLICANTS$ CHOW, Yuen Cheung
SO, William Tat Wing
LIM, Yee Ten
CHM# Loi Fu
DBA The Silver Plaace Resturant
14455 S.W. Pacific Hwy
Tigard, Oregon,.
All of the above subjects have been checked for criminal record locally and with the
Q.S. Immigration Service, and all are clear from any criminal record. The Liquor
Commission indicated that all subjects are from Hong Knog, and Yuen Chow and William So
are owners of the Silver Dragon Resturnat in Vancouve, Washington, but they do not
have a liquor license at that location® All applicants are puting up 10,000.00 Each
for the Silver Place Resturant, and the remainder of the money is con':ng from relatives
in Siong Kong,
There does not appear to be any reason to restrict the issuance of this license.
L. Branstetter, Det. Sgt.
i ��
=1111111 J
4 �
y
z�
+'(•x. � .�� 777 -
ty yL41 {Y'y 1 -
Intergovernmental Relations Division 10
155 Cottage St. NE
• Salem, Oregon 97310
LONG-R1Ul?GE FISCAL PROJECTION
Cities over 10,000 Population
Estimated Revenues and Expenditures in compliance with ORS 471.810 2(2) .
REVENUES FY 81-82'FY 82-831 FY 83-84 i.FY-84-85 FY 85-86
Property Taxes 603,130 658,857 696,318 736,329 778,313
Taxes other than Property -0- -0- 11,500,000 -0- t -0-
Fees, Licenses, Permits 864 984 986_469 1,128.272 1 295,626 4.491,503
Utility Revenues 331,811 352,863 374,939 398,144 423,669
Other Local Revenue . 106,963 191,691 199,684 209,289 217,744
Intergovernmental Revenue -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
--Federal Revenue Sharing 103,000_ 103,000 103,000 103,500 W3,50Q
other Federal Funding -0- 500,000 -0- 500,000 -0-
--State Revenue Sharing 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ,
SP.ate-Shared Revenue 452,297 479,629 580,137 603,863 628,747
Other State Funding 60,000 -0- 60,000 -O- 60,000
--other. Intergovexnmental
Revenue 248;185 180,263 155,776 164,179 173,951
IM 9 0,370 .3125.2-172 L8 8 125 �.110.930 $ 977 427
EXPIENDI TITR£S
Public Safety (Police,
Fire, Ambulance, 1,429,935 1:594,480 1,569,577 ,723,354 1,798,181
Building Inspection)
Transportation (Streets,
Transit, Airports, 4:391000 I 686,000 787,500 784,500 799,150
Parking, Bikeways,
Lighting)
Sewer and Water 200,0U0 210,000 200,000 200,000 210,000
Land Use Planning 92,000 92,500 93,000 93,500 94,000
Parks and Recreation 98,000_ 91,000 156,500 102,500 , 110,000
Libraries __
_77 154,870 178,100 1,704,815 735,537 270,870
Social services 66,000 69,500 72,700 76,500 80,000
Financial and General
Administration 235,798 257,200 1279,256 303,255 329,295
Debt Payments 36,095 36,000 30,000 30,000 32,000
Principle and Interest
Other 584,402 666,534 869,556 ` 823,158 832,418
TOTAL 13,341,100 `3,875,31415,762,904 !4,872,304 4,555,914
Certification: I certify that this long-range fiscal projection was
approved by the City Council of the City of_^XIAX.d ongan 12 , 1981.
ell
Mayor
"T' OF BEAVERTON
4950 SAV Hull Blvd. Bcavcrturn. Oregon 97005 (.50:3) 644-2191
January 7, 1981
TO: Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
and Interested Parties
FROM: Jack Nelson, Chairman
SUBJ: Revised Meeting Schedule
1
The RFP revisions were received in this office on Monday, January 5,
and are now available for distribution. As you know, due to this
delay, we have postponed the public hearing originally scheduled
for January 7 to February 4 at 7:30 p.m. at Portland General Electric.
Following is the meeting schedule which was adopted reflecting
this change:
a January 7 - February 4, 1981 , each jurisdiction reviews
final RFP to make the decision concerning continued
participation
® February 4, 1981 , MACC public hearing on final draft RFP,
PGE Center, 7:30 p.m. Discuss final changes and modifi-
cations of RFP. Roll call of participants.
® February 15, 1981 , RFP is advertised.
a May 15, 1981 , 12 noon. Deadline for submission of final
Proposal . Copies to be made available shortly thereafter.
0 May - June. Review of proposals by consultant and MACC.
0 July 15, 1981 . Meeting of MACC to consider recommended
ranking of applicants. Brief presentations by cable companies.
® August 19, 1981 . hearing by MACC to select franchisee.
�Q August 19 - September 16, 1981 . Final versions of franchise
ordinance(s) prepared For adoption by MACC jurisdictions.
Consultant evaluation is published.
® September 16, 1981 . Formalized designation of franchisee.
Enclosure: Letter from Carl Pilnick
i
- - Llo
L Wilshire Boulevard Suite 808 !os Angeles, California 90048 (213) 653-0870
Mayor Jack R. Nelson
City of Beaverton
City Hall
4950 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Beaverton, Oregon 97005
Dear Jack:
I am enclosing my report, including a revised RFP and
model ordinance. Fifty copies, as required, are being trans-
mitted for distribution under separate cover.
Some comments may be useful:
The model ordinance permits each City to
` grant a franchise independently, but has
provision for MACC joint regulation. If
a formal joint powers agreement is approved `
prior to the issuance of the RFP, this can
be included. Otherwise, the ability to
delegate powers to MACC, as included in
the model ordinance should be sufficient
to proceed.
° Exhibit A to the RFP includes some cities ,
mentioned previously, that may or may not
participate. Figure A-1 should be updated
prior to release of the final RFP.
° A copy of Washington County' s Cable Communi-
cations Plan should be included with the
final RFP, together with any recent modifi-
cations due to the outcome of the litigation
with Liberty.
I will attend the January 7 public hearing, and hope to
answer any questions that arise at that time.
Sincerely,
CARL PILNICK
President
CP/k
En closure
January 8, 1981RECEIVED
We the undersigned residents of Virginia Acres petition the City of T gay rd g 1981
to dissolve the Local Improvement District (L. I .D.) proposed for the iM Of TIMD
staltation of sewer on Fairhaven, 114th, and 115th streets . 4
Signature Address Phone I
2.
4.
5.
7. tet/r Cc
8. 4�
_
g tom
/9 &J Sts, l
12.
n
14. ' S: -�l.-' ST - .7,- 9
15. /3<03 o SCy /may �1 r 3 9
16.
17.
18. -R Data, f 19
20.
January 8, 1981
We the undersigned residents of Virginia Acres petition the City of Tigard
to dissolve the Local Improvement District (L, I.D.) proposed for the in-
stallation of sewer on Fairhaven, 114th, and 115th streets .
Si nature Address Phone
H
rt
RECEIVED
C tom-+
rr, a Ja,N 9 1981
00
ccnn S.W. 125TH AVrMME
Q C/3 Y• a � 'Y ®f TIG
W Cy3
o4Z
02 m x 13510 13530
r11 m m r-ci H
rr rr C
_ r-
�
�c o r t
CD
H C= 9
t=] r
cn
oom
...
co
c•`
OD
K
• (a x � L--,
p S.W. 114th 13675 13635 �
� 13670 136;0 y
�. A > Cr -
[i�t�
W
lJs
� s o o r
v a > n cn I
] O
r-z
1-4
do a
n
�s m � a
w � r-+ C)
< In r+
o rT
LnT� PV
R 1-+
►t o-r !
w is -
t� w
Q lis 4� c i M
W W lrJ C7
rr M
W
0
r
a
rf - -
PROPERTY OFFERING
TO
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON.
BY
COLDWELL BANKER COI.24ERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
PROPERTY OFFERED - (See Attachment)
Value determination -
$7/sq. ft. x 32,670 sq. ft. land = $228,690
$20/sq. ft. x 7,312 sq. ft. building 146,310
$375,000 total price = $51.28/sq. ft.
There is an additional 925 sq. ft. of second floor space not imputed
Into the sales price. There are an estimated 50 parking spaces
available in the event the lot is paved and appropriately Zayed
out.
FINANCING ASPECTS -
$375,000 Asking price
100,000 Down payment
$275,000 Contract carried by seller. Terms: 10-year payoff
maximum, interest rate 12%, 25-year am rrizarion with
balloon payment- at end of contract term..
$275,000 contract x .1264 constant - $34,760/yeas or, $2,896.67/
'month or, $4.75/sq. £t./yeas NUN
COMPARABLE SPACE FOR SALE -
Scoffins Square, 8770 SW Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon, $550,000 asking
price divided by 7,AA-7 @q_ ft. _ $73.90/sq. ft. (22,475 sq. ft.
land with only 23 parking spaces).
BENEFITS TO CONTRACT P.URCRASER OF PROPOSED PROPERTY -
1. Immediate satisfaction of space needs for City Hall expansion.
2. Ease of expansion into proposed purchase building, proximity to
existing facilities.
3. Occupancy costs less than other alternatives for the immediate
future.
4. No need to seek financing alternatives in poor money market. Yet
ability to pay off contract when permanent financing is available.
S. Adequate parking without purchase of additional land.
6. Allows City Hall service to remain in the core of historic down-
town Tigard.
7. Key parcel of land for future civic center development.
$ 375,000
Ground Floorisp 7,312
C:3 oldwell BankerUpper Level: 925
COMMERCIAL MKERAGE COMPAlW 12400 & 12436 S.W. Main space/bldg.Sizes.f
Adv u.su.KarCla,WAW `t_gard, Oregon Washington
Addre=JEjW County
COM MERCiAL—IMPROVED $ 1,613 Gross Yes
. Rant Per Month NQVGrass lMazzJ2nd F:cnVMoniA/Sq.FL
No No _3buildines totalling g 237 sq f
i*EXQ,U$I Will ivida Remodel 3pacalAldg.Dimensions
FOR SALE
June 1980 0.29 acres and 0.46 acres
Submitted by: Cate Available t.ot SFae 4 Climensions
office: In-line Retail
Negotiable' not Frorious Use
Phone: over 292 Yst veer Not marked 364/3-B Cotail
mmercial
Cow.Payment - Parking __ page
2oninq
10/15/80 1187-R J. Robert Muse/Carl Anderson
Cat@ Uatl.g Number Portland
Usting Salesman C?ftico
TERMS
Owner holds property free and clear. Will carry contract. Owner desires at least 20Z
down payment, but may not exceed 292 ir_ 1980, including amortization.
TAX DATA
1978/1979 Taxes: $1,977.04 'j •
Assessed Value: Land: , , XY
_ $78 400• improve=-9�easts: $44,400
IMPP[�isgiVlEItiTS
Three buildings -• all estimated over 20 years old. One. building is wood frame. The
other two buildings are brick and frame combination. All have igas forced air heatin .
One store has an air conditioning twit on the roof. . g
Building/space dimensions: 1) 20'6" x 69' (1,421 s. ft.); 26' x 69*
irregular (4,097 s�, fta)_ y) (1,. ) ft.);
Second Floor: Partial is 925 square feet. 3) Lot
4500 is 0.29 acres (471' x 294.6* x 466* x 286'). 4) Lot 4300 is 0.46 acres (48' x
284.7' x 94.1* x 166.01 x 46.1' x 48.51).
STATDSF AREA ®ATA
Daily traffic count is 10,.595 at Main Street. Located one block from 99W. Downtown
usage consists of City offices and other office users. Very active retail area. These
two land parcels and improvements surround Tigard City Hall on three sides.
` �"'9F11ENTS
esent rentals substantially below market rate. Two stores now on month-Le-month
leases. One lease ends 4/30/81. Excellent upside potential for rents.
The
square foot store at 12436 S.W,. Main is for rent on a month--to-month basis ( 1,794
bldg. is sold) for gross rent of $750/month. This store is air conditioned(until
the ruamubat cnabexied heron has edlbs heam pism a
C2
" 4
S, 6
5 N,>
132„=
9C i
1901 ;a,i jr.sd Ae ' Cr oo /
5400A ! �
" 4y
\\ ` �� C� 0 3400` � Esc \ �� �� `
e \ 3300 .'
o �
It'll�. 3200 •
43J00 y ', ��000 ,�3900
%s� s 'rick �0 !aw Can fi' /TQC
2800 r. a 34n3a
i 1 1p ��s 410Q
r<' e� 28,00`��• :y-. r 1 s , ' ,4300
g y't. o t 146�c °0 0• �
®ate 3 , �.: .� 4 4400, '
4500 �o '�• s, 6300
2.414a
4800
./.9sdC
4.0
bqt
1350.7 R]P33 IL,
TO �• a - C6S- .
Q$COmtiER Os TAE s o, a� Y �• °:•
sour":/2 of JOMM •r �'�
1aOff\
Ceut w D- 3Y WCar sA
�COCPNQ:RV•CORR /,
ER OF `S O o
®ilR11Ml4tl syucT � � ' .
5100
� sA �
�j5200
�
SEE MAP
2S 1 2 QCMAL
'r a' HERE
CCE
Zxhibf$ ftAw
e�
. MAYOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL
Report No. 1
December 12, 1930
1, THE ISSUE: The City of Tig:sd paid t:,e metrorolit2n Service District $7,327 out of this
year's city budget (51" per resident) for MSD's regional services as dictated by the
State Legislature. Tsnis assessment is no longer in effect after this year and new
funding must be found by NSD. City of Tigard voters, along with the entire Petro
area, voted down the XSED tax base of $5,247,000 on Nov. 4th.
THE SOLUTION: Should t1- City of Ti„ard continue to support P.SD with city taxpayers'
money at 51¢ or more per person? :r�� NC
Should the City pay NSD a fee only for services it (the City) specifically wishes
to request from NSD? YES NO
Should MSD's regional powers and authority be specifically described and limited
by law? YES NO
Comments:
2. THE ISSUE: The Downtown Tigard Committee has recommended to the City Council that an
Urban Renewal Agency be established for the downtown area and that $20,000 be sought
through a federal block grant for a consultant to prepare the plan.
THE SOLUTION: If the $20,000 grant is not approved, should the City Council appropriate
the money from City funds? YES NO
Should there be a city-wide vote before establishing a Tigard Urban Renewal Agency
for the downtown Main Street area? YES NO
Do you favor an Urban Renewal development for downtown Tigard? YES NO
Comments:
THE ISSUE: Tigard's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (seven years in development) has faced
some questions in preliminary meetings with MSD and LCDC representatives and they
have indicated to our planning director that Tigard's plan should provide for an
overall density of 10 units per acre to comply with goal #10 of Oregon's Land Use
Law. This will force the City to rezone some lands for as high as 40 units or more
per acre in order to comply with a 50-50 mix of apartments and single family homes.
WE SOLUTION: Should the City rezone its lands and newly annexed areas and rewrite its
plan to include this greater density and multiple units in order to fully comply
with MSD and LCDC complaints? YES 170
Should the City offer a reasonable compromise on density after holding public
hearings? YES NO
Should the City refuse to change its comprehensive plan and submit it as is to
LCDC for final confirmation? YES NO
Comments
4. THE ISSTiE: Tigard needs to plan for a future civic center to house all city departments,
and to provide an adequate community library, community meeting rooms, and other
services. Plans need to be made with full citizen participation and a site needs
to be selected before all available land is built upon or priced out of sight.
THE SOLUTION: Should the City Council immediately designate its prime site, seek citizen
support for a civic center plan over the next two years and tie down a location?
YES NO
Comments:
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY CO1,Z1ISSION OR BOARD? YES NO
IF YES, WHICH ONES? Planrang Commission Parks & Recreation Budget
Library Streets Police & Public Safety Econom-ic Development
Urban Renewal Civic Center Development Senior Citizen Affairs
Unified Co=munity (annexation') Youth Services T,-;.m & Count=ry Days
Other interests:
NA.;IE PHOME-1
ADDRESS
RETURN T0: Wilbur Bishop, Mayor'a Advisory Council, 12290 SW Y-Lin St., Tigard, OR 97223
i
a
WILBUR BISHOP
10590 S.W.COOK LANE • TIGARD,OREGON 97223
PHONE (503)620.5399 or 639-1052
December 12, 1980
Dear
In January, I will take office again. as Mayor of Tigard. It will be a
very important two years ahead and one in which many critical decisions
will, have to be made by the Mayor and City Council.
I have used the phrase "the people's Mayor" in my campaign. I do not
intend it to be campaign rhetoric to be laid aside until the next election.
A "people's Mayor" is one who keeps his communication lines open with the
people he was elected to represent—and this is what I intend to do.
Will you participate with me, in this worthwhile community effort, as
a sounding board and as a participant on the Mayor's Advisory Council?
If so, this letter is your official appointment to this adviory group.
Your only commitment will be to respond .with your thoughts and advice
on selected questions or issues facing the City of Tigard from time to
time during the next two years. You will be asked for your opinions
and advice through timely mailings or by a direct phone call. You are
also encouraged to call me on any concerns you may have that I do not
address through the Mayor's Advisory Council channels.
' I did not ring 2,591 doorbells between Oct. 1 and Nov. 3, meeting and
talking with more than 2,000 Tigard citizens, just to get their votes.
I want all of these contacts to bloom into a continuing friendship or
at least a continuing communication to help me make the right decisions
for the best interests of the City of Tigard.
However, because of the great number of people I talked, with, I find it
difficult to remember all the names and faces. I apologize if I fail
to recognize you or call you by name if we meet on the street or at a
meeting. Help me out, please re-introduce yourself—Jill remember, then,
the conversation we had.
You may not have been one of those I talked with in my door-to-door
campaigning, but I have included you on the Mayor's Advisory Council
for one of these following reasons: (1
2 ) You are an old friend and supporter;
You own property in the City; (3) Your business is in the City; or
$� You have an interest in the fut-are of Tigard.
I really do need your advice and opinions during the next two
so I hope you will fill out and return the enclosed "Mayor's Advisory
Council Report N1o. 111. —
To you and your family, my wife Martha and I wish you a very merry
Christmas and a most happy and successful new year in 1981.
Kindest regards,
Wilbur Bishop
Mayor-elect of Tigard
MAYOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL
Report No. 1 January 1981
These are the results of 134 personal responses, 113 city residents, 21 outside the city.
In this survey, 474 dings were sent out with two enclosures to many households for
a total of 786. This was a 2836 response from households or 170% of all enclosures.
1.THE ISSUE: The City of Tigard paid the Metropolitan Service District $7,327 out of this
years's city budget (51¢ per resident) for MSD's regional services as dictated by the
State Legislature. This assessment is no longer in effect after this year and new
funding must be found by MSD. City of Tigard voters, along with the entire Metro area,
voted down the MSD tax base of $5,247,000 on Nov. 4th. YES NO NO ANS.
Should the City of Tigard continue to support MSD with
city taxpayers' money at 51¢ or more per person?......... 13% (18) 71% (95) 1690 (21)
Should the City pay MSD a fee only for services it
(the City) specifically wishes to request from MSD?...... 73% (98) 1036 (14) 17% (22)
Should MSD's regional powers and authority be
specifically described and limited by law?............... 8496 (113) 2% (3) 140 (18)
---COMFITS
Although the MSD tax base did not pass I can't help but feel that MSD is an important
part of the community.
What does MSD do for the City of Tigard?
I have mixed thoughts on this whole issue. Earliery this year I participated in the
Metro Survey and so see many questions and unresolved issues. Suggestion: Thru Town
Nall discussions, explanations thru Tigard Times and other means of communicating with
Tigard citizesn, provide comprehensible explanations of MSD so people can make informed
decisions.
Tigard has no local transportation—the poor relation must beg and bargain—but no tax
rights given to anyone time for local mini bus.
The cost seems reasonable for the service provided.
With city, county and state governments, I cannot see the need of MSD.
I assumed MSD's regional power and authority were already described and limited by law.
We need MSD to take care of problems that are not limited to a single county.
You need to understand that government (including local) needs to stay out of private
sector. There is nothing MSD can do that you can't get the private sector to do better
and more economically.
It seems like'many times we are paying over and over for a dead horse. MSD has too
much power.
We believe Tigard and other suburban towns should help support the zoo, etc., but it
should be handled through city offices, not another government level. Dismantle MSD.
(Tree for services used) would seem a more prudent use of our par ticular city's fee.
It's refreshing to know some clear thinking person is asking.
MSD and similar organizations are a "thorn in the side" but it seems they are also a
necessity to our closely inter—related society.
Comprehensive planning necessary to prevent chaos.
If MSD is to exist at all, should be voted on by the citizens who have every right
to decide its existence.
MSD existance should be brought to a vote.
I don't think we need the MSD.
I think MSD is one governmental body that we can do without.
We are part of the metropolitan Portland area. Metro is a practical approach to the
solution of the area's problems.
Like CRAG, such agencies build excessive bureaucracy's, cripple progress with numerous
regulations.
MSD –2–
Funding mechanism. One approach would be 2 or 3-year contracts for specific services
with individual municipalities. Another approach, of course, is a thorough review and
restructuring of MSD functions by the Legislature.
MSA is a very essential branch of government to handle regional problems that local
communities are not able to.
By the State Legislature who should regulate the fee based on services the City of
Tigard asks for.
MSD is not all bad in that it is an intermediary body presently between the City,
LCDC and the State.
Pay for what you NEED and WANT!
I feel that we must reduce the size of the MSD.
We should encourage MSD to proceed with solid wast management—it has been too long
in coming.
14SD should be tightly controlled and limited by law. We don't need more layers of
government draining the taxpayer.
We should definitely only pay for the services we want them to performs-nothing more..
MSD is required to develop the regional services that Tigard eannot independently
provide economically.
MSD (if it is to exist) should have HONEST well–trained, conscientious leadership. I
feel that in the past the leadership was poor and the cost high!
Don't have a strong feeling on this.
MSD should be re–submitted to the voters. I hope it would be voted out of existence.
Take the government agencies off the citizens backs.
To avoid duplication MSD's planning authority should be limited to the coordination
of services and transportation between areas.
74SD can't relate to small individual community problems, every area has its own unique
concerns.
Tigard should pay only for services received.
MSD should be limited in its scope and power to area of need.
I would need more information.
MSD has been trying to build its own unnecessary empire, too much of it duplication
providioas.
of already existing service p
The "voters" already turned MSD down so the "City" should be bound by their wishes.
The City is bound by the voter's wishes.
2-2-Mayor's Advisoy Council Report, San. 1981
2. THE ISSUE: The r.rwntown Tigard Committee has recommended to the City Council that an
Urban Renewal Agency be established for the downtown area and that $20,000 be sought
through a federal block grant for a consultant.to prepare the plan.
YES NO NO ANS.
If the $20,000 federal block grant (for downtown
urban renewal program) is not approved, should the
City Council appropriate money from City funds?.......... 37% (50) 50th (67) 130 (1?)
.Should there be a city-wide vote before establish-
ing a Tigard Urban Renewal Agency for the downtown 72% (96) 19% (25) 9% (13)
Main Street area?........................................
Do you favor an Urban Renewal development for 54"6 (72) 254% (33) 2196 (29)
downtown Tigard?.........................................
—COMME�Ii TS-
i
Urban Renewal is two-faced. When redoing an area you must be careful not to destroy
its historical value if any.
Does the City of Tigard have $20,000 available for the project?
Please provide some specifics. What would be done?
Depending on results of study on plans, scope and approximate cost, area covered, etc.
The only need for a vote would be if the use of City funds for the agency were used.
When city funds are used the tax payers should have a voice.
I'd like to see the plan prepared by the consultant before deciding.
I would need to know more about the alternatives.
Planned renewal which should include the Civic Center issue.
I would want to know more about this, funding would be a matter of priorities, funds
are limited.
The longer you wait the more expensive urban renewal will be.
Providing those that create the problems are the ones to pay for the improvements.
Lets not defeat what this last election proves. lets not cause the Fed,to spend more
than what they have.
Though I am comparatively new to Tigard, there's need for improven&nt in downtown area.
Tigard needs some type of renewal—what Beaverton achieved looks great.
The City Planning Director should not dicatate the plans for the development over the
property owners and taxpayers.
Who needs it.
There was a downtown development onoe before with trees planted and the business
people rejected the plan and the trees were removed.
I would support urban renewal if major improvements in traffic flow were incorporated
in planning.
I favor the study by our city staff of the benefits to Tigard of a downtown urban
renewal project.
Is there an extaa $209000 in the budget? How much does a city-wide vote cost?
This development should be handled by your office and the City Council.
If the general citizens of Tigard are to be taxed, they should be allowed to vote on it.
The voters and business people have a reight to determine the future of downtown renewal.
Consider more than commercial development. Town Rouses and tastefully designed apart-
ment complexes is "downtown" Tigard would have the charm and "wuburban" character of
the best Portland has to offer.
Mary times in the past I have urged local business to deveopp a cooperative initiative
to improve the business community but they refused. it is not the responsibility of
the taxpayer.
3-3-Mayor's Advisory Councia Report, Jan. 1981
3• THE ISSUE: Tigard's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (seven years in development has faced
some questions in preliminary meetings with MSD and LCDC representatives an they have
indicated to our planning director that Tigard's plan should provide for an overall
density of 10 units per acre to comply with goal #10 of Oregon's Land Use Law. This
will force the City to rezone some lands for as high as 40 units or more Der acre in
order to comply with a 50--50 mix of apartments and single family homes.
Should the City rezone its lands and newly a-inexed areas
YES N0 NO SNS.
and rewrite its plan to include this greater density and
multiple units in order to fully comply with MSD & LCDC?.. 106 (14) 80)6 (107) 10% (13)
Should the City offer a reasonable compromise on
density after holding public hearings?.................... 57% (77) 27% (36) 1696 (21)
Should the City refuse to change its comprehensive plan
and submit it as is to LCDC for final confirmation?....... 49% (66) 24% (32) ?7% (36)
—COMMENTS
As NPO 7 chairperson, the area with the most amount of undeveloped lands and much
newly annexed or unicorporated land, I am very concerned about this matter. In our
Plan we designated areas for greater density but don't want to see an increase
beyond that. Any consideration of such must be made knwon to NPO 7 and worked on with
that group.
We may not like it but greater density is going to be increasingly necessary so public
transportation can succeed.
High density would turn Tigard into a minor ghetto in a few years as the new buildings
ran down.
Propose a compromise AFTER the LCDC acts on the City position of "No change."
Compromise probly best approach, can't fight LCDC. They have the final say over plan,
many counties have fought through the courts, almost all have lost and wasted taxpayers
M-ney.
We have far too much unused, vacant land, under develope land within the City--pleas
develop this land—with incentives to build, perhaps, before forcing development of
agriculture land outside the City.
We should tell LCDC what to do with their plan and ask Tigard people what they want.
Only Tigard citizens can know the needs of our town—lets not be browbeat by MSD or LCDC.
As with MSD, we do not believe in outside rule. Let Tigard make oun decisions.
Dismantel LCDC.
If all sides go together to compromise I'm sure a reasonable result will be produced.
Which of these options to choose would best be decided by the mayor and planning
director base on what course would give Tigard the best final result. A 50-50 mix
seems high, especially when duplex's are not counted as apartments. Tigard is suburban
in character, not urban, and forcing us to 40 units per acre could easily ruin Tigard's
livability and character.
Tigard is so far behind facing growth. We have a one-horse shay past and it's very
difficult to educate people.
All the planners want to do is plan. They never see the economic or practical side
of development and redevelopment.
If submitting the City Comprehensive Plan without change or compromise would certainly
br rejected by LCDC, then the City would be adding to government red tape and taxpayers
funds. Another approach would therefore be necessary.
Tigard is too crowded as it is. We keep increasing the population without improving
the roads and traffic problems. With more population the City's problems will only
increase—crime rate etc.
Tigard does not need more multi-dwelling units. Current congestion can only become
worse with more apartments. , not to mention impact on local schools.
Compromise is an honorable action and becomes increasinly necessary in more areas.
Yes (refude to change plan) if this means to Hell with MSD.
If LCDC's requirements are legal, we should comply without quibling.
Too much density already—overcrowding should be avoided.
Urban R&newal —2-2-
1 would like the consultant and committee to all be Tigard residents.
Could not a qualified citizen committee be formed to do the same job on a volunteer
basis. There is a lot of talent in this area.
Only if there is fiscal responsibility shown and the monies needed are voted on by
the citizens of Tigard.
Tigard is rapidly becoming a cosmopolitan area far more than its "rural town. image.
As it stands now, it's almost too crowded and inefficient to drive through.
This is obviously one of the few ways "Old Town" can be rejuvinated, if that is the
word for it, to focus attention on a City Civic Center and help get from the proverbial
planning stage to some action.
Do we really need a $20,000 consultant—what we need is local committee planning!
I have no objection to funds being appropriated for this purpose. However, I am not
sure that I would approve an Urban Renewal Agency.
I feel that public money should not be used for this type of renewal activity.
I would like to see a city building which housed police, librarVy and city offices but
I am not sure this requires urban renewal
What good is urban renewal—thot the planning commission was in charge?
I don't believe I have enough information to answer intelligently, I hve felt urban
renewal projects in Portland and elsewhere have proven unwise.
Our great need is Government Renewal—not Urban Renewal. If we want to control inflation
we have to 4top holding out our hand to Uncle Sugar.
If the matter is that important, we should be willing to finance it ourselves.
We should have a complEte program to offer the people.
Let the City Council vote on it. People in Tigard vote everything down.
Building codes, code enforcement, zoning and condemnation of hazardous property should
clean up the core area. Local government finance of Civic Center with compatable
private investmentfor the balance.
If it includes City Hall and Civic Center.
We like the sma11 town community flavor that is unique to Tigard. Only one building
north of Panno Creek, Westside of blain St. near the bridge needs improvem*nt. The old
style feed store brings smile. "New and obligated" is not always for the better.
I prefer getting Citic Center and park done downtown.
In the past most of the "Beautification" has taken place in the downtown area, what
about some of the other areas.
Local citizens are just as able to do any studies for the downtown area. Let's stop
the foolishness of getting "grant" money which costs more in the long run.
How about a town meeting to discuss this and related issues.
Such an agency would be more experienced and hopefully not have conflict of interests.
r Try for the grant, if that fails, Tigard should " "
Sn grass roots,,.
The decision should be based on need.
Y.
Comprehensive Plan -2-2-
Overcrowding already evident
What good are LCDC and p."' if no one complies with their plans and what good is "City's"
plan if they don't incli.de the goals. Although we are against LCDC-MSD and other
over powered agencies.
Don't have enough information to choose between fighting LCDC in court and/or
trying a compromise solution.
Probably no choice but eventual compliance. However, the City may find many alternatives.
Offer a reasonable compromise on density after a public hearing, be careful unless
specific properties andproposed developments are all considered, the 'Compromise"
abstraction could become as restirictive as the preset one. On confrontation with
LCDC, public hearings on planning issues are often emotional, rarely atteded by citizens
without an ax to grind, etc. Better to use a vehicle like the Tigard Times to thought-
fully review the LCDC/Tigard Plan issue in a series of articles prior to any hearings.
As population and economics change, we must be flexible in our zoning regulations and
adapt to new trends and methods.
Tell LCDC to go&raight to H o__!!
Am against greater density for young families as it leads to too many social problems
etc. Por retired persons it is fine.
Goal #1 of L rC says that the people who reside in ar. area should haze Input into the
development of that area. Leta start showing some concern for the people's wishes who
presently reside in the area.
a compromise--for more to our advantage of less dense housing—needs to be met.
The Comprehensive Plan is basically good with some minor problems in different NPO's
where citizen politics went a little beyond reasonable planning for their areas. These
things should be pulled together.
Lets not roll ofer and play dead!
I am strongly )pposed to the density cotemplated by Goal 10. Many of us moved to Tigard
to avoid the heavy density and congestion existing in the Portland Metropolitan area.
Goal 10 would totally destroy the very reason for people moving to Tigard.
It is meaningless to ask for citizen input in planning if it is not supported!!
LCDC should not exist—just another layer of government that doew nothing but complicate
matters and burden the taxpayer with more expense.
I have been very unhappy over the years as vaeious comprehensive plans have been made and
then changed. This is on the county level as well as city. It makes it difficult for
property owners.
The state is just as bad as the Feds when it comes to trying to run our lives. Lets
get rid of both PTSD and LCDC.
I feel LCDC is very restrictive and unfair.
If our plan is reasonable, supported by and justifiable for Tigard, then we should
submit it as is.
LCDC should be "cooled". k'e don't need dictarorial power at the State level.
Comprehensive Plan —3-3-
1 feel that we have more housing than our streets and highway can handle now. Also
with higher housing saturation, crime rates go up. People need some space to feel
free—we especially do not need any more apartments (rabbit hutch living) this especially I
creates people being crowded.
I'm not for 50-50 density we home owners dispproportionately pay higher taxes than
developers who can attain benefits and tax delays, etc.
I feel that the residents of the area should, through their own planning functions,
determine such items.
I have no quarrel with high density. Many lots are too large anyway. Lets do away
with LCDC even it it means getting general funds—with strings attached. My efforts
with NPO 5 (and Lake Oswego Neighborhood Planning Committee ) was largely wasted.
I feel that we should at least try to submit our present plan and let them come back to
us with their idaeas!
We must stop gobbling up land with low density and large lots. We should have a mix
of medium and low density to keep the costs of lots and services down.
MSD & LCDC is just another (Godfather) agency and does not have the community of Tigard's
best interests. As well as temporary developers interests are for the Dollar—not for
the community.
I don't know why Tigard "needs" more apartments.
i
MMMMMMMMMMEM
1
i
�4-4-Mayor's Advisory Council Report, Jan. ;981
�.
THE ISSUE: Tigard needs to plan for a future civic center to house all city departments,
and to provide an adequate community library, community meeting rooms, and other services.
Plans need to be made with full citizen participation and a site needs to be selected
before all available land is bolt upon or priced out of sight.
Should the City Council immediately designate its YE.S NO NO ANS.
prime site, seek citizen support for a civic center
plan over the next two years and tie down a location?... 80 11 0
( 5) lOjo (lj) 4/ (li) .
--0OMI�DI?'S
The City should be aware of public responce to the location of the future Civic Center.
�d the property desired, set it before the board, and put it on a bond issue.
As soon as possible.
The City needs new facilities—they will never by any cheaper.
This is a much needed project.
Would not this be related to the urban renewal program?
Renovate the current downtown structure to be comfortable, functional but maintain the
old architecture.
Sounds like the question begs the answer.
Needed badly—if the concensus is to go ahead on urban renewal—this should be in the
goal.
Tigard can do without a new civic center until that time that Tigard can live within
its budget as the public has asked.
Tigard is growing up—and has the growing pais to prove it—Main St. is like I-5 anymore.
I feel that having the meetings in the high school is adequate.
Unaware if plans have been made—if yes—then my answer would be to proceed.
Tigard needs an identity=--this may be a way of achieving this for the citizens—planning
and building a city hall.
It is vital for Tigard's development to revitalize the downtwon area and have some sort
of civic center as a focal point.
That's utopia—but someone should educate citizens that this Tigardville should be
far sighted.
It should be planned on a scale which is practical. now, but made possible for adequaeey
in the future.
Use our existing schools for meeting space.
We don't need it use our schools for meetings, etc. '
The City should use the lands it already owns to trade or offset the cost.
Tigard is growing—its later than we think.
Tigard need a "pride project".
j
The Council needs to seek citizen support first and then move to tie down the rest. 1
th citizen support the council needs to act now.
This is a need; however how about private investors building the buildigg and leasing
it to the City.
As belts tighten for all of us, this idea might seem an unnecessary extravaace. However,
the citizens of Tigard seem to wish to retain an identity that requires visible demon-
strations of autonomous governmental functions—what is a City without a "City Fall"
(is civic center) we can all be proud of.
Civic Center –2-2-2–
Construction should be deferred until there is an improvement in interest rates and
the economy.
P I question the advisability of each small community developing expensive governmental
complexes.
Depends on cost and location. Maybe a citizens committee of qualified people should
formed for this task.
Not at this time—sit tight and see what developes after the recession or depression.
Monies of any consequence that are to be spent should be put before the voters of Tigard.
7 e City of Tigard, in any opinion, is ready for improving its identity as a vialble
8ity vs just a suburb. As the economy improves, I am confident that the citizens of
Tigard will look to themselves for needed improvem*nts in the various ways available
and properly presented to them.
This project should be tabled until the economy improves. The proposed auditorium
at Tigard High School should meet the needs of our community.
Lets take one step at a time! Designate several sites, and lets discuss, possibly vote!
The City should have a civic center or city hall. However, the designation of a prime
site or sites should be the subject of citizen input since any project is going to
require strong citizen support.
The City Council should seek citizen support for a civic center prior to designating
a prime site.
l
The City should stress the public service aspects of the civic center—note . housing
of public offices. People are interested in services, not the comfort of public
employees.
They let the old Fowler school slip through their hands.
Develop civic center and compatable land uses as the renegal of downtown.
Civic center should be part of urban renewal.
I would question the cost effectiveness of such a project at this time,
Try for public land a-ccady built on, City, school, county, state, federal. Stay away
from downtown or build on existing property.
Land is not going to get cheaper?
It is now or never.
Tigard needs identity—•which a civic center could possible establish.
I feel the facilities being used at present are adequate.
t_
Will sell my land with private lake (Price 5 million $).