City Council Packet - 05/10/1982 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA an agenda item needs to sign their name on
14AY 10, 1982, 7:30 P.M. the appropriate sign-up sheet(s) . If no
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL sheet is provided, ask to be recognized by
LECTURE ROOM the Chair.
1. REGULAR 14EETING:
1.1 Call- to Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of 'Allegiance
1.3 Call to Audience , Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items Under Open Agenda
2. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed .for
discussion and separate action. Motion to:
2. 1 Approve the Minutes: April 26 & May 3, 1982
2.2 Approve the Expenditures and Investments: $ 84 ,080. 18
2.3 Approve cancellation of TURA meeting in May.
2.4 Approve Resolution No. 82-42 Transferring Funds &
Reallocating Funding.
2.5 Approve Sorg/Library Lease
2.6 Approve Resolution No. 82-43 Supporting Concept of New Transfer Station In
Washington County
2.7 Accept Easement - D.J. & E.E. Swan - SW Katherine Street Sewer LID
2.8 Accept Street Dedication - Fewel-Comer Company - SW 72nd Avenue
2.9 Acknowledge Mayor's Proclamation to Declare June 7th as Flag Day
2.10 Receive and File Written Communications:
• TCYS Monthly Report
• Transmittal from Chief of Police to Town & Country Days Committee re:
Parade on August 7 , 1982
• Transmittal from Video Adventures , Inc. to Chief of Police re: Prompt
Police Action
• Transmittal from Curt Randolph re: Septic Tank Problems & Memo from
Planning Department re: City's Response
2. 11 Approve Hearings Officer Professional Services Agreement
3. PRESENTATION OF KEY TO CITY TO LARRY LEWTON
• Presentation by Mayor and Council.
4. GAS FRANCHISE RENEWAL - Ordinance No. 82-
* Recommendation of Director of Public Works
5. 72ND AVENUE LID
5.1 Assessment Adoption - Ordinance No. 82-
5.2 Deferred Assessments - Ordinance No. 82-
0 Recommendation of Director of Public Works & Staff
6. REQUEST FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF LANDS - Discussion o
• Report by Director of Public Works oe
N
7. 74TH AVENUE LID DISCUSSION
• Report by Director of Public Works
8. LID POLICY & DRAFT PROCESS DISCUSSION
• Discussion with City Administrator
9. ANTI TRUST AND TORTS - Regulatory and Liability Discussion
• Discussion with City Administrator and Staff
10. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration pf Non-Agenda items identified to the Chair under item 1.3
will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City
Administrator prior to the meeting.
11. ADJOURNMENT
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - MAY 10, 1982 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, John Cook,
Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 7:47 P.M.); Director of Public
Works/Planning Director, Frank Currie; City Recorder/Finance Director,
Doris Hartig; City Administrator, Bob Jean; Legal Counsel, Ed
Sullivan; Office Manager , Loreen Wilson.
2. CALL TO AUDIENCE, STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA.
(a) City Administrator requested Council consider the following items under
ope n age nd a:
.1 Scheffler Lot Split Variance
.2 Report on Codes Enforcement Efforts
.3 Hampton Street LID Final Payment Authorization
He also requested Council hold a brief executive session at the end of the
meeting under ORS 192.660 (1) (d) to consider issues relating to labor
relations. This would be agenda item No. 11.
(b) Mayor Bishop suggested the following item be considered under Open Agenda:
.4 Report on Meeting with Washington County re: Walnut Street
(c) City Administrator requested consideration also under Open Agenda for the
following:
.5 NPO #1 Request for GTE Action Review
COUNCILMAN SCHECKLA ARRIVED: 7:47 P.M.
(d) Steve Janik, Attorney for Fred Scheffler, advised Council of issues and
history surrounding their variance request before Planning Commission.
He stated that a Conditional Use approval has been received from the
Planning Commission but that staff advised him late of the need for a
Variance for a lot size non-conformance. His client, who represents
Saxon I. appeared on 5-4-82 before the Planning Commission to request a
variance to allow the small lot. Mr Janik stated that the Planning
Commission supported the request but could not grant the variance
because of the Tigard Municipal Code requirements. The Commission then
forwarded the issue to the Tigard City Council for their action and
consideration. Mr. Janik requested that Council hear the issue now
instead of 5-17-82 because of a financial hardship which will be suffered
by his client on 5-11-82 if matter is not resolved.
Legal Counsel stated that the ordinance requires applicant to meet four
conditions before Planning Commission is allowed to approve a variance ,
and that Planning Commission determined that those conditions had not been
adequately met and therefore sent issues to Council for consideration.
He advised Council this matter was a policy and procedural issue for their
study and should be considered carefully. He stated that Council does
have the authority to pass an ordinance to exempt this application from
having to meet the four conditions as currently required by the code .
City Administrator stated that staff is now going through the codes and
finding many areas which need to be readdressed. This particular case
poses a hardship to the applicant and the cable franchise process. He
further stated that the Planning Commission had acted correctly in not
approving the variance request because of the requirements of the code
not being met, however , the applicant is now requesting Council waive
the procedure for publishing a public hearing notice to expedite the
matter through the process.
Some discussion ensued between Council, staff and applicant regarding
definition of "financial hardship" and the issue of not advertising a
public hearing.
Councilor Brian stated that the lot size requirement was in the City
ordinances and that the applicant should have seen that requirement
upon requesting a conditional use. He felt waiving a public hearing
was not justifiable.
Consensus of Council was to hear issue on May 17, 1982 as published
in the paper.
City Administrator noted that now discussion under Open Agenda would
not be necessary on agenda item 10.1.
3. APPROVE THE MINUTES: April 26 & May 3, 1982
(a) Motion to approve by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
4. APPROVE THE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $84,080.18
(a) Motion to approve by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
5. APPROVE CANCELLATION OF TURA MEETING IN MAY.
(a) Motion to cancel May meeting of TURA and schedule next one for June, 1982,
by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. RESOLUTION No. 82-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TRANSFERRING FUNDS
AND REALLOCATING FUNDING.
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
7. APPROVE SORG/LIBRARY LEASE
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
8. RESOLUTION No. 82-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ENCOURAGING MSD
IMPLEMENT A SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM FOR
TIGARD-WASHINGTON COUNTY CITIZENS.
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 10, 1982
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
9. ACCEPT EASEMENT - D.J- & E.E. Swan - SW Katherine Street Sewer LID
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to accept and
authorize signature of Mayor and City Recorder.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
10. ACCEPT STREET DEDICATION - Fewel-Comer Company - SW 72nd Avenue
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to accept and
authorize signature of Mayor and City Recorder.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
11. ACKNOWLEDGE MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION TO DECLARE JUNE 7TH AS FLAG DAY
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to acknowledge
proclamation.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
12. RECEIVE AND FILE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
e TCYS Monthly Report
e Transmittal from Chief of Police of Taan & Country Days Committee re:
Parade on August 7, 1982
i Transmittal from Video Adventures, Inc. to Chief of Police re: Prompt
Police Action
• Transmittal from Curt Randolph re: Septic Tank Problems & Memo from
Planning Department re: City's Response
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to receive and file.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
13. APPROVE HEARINGS OFFICER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve the
professional services agreement with Beth Blount as the Hearings Officer
at a rate of $50. per hour which includes clerical support; to provide
for back-up, the Mayor be authorized, upon staff's recommendation, to
appoint a Hearings Officer Pro tem, when necessitated by the unavailability
of the regular Hearings Officer.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
14. PRESENTATION OF KEY TO CITY TO LARRY LEWTON
r, (a) Mayor Bishop presented the Key to the City to Larry Lew-ton for his
design which is being used on the city newsletter.
Mr. Lew-ton expressed his appreciation and stated he was glad to be
able to help the City by offering his design for the use on the
newsletter.
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINt"ES - MAY 10, 1982
15. GAS FRANCHISE RENEWAL
(a) Mr. Ron Hortichok and Bob Johnson were present from Northwest Natural Gas
to request Council approval of the proposed franchise ordinance.
(b) City Administrator advised Council that the real issue to be considered
is how the anti-trust liability question is addressed by the franchise.
Mr. Bob Johnson presented a memorandum from the Gas Company (see memo
attached) which set out the City's questions regarding the anti-trust laws,
how this ordinance granting a franchise would be effected by such laws and
if granting a nonexclusive franchise would be in the public interest.
Mr. Johnson noted that the State policy is to not have duplication of
utility facilities in an area due to the cost impact on the user and that
this issue is heavily regulated by the State of Oregon.
(c) Legal Counsel stated that the Gas Company had addressed the anti-trust
liability questions well, and he would recommend adoption of the ordinance.
(d) ORDINANCE No. 82-22 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY, AND FIXING TERMS,
CONDITIONS AND COMPENSATION OF SUCH FRANCHISE.
(e) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
16. 72ND AVENUE LID
(a) Mayor Bishop turned the gavel over to President of Council Cook for this
agenda item as he wished to make a motion on this item.
(b) Legal Counsel reported that there were two ordinances prepared for the
meeting. One was adopting the assessment method lb as ordered by
Council at their 5-3-82 meeting. The other ordinance was prepared at
the request of the Mayor and would adopt the following assessment method:
(lb + 2b + 2) . He also presented a list of findings and conclusions and
noted that they should be attached to the ordinance adopted. regal Council
also noted that the assessment in either case would be reasonable and
supportable in court. He suggested that this is now a policy issue for
Council to decide; which assessment method best, or most nearly reflects
the benefit derived. He stated that Bond Counsel has approved the use
of either assessment method also.
(c) Motion by Mayor Bishop, seconded by Councilor Brian to reconsider the motion
made at the last meeting to determine the assessment method.
(d) Hy Sadoff, Samack Inc. ID #66, stated his objection to the district size
and amount of improvements and promised to take the issue to litigation.
(e) Mayor Bishop stated that this decision was a difficult one. The Council
had not thought of the newly proposed assessment method (lb + 2b 4 2)
until after the hearing last week, but felt that it would more nearly
show the benefit to properties and be more fair.
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 10, 1982
(f) Tony Maksym, ID #8, stated that the lot size was the only relevant issue
and the fairest method would then be 2b.
(g) Motion to reconsider the motion from last meeting was approved by unanimous
vote of Council present.
(h) ORDINANCE No. 82-23 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN ASSESSMENT FORMULA FOR THE
SW 72ND AVENCTE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT No. 21,
CREATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE No. 82-13; ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
(i) Motion by Mayor Bishop, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt ordinance
showing (lb + 2b 2)assessment method.
(j) Councilor Brian stated that the rationale behind this decision is that both
methods are defensible and to average the two methods is most fair for the
overall district.
Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 82-23 was approved by unanimous vote of
Council present.
(k) Hy Sadoff, ID #66, discussed the history of the project and current economics
and then requested Council give one last consideration to directing the
City Engineer to fix the initial four problem areas along the street and go
back to the basic original plan. He stated if Council did not do this that some
of the property owners along the street would have no choice but to take this
matter to litigation.
Mayor Bishop took the gavel back from President of Council Cook and chaired
the meeting again.
(1) Mayor Bishop then thaiked Mr. Sadoff for his comments but noted that Council
had reduced the original Engineer's proposal from 3+ million dollars to
under $2 million dollars and that any further decisions on this issue
would have to come from outside the Council Chamber.
17. 72ND AVENUE LID DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS
(a) ORDINANCE No. 82-24 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR DEFERRAL OF
ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN RESIDENTIAL USE
IN THE SW 72ND AVENUE AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
(b) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
(c) Tony Maksym questioned Council's intent in setting a limit of $50,000 for the
right-of-way acquisition costs. His understanding was that the property
owners would not have to pay any more than the 1.5 million dollars.
(d) Mayor Bishop stated that Council had put a cap on the project of 1.5
million noting that any costs for right-of-way acquisition over $50,000 would
be picked up by the property owners_
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mpy 10, 1982
18. REQUEST FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF LANDS
(a) Director of Public Works discussed with Council the history of the area
along Pacific Highway at Park Street that currently serves as a frontage
road. The City had been given the property by the State of Oregon for
frontage road purposes. At this time some of the land owners are requesting
the City relinquish the lands back to the State of Oregon for vacation proceedings.
There is development planned along this area and the frontage road will be used
to make adequate exits onto Pacific Highway. He advised Council the State
vacation process would notify all concerned parties and would protect the
interest of other adjacent property owners. Director of Public Works stated
that he felt comfortable with the proposal, and did not feel the City had
any further need of the land.
(b) Councilor Brian expressed concern that this is valuable land and should not
be just given away. He noted that he was not looking for any money, but
felt that there should be considerations given to the City when the
property is developed.
(c) Director of Public Works stated that the frontage road represents traffic
control and maintenance problems to the City and he would recommend getting
rid of the property by giving it back to the State .
(d) Mayor Bishop stated for the record that one of the applicants is a relative,
however , there is no economic conflict of interest and thus he would review
and act on this issue .
(e) Mark Norby, 900 SW Fifth, Portland, Attorney representing JB Bishop, advised
Council that the development that is proposed by Mr. Bishop is contingent
upon the vacation of the frontage road and encouraged action by the Council
to relinquish the property back to the State of Oregon for vacation
proceedings.
(f) Councilor Scheckla stated that if the City kept the property it should
spend more time keeping up the street.
(g) Councilor Brian advised staff that he did not want to relinquish land
until a development plan was presented to Council.
(h) Mr. JB Bishop, applicant of 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. Suite 303, Portland, stated
that he has been working towards development of the property since
July, 1981. The development proposal was presented to staff in September , 1981,
and noted that staff has stated the frontage road should be vacated. He
noted the State process for vacation would take about 6 to 9 months. He
reminded Council that if the land were vacated then development would have
to be at the cost of the developer and not the City.
(i) After lengthy discussion, Councilor Brian moved to have more study made
on this issue and that staff indicate to the State the City's willingness
to work out a mutual agreement. Motion seconded by Councilor Cook.
Councilor Brian then clarified his motion by stating that the City is
willing to consider relinquishment and study the issue. He requested
staff set this matter for a Study Session and authorized the staff to
prepare the necessary documents for Council consideration. Councilor
Cook approved the clarification as the person seconding the motion.
Motion approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 10, 1982
i
(j) After discussing time frame with applicant, Council approved setting matter
for May 17, 1982 meeting if applicant can supply appropriate paper work by
that date.
RECESS: 9:39 P.M.
RECONVENE: 9:52 P.M.
19. 74TH AVENUE LID DISCUSSION
(a) City Administrator reported it was suggested that there may be other options
for development in that area of an LID and noted that staff has met with
that group and discussed issues which pose policy decisions for Council.
Those are as follows:
1. Improve to interim or only to final standards?
2. City project vs a public/private design and build project?
3. Method of Assessments?
Since the people in the LID area are asking these questions, City Adminis-
trator suggested that staff set over the scheduled hearing of 5-24-82
until 6-14-82 and give more time to work out issues.
(b) After more discussion, consensus of Council was to set hearing on 6-14-82
and directed staff to prepare the appropriate paper work.
20. LID POLICY & DRAFT PROCESS DISCUSSION
(a) City Administrator discussed at length some of the following issues:
• Interest rates and length of term: Staff will continue to recommend long
term whenever possible.
e Is interest on assessment tax deductible? Finance Director reported no.
a Start late payment charge? Consensus of Council was to see policy suggestion
from staff and try to implement some type of charge.
• Billing: Administrative handling charge? Consensus of Council was to see
policy suggestion from staff.
® Use of assessment fees vs use of GO bonds and taxes? Discussion followed
on this issue, no consensus reached.
e Assessment Caps? City Administrator stated he would recommend not placing
caps on future LIDS.
® City match - % or functional cost? Administrator discussed, Council
suggested this would have to be considered on an individual merit basis.
s Lengthy discussion followed regarding due-on-sale and assessment transfers.
Many examples were offered of situations, no consensus of Council was
reached.
PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 10, 1982
(b) City Administrator requested Council read memo from Administrative
Assistant Martin regarding LID procedures and problems and recommended this
discussion be continued at the June 21st meeting.
Consensus of Council was to consider on 6-21-82.
21. ANTI TRUST AND TORTS - Regulatory and Liability Discussion
(a) Due to lateness of the hour, staff suggested this be considered at a later
date.
22. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda items identified to the Chair under
1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the
City Administrator prior to the meeting.
22.2 Codes Enforcement Efforts Report
Administrator reported staff is writing to anyone who is in apparent
violation of the sign and zoning ordinances. Staff will review on a
case by case basis in May and June and may suggest some code revisions
at a later date.
22.3 Hampton Street LID Final Payment Authorization
City Administrator requested Council approve final payment for the Hampton
Street LID to Frady Construction Company in the amount of $36,449.39.
Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve payment
requested.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
22.4 Report on Meeting with Washington County re: Walnut Street
Director of Public Works noted he and the Mayor had attended a meeting at
Washington County to discuss the condition of Walnut Street. Washington
County has stated they are willing to give the City money to improve
Walnut with a 3" thick overlay that is 18 feet wide (to cover the existing
road bed). Director stated Council may want to consider adding a little
money to that and completing the street to City standards with a bike
path and storm drainage. He said the portion of Walnut to be completed
would be from 122nd Avenue to about Tiedeman Avenue.
After some discussion, Council consensus was to improve road with County
funds only. Mayor Bishop encouraged this project be completed before
school begins in September.
22.5 NPO #1 Request for GTE Action Review
Mr. John Butler, NPO X61 Representative, requested Council review the
Planning Commission action from 5-4-82 meeting on SDR 6-82, General
Telephone, for the lack of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding
dedication of floodplain to the City. He stated that NPO #1 is concerned
that GTE didn't want to give any guarantee that the dedication would be
made.
PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAy 10, 1982
After some discussion, consensus of Council was to have Legal Counsel
and Director of Public Works work up conditions that will be binding
enough to ensure compliance by GTE to dedicate floodplain area to the
City. Director of Public Works is to report back to Council.
23. EXECUTIVE SESSION: City Administrator requested Council call special
Session under ORS 192.660 (1) (d) to consider labor relation issues.
24. ADJOURNMENT: 11:55 P.M.
—Citg Recorder
ATTEST:
a /
Mayor
PAGE 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — MAY 10, 1982
Date MAY 10, 1982
I wish to testify before the Tigard City
Council on the following item:
(Please print your name)
HWADME' . .STA _AND.:COUNCIL.-FOR__NON-AGENDA..ITEMS_U DEE.,.DP.EN-AME"A
Name, Address & Affiliation Item Descriptio:
J
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL APRIL 30, 1982
PROGRAP•1 BUDGET
Community Protection
Police 9,100-21
Public Works 2,652.32
Municipal Court 1,002.44
Planning 316.53
Building 495.57
Total Community Protection 13 567.07
Home & Community Quality
Public Works 3,043.11
Social Services
Library 885.83
Aged Services
Youth Services
Historical
Total Social Services 885.83
Policy & Administration
Mayor & Council 118.04
Administration 889.44
Finance 1,396.14
Total Policy & Administration 2,403, 2
City Wide Support Functions
Non-departmental 4.841.11
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 32,763-90
CAPITOL BUDGET
Community Protections
Road Acquisition & Dev.
Parks Acquisition & Dev.
Storm Drainage
Total Community Protection
Support Services
Building Improvements
DEBT SERVICE
General Obligation Bond
Bancroft Bond 26,525-94
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 84 080.18
�- 3
May 6 , 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
From: Finance Director, Doris Hartig B--4
Subject: TURA Meeting Schedule
The TURA Advisory Committee will be meeting on May 12, 1982 to discuss the work program
and budget. The Agency thus will have little to consider at their regularly scheduled
5-10-82 TURA meeting. Staff will bring the Committee 's report to the Agency at the
June meeting.
DH: lw
a
FttP--1 N..'612—LEASE—BUSINESS PROPERTY.
aTEK6N.-NCSS LAW PUBL ISHIN. on.p72�
THIS INDENTURE OF LEASE, made and entered into this ............day of ------MA.y-------------------------
19...8.2— by and between ....QTTQ.-.S.Q.F,.Q...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
hereinafter called the lessor, ant .....C-I-T-Y--- ---mun-ic-ipal....c.(-,-rpara:Li-oxj..................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................
••-•--•••••--••--•--_..._._.._.
.........................................................................................................................................................I hereinafter called the lessee,
WITNESSETH: In consideration of the covenants, agreements and stipulations herein contained on the part
of the lessee to be paid, kept and faithfully performed, the lessor does hereby lease, demise and let unto the said
lessee those certain premises, as is, situated in the City of.......T g.�j
and State of ----L ................ Count 0
------------------- known and described as follows: y f ......
That portion of the Lanson Building (12568 S. W. Main
Street, Tigard) presently being used as the public
library, including approximately 5300 square feet
made up Of two rooms at the front of the building,
a narrow center room, and a large room and a storage
room at the back of the building, and a lavatory.
To Have and to;'Hold the said described premises unto the said lessee for a period of time commencing with
the----la-)----.dav of..........ZELLlr____________-_,19_-•82._,and ending at midnight on the-ao-t-i-L-day of e......
19___8_d__, at and for a rental of n .................
United States at......S.Q.0.0...S...Vj_ ---Jor the whole of the said term payable in lawful money of the
State of ----------------------------------- City Of ----li-g-4-rd------------------------
_.a7-2
22-3------------------- off as set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
In consideration of the leasing of said premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, each party
hereto does hereby expressly covenant and agree to and with the other, as follows:
ij�
LESSEES (1) The lessee accepts said lettin
A(:CF,[ g and agrees to pay to the order of the lessor the rentals above stated for the full
OF LEAASESE term of this lease, in advance,at the times and in the manner aforesaid.
USE OF (20 The lessee shall use said demisepremg
d premises during the term of this lease for the conduct of the following business:
PREMISES
...................................................•-------------..................................-------------•-----------------............................................................
------..and for no other purpose whatsoever without lessor's written consent.
(2b) The lessee will not make any unlawful, improper or offensive use of said premises; he will not suffer any strip or waste
thereof; he will not permit any objectionable noise or odor to escape or to be emitted from said premises or do anything or permit
anything to be done upon or about said premises in any way tending to create a nuisance; he will not sell or permit to be sold any
spiritous, vinous or malt liquors on said promises, excepting such as lessee may be licensed by law to sell and as may be herein ex-
pressly permitted.
(20 The lessee will not allow the leased premises at any time to fall into such a state of repair or disorder as to increase the
fire hazard thereon; he shall not install any power machinery on said premises except under the supervision and with written consent
of the lessor; he shall not store gasoline or other highly combustible materials on said premises at any time;he will not use said prem-
ises in such a way or for such a purpose that the fire insurance rate on the building in which said premises are located is thereby in-
creased or that would prevent the lessor from faking advantage of any rulings of any agency of the state in which said leased premises
are situated or its successors, which would allow the lessor to obtain reduced premium rates for long term fire insurance policies.
(2d) Lessee shall comply at lessee's own expense with all lacus and regulations of any municipal, county, state, federal or other
public authority respecting the use of said leased premises.
UTILITIES (3) The lessee shall pay for all heat, light, g_� power, and other services or utilities used in the above demised
premises during the term of this lease. Lessor shall pay for all. water.
REPAIRS AND (4a) The lessor shall not be required to make any repairs,alterations,additions or improvements to or upon said prem-
IMPROVEMENTS ises during the term of this lease, except only those hereinafter specifically p y provided for;the losses hereby agrees to
maintain and keep said leased premises including all inferior and exterior doors,heating,ventilating and cooling systems,interior wiring,
plumbing and drain pipes to sewers or septic tank, in good order and repair during the entire term of this lease at lessee's own cost and
expense,and to replace all glass which may be broken or damaged during the term hereof in the windows and doors of said premises with
glass of as good or better quality as that now in use;lessee further agrees that he will make no alterations, additions or improvements
to or upon said premises without the written consent of the lessor first being obtained.
(4b) The lessor agrees to maintain in good order and repair during the ferns of this lease the exterior walls,roof,gutters,down-
spouts and foundations of the building in which the demised premises are situated and the sidewalks thereabouts. --_-------------.--.--_----_--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------............................-.......----............-..............
------------.--•----.-----------------—-----.-------, It is understood and agreed that the lessor reserves and at any and all times shall have the right
to alter, repair or improve the building of which said demised premises are a part, or to add thereto and for that purpose at any time
may erect scaffolding and all other necessary structures about and upon the demised premises and lessor and lessor's representatives,
contractors and workman for that purpose may enter in or about the said demised premises with such materials as lessor may deem
necessary therefor, and lessee waives any claim to damages, including loss of business resulting therefrom.
RIGHTLESSOR'S (S)Ft shall be lawful for the lessor, his agents and representatives, at an reasonable timo to enter into or upon said
ENTRY OF demised premises for the purpose of examining p ' y
p p ng into the condition thereof,or any other lawful purpose.
RIGHTsP (6) The lessee will not assign,transfer,pledge, hypothecate, surr3nder or dispose of this lease, or any interest herein,
or permit any other person or persons whomsoever to occupy the demised premises without the written consent of
the lessor being first obtained in writing; this lease is personal to said lessee; lessee's interests, im whole or in part,
cannot be sold,assigned, transferred, seized or taken by operation at law,or under or by virtue of any execution or legal process,attach-
ment or proceedings instituted against the lessee, or under or by virtue of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings had in regard to
the lessee,or in any other manner, except as above mentioned.
LIENS (7) The lessee will not permit any lien of any kind, type or description to be placed or imposed upon the building
in which said leased premises are situated,or any part thereof,or the real estate on which it stands.
ICE. SNOW, (8) If the promises herein leased are located at street level, then at all times lessee shall keep the sidewalks in front
DEBRIS of the demised premises free and clear of ice, snow,rubbish, debris and obstruction; and if the lessee occupies the
entire building,he will not permit rubbish, debris,ice or snow to accumulate on the roof of said building so as to stop
up or obstruct gutters or downspouts or cause damage to said roof, and will save harmless and protect the lessor against any injury
whether to lessor or to lessor's property or to any other person or property caused by his failure in that regard-
OVERLOADING
egard_
OFRL O SING (9) The lessee will not overload the floors of said premises in such a way as to cause any undue or serious stress
or strain upon the building in which said demised premises are located, or any part thereof,and the lessor shall have
the right,at any time, to call upon any competent engineer or architect whom the lessor may choose, to decide
Whether or not the floors of said premises, or any part thereof, are being overloaded so as to cause any undue or serious stress or strain
on said building, or any part thereof, and the decision of said engineer or architect shall be final and binding upon the lessee; and in
the event that the engineer or architect so called upon shall decide that in his opinion the stress or strain is such as to endanger or
injure said building, or any part thereof, then and in that event the lessee agrees immediately to relieve said stress or strain either by
reinforcing the building or by lightening the load which causes such stress or strain in a manner satisfactory to the lessor.
ADVERTISING (10) The lessee will not use the outside walls of said premises, or allow signs or devices of any kind to be attached
SIGNS thereto or suspended therefrom, for advertising or displaying the name or business of the lessee or for any purpose
whatsoever without the written consent of the lessor;however, the lessee may make use of the windows of said
leased premises to display lessee's-name and business when the workmanship of such signs shall be of good quality and permanent
nature; provided further that the lessee may not suspend or place within said windows or paint thereon any banners, signs, sign-boards
or other devices in violation of the intent and meaning of this section.
LTA131LITY (11) The lessee further agrees at all times during the term hereof, at his own expense, to maintain, keep in effect;
INSURANCE furnish and deliver to the lessor liability insurance policies in form and with an insurer satisfactory to the lessor,
insuring both the lessor and the lessee against all liability for damages to person or property in or about said leased premises;the amount
of said liability insurance shall not be less than$._. .QQ.i00Q-------------------------------for injury to one person, $----3QQ-91a ..........................for
'' injuries arising out of any one accident and not less than5...._30QADQ--.---..for property damage. Lessee agrees to and shall indemnity
and hold lessor harmless against any and all claims and demands arising from the negligence of the lessee, his officers, agents, invites,
A and/sh shall at employees, as wall as those arising from
and lessee's failure to Comply with any covenant of this lease on his part to be performed,
his own expense defend the lessor against any and all suits or actions arising out of such negligence, actual or alleged,
and all appeals therefrom and shall satisfy and discharge any judgment which may be awarded against lessor in any such suit or action.
FIBTURES
(j$) All partitions,plumbing, electrical wiring, additions to or improvements upon said leased premises, whether in-
stalled by the lessor or lessee, shall be and become a part of the building as soon as installed and the property of the lessor unless other-
wise herein provided. `j'j1e furnace erttallel in the e room Of the ��b]eCt, I�r t S by IeS�ee shall
LIGHT , rile prOpE'Y tv O eSSee an rd lessee retains the r1C311tSerett►7Ve said
AND AIR �''� N9 lease aces neer grant any rights of access to light and air over the properly. r0 u iration
or tp mina 'on o? pease
DAMAGE BY 04) In the event of the destruction of the building in which said leased
CASUALTY, premises are located by fire or other
FIRE AND casualty, either party hereto may terminate this lease as of the date of said fire or casualty,provided,however,that
DUTY TO
REPAIR in the event of damage to said building by fire or other casualty to the extent oi--25........... cent or more of the
sound value of said building, the lessor may or may not elect to repair said building; written notice of lessor's said election shall be
given lessee within fifteen days after the occurrence of said damage; if said notice is not so given,lessor conclusively shall ba deemed
to have elected not to repair; in the event lessor elects not to repair said building, then and in that event this lease shall lerminatem
with the date of said damage;but if the building in which said leased premises are located be but partially destroyed and the damage
so occasioned shall not amount to the extent indicated above,or if greater than said extent and lessor elects to repair, as aforesaid,
than the lessor shall repair said building with all convenient speed and shall have the right to take possession of and occup
exclusion of the lessee, all or any part of said building in order to make the necessary repairsvacate
!o the
, and the lessee hereby agrees yy,,
upon request, all or any part of said building which the lessor may require for the purpose of making necessary repairs, and for the
Period of time between the day of such damage and until such repairs have been substantially completed there shall be such an
abatement of rent as the nature of the injury or damage and its interference with the occupancy of said leased premises by said lessee
shall warrant;however, if the premises be but slightly injured and the damage so occasioned shall not cause any material interference
with the occupation of the premises by said lessee, then there shall be no abatement of ren! and the lessor shall repair said damage
with all convenient speed.
WAIVER OF (15)Neither the lessor nor the lessee shall be liable to the other for Joss allaing out of damage to or destruction of
SUBROGATION
RIGHTS the leased premises,or the building or improvement of which the leaser premises are a part or with which they are
connected, or the contents of any !hereof, when such loss is caused by any of the perils which are or could be in-
cluded within or insured against by a standard form of fire insurance with extended coverage, including sprinkler leakage insurance, it
any. All such claims for any and all lose, however caused, hereby are waived. Such absence of liability shall exist whether or not the
damage or destruction is caused by the negligence of either lessor or lessee or by any of their respective agents,servants or employees
It is the intention only ng.eB..w._!s cs :ho lewrr -
that each an lessee that the rentals reserved by this lease have been fixed in contemplation
party shall fully provide hie own insurancece protection at his own expense, and That each party ahall look to his respective
insurance carriers for reimburaemenf of any such loss, and further, that the insurance carriers involved shall not be entitled to aubro-
gatforz under any circumstances against any party to this lease. Neither the lessor nor the lessee shall have any interest or claim in the
other's insurance policy or policies, or the proceeds thereof, unless specifically covered therein as a joint assured.
EMINENT (10 In case of the condemnation or appropriation of all or any substantial part of the said demised premises by any
DOMAIN public or
private corporation under the laws of eminent domain, this lease may be terminated at the option of either
Party hereto on twenty days writtennot
tice to the other and in that case the lessee shall not be liable for any rent atter he data of
lessee's removal from the premises.
FOR SALE (17.) During the 9� days prior to the date above fixed for the termination of said lease, the
AND g Period of --.--._
FOR RENT lessor herein may poet on said premises or in the windows thereof signs of moderate size notifying the
SIGNS the premises are "for sale" or "for lease." public that
PRESES DELIVERI N P (18) At the expiration of said term or upon any sooner termination thereof, the lessee will quit and deliver up said
TERMINATION leased Premises and all future erections or additions to or upon the same, broom-clean, to the lessor or those having
lessor's estate in the premises,peaceably, quietly,and in as good order and condition,reasonable use and wear there-
of,damage by fire,unavoidable casualty and the elements elene excepted, as the same are now in or hereafter may be put in by the
lessor.
ADDITCOVENANTS (19) Additional provisions to this Lease are set forth in the attached
OOsXCEPTION3 Exhibit "A"r attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
•
ATTACHMENT PROVIDED, ALWAYS, and thepresents are upon these.conditions, that (1)if the lessee shall be in arrears in the
BANKRUPT
DEFAULT payment of said rent for a period se of ten days after the same becomes due, or (7) it the lessee shalt fail or neglect to
do,keep,perform or observe any of the covenants and agreements contained herein on lessee's part to be done, kept,
performed and observed and such default shall continue for ten days or more after written notice of such failure or ne-
glect shall be given to lessee, or (3) if the lessee shall be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or (4) if any assignment of
lessees property shall be made for the benefit of creditors,or(5) if on the expiration of this lease lessee fails to surrender possession of
said leased premises, then and in either or any of said cases or events, the lessor or those having lessor's estate in the premises, may
terminate this lease and,lawfully,at his or their option imL•�-diately or at any time thereafter, without demand or notice,may enter info
and upon said demised premises and every part thereof and repossess the same as of lessor's former estate, and expel said lessee and
those claiming by, through and under lessee and remove lessee's effects at lessee's expense, forcibly if necessary and store the name, all
without being deemed guilty of trespass and without prejudice to any remedy which otherwise might be used for arrears of rent or pre-
ceding breach of covenant.
HOLDING In the event the lessee for any reason shall hold over after the expiration of this lease, such holding over shall not
be deemed to operate as a renewal or extension of this lease, but shall only create a tenancy from month to month
which may be terminated at will at any time by the lessor.
AFEES AND
TTORNEY In case suit or action is instituted to enforce compliance, with any of the terms,covenants or conditions of this lease,
COURT COSTS or to collect the rental which may become due hereunder, or any portion thereof, the losing party agrees fd pay such
sum as the trial court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fee^ to be allowed the prevailing party in such suit or
action and in the event any appeal is taken from any judgment or decree in such suit or action, the losing party
agrees to pay such further sum as the appellate court shall adjudge reasonable as prevailing party's attorney's fees on such appeal. The
lessee agrees to pay and discharge all lessor's costs and expenses, including lessor's reasonable attorney's fees that shall arise from en-
forcing any provision or covenants of this lease even though no suit or action is instituted.
WAIVER Any waiver by the lessor of any breach of any covenant herein contained to be kept and performed by the lessee shall
not be deemed or considered as a continuing waiver, and shall not operate to bar or prevent the lessor from declaring
a forfeiture, for any succeeding breach,either of the same condition or covenant or otherwise.
NOTICES Any notice required by the terms of this lease to be given by one party hereto to the other or desired so to be given,
shall be sufficient if in writing contained in a sealed envelope, deposited in the U. S. Registered:fails with postage
fully prepaid, and if intended for the lessor herein then if addressed to said lessor at aaao---S..----W— Pfaffle_.$-tr-e-e:t.,--------------
_Tigard, Oregeal--_97223--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------and if intended for the lessee, then if addressed to the
lassae at -1242Q__S -W. -Maim _PO Box 23397 _Tigard, Oregon 97223
- -- - ----------
Any such notice shall ba deemed conclusively to have been delivered to the addressee thereof forty-eight hours after the deposit (hereof
in said U.S.Registered Mails.
HEIRS AND All rights,remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto shall extend to, inure
ASSIGNS to the benefit of and bind, as the circumstances may require, the hafra, executors, administrators,successors and, so
far as this lease is assignable by the term hereof, to the assigns of such partis.
In construing this lease,it is u'rnderstood that the lessor or the lessee may be more than one person;that if the context no requires,
the singular pronoun shall be taken to mean and include the plural, the masculine, the feminine and the neuter, and that generally all
gramatical changes shall be made,assumed and implied to male the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have executed this instrument in duplicate on this, the
day and first hereinabove written, any corporation signature being by authority of its Board of Directors.
- CITY OF TIGARD, a Municipal
Otto Sorg -- corporation'._.... -------
.- ---------------------------------_-----•-----•-----•------•------ - B�' or -
.................................................._................................................. --------By -----
- ----•...................
Cite Administrator
------------------•-•-•--•--•-------.............-----.......-----------._.._.........--------•...--- .................................--................-................_-_-............................
v;
EXHIBIT "A"
Otto Sorg - City of Tigard Lease
(19) For the period July 1 , 1982 thi_ough and including June
30 , 1983, Lessee shall pay to Lessor the sum of $1 ,200 per month
rent, which rent is payable on or before the 30th day of Jure , 1982
and a like payment each month thereafter on or before the 30th day
of the month during the lease term.
(20) Lessee will apply for a real property tax exemption for
the premises subject to this Lease. The parties agree that the
rent reserved by this Agreement has been calculated to reflect the
cost of real property taxes to Lessor. If Lessee obtains the
exemption heretofore described, Lessee shall receive as a credit
an amount equal to any real property taxes that were assessed or
would have been assessed had the property not been exempt from
ad valorem taxation. Lessor and Lessee warrant and covenant to
each other good faith, cooperation and due diligence in obtaining
the exemption heretofore described. Lessee shall be responsible
for all costs in obtaining said exemption.
(21) Lessor has not required of Lessee a security deposit
nor last month' s rental in advance.
(22) Lessee shall have the option to renew this Lease for an
additional one (1) year term, if the Lease is not then in default,
as follows :
(a) The option may be exercised by written notice to
Lessor given not later than April 1 , 1983 ;
(b) The terms and conditions of the Lease for the renewal
term shall be identical with the original term including the monthly
rent of $1,200 per month. The renewal term is for the period
commencing July 1, 1983 and ending June 30 , 1984.
(23) Lessee shall have the option to renew this Lease for an
additional one (1) year term, if the Lease is not then in default,
as follows :
(a) The option may be exercised by written notice to
Lessor given not later than April 1 , 1984 ;
(b) The terms and conditions of the Lease for the renewal
term shall be identical with the original term except for the rent.
The renewal term commences July 1 , 1984 and terminates June 30 , 1985 .
The rent for the renewal term shall be the sum of $1 ,200 per month,
increased or decreased to reflect the change in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) starting with the CPI published for July 1 , 1982 and
compared with the CPI published for July 1 , 1984. If the United
States Department of Labor ceases to prepare a CPI , and there is no
successor, then there shall be used in place thereof an equivalent
index prepared by any agency of the United States government or by
Exhibit "A" - 1 of 2 pages
Page 2 - Exhibit "A"
Otto Sorg - City of Tigard Lease
ro _
a responsible financial periodical of recognized authority to be
selected by mutual agreement. The CPI to be used shall be "the
revised Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers - Portland, Oregon" .
(24) This Agreement has been prepared by O'Donnell, Sullivan
& Ramis, Attorneys at Law, acting for the benefit and protection
of the Lessee. Lessor acknowledges the right to have this Agreement
and all matters related thereto, reviewed by independent counsel .
(25) This document is the entire ,- final and complete agreement
of the parties pertaining to the use and lease of the premises
described herein and supersedes and replaces all written and oral
agreements previously made or existing by and between the parties
or their representatives concerning the subject premises.
Exhibit "A" -- 2 of 2 pages
jlr
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
-U%TIO'
PROCLAI N
F7 7,AG DAY JUNE 7, 1982
WHEREAS, the fervent outpouring of patriotism by the American
people is usually associated with the waving of the
flag; and
WHEREAS, it has been stated that the American Flag represents
all facets of our country. It symbolizes both the
inalienable rights of each individual and his equally
inalienable responsibilities; and qp
WHEREAS, the history of our flag and its development is a
-N
dramatic part of our heritage, especially remembered
on June 14, Flag Day; and
WHEREAS, the Elks Lodges of Portland, Oregon, will honor the
flag on June 7th, with the second annual Flag Day
USA Pageant, beginning at 8:00 P.1,11. in the Memorial
Colisem;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor of the City of
Tigard, do hereby proclaim June 7, 1982 to be
�4
HONOR OUR FLAG DAY
and urge all citizens to join the Elk Lodges and
4 L
many other local organizations in celebrating 4 ''
Flag Day by attending the second annual Flag Day I
4
r
-LJ L USA Pageant and by recognizing and appreciating the
M achievements of our country.
DATED This loth day of May 1982 at the City of f
Tigard, Oregon.
47t::
....... Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor Ei
.I F
-71
I:L
I s,
to S,
L
!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IFIIIIIII III I
811
• IG
CITY OF TIGARD
P.Q. Box 23397
9020 S.W. Burnham
POLICE DEPARTMENT Tigard,Oregon 97223
RECEIVE.:-
`7Ap� a 3 ;gat
April 22, 1982
Tigard Town and Country Days Committee
P.O. Box 23881
Tigard, Oregon 97223
ATTENTION: Darlene Moomaw
Parade Chairman
Dear Darlene:
The Tigard Town and Country Days Committee is hereby authorized
to conduct the annual parade on August 7, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. ,
pursuant to City of Tigard ordinance 10.32.070.
The authorized parade route is as follows: commencing at Main
and S.W. Scoffins; traveling southwest on Main to Pacific
Highway; southwesterly in the northeast lanes of Pacific High-
way to McDonald; terminating at McDonald and Pacific Highway.
In addition to this authorization, one is required from the
State Highway Department for Pacific Highway, and Southern
Pacific Railroad should be advised of the parade crossing their
tracks on Main Street shortly after 10:00 a.m. , the morning of
the scheduled parade.
I am looking forward to participating in the parade again this year.
Sincerely',
B. Adams
Chief of Police
RBA:ac
cc: City Administrator
t
Video Adventures, Inc..
11535 S.W. Durhmm Road *C
Mgard. Orftpn 9=
(503)
April 23, 1982
Chief Robert Adams
TIGARD POLICE
City,.Hall
S. :' Burnham
Xgard, OR 97223
Dear Chief Adams:
Please,= express our appreciation to your personnel for the speed,
dispatch and professionalism exhibited in the handling of the
theft and recovery of the portable video cassette recorder from
our store at Summerfield on April 22, as well as for the
apprehension of the thief.
From the pleasant lady on your switchboard,. to Patrolmen Ober,
Featherston and Grisham, to theme involved in taking my statement
and those of the ladies from Lincoln S&L (who were so very alert) ,
to those who dealt with the boys who found the unit . your entire
staff with whom we came in contact were SUPER! .
While we hope to never have need of your services again, it is
indeed comforting to know how well and fast you respond, and just
how truly professional your staff is.
Again, our sincere appreciation and thanks, for doing what we
are sure is often a thankless job.
Sincerely,
Dixie L. Sims
General Manager &
Corporate Secretary
ds
V cc: Mayor Bishop
RECEIVED Pq 2 6 1982
tigard community youth services 620-2621
Tb: TCYS Board
Frctn: Bill Knudsen
Re: Director's Monthly Report, March, 1982
C VEFVIEW
There has been no letup in the rate of referrals for counseling (26) and employ-
ment (22) . Caseloads are high at 30 each, and despite 46 cancellations the three
counselors logged 272 hours in session. Paul's load is nearly all alcohol and drug
clients. Characteristics of inccndng clients are typical of past months.
Kids for Hire job orders (38) are increasing with the nice weather, and even permanent
job orders (14) are holding their own. Sign up for Parent Education has been slow and
one class was cancelled. Leslie will be using some of her time researching sources
of funding for parenting training and will coordinate TCYS's participation in a
county-wide alcohol abuse prevention campaign.
rMRC3 FLE REPORTS
FLE
Winter parent education classes ended this month. Parents reported that the pre- and
post-class parenting skills questionnaire was very helpful in assessing the specific
ways in which their parenting had improved during the eight-week class.
Marge Kessler will lead the Spring Single Parenting Group alone. Besides co-leading
the winter group, she contributed by researching new class materials and creating
visual displays to aid class discussion.
Parents in each of the three groups requested sessions focusing on discussing sex-
uality with their children and facts about drug and alcohol abuse. These almost
unanimous requests were made by parents of pre-school through adolescent age.
Recreation
5 kids and 2 volunteers attended a Winterhawks game. Tickets were donated by the
Winterhawks.
RELATICNSHIPS
Juvenile Services Ccm fission
Me low priority given to employment programs by the Commission hurt us enough to
+' place us seventh out of seven programs selected for funding next year. It may be a
testament to the excellence of our program that the Ccmmission decided to fund us even
though that meant it had to trim $24,333 frc`n all programs in order to do so.
11981 s.w. pacific highway 0 tigard, oregon 97223
`Page 2 Director's Monthly Report
With the last minute discovery of additional funds we can anticipate all but about
$1000 of the $25,869 we asked for. We had solid and varied support from kids, Board
nembers, parents, the Juvenile Department, and Youth Contact at the public hearing
on March 31. Harry Bodine wrote an article on the hearing for the Oregonian.
According to the Reinvolvement Study issued this month by JSC, 3 out of 4 kids who had
Juvenile Department contact before coming to the TCYS employment program will have
had no further contact with them up to 6 months after TCYS service. That was the low-
est rate of reinvolvement of the agencies in the study and confirms our contention
that employment is an effective preventive measure. Nice going, Bob and Bette.
Tualatin Budget Committee
Two days before on March 29 we presented our case to the city budget-makers, and I
believe we made a solid impression on them. Three families, two of Linda's and one of
Leslie's, testified clearly and eloquently to the very real help they had received at
TCYS. The Times carried a very well done piece on the hearing. Late word is that
at this point funding at last year's level looks promising. We were all gratified and at
times moved by what our clients and co-professionals said about us at both hearings.
We also generated many letters of support which I will share at the April Board meeting.
Tri-County YS Consortium
I will attend a half day workshop to help develop the Consortium's future plans on
May 7. Consortium staffer Nary Brcm+el made a site visit on March 30. After a slow
start in the first few months we are now well on our way to accomplishing the objectives
of Paul's grant.
Washington County Mental Health
I plan to submit a request to Vii to cover the salary differential between what we get
frau the Consortium for Paul's salary and what we actually pay him, plus enough to
cover April and May of 1983. Later this s=eer I will submit a request for WUffi to
pick up the entire position in July, 1983.
Fred Meyer Foundation
I will attend a foundation workshop in late April featuring a spokesman frau the FT-T.
we are looking to request that group pick up Paul's position in July, 1983, as well.
Between W lffi and FMF we hope to keep the alcohol position funded.
Miscellaneous
Invitations went out to 220 people for our Birthday Party/Open House April 19. Lynn
Scroggins has done nearly all the work on it and we're hoping for good weather and a
good turnout.
The Levy Carmittee is functioning well with all sub-committees on target except fund-
raising. If you had planned to donate but forgot, there's still time and plenty of
need.
Our landlords are willing to lease for another year and have asked a modest 10% increase,
still a deal.
Tb save on our phone bill we have disconnected the remote ring at Tualatin. We pay $100
per month to have the phone ring in Tigard when son.-one calls Tualatin. The few callers
on that line will get a recording directing them to the 620-number.
TIGARD COMMUNITY YOUTH SERVICES
MONTHLY SERVICE REPORT
IMARC H '82
1 . Number of Youth Referred This Month: 44 Re-referrals : a
TOTAL: 48
2. Living Status: Open cases- 88
21 Both Parents _2_Father Paul: 30
3Linda: 30
Mother/Stepfather Relatives peri: 28
2 Father/Stepmother Unknown cancellations: 46
6 Mother 1_Independent
1 Other (Specify)
3. School Status:
36 Full-Time Suspended Unknown
Part-Time 1 Expelled
4 Discontinued High School Grad.
5 Irregular Attendance 2 GED
4. Sex: 29 Male 19 Female
5. Ethnicity:
46 White Native American 1 Hispanic
Black 1 Asian Other
6. Prior Court Contact: 15 Yes 33 No
7. Residence:
31 Tigard 14 Tualatin 3 Other
12 Incorporated 3 Unincorporated
8. Source of Referral :
14 School 17 Parent 4 Self 5 Juvenile Department
CSD 6 Other Individual 2 Other Agency
Police
9. Reason for Referral :
9. Family Problems Educational Assistance Activities/Recreation
1 School Problems 22 Employment Law Violation
11 Personal Problems 5 Drug/Alcohol Problems
MONTHLY REPORT
Page Two
10. Acme:
6 Under 12 9 16
3 13 6 17
8 14 3 18
13 15 Over 18
11 . TCYS SERVICES PROVIDED THIS MONTH:
HOURS: NUMBER SERVED:
63 ( 1) Individual Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 86
(2) Group Counseling. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .
106.25 (3) Family Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
1 (4) Educational Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
43.25(5) Drug Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
27.25(6) Alcohol Counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
35.25(8) Needs Assessment. . ... . . . . ... . . . . .. . .. . . 59
SERVICES:
127 (7) E�nployrrent Counseling. . . .. ... . . . ... . .. . 94
1. 39 (9) Job Placement-Kids for Hire. . . . . ... . . . . 32
12 (10) Job Placement- Permanent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1 (11 ) Job Readiness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 (12 ) Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
(13 ) Big Brother/Big Sister. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(14 ) Support Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
47 (15 ) On-Going Follow-Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
(16 ) 3-Month Follow-Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(17 ) Tutoring/GED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(18 ) Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 (19 ) Agency Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
(20 ) Parent Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(21 ) Community Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specify
3 (22) Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Job Orders Received:
Kids For Hire 38 24 Kids Applying for fork Permits
Permanent: 14 9 Kids Applying for Social Security
TOTAL: 52
MONTHLY REPORT
Page Three
13. Volunteers : 1_ Active This Month BB/BS Only
137 Hours Donated 92 Hours donated
7 Active
14. Big Sister/Brother Program:
7 Matched Pairs 9 Kids Pending 0 Volunteers Pending
15. Information/Referral Contacts :
406 Total Contacts 11
16_ Youth 280 p one t �lateI formation 2 Other
49 Adults 6 Person 7 Referrals
16. Consultation Hours:
38 Program Consultation 20 Other Service Agencies
4.75 Non-Client Consultation
35 38 Training
Community Relations 1
5 Volunteer Miscellaneous
17. Parent Education Program: 5 Parent Education
# In Group # Sessions Service Units
Pre-STEP
STEP (Monday Mothers) 12 4 48
Stress Management
Communication/Adolescent
Self-Esteem
Single Parents 15 3 45
Step Parents 12 3 36
Adolescent Sexuality
Workshops
Fall Follow-up 3 1 3
TOTALS: 42 11 132
Recreation: Winterhawks game 5 Kids, 2 Volunteers
Total number people contacts this mo,: 834
i' Total number people contacts yr. to date: 4043
Average per month: 449
May 6, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Letter from Curt Randolph
Attached is a letter from Mr. Curt Randolph outlining septic tank problems he
is having on property at 11685 SW 72nd Avenue. Mr. Randolph would like to be
annexed to the City so that he can connect to the sewer.
The Planning Staff has been in contact with Mr. Randolph. We have explained
the annexation process to him and suggested he contact his neighbors about a
triple majority annexation. Mr. Randolph contacted the Planning Staff and
informed us that his neighbors are not interested in annexation at this time .
Mr. Randolph would like the City Council to give him an indication as to when
the City might annex this area so that he can remedy the situation in a manner
satisfactory to the City, County and DEQ.
LZ:lw
RECEIVED
Curt Randolph
11685 S.W. 72nd MAY 4 1982
Portland, Oreton 97223
CITY OF TIGARD
To the 1�ayor and Council members of the City of Tigard;
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I o?an a house on the corner of 72nd Ave. and Duvall St. , just one lot
affray from Tigard city limits. Then rmj family moved into this 'louse over a year
ago ire found the septic drainfield had completely failed. After ::such time and
effort, including many phone calls to Tigard City Hall and '7ashinton County
officials, I learned that eventually Tigard plans to force the annexation of
my neiborhood and bring a setrer pipe up Duvall St. However no one has been
able to put a specific date on this arLnexation.
Jashington County officials have inspected the drainfield and fo-xld
the site inadequate for a drainfield system. The water table is very high.
They are now to the point of turning the matter of our drainfield over to
the D.E.Q. for enforcement action of local health codes, unless Ican give
them a specific date for the sewer connection_ they have no recource but to
do so.
that I need is to find out when you plan to annex this area so I can
inform the Health Dept. that this matter c-rill be taken care of in a manner
that trill be acceptable to us all.
;{y drainfield trill remain a health hazard until I hear from you.
You can reach me by letter at the above address, or by phone at
620_4544 or rj work no. 636_8457.
Thank you very much for your time and your help, I feel that this
letter will help to give you a reason to force this annexation as quickly
as possible.
Sincerely,
r
Levil still 11011�g
i
i
May 10 , 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council nA
From: Bob Jean, City Administrator
Subject: Hearings Officer and Pro tem, /10/82 (2.11)
As a part of the Consent Agenda motion, I suggest that you approve the
professional services agreement with Beth Blount. Additionally, in order
to provide for a back-up, I suggest that the motion also authorize that
the Mayor, upon staff's recommendation, be authorized to appoint a
Hearings Officer Pro tem, when necessitated by the unavailability of
the regular Hearings Officer.
BJ: lw
O'DONNELL. DATE May 6 , 1982 _
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N W HOYT STREET TO Bob Jean
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222-4402 FROM Edward J . Sullivan
RE Hearings Officer ' s Contract
Below are alternatives for specific items in the Hearings Officer ' s
contract which you may wish to add to this contract or consider
for later addition. Attached are copies of contracts from other
cities and counties for your reference.
1. Compensation:
There are three systems of compensation which are practiced:
(1) A per-hour wage;
(2) A per-hour wage with a maximum annual compensation amount
specified, with the lesser amount superseding; and,
(3) A per-hearing session wage.
Clackamas County and Beaverton employ the first, setting the rate
at $50 . 00\\per hour. Multnomah County utilizes the second system
w' _a fe � of $40 . 00 per hour or a maximum of $10, 000, whichever
is less, for the Chief Hearings Officer, and a maximum of $2, 000
for the alternate officer. Washington County also stipulates a
maximum: the rate is $57 . 00 per hour or $30 , 000 per year. The
City of Hillsboro follows option No. 3 , paying $250 . 00 per hearing
session, and has agreed to limit each hearing to five items .
2. Compensation for site visitation:
Multnomah County requires, as a delineated responsibility of
the Hearings Officer, that the officer visit each site for a case
on the agenda. However, the Hearings Officer is not allowed to
bill for more than 30 minutes per site, unless additional time is
authorized by the Planning Director.
3 . Written decisions:
Different periods of time are permitted for preparation and
presentation of a written decision. Clackamas County and Beaverton
allow ten calendar days; Multnomah County permits seven calendar
Clays; and Washington County allows 21 calendar days.
Timeliness of decisions:
Multnomah County's contract includes a penalty to be assessed
against the Hearings Officer of $50 .00 per day for each calendar
day that the decision is overdue. One of the Hearings Officer ' s
contracted responsibilities for Multnomah County is to provide a
written decision within seven days of the hearing; this penalty
is intended to "mitigate the impact of untimeliness. "
O'DONNELL. DATE May 6 , 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO Bob Jean
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031 222.4402 FROM EJS
RE- Hearings Officer' s Contract
In addition, Multnomah County assesses their Hearings Officer
$25. 00 per working day for each day less than the three-week
minimum for admission of conflict of interest. Failure to inform
the Planning Department of a conflict of interest three weeks
prior to a hearing constitutes untimely performance of responsi-
bilities.
5.. Termination:
Washington and Multnomah. Counties both provide for termina-
tion of the contract by either party upon 30 days ' notice.
Washington County also stipulates that the Hearings Officer
"shall not be entitled to terminate this agreement prior to the
expiration of the stated term of the agreement if the county has
compensated the Hearings Officer in the maximum amount of $30, 000"
[the maximum annual compensation] .
Alternatively, Clackamas County stipulates that the county
has the right to terminate the contract if the officer fails to
perform in a timely manner, or that either party may terminate
the contract by written notice on a date specified in that notice.
EJS:ial
5/6/82 - Page 2
i
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
A CONTRACT entered into been the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON,
12420 S.___W:-D7ain, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (herein as "CITY") and
rt ~` (herein as "OFFICER" )
Whe-k-eas__it is in the bes£ interests of the CITY to retain the
serviceso a ` e�s Officer to conduct quasi-judicial hearings
required under Tigard_ Muni cih. 18 . 84; and
Whereas is qualified to
perform said services;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO THAT:
1 . OFFICER shall perform the services as forth in Position
Description and Specifications (Exhibit A ��-•B.) copies of
which are attached to this agreement an nc ated by this
reference herein, as modified by this agreement and shall perform
the services pursuant to the Hearing Officer procedures approved
by the Council.
2. In consideration of performance of all services and as payment
for all expenses incurred by OFFICER, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AGREED
IN WRITING TO BE SEPARATELY REIMBURSABLE AND BEFORE BEING INCURRED,
CITY agrees to pay to OFF� E
An amount based upon actual hou of service performed during the
given month at the rate pf $ per hour.
3. CITY shall make monthly payments to OFFICER, based upon actual
hours of service performed during the given month.
4 . OFFICER acknowledges that for all purposes related to this
agreement, OFFICER is and shall be deemed to be an independent
contractor and not an employee of CITY, shall not be entitled to
benefits of any kind to which an employee of the CITY is entitled
and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required
by law; and furthermore in the event that OFFICER is found by a
court of law or an administrative agency to be an employee of the
CITY for any purposes, CITY shall be entitled to offset compensa-
tion due or demand repayment of any amounts paid to OFFICER under
the terms of this agreement, to the full extent of any benefits
or other remuneration OFFICER receives (from CITY or a third party)
as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments
that CITY is required to make (to OFFICER or to a third_-party)___a_s
a result of said finding.
5. OFFICER shall prepare and submit to
, a statement of services
rendered, indicating hours and dates of services together with a
request for payment duly authorized by the Council or itsdesignee
at least TWENTY DAYS prior to due date of each payment (excluding
first payment) ; payment by CITY of an interim amount shall release
CITY from any further obligation for payment to OFFICER for
services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the
statement of services_
6 -----e"omme,ncemen_t and Termination: This agreement will commence
on 17?Ty J (� d and terminate on
`,This agreement may be cancelled and terminated for_'_any reason on.
�Q—days ' wrir party. The CITY may terminate
the agreement at any time should the OFFICER fail to perform the
ten
duties required without prior writauthorization f-r-om -the
Planning Di - e5r or all funds budgeted for this professional
service co teaetjare expended prior to
Any work p6,rf '- ed by the OFFICER g_ to the point of termination.
shall become the property of the CITY.
7. Any modifications to this agreement resulting in increases of
compensation or extent of services must be made in writing.
AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES HERETO:
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
BY (signature)
TITLE:
DATE
BY (type name)
(signature)
DATE
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Position Description
Hearings Officer
General Statement of Duties: Conducts hearings on quasi-judicial
land use actions as delegated by
the City Council
Supervision Received: Works under the direct supervision
of the Council which provides general
guidance.
Supervision Exercised: The Hearings Officer has no direct
supervision over City employees.
Staff Support- Staff support is provided by the
Planning Department with the Planning
Director acting as Secretary. The
Planning Director shall be respon-
sible for prov ' di_ng all of the
principal administrative and clerical
support services to the Hearings
Officer except as provided by the
agreement.
Principal Duties:
1. Conducts hearings on quasi-judicial land use actions as
delegated by the City Council. This includes all matters
set forth in TMC Ch. 18 .84 . 050 (b) .
2 . Develops rules of procedure for conduct of hearings, to be
approved by the City Council.
3 . Develops written orders containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law on all land use actions as required by
City ordinances and as may be required by state law.
Recruiting Requirements, Knowledge, Skill and Ability:
Considerable knowledge of principles and practices of land use
planning and zoning, especially Oregon laws; working knowledge of
governmental and legal procedures and terminology; skillful and
objective listener; ability to critique and evaluate data and
information; ability to develop legally defensible written findings
and conclusions concerning decisions on land use actions.
4
Experience and Training:
Graduation from a four-year college or university . At least
five years ' experience in urban planning, law, public administration
or related fields. A Master's Degree may substitute for up to two
years ' experience if taken in one of these disciplines . Preference
given to an individual who has had current experience in administra-
tion of land use ordinances at the local level or has had direct
experience in representing local government or private clients in
land use matters.
City of Tigard, Oregon
1-
Specifications for Hearings Officer
Applicants for the position of Hearings Officer with the City
of Tigard must be able to stipulate to the following specifications
as will be contained in a professional services contract:
1. Duration of Contract: to ,
renewable after upon satisfactory performance
and continued funding by the City.
2. Termination: Ninety (90) day termination by either party
before
3. Compensation: Hourly, based upon overhead and actual hours
performed in travel, hearings, and development of written
findings. To be paid monthly or as otherwise agreed by
both parties.
4 . Service Requirement: In addition to his or her own services,
Hearings Officer must provide own clerical support to pro-
duce final written orders and own physical facilities
(office space, telephone, etc. ) . City will provide all
professional and other clerical staff support, notice for
hearings, required materials for review by Officer and
public, meeting rooms and other facilities and equipment,
and recording of minutes .
5. Hearing Commitment: Hearings Officer must be able to
establish at least one hearings time per week, approxi-
mately one to four hours per session and commit to the
necessary preparation time and follow-up on each land
use action. Actual schedule, including hours of hearings,
are negotiable; however, the Hearings Officer must be
able to establish a schedule which assures the City of
speedy and efficient processing of applications without
delay of hearings or decisions and with adequate public
participation. The City cannot guarantee a minimum or
maximum number of land use actions or hearings.
6 . Written Orders: Final written orders must be issued
within ten (10) calendar days of an oral decision.
7 . Location of Hearings: All hearings must be conducted
within the City. Under normal circumstances these will
be held in located at
or
other public meeting rooms deemed appropriate by the
Planning Director, in consultation with the Hearings
Officer, as to the type of hearing.
8 . Travel; Vehicle Expense: Hearings Officer must provide
for own travel to and from hearings or other meetings
required, as well as any field investigations connected
with land use actions. Compensation for travel will not
be separate- from hourly fee.
9. Conferences or Meetings: Hearings Officer may be requested
to attend special meetings or conferences, in or out of
the City, in connection with the duties and responsibili-
ties of the position, including training, at the expense
of the City. The Council shall grant authorization for
these activities.
10 . Conduct; Conflict of Interest: The Hearings Officer shall
be subject to the Code of Ethics of public officials
(ORS 244 .040) and the Open Meeting Law (ORS 192 . 610) , and
shall otherwise not engage in activities which are or
could be construed to be a conflict of interest with the
position of Hearings Officer with the City of Tigard.
11. Rules of Procedure: The Hearings Officer shall, as the
first order of business under the contract, develop basic
rules of procedure for hearings to be held under his or
her authority. The rules will be approved by the City
Council before being implemented.
12. Review: All decisions of the Hearings Officer will be
reviewable by the City Council who shall have the autho-
rity to uphold, overturn or remand the decision of the
Hearings Officer.
t
O'DONNELL. DATE May 6, 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: Bob Jean
PORTL=- '). OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: EJS
RE: Hearings Officer's Contract
In addition, Multnomah County assesses their Hearings Officer
$25. 00 per working day for each day less than the three-week
minimum for admission of conflict of interest. Failure to inform
the Planning Department of a conflict of interest three weeks
prior to a hearing constitutes untimely performance of responsi-
bilities.
5.. Termination:
Washington and Multnomah Counties both provide for termina-
tion of the contract by either party upon 30 days ' notice.
Washington County also stipulates that the Hearings Officer
"shall not be entitled to terminate this agreement prior to the
expiration of the stated term of the agreement if the county has
compensated the Hearings Officer in the maximum amount of $30,000"
[the maximum annual compensation] .
Alternatively, Clackamas County stipulates that the county
has the right to terminate the contract if the officer fails to
perform in a timely manner, or that either party may terminate
the contract by written notice on a date specified in that notice.
EJS:ial
5/6/82 - Page 2
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this SZ�<_day of
1981 , between Washington County, a political subdivision of the StaEe of
Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "County" and Dale M. Hermann, an independent
contractor, hereinafter referred to as "Hearings Officer".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS enabling legislation at ORS 215-406 provides that Washington
County may appoint a hearings officer to conduct hearings on applications for
permits or of contested cases regarding land use matters; and
WHEREAS Article II of the Washington County Community Development Ordinance ,
Relating to Zoning implements the aforementioned legislation by providing for
a hearings officer to conduct quasi-judicial hearings and make administrative
actions; and
WHEREAS the utilization of a hearings officer will expedite the administra-
tive action process for the benefit of the public and the County, and therefore
the Board of County Commissioners on September 21 , 1976, by Resolution and
Order No. 76-242 declared the creation of the position of Hearings Officer; and
WHEREAS, Dale M. Hermann is willing to serve as Hearings Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained,
the parties agree as follows:
HEARINGS OFFICER AGREES:
1 . That the performance of services rendered pursuant to this agreement
are provided as an independent contractor, and therefore Hearings Officer is
not an agent or employee of the County entitled to any employee benefits.
2. That he shall perform the following duties as the Hearings Officer
for County:
A. To conduct all quasi-judicial land use hearings authorized by
the Board action of July 7, 1981 (Resolution and Order No. 81-133) which
adopted the report entitled "In the Hatter of the Delegation of the
Authority to Consider and Decide Applications Filed Pursuant to the
Zoning and Subdivision Articles of the Community Development Ordinances
of Washington County" and to conduct any other hearing which may be
authorized by Board Resolution and Order or Ordinance .
B. To conduct all quasi-judicial land use hearings in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 2200 of Article II of the Washington
County Community Development Ordinance, Relating to Zoning and the Rules
of Procedure adopted by the Board for the conduct of initial hearings
pursuant to Chapter 2200. By this reference, Chapter 2200 of Article If
and the aforementioned Rules of Procedure, as may be respectively amended,
are made a part of this Agreement.
C. To provide a written decision and Order consisting of an explana-
tion of the facts upon which the Hearings Officer has relied, the pertinent
provisions of County ordinances, pians and other laws, and the conclusions
which he has formed from the facts and the law for every administrative
action. The Hearings Officer shall continue the matter to a date certain
whereupon he shall issue a written decision and order at a public session.
All written orders shall be issued within 21 days after the close of the
public hearing unless an extension is agreed upon by the parties. This
order shall constitute the decision by the Hearings Officer required by
Chapter 2200 of Article 11 for the purpose of subsequent appeal . This
provision does not prohibit the Hearings Officer from publicly announcing
his oral decision immediately after the public hearing of an agenda item.
2 -
3. That he shall be responsible for providing all office facilities and
secretarial help for the preparation of all written decisions and orders of
administrative actions.
4. Payment of services shall be limited to compensable time recorded for
those duties performed pursuant to paragraph 2 of "Hearings Officer Agrees".
The Hearings Officer shall keep accurate records and shall submit them to the
Washington County Planning Department whereupon payment of services by County
shall be no later than 30 days from date of submission. However , payment
shall not be made for compensable time unless the Hearings Officer has issued
all written decisions and orders required to be issued by paragraph 2(C) of
"Hearings Officer Agrees" within the pay period. If the Hearings Officer has
not issued all of the appropriate orders , the County has the right to deny
payment until the orders are issued.
5. That he shall submit the name of an alternate Hearings Officer to be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Said alternate, in the absence
of the Hearings Officer shall have the same responsibilities as the Hearings
Officer. Performance of the alternate shall be the sole responsibility of the
Hearings Officer.
COUNTY AGREES:
1 . That the Hearings Officer shall be compensated for those services
enumerated in "Hearings Officer Agrees11 at an hourly rate of fifty-seven
(57.00) dollars an hour or a maximum amount of thirty thousand ($30,000.00)
dollars for the terms of this Agreement, whichever is less. Payment for
Hearings Officer' s services shall be paid in accordance with paragraph 4 of
"Hearings Officer Agrees".
2. That the County shall have the responsibility in scheduling the time
f and place of ill a .asi-judicial land use hearings, and notifying the appropriate
x
parties pursuant to Chapter 2200 of Article 11 . The Hearings Officer shall be
notified twenty (20) days in advance of all regularly scheduled proceedings.
_ 3 _
3. That the County shall provide a hearing room for every hearinc
conducted by the Hearings Officer. County shall also provide the neceSSary
paper with the County letterhead for all decisions and orders to be rendered
by the Hearings Officer.
4. That County shall comply with every requirement of Chapter 2200 of
Article It of the Rules and Procedure adopted by the Board for the conduct of
initial hearings before the Hearings Officer.
That any documents or exhibits made a part of the record of an administra-
tive action within the control of' the Washington County Planning Director shall
be released to the Hearings Officer upon his signature. Said record shall be
returned by Hearings Officer upon the submission of the pertine=nt written
decision and order.
The duration of this Agreement shall cover services as provided eo-r.-neneing
July 1 , 1981 through June 30, 1982. This Agreement may be renewed by the
parties subject to a sixty (60) day notice of renewal prior to June 30, 1982.
This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party subject to a
thirty (30) day notice of termination. The Hearings Officer shall not be
entitled to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the stated
term of this Agreement of June 30, 1982, if County has compensated the
Hearings Officer in the maximum amount of thirty thousand ($30,000.00) dollars
as provided in paragraph i of "County jA�grees11. r
APPROVED WASHIUTGw Gill sboro, Oregon, this cK day of / �� l9$l
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �
MINUTE ORDER K ........ .-.. LT(.�7.7._..._..
DATE .................... �.a-.!__Q/--....
Of icial Hearings Officer '
OF .�A7' Yat Hillsboro,t Oregon, this 1= day of6t 1981 -
j A-S
981 _JF.j S,C Ti l_-Y �• •
�. Cha7rman
.............1. ............ .
Boaf Co issiovers
'1:• • For Washington Count Oregon
:r �'•��are: fez g County, 9
4
I w t.-a.r
L NOV 2 � i113tii
r„iy 1 fG9an3^t'CIf'17t
[TiUL"rnmmA” C®L.Jn-ry �R ® Oregon
vvv,ti.�c�. rvn
MUL.TNOMAH COUNTY. ORE. CONTRACT DESCRIPTION FORM
IR Personal Services ❑ Revenue ❑ Lease/Rental ❑ Intergov. Agreemt. ❑ Other
CONTACT PERSON Larry Epstein PHONE 248-3043 DATE 11/10/81
DEPARTMENT Environmental Services DIVISION Planning and Development
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Land Use Planning
Chief Hearings Officer
NAME OF CONTRACTOR Paul Norr EMPLOYER ID# OR 9S# 302-38-6531
EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT 12/1/81 TERMINATION DATE 11/30/82
TOTAL AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT $10.000.00 (Automatically extended)
IF OVER $10.000. DATE OF RFP SCREENING COMMITTEE DECISION
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
CHARGEABLE BUC# 43600001 FUND SOURCE General
FUND
LINE ITEM TO BE CHARGED REVENUE BUC#
PAYMENT TERMS: LUMP SUM ❑ MONTHLY ❑ $ OTHER ❑
REQUIRED SIGNATURES:
DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
COUNTY =nUNSF1 DATE
BUDGET OFFICE � � DATE /I ;6 f
PURCHASING DIRECT R- mac-:_- ��-�- DATE --//— — /
COUNTY EXECUTIVE DATE
AUTHORIZATION NUMBER TRANSACTION DATE
MO _ DAY
_ YEAR A THORIZAT'ON NOTICE ENCUMBRANCE
—
I ,,
NOTICE "APRON"ONLY
VDOR/ CONTRACT!D NUMBER BASIC UNIT CODE TgANSACTION AMOUNT 'RADS EXP.CAT. INITIAL----------------
.
310. O , r
a
I
_ l
!
WHITE—Original—County Counsel GREEN—Finance Division CANARY—Return to Initiator PINK—Clark at the Board GOLDENROD—Purches,ng
MULTNOMAH COUNTY
PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into between Multnomah County, a home rule sub-
division of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "County", and Paul Norr,
Independent contractor, hereinafter "Chief Hearings Officer",
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, enabling legislation at ORS 215.406 provides that Multnomah
County, Oregon, may appoint a hearings officer to conduct hearings on appli-
cation for permits or of contested cases regarding land use matters; and
WHEREAS, Multnomah County Zoning Ordinance No. 100, as amended, implements
the aforementioned legislation by providing for a hearings officer to conduct
quasi-judicial hearings and make administrative actions; and
WHEREAS, the utilization of a hearings officer will expedite the land
use hearings decision-making process for the benefit of the public and the
County; and
WHEREAS, the Multnomah County Board of County Commissioners, on June 26,
1979, approved amendments of Zoning Ordinance No. 100, establishing the posi-
tion of Planning and Zoning Hearings Officer, and providing for the powers,
duties and general functions of the position; and
WHEREAS, the Multnomah County Board of County Commissioners, on November
5, 1981, appointed Paul Norr to serve at the pleasure of the Board in the
position of Chief Hearings Officer; and
WHEREAS, the County requires services which Hearings Officer is capable
of providing, under terms and conditions hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, Hearings Officer is able and prepared to provide such services
as County- does hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions setforth;
now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION of those mutual promises and the terms and conditions
setforth hereafter, the parties agree as follows:
-2-
Y. Hearings Officer Services and Conditions
A. For purposes of this Contract and unless otherwise specified the
term Hearings Officer shall include the Chief Hearings Officer
• and the Alternate Hearings Officers.
The Hearings Officer agrees to the following:
1. That the performance of services rendered pursuant to this
agreement are provided as an independent contractor, and
therefore, Hearings Officer is not an agent or employee
of Multnomah County entitled •to any employee benefits;
and Hearings Officer shall adhere to all applicable laws
governing its relationship with its employees, including
but not limited to laws, rules, regulations and policies
concerning workers' compensation, equal employment, non-
discrimination, minimum and prevailing wage requirements
2. The Hearings Officer is expected to perform in a timely
manner. Repeated failure to so perform is grounds for
termination under Part III-2 of the Contract. An occas-
atonal lapse of timeliness does not ordinarily warrant
termination; however every instance of untimeliness re-
sults in increased administrative costs to the County.
Therefore, the impact of untimeliness should be mitigated
by assessing the Hearings Officer a monetary penalty when
the responsibilities described in this part are not carried
out in a timely manner. The Hearings Officer shall perform
the following duties:
(a) Conduct all assigned quasi-judicial land use
hearings and render decisions authorized by
and pursuant to requirements of the Multnomah
County Zoning and Land Division Ordinances.
(b) Provide a written decision to the County Land
Development Section within seven (7) calendar
days following the hearing, at which final ac-
tion was announced or taken under advisement.
Failure to perform in a timely manner shall
result in assessment of a penalty of fifty
(50) dollars per day for each calendar day
over seven (7) days by which the decision
is provided.
(c) Inform the staff of the Land Development
Section at least three weeks before a hear-
ing whether the Officer has any conflicts
of interest or is subject to any bias or
pre-hearing contact with parties concern-
ing any case on the agenda summary for that
hearing. Failure to perform in a timely
manner shall result in assessment of a
penalty of twenty-five (25) dollars per
day for each working day less than three
weeks. Such a penalty will not be incurred
• -3-
If a conflict arises during the three-week period
described above or if the conflict is not apparent
due to County action or inaction, provided notice
of the conflict is provided by the Hearings Officer
within 24 hours of discovery.
(d) Visit the site which is the subject of each
application on which the Hearings Officer will
act, provided however that not more than thirty
(30) minutes may be billed for visits to each
case site on the agenda for the individual
Hearings Officer. For instance, if there
are three cases on an agenda for one Hear-
Ings Officer and it would take over ninety
(90) minutes to visit each one, the Hearings
Officer will not be paid for more than ninety
(90) minutes for site visits. He or she may
choose to visit only the most important sites
which can be visited within the ninety (90)
minutes or may contribute the time over
ninety (90) minutes at no cost to the County.
The staff will assist the Hearings Officer to
prioritize cases for purposes of site visits.
The Planning Director may authorize additional
time for site visits when necessary. Such au-
thorization shall be in writing and shall specify
the amount of additional time permitted.
3. The Hearings Officer shall keep accurate records on forms
provided by the County for the purpose of computing com-
pensable time and shall submit said records to the Divi-
sion of Planning and Development for payment of services
no later than the end of the next succeeding month in
which the services were rendered.
4. Where the Chief Hearings Officer, as a result of sickness
or conflict of interest, is unable to attend a scheduled
hearing, or where the Planning Director determines that
a decision on a given case turns primarily on issues
related to design, construction, or aesthetic impact
and mitigation, a designated Alternate Hearings Officer
shall perform the function of the Hearings Officer. If
both the Chief Hearings Officer and Alternate Hearings
Officers are unable to attend the Planning Commission
shall perform the function of the Hearings Officer.
II. Multnomah County Obligations and Terms
A. Multnomah County agrees to the following:
1. Multnomah County agrees to compensate Hearings Officers for
performance of those services enumerated in this agreement,
at an hourly rate of $40.00 dollars, or a maximum amount of
$10,000 for the Chief Hearings Officer and maximum amount of
$2,000 for each Alternate Hearings Officer, for each year
during which this agreement is effective, whichever is less.
Payment shall be made in accord-
Continued
�4r •
ance with subparagraph 3 of "Hearings Officer Services
and Conditions". The County agrees to provide payment
within thirty (30) days following receipt of the itemized
accounting required in that subparagraph.
2. Multnomah County certifies that sufficient funds are
available and authorized for expenditure to finance
costs of this contract.
3. Mgltnomah County shall have the responsibility in
scheduling the time and place of all quasi-judicial
land use hearings, and notifying the appropriate par-
ties pursuant to Multnomah County Zoning Ordinance No. 100,
as amended. Multnomah County shall also have the responsi-
bility of providing the Hearings Officer with a summary of
applications on which he or she will act at a pubic hear-
ing at least four weeks prior to that hearing.
4. Multnomah County shall provide a hearing room for every
hearing conducted by the Hearings Officer.
5. Multnomah County shall comply with every requirement of
Zoning Ordinance No. 100, as amended, for the conduct
of hearings before the Hearings Officer.
6. This agreement shall commence on the date of its execu-
tion, and shall terminate on December 1, 1982. In the
event either party hereto wishes to renegotiate any
terms of this agreement, he or she shall give written
notice of intent to renegotiate on or before August 1,
1982. If neither party gives such notice, the terms
of the agreement shall extend until December 1, 1983
and likewise each year thereafter unless either party
gives notice to renegotiate prior to the first day of
March of each fiscal year.
IIZ. General Provisions
1. Access to Records County, through its duly authorized
representatives, shall have access to such books, docu-
ments, papers and records of the Hearings Officer as are
directly pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of
making audit, examination, excerpts and transcripts.
2. Termination. This agreement may be terminated by mutual
consent of the parties, or by either, upon 30 days'
written notice, delivered by certified mail or in
person. County may terminate this agreement effec-
tive upon delivery of written notice to the Hearings
Officer, or at such later date as may be established
by the County, under any of the following conditions:
a. In the event funding from federal, state or other
sources is not obtained and continued at levels
sufficient to allow for payment as provided herein;
If possible, and upon agreement of the parties, this
MUGT Cry.
agreement may be modified! to accommodate..reduced-
available fundi�&r--r-
b. If federal or statim regulations_or gznideliaes
modified or changed in a manner which prohibits -or
renders inappropriate the purchase of such services
as are provided hereunder-. -;
Any such termination of this agreement shall'be without
prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either
party already accrued prior to such termtnat-ion.—
County, by written notice of default (including
breach of the agreement) to the Hearings Officer,
may terminate the whole or any part of this agree-
ment. -
a. If Hearings Officer fails to provide services
prescribed herein within the time specified or
any extension thereof; or
b. If Hearings Officer fails to perform any of the
other provisions of the agreement, or so fails
to pursue the work as to endanger performance
of the agreement in accordance with its terms,
and after receipt of written notice from County,
Hearings Officer fails to correct such failures
within 10 days or such other period as the County
. may authorize.
3. Subcontracts and Assignment. Hearings Officer shall
neither subcontract with others for any of the work
prescribed herein, nor assign any of Hearings Officer's
rights acquired hereunder without obtaining prior written
approval from County; County, by this agreement, incurs
no liability to third persons for payment of any compen-
sation provided herein to Hearings Officer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have caused this agreement
to be executed by their duly authorized officers on the fifth
day of November 1981.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOHN B. LEAHY
Donald E. Clark, County Executive
�7
County Counsel for
Multnomah County, OrAgon
Hearings Officer
By I.D. # 302-38-6531
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
A CONTRACT entered into between the CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON, 4 950 SW Hall
Blvd. , Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (herein as "CITY") and
Beth Blount
of 2437 Pacific Avenue, Forest Grove, OR (herein as "OFFICER")
Whereas it is in the best interests of the City to retain the services of a
Hearings Officer to conduct quasi-judical hearings required under Beaverton
Ordinance 2050; and
Whereas Beth Blount is qualified to perform said services;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO THAT:
1. OFFICER shall perform the services as set forth in Position Description
and Specifications (Exhibits A and B) , copies of which are attached to this
agreement and incorporated by this reference herein, as modified by this
agreement and shall perform the services pursuant to the Hearing Officer
procedures approved by the Council .
2. In consideration of performance of all services and as payment for all
expenses incurred by OFFICER, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AGREED IN WRITING TO BE
SEPARATELY REIMBURSEABLE AND BEFORE BEING INCURRED, CITY agrees to pay to
OFFICER:
An amount based upon actual hours of performance at the rate of $50 per hour,
exclusive of travel to and from hearings.
3. CITY shall make monthly payments to OFFICER, based upon actual hours of
service performed during the given month.
4. OFFICER acknowledges that for all purposes related to this agreement,
OFFICER is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an
employee of CITY, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an
employee of the CITY is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all
payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the event that OFFICER
is found by a court of law or an administrative agency to be an employee of
the CITY for any purposes, CITY shall be entitled to offset compensation due
or demand repayment of any amounts paid to OFFICER under the terms of this
agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration OFFICER
receives (from CITY or a third party) as a result of said finding and to the
full extent of any payments that CITY is required to make (to OFFICER or to a
third party) as a result of said finding.
5. OFFICER shall prepare and submit to the CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, PO BOX
157, Beaverton, OR 97075, a statement of services rendered, indicating hour;
and dates of services together with a request for payment duly authorized by
the Mayor or his designee at least TWENTY DAYS prior to due date of each
payment (excluding first payment) ; payment by CITY of an interim amount shall
release CITY from any further obligation for payment to OFFICER for services
performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the statement of services.
6. Commencement and Termination: This Agreement will commence on July 20,
1981 and terminate on June 30, 1982. This Agreement may be cancelled and
terminated for any reason on 90 days written notice by either party. The City
may terminate the agreement at any time should the OFFICER fail to perform the
duties required without prior written authorization from the Planning Director
or all funds budgeted for this professional service contract are expended
prior to June 30, 1982. Any work performed by the OFFICER up to the point of
termination shall become the property of the City.
7. Any modifications to this agreement resulting in increases of compensation
or extent of services must be made in writing.
AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES HERETO:
CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON
BY: '��✓`dejK=-`` (signature)
T I T� �.
DATE.
BY: - \ (Ty Pe name)
'4g�iat ur
DATE:
CONTRACT:LD:rn:11
City of Beaverton, Oregon
Position Description
Hearings Officer
General Statement of Duties: Conducts hearings on quasi-judicial
land use actions as delegated by the
City Council .
Supervision Received: Works under the direct supervision of
the Mayor who provides general guid-
ance.
Supervision Exercised: The Hearings Officer has no direct
supervision over City employees.
Staff Support: Staff support is provided by the Plan-
ning Department with the Planning
Director acting as Secretary. The
Planning Director shall be responsible
for providing all of the principal
administrative and clerical support
services to the Hearings Officer as
provided by the Beaverton Development
Code.
Principal Duties:
1. Conducts hearings on quasi-judicial land use actions as delegated by the
City Council . This may include: rezonings (no Plan Amendment involved) ,
conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions and land partitions, and
appeals.
2. Develops rules of procedure for conduct of hearings, to be approved by
the City Council .
3. Develops written orders containing findings of fact on all land use
actions as required by City ordinances and as may be required by state
law.
Recruiting Requirements, Knowledge, Skill and Ability:
Considerable knowledge of principles and practices of land use planning
and zoning, especially Oregon laws; working knowledge of governmental and
legal procedures and terminology; skillful and objective listener; ability t ,
critique and evaluate data and information; ability to develop legally defens-
ible written findings and conclusions concerning decisions on land use
actions.
Experience and Training:
Graduation from a four year college or university. At least five years '
experience in urban planning, law, public administration or related fields. A
Master's Degree may substitute for up to two years ' experience if taken in one
of these disciplines. Preference given to an individual who has had current
experience in administration of land use ordinances at the local level or has
had direct experience in representing local government or private clients in
land use matters.
` 28:POS-DESCRP:jk
City of Beaverton, Oregon
Specifications for Hearings Officer
Applicants for the position of Hearings Officer with the City of
Beaverton must be able to stipulate to the following specifications as will be
contained in a professional services contract:
1. Duration of Contract: July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982, renewable after
one year upon satisfactory performance and continued funding by the
City.
2. Termination: Ninety (90) day termination by either party before
June 30, 1982.
3. Compensation: Hourly, based upon overhead and actual hours performed
in travel , hearings, and development of written findings. To be paid
monthly or as otherwise agreed by both parties.
4. Service Requirement: In addition to his or her own services,
Hearings Officer must provide own clerical support to produce final
written orders and own physical facilities (office space, telephone,
etc.) . City will provide all professional and other clerical staff
support, notice for hearings, required materials for review by
Officer and public, meeting rooms and other facilities and equipment,
and recording of minutes.
5. Hearing Commitment: Hearings Officer must be able to establish at
least one hearings time per week, approximately one to four hours per
session and commit to the necessary preparation time and follow-up on
each land use action. Actual schedule, including hours of hearings,
are negotiable; however, the Hearings Officer must be able to estab-
lish a schedule which assures the City of speedy and efficient
processing of applications without delay of hearings or decisions and
with adequate public participation. The following is an approximate
projected number of quasi-judicial land use actions expected to be
heard by the Hearings Officer during FY 1981-1982.
Rezones 5
Variances 25
Subdivisions 10
Conditional Use Permits 25
Miscellaneous Appeals Under Ordinance 2050 10
The City cannot guarantee a minimum or maximum number of land use actions
or hearings.
6. Written Orders: Final written orders must be issued within 10 calen-
dar days of an oral decision.
_ 7. Location of Hearings: All hearings must be conducted within the
City. Under normal circumstances these will be held in the City
Council Chambers located at 4950 SW Hall Blvd. or other public meet-
ing rooms deemed appropriate by the Planning Director, in consulta-
tion with the Hearings Officer, as to the type of hearing.
8. Travel ; Vehicle Expense: Hearings Officer must provide for own
travel to and from hearings or other meetings required, as well as
any field investigations connected with land use actions.
Compensation for travel will not be separate from hourly fee.
9. Conferences or Meetings: Hearings Officer may be requested to attend
special meetings or conferences, in or out of the City, in connection
with the duties and responsibilities of the position, including
training, at the expense of the City. The Mayor shall grant authori-
zation for these activities.
10. Conduct; Conflict of Interest: The Hearings Officer shall be subject
to the Code of Ethics of public officials (ORS 244.040) and the Open
Meeting Law (ORS 192.610) , and shall otherwise not engage in activi-
ties which are or could be construed to be a conflict of interest
with the position of Hearings Officer with the City of Beaverton.
11. Rules of Procedure: The Hearings Officer shall , as the first order
of business under the contract, develop basic rules of procedure for
hearings to be held under his or her authority. The rules will be
approved by the City Council before being implemented.
12. Appeals: All decisions of the Hearings Officer will be appealable to
the City Council who shall have the authority to uphold, overturn or
remand the decision of the Hearings Officer.
{
28:POS-SPECS:jk
CONTRACT FOR PROFES::IONAL SERVICES
This contract is entered into by and between Clackamas County,
hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and Richard F. Crist,
hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTOR, to provide regularly
scheduled services as hearings Officer to the COUNTY, and its
staff where appropriate. The following provisions shall be a
part of this contract:
I. Compensation:
A. The COIJ14TY agrees to compensate the CONTRACTOR on a
fee-for-service basis at the rate of $50 Per hour if
the CONTRACTOR provides the typing as set forth in
Section II-A-3. The CONTP.ACTOR shall file the written
order with the Planning Director within ten (10)
calendar days of his last hearing on the matter.
II. If-the COUNTY elects to provide the typing as set forth
in Section II-l.-3 after written notification to the
CONTRACTOR, the COU14TY agrees to compensate the CON-
TRACTOR on a fee-for-service basis at the rate of $95
per ]hour. The CONTRACTOR agrees that tike tapes of the
decisions will be delivered to the COUNTY within three
(3) working clays after the conclusion of his last
hearing on the matter.
C. This contract covers the Period beginning July 1, 1979 ,
through June 30 , i980, inclusive. Work shall be per-
formed in accordance with a schedule approved by the
COUNTY.
D. The C OUTRACTOR is engaged as an independent CONTRACTOR
and will be responsible for any federal or state taxes
applicable to COUNTY.
E. The CONTRACTOR is engaged hereby as an independent
CONTRACTOR and this contract is not intended to entitle
the .CONTRACTOR to any benefits generally granted to
County employees. Without limitation but by way of
illustration, the benefits which are not intended to
be extended by this contract to the CONTRACTOR are
vacation, .l holiday and sick leave, other leaves with
pay, tenure , medical and dental coverage, life and
disability insurance, overtime, Social Security, Workers '
Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, or retirement
benefits.
F. The CONTRACTOR certifies that at present he is not a
progpm, county or federal employee.
G. The CONTRACTOR certifies that he is not a member of the
PW.)lic Employes Retire lent System.
P"AY 31982
OTOMELL,SULLIVAM&RAMIS
1I. Services to be provided
A. By CONTRACTOR:
1 . Conduct public hearings as scheduled and decide most
quasi-judicial land use matters under the Clackamas
County Zoning Ordinance and Clackamas County Sub-
division and Partitioning Ordinance as authorized
by Board action of September 29 , 1977, Order No.
77-1652, and March 13 , 1979 , Order INo. 79-382 ; and
conduct other hearings which may be authorized by
Board Order or Ordinance.
2 . A written decision and order consisting of an
explanation of the facts upon which CONTRACTOR
has relied, pertinent provisions of the County
Ordinance, Plan and other relevant laws, and the
conclusions formed from the facts and the law for
every administrative action under the Ordinance,
said written decision and order shall be completed
and filed as the decision of the I:earings Officer
within ten (10) calendar days of the last hearing
on- the matter.
3. Office facilities and secretarial help for the
preparation of all written decisions and orders
of administrative actions.
4 . Ieep accurate records for the purpose of computing
coi�,ipensable time and submit said records to the
Clackamas County Planning Division by the end of
each month for payment of services by COUNTY.
5. An alternate Hearings Officer when CONTRACTOR is
unable to attend a scheduled hearing as a result
of sickness or conflict of interest.
6. Verbatim transcripts of hearings, when required for
appeals , shall be delivered by the CONTRACTOR to
the Planning Director within ten (10) calendar days
prior to the time set for hearing on the appeal .
Transcripts shall be billed separately as expenses
are incurred.
B- By COUNTY:
1. Professional planning staff assistance to the
I?easings Officer.
2 . Scheduling the tine and place of all quasi-judicial
land use hearings and notifying the appropriate
parties of hearings pursuant to the Clac'camas County,
Oregon, Zoning Ordinance.
Page 2 - C014TRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3. A hearings room for hearings conducted by the
hearings Officer; necessary paper with County
letterhead for all decisions to be rendered by
the Hearings Officer; and recording equipment
for said hearings.
III. Constraints :
Pursuant to the requirements of ORS 279. 310 through 279. 320
and Article XI , Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, the
following terms and conditions are made a part of this
agreement:
A. . CONTRACTOR agrees that he shall:
1. Make payments Promptly as due to all persons supplying
to CONTRACTOR labor or materials for the prosecution
of the work provided for in this agreement.
2. Pay all contributions or amounts due the Industrial
Accident Fund from such contractor or subcontractor
incurred in the performance of this agreement.
3. I•lot Permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted
against Clackamas County for act of any labor or
material furnished.
4. . Pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld
from employees pursuant to ORS 316. 167.
B. If CONTRACTOR fails , neglects or refuses to make prompt
payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to
a contractor or a subcontractor by any person in connec-
tion with this agreement as such claim becomes due, the
proper officer representing Clackamas County may pay
such claire to the person furnishing the labor or services
and charge the amount of the payment against funds due
or -to become due COIITRACTOR by reason of this agreement.
C. No person shall be employed for more than eight (8)
hours in any one day, or more than forty (40) hours
in any one week, except in cases of necessity, emergency
or where the public policy absolutely requires it, and
in such cases the laborers shall be paid at least time
and one-half nay for all overtime in excess of eight
(8) hours a day and for work Performed on Saturday and
on any legal holiday specified in ORS 187. 010 except
Veterans nal ; however, when specifically agreed to under
a e,rritter. labor-management ne-C otiated labor agreement,
the laborer ma,,,r be paid at least time and one-half pay
for work performed on Veterans Day or on any legal
holiday specified in ORS 187. 020.
Page 3 - CONTRACT FOR PROFESSION7.L SERVICES
D. CONTRACTOR shall promptly, as due , make payment to any
person or partnership, association or corporation
furnishing medical, surgical and hospital care or other
needed care and attention incident to sickness and
injury to the employees of CONTRACTOR of all sums which
CONTRACTOR agrees to pay for such services and all
monevs and sums which CONTRACTOR collected or deducted
from the wages of its employees pursuant to any law,
contract or agreement for the purpose of providing or
raving for such services.
E. This agreement is expressly subject the debt limitation
of Oregon Counties as set forth in Article XI, Section
10 of the Oregon Constitution, and is contingent upon
funds being appropriated therefor. Any provisions which
would conflict with law are deemed inoperative to that
extent.
IV. Termination: Amendment:
A. Time is of the essence in this contract and the COUNTY
shall have the right to terminate this contract if the
CONTRACTOR fails to meet the deadlines as set forth in
Section I of this contract.
B. This contract may be terminated by either party by written
notice, on a date stated in that notice.
C. This contract and any amendments to this contract will
not he effective until approved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Clackamas County.
D. This contract supersedes and cancels any prior contracts
between the parties hereto .for similar services.
DATED this 11���,/ ay of October, 1970.
COU;ITY: CONTRACTOR:
BOARD OF OUIITY COI-th ISSI NRRS
Stan S colo, Chairman Richard F. Crist
oh Or on Commissioner
�a.
Roert S humacner, Commissioner
ppro d as t f m
ou ciu 1
Page 4 - CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIOII'L SERVICES
NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS COMPANY
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF FRANCHISE APPLICATION
Northwest Natural Gas Company (Northwest) has been requested by your City
Manager to address three questions as part of the Application for the renewal of
its franchise to provide natural gas service within the City of Tigard.
Addressing these questions became necessary because of the recent U. S. Supreme
Court decision in Community Communications Co. v City of Boulder, Colorado,
U. S. (1982).
In the Boulder case, the Court held that the City is subject to the
"antitrust laws" in the exercise of its governmental as well as its proprietary
authority. The Court also held that the exemption the States have from the
"antitrust laws" is only available to cities when the exercise of their authority
"constitutes the action of the state. . . .itself in its
sovereign capacity . . . . , or unless it constitutes municipal
action in furtherance or implementation of clearly articulated
and sufficiently expressed state policy. . . ." Id, at
The questions your City Manager request Northwest to address are the
following:
I. Is the City of Tigard`s authority to grant utility franchises
subject to the "antitrust laws"?
II. Is the granting of a nonexclusive franchise to Northwest in
violation of the "antitrust laws"?
III. Is the granting of a nonexclusive franchise to Northwest in the
public interest?
Z.
The City of Tigard's authority to grant utility franchises exists under
the provisions of ORS 221.420. Pursuant to this section, a city has full
discretion in determining the quality and character of each kind of product or
service to be furnished or rendered by any public utility within its boundary.
It also has the authority to exclude or eject any public utility from such opera-
tions. There is no statutory limitation on the exercise of this authority.
Such discretion was addressed by the Court in the Boulder case. In that
instance, the City argued that its authority as a "home rule" municipality with
extensive powers of self-government in local and municipal affairs comes within
the purview of the "state action" exemption since it reflects Colorado's policy
of local autonomy. The Court concluded that Colorado's policy of neutrality on
matters of local affairs reflected the lack of any "clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed state policy;" and therefore failed to rise to the level
of state control necessary to qualify for the "state action" exemption.
Comparing the City's franchise authority with the circumstances outlined
in the Boulder case strongly indicate that the "state action" exemption would not
be available to the City.
II.
The consequence of granting a nonexclusive franchise to Northwest would
be the interference with another company's ability to provide like natural gas
service within the City of Tigard. Expenditures for facilities necessary to pro-
vide competitive service could be so great as to block any competition.
{
i,
2 -
Whether this potential result is a violation of the "antitrust laws" has
been addressed by the State of Oregon. Such attention of the State to the
resultant effect of granting a franchise appear to reflect the level of state
control necessary to bring into play the "state action" exemption.
The State passed legislation establishing a policy that eliminates and
prevents the duplication of utilities' facilities. ORS 758.400 to 758.475.
ORS 458.405 states the policy as follows;
"The elimination and future prevention of duplication of
utility facilities is a matter of state-wide concern;
and in order to promote the efficient and economic use
and development and the safety of operation of utility
services while providing adequate and reasonable service
to all territories and customers affected thereby, it is
necessary to regulate in the manner provided in ORS
758.400 to 758.475 all persons and entities providing
utility services."
Under the provisions of these statues, the Oregon Public Utility
Commissioner is charged with the responsibility of allocating territories and
customers to individual utilities. Such allocation eliminates existing and pre-
vents future duplication of utility facilities.
As a result of the State's action regarding competitive utility service,
the granting by the City of a nonexlusive franchise to Northwest appears not to
violate the "antitrust laws."
III.
The public interest is a combination of the needs of the public and the
method for satisfying those needs.
t
3 —
The continued availability of natural gas service to the people of Tigard
is a recognized need. A full range of energy resources provide a choice to the
people and it allows them the opportunity to use the most efficient resource for
their various energy requirements. Natural gas meets this requement with respect
to spaceheating, waterheating and cooking.
Competition, as a rule, is the recognized method of satisfying the needs
of the public. An exception to the rules exists with respect to utility service.
This exception imposes regulation in lieu of competition. Utility service in
Oregon is under the control of the Oregon Public Utility Commissioner and the
individual cities in which the utilities operate. Rates, service and territories
for providing such service fall within the purview of these regulatory authori—
ties. The City of Tigard exercises its regulatory authority through the granting
of franchises for utility service.
The granting of a nonexclusive franchise to Northwest to provide natural
gas service is the method necessary to satisfy the needs of the people of Tigard
and therefore is in the public interest.
- 4 -
STOrr., IRI-VES, BOLE Y, FRASER A-N-D W VSE
(DAVIES,BIG GS. STRAYER,STOEI AND DOLEY)
(RIVES, BONYHADI S SMITH)
LAW OFFICES
ALL R,yp HAVAN CL 3TEPH EN T.JANIK
JCGr-EY HICHAEL.Lot. VELMAJEgeJ.�IAH 900 SW FIFTH AVENUE
RICHARD E.ALEKANDER RICH ARO C.405EPH50N
RICHARD D.BACH JOEL O.—T. PORTLAND, OREGON 9720!; C 4
PJLUL L.BOL EY
GREGORY H.MACHHER50N OAVIp L.OAViE�
ERNEST BONY"ADI,P.C- DEKTCR E.MARTIN — HUGH L.BIGGS
WILLIAM M.—ALLISTER
PNI LLI PCDDCHAOSEY T CHARLES 1. C.URCH E (503)224-
3380 _.
MARRY A.CHANDLER GEORG
E K.MCIER, C GAIL L.ACM TERMAN KIRK R.HALL
Kc.AREN K.CRCA SON DAVID V.MILLER,P.C. CHARLES r.ADAMS JOHN J.HALLE
THOMAS
PH DCA- GRCGORY R.S STEPHEN C.BABSON SUSAN M.HAMMER
TM OMAS P,ENS.DeeNG,P.C. HARDY MYCRS GARY R.BARHUM JOVCC A.HARPOLE
JOHN DCTJ ENS,Dl THOMAS R.NICOLAI
EDWARD L.EPgTLIN.P.C. TCRRENGC RBARNES ..ELLIS MILO SPANCOA9T CTHMarch 5, 1982 MARG ARE M.BAV HGARDNER JAMES C.HOWE
PVTH BEYER PAMELA L.JACKLIN
No
M.GEUERg TCN MARK H.PERICHAR
C ON STwNCE MEMS BLOCK PETER R.JARVIS
JOHN A.BOGOAN SKI O KATHERCGORYINE
i.KUHER
RICHARD A.rRAN2KC CAMPBELL RICHARDSOH,P.C. JOHN F.BRADACH KATH CRIME L.KUHN
G EOROC N.GRASEP-OW P.C. ROBERT L.RIDOLEY,P.C. O.KEVIN CARLSON CHARLES S.LEWIS.M
LEONARD
M.GALLOWAY Y LOISoeoOF D.RIV CS,P.C. BERTRAND J.CLOSE WILLIAM E.HERR TY
LEONARD A.GIRARO LOIS O.ROSE.BAUM
WILLIAM J.O LD DOW
RICHARD E.ROY,P.C. ELISABETH� GILL RIGG 4VOITHROBERT
L.MILLER
OOR
NANCY L.DEL- L ROBERT J. NELSON O CRS MAN OOLO STE_
JOHN N,SCHWEIT2ER FRANK 5.DELTA THOMAS H.NELSON
SUSAN P.ORAO S PATRICK J.Si MPg OH
RONALD S.H.
HABER JLNN HUGHTHOMAS
SMITH,O P.C. MARK R,r C"TING HARK A.CT RBY
HIL
CHARLES H,ARRING ION,P.C. THOMAS . ST AY MARK L GEI CH FINGER MAROAR ET HILL NOTO
ROBERT I,HARRINOTON,P.C. MANLCY B.STRAYER ER RwHDOLVH C.FOSTER THOMAS R.PAGE
J OMN R.NAY STEPHEN S.WALTERS NANCY M.OANONG SUSAN H.OUICK
RICHARD A.HAYDEN.JR, DERE M.WCBB . ANDREW R.GARDNER GUY A.RANOLES
DAVID O.HAYHURST P.C. CLAR ENCE R.WICKS RICHARD S.GLEASON LAUREL S.TERRY
HENRY H.HEWITT.P.C. MARCUS WOOD DE—HEY'..GOLOSTEIN ANN E.THONPSOII
P.C.
CHARLES r.HINKLE WILLIAM W.WYSE,P.C. ARHOLo L.ORAY E.WALTER VAN VALKENIURG
ROBERT H.HUNTINGTON, DAV 10 W.GRECN JOHN M.VOLKMAN
STEPHEN L.GRIGGITH TIMOTHY J.WYLDER
Mr. Frank Currie
Department of Public Works
City Of Tigard
PO Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Currie:
Re: Relocated Pacific West Engineer's
Stations 119+00 to 134+50
This office represents Mr. J. B. Bishop in regard
to property located southeast of Pacific Highway West in
Tigard, Oregon, near the intersection of Park Street and
Pacific Highway West (roughly across from Pietro ' s Pizza) .
The City of Tigard owns a strip of property located
between our client's property and Pacific Highway West, as
illustrated on the enclosed drawing. The City of Tigard
acquired this property pursuant to an Agreement with the State
of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Transportation,
dated January 6, 1977, relating to the elimination and dis-
position of a portion of the right-of-way of Pacific Highway
West which was no longer needed by the State due to the
relocation of Pacific Highway West. Pursuant to this Agreement,
the Department of Transportation adopted Abandonment and
Retention Resolution No. 560, relinquishing the following
described property to the City of Tigard:
"All the land within the right-of-way
boundaries of Pacific Highway West, State Primary
Highway No. 1W, as formerly routed lying outside
the southeasterly right-of-way boundary of said
Pacific Highway West, as now relocated from
STOEL,RIVES,BOLEY,FLtAsER AND W sL
l
Mr. Frank Currie
March 5, 1982
Page 2
approximately opposite relocated highway engineers
station 119+00 to 134+50 , and lying in Section 2,
Township 25, Range 1W, Willamette Meridian, Washington
County, Oregon. " (the "Relinquished Property")
The portions of the above described property to
which the State of Oregon held deeded title, shown in red
on the attached drawing, were conveyed to the City of Tigard
by a Relinquishment of Titled dated April 5, 1977 (the
"Deeded Property") .
The documents transferring the Relinquished Property
to the City of Tigard require the Relinquished Property to
continue to be used for public purposes and require the City
of Tigard to maintain the Relinquished Property as part of
the City's public street system.
Our client and the other landowners whose properties
abut the Relinquished Property desire to acquire the Relinquished
Property for use in connection with the development of their
properties. I understand that our client has discussed this
matter with you. It is also my understanding that the City
of Tigard does not wish to continue ownership of the Relinquished
Property and would be willing to allow the abutting property
owners to acquire the Relinquished Property.
Since the documents convey.L.zg the Relinquished Property
to the City of Tigard require continued public use of the
Relinquished Property, I do not believe the City of Tigard can
convey the Relinquished Property to the abutting landowners .
In order to allow the abutting landowners to acquire the
Relinquished Property, I propose that, in cooperation with the
Department of Transportation, the following steps be followed:
1) The City of Tigard relinquish the Relinquished
Property back to the State of Oregon;
2) The Department of Transportation determine that
the Relinquished Property is no longer needed
or valuable for public purpose;
3) The portions of the Relinquished Property
which are not Deeded Property would, by virtue
of ORS 366.300 (2) , automatically vest in the
abutting landowners; and
STOT:L.RIV> S•'BOLEY•FRASER AND NYSE
Mr. Frank Currie
March S, 1982
Page 3
4) The Department of Transportation would dispose
of Deeded Property in accordance with the normal
methods for disposal of state property.
Before we can proceed
that theoCityhoflines Tigardedoesenotowishv to we
need to confirm
continue ownership to cooperatend tinance of the transferringethegownership Property,
and is willing
such property to the abutting landowners. Our cpro erty and the
process of confirming development plans for his prop
with the
we would like. to proceed
acticable.trWheneyou ohave had the ta1chance
landowners as soon as pwould you please call me so that we can
to review this letter,
discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
i
Mark A. Norby
MAN:fmb
cc: Mr. Edward. sullivan
Mr. J. B. Bishop
e 1
E r•�r sic`� �4 \
�9�}�✓!�yti. \ �_ �\�'' VST \ :\ •,
���' t�` � � `- •�` 'fir
0 0
1 ; .
O \ LL
-
c a
o• d
m
4 ,Q
,. � _. !_ _t�: tea•. '.7.-d.'
B D R A F T
April 8, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
.SUBJECT: LID Policy Discussion Topics
Following is a tentative timetable for the study of LIDS. As you can see, a discussion
of policy issues is scheduled for tonight. This is to serve two- purposes: (1) to make
everyone aware of the many related issues concerning LIDs; and (2) to provide some guide-
lines for the remainder of the study leading to a proposed ordinance in June.
April 19, 1982: LID Policy Discusoion
May 17, 1982: Draft of Policy Statement, Recommendation and Discussion
LID Process Discussion
June 21, 1982: Draft of LID Ordinance
June 28, 1982: Adopt LID Ordinance
July-August, 1982: Develop Standard Operating Procedures, Flowchart and Forms
General
*Nature - Type of improvements - on-site or off-site. Who pays? What are the limits?
*Bancroft bond intent?
*Oversizing of systems and completion of CIP portions?
•Use Bancroft for serving community at large?
•Health hazards policy and forced LID criteria? Different process or extra steps?
Define health hazards?
*Subsidy, deferments policy, assessment and deferred assessment, assess LID, administra-
tive charges for billing?
®Schools, churches, non-profits, etc. -- Policy? Timing?
Finance
®Interest rates and length of term; e.g. , Project $100,000 Bancroft at 10% for 10,20
years, at 12% for 10,20 years
*Is interest on assessment tax deductible? No? Sullivan?
*Start late payment charge? Yes?
If delinquent, due in full and payable? Option of City?
*Billing: administrative handling charge?
*Use of assessment feels (not tax deductible) vs. use of G.O. bonds and taxes (are
deductible)?
•�
r. -2-
eInterest rate limits and assessment caps. . .
*City match - % or functional cost?
*Fixed vs. variable rates for warrants?
*Preassessment policy? Deficit assessments?
®Due-on-sale (Corvallis) . . .fee? Minor land partition?
®Assessment transfers (Forest Grove)
*Assumption fee - segregation
®Impact on housing costs
*Use of mini-bonds
*Finance policy and LID policy to discourage "leap frog growth" and encourage "desired"
growth?
*Minor land partitions to Finance Director
*Due-on-sale, change of use, lot split, transfer? Relates to private development
policy?
i
-
�G C. �' r•_��rtn ���;,r�-- -J_���3 L���. ._... _ -.•�1'--.; j -✓�...f .._. .�r1__.n.�.--L �..-i�t.c,-G-E_/`
3 se o /701
All
laq 4 / / 0 �o
�O
- i
O !% O lam- .cC -;yGl-!- �• ` •-' !SS -1
t4 S-
_.� -----�-=--• , , - !• ,�: f Wil, � � 1. ., G_-
73 S- 04.1 y 8cz,
17,
I qi / 30k9S'
ISy3 � /as-7 � 77
%S�a_gad.
y 1 -, i34.
• :- �! � <' � d �� 3 � �s -, ,� ' � �SSS
/-S 2 ! S �?:' �" 2s- ? �,-
C '
milli;11
CJ
APPENDIX IV
BOND COMPUTATIONS
How to Estimate Debt Service
For purposes of illustration, a bond issue of S4.5 This yields the first year's pay-
million at 9.25% for 20 years is assumed in the ments as follows:
following examples. For this example the ten-digit
interest factors from the table (page IV-2 through 4) Principal Total
Principal ri
Principal is found to be .1115043719. (For purists, the numbers Year Remaiial ri ent Interest Debt Service
in the table nay be derived i --- �`"
using the formula 1 $4,500,000 $ 85,000 $ 416,250 S 501,250
TP 1 - 1
+ 3) Subtract the first principal pay-
where i = rate of interest and n = number of years.) ment from total principal to get
remaining principal. Repeat the _
above steps to get the second
Computation of Estimated Average Annual Cost year's payments:
Multiply the principal amount by the appropriate factor: Principal Principal Total
$ 4,500,000 Total Bonds Year Remaining Payment Interest Debt Service
x .111 504 8710 Factor 2 $4,415,000 $ 95,000 $ 408,387.50 S 503,387.50
S 501,772 Estimated average annual cost of pay-
ment of principal and interest 4) Continue the process for each year
(rounded to the nearest dollar). of maturity. It may be necessary to c'
adjust rounding of principal up or
down in some cases to compensate _
for the deviations introduced by
Computation of Estimated Total District Cost the $5,000 rounding requirement.
In our example this will yield the
$ 501,772 Average Annual Cost following level debt service
x 20 Years schedule, in which the two payments
noted (*) have been rounded up
$ 10,035,440 Estimated Total District Cost (even though below the halfway
point of higher and lower values)
to achieve the correct total prin-
cipal of $4,500,000 after 20 years:
Computation of Estimated Total Interest
Principal Principal Total
$10,035,440 Tota} District Cost Year Remaining Payment Interest Debt Service
- 4,500,000 Principal -
S 5,535,440 Estimated Total Interest 1 $4,500.000 S 85.000 S 416,250 S 501,250
2 4,415,000 95,000 403,387.50 503,387.50
3 4,320,000 1009000 399,600 499,600-
Computation
99,600Computation of Estimated Local Levy 4 4,220,000 110,000 390,350 500,350
Divide the estimated average annual cost by the current 5 4,110,000 17.0,000 380,175 500,175
assessed value of the district and move the decimal 6 3,990,000 135,000 369,075 504,075
three places to the right. (Assume an assessed value of
$283,701,446. 7 3,855,000 145,000 356,587.50 501,587.50
)
8 3,710,000 160,000 343,175 503,175
$501,772 a $283,701,446 = .00176866 9 , 3,550,000 175,000 323,375 503,375
$1.77 per $1,000 for the current year 10 3,375,000 190,000 312,187.50 502,187.50
Computation of a Level Debt Service Schedule 11 3,185,000 210,000* 294,612.50 504,612.50
Using the total annual bond cost estimated above, it is 12 2,975,000 225,000 275,187.50 500,137.50
also possible to develop a level debt service schedule 13 2,750,000 250,000* 254,375 504,375
by direct use of the interest rate. In the ex,:mple 14 2,500,000 270,000 231,.250 501,250
given, calculations are as follows:
15 2,230,000 295,000 206,275 501,275
1) Multiply the total principal by the 16 1,935,000 320,000 178,987.50 498,987.50
interest rate to get interest paid
the first year: 17 1,615,000 350,000 149,387.50 499,337.50
S4,500,000 x .0925 = $416,250 18 19265,000 385,000 117,012.50 502,012.50
2) Subtract from $501,772, the average 19 880,000 420,000 81,400 501,400 -
annual debt service, and round to 20 460,000 460,000 42,550 502,550
the nearest $5,000:
$501,772 - $416,250 = S85,522 $4,500,000 55,535,200 S10,035,200
rounded = $85,000
IV-1
x
O co Q N v h O N M M N O h tM')v Co b$b kO C'M O N a7 4=) v O lD CO a.' U r v Co W Co N l0 1 v O v W N
hr- v b Orr tprNb 1p Ob b --p C7 h r b r V V c:, ry b v DINO N MNh- OIMhO OIDh t')
W r ON Oj OI NOt h W OM -Nb0 Mbap v O MN co OHO h �m q" -aN')r O 00�•v- W rhv aD OIOb
.--Oj V b bNh W hM-h vO10 Ol cc) _ _
'- OOI InO NrWO
WI ^N co v ObN� v Oh M Ob MOj n�v v V t1t b 01 N O V c>v IN)O co bto h0 gOW1N OV bN v Nb b
bMO hlI W Nh NqV r
'V' r coW b I"t0-b MO W aD Cyr Ol- bI7r0 co b rn NODI W
v b-oj Nv b 'D Lo v b-co O N vb-01 My to w M b-Orr Nv b W ONMb
baD^ 'D Lo h- ^^h- co co W co tp W D•O1 01016101 0000 Or rr r rN NNNN MMMM
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
vv W v c�lbMOj b tON 01 to h V-OI an ti'1 afs to OI OIf aD WtO Mr- MMvp
CONI�t"1 W mID CT clj anc t pIh by o, 'o tnO bre M.--cor h �pnO bbb W
b.-W Oj apN N.-ll•f mo
O MNN lON co OI Map to ID IAV v MOI-IA O co l O haAO co M(�Olb I�co t�M
co co C'v 001Mr N bMN v hN co tANO h V r b O NN Ob -Lm c:) WT aD co MMapM b^00 -c_-
hi OPi v M"MM b hOM hr b tV OOb- U O W v �N u9 M h-M v ON OM Mbr W aO aD co O
W OI b r-MOI br co v Oh M0cD tom C3 n v O^ton NOI aD tWy r W b M r W tvp v TOa nlab-t b btoOt N IW'tb 0
ch 0 N t`y b-co O N M B- r M r O 1 h t o v N r
_ ---- h co co co co W co m cn W OIT Cl W ON M b-co O N^z OION v to MvtaW
0 0 0 0 0 0 .--- N N N NNN M M M MM O lr h Cl M
=' • • • r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v v v v v b b
1r • • • • • . • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • . . . • . • • • • • N N N N N N N N
W O tom Lo
rn co NN CC) co Ot n'N---co aNp hOO Mapb M t{bap it to cn,q.t0 v br b rvv tV -W br
bNCCN NMrct Ot bOI h W OI�N MbN 01 O Ov- M Wb O co Mr b Nb ON bb-b to Obb N q-M
v Ct 010 b-MM -b co i co co W v co tp co 01-O aory N W rn Map-N 01b OOl ao QMO O-W co
r-a,"h MOWN b O Nr co M
bI -OI W-b bbbn Ot-vh bbOb Oen mWbN -N b brra In 001 v' Mhbo1 h0-O OIMNW WvvT
Orn.-h MOsan.- 7-V Oa0 MOl tON OI anN Ol aON O+aO MO-In NOl tp v r W apM rOltpv M lo W C3 cD m co to WOI O
b^p l N v b- N O W t A M r O l C J
-t OTNN NNNN hc' NNNN NNN N N M M M MMMv MV V Q IOn IA IMn u1 u.)lWn bttoo V b-Ot Mct b
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N b b b b h---
`c• • • • . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . . • N N N N N N N N
W �ballo 1� Of-toM '7-4-co b b-Q•O O W M- W-v O InrON O1b 001 cf W an Oa In-rr
O O M- T W r W b-b M b co:;; O Wan N O I O I N o f O l b N b N to co b h b b b b 0 C
-M ct•- 'ct N b M to cr h ct Ql-Oj V W W-Ol O b h of M an M- v N OI v N 01 N N
W vNcf M�W Moth b hW ON tnW OM bbnto to N W� I•W't Mr tNp
^nto V' bM•tt0 0bct W bWlPtb NNb v -ctb O OMr M Ol of ct N ';r cn-
ran MIArr
I Ojbrto MObN Ca tNA b� V�toQ Otos r n V h cobN Qlb V N com t'yO rn W MOtIA b co b� Ot N_T Ql
r NOhIn a•')O Wb v
cD
ONvb -010N Mtn-co ONMb h W ON M bh co c3 hOION vto-01 rMvb
MMMM MM Yv cf vvat bbbb bbtob to to bb h--- h-W co co co co co OI c, O1 co O M 17 O
d' N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ol O O O o 0 0
O
N MMM M MM In
_ V
t o to b r N M O O 1 b n I-It o v�to N v co b M -cm V at b N W O M M o:1 N - rr m= at
lt- Mb co O cl�'v b rb2N OM 01- b vON M-bb r0- tob G OI hN0 W MNr01co m ;2 QCM-b rOln v W b Wan br ON O b O b W co M Mao L7 Orr Orr W-hb
W n Olb My W b cf bOt v rrr�t hN Wtn M tD W
~ co to ON-b co V layb tomm MN - Nr0 85 c)
vi rtoa"ty 01 vOtO N01bct N O co h b bb to O- h v OI of at NM- 6b WoN
N O b N o l b N O l Lo N co b N Otte N O t b M O- O j 0 N v-G M c O O l C f t o O c 7l I b W v M b 0 W O l
uj Ln In co cY co b MO-b N of-v rolb v N olh b M W -to
K W W W W W OrM to b CUO 0000 OW ON M to h W(=)
Nvtn- Ot O N to f"T M vbW N O W b Mr pl-
ot Ol pl Ql of OI
N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M c>t!Cry(j t:y M M M M M M M M CM71`1!f"} M CMj tM•)Cv'] avI tvj n v 60ft L•Nj--n
LL • • . • . • • • • . • • . • . • . • • • . . . • • • • . • • • • • • . • . .�: M M M M M M abj tbj
Z
••• to M-r W MolN h W N. Oo1b co Mr co M blo M b 1pc. -
v'b vO NMr O1 b W b rv--v W to hvto b Mol b 1p W b M b-N v W WOt
1 bMhh OI O" bONM ^v' bbbW to cn OMtn- OvOO 001WW W MO NOv
tnOO b W V'-Q b a'to M to N- -rol co W O of OI1iM OWl-coN of plr— V cf nN b W N b ^^.to
co O v Cl O l _ b Q l b r O l co O M c3 d-q
M I N O l t o co b M O to t n N O to b N I n co-v •�"W�t`may M O l to b c t M M N N N N N M lO'l v t p b M M y v
O co b M r Co b v NOt-b Mr Ol- bMr cn -b Mr
toM M M M n-^ W co co co co co 01 mOt of O,O 0000 C) Z: b co Olr Mb-co ONstb n-
b V NO Ojn
M M M M M M M M M M M N N N co O
MMMv cfv v'C' va7 a7 ct v V cJ'v Vct Vct V'cY V� M Mct ct vv vb
v VCS ct�<Yv
O b o l b N co t V .S O co co co co O N
to
to co O M O)vW O M --OM Oto—b OtNOOib N W cYN Mr W h
WW Nb Mao OOlM by Nl0 '
ct0 co b co c> W�b01 to OA\- N OMOI W NOlO V N try co I�DtoNO rbNN brON f�cy vn --NN b v CJb
NI Or- N c`bY etb- O1 co cn b CNj�v co-ao co Ov Q1 to cn W N co b MM N Ory 01-h0
co-bL: it C" 0001 co h bbb V CT7MN �.N-O Ot 01 co co- tDb blA -7 ctMM co Lr)ON Ct Oan b nM 01 N-Mr
h Ojr M b h N NNr r 0001 to"Otte
Olr M bb W ONctb b p^n toto O MIA-pt M b- olr Mtn -olr2 Qt Ot co co
M Mcf a7 V c!•�b b bbtn b btDb W W W W W W Oj Oj OI Ol aTOOO OOr.- 010 N Ct
bb bb bbbb b bbb b btnb b-
bbbb Lc!L9 b b bbbb bbbb bbbb bb bco
1p N NN NN
OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rI o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 caO b Oln OInO b O b Otn O b O b p cp0� CO cD 00 u 0000 000 O 0000 0000 00 000 O 000 O
} ON b h ONb- O�nOb ObOb ObO�n Orn Oln p b0an OcOtA
O Ntn- ONb- ONb- O NlA-
b b b b b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N M M M M v v v ct O N b h O N b-
0000 OOrr rrrr r rr b•b• 22 btob b
--- r
32.In c3?2 SE L2 SQ ZQ am 2C iQ 2Q 2C 2C 2•Q Y wA 22 we.T2 3Q 22 22 z2 22 we M`.T2 22 b^2C.?C 3Q 3.2Q SC 2Q 2.2 2!T?
2II ONb n Ob Ob ONbn ON Lr! ObOIA O ln0 b ObOb cz, ObOb Ob Oln �c,'n M Gc)G
O N b h
bb b I• O Ntn- O N tly- ONb- ON b- ONb- O N b- O b O n O AO b
co Co co co • • O N b- O N b h
ot OjT o1 O 000 rrr r .N-�2r�2b
rr M•- ^^� •
r ^to^^ b^tp
IV-2
oVoo 1DWOM an oCTI rn r . r., hghan
g O q 0 M M O to N Q O lD N lD an M V N O V O A V an CO N N 00
O Cl)M In V an A 01 A b N to M Ol O In tO CD co N A NC- q N('1 N V In V Q D O to V W O V l0 a_nCD
an Al{'1 V OltnO C-.---V D+ OM Ol V Nan O1 co V M(�N 0101aD Q W cJ O M an N Ol O M.- 01r )
On CD .n N 01 Inco to 1— In co In In In M 1D coIOW M O AMMO O.-M V
\ NInMM V V N C- ID CI In b co WN
LI( 0'I N O N AAO h huh W W M O Q1 r-V'Ot lOQ�7 In 1p pl NlO .O V qN 1001 N V an L1'f ct A N
aD' NIn Ot W co N 011p Mr colO�r Ol�ta In OItO Mr-- NC A 'DMO Ol W q0 In OIo co aD 47 V an tp W r-O1 Mtn
r' V Nr 001 gAID ao In V QV MMM V Q Van to 1D loC-q 01Or V Q1Q
N V an 1D q
NMIn A q ON V In r-O1 r- N V 1pq ON V I' h01:M tnA 01r Man(�01 .M 4'1 A O1.---MlA A ON V b co c-
%71
jyr 010101 01000 OOOr NNNN NNM M MMMQ v Q QQ all an an an an ap aD aO t0 AA A A h Wq
0000 Or.--r
co n0 OC-OM AQ1MN 01 W V M A01 c3 lo D101to an an W^M tD MIn V A01 In
a VOMr VOIo tD V 47.-M N01 In
N�tOn to hNIn�N IO IO NN tIn O1 In V co co to 10r -,o 3-O V MMID- �.--.toN n Ot001 NNN O Nh M.^-- Go'.0 WN
tT.--- t0 M .y O to
h V O M N a0 M N N•-h O h W N t0 01..�01 N O O N V an(")W C-
NAInA IO�NA V VAN Ql W OM W tnMM M4'1 co If)o1Q Q+ V 01M co
r V AN W q 01M W In N N M I f O 1 V'O l D N g l D V r'42"A co co N'S 7
M O1toN OI to MO o-If)NO W IO V N O W C-t0 QMN W t0 co N ^^^A O V 01 W OOr-IO �tD C-Q1
C'I • . • . • . . • • . . . . • . • • r 00101q WC-C-C- W co WOl N MVtnb
t O h 01.- N V l o co O l r Mtn t O W O N V i(7 C-01 V l O W O N .4t
t A A
0000 ObOO Or---r-r rN N NNNN (7 nMj(�j(.Aj �,Q vN, ���� �V t0 W
• • • . . . . •V--^^•W-- IOb t0 IAA C- C-W qq
'7 Inr V OW tOM to•--•-•- W 01N0 O MM .
O1 WIn In 01A 0{n W tpN0 N qN In InN an V Wr W O1O1 W W W c3 .r,A W ALTA I`7 mM co
\O lnrM ON coln M•.-.AOI to Ct")N ^�01r- N W co Ql p� �NO� an 0t 01V V O O Ol.-Ot W MO1M M
01 r r A 01 I n V b O 1 N M N W 01 V N O W N a o N N O co N NC-V 01 C-N N ^A W lo q 41 N O C-0 0 V
M In OI In V W lD to M O V Ol V q 01 qN O
V I O 0 10 V t f'1 A t 0 M N N M I f 1 co., IDS",t 0 N co C'O l f 1 to O V A 01
V� Nc{AN co W c!-M c�ID O+V 0110 V M M V IDO V Oto V NNM V n 00 Otto N to Wm-, (71 t0
OtON O1 tl7N Oltp t`7OAIn N O W Io V N 001 hap V M Nr 001 co - to M Nr 0.--Mlo co NA M Ol
W qC-h t0 aD tD ID ap l0 t0 tD lOC-C-W W OWiV r-
N V In 1 Om ^I p A O I r M V l 0 co O N M O
W A M h q O N V I O co O N V 10 W O N V to co O N
0000 00.- N N N^ ^MMM M Mme^ ^^^^ W^r W ^t0 lD^ aD IO A A AA A
N WAN Mr M NN Ntn A�an0 W V MIO to O1 tD V C-,--.to
In tD W cn In M A•- W O1 to W O to to In Q1 N In M an 0 V In ^M
I O C'a n 0 O l n t n N V M O+ O t n b M t o a�7 a n N N In A V N N In 01 01 W aNO N M
AON M r1n 47O W01.-tn co Ol co V In.---ON to q.^-� X00 OIAN V
V O1O47 100010 47 M(V7O coOIn c3 NC-aaI
171 MMto a,q to MC-OI In t0.---h l0 V N coA O1
Intoe} t0 lc:) N.- c r 9- t0N 01 t0 mO V m O W u7 r- A In W 0001A M W Or ^Or
W ko r tnc�t0
M In t0 ID r co tp In In IO co N tD N W Ln m an to (71
W Ol q A W In r2 cD O+M Ol t0 M N.--- M an W l0 W
V Ot0� 01 tD NOl lOMO A I17N0 C- to M rOl C-t0.TN r O W h ap .n V V MNN.-- r.-.r!! rr•-r N1D
tOW OI.- NVtO A. 01�--.M cf tp WO MtnA W M
000^ •-- N^N N N M M M M M M O N V a D W O M a n A O l r M I n A 01 O l.--.M a n A r M
• . . • • • • • . • . • . . • • r Q.^� ^Ln^•tn- W.W---� t0 t0b aD Imo^n A •h--W W W W WO1 01
ON N A V O1 r--O Aan MO 0101.--N In A Nr V to A aD^OM A A
OVrN 01O tOW 1.D 01("f Qt tDO�C- co M Vr to t0�N tOAlnq h Oso V In OI to In M .-MV ap M.--V IO
WA M h N N l0 _co r a, C3 _ Q.
Io O N A 0110 co N O co co co to l•N7 fi n M�^� N N N O co N M OL W tD N n N 01 W 0 n O In'o M Oo1 V
In•�Of A C-h co Cl cv MM MN AOC-O A A
^f NNN cS' Ar to N O W C-00 01 rW to OW1 In r q� M an t0 A Io•-V In to V.-t0 01 O W N
N OIIn N ch tO IOC- N l0rC- M^ O1tD OMN O V ap l.n N
C>to NO/tn t0 V I-W t0 V 01 r-In I`7" O W htn V M-O olco qn - --t_n �In m
V V
rrbr NNN NNNC`O') MMMM M V V V V V Il'1 to In 471n Gm Lnt0 q ON V IO co ON V t0 W O N VIO co
• • • . • . • • • . • . • • • • . . • • . • . . • • . . • b A h W W W^ O 0101 01
to to NA M co M W OAIn OlnrO1 co C-t0 M M In co InrNA .�� A co OOtoO In ION V
MM M co co InG V tO M to N co W Ol t00 In Oq NNCO tz t.cl) Flo co t0 _
O C-I c!t o M O c D O I o h^ Q I n M W W
cot0 to I- to Nh ^V OIn OOf V A OlO AaD IVi`ONCI _ MN MO1In CJ r V to
OIr N•- O1M V MTOI tON a,tn an Aan 001 V N V hNcO O1 M V N�h O.V_. co MMOL an NM
W V Oto NOl In.-- t0N AN t0 01r In O A V `-
�� W A A C- 1p 01 N to V W M Ol t0 M N co Ol to Ol^N -C-N V V.--lD Ol co t0 0 O to
M O1tnr ^'-470 an NlT W C-AO1 ^Mtna' to C- V O01 N O to01 q
V OA MOtO M O C-V N mto V r 01 A i.o lT C-tn V Nr-0' W t�aD V (�7 OMN r to Oao O tO NO+A
O.-Mtn to co Or- Mtn to W Or M to tD co ON 000101 co cot-
r2
A A
^^r2-2 N�MM MMS C7 �{d-^^ ^^W W ^W^W ^r� OInA 01.--. Man AOl M V t0 co ON V
• • • • • • . • . . . . . • • . • • W q W W O1 Ol tT Ol O+O O O
In QVl co^ N O it V' A r. Ol A lT C-to A A N In N W(T r co co tp th0 to In In A!r M
glnOln NM�t I glnto h NN AW V MON A OON V In q
Ar to l0 to co QG b01N V co 010 an co V an OI O Npppp Nln.-co i+1 M�tV
WtnAN lT C-t0 t0 to NOl M V NC-tD 001 W. M MM('7 V- ,,p) ��n� 47 O1C-Q V Ot Mr to In co
_ '1 In If)b t0 an an A O O r o t0 O A 01
O' W coV VA MNW In N.V-O0 NM a0O tnC-Atn O co In C-n W 0m1 '� C1V t0 W Mh W Io NV M co OInA
O coW t o I O b W O M A V m I.0 N
In AM f-
Oto M OhC.- co to NO h V N0 W to Mr In AtNv N..co M-OI W h'.0 co-zr cot047 NrO01 O MbO
r�r� MMM V V VV V V ^(n N^ Into In N .t0 W I, C,In tD O`ON V _ V M O WA C-
• • • . . . . ^W t O a p t O t D t 0^A A A P_•W q V I D A 01 M I n A O l In V t 0 W O N
• . • • • W W W X 01 01 01 rn!! O O•--
• • • • • . . . • • . • • • . . . . . . ^N N N N N N N
O Ntn V OOCTA AIn V Nr M A O1 IOM
WcD�In In m g In I n O N In O A Q 1 to m co M V N V N V Q\aIn M m Ico n
A N co A N N O I o 01 M W l D Q 1 k o
Otn V IO NOO� co V h co ncr q W r- .n W hMM In co� t0 r hOA cr, co V 00 bMIDM co I, u'fON W b co01 bM
to N Olq W Ql r co ONOO co co In i.n
V NN In
Ot tO MN cm to co co tON�Ql n V N O 0101 Ort-crb co W V Ip O to O-co W WOO W MInM W In W N V bean QDl
N N M l o N O t D(V O l A I D t O t o t o g O M N W
IONW V OtpN co VOA�r-- A V NOl to Mr W Ip Mr-W Ip VNO co to tnM r0 co A A Vr01 W AAA
ON MIn AqO.- Mtn to co Or M to t0 W Orn V("1 0 01W C-
V V V V V V Il')In 4'Y If)W In ap t0 1010 bt0 AA Mqh coW W W OVO W C-01.�M QIO co C> N V InC- 1 Mtn A WON
• • • • • • . . rra-r- WWO+01 O1 Ot QlO OOOO Or--rr r•NN
• • . • • • • • • • ,r . . . . . . • . . • . . • .r N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O to iR 2Q ilt 3¢ZL M 2Y 2Q A4 TQ 2Q T.E 24 aQ 2II EE aQ y,4 O In O 12AE 22 rE SE 3E 2S 2E 3Y 2S 3E 2^z-? 2.n 2+!z,.2� O n 2't
O N 407 n O In O In O In O an O In O ao O In O to O
O N t n A b N t o A b N a n A O I%t o A O N In A O a n 0 4 7 O t n O l n O t n O I a 7 O t n O N O a n 0
It;tntn an toapt0p r.:atzA A tip co co co 0101 Ol 17; O t 000 N^^ ^^.N--^ r.M-r C-;
IV-3
a e ,
N M V A C1 A 0 0 O l t/pp O l t2 M 1.0 A " —Mw d r C N R f o r M b M.— C h OM c l L O N r t n G a l t/O M O
r W f w In co 16 V co 00 C:3 C:n Ol Ol Ll)conn C coCO b CO MCO an CO r O t MO1 at/M to•`) tobA b "W"M
_ a7bC b MCN O MOe-OJ 1OM00 O Q�W M N Or Nb C M NOr W WORN O� ctObQ'. q V'CT ap O.NM A
.---MMO Lf1A hlA rA MO rlv ON b V r0 d A V 01 R MMN tDrM co d A�tl M rl1')Nr 0h01ap aA�lpd
O cobO Q1 lOMr 011nON OMN d pl Ah W 010 CD W d hh Mbd h bOlh O1 and M1c NaMh V MVAN
VI AcoNR bb Ql V 0010N br co b aA bcor b nC 00101 O Mill connOl C01aQ0 bN coL") NalbC
NN MM dNto co Or V to co
Mb 01 N L m Nb al M Rr C co Mhran 01 V'CO hrtor b0 CQl C coMco
co CD V bcoC> 11)A OIr MbCOO N to Apl NC bal r C bco ^�`)bco C> loco C> CO OMtllA ONtnA
tl bbb b loh A Ahhco coco 0001 Ol OI OI OI 0000 NN NN MMMM CCCC a!)r to to rb^r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . • . . .
Nb b co O Mb N %o bcn b b an tAA A MO1 c p, MLn r to OI CJ co 01Mco01 to Olr an
Ar'o Ol C 001 alrCM d c col A co Ah L••f M bd O to O Ot MNO OrC O O1r VM Can anb al tocoa7
O aD N^ <n to R bLnrN bCtaco M Ol t!')�--• OlD b lD CT ll7q u') r W!.C)tn NNNN O.-tnW lnM O b co r Lis ct
_ hO�Olq W NN O m Of to NCM M q O blp RD.'o R\C) .p•ROl A tD.-O W NCOMC WNMO co A V tp Nr ClI
LoIrOCN MhNco L a%NC Mco OI afl to ORA Ol M AN Rr C t0 bCOlco, a,m co01C vco to NOOd
M Ar Ato ROB M MC coM Ococo O M co MO W co co c) N bO to coLnC NNNM Cat'l M1O Mb c C 01 C OI C
OOOI Ol 0100 r N M V'b co Ql•--d tD qrC tp Ol Nt0 [T N tO OI M%o Oct gNIOO C qNA CO MA N
Mdb qr-Ma1') RO1rM tnAON V bOlr MaA q0 N to AOl NCR OI 01701 to Co Mlpq O Mang
b bbb bRhh hAcoco co coal pl al x1010 00 Or NNNN thMMM CCCd to to tnb lobo b
O O O O O O O O 99 .9 O O O O O O O O r • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
r anAb LoO%N al an O corn db Man C Ntoco MMLnco Ln M OIb to co MbC co OI LONM1 c"to Mtn Ol co
LL•a Mal coto Nd MOIL Mcotn co b dR co co N cobL W Ahtnal O coAcD MNMN cob C co Mm—
c', al
M Mco M MC aft Or Mal MO Ral C Rco 0 Ol MOl b Ln hLnN to hcob mOlAb Ol N Oat NCh b
C O1 MN co Cr ct b Nb C Olen co M d an L") N R dal br 00 bCrM aoh Mr AQ1d V, r01 Ol co to OA b
MIrb Ln b coNRN coC)r0 ROOan b OM cn coO COl V a1 MROr OhNC NRa.to Ococvmco anCbM
001coA bbtnb u) lo coOlO� MLOnbco A01NR "cobV ^Coco dOI . c:)%D Oco cow coO10N
ON b A c" a co V h0 d AO C corto Ol M b OC coNA r
Ln to G00 NCtoco ON Cto co C)Mtn h 01 M to co c=) to Aplr V to cor MaL'Ico0 cm r,a% Nd RatV bpi
0000 0000 0000 0000 p O�� 00�� rN NNNM MMMC CCdd bto an to i0 bbb
M cod N MrR Nto b al co an R b p1 to V Nh coN r r,u-) cob al to to c, alOMco MM h
h ANR gplrr RN co OIr- N b Ql�h Nh 0101 N OOA Q1M00 AC co to ACOstn NdMQI to fb')f�M
Ln stn tb co
OAN AN W Ln
Cb Mr t�bCOl al)al bC R Mb d N to MQl O�MfCv C to M C bAC b NC b O Am Oco Mr OA
_ N C O l7 of tO d 01 Ol O Oto V•N co O ct A 01to LO h to M
uY tNf)Ct c7l co N co co
c%at Ob O coCbco r-D O h to Lcn bco
n N Ol Cr OI QI Ot• M^ co Lo co AMco 01 AN V N bb N
Olb aIN R C N C01 r 000000 O1
rC A L7O b
NI Ql AbM N0O1co co
%D to hA co co 0 rN Cb hplON CA O1r Cb 01N dAOM bOMb OMA O
c) 'o co Or M LL')A01 mIn Rpt m u.)CO O NOLO w,=M to hOlrC t"l coO M to hON
h A co co co co
A A R cocool 01010101 O 000 r NN N NN M M l�) CC :!:C:2:2 an Ln Lob btab A
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 999 .0 0 0 0 0 MC R Qt r C o co r
nMO co �coNLn Ln(D 4D co
coMCco Lpn�Lnb coC MLA Olb Ol O OR ON CLn OIN bbcoco ctcoN V CL7Mr
co coMal Ln bO1 Q1 NdQl l'n AA C cD b V Mtn OMMA co m to b0L7 OOOC NbN Ql
O lA V co bb NMbco M q co al coc) cn cobMco 0bh0 Ab coM Mm,
if)N MC b NMb QlcorR NMQ1 R toN Nd bCAN h0hA AbrOl 0Cl oal V, hr cD.
N N a l M d N b b N C N C N C O r b C t o.r Ol O M W t o d C t o co N a n Cil M A r M b t o%o C b co a l A N C c7
O CIlIAN cobtob OlM 01b lnbh O C O hb lnA OlN RMOco hcoOl ll')oltnr cobtob bA01N lorbN
NI NQtbC cm r- MNOaI W hb b to anCd V C Ctll Ln bAh coa10N M V bco Olr Mto AQIrC to Olr V
O Mu7 M�ON Tbco01 r^^^ LO'' Mto ROIrM Ln R ON Mtn co Ndbco OMLnh O)rCb coOMtn
Casco co -- N CJ NC�i f�7M :'):^.V V'v^'cF V' —:2:2:2 a%b bb bhA h
Of�o O O O O O O O O O O O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s
O O co
aa,A p bRLn co O C Ol L"r-to R pl CC N coh b OC O OlrNr MAV A MCcotn C coC b
bd
to cm C 0101 Q1 Rb O Ocob coAal Q1 CrQI O dgtoC dh N 01 O1aph OAr bA�Ln
ONO M codA bbq O O anNN Oto QIA aldN M ^pLa Ql to Ln P' c, to COI
b O V W O tNod Cr C O coin W bb h Ln corn M OMr N MMOL Ol CCr M M1 N b bNr M
aA Ol O h OOln-crb M Y O N hAr Ol O In NM bN0 0 NtnO b M O corp C N Olb McoN[n
coI
co bM�OI RAr tO NOOO Mb•-h Wu7 tb')NNN Vt0 alN
r lA V N r00 co A b bLn C MM d b Otto 01 bCNN Mao hr br
NCbh pl MC b WON _ t!')tl]b to tobbb hco01O rNMtl') bcoq^ MlL'lhal rMtnco
co co co co co cn01 Ql 010100 000 0 r r.b-r 01 rM to hplr M LOA Ol N
NN N N N M M M M M dbcoO 4o cm M tnA ONC b
0000 0000 OOr r C d Cin LL'lbtob bb bb h A A h
cn lo cn
N�b M O�ON RN coh co Lo pN COO O i�L`R')b N N N 01b COC h cocohtn bbNO1 --I, A bANC
N•r-Ol V .4-co tOQ Lo cob O C -n N coraco NAW M OAtnR rMaoA -:2.to V r rr OA hM Mtn NAA OI
N b0 to colb M a")con n an Ota V brCtn mm cco to Ln taco
r r co h r 0 r M M 0 N co b M co 0 A h
coId N�t`O') In O1LnN N MNtn OLn Md N N dco O_OMA Nalco A hhco Ol O NN OIbN b coOlco d 01061
1n N 01 b MOW b CNO co AaoC M N r 001 Q1co oco '7 Cb 01 cnm r 0p1010 N V cox") cod al coAgco
OO co co 0101 Or NNMto bRcoO rMtn b coONC
anhco0 NCLnR C% Md b WON C bcoco rMLn h Qtr P')ai•f AQ1NC to qON dt0cor MLA AQ1 C aD co
co co co rn Ol Ol al Ol x1000 OO r r N N N N N M M M M M V C V d t!)an an to toga t p L D t O a o h A h to
A C M N C b r !n"co r t A N N R l n t n b 0 d N co N t n d r-t O t n t o q t A O L n l n O l M
C^N Ql dNbh M A MMr co NNA d Mr Ol 000 coO Mco Ln co Oran
b OrNh 01 ONOI C7b W d V N coC M b am W b co b NOl co N MbrN MbLo V M Ql C N V NNC
Nal co al Naar
rOl Ql a1 coMMb rA0 a1 dr m N MAC rb corn V to an M hC V tl) C ONA CrM1O 'D gcoOC cO N-Or
alto m C Wbco "to OA "'o b N c,:;:
d coCN N V bOl N tr co MC bbL7r %o 23 MM N coNM
RI 0110 V M d barn N 000 Nb h C MMC b OlC O nLndC tnh rin On V N Nd• b OC Gl tn.-alA
b MO h C rQ1b CNOco bCMr 001 coh bL'7 In In Cd V C V C lL)Lo to lo alOrN Mtn bh Olr Nd'
co 0co 0101 a1 an fvco0 NCtoR 01rr^ •h--W ON Cb coo Ndbco ONCb co c) V tomGm to A Olr MbcoO
0000 0000 0000 Or r^ �.N-•N M MM M d V C V C co to LL'l to btato b b b h h Ah co
x�In a az ae ae ae a4 2e 22 a�ac to ax as`a ax ae 2c Vz aQ 2e 2a as. ae az zA�e
ONLOn 0tn0to Orn Oto pNlll n ON tnA Orn Otn 0tn0 Ln O�Oto O�Oan Orn Orn 0aane 0 awn Oui O to
O NLr!
h ON LA A
Ln to aA ll') . . • c NC) ONto A ONanh ONLf!A ONtnA ON lfl h 0c L
b b b b A h h f coW co co co 01 O 1 01 0% O O O O N N N N M M M^ d C V V l n t n L n l n b t 7 a D a 6
IV-4
O'DONNELL. DATE- March 8 , 1982
r SULLIVAN & f2A.MIS
AlTORN S_YS AT LAW
1','-!'7 N.W. HOYr STREET TO: EJS, Bob Jean and Tigard City Council
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: SPC
RE: Recent Developments in the Law Affecting
City' s Liability Exposure
The City Council should be aware of recent cases and legislation
in four separate areas all of which directly affect the liability
exposure of municipalities .
I. ANTITRUST LIABILITY
In Community Communications Co. , Inc. v. The City of Boulder, No. 80-
1350 (January 13 ; 19821 the U. S. Supreme Court announced that cities
are not exempt from liability under Federal antitrust laws. In Boulder,
the City enacted a 90-day moratorium ordinance prohibiting the
petitioner from expanding his cable television business . The petitioner
filed suit in Federal District Court, alleging that such a restriction
would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, in seeking a preliminary
injunction to prevent the City from restricting petitioner' s proposed
expansion. The City argued that it was exempt from antitrust liability
under the "state action" doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 US 341 (1943) .
The District Court held that the Parker exemption was inapplicable
and that the City was, therefore, subject to antitrust liability.
This case is of obvious interest to the City not only because of the
pending proposed cable TV franchise, but also because the Federal
antitrust statutes provide for treble damages.
Also of interest to the City is the fact that a cable a
ntatrust case
has been filed since the decision in Boulder against Hopkinsville ,
Kentucky. Also, liability for antitrust violations involving garbage
collection activities by the City is pending before the Supreme Court. -
In Hybrid Equipment Corp. V. City of Akron_, 654 F2d 1187 (6th Cir. 1981)
petition for certiorari filed, No.—81-72-3-(October 10, 1981) , the
6th Circuit held that the requirement that a1.1 solid waste, including
that collected by private companies, be brought to the City' s energy
recycling plant was exempt from the Sherman Act because garbage
collection and waste disposal are traditional activities of local
government.
II. LIABILITY LIMITS NOT WAIVED BY PURCHASE OF INSURANCE
In Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. , 291 Or 853 (1981) ,
the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals holding that
the Oregon Tort Claims Act liability limits are not waived by the
purchase of insurance in excess of the statutory limits .
This case arose from an accident involving a school bus and a train
near McMinnville in 1976. The plaintiff, as personal representative
of the estate of his 8 .year old daughter, brought this action against
O'DONNELL. DATE: March 8 ; 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
AT I ORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: EJS , Bob Jean and Tigard City Council
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: SFC
RE: Recent Developments in the Law Affecting
City' s Liability E}:posure
Page 2
the school district and the railroad. Plaintiff' s decedent was only
1 of 44 children who were killed or injured as a result of the
accident. Thirty-seven actions against the district, the railroad,
or both, arose out of the occurrence.
In this case the jury found the district 85% at fault and the railroad
15% at fault, assessing plaintiff' s damages against the defendants
jointly and severally at $302 ,139 . Judgment in that amount was
entered against both defendants without apportionment. After the
judgment the district moved to apportion and restrict the amount of
judgment against the district to $100 ,000 based on the limits of
liability in ORS 20 . 270. The district had three insurance policies ,
with aggregate coverage of $1 million. The plaintiff introduced
evidence on the motion to the effect that $1 million of insurance
was available to the district as defendant. Notwithstanding this
fact, the trial court granted the motion and entered an amended judgment
against the district in the amount of $100 ,000 , thus elevating
Southern Pacific' s portion to make up the difference in the total
verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the
trial court' s ruling and held that the statutory limits in ORS 30 .270
were controlling even in the face of insurance in excess of those
j In other °.ordc the purchase of ind ranee above the
aaiiouia�S. 111 .. --, r
statutory limits does not amount to a waiver of those limits to the
extent of the insurance available. Consequently , there is no prejudice
to the City in purchasing excess insurance.
III . TORT CLAIMS ACT, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENTS AMENDED
An amendment to ORS 30. 275 streamlines the formal notice of claim
process and adds a new actual notice standard. The new actual notice
standard is of most concern to the City of Tigard.
According to the statute (ORS 30. 275) actual notice of claim is
received by the public body if someone 1-n-the public body who is
responsible for administering tort claims on behalf of the public
body or anyone on whom formal notice could be served ac.,uires actual
notice of the time, place and circumstances giving rise to that claim
if the communication is "such that a reasonable person would conclude
that a particular person int.onds to assert a claim" . ORS 30 .275 (6) .
In addition, the "notice of claim" is satisfied by either commencement
of an action on the claim within the six-month period or by payment of
all or any part of the claim on behalf of the public body at any time.
This is of concern to *the City in that the City Council., the City
Administrator, or the City Attorney are all, arguably, person:: who
may be charged with actual notice of claim. I believe it is important
to develop a procedure to ensure that when actual notice is received,
it is recognized as such and that a proper response is made.
O*DONNELL. DATE: March 8 , 1982
f• 'SULLIVAN' & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT
17'17 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: EJS, Bob Jean and Tigard City Council
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
f_
(.5031 222.4402 FROM: SFC
RE: Recent Developments in the Law Affecting
City ' s Liability Exposure
Page 3
IV. LIABILITY UNDER 42 USC 1983
Attached as an appendix to this memorandum is an outline of the
significant cases and a summary of each of those cases in the area
Of §1933 liability of municipalities.
There are two significant cases which deserve special attention at
this time. The first is Monell V. New York City Department of
Social Services , 436 US 658 , 98 S. Ct. 2081, 56 L. Ed. 611 (1978) .
This case is significant in that it clearly establishes that
municipalities are "persons" for purposes of liability under 91983.
Another case is Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 100 S. Ct.
1398, 63 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1980) which holds that a municipality cannot
assert the good faith of its officers or agents as a defense to
liability under §1983.
SFC .dn
3/8/$2
SEMINAR ON' §1933 LIABILITY
ticTROPC)LITAN AREA CITY AND COLIN'rY ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION•'.
OVERVIEIH AND REVIEW OF NEW CASES
by David A. Aamodt
City Attorney, Roseburg, OR
1. Constitution and Laws - Rights and Privileges and Immunites Secured Thereunder
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S Ct 2502, 65 L Ed2d 555 (1980) - suit over
violation of rights under Social Security Act.
§ 1983 does include claims based on inere violation of federal statutes.
Violation of the statutes listed in the attached Appendix from Main v. Thiboutot
would now be included.
�2. Municipalities as "persons"
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 US 658, 98 S Ct 2031,
56 L Ed2d 611 1978)
Municipalities are "persons" for §1983 purposes.
Municipalities can not be liable solely on a respondeat superior theory.
3. No Allegation of Bad Faith
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635, 100 S Ct 1920, 64 L. Ed2d 572 (1980)
Bad faith is not a required allegation. Must allege:
1) Some person has deprived plaintiff of a federal right;
2) Such person acted under color of state or territorial law.
4. Negligence is Not Enough
Pa rratty. Taylor, US , 101 S Ct 1908, 68 L Ed2d 420 (1981) reversing
620 F2d 307 8th Cir 1980)
Negligent conduct does not give rise to §1983 claim.
[lobby materials were lost when prison officials failed to follow normal procedures
for receipt of packages arriving by mail .
The prisoner had been deprived of property but the loss of property was not the
result of established state procedure. . Therefore, he was not deprived of property
without due process of law.
(§1983 is not merely a species of tort liability. )
5. No Good Faith Immunity Defense
0:•ien v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 100 S Ct 1398, 63 L Ed2d 673 (1930)
Wrongful termination of a police chief (denied him a hearing) with spurious
allegations made by a councilman.
Municipality at co�rmon ia�i could not and under §1983 cannot assert the good
faith of its officers or agents as a defense to liability under §1983.
Municipality has no "discretion" to violate the Federal Constitution. Issue
is whether municipality has conformed to the requirements of the Federal
Constitution and statutes.
(Qualified immunity for municipal officials who carry out governmental policy
still exists, so long as the official acts in "good faith.")
To estabTish the immunity defense, the Court in Gomez v. Toledo promulgated
a dual test: .
1) An "objectively reasonable basis" for the belief that the conduct %,,as
lawful ;
2) A "subjective belief" that the action was in good faith.
6. Abos.lute and Qualified Immunity-of Officials
Degree of immunity depends on circumstances and function performed.
Absolute immunity for:
11-Ol edges;
2) . Prosccutors;
.1.) -La�:z1ators while speaking and debating in the sphere of legitimate
legislative activity;
4) Administrative officials exercising the functions of judges and
prosecutors.
Qualified inviiunity for:
1) State executives a. senior level ;
2) Federal officials exercising discretion.
7. No Punitive Damages
Cit of !�t'cwport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. , US 101 S Ct 2748, 69 L Ed2d
616(1981)
Denial of constitutional rights by cancelling a scheduled concert of Blood, Sweat
and Tears to be held at Fort Adams State Park in Newport. City was concerned
about the rock concert and voted to cancel Facts' entertainment license unless
it deleted Blood, Sweat and Tears.
The City Solicitor told th6 City Council their action was unlawful. He was
ignored.
The City is absolutely immune from punitive damages even though the City officials
acted in lead faith.
8. Recapitulation
The Supreme Court in Monell in 1978 opened the door to the flood of §1983
litigation and has been trying to close it ever since. Apparently, intentional
constitutional and statutory violations must be alleged. The Court is desirous
of deterring local policies which promote the violation of civil rights. At
issue is the proper balance between liberty and order. The availability of
the municipal "deep pocket" has made them easy marks. The best defense is to
avoid arbitrary and capricious actions which violate a person's federal ,
constitutional and statutory rights.
In the final analysis, the issue of §1983 liability turns upon which government
official or employee acted, in what capacity he acted, and upon the nature of
the action taken. No longer can a municipality do as it pleases with people's
rights and then assert as a defense, "I 'm a City or County so it doesn't matter."
-3-
le
�CJi Urn� ci c' �
Uci
WU1 eA � c ^�o
cF
moi
^cc
-
F; 0
O 4:63 � � --00 � 'n o C.) . .t
� p kn _ W O c) .Eic!
c1M M O 0-4J � o� un O co O � a)c3 a� -
, OO ' ca
M C cd C .� w C> C'rz .; - M cid O
.5 O N r,
O 1-14
c3 .r v N �' dj U U1 po S O W d >' 00 .Oi + U1
E' C) C>L. v " itlCj O p 4+ .�N ' C ca C p .�'r •-� is v + r
� 1-� A .� cl U1 O ^ � co U 7 a .^ N G � W
vw ccr u» a cCi I- w U p c� `. sem. m 'rj c' r� O O c`q. O� U
.-. z7 �,, d 1--4 En d � O m
H U ca � U cD .- d' ` � N � m > C c" cd UZ !" t.
_O r-t ^co: ``" •� `°' cn d — On ' U1 caa
C5 F
d a cd U c3 U v co '� N .+ �
� U UM
N -p O tU. O�j � O 3 ~ �+ c�o� r � ctij C6 �2 U'
U a) A '� ^ p' rt--,� �� c3 v un > c�i C�00 co-- E-1 _ �, 4
r ca
M - cd c,i 13 ec)3 O U > > O M Q2 caLIS
v N O
.0 c1_� c7 L� '+ w -^U - �. yr U d ,�
to cl
u2 0 c.0 Z
C11
Ca
M
CO Io N ' - Cj
cDDLc3 Cdg 79
c3 d dNcl1 d VU2 ov: UI G-2 cw1In O W r- cc"
ci 16
bo
�� >~
r.� -:.s cc33 U C LU» Sd C •1 c3 M C'.' tt� y C i.= as N •W
•i. O O d C �� N o O .� v0.. c: Cl. .Ci C6 �-+ C!1 i
CJ '� O. O >= U O Vi 0 d u C� �. `. t!-: .^ -N -..'
V O T-. v -a -y F. U U N w - _ U �.J CO O cd }
• uj .� d ^ s.. to CM -� co C tr �t U M U? c.^. �
q -� v c, -� ., .-. .-.
d E-' •�`-•, v t4 U •-�-� tc•-- C 'uw ��_' wa CI O j` '`I. F; .-' U 1 c^ .�
O N tL c3I-x .c ''' -� `� ca 003 N c� L r. r M uG a �a
U -; s- O L N .G..� L t-C �, cam'• U ' vr. . i!. rr •n C .M-' N
•�..^ ..� O 0 .� Zx M c: U: w_ C tom-
Q r d •CU. G tC, cd .G ..: di V O � Ni CD
UZ cp [
r� 1�a t�C u: :� r C r co
c d ccdd v c, > t� c!
O U d _ M ,O� } _ tom- M O
O 'n O `n �: c w V ^rs .. w 1` C
d o _� s. c3 _v >, s. 'C > o c> o c� co w. it �'
Ey to c' U O t/3 v wCP
~ cs _L'� r ~ � � c3 c-n
.--c y- csr
+�-� `� r c�''•s r, "U' C ` L^ '� a ' CY3 L G C U c U ~ " C U O
0 c3 0 "' •>_ C-1 }� v �� Lr M !^ c: c.) �. L � r n
CG w c' c= Vi N V CG LO tr V .'-' U C O �I V: [7 CIC.
E02 O V L d �.a C 'Ur c1 O c3 C-
d .— U !..' O c1 CCi UC c+ r ' -U c: c' ' �� c- M
C.) v tc cs r c3 0 ci }'7 O �_ r• c N c=
to cMs� O _ U es tL v +' U u f v. <}. v '' J'
v v U �. C: ^ V O j=+ U; �t i~ �-. c.^ }-� (-. c. Vi ✓-
S f:
oi co::U U >= u F :a U v O 'w C`7 c`= .d: i_ c7 t`
OO
N N
�j O
M clog
coa
t0
U]
GO O
ti V
c,Q
cp
H C):
� a•
Com] Q
H o
•7FC..ij. CJS
Z cd
cid
c3
V
cli
C �_ to Cl a3 U cq' „� . . � ei pw, U to ei L�N W •' .� ��, •r
apit3' m ca w COt` U' ,G Oo
U? p O n C+9 U2 eai U.2 n U2 Oi .~� M `r 52 d c0
C11 • -�
O �--� .may p' to ZS• -aa coi
Itj
p d O �l C4 v 0 'CS r i U � U2 U v O U
p
C)C> cd to � � � � o co � .-. � U2 `o o' U2
e3 Nem CO dj Un � CO C1 Qi N-. .� C`cn O .2 p rte•
ce3 v� Gi �,
c _ U M
caMCI " C,4 c3C0i .; a)) � W o, v °' � Cl
Q rn m ci �nif
U3 o GOi � > U o �,
_ U2 .--c eoi •^ cr.) •^ U O ro C-7
•� +' OCO
U � p -0 � mU. MO � dU2ce3 � � � � .Sooi v �
O .^" r-' *-+ •..� d C7 C w '"~ tD Q d tr o v `�Oi `n �
PQ .Q o0 ^ c.) U2 W p o0 0 '>� c) ►�- ., o C] N t�
sdi t4 G: w � n U .--� U to �� W V r, �O
x v, .� '� o O d s; O C,3 C A , cA �, a c� o
H c3 �}i 1� in a) O Cl U w " C �' M v C'- ch L', Ui cn cfl
en .. c ci u "� m C2 A ^' cq �: 't3 .-. o .. ,� co
? U N w .-a ccn p •..a t Q cOi ) 'OC3 C" O M-'' > ti G v. L' ,j p.
w d yy c r O '� H �_ M O M Q cs C 1 cD N C'-
to c6
oq c) O j .0 „� U T U] U G ar, U u c!r r. !, C U 0
ca .� f=a oN, cls � `°' U� c w , ti a UZ -v cs u�
;14
U Op c3 U M C1 . > co Q t0
CJ e3 .-e v) rt °�`� eA Y 'n _ d vn v
G f7.0. u � `'+ O o w 'rn L�j C") w U2 v .:C C's C3
Cl y in %n O C1 n v�
N d cm O00 0 C7 Q V ~ t-� '- in !-� ^U
n c� �^, n) <+i a) �o t0 O N cd u �; N Ul U ,; rn C
d ...0 U '__' U ''- ��, L`. .u_ Ci S. �_ 14 O UJ .U c3 v' c; j O C.
C, �C-) O � y "=3 vn a) '-' o U ci C M d U :- 4 O� tp.N }� U' v v l ami
V
U M u c) y_ C') O Cl C-• :/, �j Cl +i
:!? U] �] d u» .-� U l-. N 1 7 cD Ai l c3 moi- F-. [- A7 -: M ti Ur �: .-. vc Q !; c)
L7
'o F 14 cN M d+ �cj cD i` c0 of C7 N �
CASES OF IIJTER`:ST
UN-ITED STATES SUP P7.31`: COURT
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) . Five-acre tract requirement
not a "taking" without just compensation.
City of Idemphis v. Greene, 451 U.S. 100 (1981) . Racially exclusionary
motive and adverse iiapact required for cause of. action (street closing) .
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. , 49 U.S.L.w. 3339 (1981) . Cities are not
liable for punitive damages.
County of Imperial v. Munoz, 449 U.S. 54 (1980) . Cause of action must fall
under civil rights statute for exception to Anti-Injunction Act to apply
(condition in use permit) .
Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391
(1979) . Interstate agency can act under "color of state law." Agency
is not immune under Eleventh Amendment.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) .
New York City landmark preservation law was not a "taking."
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) . A regulation which
goes too far may be a "taking."
lan Diego Lias & rJectricvv. v. .r'•.ity of C I'4-g o, AO T7 C.T. G7_ AZ17 (1 oQ1 )
Rezoning from industrial to part light industrial and part open space doe:
not constitute a "taking."
d
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) . Definition of "family"
in zoning ordinance upheld; must be reasonable, not arbitrary and bear a
rational relationship to permissible state objective.
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) . Complaint must allege facts
sufficient to show standing.
FIRST CIRCUIT
Cordeco Development Corp. v. Vasquez, 539 F.2d 256 (1st Cir. 1976) , cert.
denied 429 U.S. 978. Qualified immunity available for good faith reliance
on advice of legal advisor and technical analyst in denial of sand
extraction permit.
Corey v. Look, 641 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1981) . Severe land use regulations
may be actionable under antitrust statute when used to eliminate land-
owner as a competitor.
Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook, 491 F.Supp. 547 (D.Mass. 1980) _
Developer has no "right" to use of "cluster concept."
Heritage Homes v. Seekonk Water District, 498 F.Supp. 4G3 (D.Mass. 1980) .
Refusal to include development within service area may result in punitive
damages where refusal was racially motivated, even though developer was
not entitled to compensatory damages.
-2-
Y.adar Corp. v. Milhury, 549 F.2d 230 (1st Cir. 1977) . Courpiracy cause of
action requires specific allegations of overt acts in %•:hich defendants
engaged in furtherance of conspiracy. (Conspiracy to prevent plaintiffs
from developing residential housing.)
SECOND CIRCUIT
Angell v. Zinsser, 473 F.Supp. 488 (D.Conn. 1979) . Preliminary injunction
granted to prevent town from withdrawing CDBG application o;here purpose in
doing so was to prevent development of housing for minorities.
Archer Gardens v. Brooklyn Center development Corp. , 468 F.Supp. 609 (S.D.
N.Y. 1979) . Use of threat of conds=conation to lower rental rates and
force sale of property states conspiracy cause of action.
Aristocrat Health Club of Hartford, Inc. v. Chaucer, 451 F.Supp. 210
(D.Conn.) . Extensive discussion of Younger abstention.
Daubner v. Harris, 514 F.Supp. 856 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) . Evenly applied resi-
dency requirement for subsidized hous=ng is not unconstitutional.
Ellentuck v. Klein, 570 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1978) . Challenge to variance
procedure barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel where state
court had decided due process issues and property owners failed to s .ek
Supreme Court of state judgment.
Fred F. French Investing Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 587,
385 N.Y.S.2d 5, 350 N.E.2d 381 (1976) . Overburdensome land use restriction
is invalid (not a "taking") .
Guilini v. Blessing, 654 F.2d 189 (2d Cir. 1981) . Court would abstain
from hearing equitable clAims in zoning ordinance challenge in light of
pending state prosecution, but retained jurisdiction of damages claim.
Halprin v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, 50 L.W. 3201
(1981). Challenge to rent increase in rent-controlled building barred by
res judicata.
Heimbach v. Village of Lyons, 597 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1979) . Cause of action
state6 by allegations of pattern of harassment and bad faith in administra-
tion of State Building Construction Code and Village zoning ordinance.
Hudson Valley Freedom Theatre, Inc. v. Heinbach, 513 F.Supp. 250 (S.D.N.Y.
1981) . Corporation with no racial identity cannot be target of racial
discrimination.
Kinderhill Farm Breeding Associates v. Appel, 450 F.Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) .
Arbitrary and capricious application of licensing requirements can result
in liability under 42 U.S.C. 01983.
Martv's Adult World of New Britain, Inc. v. Guida, 453 F.Supp. 810 (D.Conn.
1978) . Repeated and consistent actions by a variety of city officials
in denying permit can state cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Simmons v. Wetherell, 472 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1973) , cert. denied 412 U.S. 940.
Condemnation delay not actionable where result of property owners challenge
to condemnation.
-3-
Rigginess, Inc. v. Fruchtman, 432 F.Supp. G31 (S.D.D'.Y_ 1979) , aff'd
623 F.2d 134G (26 Cir. 1900) , cert. denied 449 U.S. 342. City could
enact ordinance banning establi::hments offer oppo_;i to sea massages.
TIiIRD CIRCUIT
Centennial Land and Development Co. v. Township of Medford, 165 N.J.Super.
220, 397 A.2d 1136 (N.J.Super. 1979) . Members of township zoning board
have absolute immunity of quasi-judicial acts.
Gipson v. Township of Bass River, 82 F.R.D. 122 (D-N.J. ) Discusses
issue of reasonable relationship between zoning ordinance and the
public welfare; statute of limitations.
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Township, 507 F.Supp. 33 (B.D-Pa. 1980) .
Abstention (owners and developers had alleged that township had embarked
upon course of conduct designed to impede and delay plaintiffs' develop-
ment projects.
Riccobono v. Whitpain Township, 497 F.Supp. 1364 (E.D.Pa.) . Discusses
standing, abstention, and statute of limitations (construction permit) .
Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.-2d 680 (3rd Cir. 1930) , cert.denied
U.S. , 101 S.Ct. 1737. Zoning amendments which lowered permissible
population density were not sufficiently burdensome to constitute a
"taking" of developer's property.
Strickler v. Gozzana, 451 F.Supp. 237 (D.Pa.) . Housing inspection which
is performed in such a manner as to constitute an unreasonable search,
invasion of privacy and loss of property gives rase to a cause of action.
T & M Homes, Inc. v. Township of Mansfield, 393 A.2d 613 (N.J.Super-) .
Claims of inverse condemnation and challenges to reasonableness of zoning
ordinances are allowable causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 91983.
Woodsum v. Township of Pembertron, 412 A.2d 1064. No cause of action
for negligence under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or for inverse conderimation when
water table in plaintiffs' well was lowered by municipality-
Wooters v. Jornlin, 477 F.Supp. 1140, aff'd 622 F.2d 580, cert. denied
449 U.S. 992. No cause of action under civil rights statutes for
negligent issuance of certificates of occupancy to homes which were
not built to code.
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272 (4th Cir. ].980) . Members o; county council
absolutely immune from damages liability for passing allegedly unconstitu-
tional zoning ordinance.
Chertkof v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 497 F.Supp. 1252 (D-?-'d.
1980) . When abstention is inappropriate, court can certify questions of
law to state supreme court if interpretation of state or local laws could
avoid or modify federal questions presented.
-4-
Highfield 4Jater Co. v. Public Service Commission, 488 F.Supp. 1176 (D.Md. 1980) .
Abstention (state takeover of privately owh ed water system) .
Event Island Joint Venture v. Smith, 452 F.Supp. 455 (D.Md. 1978) . Immunity
for enactment of zoning moratorium.
Ocean Acres Limited Partnership v. Dare County Board of Health, 514 F.Supp.
1117 (E.D.N.C. 1981 ) . Claim alleging constitutional violations in adoption
and administration of septic tank regulation must be brought under civil
rights statute and not under the Fourteenth Amendment.
S`: nn?n Fredericksburg Motor Inn, Inc. v. Hicks, 434 F.Supp. 803 (E.D.Va.
1:-:%7) . Immunity of county governing board for downzoning.
Tolbert v. County of Nelson, 527 F.Supp. 836 (W.D.Va. 1981). Previous
declaratci•y judgment in state court precluded property owner from bringing
Ci%111. rights suit in federal court seeking monetary and punitive damages
b.: ,ed on same facts; rezoning is legislative act; no immunity from compensa-
tory damages.
Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 514 F.Supp 975 (S.D.Tex. 1981). Restriction
of adult movie theaters to area representing 15-20% of city's territory not
a viola ion of First Amendment free speech guarantee.
Bayou Landing Ltd. v. Watts, 563 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. ) , cert, denied 439 U.S.
818 (1978). City ordinance withholding an occupancy permit for adult
bookstore was not a zoning ordinance.
Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v+ Carson, 450 F.Supp. 696 (M.D. Fla.) . Denial of
building permit can give rise to action under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Bossier City Medical Suite, Inc. v. City of Bossier, 483 F.Supp. 633 (E.D.La.) .
May have cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for denial of certificate of
occupancy- to abortion clinic. Discusses abstention and exhaustion of
administrative and judicial remedies.
Cc;;_ '' v. DeBlaker, 652 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1981) . Federal review of zoning
action limited to question of whether action was arbitrary, capricious and.
without substantial relation to general welfare; mere procedural flaws,
without more, are inadequate for cause of action.
Cowart v. City. of Ocala, 478 F.Supp. 774 (M.D.Fla. ) . Denial of building
permit fit-.end not to be discriminatory or unreasonable.
Deerfield Medical .Center v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328 (5th Cir.
1931) . S`rict scrutiny applied to denial of occupational license to
abortion facility because of right to privacy and First Amendment freedoms
involved.
Dowdell v. City of Apopka,4511 F.Supp. 1375 (M.D.Fla. 1981). City's long-
term refusal to provide adequate services to black sections of city
sufficient to show discriminatory intent.
-5-
Gordon v. City of Cartersville, 522 F.Supp. 753 (id.D.Ga_ 19£ 1 ) . Discusses
standing requirements for challenge to denial of building permit.
Hawkins v. Town of Shat-,,, 437 F. 2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971 ) , aff'd en baric 461
F.2d 1171 . Court found equal protection violation in disparities in provi-
sion of municipal services; town ordered to submit plan to cure disparities.
Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1981 ) . Mayor's veto
of ordinance tras a legislative function entitled to absolute immunity; city not
entitled to absolute immunity for legislative acts (zoning regulations) .
Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1964) . Due process violation in denial
of application for liquor license.
Kirkpatrick v. City of Jacksonville, 312 So.2d 487 (Fla. App. 1975) . Damages
not a basis for recovery of just compensation under taking clause.
McCulloch v. Glasgow, 620 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1980) . Damages allotted for heart
attach allegedly suffered as a result of town's denial of hearing to landowners
before taking their property.
McGhee v. City of Pensacola, 47 L.W. 2605 (N.D.Fla. 1979) . Cause of action for
termination of utilities without proper notice.
Matthews v. United States, 526 F.Supp. 99.3 (M.D.Ga. 1981 ) . Plaintiff who never
sought to assert a civil rights claim was not entitled to attorney's fees under
42 U.S.C. §1988.
The Purple Onion, Inc. v. Jackson, 511 F.Supp. 1207 (N.D.Ga. 1981 ) . Strict
scrutiny of Atlanta Adult Entertainment Zoning Ordinance.
Southern Cooperative Development Fund v. Driggers, 527 F.Supp. 927 (M.D.Fla.
1981) . Landowners' due process rights would be violated if new zoning regula-
tions .were used to deny plat application which complied with regulations in
effect at time plat application was filed.
Universal Amusement Co. , Inc. v. Hofheinz, 616 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1980) .
Attorney'.s fees may be recovered against the state; must show bad faith for
award against official personally, whereas good faith is irrelevant where
award is in official capacity.
SIXTH CIRCUIT
Armstrong v. Ross Tot-:nshi p, 266 N.14.2d 674 (inti ch. ) . Can have cause of action
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for denial of building permits; since building inspector
had no immunity under Michigan law, there was no immunity under civil rights
statute.
CLR Corporation v. Henline, 520 F.Supp. 760 (W.D.Mich. 1981 ) . Zoning ordinance
which would allow only -Four adult bookstores in a town of 62,000 violated equal
protection rights of store owners.
Danish News Co. v. City of Aqn Arbor, 517 F.Supp. 86 (E.D.Mich. 1981 ) . Challenge
to revocation of occupancy certificate and to state nuisance per se statute;
c
court abstained as to equitable relief requested but retained laims for damages.
-6-
Gordon v. City of Warren, 579 F.2d 386 (6th Cir. 1978). Challenge to setback
requirements as a "taking"; discussion of tolling of statute of limitations.
Sambo's Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Ann Arbor, 663 F.2d 686 (6th Cir. 1981) .
Restaurant's use of its franchise name on signs was speech protected under
the First Amendment and could not be restricted by conditions put on site plan
approval .
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Devines v. Maier, 665 F.2d 138 (7th Cir. 1981 ). City order requiring tenants
to vacate uninhabitable buildings resulted in a compensable regulatory taking
of the tenant's property.
Entertainment Concepts III , Inc. v. Maciejewski , 514 F.Supp. 1378 (N.D.Ill .
1981 ). Civil rights suit brought against officials of village was in essence
suit against village itself making village liable for award of attorney's fees.
Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton, 582 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1978) .
Tax Injunction Act does not bar an action undr 42 U.S.C. against tax assessors
for systematic overassessment.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. City of Evanston,
89 Ill . App.3d 701 , 411 N.E.2d 1030 (1980) , cert. denied 50 L.W. 3221 (1981) .
Religious group must show intentional , malicious, or reckless conduct by
municipality in order to recover damages for revocation of special use permit.
Martin v. Wray, 473 F.Supp. 1131 (DJ1is. 1979) . Tom ordinances prohibiting
display of campaign signs in residential areas were unconstitutional.
Molgaard .v. Town of Caledonia, 527 F-Supp. 1073 (E.D.Wis. 1981) . Property
owners who had received -only conditional approval of plans for mobile home
park had no constitutionally protected property interest under Wisconsin
law in completion of project in accordance with such plans.
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Darien, 357 N.E.2d 211 . Can have cause of
action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for damages for rezoning which constitutes a
"taking."
Reichenberger v. Pritchard, 660 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1981). Allegations of
conspiracy failed to state cause of action when there was no allegation -that
plaintiff's expressive activities or business had been interf•: :ed with (con-
spiracy. to eliminate nude dancing in nightclubs) ; attorney's fees awarded to
defendant.
Sawmill Products, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, 477 F.Supp. 636 (D, Ill . 1979) . Cause
of action is stated where city engaged in several official actions applicable
solely to plaintiff and designed to oust his business from city boundaries.
Schiessle v. Stephens, 525 F.Supp 763 (N.D. III . 1981 ) . Abstention; application
of federal antitrust laws to eminent domain proceedings discussed.
Shangri-La Enterprises v. Brennan, 483 F.Supp. 281 (E.D.Wis. ). Municipality
may prohibit adult book stores within 1 ,000 feet of one another.
-7-
S;:,'rl i ng v. Village of Maywood, 579 F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1978). Tenant has no
cc -:stitutionally protected interest in continued water service; however,
r-.': usal to reinstate tenant' s water could be basis of cause of action.
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Adler v. Lynch, 415 F.Supp. 705 (D-Neb. 1976) . Grant or denial of zoning
variance is not a legislative act.
Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 555 (8th Cir. 1981) . Adult theater
zoning ordinance which left adequate area in city for adult theaters was upheld,
even though ordinance was passed after plaintiff had purchased property and
obtained license for movie theater.
Central Avenue News, Inc. v. City of Minot, 651 F.2d 565 (8th Cir. 1981) .
Court abstained under Younger in challenge to city licensing and zoning
ordinances applicable to adult bookstores.
Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslaysky, 626 F.2d 607 (8th Cir. 1980) . First Amendment
right to petition immunizes absolutely private citizens and their counsel
from §1983 damages liability for prevailing upon city's board of directors to
pass allegedly unconstitutional zoning ordinance.
Park View Heights Corp. v. City of Black Jack, 454 F.Supp. 1223 (E.D.Mo. 1978).
Injury suffered by delay .brought on by adjudication was intervening cause of
plaintiff's injury for which city was not liable.
Robinson v. City of Raytown, 606 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. App. 1980) . Where property
owner failed to allege that city or mayor had undertakin any action to imple-
ment or enforce zoning ordinance which had been improperly enacted, or that
the manner in which it was passed followed customary pattern reflecting an
official policy of the city,` petition failed to state cause of action against
either city or mayor.
NINTH CIRCUIT
American Savings & Loan Association v. County of Marin, 653 F.2d 364 (9th Cir.
1981 ). Government regulation can be so onerous as to constitute a "taking"
which constitutionally requires compensation but a police power regulation is
not invalid simply because it prevents the highest and best use of the land.
Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 169 Cal .Rptr. 904 (1980) . Zoning
is a legislative act.
Barbaccia v. County of Santa Clara, 451 F.Supp. 260 (N.D.Cal . 1978) . Discussion
of abstention; challenge to state land use control statutes.
City of South Lake Tahoe v. California TRPA, 625 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980) .
Standing; city cannot challenge another political subdivision's plans and
ordinances on constitutional grounds.
Clark v. City of Los Angele*, 650 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1981 ). City can require
that all commercial activities be conducted wholly within closed buildings.
Flores v. Pierce, 617 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1980) . Allowed damages for lost profits,
emotional distress and attorney's fees in wrongful denial of liquor license.
Lange V. Nature Conservancy, Inc. , 24 Wash. App. 416. Mere classification of
property in "Inventory of Natural Areas on Private Lands" without any allega-
tion of an accompanying constitutional deprivation does not create any liability
under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Oceanic California, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 497 F.Supp. 962 (N.D. Cal . 1980) .
Under California law, developer had no vested right in particular development
it proposed for its land, nor could its alleged expectations of future high
intensity use approval by city be a proper basis for its claim of a taking.
Pringle v. City of Covina, 171 Cal . Rptr. 251 . Court upheld adult theater
ordinance requiring such theaters to be located at lei%st 500 feet from a
residential area.
Rancho Palos Verdes Corp. v. City of Laguna .Beach, 547 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 157£) .
Discussion of abstention.
Santa Fe La.-iJ. Improvement Co. v. City of Chula Vista, 596 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1979) .
Abstention; downzoning.
Sederquist v. City of Tiburon, 590 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1978) . Abstention.
Toso v. City of Santa Barbara, 88 Cal . App. 3d 654, 151 Cal . Rptr. 912 (1979) .
Property owner acquires no vested right as .against future zoning merely by
purchasing real property; only remedy for "taking" was to have ordinance
declared unconstitutional .
United States v. 429.59 Acres of Land, 612 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1980) . Severance
damages.
4
1
11i:T'1'1:T) S FA't'F.S Cbt)L
42
1:T:;•1r 1)IFS
(2)ULstructing justice; intimidating party.-itnes4.or
Equal rights under the law
juror
All persons within the jurisdiction of the If two or more persons in any State or Terri-
United States shall have the samc right in tory conspire to deter,by force, intimidation, or
every State and 'Territory to male and enforce threat, any party or witness in any court of the
contracts, to site, be parties, give evidence, and • Unitcd States from attending such court, or
to the full and equal benefit of all laws and pro- from testifying to any matter pending therein,
ceedings for the security of persons and proper- freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure st!ch
ty as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
Subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, party or witness in his person or property on
taxes. licenses, and exactions of every kind, and account of his having so attended or testified,
to no other. or to influence the verdict, presentment, or in-
dictment of any grand or petit juror in any
(R.S. §1977.) such court, or to injure such juror in'his person
or property on account of any verdict, present-
ment, or indictment lawfully assented to by
§ 19S2.Property rights of citizens him, or of his being or having been such juror;
or if two or more persons conspire for the pur-
All citizens of the United States shall have pose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or de-
the same right, in every State and Territory, as feating, in any manner, the due course of jus-
is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, tice in any State or Territory, with intent to
purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and deny to any citizen the equal protection of the
personal property. _ lams, or to injure him or his property for law-
(R.S.§1978). folly enforcing. or attempting to enforce, the
right of any person, or class of persons, to the
equal protection of the laws;
§19S3.Civil action for deprivation of rights (3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges
Every person who,under color of any statute, If two or more persons in any State or Terri-
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any tory conspire or go in disguise on the highway
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or on the premises of another, for the purpose
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of depriving, either directly or indire.-tly, any
of the United States or other person within the person or class of persons of the equal protec-
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any tion of the laws, or of ecl4al privileges and im-
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the munities under the laws; or for the purpose of
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the preventing or hindering the constituted nu-
party injured in an action at lav,suit in equity, thorities of any State or Territory from giving
or other proper proceeding for redress. For the or securing to all persons within such State or
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if
applicable exclusively to the District of Colum- two or more persons conspire to prevent by
bia shall be considered to be a statute of the force,intimidation, or threat,any citizen who is
District of Columbia, lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his sup-
(As amended Pub. L. 96-170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, port or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or
In favor of the election of any lawfully quali-
93 Stat. 128:.) fied person as an elector for President or Vice
President, or as a Riember of Congress o: the
United States; or to injure any citizen in person
fr 19S5.Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights or property on account of such support or advo-
cacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth In this
(1)1'reventino officer from performing duties- section, if one or more persons engaged therein
If two or more persons in any State or Terri- do, or cause to be clone, any act in furthcrancc
tory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, of the object of such conspiracy, whereby an-
or threat, any person from accepting or holding other is injured in his person or property,or ee-
any office, trust, or place of confidence under prived of having and exercising any ri;tht or
the United States, or from discharging any privilege of a citizen of the United States, the
duties thereof; or to induce by like means any party so injured or deprived may have an
officer of the United States to leave any State,_ action for the recovery of derma-gess occasioned
district, or place, where his duties as an officer by such injury or deprivation, against any one
are required to be per forrned, or to injure him or more of the conspirators.
in his person or property on account of his (R.S. § 1980.)
lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or
while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof,
or to injure his property so ats.to molest, inter-
rupt, hinder, or impede khitn in the dischFtrge of
his official duties;
i
2
§
195G. Action for neglect to prevent
1?Very person -ho, having knowledge that §19S3. 1'roceedings in vindication of civil rights; at-
any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and tornc.'s fees
mentioned in section 1935 of this title, are The jurisdiction in civ;' ^nd criminal matters
about to be committed, and having power to conferred on the district. courts by the provi-
prevent or aid in preventinf., the commission of sions of this .Title, and of Title "CIVIL
the s;:me, neglects or refuses so to do, if such RIGHTS.-and of Title "CRIMES," for the pro-
wron.-ful act be committed, shall be liable to tection of all
persons in the United States in
the party injured, or his legal rcpresentattveS, their civil rights, and for their vindication,shall
for all damages caused by such wrongful act, be exercised and enforced in conformity with
which such person by reasonable diligence the laws of the United States, so far as such
could have prevented; and such damages may lavas are suitable to carry the same into effect;
be recovered in an action on the case; and any but in all cases where they are not adapted to
number of persons guilty of such wrongful re- the object, or are deficient in the provisions
gleet or refusal may be joined as defendants in necessary to furnish suitable remedies and
the action; and if the death of any party be punish offenses against lav, the common lav,
caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, as modified and changed by the constitution
the legal representatives of the deceased shall and statutes of the State wherein the court
have such action therefor, and may recover-not having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
exceeding$5,000 damages therein, for the bene- cause is held,so far as the same is not incon°ist-
fit of the widow of the deceased, if there be ent with the Constitution and laws of the
one, and if there be no widow, then for the United States, shall be extended to and govern
benefit of the next of kin of the.deceased:But the said courts in the trial and disposition of
no action under the provisions of this section
shall be sustained which is not commenced the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in
within one year after the cause of action has the infliction of punishment on the party
accrued. guilty.In any action or proceeding to en-
accrued. force a provision of sections 1981, 1932, 1983,
(R.S. §1981.) 1985, and 198G of this title, title IX of Public
Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), or in any
§1957.Prosecution of violation of certain lava civil action or proceedings. by or on behalf of
the United States of America, to enforce, or
The United States attorneys, marshals, and charging a violation of, a provision of the
deputy marshals, the magistrates appointed by United States Internal Revenue Code, or title
the district and territorial courts,with power to VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.
arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every 20004 et seq.), the court, in its discretion, may
other officer who is especially empowered by allow the prevailing party, other than the
the President, are authorized and required, at United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as
the expense of the United States, to institute . part of the costs.
prosecutions against all persons violating any (R.S. §722• Pub. L. 94-559, §2, Oct. 19. 1976. 90
of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or Stat.2641.)
of sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the `
Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to
be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial
before the court of the United States or the ter-
ritorial court having cognizance of the offense.
(R.S. §1982;Mar. 3, 1911,ch. 231, §291.36 Stat.
1167; June 25. 1948. ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 909;.
Oct. 17. 1968. Pub. L. 90-578, title IV,
§402(b)(2).82 Stat. 1118.)
TITLE 28
JURISDICTION
I § 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original Jurisdiction of all civil actions
I arising 1,- the Constitution,laws, or treaties of the United States.
As am, ed O,C.'21, 1976, Pub.L. 94-574. § 2, 90 Stat. 2721; Dec. 1,
198" x'uU-L. ' .;-486. § 2(a), 94 Stat. 2369.
s
t
- 3
t+131:9. Civil rights and elective franchise The jurisdiction under this section shall
extend only so far as to determine the rights of
(a) The district courts shall have original ju- the parties to office by reason of the denial of
ris:diction of any civil action authorized by law the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of
to be commenced by any person: the United States and secured by any law, to
(1) To recover damattes for injury to his enforce the right of citizens of the United
person or pro;p.,•rty, or because of the depriva- States to vote in all the Stsztes.
tion of any right or privilege of a citizen of
the United States, by any act clone in further- (June 25, 1948,ch. 646,62 .• .tt.932.)
ante of any conspiracy mentioned In section
1935 of Title 42; §14.13.Civil rights cases
(2) To recover damages from any person
who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing Any of the following civil actions or criminal
any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title prosecutions, commenced in a State court may
42 which he had kno,.vledge were about to be removed by the defendant to the district
occur and power to prevent; court of the United States for the district and
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color division embracing the place wherein it is pend-
of any State law, statute, ordinance, regula- Ing:
tion, custom or usage, of any right, privilege (1) Against any person -who is denied or
or immunity secured by the Constitution of cannot enforce iii the courts of such State a
the United States or by any Act of Congress right under any law providing for the equal
providing for equal rights of citizens or of all civil rights of citizens of the United States, or
persons within the jurisdiction of the United of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;
States• (2)For any act under color of authority de-
(4) To recover damages or to secure equita- rived from any law providing for equal rights,
ble or other relief under any Act of Congress or for refusing to do any act on the ground
providing for the protection of civil rights,fn- that it would be inconsistent with such law.
cluding the right to vote.
(b)For purp.)ses of this section— (June 25, 1918,ch. 646,62 Stat. 938.)
(1) the District of Columbia shall be consid-
ered to be a State;and
F 173S. State and Territorial statutes and judicial pro-
(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclu- ceedings_full faith and credit
sively to the District of Columbia shall be
Ter-
considered to be a statute of the District of riThe Acts of the let islat.ure of any State.Ter-
Columbia. ton•, or Possession of the United States, or
copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affix-
(As amended Dec. 29, 1979, Pub. L. 96-170, §2, int; the seal of such State, Territory or Posses-
93 Stz-t. 1284.) sion thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any
court of any such State, Territory or Poses-
_ §1344.Election disputes 1 sion, or copies thereof, shall be proved or ac]-
The district courts shall have original juris- milted in other couris Within the United States
elir�+on of any civil action to recover possession and its Territories and Possessions by the attes-
o' •.r;y office, except that of elector of Presi- talion of the clerk and seal of the court an-
detu or Vice President, United States Senator, nexed, if a seal exits, together with a certifi-
Re>:-;:sentative in or delegate to Connress, or Cate of a :edge of the court that the said attes-
meinber of a state legislature, authorized by t2-:i ,n is in proper form.
law to be commenced, where in it appears that Such .acts, r ecrords and judicial proceedings or
the sole question touching the title to office _:henticated, shall have the
arises out of denial of the right to vote, to any s4= <' fi:?-: fault -:-edit in every court withir:
citizen offering to vote, on account of race, the Unitc•e SMII-s and its Territories and Pos-
color or previous condition of servitude. sessions a_- they have by law or usage in the
courts of such Sate. Territory or Possession
from t:i,ich they art taken.
(June 25..1948,ch. 6S 5. 62 Stat. 947.)-
TITLE
47.)-
TITLE 18
CRI14INAL ACTS
§2.12.Deprivation of rights tender color of law by reason of his color, or race, than are Pre-
scribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, or- fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not
dinance• regulation, or custom, willfully sub- more than one year, or both; and if death re-
jects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or sults shall be subject to itnprisoranent for any
District to the deprivation of any rights, privi- term of years or for life.
leges, or Immunities secured or protected by (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. G96; Apr. 11,
the Constitution or laws of the United States, (Jun I25. L. 90-284, title I, § t. 69), 82 Stat.
or to different punishments,pains,or penalties, 75.)
on account of such inhabitant being an alien,or
z
o- private safety agencies that have Akron case is the first antitrust cla.in:
a reed in writing to jointly plan a 9-1-1 against a city that the court has sent
Sytr;ri. back to t}Ie loI•:er courts since the
Boulder decision.
In ;anuary, 1982, the Division sent a
letter to cities and counties. The Akron's ordinance requires that all i�aste
letteW said that unless a city or collected from the city's businesses ant
count)khad a "letter of intent" on file 237,000 residents be taken to the re-
with tl:e Division by April 1 , 1982, that cycling plant the city plans to build.
city or\county could not participate in Steam generated at the plant is to be
the firsk quarter's distribution of tax sold to a local utility company. The
monies (scheduled for June of 1982) . ordinance was intended to guarantee
Since that time, the-Division of Emer- the plant an adequate supply of refuse
gency Services has relaxed that deadline, to make the project economically sound.
and the mone \ will be distributed on
schedule to a 1 cities and counties on a private trash haulers challenged the
per capita bas's. ordinance, arguing that it violates
antitrust laws, restrains interstate
The intent of th 9-1-1 legislation was commerce and takes property without
to fund 9-1-1 sys ems' planning, instal- just compensation.
lation and operatisn, and monies re- The city contended that its home rule
ceived are to be s� cifically dedicated charter and the involvement of a state
for that purpose. Th refore, it is agency (the Ohio Water Development
recommended that cit s establish a Authority)
separate fund for the -1-1 money which
in the sale of bonds to fi-
nance the project protects it froin anti-
is estimated to amount o $1 .50 per trust claims . Officials from the U.S.
capita annually. Department of Energy gy and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency testified on be-
ho clear understanding exi ts, as we go half of the city, saying that the project
to press, with regard to th��� establish- and the anticompetitive actions Intended
ment of "local jurisdictions for 9-1-1. to ensure its success, were in l i.ne faith
Until more information is ava• able and national energy and environmental policy.
unless a 9-1-1 system is alrea�y in
place in your area, it is advistd that A lower court and the 6th U.S. Circuit
the money be allowed to accumula\i- ex-1
r Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
any future planning, implementatr city. The appeals court ruling in July
operation of a 9-1-1 system. Itsaid that Akron's action. was a valid use
petted that more information wilof local police powers under the lottt
available before the June disburt. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. III
Supreme Court Cites hundreds of cases , the court said, courts
have upheld "the authority of local gov-
Boulder antitrust rule ernments to monopolize and control local
garbage collection by eliminating or re-
The U.S. Supreme Court last month told straining competition" among private
a federal appeals court to reconsider competitors. "If any area of the law
whether an Akron, Ohio, ordinance giving can be said to be well settled," the
the city exclusive rights to the refuse appeals court said, "this one is."
collected within its boundaries can be
challenges} on antitrust grounds. The Supreme Court's Boulder decision un-
settled that point and upended the Akren
The high court based its order on its case. In the Boulder decision the court
recent ruling in the Boulder cable tele- said that home rule authority doesn't -
vision case that cities do not automati- automatically extend state antitrust im-
cally enjoy states' immunity from Anti- munity to cities. Instead, the high court
trust claims. (See January Update T}Ie said, immunity from antitrust action
0,1 5-12
is A — V
t N h
�n a, L C L q tVn
r
i C✓y�� V .O '
CO x C m y.y 0•�G L C
c:1
J .2rg
E s s?
w E= A3
¢ o T o
C t h ti v O i ,aft!f
W .0 C Oo stn tf!
= N V O b OdgL
✓y y N W C d
yy u�.o uFc
r
°:✓oo quu
u ma:aT
r-. y•C OO u
C y
6 J cO y .0
.� 4 r3 n✓
a Vim.
•-
...
i uU C� ae y
c ovi p,c
pp 0�'D
p a w^F y b C
y Ty
aOF Cf0 ��
0
Svc•-' ao
E"; 9U R rtt
L o 6 .� T• +tet!
.coy �c`Y �
� •CMv =4g3g -
V O O. Tm
Y.
Ir
LES AuCOIN
IST DISTRICT,OREGON
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
Dear Friend: April 12, 1982
A number of critical local government issues are facing Congress this
session, and I want to share wi :l you my position.
One battle has already been won in the House . In the Appropriations
. Committee and on the floor , I helped pass a supplemental appropriation
for EPA sewer construction grants which earmarks $27 .6 million for
Oregon. This legislation provides a much needed boost to local economic
development plans .
From my seat on the Appropriations Transportation subcommittee, I 'm
working to assure a responsible level for highway and transit funding
this year . I will oppose unwarrented cuts in federal support for urban
and secondary road systems, and I oppose the zeroing out of the small
urban and rural transportation program. This is not the time to be
placing additional burdens on an already overutilized and inadequate
local road system.
Also within the Appropriations Committee , I'm continuing my support for
full funding of the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program. A reduction or
loss of these funds would be unjust; more important, it would severely
impact the operational ability of county governments.
Fhave had a number of personal meetings with local government leaders
are concerned about the impact of the Supreme Court decision holding
t cities can be sued under anti-trust laws , a ruling that leaves in
bt the whole regulatory authority of local governments. I share that
cern and I am prepared to help overcome that court action. I also
want to ensure that cities do not lose their primary responsibility for
franchising and enforcing cable television in the deregulation battles
that are about to be fought on Capitol Hill. You can count on my help on
this .
Finally, keep in mind the services of my district office. They are
available to you and , in particular , I hope you will call on Kevin Smith
--my "Circuit Rider"/Field Representative -- and Julie Williamson , my
District Administrative Assistant. Please feel free to contact me
whenever I can help.
With warm regards,
Si erely,
LES AuCOIN
Member of Congress
231 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING.WASHINGTON.D.C. 20515 (202)225-0955
1716 FEDERAL BUILDING. 1220 SW THIRD.PORTLAND.OREGON 97204 (503)225-2901,OREGON TOLL FREE LINE 1-900-452-1920
ANTITRUST WORKSHOP OUTLINE
League of Oregon Cities
1982 Regional Meetings
1 . Introduction
11 . Outline of Antitrust Law
111 . The Loss of Automatic Immunity
A. Parker v. Brown
B. Lafayette and Boulder
IV. The New Tests for Immunity
A. "Clear articulation and affirmative expression"
B. "Active supervision"
C. Brief discussion of cases applying these standards
V. General Consequences for Cities
A. Effect on home rule
B. Immunity vs. liability
V1 . Specific Municipal Functions and the Risks
A. Franchising
B. Licensing
C. Land use
D. Procurement of goods and services
E. Miscellaneous public facilities and services
VII . Possible Safeguards
A. The concept of an antitrust audit and compliance program
B. Related procedural techniques
C. The policy issue: to regulate or not to regulate?
Vill . Pursuit of a Legislative Remedy
A. Federal exemption
B. Options for state legislation
IX. Conclusion
May 6 , 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Administrative Assistant, Joy Martin q-17t
Subject: Reimburse Crow For Taxes Paid
According to the lease contract for use of the Crow Building, "Tenant will
apply for a real property tax exemption for the premises leased to Tenant.
The parties agree that the rent reserved by this Agreement has been calculated
to reflect the reduction in real property taxes that Tenant will obtain by
reason of the exemption. If Tenant is denied the exemption for any reason,
Tenant will pay as additional rent its share of real property taxes. The
parties covenant and warrant to each other, good faith, cooperation and due
diligence."
The City applied for tax exemption and it was accepted, however it will not
take effect until July 1, 1982. We have asked for clarification from the
Attorney's office on whether the exemption can be prorated back to the date
the exemption was accepted in December. We are advised the County does not
and will not reimburse the taxes. Therefore , the City is obligated to
reimburse Mr. Crow for taxes from November 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982.
Total taxes paid by Mr. Crow for the year is $19,401.10. Eight months taxes
for our portion of the property (35%) is $4 ,526.92.
O'DONNELL. DATE: May 3, 1982
SULLIVAN & RAMIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: BOb Jean, City Administrator
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222-4402 FROM: Mark P. O 'Donnell
<: RE: City of Tigard General - CroweBuilding
Lease Tax Exemption
FACTS RFr �l\JFj-j `Iry 1932
The City of Tigard applied for an exemption to property taxes for
that portion of the Crowe building leased for City Hall . See ORS
307.112. The application was filed with the County in December,
1981.
The staff of the assessor's office has assured us that the applica-
tion is complete and meets the requirements of the statute with
respect to use. See A. Brockman's memo of March 12, 1982 .
The lease which the City signed with Mr. Crowe assvimes the tax
exemption. Further, the lease assumes the exemption would be
effective and be reflected in the taxes owed as of January 1, 1982.
ISSUE
When is the exemption effective for purposes of taxes paid.
CONCLUSION
The exemption is effective for the 1982-83 tax year, therefore,
it will not be reflected in the tax bill until July 1, 1982.
DISCUSSION
The property tax exemption for property held by a public body under
lease is provided in ORS 307.112. To get the exemption the public
body must file a claim with the County.
"The claim shall be filed on or before April 1, except
that if the lease or lease purchase agreement is entered into
after March 20th but not later than June 30th, the
claim shall be filed within 30 days after the date
the lease or lease purchase agreement is entered into
if exemption is claimed for that year. The exemption
shall first apply for the assessment and tax year
beginning January 1 of the calendar year which the
claim is filed. The exemption shall continue so long
as the use of the property remains unchanged during
the period of the lease or lease purchase agreement. "
ORS 307.112 (3) .
In addition, ORS 311 .410 (3) prov-ides:
"Real or personal property is exempt if it is transferred
or changed from a taxable to an exempt ownership or use
at any time between January 1 and June 30th, both inclusive,
of any year; how0ver, if such property is exempted under
O'DONNELL. DATE: May 3, 1982
SULLIVAN & RANIIS -
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO: Bob Jean, City Administrator
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
(503) 222.4402 FROM: Mark P. O'Donnell
RE: City of Tigard General - Crowe Building
Lease Tax Exemption
2
any portion of ORS 307 .010 to 307.166, ***which requires
the filing for a claim for exemption, the transfer shall
not operate to render such property exempt from taxation
for such year unless the required claim for exemption
is filed as directed on or before August lst in such
year. "
Reading these two statutes together to be harmonious as is required
by rules of statutory construction leads us to the conclusion that
the exemption can only be effective beginning for the 1982-83 tax
year. Property is valued as of January 1st of a tax year, so the
exempted value will be established as of January 1, 1982, however,
the tax year begins July 1, 1982 and the 1981-82 tax year began on
July 1, 1981. In order to qualify for the exemption for that year,
the lease would have to have been signed before June 30, 1981 and
the application would have to have been made within 30 days of
that date. The lease for the Crowe building was signed in October
and the application was filed in December of 1981. There is no
provision for exemption for a partial year.
The lease, of course, will qualify for all of the 1982-83 tax year
beginning July 1, 1982. The County has assured us they will send
us a letter to that effect.
This means that Mr. Crowe is probably entitled some additional
rent under the lease for the months from January 1, 1982 to July
1, 1982. The amount is, of course, dependent on how the exemption
figured into the calculation of the lease amount. This is informa-
tion that you, the City, will have to provide.
a '
MUD :do
cc: EJS
O G
�J
May 6, 1982
Mayor and City Council
Tigard, Oregon
C ounc i lme mbe r s:
NPO #1 is requesting the City Council to review the Planning Commission action
on May 4 , 1982 titled SDR 6-82, General Telephone , for these reasons:
{1) Due to lack of a decision, on the appeal, by Planning Commission regarding
dedication of floodplain to City;
(2) Structure was started before site design review process was completed;
(3) NPO #1 process was bypassed altogether, therefore creating the need for
an appeal to SDR if the process would have been followed this condition
would have been caught at the NPO or staff level; and
(4) This problem rose due to the lack on the City's part of an ordinance
requiring dedication of unbuildable lands in floodplain and greenway area
as designated in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Pat Hutchison
NPO #1
J r
17
AZ
17
a-,
� (�
�{� �
;�cz-tom ��n._ , ;�c�Z�-� Gtr �L cam-�f.t_v� d�vL t�
��LC -e-cc..i-2-� ��^J���_CkZf.-ti--i.� Gt/� ��i�c�vt�+-c��.�-F� c�c�.�'-e.��
J_ .� �
n.� ..�rr.�-� -�����i�.�„ F c.1��ti-Lam:-e��..
_ _ _ �. _-C�... faC.�t_. Cid._R,2��C£.-'
_ "
�: CG� ,�u��c
CI OF Tib
May 7, 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Mr. Glenn Walker
Attorney-at-Law
8862 S.W. Center Court
Tigard, Oregon 97223
SUBJECT: Yohn Request for Compensation - March 12, 1982
Dear Mr. Walker:
As I indicated in my letter of March 31, 1982 to you, I have now reviewed the
record and have met with parties involved in this matter over the years. I
find no contractual obligation, neither specific nor implied, where the City
owes any additional compensation to Mr. and Mrs. Yohn for their general care-
taker services. They provided certain services, and the City provided certain
consideration. It was a straight this for that, and no additional compensation
was ever promised.
I, therefore, must reject Mr. and Mrs. Yohn's request for any further compen-
sation outside the scope of the agreement. Please feel free to contact me
if I may be of any further assistance.
Yours truly,
obert . Jean
City ministrator
CC: Mayor and Council
City Attorney
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
ENF-
May 10, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Finance Director, Doris Hartig
Subject: Hampton Street LID Progress Payment
Staff requests approval for payment of a progress payment to Frady Construction
Company in the amount of $36 ,449.39 for Hampton Street LID work completed.
DH:lw
i
CONTROL BUDGET 1981-82
BY DEPARTMENT
ADOPTED CONTROL ESTIMATED
Community Protection
Police 1,035 ,368 977,000 977 ,000
Public Works 334 ,930 293,950 331,926
Municipal Court 37,461 22,568 22,500
Planning 94 ,896 77,500 83,000
Building 1273-998 116,500 114,872
Home & Community Quality
Public Works 1,399,529 1,220,000 1,160,123
Policy and Administration
Mayor and Council 16 ,902 16,000 16 ,000
Administration 83,172 103,000 106,000
Finance and Records 155,176 182,807 187,000
Social Services
Library 133,409 136,000 135 ,557
Loaves & Fishes 10,000 10,000 10,000
TCYS 66,383 66,383 66,383
Support Services
Non-Departmental 262,286 350,000 360,000
Capital Budget
Public Works 916,612 916 ,612 629,478
Debt Service
Non-Departmental 172,866 172,866 172,866
TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS 4 ,846,988 4 ,661,186 4 ,372,705
Revised: 5-1-82
CONTROI. BUDGET 1981-82
BY FUND
ADOPTED CONTROL ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ENDING FUND
FUND REVENUE BUDGET REVENUE EXPENSE BALANCE
General Fund 2,513,543 2,273,000 2,185 ,500 2,037,486 148,014
Federal Revenue Sharing 146,890 130,000 143,500 143,500 -0-
Sewer Fund 597 ,354 540,500 577 ,400 474,868 102,532
State Tax Street 223,229 223,229 218,200 218,200 -0-
County Gas Tax 93,262 86,300 82,800 82,800 -0-
County Maint./Op. 521,615 521,615 570,000 521,615 48,385
Major Street (SDC) 941,534 900,000 953,700 636 ,424 317,276
Park & Rec. (SDC) 74 ,969 74 ,969 89,400 67,471 21,929
Subtotal 5 ,112,396 4 ,749,613 4 ,820,500 4 ,182,364 638,136
G.O. Bonds 10,213 10,213 10,213 10,213 -0-
Special Assessments 162,653 162,653 162,653 162,653 -0-
Subtotal 5 ,285,262 4 ,922 ,479 4 ,993,366 4 ,355 ,230 638,136
Civic Center Project -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL $5 ,285 ,262 $4 ,922,479 $4 ,993,366 $4 ,355,230 $ 638,136
A
Revised. 4-29-82
O V' 4
- -_-- CiTYOF T1
RD
April 27, 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Mr. Robert Santee
Superintendent
Tigard Water District
8841 S.W. Commercial
Tigard, Oregon 97223
SUBJECT: Water District Report to City Council - May 24, 1982
Dear Bob:
As you are aware, the City of Tigard is responsible under the State Land Use
Planning Laws to develop the Comprehensive Plan for our community and to
assure the coordination of necessary public facilities to implement the Plan.
As a part of our Comprehensive Plan effort, we would like to invite you to
address the City Council as to these matters on May 24, 1982.
Your report to the Council should definitely address the long-range provision
of water service to the community. Additionally, this would be an excellent
opportunity for you to report on the general condition of the District's
system and finances. You might also want to comment on the status of your
dispute with Metzger Water District on the Tualatin connection and its im-
pact on the 72nd Avenue LID project.
Since we are on a rather tight schedule with LCDC on submission of our Compre-
hensive Plan, I hope you can make the May 24th meeting. We will look forward
to the report.
Your truly,
Ro ert W. Jean
City Administrator
cv
cc: Mayor and City Council
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
CITY OF TIGA RD
April 27, 1982 WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
Roy Rogers, Mayor
Steve Rhodes,City Administrator
City of Tualatin
P.O. Box 369
18880 S.W. Martinazzi Avenue
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
SUBJECT: Report by Tigard Water District to the
Tigard City Council, May 24, 1982
Dear Sirs:
The City of Tigard has requested a report to the City Council from Tigard
Water District Superintendent Bob Santee on May 24, 1982. The City is
particularly interested in the District's long-range plans for the provi-
sion of water to our community at affordable rates. The City would welcome
in-put and comment from you or your representative.
Please feel free to contact me in this regard. We look forward to nearing
from you on or before the May 24, 1982 meeting.
Yours truly,
PVV
RobertVinistrator
City A
cv
cc: Mayor and City Council
NOTE: The City Council meets at 7:30 p.m. at Fowler Junior High School,
10865 S.W. Walnut, in Tigard. Walnut is off Highway 99, the first
traffic signal just southwest of Main Street.
Also sent to: Mayor Jack Nelson, Beaverton
Carl Goebel, Administrator, Portland Water Bureau
Peter Harvey, City Mgr. ; John Godsey, Dir. of Public Works, City of
Lake Oswego
Dr. Martin Johnson, Pres. ; Gene Seibel, Admin. , Wolf Creek Water Dist.
J. 0. Lowman, Dist. Mgr. , Metzger Water District
12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171