The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 08/16/1982 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING & STUDY SESSION AUGUST 16, 1982, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call to Staff, Council, and Audience 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 Receive and File Memo Regarding Minutes and Bills 2.2 Receive and File Leron Heights Lawsuit Report 2.3 Call Special City Council Meeting and Executive Session per ORS 192.660 (1) (i) to Review City Administrator's 1st Year Performance 8/30/82, 7:30 P.M. at City Hall 2.4 Receive and File Report on Mayor and Council Election Petitions 2.5 Receive and File Department Reports 2.6 Approve Appointments To Benefits Task Force Proposal 2.7 Charter Amendments Resolution No. 82- 89 r-d 2.8 Receive and File Comprehensive Plan Report 2.9 Board and Committee Appointments: NPO and Ratify Water Committee 2.10 Accept Bancroft Bond Sale #14 Bids 2.11 Receive and File Kittleson-Brown Lawsuit Report 2.12 Cancel 11/8/82 Regular Meeting and Reschedule ZCA to 10/25/82 & Call Special Meeting 11/ 82 - Noon - City Hall 2.13 Receive and File Status Report on 72nd Avenue LID Applications 2.14 Approve Entering Into Financial Consultant Contract-Rebecca Marshall 2.15 Accept and Authorize Appropriate Signatures on the Following: • Easement - Sunset Terrace Apartments - Hampton Street LID • Slope Easement - Sunset Terrace Apartments - Hampton Street LID • Easement - Maurice & Marion Williams - Hoodview LID • Non-Remonstrance Agreements - Archdiocese of Portland • Street Dedication Agreement - Archdiocese of Portland 2.16 Receive and File Report - Farmer's Insurance 2.17 Approve Purchase of Survey Equipment and Resolution No. 82- 90 Transfering Funds 2.18 Approve Resolution No. 82- 91 Ratify Call for Bid LID #37 2.19 Canvass Votes For August 10, 1982 Election RECESS CITY COUNCIL 3. TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY MEETING 3.1 Call-To-Order and Roll Call 00 3.2 Advisory Committee Report (Attendance, Resignations, Appointments, Election, Sub-Committee) a� 3.3 Other Business and Adjourn N RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL C 4. TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY ADVISORY VOTE: P 4.1 Ordinance No. 82- Setting May Date-�7L,/ 4.2 Resolution No. 82-'13 Setting November Date • Administrative Assistant Martin i Zw A R. pop NN 5. CIVIC CENTER REPORT AND ELECTION RESOLUTION NO. 82- 0 2=• Administrative As-si-s-tant----Sargent 6. SIGN CODE A��NDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 82- S� • Administrative Assistant--Sargent 7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION. 2-82, Milligan • Report by Staff & Further Consideration by Council 8. HAMPTON STREET, STREET AND SEWER LID, #22: • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution • Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 46 Levying Assessment 9. TIEDEMAN AVENUE, SEWER LID, #29: • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution e Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 47 Levying Assessment 10. HOODVIEW, SEWER LID, #32: • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution • Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 48 Levying Assessment 11. 74TH AVENUE, STREET LID #27: • Accept Bid and Cost Redistribution Report-Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution • Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 49 Levying Assessment PAGE 2 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 16, 1982 12. TIGARDVILLE HEIGHTS, STREET LID, #28: • Accept Bid and Cost Redistribution Report-Director of Public Works ` • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution e Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council e Ordinance No. 82- 50 Levying Assessment 13. McKENZIE STREET, STREET LID, #36: APAPPt Bid effd._CosZ-Red4e"'-crrr Report Director of Public ijo • Public Hearing Opened - to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution • Summation by Director of Public Works e Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public gorks • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 51 Levying Assessment 14. 72ND AVENUE, STREET LID, #21: • Public Hearing Opened - to consider deficit assessment and hear objections to method of distribution • Summation by Director of Public Works • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation of Director of Public Works e Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council • Ordinance No. 82- 52 Levying Deficit Assessment • Accept and Authorize Signatures For Easement n ht-of-way Acquisitions- 15. ORDINANCE No. 82- L/ Time Extension to 12-31-83 For TRFPD • City Administrator 16. PARKS REPORT e CIP--and- Works • Rules • Yohn Trailer 17. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair !.nder item 1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are encouraged to contact the City Admnistrator prior to the meeting. 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into executive session under ORS 192.660 (1) (f) and (1) (d) to discuss issues relating to pending litigation and labor. negotiations ... - 19. ADJOURNMENT ?,� ✓ Page 3 - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 16, 1982 ®,ELFe' -- .— T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 - 7:30 P.N. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla (arriving at 7:56 P.M. - leaving at 1:03 AM) , Nancie Stimler; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig (arriving at 9:35 P.M. ) ; City Administrator, Bob Jean; Clerk I. Penny Liebertz; Planning Director, William Monahan; Legal Counsel, Tim Ramis; Deputy C?.ty Recorder, Loreen Wilson. 2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL, AND AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER UNDER OPEN AGENDA. (a) City Administrator requested following item be added to Open Agenda: 17.1 Walnut Street Report 3. APPROVE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS: $471.227.18 (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. RECEIVE AND FILE LERON HEIGHTS LAWSUIT REPORT (a) Notion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file report. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present. 5. CALL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AND EXECUTIVE SESSION PER ORS 192.660 (1)(1) to Review City Administrator's First Year Performance 8/30/82, 7:30 P.K. , Tigard City Hall. (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to schedule special Council meeting for 8-30-82 at 7:30 P.M. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT ON MAYOR AND COUNCIL ELECTION PETITIONS (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 7. RECEIVE AND FILE DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS • Building, Library, Municipal Court, Planning, Police, Business License Committee, MACC/Cable TV Report, & Tigard Update (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO BENEFITS TASK FORCE PROPOSAL (a) City Administrator recommended the following appointments be made: Bob Pierce, Georgette Bleth, Maurice Lespeance, & a Representative from the Banking Community to be appointed at a future dace. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to appoint as recommended by Administrator. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 9. RESOLUTION No. 82-89 A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION ON 11-2-82. (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to remove from Consent Agenda and consider under item 17.2 (Open Agenda) . Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. RECEIVE AND FILE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT (a) !lotion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. { 11. BOARD AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: NPO 01 and WATER BOARD STUDY COMMITTEE (a) Staff recommendation to ratify Planning Commission appointment of Mr. Gareth Ott to NPO #1 for a term beginning August 1, 1982 and eapirinZ July 31, 1986. (b) Staff also recommended Council ratify the appointments which were made at the August 2, 1982 Special Council Meeting to the Wator Board Study Committee as follows: Council Position: Nancie Stimler, Tom Brian as first alternate, John Cook as second alternate; Other Members: Martin Hill and Bruce Clark. (c) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to approve appointments as recommended by staff. Appeoved by unanimous vote of Council present. 12. ACCEPT BANCROFT BOND SALE #14 BIDS AND AWARD e City Administrator reported the bid opening was held on this date at 4:00 P.M. in the offices of Bond Counsel - Ragen, Roberts, O'Scannlain, Robertson & Neill. Three bids were received as follows: First Interstate Bank 11.2960% Interest C Oregon Bank 11.0253% Interest U. S. National Bank 11..01973% Interest City Administrator stated that staff recommended awarding the bid to the apparent low bidder. U.S. National Bank at an interest rate of 11.01973%. PAGR 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 • Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to award the bid to U. S. National Bank at 11.0197311. interest. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. RECEIVE AND FILE KITTLESON-BROWN LAWSUIT REPORT (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file report. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 14. CANCEL 11-8-82 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND RESCHEDULE ZCA to 10/25/82 & CALL SPECIAL MEETING 11/11/82 - Noon - Tigard City Hall. (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to cancel 11-8-82 meeting, reschedule ZCA to 10-25-82 and call special meeting 11/14/82 in afternoon at Tigard City Hall. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 15. RECEIVE AND FILE STATUS REPORT ON 72ND AVENUE LID APPLICATIONS (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 16. APPROVE ENTERING INTO FINANCIAL CONSULTANT CONTRACT - Rebecca Marshall (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to approve and authorize City Administrator to sign. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 17. ACCEPT AND AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING: • Easement - Suns•t Terrace Apartments - Hampton Street LID • Slopo Easement - Sunset Terrace Apartments - Hampton Street LID • Basement - Maurice & Marion Williams - Hoodview LID • Non-Remonstrance Agreements - Archdiocese of Portland • Street Dedication Agreement - Archdiocese of Portland (s) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to accept and authorize the appropriate signatures. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 18. RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT - FARMER'S INSURANCE (a: Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to receive and file report. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 _-mow.. x -- 19. APPROVE PURCHASE OF SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 82-90 TRANSFERING FUNDS. (a) notion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to approve purchase and ratify Resolution No. 82-90 to transfer funds. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 20. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 82-91 RATIFYING CALL FOR BID ON LID #37 (a) Notion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to approve Resolution No. 82-91. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 21. CANVASS VOTE FROM AUGUST 10, 1982 ELECTION TCYS MEASURE - YES - 475; NO - 531 (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to canvass vote from August 10, 1982 Election for TCYS Measure. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 22. CIVIC CENTER REPORT (a) City Administrator reported that the 20 year financing plan was defeated at the polls recently and that the Civic Center Committee has recosmended the City return to the voters in September with a lower dollar amount for the proposed project. He outlined some of the effects Ballot Measure #3 could have on G.O. Bond sales and stated that the Civic Center measure must be approved before November 2nd. City Administrator recommended the resolution be amended by removing the words "in a sum" from the ballot questions in order to keep the questions within the 20 word limit. (b) Mayor Bishop stated he could support these measures going to the voters since they previously expressed their dissatisfaction at the polls with voting on a single issue. He noted that this election would give the voters a choice as to what dollar amount they felt was appropriate. (c) RESOLUTION NO. 82-92 d RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY THREE MEASURES AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF TIGARD TO SELL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE PURCHASE, CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TYGARD CIVIC CENTER. (d) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve Resolution No. 82-92 as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1962 I'VE ARM-ENK MAYOR BISHOP ANNOUNCED HE WOULD BE CALLING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE AGENDA s 7 ITEM NO. 14 23. SIGN CODE AMENDMENT (a) City Administrator requested Council approve ordinance to give an extension of time for the completion of the sign code study. He recommended the code be changed to read December 31, 1982. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 82-53 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.24 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL COPT BY EXTENDING THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SIGN REGULATIONS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (c) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 24. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION 2-82, Milligan (a) Associate Planner Newton synopsized alternatives available in this matter and brief history of issues stating that Council requested staff study issue at their August 16, 1982 meeting. Staff recommended that the City Council pursue alternative amending the zoning code so that General Retail would be a conditional use in a C-4 zone. This would allow general retail in the zoning designation and would allow a review of each use application before the Hearings Officer. This requirement would enable staff to review each _• application on an individual basis and make a determination as to whether or not the application meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use. COUNCILOR SCHECKLA ARRIVED: 7:56 P.M. (b) Ryan O'Brian, representing the owner of the property, said that since the City Attorney seems uncomfortable with the Planning Commission action on this issue, because of a lack of adequate findings, he would rather this be remanded back to the Planning Commission and would like Legal Counsel to state why he can't support the requested use. Mr. O'Brian stated his client is hesitant to enter into a conditional use permit for the property which he wishes to buy. He feels the second best alternative is to have the property zoned C-3, but wants it zoned C-4 if possible. (c) After lengthy discussion, Councilor Cook moved to have staff start the process for a code amendment to allow general retail as a conditional use in & .C-4 zone. Motion seconded by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. RECESS: 8:11 P.M. PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL MEETING CONVENED: 8:11 P.K. 25. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Wilbur Bishop, Tom Brian, John Cook, Reaneth Scheckla, Nancie Stimler; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; City Administrator, Bob Jean; Clerk I, Penny Liebertz; Planning Director, William Monahan; Legal Counsel, Tim Ramis; Deputy City Recorder, Loreen Wilson. 26. ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT (a) City Administrator gave a brief update on the Advisory Committee and Subcommittees work to date and stated that the Advisory Committee recommended to defer the election date on the TURA issue to May, 1983 for the following reasons. e A ballot measure in November containing the words "tax increment financing" would be doomed to failure in light of the presence on the ballot of Measure 03 (1 1/2Z Limit) . • Support of the City Council is necessary to make the project a success and TURA should give its full support to the revitalization program including the authorization of tax increment financing. (b) Agency Member Bishop stated that the Advisory Committee was established in November, 1981 at the same time TURA stated there would be an election November, 1982. He felt the committee was out of order in suggesting an election in May or any other date than �. November, 1982. (c) Agency Member Scheckla stated that the City would lose credibility if it pushes the election back to May. (d) Agency Member Stimler questioned why the City appoints volunteers to committees if the Agency or Council will not listen to them and their reasoning. (e) Agency Member Bishop statbd he did not object to the recommendation but feels it improper. 27. ADJOURNMENT OF TURA MEETING: 8:23 P.M. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 8:23 P.M. 28. ORDINANCE NO. 82- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 81-1248 ENACTED DECEMBER 21, 1981 RELATING TO THE DATE OF A SPECIAL ADVISORY ELECTION OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN ON NOVEMBER, 1982. (a) Mayor Bishop questioned why Legal Counsel prepared the ordinance when Council did not direct him to. (b) Legal Counsel stated that an individual Council member can request the City Attorney to draft an item for Council review and that until Council takes action to adopt it would be just a proposal for review. PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 so A Boom (c) City Administrator stated if Council wished to adopt ordinance he would recommend it be amended by striking any reference to a "general" election as May, 1983 will not be a general but special election day. (d) Notion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Stimler to adopt ordinance as amended. (e) Councilor Brian stated that when this issue was considered last November, a full Council was not present. Since Councilor Scheckla would not approve ordinance without calling for election in November, 1982, anti the ordinance had to pass by unanimous vote at its first reading tO allow the City to take advantage of the tax increment financing the first year. Council members voted for the ordinance. Councilor Brian stated the record should show that at that time the full Council was not in agreement with the November election date. Councilor Brian went on to say that it would be best to not place this issue on the November ballot since Ballot Measure #3 could effect the outcome of the vote. Also with a new Planning Director, who has experience in area, it would seem appropriate to wait until he has a chance to make some recommendations on the issue before attempting to hold an election. (f) Mayor Bishop stated he support TUBA and the concept of tax increment financing, but felt it should be able to go to the voters for endorsement. He stated that if Council did not vote to hold an t election in November, he would work to put the measure on as an initiative measure. (g) Councilor Cook asked Councilor Scheckla if he supported the TUBA concept. Councilor SchAckla reponded that he didn't really support it. (h) After further discussion on the merits of a November or May election, question was called for on Ordinance. Notion to adopt Ordinance failed by 2-3 majority vote of Council. Councilors Cook and Scheckla and Mayor Bishop voting nay. (i) RESOLUTION NO. 82-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ADVISORY ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY THE QUESTION OF USING TAB INCREMENT FINANCING AS ONE METHOD OF FUNDING PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD REVITALIZATION PLAN. (j) Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve and call for election on November 2, 1982. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. PAGE 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 SFrs3 . _www .— — 29. HAMPTON STREET, STREET AND SEWER LID, #22 (a) Public Roaring opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (b) Director of Public Works summarized the project and noted t:iat this was a hearing to consider final assessments on the job. He noted that the final total cost was $471,490.91 of which $64,630.37 was the City's 15% match. (c) Public Testimony: Charles Hagel, 7035 SW Hampton, questioned when the first payment was due on the assessment and whether it was assumable upon sale of the land. City Administrator stated it would be March of 19E3, however, without the Finance Director at the meeting to confirm this, he would have the date placed in the letter accompanying the assessment application form as ratification of this date. Staff advised Mr. Hegel that the due-on-sale issue has not been completely discussed by Council to develope a policy, however, at this time Council is hearing each case on its own merits. (d) Director of Public Works recommended adoption of ordinance. (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) ORDINANCE NO. 82-46 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF STREET AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST HAMPTON STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #22), RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET .AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (g) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 30. TIEDEMAN AVENUE, SEWER LID, #29 (a) Public Hearing opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (b) Director of Public Works noted area of LID and stated that the method of assessment is 1/2 of the project on basis of # of connections fronting on the sewer and the other 1/2 cost is based on the # of equivalent dwelling units buildable on the lot (Residential based on zoning designation, Commercial based on 4 dwelling units per acre) . He stated the total assessable cost of the project is $116,708.61. PAGE 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 (c) Public Testimony: Coralyn Chaney, 11730 SW Tiodeman (tax lot 700) , stated objection to the method of assessment as her property was large enough for two dwelling units, howover, it was too narrow to allow access to an additional home built on the site. Gerald L. Anderson, 11645 SW Tiedeman, expressed concern regarding amount commercial properties are paying noting that they should pay a bigger share of the cost. Hugh Chaney, 11730 SW Tiedeman, questioned whether the bonds were for 10 or 20 years and stated the City has already promised 10% interest. City Administrator responded that the City is unable to sell 20 year bonds due to the economy, but that the City has commited to 10% on this project and will honor that. (d) Director of Public Works recommended Council adopt ordinance levying assessments either as distributed or with a change in the Chaney lot which would increase all other cssessments slightly. (e) Councilor Stimler questioned whether tax lot 603 should be adjusted since it was also a residential lot that could hold one more dwelling unit. Director of Public Works stated that tax lot 603 was not as narrow as { tax lot 700 and could have access to a unit built on the back portion of the lot. He would advise not adjusting the assessment amount for tax lot 603. (f) Public Hearing Closed (g) Consensus of Council was to figure assessment spread on the basis of 50.4 possible connections, deleting one potential connection on tax lot 700. (h) ORDINANCE NO. 82-47 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST TIEDEMAN AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #!29), RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (i) Motion by Councilor StYmler, seconded by Councilor Cook to direct Di-ector of Public Works to recalculate the direct proportionate assessment per Council's direction, send assessments notices on that basis on August 17, 1982; and have Council ratify that action by adopting Ordinance No. 82-47 on Wednesday, August 18, 1952. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. l" PAGE 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 � �' (mac � � � i[�ea"'�•�•� 31. HOODVIEW, SEWER LID, 032 (a) Public Hearing opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (b) Director of Public Works stated that there had been a discrepency in the listing of property Owners on the final assessment roll. Mr. Billings had been notified of the public hearing for tax lot 1720 and in fact the Lindgren's should have received that notice for tax lot 1729. Mr. Lindgren has signed a waiver of notification. Director of Public Works requested Council amend the ordinance► to reflect the name change. He gave brief synopsis of the project stating that the assessable cost was $27,826.53. (c) Public Testimony - On one appeared to speak. (a) Director of Public Works recommended adoption of levy ordinance as amended. (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) ORDINANCE NO. 82-48 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE FINAL COST OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST HOODVIEW LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #32), RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ` (9) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Arian to adopt as amended. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 32. 74TH AVENUE, STREET LID, #27 (a) Award Bid: Director of Public Works reported that a bid opening had been held at City Hall on 8-16-82 at 3:00 P.M. The following bids were received: Parker-Northwest Paving $73,892.50 R & R Excavating Co. ;70,830.00* Arenz & Hurl $75,466.45 Oregon Excavating $84,120.00 K. F. Jacobsen & Co. $93,125.00 Oregon Asphaltic Paving $69,292.50 Baker Rock Crushing $68,661.00** Cascade Construction $87,223.00 * Bid qualification: payment on unit prices. **Bid qualification: unit pricing will prevail. Engineer's Estimate - $74.450.00 Director of Public Works recommended award of the bid to the low bidder, Baker Rock Crushing, of Beaverton Oregon, in the amount of #68,661.00. PAGE 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16. 1982 (b) Notion by Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor Cook to award bid to Baker Rock Crush;ng for $63,661.00. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. (c) Public Hearing opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (d) Director of Public Works stated that the distribution of the assessments is based on a cap of $95,000 which council placed on the project. He stated that when job is complete and bonds sold any overage would be rebated to the property owners. FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY MECORDER ARRIVED (9:35 P.H. ) (e) Public Testimony - On one appeared to speak. (f) Director of Public Works recommended approval of ordinance to levy assessments. (g) ORDINANCE NO. 82-49 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 74TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #27) , RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND PRS-ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (h) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 33. TIGARDVILLE HEIGHTS, STREET LID, #28 (a) ACCEPT BID: Director of Public Works stated that thence was a bid opening at Tigard City Hall on 8-16-82 at 2:30 P.M. and the following bids were received: Charles Schmidt $189,668.97 Arenz & Hurl $196,192.33 Cascade Construction $256,881.00 K. F. Jacobsen Company $234,492.75 Pepper Construction $210.725.04 Baker Rock Crushing $195,344.72 Engineer's Estimate: $222.983.90 Director of Public Works recommended awarding bid to low bidder, Charles Schmidt of Newberg, Oregon in the amount of $189,668.97. (b) Notion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to award bid to Charles Schmidt in the amount of $189,668.97. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. PAGE 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 (c) Public Hearing opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (d) Director of Public Works stated the method of assessment is 1/2 of the cost on front footage and 1/2 cost on equivalent lot size. He noted that the corner lots were figured to the lot line and not the middle of the street. (e) Public Testimony: Fred Anderson, Attorney representing all owners of property abutting McDonald Street, stated that the area is being improved for the benefit on those parcels of land off of McDonald Street which want to develop. He stressed that all property owners along McDonald Street have boon opposed to the LID since its inception. Mr. lmderson continued by asking why McDonald is only being improved half way and felt it was an unfair and inequitable project because the other side of the street was not being improved. He also referenced a letter of remonstrance filed with the City by Mr. Lionel Domreis. Mr. Arlie Mawhirter, property owners of tax lots 200 and 104 on the corner of McDonald Street. He was apposed to the LID improvements on McDonald Streets and stated that the right-of-way required for the improvement would bring the road within 15 feet of his house and cut the access to his garage. Mr. Do rain asked the Council to answer the questions contained in his letter of remonstrance. At Mr. Anderson's request, Director of Public Works reported that the improvements to the middle of McDonald Street were proposed to be made because of City policy regarding half street improvements and stated that Mr. Mawhirter's driveway access to the garage will be improved. Since the street is an extra capacity street, the City will participate a total of 21%. or $51,000 and will include sidewalks on McDonald Street. Mr. Anderson stated there was insufficient notice given for the hearing. (f) Director of Public Works recommended levying the assessments as proposed. (g) Public Hearing Closed _ (h) Councilor Brian questioned staff if this project is being financed according to City Policy. Director of Public Works reported that this project would be done according to City Policy. (i) Councilor Scheckla questioned why Husvar property not paying very much in assessment costs. Director of Public Works stated that according to City Policy, LID's are not nzad for private development PAGE 12 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 and thus only the lots fronting on the street are being assessed for 125 feet deep. The rest of the project will be improved at the developer's cost. (j) ORDINANCE NO. 82-50 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-44 DETERMINING THE COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TIGARDVILLE HEIGHTS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #28), RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND PRE-ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (k) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt with amended assessmant roll as distributed by Director of Public Works. Approved by 3-2 majority vote of Council. Councilor Scheckla and Mayor Bishop voting nay. Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Brian to hear second reading of ordinance on August 18, 1982 and direct staff to mail assessment notices on August 17, 1982. Approved by 3-2 majority vote of Council. Councilor Scheckla and Mayo- Bishop voting nay. (1) Mayor Bishop requested Finance Director to prepare report for August 18, 1982 stating the cost to the City of the 11L interest which will f be picked up by the City on Hampton, Tiedeman and Tigardville Heights LIDS. 34. McKENZIE STREET, STREET LID, #36 (a) Public Hearing opened to consider the assessments and hear objections to method of distribution. (b) Director of Public Works noted area in assessment district boundaries and stated that the assessment method was on front footage only. The total assessable cost is $56,500. (c) Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. (d) Director of Public Works recommended adoption of ordinance to levy assessments. (e) Public Hearing Closed (f) ORDINANCE NO. 82-51 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 82-45 DETERMINING THE COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST MCKENZIE STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID 036), RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND PRE-ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. PAGE 13 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 W.�- �eej a�Pb Ls� —' S :sT.n (g) Notion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. RECESS: 10:30 P.N. 35. RIC CUTIVE SESSION: Tigard City Council went into executive session under ORS 192.660 (1)(f) to discuss issues relating to pending litigation. RECONVENE: 11:45 P.N. 36. 72ND AVENUE, STREET LID, #21 (a) Public Hearing opened to consider deficit assessment and hear objections to method of distribution. (b) Director of Public Works reviewed the deficit assessment roll and stated the purpose of spreading the assessment is that the right-of-way acquisition costs in the project have exceeded the $50,000 which was in the original assessment. The amount of deficit assessment is $505,377.50. Director of Public Works stated that the method of assessment is the same as the original assessment. (c) Public Testimony: Mayor Bishop stated that due to the lateness of the hour and the number of people signed up to speak, he would limit the public testimony to 30 minutes total. a Linda Nadeau, 20531 SW Prindle, Tualatin, stated that method penalizes those who have given right-of-way and with economic conditions as they exist currently $505,000 is too much. $50,000 should have been enough. • Lorraine Greco, 13425 SW 72nd Avenue, stated her property was not benefited and she opposed the project and the deficit assessment. s Rodger Glos, Timer Operators Council, Inc. , 6825 SW Sandberg Street, stated that from the Council's reversal of the original method of assessment and this deficit assessment he has paid three times the original amount and does not even have 72nd Avenue frontage which is where the right-of-way is being acquired. • Lenore Warner, 10300 SW Century Oak, questioned the need for a deficit assessment and what would happen if the City did not sell bonds. City Administrator reported that deficit assessment was needed because of increase in right-of-way acquisition costs and that if the City did not sell bonds they could go back to the property owners for that assessment amount. s Gus Greco, 13425 SW 72nd Avenue, waived rights to testify. • Beverly Hurt, 10645 SW Fairhaven Street, waived rights to testify. PAGE 14 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 e e Lewis J. Maddox, 16255 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd. , President of Quality Roving, stated method of assessment is unlimited and discussed problems with tank and water retention in area of his firm which has added concern and dissatisfaction with the project. Director of Public Works stated he would check the problems out regarding the tank and water retention. e Dan Kevin, Northern Yards on Landmark Lane, said he paid street costs when Landmark Lane was improved and felt the people benefiting from the deficit assessment were those persons within 200 feet of 72nd Avenue since this was for right-of-way acquisition. e Ted Nelson, Ted Nelson Company 14280 SW 72nd Avenue, stated this assessment was not fair and requested it not be levied. e Dwayne Moore, 520 SW Yamhill, Portland, stated he represented Southern Pacific and recommended Council consider different method of assessment. He suggested that an assessment based on area and not front footage would be more equitable. e John Skourtes, 17010 SW Weir Road, Beaverton, suggested another method of assessment would be more equitable. He requested the City share be 25% of the cost, 50% of the cost be borne by the people in the district which are charging for the right-of-way and 25% of the coat be spread among the other people in the district. a Roland Rose' , for the Ted Nelson Company, stated he wanted fair treatment for the Ted Nelson Company. e Tony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, apologized to Council for his outburst earlier in the meeting. He stated that if the Council adopted the deficit assessment that he would be required to sell his home. He requested the Council stop the project and restart later with a smaller scope and include the citizens in the Rolling Hills area in the district. e John Smets, 6830 SW Bonita Road, suggested paving the whole thing now and let the rest of the improvements go for awhile. e Hy Sadoff, ID #66, questioned what would be done if the City could not sell bonds. City Administrator stated that the City can assess the individuals. e Roger Gloss, Timber Operators Council on Sandburg Street, stated that he wanted to point out that his assessment was 295 , more than the original quote from the City. (d) Director of Public Works recommended spreading the assessment as proposed by staff since the method of assessment was the same as the _ original assessment. PAGE 15 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 (e) Public !:searing Closed (f) Councilor Brian asked staff if the method of assessment could be changed on the deficit assessment. City Administrator said the method could be different, but asked if there were any methods which would be more fair. Director of Public Works stated that if the method was changed there would still be people paying a larger amount than others and Council would still have individuals upset with the method. (g) Mayor Bishop stated that Council is aware the project has been long in the process and gave a brief synopsis of the history of the project. (h) City Administrator advised Council that some action is needed at this point, and gave options of the steps to be taken at this time. (i) ORDINANCE NO. 82-52 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE DEFICIT ASSESSMENT COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWEST 72ND AVENUE AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #21). RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE APPORTIONMENT AND DEFICIT ASSESSMENT OF THE COST TO RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, SPREADING THE DEFICIT ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIEN DOCKET AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (j) Motion by Councilor Stimler, seconded by Councilor Cook to adopt. Ordinance approved by a 3-2 majority vote of Council, Councilor Scheckla and Mayor Bishop voting nay. City AdmiD.iatrator stated ordinance would need a second reading to be adopted and stated this would be on the August 18, 1982 agenda for the second consideration and reading. COUNCILOR SCHECKLA LEFT: 1:03 A.M. 37. ORDINANCE NO. 82-54 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 81-50 BY EXTENDING THE DATE FOR EXPIRATION OF THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE WITHIN TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND pECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (a) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Stimler to adopt. -`s Approved by unanimous vote of Council praaent. 38. PARKS REPORT (a) Due to the lateness of the hour, staff recommended this report be considered at s future meeting. z C, Consensus of Council present to consider later 9 PAGE 16 — COUNCIL MINUTES — AUGUST 16, 1982 s 39. OPEN AGENDA: Consideration of 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. (a) Director of Public Works stated that the Walnut Street overlay could be done by the City with County funds, or the City could let the County do the work. The cost is estimated at $14,850. Consensus of Council present was to have staff do the Walnut Street overlay the fastest way possible. Staff is to report barb. 4n. ADJOURNMENT: 1:10 A.H. Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard PAGE 17 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 1982 Da to August 16, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City �^ Council on the following item: (Please print your name) 1.3 Call to Staff, Council, and Audience for Non-Agenda Z[ems Linder Open Agenda Name, Address & Affiliation Item Description �,+visc�Y�lflii.sJ afX 1W aa" Date August 16, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description:_ 8, HAMPTON STREET, STREET & SEWER LID, #22 Proponent (for) ! Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation I Name A res and Affiliation I �s .5 i! III I Date August 16, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: 9, TIEDEMAN AVENUE, SEWER LID, 429 Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation .I Y1` C Ua Ee - Augusts 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: ln_ HC%ODVIEW, SEWER LID, #32 Proponent (for) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation it - I r r ua Le August 16, 198 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item; (Please print your Wane) Item Description: li. 74TH AVENUE STREET LID #27 Proponent (for) Opponent (against) name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation to N t is,.. Ua Ce August 1b, 1982 X- I wish to ces tify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: 12. TIGARDVILLE HEIGHTS, STREET LID #28 Proponent (for) =Opponent (against) `ame, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 6;-" ca'4w-s"T eg �avi-r T� 104 -,-2o0 1► va Le August 16, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) Item Description: 13. MCKENZIE STREET, STREET LID 9236 Proponent (for) =Opponentagainst) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation t t! L . August 16, I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) �'L 3 Item Description: 14. 72ND AVENUE, STREET LID, 421 roponent (for) ` Opponent (against) -ame, Address and Affiliation, + Mame, Address and Affiliation IV �/hiY • crc�G ccc r w ,o S 3d S w r nd L � e o v N d � •vfft � 1Z�. Lrwoee • Tc�p2o US ie� i o1 41 l :e' - /0 M �c1c10 5 A:- u r G Kes 1 _ o z 4 c?l� 27- C- 83 o S�--J `t3pvJ ..T"n Yt. ri-t va ce _ AUGUST 16, 1982 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (please print your name) Item Description: 14. 72ND AVENUE, STREET LID, #21 Proponent (Eor) Opponent (against) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation � r f F, �- — 0 � -� S w vw F i n 2 � �F9vF�i�.✓ r-- f August 16, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Finance Director/City Recorder/0�4/-- Subject: APPROVAL OF BILLS - 8-16-82 COUNCIL MEETING Staff would like to request the attached Bills For Payment added to the consent agenda at this evening's meeting. These bills payable are ones which need payment immediately. Bills Payable per attached list - $329,744.40 DeHaas & Assoc. Progress Pay.#22 (Engineering) - $ 20,567.87 DeHaas & Assoc. Progress Payment #2 (Const.) - $120,914.91 TOTAL PAYABLE - $471.227.18 lw ' _i ` PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL PROGRAM BUDGET JULY 31 , 1982 Community Services Policie 6,011 .48 Finance & Records 2,664.41 Municipal Court 121 .88 Library 573.42 Social Services Total Community Services 9,371 . 19 Community Development Public Works 9,608.95 Planning & Development 873.73 Total Community Development 10,4 2.68 Policy & Administration Mayor & Council 209.32 Administration 751 .28 Total Policy & Administration 960.60 City Wide Support Functions Non—departmental 541 .58 Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc.) 283,210.05 Investments DEBT SERVICE General Obligation Bond Bancroft Bond & LID Expenses 25, 178.30 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY Contract ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES Civic Center Project TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 329,744.40 i a . i August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Finance Director/City Recorder Aq Subject: Minutes and Bills Payable — August 16, 1982 Due to the backlog of work (i.e. lawsuits, accelerated LID schedules, audit requirements, and new fiscal year data entry on the computer and books), the Council minutes from July 26 and August 2 and the bills payable will not be available at this meeting. We hope to have some of this ready to present at the August 23rd meeting. lw 7-30-�� LANDIS, AF—Bi Sc BAILEY, P. C. LAWYERS E ' 1516 GEORGIA—PACIFIC BUILDING PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1276 TELEPHONE(503)224-6532 DAVID C.LANDIS FRED M.AEBI JBp (]p OE D. AILEYMERCERJuly 28, 1982 JOHN C.MERCER JAMES M.CALLAHAN ANNA M.MORAN DAVID R.FOSTER VICKI HOPMAN YATES Mr. Robert Jean City Administrator City of Tigard P. O. Bos 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bob: Tigard v. Paterson, et al Last week I sent out a copy of Judge Bonebrake' s opinion letter for distribution to the mayor and council. I have also spoken with Ed Sullivan about the decision. This decision means, of course, that the Patersons can continue to collect hookup fees in the designated area until the Unified Sewerage Agencies interceptor is built. (Of course there is at least one other alternative: the City could buy the line at the depreciated cost. ) Based on my long experience with the City Council concerning this contract it seems clear to me that the City will not wish to appeal this decision. If I should turn out to be wrong about that I will need to know that relatively soon. I don't yet know what date the judgment was signed, though I believe it was about the 22nd of July. The time allowed for filing a notice of appeal is 30 days. If the Council wished to have the case appealed that decision should be made at the next meeting of the City Council. As I say, I do not expect that, and I cannot encourage it. truly yo rs, ai ley i JDB/mr August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Finance Director/City Recorder Subject: Nominations for Council Positions Nominating petitions with the required signatures of 25 qualified electors have been received as follows: Position of Mayor: Wilbur A. Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane Gary L. Fox Sr., 10395 SW Johnson Court Jerry A. Greco, 12160 SW Lincoln Street Aldace N. Howard, 10080 SW Picks Court Council Position #3: John Allan Paterson, 11605 SW Manzanita John Schwartz, 15900 SW 76th Avenue Ima B. Scott, 14873 SW 106th Avenue Council Position #4: Tom Brian, 7630 SW Fir Street The petition nominating Aldie Howard is being rejected based on residency requirements per the City Charter. I am in the process of notifying all eligible persons of their nomination and upon receipt of their written acceptance will place their names on the November ballot. For all candidates an information packet is being prepared consisting of the budget, prospectus, loaner copy of the Tigard Municipal Code and other material as requested on a loan basis. If they want to keep the material, we will charge the regular fee. If the Council has further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me or remove the item from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. lw CITYO TIVARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 5, 1982 Mr. Aldie Howard 10080 SW Picks Court Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Aldie: Based on evidence I have, you had a break in your Oregon residence by establishing your domicile in Kodiak, and when you registered to vote in Alaska on October 26, 1981. Consequently, I find that you do not meet nomination provisions in the City charter which says: "Section 31. NOMINATIONS. A qualified elector within the meaning of the r state constitution, who shall have resided continually for a period of twelve (12) months or more immediately proceding the election in any area which is within the corporate boundaries of the City...may be nominated for an elective position." I am not therefore going to place your name on the November 2, 1982 ballot as candidate for Mayor. I intended to speak with you about this, but am notified that you are currently out of town. I am taking this opportunity to notify you by letter of my action. Sincerely, Doris Hartig City Recorder DH:lw CC: Cit ttorney, t3 Administrat6 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OP,EGON 97223 PH:639-4171 MMJ&MffJ®IIIM4M MIL.rr XMK AMMi�=M-M MW AM_ O'DONNELL. SULLIVAN & RAMIS DATE August 4, 1982 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO- Doris Hartig, Tigard City Recorder PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM: Ed Sullivan, Tigard City Attorney RE: Aldie Howard Candidacy & Election Questions As per your request, attached please find a copy of the research done by our office on whether Aldie Howard fulfills the residency requirement contained in- Tigard's City Charter and whether such requirement is constitutional. Also attached is the research we have done on three questions you posed regarding. write-in candidates and petitions. a a { O'DONNELL. DATE August 3, 1982 I. SYLLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 150,: 222-4402 FROM BBM RE- Tigard City Recorder' s Research Request - A die Howard Can i.dacy BACKGROUND Aldie Howard owns a house within the City of Tigard. Between October 20, 1981 and July 8, 1982, Howard was employed in Kodiak, Alaska. On July 26, 1982, Howard submitted to Doris Hartig, the Tigard City Recorder, a nominating petition for the position of Mayor, City of Tigard, requesting that his name be placed on the November ballot. Doris wants your opinion on whether or not Howard is a qualified candidate. The Tigard Charter, Section 31, states that only a qualified elector, pursuant to the Oregon Constitution, who has continuously resided within the city for a period of at least twelve months, is a qualified candidate. ISSUES 1. Whether the residence requirement in 5 31 of Tigard's -Charter is constitutional. 2. Whether Howard fulfills the residency requirement contained in Tigard's Charter. CONCLUSIONS 1. The residency requirement will probably be held constitutional if litigated, based on the weight of authority from other states. 2.a. It is most probable that as used in the Charter, "resided" will be construed to mean domicile, in which case Howard' s qualification becomes a question of fact to be determined by the election official - the City Recorder. 2.b. It is possible "resided" would be construed to mean residence, in which case Howard is not a qualified candidate. DISCUSSION 1. City Charter provisions and state statutes requiring one year' s residency requirement within the city limits before one is eligible to run for office have been challenged as being uncon- stitutional infringements on the rights of travel, association, free speech, and due process, as well as an infringement of the equal protection clause. In every state, except California, the one-year residency requirements have been upheld. ' See 65 ALR2d 1048, 9 22 (b) . In each case there is a balancing done by the courts. The burden is on the city or state to show that the residency BBM:ial 8/3/82 Page 1 O'DONNELL. DATE August 3, 1982 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM BBM RE: Tigard City Recorder' s Research Request - Aldie Howard Candidacy requirement is reasonable in light of the compelling interest in having candidates who will be "exposed to the needs and problems" of the people. Lawrence v. City of Issaquah, 84 Wa2d 146, 524 P2d 1347 (1974) . This same balancxng test has been used in Arizona (Trianov v. Massion, 109 Ariz 506, 513 P2d 935 (1973) , - Colorado (Cowan v. Aspen, 509 P2d 1269 (Colo 1973) ) , and Florida (Daves v. Longwood, F Supp 503 (M.D. " la 1976) ) , all of which have found a one-year requirement to be reasonable. Two states have applied the more stringent "strict scrutiny" constitutionality test because of the important rights the residency requirement touches upon. California courts have consistently held that any residency requirement in excess of 30 days is unconstitutional, because there are alternatives that place less burden On the candidate's constitutional rights. Johnson v. Hamilton, 15 Cal3d 461, 125 Cal Reporter 129, 541 P2d 881 1975 ;Smi*thy.' Evans, 42 CalApp3d 154, 116 Cal Reporter 684 (1974) ; Thompson v.: Mellon, 9 Cal3d 96, 107 Cal Reporter 20, 507 P2d 628 (1973) . The California courts relied principally upon Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330(1972) , as the basis for their decisions. In Dunn, the U.S. Supreme Court held a one-year residency requirement as a qualification to voting to be unconstitutional. Most of the state courts that have addressed the _candidacy residency requirement have correctly distinguished the Dunn case on its facts. Further, Alaska has applied "strict scrutiny" tests and still found the candidacy residency require- ment to be constitutional. Castner v. Homer, 598 P2d 953 (Alaska 1979) . Therefore, if the Oregon courts follow the better rule, adopted by the majority of the states addressing the question, it would uphold the Tigard Charter imposed residency requirement. 2.a. Tigard's Charter places two restrictions on prospective candi- dates: they must be qualified electors, pursuant to the Oregon Constitution and state statutes; and they must have continuously resided in the city for twelve months prior to the election. The threshold issue in determining Howard' s qualification is to define "resided" as used in the Charter. "Residence" has various meanings depending on the context of the statute in which it appears. ' School: Dist., 16-R Umatilla' County v. McCormtaach, 238 Or 51, 392 P2d 19 (1964) . Residence ' has pri- mar1ly been defined in three types of cases - divorce, voting, and school tuition cases. In the school tuition cases, residency does not require legal domicile, but does require habitation with a degree of perma- nency. Id. , at 1022; 'but *see West V. Bowers," , Or , 502 P2d 270 (1972) (Domic�a required or "resident student" BBM:ial 8/3/82 Page 2 O'DONNELL. DATE August 3, 1982 SULLIVAN & RAMIS A`fTORNEYS AT LAW To: EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 (5031 222-4402 FROM: BBM RE: Tigard City Recorder' s Research Request - Aldie Howard Candidacy status in state colleges) . In the voting matters, residency also does not require domicile. 35 Or Att'y Gen. 933 (1972) ; West, supra. Divorce cases, however, hold that the word "resident," as used in the state statutes determining divorce jurisdiction, means domicile. Elwert v. Elwert, 196 Or 256, 248 Ptd 847 (1952) . This interpretation has its roots in an early Federal case, Owens v. Huntling, 115 F2d 160 (9th Cir. 1940) , holding "resident" as used in a state statute relating to militiamen, actually meant domicilliary. The residency requirement for candidates for city posts would probably be construed to mean domicile rather than residence. Residence requires only an intent to live in a place for a time; domicile requires not only intent to live in a place, but the intent to make a home there. ' Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 175 Or 585, 155 P2d 293 (1945) . Residency requirements have been upheld as constitutional because there is a need for the candidate to have the requisite information to serve the community and, it can be implied, a desire to serve. If one is only a resident, the primary element required to show a desire to serve is missing, e.g. , there is no intent to stay in the community. Further, Gregg McMurdo at the Secretary of State' s Office told`` me they generally construe a residency, as used in state elec- tion laws, to meat. domicile. To make a finding that Aldie Howard' s domicile has been the City of Tigard for the last twelve months, one must be able to answer the following questions affirmatively: 1. Is there a dwelling place in which Howard resides within Tigard. 2. When the dwelling place was established, did he intend that it become his home. Assuming the answers are both "yes," did Howard change his domicile to Alaska; if so, he was not a resident within the meaning of Tigard's Charter because a person can have only one domicile. -Zimmerman, .supra. Therefore, if when he moved to Alaska Howard had the intent to make his dwelling in Alaska his permanent home, even if he only had that intent for a moment, the continuity of his domicile in Tigard was broken. To decide if it was Howard's intent to make his Alaska dwelling f his home, consider the following: BBM:ial 8/3/82 Page 3 MEN= MME O'DONNELL. DATE August 3, 1982 SULLIVAN & RAMIS g TTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET TO EJS PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: BBM RE' Tigard City Recorder's Research Request - Aldie Howard Candidacy Taken from the Restatement, Conflict of Laws (1934) : 1. A home is a dwelling place of a person, distinguished from other dwelling places of that person by the inti- macy of the relation between the person and the- place. 2. In determining whether a dwelling place is a person' s - home, consideration should be given to: Its physical characteristics; the time he spends therein; the things he does therein; the persons and things therein; his mental attitude toward the place; and his intention when absent to return to the place. 3. To acquire a domicile of choice, a person must establish a dwelling place with the intention of making it his home. 4. The fact of physical presence at a dwelling place and the intention to make it a home must concur; if they do so, even for a moment, the change of domicile takes place. 5. A person cannot change his domicile by removal to a new dwelling place without an intention to make the new dwelling place his home. 6. The intention required for the acquisiton of a domicile of choice is an intention to make a home in fact, and not an intention to acquire domicile. In short, the question of whether or not Howard's domicile changed is one of fact, to be determined primarily from his intent. The second half of the candidacy test requires the candidate to be a qualified elector. Requirements for a qualification are set out in Oregon Constitution, Art. II, § 2, and at ORS 247.035. Notice, however, that Gregg McMurdo cautioned me that ORS 247 .035 is an old statute that is of questionable value as a practical tool today. In any event, the second half of the test is of little importance, because if Howard is found to have kept his domicile in Oregon, the voter qualification will not be an issue. 2.b. If "resided" is construed to mean residence, Howard is not a qualified candidate because he did not continuously live in BBM:ial 8/3/82 Page 4 O'DONNELL. DATE August 3, 1982 S)JLLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO: EJS 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM: BBM RE: Tigard City Recorder's Research Request - Aldie Howard Candidacy the city for the twelve months prior to the election. Although one could argue legislative plain meaning" to support such a construction, the construction outlined in 2.a., su ra, is a _ more likely result. BBM:ial 8/3182 Page 5 +� O-DONNELL. GATE August 3 , 1982 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ,• ATTORNEYS AT LAw 1727 NW HOYT STREET TO EJS f'ORTI_AND. OREGON 97209 15031 222.4402 FROM BBM RE Tigard City Recorder Research Request - Election Questions QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a candidate who does not qualify as a candidate under the Tigard City Charter can be elected as a write-in candidate. 2. Whether an elector may sign more than one petition for each vacant position for any city-elected position. 3 . Whether the current procedure requiring the City Recorder to fill out nominating petitions before circulating them is proper. CONCLUSIONS 1. A candidate elected by the write-in procedure cannot assume office unless he meets both state and city qualifications, assuming none of the qualifications are unconstitutional. 2. This issue is moot as a result of the May, 1982 amendment to Section 31 of the Tigard Charter. 3. This procedure is probably valid. DISCUSSION 1. Article VI, S 9, Oregon Constitution, allows cities to regulate the qualifications of candidates for municipal office. The residency requirement found in Section 31 of the Tigard Charter is not unconstitutional '(see the memo relating to the Aldie Howard candidacy) . Oregon law on the topic of write-in elections is sparse. The only applicable statute is ORS 254 .145, which requires election officials to leave a blank on the ballot for the possible insertion of a write-in candidates' name. Neither my research nor a discussion with Gregg McMurdo at the Secretary of State' s Office has turned up any law on this poi-nt. It is McMurdo's position, however, that any constitutional requirement relating to candidacy apply to write-in candidates as well as candidates elected through the standard nominating procedure. An argument can be raised to support the position that the qualifications set out in Tigard' s Charter do not apply to write- in candidates because such candidates are not specifically referenced in the Charter, but §12 probably applies to -write-ins. 2. Cone of the amendments to the Tigard City Charter that was passed on May 18, 1982, removed the provision stating that each elector could sign only one petition for each vacant position_ A May 18 amendment added the sentence, The procedures for nomination and election for elective city positions shall be governed by the election laws of the State of Oregon, or by city ordinances . . . _" BBM: ial 8/3/82 Page 1 DATE August 3, 1982 S.ULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9727 N.W. HOYT STREET TC EJS `PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM $BM 1 RE- Tigard City Recorder Research Request - Election Questions Current state law provides: " [A]ny elector may sign . . . nominating petitions or certificates of nomination for more than one candidate for the same office." ORS 249.076. In light of the Max 18 amendment, and ORS 249.076, an elector in the City of Tigard is not prohibited from signing more than one nominating petition for each vacant position. 3. The Tigard City Council has instructed the City Recorder to fill in the name, address, position sought and date of election on each nominating petition before allowing the petition to be circulated. The state currently has a s4.m. ilar, although different, procedure. ORS 249.061 states: . "Before circulating a nominating petition, the candidate shall deliver to the officer with whom the petition will be filed, a copy of the prospective petition signed by the candidate. " As with question No. 2 above, the question of filling out nominating petitions is also now governed by state ?_aw because of the May 18 Charter Amendment. Therefore, until the council takes official action, in the form of an ordinance, the procedure set out in ORS 249_061 (2) should be followed by the Recorder. BBM:ial 8/3/82 Page 2 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 12, 1982 FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Monthly report for month of July, 1982 July's building activity included permits for 8 signs, 15 single family residential, 5 residential alter & repair, 2 religious(see list), 3 commercial alter & repair, 1 swimming pool, 1 pole structure for storage for a total valuation of $1,323,802.00. Fees for 27 permits $ 9,882.25 Fees for 8 signs 155.00 Plumbing activity - 18 1,555.30 Mechanical Activity - 17 408.50 t. Business Licenses - 478 17,207.00 TOTAL $ 29,218.05 Sewer Permits - 20 700.00 Sewer Inspections - 20 14,925.00 King City had no building activity during the month of July, 1982. �3�'1�Jya•9'a!'E�tvQ>��'1®'1®'7ii'>av e•tis O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl O H O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O Cl G O O O E1� t- Ln N O u1 O N Ln Ln -,7 Cn Ln n O O 00 O O %D O O O O N O Ln O r-1 O r- O O -,P N D\ %0 -,7 O %0 N N ON r♦ ON N CO Cl) �D N O Cr1 N 00 t` D\ 00 - tp %D %D %D Ln Ln zr 00 r- cD %D %D %o 00 ZD r-d 00 rl N m t/} 0 •4 1 JJ W b , O O µ W 0 F3 aOi � O O W iJ O 0 • 4 O L m p4 a u W a W a) to w - -4 U , J-) r. 0 0 Cl 0 (D C) C) 0 O U Q •rt to O 0000 0000 O a) rl • w a aJ OOONLAOON N w w w w w W a) -A -4 cis 000crnLr) %0t- O ---------- 0 W w w w 3 0 O r4 0 zr Ln cn rt r- W W W W CO E o ca cd cd cdv. ca P4 C. .� r I .--t r4 r4 r-t r1 r-+ r-t r-1 r-c r-t r-t r-t r-c r-t rt '4 r-t r4 r-a U r-4 •-4 . p <41- CC 1YcC W ca ca W W W W W W W W W W CO W W W W W N`r4 rl .-4 .W o Sr •ri •rt •4 •ri -rt •ri •.-1 -4 •ri -.-1 •ri •rt •rt •d •rl •rl •.-1 -4 •rt •ri -0 m W W CO •rt •rt i.) iJ JJ 4J JJ 4J 4J dJ 4J iJ iJ dJ JJ JJ 4J iJ JJ JJ •rt 0 •rt -A •rt .tJ JJ C G p Q G 1r a a g G G a d t~ a Q a 0 3 0 0 0 U 0 a d a) a) N a) d a) a) EJ a) a) N d a) d N a) N d a) • -A 14 w w 0 N -a -a -a -a -a -o -a -a -a -a -a •a -a -a -Yr •a r+ oo v 03 b -a W •H -4 -d -A •rt •rt •rl •rt -.-1 -A •rt •ri •rc •ra •rt •r1 •4 •r4 •ri •ri .0 •r-I � a g •rl •.-1 N >4 d d 0) N N N N 0) a) N N am) N N am) a) a) N w w ro N 0 O o d N 00 CO H w w w w W w H w w w w w w w w w H w w w N w U U U w w M a% r-1 N r-4 00 ON •� U JJ O ti C13 G .n 1 w ra 3 >+ 3 b � •w •w 41 aJ - W b a a H aJ a) H A A to to A *-4 N Z co z W 'J JJ JJ C1 •r1 .-I w U O b O H >+ a b b w w O tJ —*, 41 H a) iJ JJ cC En r 1 g x U W >, O ar O O W WaU W w W HbwEn 3 JJ to • w 3 -- . cam aJ H d 3 Q - w zW U 4j +• o o a) w a +J O En n 3 +J •rl U U 3 3 PQ Pel W O W 0 a) W m w to co m 04 W 0o A N a) U +J O H W a U U 6+ •.a O H U w u ra ra •rt d 03 ra -0 •rt 0 O q W W a) 10 a) a) W m m m0) w w W w r-4 N •r+ ca O o W P4 W 10 w W 44 0 r-4x x a) 0 ? .0 .0 .0 1~ LJ .-4 l (L) p N ra r-r w W O O W N aJ •a 4J 6 r-1 a) u •r-I G 41 0 w 0) r-+ aJ JJ iJ GV 00 4J aJ DC $ (. •rl JJ ra aJ w W .0 WW CO C. W •ra H U a) Y+ m u •rl O..-4 O W as w D,m ON W N G W W O G-4 0 a) w a) 41 a) u u :�4 O r4 6 w p O •ra •ra 0 W W E@ W 04 F4 En W CO 00 00 b4 -4 .-4 W W tZ = 0 C/3 U to N H �. V3 Q V P4 0 :E 0 E-40 CD En =3 pq CO -44 44 w U U N � a �E' W z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 cn3 3 3 H 3 Cd 3 3 3 3 3 H 1-1 3 33 3 3 33 3 3 -a a A to to En to U CA coEn cn En CA En En to to Cn 0; 0W0v] b a to to En to O a cn W En C/3W cn co M -rc cn Cn Qi m En Cn 0; H H O Ln Ln Ln in wi Ln Ln Ln an Ln O O O O O94 O ca r-+ a% 00 Ln QA O r4 ch 0% CO � O CO Ln M O% � N cn � O � %0 r-, Ln Ln 0% C% 1- %0 u'1 M O w 3 N 00 Ln Ln cn wi Q' r4 a1 ri r-d r4 r4 .N-1 rpt r- � r 4 r-t r 4 -4-4 r-i 00 r4 M r-t r 4 rt 0% 00 N %D O CO Q.• V] 00 00 O -4 r-1 %D -4 U H H J-) a) 6 m M4 x O W r-+ O a D a) O Q LJ U b C U rn •4 C? N Cd O Ey H O C) O U U O ,O CO •Oi w x U A .0 U -4 •• a G O ?+ U r-+ W w a) JJ -a w w ca 0 O •.a 1� • •tf 1-i •rt . r-+ F',. • U r•4 .L' O O to A.,4 W r4 y - W to .0 41 u -4 O +J =5 •rl to U 9: w 00 w = H •rt E3 t3. N • -a o O N N u W a) m m W •rt m m w O a) O OO q O U O W ru p ? 00 ra U U El 0 W >r 0 u a) 3 +J a) �." iJ U 13 a) U ra •r, -rl •rt w 1 �+ -a w O co N -a •r+ O O o 0 0 N u 0 O co O r•+ r-t aJ w M W U m w Q • aJ W U a A -4O W Fa W U CU 0 0 C: 0 0 U V. m x .0 • W U N e W y W >% W O U W to W pq CU ? ? -4 �'. Ftr' O w x r', O w •ra iJ b 0 " •ra to H w O -0 N S W •rt 6 W 04 4J W W r-a r-t rc w w 41 JJ a) a U N w A m G w a 3 O H iJ O -0 Z 1-i w c+ is O W b w A A N N N U m x x CO m x r 4 O 2J d O CO aJ H to a) G = O U .0 0 E-1 W O 0 A JJ JJ w w C w 0 W a) W iJ m0 FLS m x O tJ U W •-1 W L: w V w 0 +-1 U U 'i. ?, 41 aJ At� W0 ccpp "4 r4 m W aJ m U s~ U a) W U p b O O O W . d U 3 ra -,.r •r+ w w as O O Q p 1 U E3 W O 0 w w EU JJ o •rt G a) P4 JJ ca w A A ?+ r L H 1r p a a U U) ED w = EU W u W w to w U W C 0o JJ u 41 >% H -0 w •r-1 -4 aJ aJ Ca .0 -a to, .0 -4 0 a) a oo 0 •.a }J w z O W R a aJ EU m CO H El E3 V. a = 6 W cc 93 w ca '. r-1 U O 'a .n y -• Cs. O C'J .0 U W w W •r+ ,C W U .4 = EOrAAUU W W cCAE- &400 � HLcGA W= 04+ P4 Pr404Z0 y cntn V CnAUHA :��..�o c,�rs�essyssrs�ie— TIGARD LIBRAIKY rUEMIC Ph 639-9511 12568 SW twain-Tigard," Or.97223 Monthly Report, July 1982 TO: LIBRARY BOARD CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY LIBRARIAN OVERDUES: With the implementation of new procedures in June, the Library Clerk began working on the backlog which accumulated during the changeover. One means for accomp- lishing the catch-up was assignment of desk duties temporarily to other staff members. Catch-up should be complete in early August. As also noted previously, the new forms seem to be eliciting a good response in returned materials and payment for lost materials. The circulation policy statement. is being revised to accurately reflect the procedures in place. NEW SIGNS: New signs saying "LIBRARY" have been placed over the entrance and on the south wall of the library building. The old sign blew down in last November's wind storm and was too badly damaged to be re-used. CIRCULATION: July saw an increase in circulation from 10,624 (June) to 11,667 -- 1,043 or 10%. Average daily circulation in June was 483; in July, 530. Each month had 22 service days. These two months' figures represent all time highs for circulation. Some of this is probably attributable to the publicity over the Civic Center issue as well as to the new signs. A second Gaylord charge machine had been ordered and arrived in time to handle the increase. - In an effort to curtail time spent on routine tasks, the library will now be receiving most of its magazines through EBSCO subscription service. This service will take care of renewals automatically and also offers a discount of 5%. This represents 86 subscriptions, a con- siderable saving in staff time. Additions, deletions can be made at any time. VOLUNTEERS: Thirteen volunteers worked a total of 159.5 hours, a daily average of 6.4. WORK INDICATORS: July '82 July ' 81 Adult books 710 5993 Juvenile books 3663 2868 Interlibrary loan 64 71 Magazines 498 265 Records/Cassettes 217 136 Other 35 15 Total Circulation 11,667 9,348 Days of service 22 21 Average daily circulation 530 445 % increase -- circulation 25% Reference/Reader's Advisory 549 324 Materials added 200 497 Materials withdrawn 16 265 Story Hour attendance 152 preschool 84 121 school age 50 Borrowers: new/renewal 222/156 185/ gnu Tigard Library Board - Monthly Report, July 1982 - page 2 MONEY COLLECTED: July '82 July ' 81 Fines/Mist. replacement 18.55 11.90 Lost books 34.00 29.50 Donations 31.50 45.50 Total $84.05 $86.90 YOUTH SERVICES: The increased circulation was also reflected in children's books -- 3663, another high total and again 1/3 of the month's total. Attendance at the story hours and special programs has been very good. For the pre-school and school-age story times, the average attendance has been 16. Game programs featuring Monopoly, Capture the Colors and Ches_ have been very successful. Crafts, movie and film- strip programs have all been well attended. A special new book presentation was repeated from last year. There has been a noticeable increase in the number of parents and children seeking reader's advisory service. At present we are researching book wholesalers to get as many books as possible with the available money. Coverage of our special programs in the TIGARD TIMES has improved. Efforts are being made to increase that coverage through the WCCLS Children's Section. ti POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JULY, 1982 TO: City Administrator FROM: Chief of Police I. Personnel: The department is still up to full strength (29) , there being no employee turnover this month. The average daily department strength was 15.0 as compared to 16.2 of July, 1981. By division the breakdown is as follows: Administration 1.6; Services Division 3.2; Patrol Division 8.3; and Investigative Division 1.9. II. Service Delivery: The department responded to 501 non-criminal calls for service this month in contrast to 529 calls in 1981; year-to-date 3,381. Patrol Division's obligated time was 1,191.1 hours vs. 886.5 non- obligated hours. III. Crime: There were 117 Part I crimes reported this month; only 96 were reported in July last year. Of the Part I crimes reported, 33 were cleared, or 28.2%. The department responded to 50 Part II crimes and 29 were cleared. There were 61 persons charged this month as compared to 68 for this same time period last year. Part I crimes increased 21.9% this month over July of 1981. The Investigative Division worked 31 active cases this month; and cleared 6, or 19.3% of the active cases. The property loss was $91,037.60, and $25,317.56 was recovered, or 27.8% IV. Traffic: Patrol Division responded to 26 accidents, of that number 8 were injury. There were 100 citations issued, as compared to 200 for this same time period last year. In addition, 57 warnings were given. The enforcement index was 7.87 V. Police Reserves: The Reserve Unit worked 226-1/2 hours this month assisting the department in policing the community. The majority of this time was spent out in the community on patrol and assisting citizens. See attached monthly report from the Reserves for a complete breakdown of their activities. C VI. Training: On July 16, Sgt. John Newman attended an 8-hour workshop on the "Awareness of Psychological Problems and Legal Issues in Shooting Incidents." This BPST sponsored class was held at the Forest Grove Police Department. VII. Community Relations: Officer Joe Grisham spent 38 man hours, and contacted 776 pre-school age children during the month of July, assisting with Safety Town held at Charles F. Tigard School. Respectfully submitted, Adams Chief of Police RBA:ac POLICE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATED MONTHLY REPORT FOR MONTH OF JULY 19 82 DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONNEL AVERAGE NUMERICAL STRENGTH DAILY ABSENCE � AVERAGE EFEECII`'E STRENGTH End of Same This Same This 3 Last Same this Month Month Month Month Month Month Month Last Last � Last Year Year Year TOTAL PERSONNEL 29 28 14.0 11.8 15.0 16.0 16.2 CHIEF'S OIFTICE 3 3 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 SERVICES DIVIS. 7 6 3.8 2.2 3.2 3.9 3.8 PATROL DIVISION 16 16 7.7 7.4 8.3 8.9 8.6 TRAFFICDIVIS. --------------------------- -------------------- --------- -------------------- INVEST. ------- ------- ----------- .INVEST. SECTION 3 3 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.4 2.0 FORCE ONE 13 12 6.5 5.3 6.5 6.5 6.7 FORCE TWO 9 aa 10 3.9 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.6 FORi..z 'THREE 7 i 6 3.6 2.1 3.4 4.3 3.9 - CHANGES IN PERSONNEL DAILY AVERAGE PATROL STRENGTH 1. Present for duty end of last month 29 This Same Month 2. Recruited during month 0 Month Last Year 3. Reinstated during month 0 1. Total number field officers 16 ,6 Total to account for 29 2. Less Agents As3ig- 4. Separations from the service: ned to Investigat., 0 0 (a) Voluntary resignation 0 3. Average daily abs- (b) Retirement 0 ences of field off- icers owing to: (c) Resigned with charges pending 0 (a) Natation, susp- - (d) Dropped dur: g probation 0 ension, days off, _ comp. time, etc. 7.7 7.0 (e) Dismissed for cause 0 _(b) Sick & Injured . .3 (f) Killed in line of duty 0 (c) Schools, etc. .1 (g) Deceased -Total average daily absences 7.7 -- .7.4 .Total separations 0 8.3 8.6 v. Available for duty - 5. ,"--esent for duty at end of month _29 "' Page on, TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Report I. I. Calls for Service: This Month 668 Year to Date 4,599 A. Obligated Time 1,191.7 B. Non-Obligated Time 886.5 II. PART I CRIMES %• No. Cleared Arrests A. Homicide 2 i 1 B. Rape 1 C. Robbery 1 1 5 D. assault 10 6 2 E. Burglary 37 7 11 F. Larceny 61 16 17 G. Auto Theft 6 2 1 Totals 117 33 37 III. PART II TOTALS % 50 29 24 TOTAL - Part I and II 167 62 61 IV. TOTAL PERSONS CHARGED: 61 a. Adult Male 25 C. Juvenile Male 32 t b. Adult Female 4 d. Juvenile Female 0 V. WARRANTS SERVED 3 VI. TOTAL PROPERTY LOSS S 91,037.60 TOTAL PROPERTY RECOVERED $ 25,317.56 VII. TRAFFIC a. Accidents Investigated 26 Injury Accidents 8 Fatal 0 b. Citations: VBR (Speeding) 20 Yield Right of Way 4 Following too Close 0 Red Light 10 Stop Sign 0 Improper Turn 1 Reckless Driving 3 Careless Driving 2 Driving under the Influence 6 Driving While Suspended 7 Other Hazardous 10 Non-Hazardous 37 Total Hazardous 63 C. Enforcement Index 7.87 d. Traffic Enforcement Totals Citations: This Month This Year 100Year to Date 1479 This Month Last Year 200 Last Year to Date 1721 Warninss This Month This Year 57 Year to Date 500 ` This Month Last Year 45 Last Year to Date 657 NOTE: •• - Part I Crimes (Major Crimes) Clearance Rate 28.2°6 �% - Part 11 Crimes (Minor Crimes) Clearance Rate 58.0° XXL if O C3 b i vs ftl HH C © J C H C to y C) t� L N . cl t • G PATROL PATROL DRIVING DIRECTED J PATROL R+' TRANSPORT PRISONER. COURT V 4 CLASSROOM TRAINING DISPATCH OFFICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPORT \ WRITING 00 J ACADEMY GN SPECIAL ®� DETAILS OQ � BADMINISTRATIO OTHER OTHER V T H ERR TOTAL U � — } � � �O HOURS ` NUMBER OF DAV. WORKED Cl H G] h m (n CITATIONS ~ WARNINGS ' N .IRITTEN- '2 WARNINGS VERBAL SUSPICIOUS_ PERSONS SUSPICIOUS VEHICLES ARREST � . :2REST ST ACATION �. OTHER Cl _ - z ' Va _c'- mww 0 ..s m f � f ------------- 1 �? --mg � r i 076ts- z � 9: JG c i s � � �r �-'•iia"`�i►a � � 12 :- .fesAle- _� ,.^ :-� -------- - - - ------ --- - --__ - - --- - - ^ 'SDC S!l - Z r51 t:!2) 004 l C.L�%�f ice/ �G��T-^! j %f•�L�•fy'!� 1-3 ,iso z7 Q i r _ vvavvr�r .r. x i tiJ -4 O co coi oH 4-1i a En ^1 d, u O ,y-i A b: $4 C) O u w � + G u ca •.+ w x-400 O >1 .r4 o a v r� C `` • O d O 41 04 O o z o U U b a N' 41 O' r- 4-4 C14 41 0 ,�4 U co •=1 o Z0% .-mo4 i -� y c 4.j \ I 0 z N a o N 4 U R'a x C O H 4-1 o- d En y O d Q•s \ u V FA E4 O W -13O p O Z QQO a \ � w W p O H bo H i awe \ w -� 41 -01 b N*4. ON to C L V Q e O N , a ca O 11 ca 41 N co N O fa b ao N A w H I o 3 to b v m p- —4 oL u u 4-J U .4 a r+ � 4.j G od y 0 a co, G` m a C N z u z o m cq 0 c� t9 'c3 L O � .0 O CO h U d u d Caj Aj C ca G G C N O b W W co0 ca bo ca �--1 p CL 4-1 M � MEJ L !A e-� L w 9 4 'y C. N u w C V U C/] cb N co rn 9:1rJ' m N L co b N 7 v u u 0 H a w an.i0a P~ cd (U v ate. a0 c a H z o 3 d MEMORANDUM August 9, 1982 TO: Mayor and Cit} Council FROM: Planning and Development Department SUBJECT: Codes Enforcement Attached is the report of the Building Division concerning Codes Enforcement. The period covered is July 1, 1982 through August 6, 1982. Henceforth the staff will compile regular statements concerning Code Enforcement activity. f CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT August 6, 1982 SIGN VIOLATIONS Name/Address Action Taken Mobile Oil Ser. Station Warning to remove certain signs, safety and Walnut and Pacific Hwy. non conforming. (Not complied 8/5/82) Heat Factory Ask to Remove all signs on vacant building. Greenburg & Pacific Hwy. (Diner did comply 8/2/82) JB Bishop Ask to remove two signs. One at motel and one Tool Shack - Main Street at Tool Shack. (No compliance on Tool Shack did remove one at motel. 12740 S.W. 111th Place A Frame Real Estate - ask to remove from public right-of-way. (No Compliance) Tigard Liquor Store A Frame. (Removed when asked 8/5/82) Burnham & Main OTHER VIOLATIONS Violation Name/Location Action Taken Resi-Its Noxious Veg. J. A. Robertson Written notice 7-1-82 Complied 7-14-82 Pac. Hwy. & School Noxious Veg. Lot 1 Ames Orchards written notice 6-24-82 Municipal Code Violation notice 7-26-82 Complied 7-31-82 Filling Flood Jadco Chem. Notified Violation Handled through Plain 16055 S.W. 74th 7-12-82 Sensitive Lands P.W. Director Use Application Traffic View 11685 S.W. N Dakota Notified verbally Complied 7-28-82 obstrusted by 7-20-82 Vegetation Complaint of smoke 15400 S.W. 72nd Notified D.E.Q. 7-20-82 D.E.Q. informed from trash burn violator 7-21-82 Use of Public/ 13385 S.W. 115th Informed violator Handled through Sensitive Lands given Sensitive Lands P.W./Planning Permit 7-22-82 Noxious Veg. 13775 S.W. Ash Written notice 7-22-82 Pending Noxious Veg. Scholls Ferry Rd. Written notice 7-30-82 Pending Delinquent Business various businesses Verbal/Written notices 90% completed Licenses 7-2-82 MUNK'NAMLZUK W.R-JLC s M E M O R A N D U M TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: AUGUST 12, 1982 SUBJECT: MACC/CABLE TV REPORT As of the August 11, 1982, MACC Board Meeting, we now are starting to really make some progress. I ' ll summarize the major issues , but please feel free to call me with any questions. o MACC Administrator Bill Tierney started in July. MACC offices are rented at Beaverton City Hall . o MACC ' s first year Budget was adopted at $96, 570. As an advance on the franchise fees, $93 , 000 was forwarded by Storer to MACC. o Liability and employee insurance packages are being developed. Performance bonds and contractor insurance policies have been received. o The Durham/H-all HUB station should be under construction by August 23 and completed this fall . o The main headend at 173rd/Cornell will be under construction August 16 and to be complete this fall . o A town hall meeting is set for Summerfield on August 17 and we already met with the Summerfield Board on their concerns last month. o Rights of way and access permits are being obtained now. Construction of cable lines is to begin in Tigard this fall . o Connection of the main headend to the Tigard HUB is necessary before any of our area can be energized. This should begin this fall with some service connections shortly thereafter. o A complaints follow-up system between the City/MACC/Storer has been developed. RWJ : dkr Attachments f i MELWAVFWA�Munn METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONSTRUCTION REPORT C MONTH OF July 1982 a CABLE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM TOTALS e ESIDENTIAL ADDlied Issued Permits This Month 37 ' Total to Date 37 ` Total Required 194 19 12" Aerial Under round Total Cable Placed This Month •40 •67 1 .07 Total to Date .40 .67 Total Required 1 633.48 1 459.r)2 1 91 .5 Aerial Under round Total Cable Energized This Month Total to Date II Total Required I ® INSTITUfIORAL Aerial Under round Total Cable Placed This Month Total to Date Total Required Aerial Underqround Total Cable Energized This Month Total to Date Total Required ti NACC CONSTRUCTION REPORT Page 2 HGF"D AT HUBS M .'�rITH OF J u l 1 . Beaverton: Administrative Offices and Hub Site. 11 ,200 sq. ft. , single story SW. Brigadoon (near 141st and Millikan) Final design anprovea. Submitted for D!L-rmit. Uroundbrea0n,n estimated for weer,: of Au:,. 25. Substantially complete 1,`hir: 6C) days. Completed within. 120 aays. 2. Forest Grove: Hub Site. 1 ,600 sq. ft. , single story. 24th between Quince and Yew Streets. Final design approved. Submitted permit and approved by City. Groundbreaing estimated for week of Aug. 23. Substantially complete within, 60 days. Completed within 126 da-vs. 3. Hillsboro: Hub Site. 2,000 sq. ft. , single story. Main Street Extension near 12th Final design. approved. Submitter' permit andapproved by City. GrourdDreai:inQ estimated for week of Aug. 23. Substantially cornplete within 60 days. Completed .�ithir 120 days. 4. Tiqard: Hub Site. 2,000 sq. ft. , single story. SW. 85th (south of the intersection of Hall Blvd. and Durham Road) . Final design approved. Submitted permit.. and approved by Cit_v. Grout",dbreaKin� estimate;: Tor wee': of Aug. ?3. Substantially complete �.ithin 60 days. Com?ie+ed withir: 120 days. 5. 1•;ashington County: Pair Headend. 3,600 sq. ft. , single story. SW. 173rd south of Cornell Road on the proposed Quadrant Business Campus. Submitted for permit. Groundbreal;inc estimated for week of Aug. 16. Substantially cor:jblete within 60 days. Completed within 120 days. f 6. Pacific University Access Studio Scheduled to be comD-, t MiFTROPO!ITAF; AREA CO.""tU.'.'ICATIO';S C1M-:SSIO•'! CONSTRUCTION REPORT MONTH OF July 1932 CE LE CO.�STRUC(ION HAVE'RTON e RESIDENTIAL ADDlied Issued Permits This Plonth 18 5 Total to Date le 5 Total Required F-7� 1000' I 2q, Aerial Underaround Total Cable Placed This Month .40 .67 11 .07 Total to Date .40 .67 i Vit^ Total Required 70 0.5" 100.8 0.6` 1176.0 0.63 Aerial Underaround Total Cable Energized This Month Total to Date Total Required INISTITJTIONAL Aerial Urderoround To al Cable Placed This Month Total to Date I Total Required 1 A?rial Underground Teal Cable Energized This Month Total to Date Total Required A: METROPOLITAN AREA CO"'IMI-IICATIO';_5 COM 'ISSIO'J CONSTRUCTION' REPORT Q v MONTH OF i 4 C'ABI F CONSTRUCTION HILLSBORO • R`SIDDENTIAL Aoolied issued Permits This Month 18 Total to Date l Total Required E-1 9 95 Q5`. Aerial Underaround Total Cable Placed This Month Total to Date Total Required Aerial Underaround Total Cable Energized This Month Total to Date Total Required m Ir;STITUT IORAL Aerial Underaround Total Cable Placed This Month Total to Date Total Required Aerial Underaround Total Cable Energized This Month Total to Date Total Required i I � O p p C C .0 O p,U d d "Q .Q co NCD U U Q © 0 ) Z 0 O O O O mmm mQ B N m UO o m U� OQ O = p mO ¢ U CF)m o Qa= co Ca0 Uo pQ Da: m m03 a: rnA m ❑ir❑❑❑ ❑cc ❑❑❑ ❑ cc ❑❑❑ ❑cc ❑❑❑ ❑ac ❑❑❑ ❑ o'r ❑❑❑ p Y C a 5 CY CL Z CO C O Fd O O C U z •C d d Q 0 H C U U d cc to V Q. 0 h I O g rCL t E 0 E oI E o � n Z c o va. 3 v c U s a U c a U 0 3 CL ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ L o a z E 9 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mu r. W y Z O mo m m xu . z z z (a z i I €0 op ® a m o Q o 0 0 o p .t LA F4 Lk � 1 VOLUME V ISSUE 6 JUNE-JULY, 1982 PERSONNEL CHANGES • Claire Mead, Public Works Operations Superintendent, has been with the City since January of 1977 but due to his medical disability will no longer be able to serve the City as he has done for the past five years. With Claire's illness, we loose the services of a long-standing and valuable employee. We all wish Claire the best and regret starting the recruitment process for his replacement. • Bill Monahan survived the selection process and started as the City's new Director of Planning and Development on August 2nd. Building and Planning Divisions now report through this Department Director. • Dori Rickert was hired June 1st as Executive Secretary to Bob Jean and general secretarial support to Administrative Assistants Linda Sargent and Joy Martin. • Mel Walker has been recalled from the lay-off list and is now working part-time in the Public Works Department as a Utility Worker. . .nice to have you back Mel . • We also welcome back Kathy Tremaine, who was rehired as a part-time Office Aide in the Library on June 23rd. • Walt Zielinski now has some of the extra help he needs with the hiring of Benjamin Tracy as a part-time mechanic on July 6th. e Our newest employee is Colleen Heard, who serves as a part-time Office Aide to the Finance and Records Department. Colleen has been with the city since August 11th. • Police Officer Timothy Burgard has resigned his post and is moving to the sunny state of California to serve as Police Officer there. Tim's position will remain vacant until the outcome of labor relations negotiations and the 12% tax limitation issue. Bob Dunn, Utility Worker in the Streets and parks unit of Public Works, has been terminated from City employment. Authorized Staffing: 75. Current Staffing: 72. Vacant Positions: 3. CONGRATULATIONS ARE IN ORDER FOR. .. • Lori Aten and Darwin Deveny. ..Darwin and Lori were married in June and we now have a Deveny team at the Police Department where Lori serves as a Dispatcher and Darwin as a Police Officer. i Another June bride. . .Jacquelyn Roth. Jacquelyn, a Dispatcher for our Police Department, was married in June to a gentleman named Byrd. We wish many happy years for the Byrd family. • Teresa Eley and Tom Killion. . .another pair of newlyweds in the Police Department! Teresa is a Dispatcher and Tom is a Police Officer. Congratulations to the Killions. e Alfred Dickman and his wife for the birth of their baby boy at 10:32 on J;.ine 5th, a full 7 lbs. and 14 oz: Congratulations to the Dickman family; we are all glad to hear that David Mark Randal Dickman is doing just fine! • Steve Ober.. .Steve has earned his Associate of Applied Science degree in Criminal - Justice from Portland Community College on March 20, 1982! We all wish you a belated but sincere Congrats, Steve. • Another educational advancement, accomplished by Hal Merrill . Hal has received his Advanced Certificate from the Board on Police Standards and Training. You obviously meet the Board's standards, Hal , and the City congratulates you. -- IN -2- EMPLOYEE TRAINING Mayor Bishop and City Administrator Bob Jean attended Governor Atiyeh's conference where they discussed the "New Federalism". The conference proved very beneficial in the state's adjustment to President Reagan's administration. ® Mayor Bishop and Bob Jean also attended the PGE conference held at Timothy Lake this month. a Chief Adams and Lieutenant of the Police Department attended an Internal Affairs Investigations seminar sponsored by the Law Enforcement Council . • Seargent Lonnie Branstetter attended the Federal Bureau of investigations Academy. * Training will soon begin for Jake, the newest addition to the Police K-9 program. Jake is a large 10-month old AKC registered German Shepard and will replace Joey who is currently part of our K-9 program. Joey will be placed on inactive reserve due to a recently diagnosed bone disease and will be a pet to Sgt. Martin of the Police Department when not on active duty. LABOR RELATIONS * The Clerical Workload Audit Study being conducted by Cal Hackler of OPEU and Administrative Assistant Linda Sargent, is currently in process. The first T.E.A.M. meeting has been scheduled for august 17th. T.E.A.M. consists of the TPOA/Teamsters officers, TMEA/OPEU officers and the City's Executive staff. These T.E.A.M. meetings will be held periodically to review the long- range objectives and to make joint recommendations to the Council for maximum City services within available resources. M E M O R A N D U M TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA SARGENT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: AUGUST 6, 1982 SUBJECT: BENEFITS TASK FORCE BACKGROUND The City's fringe benefit package for employees has developed, for the most part, from Collective Bargaining Agreements with the municipal and police employees. As you know, the City offers fully paid family medical coverage, Oregon Dental Service coverage, life insurance, salary continuation/disability coverage, deferred compensation or individual retirement programs in addition to time paid for time not worked. As costs for benefits continue to rise, while service levels diminish, the city needs to evaluate the amount of coverage t, provided and services offered for the least cost. Staff is P[(both e.�e.d to conduct this evaluation via a -Benefits _Task-.-�orce�.._______) he Task Force `would consist of Bob Pierce, Georgette Bleth rom life insurance com anies P ) , Maurice Lespeance (Lamb-Weston) , nd from the Banking Community. Staff anticipates a recommendation on benefits to be generated by the October 18 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that Council appoin to the Benefits Task�orce for the purpose ofevaluating the-City's fringe benefit program. LS dkr i V M140RANDUM DATE: August 11, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Progress Report This memorandum describes the extent of work that has been completed to date and what needs to be completed. before September, and the process to be used. There is a work program attached to this memorandum indicating the schedule of the Comprehensive Plan and supporting documents. The following is a list of Comprehensive Plan reports and the percent of completion of each report. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPORT % COMPLETED Citizen Involvement 100 % Open Space & Recreation 40 % Natural Features and Hazards 25 % Air, Water and Noise 0 % Economy 25 % Housing 100 % Public Facilities and Services 100 % Transportation Report 75 % - mapping 25 % Urbanization 30 % - Annexation policy 100 % - Urban Planning Area Agreement now exist, but will be re- negotiated in early fall. Land Development Code 25 % - Subdivision Code 0 % - Sign Ordinance 100 % (In Committee for review) Preliminary Comprehensive Future Land Use Map 100 % Preliminary Development District Map 100 % As stated earlier in July many of the remaining reports that need to be completed will involve an updating of existing data reports rather than a complete redrafting; for example: Open Spaces and Recreation, Natural Features, Air, Water and Noise and Economy. The economic work being completed during the next two months will be directed towards LCDC acknowledgment. It is anticipated that a more detailed economic development study will be initiated later Additionally, on August 10, 1982 the Planning Commission had a joint workshop s` meeting with the City Council and Neighborhood Planning Organization members to discuss the Comprehensive Plan revision process and the remaining pertinent issues expressed by each of these groups. The list of these issues is attached and staff will respond to these issues during the August 12, 1982 C.C.I. meeting (Committee for Citizen Involvement). Staff will also address the need for a possible LCDC time extension by reviewing the existing work schedule and the amount of work which needs to be completed. * All of the percentages include only the initial drafting of these documents. C. Comprehensive Plan Progress Report Page 2 �saoaeaXasaNEWo�oMs3mmm COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS SOLUTIONS o Repeal LCDC o Ask for time extension o Need to identify what inconsistencies are in the seven plans. o How much authority will NPO's have to protect existing plan. o Moving to fast, for remaining plans. o No NPO inter communication. Have Joint NPO meeting with staff. o Specific NPO Plan policies, how to keep them. o Role of NPO after acknowledged. o NPO have not had opportunity to compare preliminary map with existing seven plans. o Housing densities too broad. o Transportation systems through higher density areas. o County Development standards with in active plan without city acknowledgement. o Mesh of County/City standards. o Environment protection. o Higher Densities should be dealt with similar to existing A-70/80 district. o Lack of general public input or notification./Have a town hall meeting to present all of plan. Set up newsletter. o Where does NPO fit into total process. o Notification of all NPO members on items affecting, NPO area. o How do we make transition from seven plans /policies to one document. o Extension from LCDC for more public input. o Questions regarding NPO input.. .. where does it go. o Staff respond to all of these concerns to CCI on this thursday. o Schools (BSD/TSD) i WMAEL August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Recordevw SUBJECT: Water Board Study Committee Appointment Ratification Staff would request that Council ratify the appointments which were made at the August 2, 1982 special Council meeting to the Water Board Study Committee. Those are as follows: Council Position: Nancie Stimler Tom Brian - 1st alternate John Cook - 2nd alternate Other Members: Martin dill Bruce Clark lw NEW M E M O R A N D U M TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1982 SUBJECT: NPO MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT At their regular meeting of August 3, 1982 , the Tigard Planning Commission approved Mr. Gareth Ott for appointment to NPO #1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission recommends that the City Council ratify the appointment of Gareth Ott to NPO #1 for a term to begin August 1, 1982 and expire July 31 , 1986. Mr. Ott lives in the City of Tigard. ��►!�'®� � � re sur�� .ter August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Recorder SUBJECT: Accept Bids & Award Bancroft 914 Bond Sale Bids are being opened at Bond Counsel's office, Ragen, Roberts, O'Scannlain, Robertson & Neill, on Monday August 16th at 4:00 P.M. A report and recommendation on the bids received will be prepared for your action by 7:30 P.M. August 16th Council meeting. lw August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Recorder SUBJECT: Kittleson-Brown Litigation/Notice of Intent to Appeal Before LUBA Attorney Joe Bailey has agreed to represent the City of Tigard on the above I awsuit. A transmittal of the record was filed with LUBA the week of August 2, 1982. We will keep you informed as to the status on this matter. lw M AL i MEMO TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE: MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1982 SUBJECT: 72ND AVENUE ASSESSMENT (LID #21) AS OF AUGUST 12, 1982, THERE WERE: 87 SIGNED APPLICATIONS AMOUNTING TO $932,820.59 16 PROBLEM APPLICATIONS AMOUNTING TO 273,414.74 22 ASSESSMENTS PAID IN FULL 124,284.02 13 APPLICATIONS WITH N4 RESPONSE 145,192.07 TOTAL ASSESSMENT $1,475,711.42 - mf%-ice ® Aft b 4 RECE/VErJ r UG 1 9 1982 CITY OF TIGA80 Linda and Andret Nadeau 20531 Std Prindle Road Tualatin, OR 97052 11 August 1982 Ident. No. 43 City of Tigard 12755 SW Ash Street P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Gentlemen: Re.: 72nd Avenue LID deficient assessments The following are reasons for our strenuous objections to the deficient assessments for -the 72 LID. We find it incomprehensible that competent "professionals" could, in good faith, estimate Right-of-way acquisition costs at $5C,000 and have them in accuality esceed this by $500,000. We feel in affect this was COVERED US to prevent even further objections from affected property owners. We further feel this is an attempt to Increase the already unfair burden of cost onto a small Mortion of the property owners. We are referring to the recently developed properties who were made to sign non-remonstrances and right-of-way dedications. We also refer to the using of only the fromt portion of progrties being figured in establishing assessments. A definite Burden on small LwLwty owners such as ourselves. Now, in our case, a small business which has already been forced to carry a much larger portion of the cost 'Uhan our business or use of the road could possibly justify is now being asked to gy for right-of-way acquisition which will In effect lower the larger, older grmperty owners portion of cost and Increase ours. This is further aggrevated by the fact that we were forced to give our Right-of-Way for the grand sum of $1.00. Further, these saltie "long time" property owners who bought and developed their property in the days of low interest and easier building codes are now selling mostly unused land at excellect prices. This, while owners who have develogod recently at higher cost, higher interest rates, stricter codes, set back requirements, etc. are forced to go along with development and forced to donate right-of-ways. We further feel that the City' s benefits far far outweigh their contributions and our contributions far far outway our benefit. We also wonder why this was not brought to our attention before our decision was made of handling the first assessment notice. We certainly made our decision on handling our assessment with the thought that that was close to our total cost. It occurred to us that a 5 or 10% increase would be likely but no where in the months of hearing were we prepared for anything like this. We wonder hose much more in hidden costa are still to appear. Linda and Andre' Nadeau Tdent. No. 43. Page 2 In recessionary times when business is a scapegoat to pay increased taxes to cover state and federal government shortfalls; at a time when business incomes are down. Haw much more can we bear? The business failure rate in Oregon certalunly indicated an answer to this question. In conclusion, we are incensed by the failure of the City to include these costs at an early point in the hearin.a procedure. We are Infuriated that the City can stili insist that the property owners are responsible for these costs and further that these costs increase an already unfair burden on small and newer property owners at a time when these property owners can not at all afford thes burden. We have been happy to be contributing members of this community but we find this type of unilateral decision alienating and crippling. Sincerely, Andre' Nadeau Linda Nadeau rr AREA CODE 503 TED Nr7EhsOx COMPAW-' i 14280 S_ W_ 721lo AVENUE P_ O. BOX 23390 PO RTLAN O, OREGON 97223 STEEL -ALUMINUM -CORRU0ATED- 19RASS -COPPER GALVANIZED -ALUMINUM STAINLESS STEEL METAL SPECIALTIES August 11 , 1982 City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 Attention: City Recorder and Frank A. Currie, P.E. Director of Public Works Reference: Public Meeting Notice 72nd Avenue LID #21 Deficit Assessment on Monday, August 16 , 1932, at Fowler Junior High School, 7 :30 P.M. Gentlemen: This will confirm our telephone conversation today, and my opposition to the deficit assessment pertaining to Lid #21 for widening 72nd Avenue. You have already assessed our property for $ 64, 446.89; now you want to add $ 23, 983.06, making a total of $ 88,429,95 , and no assurance that you will not make a third assessment. Plus, you expect me to donate our easement which I place at a fair value of $ 37,215.60; so now this adds up to $ 125,645.55 . It is certainly not fair and equitable that the City of Tigard pay for an easement across the street from us and not pay for our easement. For the above reasons , we are and remain opposed to the assessment procedure the City of Tigard has made to date. All we want and expect is a fair deal; no more and no less. Yours truly, TED NELSON COMPANY ) A.T. Nelson President ATN:jiw MANUFACTURERS OF STF_EL FORMS FOR PRECAST AND PRESTRESSED CONCRE::-fE SP-AMS AND S?ECIAL --HAPES t ,4 August 11, 1982 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Finance Director/City Recorder .409u— Subject: FINANCIAL CONSULTANT CONTRACT APPROVAL REQUEST In order to meet the tight time lines over the next two months with Bancroft Bond Sales and General Obligation Bond Sales, the staff would recommend Council enter into a contract for professional financial consultant services with Rebecca Marshall. The cost of this service, $4,000 at the highest, would be assessed against the projects. Since this is a cost for professional services, the City will not be required to go out to bid for these services. lw ' 3 CLEMRNTS & MARSHA.LL FZNANCZAL COUNSEZ. 4800 S.W.bZACt.DAb1 Au E..SUITE 309 PORVILAND.OREGON 97201-3980 l 4503)291-7243 s Mr. Bob Jean, Administrator City of Tigard P.O. Box 2 397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 August. 11, 1982 RE: FINANCIAL CONSULTING CONTRACT Clements & Marshall (hereafter, "C&M") appreciates being selected as the financial counsel for the marketing of General Obligation Bonds by the City. . This letter constitutes an agreement between C&M and the City, upon execu- tion by both parties of. the last page of this letter. Scope of Services C & M agrees to provide for the following services in connection with the bond sale: (see Exhibit A for a more detailed description of the services) 1. Develop a marketing plan. 2. Suggest provisions and constraints for the bond resolution and notice of sale. 3. Update the Official Statement (bond prospectus) assuring conformance with both the Municipal Finance Officers Association's Disclosure Guide- lines and Oregon Disclosure Guidelines. 4. Prepare a computerized Bancrofting cash flow analysis. 5. Coordinate the production of the Official Statement 6. Prepare and deliver information to the bond rating services and/or bond insurance companies. F Mr. Bob Jean, Administrator City of Tigard August 11, 1982 Page Two 7. Analyze the sale bids to assure conformance to the bidding constraints and to verify the interest cost. 8. Coordinate the closing and delivery of the bonds. Compensation The City agrees to pay on a monthly basis for time and expenses to date. The • City will receive a detailed monthly billing which describes the time and expenses to date. 1. A flat fee for Official Statement Updates first update $1,500 subsequent updates 500 2. An hourly fee ($85/hr) for consulting: Estimated Minimum Time Per Sale Marketing Plan 3 hours Sale Coordination 2 Rating 2 Sale 2 Closing 3 12 hours The total consulting charge will be a minimum of $1,000 and a maximum, subject to mutual extension, of $2,000. Therefore, the total minimum charge -for the first sale is $2,500. Subsequent sale minimum charge is $1,500. 3. Production services: Typing - The City may wish to type the statement on its own word processor. If not, C&M can subcontract the word processing on behalf of the City. Estimated Cost = $800. rML a WAKWARM 1t WASNA Mr. Bob Jean, Administrator City of Tigard August 11, 1982 Page Three Printing: The Citic may wish to utilize the print shop of the City of Beaverton. If not, C&M can subcontract the printing on behalf of the City. Estimated Cost = $1,800. Distribution: The City agrees to assume all responsibilities of distribution, except for the address labels which will be provided by C&M. If the City decides not to undertake the distribution, C&M will subcontract this service. Estimated Cost = 1$400. If for any reason the bonds are not sold and the circumstances do not involve a failure by C&M to provide the services as contracted herein, the City agrees to reimburse C&M for its expenses as established above and C&M agrees to surrender to the City all materials prepared by C&M on behalf of the City. If the failure of the sale is held to be the responsibility Of C&M, C&M forfeits all accrued service charges which relate to that sale. ► C&M, in consideration of the fees contracted for herein, agrees to exercise its best efforts on the City's behalf. Duration and Termination Performance of the services described in this agreement shall be initiated ` immediately upon the date of execution of this agreement. Either .party may terminate this agreement upon written notice to the other party. All direct expenses incurred by C&M on behalf of the City will be reimbursed by the City. All materials prepared by C&M up to the date of termination will become property of the City and the City shall reimburse C&M for all time and expenses expended in preparation of the materials submitted to the City. Expiration This contract expires (november 2, 1982. If the bonds have not been sold by this date, this contract may be extended, subject to renegotiation of fees and/or services by either party. w MOM r` Mr. Bob Jean, Administrator City of Tigard August 11, 1982 Page Four CLEMENTS & MARSHALL CITY OF TIGARD ` By f�i� BY Title: Partner Title: Date: r EXHIBIT A FINANCIAL COUNSEL SERVICES The following describes the services C&M offers the City of Tigard :(hereafter, the "Issuer") relating to the proposed sale of the bonds. . Services MARKETING C&M will prepare a bond marketing plan which evaluates: PLAN - the type of maturity schedule best suited to current market demands - the use of marketing features such as discounts, call premiums, etc. - the use of bidding constraints, such as coupon constraints, etc. The computer facilities of C&M will be utilized to generate a Bancroft cash flow schedule. Maturity schedules are also computer generated. The legal requirements of bond counsel and the marketing strategy concerns are merged by C&M into the recommended marketing plan which includes time lines and task assign- ments. Implementation of the plan and communication with bond counsel , local counsel , and the ultimate underwriter is coordinated by C&M. DISCLOSURE C&M will update the present Official Statement. Disclosure INFORMATION will conform to national Municipal Finance Officers Association Guidelines when appropr-iate an to re on 1sc osure Guidelines -(see the discussion of Municipal Disclosure which isattached). All disclosure materials will meet the highest standards of comprehensive disclosure, relieving the City and staff of legal liability concern. The City and staff will be requested to review the disclosure document and to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy and completeness of the content. Judgments as to "materiality" are the responsibility of C&M, based on our extensive experience with investor informational j requirements. PRODUCTION AND C&M will assume responsibility for the coordination DISSEMINATION OF of typing and printing of the Official Statement. C&M DISCLOSURE will provide address labels from its list of national DOCUMENTS municipal underwriters and dealers to the City. RATING All contact with the rating services and information requirements of the services will be coordinated by C&M. At this time, a personal presentation to the rating services does not appear necessary. BOND SALE C&M will coordinate the bond sale and will verify all interest cost calculations. BOND CLOSING C&M will coordinate the final closing and delivery of the- bonds or notes with bond counsel , the bond printer, the underwriter and the Issuer. C&M will arrange for: - printing of the bonds - signing of the bonds FOLLOW!-UP C&M are located in Oregon and are available at any time ASSISTANCE following a sale of bonds or notes to answer questions or resolve problems which may arise. Personnel which would be used to provide the above services include: Rebecca Marshall , principal Jane Sterrett, owner and manager of the research and writing firm, Sterrett Report Management Tod Burton, Researcher Eric Johansen, Researcher Rebecca Marshall will serve as financial counsel and will manage the Official Statement writing and production. Jane Sterrett, who has worked with Rebecca Marshall for over two years in writing Official Statements, will head the research and writing team used for the Official Statement. Tod Burton and Eric Johansen have provided research for over a dozen Official Statements. W Wr MUNICIPAL DISCLOSURE Legal Perspective Oregon statutes require all bond issuers to prepare a preliminary Official Statement. The statement must include (ORS 287.018): _ "(a) Past and current financing and estimated future financing of the issuer; . (b) Brief description of the financial administration and organization of the issuer;' (c) Brief description of the economic and social characteristics of the issuer which will permit bidders and investors to appraise the issuer's ability to assume and service adequately the debt obligation; (d) Any other information the issuer may provide or which the Oregon Municipal Debt Advisory Commission may require by rule." In 3977 the Oregon Municipal Debt Advisory Commission issued "Disclosure Guidelines" which indicated that disclosure for bond issues over $3 million should conform to the standards set forth in the Municipal Finance Officers Association Guidelines published in December, 1976. z ► - The MFOA Guidelines, which have become the general industry standard for disclosure, require disclosure in the following main areas: . --Description of the Securities being offered --Description of the Issuer- and Enterprise --Debt structure --Financial Information --Legal Matters The extent of disclosure is detailed within these guidelines; however, even reporting all information detailed in the guidelines does not necessarily produce "full disclosure." Full disclosure requires a judgment of "materiality." In Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, the Supreme Court defined as "material" all information which "a reasonable investor might consider in the making of a decision." Thus, a knowledge of the market and its participants is essential in evaluating what information an investor might rely upon in making investment decisions_ "Reliance" upon such information is also a standard used to measure liability in the proposed federal "Municipal Securities Full Disclosure Act" which has not been referred out of Con- gressional 'committee. Clearly, any "material" adverse change, in the condition of the issuer which could affect either the sale or servicing of the debt must be fully disclosed. Municipal Disclosure, continued The Duke Law Journal , in an article entitled "Municipal Credit Project," further explored the potential liability of the municipal bond issuer: "Investors have become increasingly aware of the availability of (the anti--fraud provisions of the federal securities laws) as a means of recouping losses incurred in municipal securities transactions. In actions brought under section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 and rule 10b-5, promulgated under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, attention will likely focus on the issuer's official statement, which provides information about the particular debt issue being offered as well as a history and overview of the issuer's financial and economic condition. ...voluntary disclosure by issuers is, to a large extent, a response to a perceived investor demand for certain kinds of information... It could be inferred that information which is not normally disclosed is simply not considered important by most investors, . A knowledge of what facts municipal issuers normally disclose will therefore be of considerable probative value to a court in determining whether a particular omission was material . Once the court has determined that a material fact has been misstated or omitted, it must then determine whether the issuer's conduct was sufficiently culpable to constitute a violation of the anti-fraud provisions. Recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that plaintiffs will be required to prove at least gross negligence or recklessness on the part of the issuer in order to recover, Under any standard of culpability short of absolute liability, however, the court will need to compare the defendant's conduct with that of others in its position. For example, the fact that an issuer failed to disclose a significant item of information that is routinely disclosed by a vast majority of municipal issuers would clearly tend to show at least negligence on its part. In addition, if it were shown that the item was included in a widely circulated list of -suggested items for disclosure, the defendant's omission could be more readily cast as gross negligence." (NOTE: The Securities Act of 1933, Section 17(a) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10b-5 are attached.) Presently there is no limitation upon the term of potential liability, thus the risk extends throughout the life of the bond issue. The federal dis- closure act contemplated a limit of three years after the securities were offered to the public, thus any future congressional action may limit the term of risk, but, again, no such limit presently exists. R :3 aNv - Municipal Disclosure, continued Market Perspective Preliminary official statements are reviewed by three major market components: (I) Municipal Bond Rating Services (2) Municipal Credit Analysts of bond underwriting firms or banks _ (3) Municipal Credit Analysts of investment firms -Rating services, for a fee payable by the issuer, evaluate the credit-worthiness of the issuer. The services require extensive financial , debt and economic data, most of which is included in the Municipal Finance Officers Association Guidelines. A rating makes a local bond issue marketable on the nationAl level by ascribing and ranking the issuer's viability in relation to other .issuers throughout the nation. Although the final evaluation is substantially subjective, the data is compared to national standards and a failure to provide complete disclosure typically would result in an adverse judgment on the missing items. A rating is heavily relied upon in determining the interest bid on the bonds. However, with the increasing concern over adequate disclosure, bond underwriters and investment firms are undertaking more extensive analysis in their own institutions. Municipal credit analysts in under- writing firms and banks review the Official Statement and explore question- able trends or insufficient data while preparing their own evaluation of the credit-worthiness of the issuer. Often they will prepare an offering circular" which is distributed to other bond underwriters and potential investors. Lack of information is perceived to increase risk and therefore usually increases the interest rate bid. One local underwriter indicated that he added at least 20 to 25 basis points to his bid if there was no disclosure at all . Out-of-state investors have become less willing to buy unknown, unrated bonds. Portfolio managers are often restricted as to their ability to purchase unrated securities, unless they can create a credit file of their own, again requiring full disclosure by the issuer. From an underwriting point of view, the more marketable the bonds, the more competitive the bid. Forming accounts is time-consuming; the less time spent acquiring disclosure information, the more time spent marketing the bonds. Customers rely upon the judgment of the underwriter and his/her knowledge of the bonds, therefore, the more complete the disclosure, the greater the unden-iriter confidence in, and thus the marketability of, the bonds. A comprehensive disclosure document reflects upon the overall management sophistication of the issuer and the commitment it specifically makes to responsible debt and financial management. MWOM m WA ADDENDUM Securities Act of 1933, Section 1.7(a): It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of transporta- tion or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly-- (1) to employ any device; scheme, or artifice to defraud, or (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not Misleading, or (3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10b-5: It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality or interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any national securities exchange, (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. MW IORIGINAL EASEMENT E KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That SUNSET TERRACE APARMENTS, a California Limited Partnership and VERDUGO PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, a California Limited Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Grantors. " for the sum of Ten Dollars ($10. 00) , receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby give, grant and dedicate to the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of the State of Oregon, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a public sidewalk within the following described real premises in Washington County, Oregon: A portion of Government Lot 2 , in Section 1 , Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of S.W. Hampton Street, as conveyers to the State of Oregon by deed recorded in Book 593 , Page 13, Washington County Records, said Point of Beginning being 277.21 feet Easterly of an iron rod, also on said Southerly right-of-way and being the Northwest corner of grantors land as described in microfilm 80 18076 , Washington County Records; thence , continuing along the southerly right-of-way line, South 8802214811 East, 91.50 feet; thence South 66'50 '41" West, 14. 31 feet; thence North 88022148" West, 65.50 feet; thence North 63'36117" West, 14 .32 feet to the Point of Beginning. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described and dedicated rights unto the City of Tigard for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The Grantors hereby covenant that they are the owners in fee simple and have a good and legal right to grant the rights above described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals this 27th day of CJctobPr J- 1981. SUNSET TE CE APARTMENTS, a Califo LimitedZ �tnersh' ` ' - By �' 1 VERDUGO PA VIEW APARTMENTS, a Californ' Limited Parnership� B • 1 Mill �Ivr Nabco �IT.F1TE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Edward R. Broida, Trustee of The Edward R. Broida Trust No. 1, a general partner of Sunset Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, known to me to be the person and Trustee whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated, as the act and deed of said Trust in its capacity as the general partner of said limited partnership, as the act and deed of said limited partnership, and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORE THERETO. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 27th day of October, 1981. OFFICIAL. SEAL MARIA ARROYO n, Q NOTARY PUBLIC -CALiFORNtA ^. LOS ANGELES COUVTY NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND F MY comm, Mires OCT 4, 1985 LOS ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Edward R. Broida, Trustee of The Edward R. Broida Trust No. 1, a general partner of Verdugo Parkview Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, known to me to be the person and Trustee whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated, as the act and deed of said Trust in its capacity as the general partner of said limited partnership, as the act and deed of said limited partnership, and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORE THERETO. 1983.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 27th day of October, OFFICIAL SEAL MARIA ARROYO rt� s 3 c NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA LOS&NSELES COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR Aly comm, expires GCT 4, 1985 LOS ANGELES COUNTY r AWE awa w ACCEPTANCE • The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees t- comply with each and every term and condition thereof.- By: _ Mayor By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON 1 ) ss. County of On this clay of 19 , before me appeared and _ ° being duly s both to me personally known who, worn, did say that he, the said - is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said _ _ and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and dee cf sand c:unicipal corporation . I;! TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my # c. oZcial seal , this the day and year in this my certificate first written. ;notary i`u lic or Oregon .1y commission expires s r ORIGINAL` PEP24ANENT SLOPE EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That, we Sunset Terrace Apartments and Verdugo Parkview Apartments hereinafter referred to as "Grantors" for the consideration of the sum, of Ten ($10.00) Dollars , to Grantors paid, have granted and do hereby grant to the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee ," a perpetual right and easement to construct, maintain, repair and have free access to all slopes of cuts or fills , occasioned by or resulting from the construction, operation or maintenance of a public street and appurtenances , upon the following described premises, to wit: A portion of Government Lot 2, in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at a iron rod on the southerly right-of-way line of S.W. Hampton Street, said iron rod also being the northwest corner of grantors land as described in microfilm 80 18076 , Washington County Records; thence, from said Point of Beginning, along the southerly right-of-way of S.W. Hampton Street as conveyed to the State of Oregon by deed recorded in Book 593, Page 13, Washington County Records the following four (4) courses; (1) South 88122 ' 48" East, 402.13 feet; (2) along the arc of a curve to the right, having a ( radius of 256.48 feet a distance of 67.15 feet; (3) South 73022148" East 61.02 feet and (4) along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 316 . 48 feet a distance of 46.43 feet, thence, leaving the southerly right-of-way line of S.W. Hampton Street, Sc,uth 02039 ' 44" West, 10.05 feet; thence, along a line parallel to and ten (10.00) feet southerly of, the Southerly right-of-way line of S.I4. Hampton Street the following four (4) courses, (1) along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 326.48 feet a distance of 47. 90 feet; (2) thence North 73'22'48" West 61.02 feet; (3) along the arc of a curve to left, having a radius of 246.48 feet a distance of 64 .53 feet; and (4) North 88022148" West, 5.22 feet; thence, leaving said parallel line, South 66'50 '41" East, 14. 32 feet; thence North 88°22 ' 48" West, 95.89 feet; thence North 6336117" West ]4.32 feet; thence on a line parallel to and ten (] 0.00) feet southerly of said right-of- way line, North 88'22148" West 282.67 feet, thence, leaving said parallel line, North 39'03' 27" East 12.59 feet to the Point of Beginning. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD that this easement does not convey any right, title or interest to the surface of the soil, or any other rights except those expressly stated in this easement, nor prevent Grantors from the full use of dominion thereover, provided, however, that such use shall not be permitted to damage or destroy lateral support to 1 4p - - - 'S- 7 S?' +^•S' Y 1 L �1} �S r t `RFs a q2 _ Y 1 _ v o '• R - 1� x * _ rkt ' • I I � / • CLC s �'' a � ' t c tr + � i , � >5 4it .,� �_�� r gz�. .� � ..y an„�- •�' s�� ,�-�+ 'X''` 4 7N =3a e;q%AY �' y:,_�*k{� {,i•'"k Y+..+a �•• t. -ir s..,. ;g3 h ., .+}: !sic*,.-.1 T".r 3 �_x' ''� -:•c3�j,� s':ny •4�•S. 4 i M♦ - ,s+�f,.�t'ws,� Y.f' k ,.! �+sG.:;k ..e YA2'f•�s y �>�.,�, �`i -ir+- „�+, z�:' s - t ,a r..` 1� J-, r,.✓-�.t'Yc,�`.K.. �r.". z '�4..t�r i i-'„�••a t�`'C �ti"'.f ��s^ � 's a•� .��'^ �•#rj�;,,�"S �,�,Y`�•s.".'�''�3,.,d_.� r`'•L F `t � �. - �!>: -d `. .;. � .,.., v .:C s ,�„rvv ..y -t y q .-"�`i.;;*•� Y.�'4,••rai+�7N*s � wtC� t'ib.sv'^.,a ��` `I"yt�� I - _ •a'4_a�• -�'u'�t ,yr.� 'a;d'ws� t a „!Y�S.��^ n�"�� .. {. .ua 3� < •C -�}5e MOO #y��. y.`y .n�taL�ri>'3L- f+*Ys�•�'t5.3. eel.eS3 �,�a�7r - rw,�,�:Y#rs .� `-11W ` E,��,r*�' s`N'�swC "` ^. '`L :,, .'i `4 �., `�•',tK� r a �� t � s-• F r. g� r Stix 3 �� y W �b'f• .r � tN} 1+.:-4 i - r k t '•-�� ,�.�'y � t w n .,a iti'_ rte.•�' r' '�','� + � . `,•; t �a y. Y a j`3- a,;x++Y"" yC'.c '� .'4"t+.'' r�a.l ep 'Y - ;T v v _i} said public street, but it is understood and agreed that Grantee shall never be required to remove the dirt or other materials placed upon said property, nor shall Grantee be subject to any damages to Grantors, their heirs and assigns , by reason thereof, or by reason of the slopes constructed thereon, or by reason of change of grade of the street abutting on said property. Grantee, its agents , successors and assigns , agree to preserve the existing landscaping scheme and groundcover, to avoid damage to or destruction of existing shrubbery, plants , sprinkler heads , or other appurtenances or appliances , and to relocate such shrubbery or plants following resloping, to preserve as nearly as possible the existing landscaping scheme. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And Grantors do hereby covenant to and with Grantee, that they are the owners in fee simple of said premises and have a good and legal right to grant the rights above described. WITNESS our hands and seals this 27th day of October 1981. SUNSET TERRACE APARTMENTS, a Californi=a Limited Partners ice¢ By- VERDUGO PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, a California Limited Partneerrssb(lp By 3 71 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) "COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Edward R. Broida, Trustee of The Edward R. Broida Trust No. 1, a general partner of Sunset Terrace Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, known to me to be the person and Trustee whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated, as the act and deed of said Trust in its capacity as the general partner of Said limited partnership, as the act and deed of said limited partnership, and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORE THERETO. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 27th day of October , 1981. ROMSEAL OYO CALIFORNIACOUNTYOCT 4, 1985 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND F R LOS ANGELES COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Edward R. Broida, Trustee of The Edward R. Broida Trust No. 1, a general partner of Verdugo Parkview Apartments, a California Limited Partnership, known to me to be the person and Trustee whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated, as the act and deed of said Trust in its capacity as the general partner of said limited partnership, as the act and deed of said limited partnership, and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORE THERETO. 1981.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this 27th day of October, =4& NOTARY IAL SEAIeA ARROYOLIC -CALIFORNIA GELES COUNTYNOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOexpires OCT 4, 1985 LOS ANGELES COUNTY r ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIG.;?D By: Mayor ---- -- - -- By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON � ) ss . County of ) On this clay of 19 before me appeared and both to me personally known who, being duly_sworn, did say that he, the said _ is the Mayor, and lie, the said 1s the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said r:uni ci pa l corporation . IN TESTISONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my o_ Licial seal , this the day and year in this my certificate first written. Notary Publicfor Oregon Ay commission expires • r O � o 1 M�'�o6FeZ06' �a --4 1�a a zi W e 1 0 ti.f K,{•.•. LLJ .i CZ Ivy 4'a ••1 CJ ;3 Project: Hoodview LID #32 Easement: 1 Deed Reference: B1060 P220 KNOW ALL 14EN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we (I) Maurice R. Williams and Marion Williams hereinafter termed grantor(s) , in consideration of the sum of $ to be paid by CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of Oregon, ere'na ter termed the City, hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the CITY OF TIGARD a perpetual right-of-way and easement as hereinafter described, to- gether with a temporary right-of-way and easement to use an additional area hereinafter described and designated temporary easement, for the following uses and purposes : 1. Perpetual easement: An unencumbered perpetual right-of-way and easement for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting and repairing of an underground sewer line and appurtenances , together with the right to remove, as necessary, vegetation, foliage, trees and other obstructions within the easement area, but reserving to the grantors the title to the lands , subject to the easement, and the right to make such use thereof, except to construct biiilCings , as will not interfere ti),2 uscs and purposes of the easement; said easement area 11cinci The East five (5) feet of Lot 185, Summerfield No. 4, a duly recorded plat in the SW4 of the SW 4fsection 11, T.2S , R.1W, W.M. , Washington County Oregon. 2. Temporary easement: Together with the temporary right of ingress, egress and regress, and use for sewer construction purposes, of additional lands lying parallel to, along the sides and within Five feet, when measured at right angles , of the above described perpetual easement area, excepting and reserving to grantors the unencumbered enjoyment, use and preservation of all structures present upon the premises. i. This temporary easement shall terminate upon completion of the sewer construction work, at which time, upon request of the owner, the City will issue a written release thereof. Page 1 Easement Project: 1400dview LID #32 Easement: 1 Should it be necessary to cut and remove any brush, trees , or other matter or materials from the easement area, said brush, trees, or other matter and materials shall be removed and disposed of by the City and the City shall leave the easement area in a neat and workmanlike condition. The City agrees that in connection with its use of the perpetual easement area and in inspecting, _ repairing, maintaining, or replacing said sewer line, the City will leave the premises in a neat and workmanlike condition and - in the pre-existing state, - The grantors do hereby warrant that they are the owners in , fee simple and have the right to grant the above described easements. / Witness our hands and seals this _ day of �! / �/ , 19_R2 (SEAL) �/•�/ /,//��/G (S$AL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) For a consideration, the mortgage lien on the above described properties is hereby made subordinate to the easements above granted. Dated this day of , 19 :Mortgagee s i By Title STATE OF ,CREG'61,V •\ ) County of !7 ) -moo' On this day of 19 82 personally appeared the above named Maurice R. Williams and Marion Williams and acknowledged the foregoi.,,.. instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. Before me: Notary Public f is Oregon p page 2 My Commission expires: Easement- 4-ATE OF OREGON ) Project: Hoodview LID #32 )ss. Easement: '1 runty of } On this day of 19 , personally appeared the above named and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed. Before me: :Votary Public for Oregon My Commission expires : ACCEPTA.dCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition. thereof. CITY OF TIGRT?D By: Mayor By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON ? ) ss. County of ) On this day of , 19 before me appeared and both to me personally known, who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and lie, the said 1s the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said EuniciDal corporation. IjN TESTI4ONY HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, this the day and year in this my certificate first written. Notary Public for Oregon .!y commission expires Page 3 Easement 77. eOw M..N3—wa,aaNTr OtaD IWt.ta.at w Ggw.•I- 0�3•Tiri�r,»r hati.021 li saws.era a4. - - - --- -- --- -- - -I I I orae '('i4c ^f•nrnnca Company---' w _• wunurtr Otto TUALATIN FRA7f, orae venture consist- KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That._....... ...... ........ I n- Int; of Tualatin Developnent Co.s_Inc.. and FrCorporation hereipafferSe flet thh rentor,for the consideration hereinafter stated,to grantor paid 4y f1AURILE•R..WILLIAHS an �iARic7: 1<L�fA4. husband and vi.fe ,hereinafter wiled ` _.......... ... ... th-- grantee, does hereby grant; bargain,5.11 and cxsmey unto the said grantee and grantees heirs, auecassors And s(: assigns,that certain red property,with the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or ap-- •' ',L�. r.' ' •f �' pertaining,situated in the County at Washington and State of Oregon,described as follow,to-Wit: Lot 185, SUlMERFIELD NO, b.-Washington County, Oregon.— -----• to t lI aen•Ct 01UP l 31W,CO"TINUt DISMPT1DN CN BMW at Dtl To Have and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantees heirs,successors and cssigns forever. .4 _ And said grantor herebycovenants to and with said grantee and grantee's lairs,successors and assigns,that 'C;�-'.,-moi �•••• grantor is lawfully seized in lee simple of the above granted premises,free from all encumbrances except Statutory I Foyers of the Unified Seseraoe Agency of Washington County; Easement recorded April 3, { �• *. 1974 in Book 34, Pape 5; Conditons, Restrictions. and reservations recorded June 21,1974 ' - 1 in Rook 980. Fane 903; and that "�•'•' (i grantor will warrant and forever defend the said premises and every part and parcel thereof against the lawful claims r _ •, it and demands d all persons whomsoever,except those claiming under the above described encumbrances. • ?-', The trvo and actual consideration paid for this transfeq slated in lanae of dollors,is j 47.000,00 s, +'�:•:' .'®FlbCvevEe;'T/ei-s ar�bTiEi3frifitSJt•21Jtt1lSi4-of'arYt1[RJdes'othrr-property-vrralue-gi.en-or9eonk;9e -wlaiolr•iw- , ' -7'.c�.w.sriya'e;,•- �•` •r 1• ••• ` rhv GFo7I- badJatett w__rie _ P.µ�./�x•Wet>idRRliOfP'(Yndi6dKl-r►�i�r�'TM a ei nin S xretenee•Lsr.rern?l+-sra.brtsm.-iFr.wswPar^�+ld I in construing this deed and where the context so requires,the singular includes the plural and all gr&nunatkAd �• changes shall be implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individual- 1n Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed this instrument this&o^day of Data r+6 e-►.......19.7-5.; , it a corporate grantor,it has caused its rwme to be signed and seal affixed by its officers,duly authorized thereto by order of its board of directors 111 I' FRp iKI,IN/y _ _ llMw.�wssrw.eDwaaa y=..- oral - 'Sonans .core w.rse.re ••-. xT �:2 . ..._.I:,.:�c:3::t •;:r=: •.-_.. By_ �E-G . ...._ a Rober u •• ' STATE OF ONAGOM ) STATE OF OREGON,Counts, .--•----- _iw I }t'••i j•`��•+ t+•t�'f'•�`, llashi..ngton. . Corneyof ._..__.____....._.._....___.._.-_..._ .ti I •• __.3-a..Jf_7S�- PwraoniJlD apv+w ._.__....-...a0. bunt duet wx+4 f"- i IIIeach tor h6rwff std rrol ear for fho other,did soy chat thw lona 'is t/r ; ! Per J a orad t/w abttvw n�apdbet t"�. LvtOII ..pt ;dont and thwt the lattwr b the 1 _ .ff 11 Ronald yB° orensen an lw —..- ...___......_.__.... ears d_.— a pwa ton w , —....�...�.._.-._........._..M.—._tease __.._...._...... ._...... _..._......._...—.....__..._ r a , aa ac • ..,...[RCI. hn hdod thw foro/oirr/itstev- end that the rwf rlfierd to ehw loreroint rnstrvnrnt is the eorrroratw wrwl 1 ;•• ' _.♦otunfsp aef and dawd. of swrd eorpwwrion acrd than►aid inanumm�t wve sinned wed vded in be- + men.fo Dai-v............. .._... boll of"id eorpo G..by authority of in board of directors;and earA of a '• •�' ` ebaat Hoforw —id inrtru mar m bw eta ootuntarr act (OFFICIAL- SEAL.)d-d. I!: ...„•t- weknow�lydt;ed and d Sol OFFI C/AL- t AL) I :! SEAL. 1Vet-v Pubiiw for Oregon Notary Rbtic to O-don •'' any r-7P bey a»morraiea eepiew: t• Tualatin Franklin �1 ~_15100 S.W.''11664venue -� Ti and Ore c 97223 . _� !.._._..R __.. .-.-_. STATE OF OREGON •. _• !! !; awaw,e+•e wawa awe aaowaaw � O ( � ,�:'�:. Mr. and Yrs. Maurice R. Williams _ County of Washington_ 10275 Sad. 11-1jhland Drive !, Fm Foyer T?wssen;'Oir.ctor of Records tel' I Tigat d.OTegon 97223_ and Elections and EaOiticio Recorder. of . - •-- eeww,:a•a wawR awo ao!wta.a e►aca we.e.vsa Conveyances for said county,do hereby ear- t tify that the within instrument of writing _ An.,.,sire nese s,• •ot' was received and recorded in book records. �•" "r_ '•- a oacenoae-w use .T. -_•. Mr..-and-Mrs. Sauri..1 c:.Ra_.+tr 111ifiaig iQ275..-.Said.. pighland DriyT—_ —_ of said County.`.._ �' .': :r:- 7; inn Tigar�,x_Oregon„"97223 `•'` l ware.aoo.eu.sv- — - Witness v hand and seal affixed.It Use!./se.5 rr..rt1,I ora tw at.r..w.w drll b.r.ra 1.du I.arwr•w wear.. ^ROGE R THOMSSEN.Director of Records a Etsftlbns ` Mr._and?tra,_,Maurice_R,_t 4jUaaw • r •• r s 10275,S..N. ,Highland..DTSVg� c� JAA a 2y' 47 Pct 16 gard., flregon. 47223'------'pt1 PACE(.j� qty VPAC�p -- a►ueJAeeue•are —'--EoYn•s�G_ -' --r-. J. . S.W- Grant Avenue r Tax Lot 200 WI ap 2S1-2BD) S.11. Grant bet,'•:een Johnson & I•,cNenzie C014SENT COVENZANT N0N-RE I1Oi;S T 32.z.IJCE AGREF,'=5--iJT The undersigned owner of Tax Lot 100, Map 2S1 23D does hereby record consent to the formation .of a local iimnrove�-ient district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving S.W. Grant Avenue upon which the described property abutts. The undersigned expressly %-:give all Present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the forr;ation of a local improvement district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of a particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they might have under the laws of the State _of Oregon to contest the proposed assess=ment formula. This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the described land and be binding upon the undersigned and all successor owners, for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the last signature below. The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as follo:•is: Lots 46 and 47, FORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITIONF City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON SU3SCRIBED AND ST-JORPJ to before me this a'f day of 1952. - . Notary Public for OregtkA ' I•iy Commission expires: 4-Al sta d � r ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayor By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) County of ss. On this day of 19 before me appeared _ and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 4 Construction Easement S.W.. Grant Avenue Tax Lot 200 (Iiap 2S1-2BD) S.W. Grant between Johnson & McKenzie CO1gSENT COVENANTNO;:-P.r?i02;St^R1�10E AG_REEIiENT The undersigned owner. of Tax Lot 100, Map 2S1 2BD does hereby record consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving S.W. Grant -Avenue upon which the described property ,butts. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate :against the formation of a local improvement district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of a particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they might have under the laws of the State of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the described land and be binding upon the undersigned and all successor owners , for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the last signature below. The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as follows: Lots 46 and 47, NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON G& SUBSCRIBED AND SL O1U4 to before me this a�( day of1982. Notary Public for Oregon my Commission expires: j4- FE-EL ---- — ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayor By: _ City Recorder STATE OF OREGON County of ) ss. On this day of 19 before me appeared _ and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the e�y and year last above written. Notary Public for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 4 Construction Easement S.W. Johnson Street L.I.D. CONSENT COVENA14--T AND Tax Lots 100, 200 NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT S.W. Johnson between 99W and STREET AND RELATED IMPROVE- S.W. Grant Avenue MENTS The undersigned owner of Tax Lots 100 and 200 (Map 2S1 2BD) do hereby record consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving that public street described above, together with curb and sidewalk construction as such improvements are required by Resolution No. 02-26 of the City of Tigard, Further, this owner agrees to petition for the formation of the Johnson Street L.I.D. and initiate said project at the later of five (5) years from the approval of this permit or as a part of Phase II of the Kelly Center. If access from the site to Highway 99W be closed, additional access onto either S.W. Johnson or S.W. McKenzie shall be provided. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets, re- serving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they may have the under the laws of the State of Oregon to contest the proposed assessment formula. This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the described land and be binding upon the undersigned and all successor owners, for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the last signature below. Page 1 - CONSENT COVENANT AND NON -REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT STREET AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ' r oil INN" sq-ie real property that is the subject of this Consent Covenant is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Al day of 1952. f i Notary P isor Ore ' my Commission expires: -+J418G 1 Page 2 - CONSENT COVENANT AND NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT STREET AND RELATED IMROVEMENTS !Illlll ! l MCI Al c: o Cocm Ij P— �• a a. � _ CV - C'J m LO o w ! _ to N 1 Z - C) ~ LC) 00 A NI O co 2 = o Al y ie . c-7-- � red- o _•4 /_ li � ei _ Fc U1. _ J �o� b% oo� 4 zico o2 q -- C , to r2 O o N - o'@perJt may\ LL 1 'Its� 0` N �/ • ,� / , fS Q a m _ r !xx! Q m of CIJ Ed cr) `n cel h 4 yJ 4 b O .` • b� �O r G ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to- comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayor By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) County of ss. On this day of 19 , before me appeared _ and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY- WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 4 Construction Easement Je S.W. Johnson Street L.I.D. CONSENT COVENANT AND Tax Lots 100; 200 NON-REtIONSTRANCE AGREE2dE14T S.W. Johnson between 99W and STREET A14D RELATED IMPROVE- S.W. Grant Avenue 24ENTS The undersigned oraner of Tax Lots 100 and 2.00 (Map 2S1 2BD) do hereby record consent to the formation of a local improvement district by the City of Tigard for the purposes of improving that public street described above, together with curb and sidewalk construction as such improvements are required by Resolution No. 82-26 of the City of Tigard, Further, this owner agrees to petition for the formation of the .Johnson Street L.I.D. and initiate said project at the later of five (5) years from the approval of this permit or as a part of Phase II of the Kelly Center. If access from the site to Highway 99W be closed, r_ additional access onto either S.W. Johnson or S.W. McKenzie shall be provided. The undersigned expressly waive all present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement - district for the improvement of the abutting street or streets, re- serving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost items in the improvement district proceeding and any right they may have the under the laws of the State of Oregon to-contest the proposed assessment formula. This consent and waiver shall run with the title to the described land and be binding upon the undersigned and all successor owners, for a period of fifteen (15) years from the date of the last signature below. Page 1 - CONSENT COVENANT AND NON-REAiDNSTRANCE - AGREEMENT STREET AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS REAM= law The real property that is the subject of this Consent Covenant is described as follry4s: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" AHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON SUBSCRIBED AND STHORN to before me this 27 day of E-T� j 1982. i Notary Pubiic tor Oreggn my Commission expires: �4184, t � Page 2 e CONSENT COVENANT AND NON-REMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT STREET AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ff cv � a� cry`' - -• s=a� � o AlIr Y - Ol cf) N O z � ' 3 ti} 00 cam, Al hl N` N00 - as J !� C-3• Ckl to rl- r O . 0 O % 'ocm G O �Q / S•9 1�I CL [D _ \� .r O O roy < m r?yG ti ♦ o Q �`�S �wcn (! N O O Ql•7 ACCEPTANCE r The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayor , By: - City Recorder STATE OF OREGON County of ss. On this day of 19 , before iaa appeared and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said _ is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Pub is for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 4 Construction Easement MEMO STREET DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Archdiocese of Portland, hereinafter called grantor, as a condition of construction. of Kelly Center, Tigard, Oregon, dedicate to the Public a perpetual right-of- way ightof->way for street, road and utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: See attached Exhibit A. To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor hereby covenants that it is the owner in fee simple and have good and legal right to grant its rights above-described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal this 24 day of , 1982. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND BY= SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this A-6 day of�r 19 82. Notary Public for Orego My Commission expires: Street Dedication Ex I The following Parcels of land situated in NORTiI TIGARDVILLE ADDITION, amended plat, in the City of Tigard, 11as'rhington County, Oregon, fully described as follows: P�.:zcrL I: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.1•7. Grant Avenue with the center line of S.17. McKenzie Street; thence south 39' 53 ' vest along the center line of said Grant Avenue 25 feet to a r)oint; thence south 57* 40 ' east 254. 1 feet more or less to a point on the southerly most lot line of Lot 9 of said NORTH TIGARDVILLE Plat; thence northerly along said easterly lot line 25 feet to a point which point is the center line of S.1-7. McKenzie Street; thence north 570 40 ' west along said center line 254 . 1 feet more or less to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue with the center line of S.W. McKenzie Street; thence north 390 53.' east 25 feet along the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue to a point; thence south 57' 40 ' east 502 .5 feet more or less to a point which Point is the easterly lot line of the northwesterly 90 feet of Lot 50 of said IdORTH TIGARDVILLE tract; thence south 390 53' west 25 feet to a point which point is the center line of S.1•7. :McKenzie Street; thence north 570 40 ' ..;est along the center line of said S.W. McKenzie Street 502 .5 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL III: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue with the center line of S.17. McKenzie Street; thence south 570 40 ' east along said center line of S.11. I,cKenzie Street 30 feet to a point; thence north 390 53' east 569 . 32 feet more or less to the center line of S.W. Johnson Street; thence north 571 40 ' west along the center line of said S.W. Johnson Street 30 feet to a point; thence south 39' 53' %fest 569 . 32 feet more or less to the point of beginning. PARCEL IV: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue, S.W. Johnson Street; thence south 390 50 ' wast 25 feet to a point; thence south 570 40 ' east 746 feet more or less to the most easterly lot line of Lot 52 NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITION: thence north along said easterly lot line 25 feet to a point; point is the center line or southeasterly extension of the center line of S.W. Johnson Street; thence north along the center line of S.W. Johnson Street 746 feet more or less to the point of beginning. f S ACCEPTANCE 1, The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayo r = By: City Recorder STATE OF OREGON ) County of ss. On this _ day of 19__, before me appeared _ and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said 4 is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and sea? the day and year last above written. •Notary Public for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Page 4 Construction Easement EMU STREET DEDICATION K14017 ALL DEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Archdiocese of Portland, hereinafter* called grantor, as a condition of construction of Kelly Center, Tigard, Oregon, dedicate to the Public a perpetual right-of- way for street, road and .utility purposes on, over, across, under, along and within the following described real property in Washington County, Oregon: See attached Exhibit A. To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated. The grantor hereby covenants that it is the owner in fee_ simple and have good and legal right to grant its rights above-described. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thgrantor has hereunto set its hand and seal this day of , 1982. ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND By= . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this e2(o day ofV_� 19 82. \ ; Notary Public or Oreg Piy Commission expires: , i_'ci,SC� Street Dedication The 'following Parcels of land situated in IIOIZT!I TIGARDVILLE ADDITION, amended plat, in the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, fully described as follo:-,s: P':RCEL I: Beginning at a. point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.V.T. Grant Avenue with the center line of S.W. McKenzie Street; thence south 390 53 ' vest along the center line of said Grant Avenue 25 feet to a point; thence south 570 40 ' east 254. 1 feet nore or less- to a point on the southerly most lot line of Int 9 of said I"IORTH TIGAr'DVILLE Plat; thence northerly along said easterly lot line 25 A.eet to a point which point is the center line of S.11. McKenzie Street; t;ience north 570 40 ' west along said center line 254 .1 feet more or less to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.W. Grant 4venue with the center line of S.W. McKenzie Street; thence north 39 * 53,' east 25 feet along the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue to a point; thence south 570 40 ' east 502.5 feet more or less to a point which point is the easterly lot line of the north-westerly 90 feet of Lot 50 of said NORTH TIGARI DVILLE tract; thence south 390 53' west 25 feet to a point which point is the center line of S.W. McKenzie Street; thence north 570 40 ' west along the center line of said S.W. McKenzie Street 502 . 5 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL III: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of the center line of S.W. Grant }1venue with the center line of S.W. McKenzie Street; ':hence south 570 40 ' east along said center line of S.W. I"Sc":enzie Street 30 feet to a point; thence north 39' 53' east 569 . 32 feet more or less to the center line of S.W. Johnson Street; thence north 570 40' west alone the center line of said S.W. Johnson Street 30 feet to a point; thence south 390 53' west 569. 32 feet more or less to the point of beginning_ PARCEL IV: Beginning at a point which point is the intersection of. the center line of S.W. Grant Avenue, S.W. Johnson Street; thence south 390 50 ' west 25 feet to a point; thence' south 570 40 ' east 746 feet more or less to the most easterly lot line of Lot 52 NORTH TIGARDVILLE ADDITIO2�: thence north along said easterly lot line 25 feet to a poi:ac; point is the center line or southeasterly extension of the center line of S.W. Johnson Street; thence north along the center line of S.W. Johnson Street 746 Feet more or less to the point of beginning. t -- ACCEPTANCE The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to comply with each and every term and condition thereof. CITY OF TIGARD By: Mayor By City Recorder STATE OF OREGON County of ) ss. On this day of 19 , before me appeared and both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said is the Mayor, and he, the said is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation, and the said and — acknowledged the said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municpal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Pu is for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: f Page 4 Construction Easement i a;� r August 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RE: FARMERS INSURANCE STREET DEDICATION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT S.W. 68th Parkway. After reviewing a proposal submitted to the Planning Division for a Variance to allow construction of sidewalks on only one side of S.W. 68th Parkway, staff has determined that a Variance should not be required. Staff requests that the City Council allow Farmers Insurance Group to satisfy the street dedication compliance agreement with construction of sidewalks on the south and west side of S.W. 68th Parkway only at this time, as shown on Exhibit "A". Farmers Insurance Group owns Tax Lots 100, 200 and 300 (see Exhbit "B") on the north and east side of S.W. 68th Parkway. Those lots are vacant at this time. Staff will evaluate the need for sidewalks on the north and east side of S.W. 68th Parkway at the time those vacant parcels develop and will require appropriate improvements at that time. l ' L � 3i•., vii S31H170SS`d it 'ayy�AtiS V 310:)1LH:) 3 NN310 g a a c 9 S 1 - V ,';�11 a All r IVa •--- LCL! _ ® o • ---_� - too <LL HIM TIMI ZISIHxa A G o I � W Q ^ O u — ^v oON Ci i£9 N m F � N O NH Q - n I I m I m O C' rn o vi a o Q W I I � �. .P •ti U O Q — o Q �I � W cn E£ 3,.tis o- \ 7oJ6��11 .)IIflni O.L Yom. I .m s I ', � I O C? p = O F. o Q ' ( D U) , m LO'y£9 W z I W ,,Hts ZIfiIHXS i 3 U� August 11, 1982 NIM)RANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Frank A. Currie, Public Works Director �--� SUBJECT: Purchase of Surveying Equipment The engineering staff has conducted a rather exhaustive search for used equip- ment that will not only answer our immediate needs but will allow us to be able to depend upon rental of equipment this year and in -the future years. (see attached memo) This is a budgeted need. The intent was to purchase new, lesser equipment, and rent additional equipment. We can now make a purchase of used equipment, in new condition, at a savings of $2,400 and not have to budget for rental equipment this year or in the future. I recommend approval of this purchase in the amount of $5,591.00 and the necessary transfer of funds. to r' �- August 5, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Currie FROM: Randy Clarno RE: Equipment Purchase The Survey section budgeted $5,000 for a new theodolite (modified transit) to be purchased at the beginning of this fiscal year (account #05-02160-705) . Also budgeted for this year were several Electronic Distance Measuring (E.D.M.) accessories to go with our current E.D.M. and a new theodolite. The accessories were obtained last week. Along with the above-mentioned equipment, we set aside $1,503 for equipment rental (account #05-02160-651) . The only piece of equipment we anticipated renting waskhigh precision theodolite to assist us in establishing primary control for our "Control Grid" (Net) . OuL two main sup- pliers of survey equipment have since made offers (in the form of a written quotation attached) on a used high precision theodolite package. If one of these packages was purchased, equipment rental would not be necessary. Also, the use of this high precision theodolite is not limited to just our primary control Grid (Net) . It would tremendously increase are accuracy and speed up field operations for all types of work we do. Because both instruments are used, we field checked them for any defects. The quotation from Portland Precision Instrument ($51191) is no longer valid. Their package was priced to correspond with a one-day clearance sale (7-30-82) . I recommend we accept the quotation from Nessco Supply, Inc. , ($5,691) for the following reasons: (1) The instrument is much newer-with better features. (2) %hen field checked, it performed like a new one. (3) Delivery time is 5 to 13 days sooner; and. (4) service and maintenance will be better accom- modated. To make this purchase, $800 needs to be transferred from Equipment rental (account #05-02160-651) to Capital Outlay' (Account #05-02160-705) . i NESSCO SUPPLY INC. Surveying and Engineering Supplies& Equipment i OFFICE 503-982-2040 2650 PROGRESS WAY WOODSURN,OR 97071 July 27, 1982 City of Tigard City Hall . Tigard, Oregon Attn: Randy Clarno Dear Randy, In regards to your request for a bid price on a Wild T-2 (used) and accessories, the following prices include mounting, alig-7Midht�;t0 the cities Citation. The warrenty on the used T-2 is 6 months and the new items are 1 year. Prices include F.O.B. Tigard City Hall. 1 - Used Wild T-2 Theodolite 5,000.00 1 - Wild 405675 Base plate 258.00 1 - Wild 404873 Pin assy 59.00 1 - Wild 346530 GVS-19 adapter 107.00 1- - Wild Small battery 217.00 1 - Wild Small battery charger 50.00 $5,691.00 Terms are net 10 days from delivery. If we can be of furthur assistance please call. Thank you. Sincerely, ' �" � Via,., �:�= ..•o��.�-*�s.-.a � �,Eu✓ o J i'L ti-a o u•.sl�rJ v-o yo o,t... '�,-G�u. � . Peter F. Maring President �icJ.zr.E M o.�r t► i—�- — /977 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 82- 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds it necessary to purchase additional survey equipment; and WHEREAS, the Council further finds that there are budgeted funds available for this purchase; and WHEREAS, the Council further finds that there is a sole vendor for this used equipment and thus does not require a competitive bidding process_ NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Tigard City Council that: Section l: The Tigard City Council hereby authorizes the purchase of the attached list of survey equipment from Nessco Supply Inc. Section 2: The Tigard City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of funds to allow for the above purchase. 800.00 FROM: Equipment Rental TO: Capital Outlay 05-02160-651 05-02160-705 Engineering Engineering Community Development Community Development General Fund. General Fund PASSED: This day of , 1982. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 111111ALill 1L ill 1L N ESSC® SUPPLY INC. Surveying and Engineering Supplies& Equipment OFFICE. 503-982-2040 2650 PROGRESS WAY WOODBURN,OR 97071 July 27, 1982 City of Tigard City Hall . .Tigard, Oregon Attn: Randy Clarno Dear Randy,, In regards to your request for -a bid price on a Wild T-2 (used) and accessories, the following prices include mounting, all to the cities Citation. The warrent9 on the used T-2 is 6 months and the new. items are 1 year. Prices include F.O.B. Tigard City. Hall. l - Used Wild T-2 Theodolite . 5,0.00.00 1 - Wild !05675 Base plate 258.00 1 - Wild 404873 Pin assy 59-00 1 - Wild 346530 GVS-19 adapter 107.00 1- - Wild Small battery 217.00 l - Wild Small battery charger 50.00 $5,691.00 Terms are net 10 days from delivery. If we can be of furthur assistance please call. Thank you. �, e,-mac_ •-r�=•..a.�� Sincerely, �„�'� c ,= v•tpE,2 Peter F. Maring ��-�"'"3 rS s President Nto.� •t�. ;—Z.. — /'177 o.S/S 7c?` Com°cJ.u.�E•� _ Oiiic° CITY OF — -_- -I ' - VED I i y � .�s'a.d TIGARD a it i AUG j 19821 - o ahesf County ra+ p+ % i 4TY 0F TIGAR01 - WASHINGTON U w Z z L' Eledio} `o A' )-4 August 10, 1982ca = > 8 Pege 1 of 1 peges m C r,, M . O E-a W - 1 Ballot Number ' 70 > Nem.or No.of Precinct YES YES 1 NO 1 I 1 n O '1 -n 30 45 79 1 O O 31 50 39 i -n m 32 64 97 O z 33 29 35 1 m 34 55 82 an 35 30 38 1 40 54 29 41 118 110 46 29 22 - - ,o 0 n r 3 3 I I I j I sg 1 � 1 3 f o a- E COM!/ � I i COON TOTAL k75 531 1 certify that the votes recorded on this abstract cor- Signa re of County Clerk: Date of Abstract rectly summarize the tally of votes cast at the election y indicated. ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRACT OF OTES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS: SPECIAL ELECTIONS: Separate sheets for Democratic, Republican, Nonpartisan., and other Votes cast for Governor must be on separate candidates. page or pages. Separate sheets for candidates for City, County (including precinct) and State office. For additional instructions see ORS 250.810. For additional instructions, see ORS 249.410. M E M O R A N D U M t TO: T.U.R.A. FROM: JOY MARTIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1982 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON T.U.R.A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE On August 11, 1982, six members of the Advisory Committee met with Bill Monahan and myself to receive and discuss reports from the subcommittees and to discuss the T.U ,R.A. election according to the goals and objectives of the committee. Following are the decisions regarding recommendations and status reports on discussions: 1. Design Standards and Comprehensive Plan Review Subcommittee: After discussion, it was unanimously moved and seconded that the committee will make the following recommendation: The City shall draft an ordinance for T.U.R.A. to adopt that creates one zone within the urban renewal boundaries which excludes industrial use and includes all other uses which conform within the purpose and scope of objectives stated in the Downtown Tigard Revitalization Plan. This is a necessary first step for developing specific standards and projects . The committee recommends this change occur with the necessary public hearings and review. 2. Capital Improvements Subcommittee: After meeting with Frank Currie, Public Works Director, six projects were identified and preliminary priorities were assigned. There was agreement that the first priority is the Main Street Bridge project. 3. Discussion and Recommendation on the T.U.R.A. Election: (See memo from Bill Monahan, Planning and Development Director) JM : dkr -_J s x' MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Robert Jean, City Administrator FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development POW)— DATE: August 12, 1982 RE: TURA Advisory Committee Meeting - August 11, 1982 The TURA Advisory Committee met on August 11, 1982, to discuss further their purposes and objectives. The issue of whether an advisory ballot measure should be put before the voters in November or May was discussed and voted upon. Those Committee members present unanimously rejected a proposal to place an advisory measure on the ballot either in November or May. A concensus was reached that rather than a ballot measure the City Council/TURA should give full support to the revitalization program including the authorization of tax increment financing. Members felt that a ballot measure in November containing the words "tax increment financing/1 would be doomed to failure in light of the presence on the ballot of Proposition 12. In addition, the strong support of the City Council is necessary to make the project a success. -- ------ - ---- TIGARD CIVIC CENTER r" CUT-BACK OPTIONS #51 I #52 #53 $3.6M $2.7M $1.5M SUMMARY: PURCHASE EXISTING PURCHASE EXISTING PURCHASE EXISTING BUILDING, LAND, BUILDING, LAND BUILDING AND LAND. REMODEL AND BUILD AND REMODEL. . . COMPLETE PLAN AS 9,000 S.F. LIBRARY LIBRARY WITHIN FUTURE PHASE. . . . . .10 YEAR OPTION. . REMODEL. . .10 UNDER 5 YEAR YEAR OPTION. . . OPTION. . . BUDGET: REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 150,000 50,000 50,000 CROW SITE: REMODEL 925,000* 1,110,000** 35,000*** LIBRARY 660,000 ** SITE IMPROVEMENTS 352,500 100,000 100,000 PUBLIC WORKS SITE 64,500 14,500 14,500 SUB-TOTAL 3,452,000 2,574,500 1,500,000 ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING 148,000 125,500 0 TOTAL BUDGET $316004000 $2,7001000 $11-500,000 * Remodel includes ** Library *** Miscellaneous community meting included in improvements for hall space, Police remodel. . . Police, Library & and City Hall City Hall rental offices. . . sites. . . TAX LEVY: ASSESSED VALUE (Est.) * $850M $850M $850M 1984-85 DEBT SERVICE** $475,680 $356,760 $198,240 LESS RENTAL INCOME 36,000 36,000 60,000 1983-84 TAX LEVY $4394680 $3204760 $1381-240 TAX RATE/$1,000 $.52 $.38 $.16 TAX PER AVERAGE HOUSE $33.80/year $24.70/year $10.40/year , ,75,000 market/$65,000 AV) * 1984-85 2nd Year Levy Show. . .First Year, 1983-84, Slightly Lower Due to Interest. . . ** 12% for 20 Years. . . 4._ RAGEN, ROBERTS, O'SCANNLAIN, ROBERTSON S NEILL LAWYERS RONALD K.RAGEN 14500 ORCANCO BUILDING TELECOPIER 13031 223-7732 RICHARD D. ROSERTS ( 0JAR04UID F. 0'S CANNLAIN 1001 S.W.FIFTH AVENUE CRAIG J.CASEY WATSON D.ROBERTSON MICHAEL A.LEW15 JAMES K.NEILL.JR. PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 MARVA F. GRAHAM DOUGLAS R.COURSON TELEPHONE 303-22+-1600 PATRICK O. DOYLSTON O.CHARLES MAURITZ CHRIS L.MULLMANN STEVEN D.5TADUM GARY M.ANDERSON PAUL R.ROMAIN RODN EY E.LEWIS.JR. WILLIAM A.MARTIN VICTOR 0.STIBOLT July 28 , 1982 OF COUNSEL RE: Impact of Proposed Property Tax Limitation Amendment on Ability of Oregon Municipalities to Issue Bonds This memorandum contains our preliminary analysis, as bond counsel, of the effect that Ballot Measure No. 3 would have on Oregon local government bond issues if it were approved by the voters of the State on November 2, 1982. Ballot Measure No. 3 is a "Jarvis-Gann" style property tax limitation measure. It is a modified version of ballots which were rejected by the Oregon State voters in 1978 and 1980. Apparently, petitions containing sufficient valid signatures to place the property tax limitation on the ballot have been filed with the Secretary of State. If it is approved by the voters, Ballot Measure No. 3 will: 1. Effectively prohibit the issuance of general obligation bonds secured by an unlimited ad valorem tax; 2. Add substantial cost and delay to the ability of municipalities to provide the kind of local improvements that have been financed with Bancroft bonds; 3. Jeopardize the ability of municipalities .to replace existing interim financings with long-term financings; 4. Substantially reduce the ability of municipalities to obtain loans secured by general fund revenues; and 5: Imperil existing urban renewal financings and reduce or eliminate future urban renewal financings. Summary of Major Provisions of Measure 3 Affecting Borrowing. Section 2 provides, in part: RAGEN,ROBERTS, d3CANNLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 2 " (a) The maximum amount of all ad valorem taxes levied against any real property shall not exceed one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per annum of the true cash value of such property, except as provided in Section 4. (c) The one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) limitation on ad valorem taxes shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments levied to pay the interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness incurred, whether approved by the voters, prior to or concurrent with passage of this Article." The taxes shall be apportioned " according to law. " There is no "law; " thus, the State legislature shall have to determine such allocation. Section 3 provides, in part: " (a) The true cash value of real property may increase in any one year by not more than two percent (2%) over the prior year 's valuation, provided however , that in no event may any increase in true cash value exceed the inflationary rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index. " Section 4 permits the one and one-half percent limitation to be exceeded for districts if the limitation would otherwise reduce their revenues below eighty-five percent of revenues for fiscal year 1979-1980. Districts providing emergency services, including police, sheriff, fire, ambulance and paramedic services, have special provisions designed to prevent the budget for those services from being reduced below the amounts available for those services in fiscal year 1979-1980. Section 7 requires that any change in Oregon state taxes for the purpose of increasing revenues must be approved by a two- thirds vote of the Legislative Assembly, or by a majority vote of affected voters. Section 7 . requires elections pertaining to real property taxes, special assessments, tax abatement, legislative administrative acts, tax increment financing plan or transfer of real property taxes from one class of real property to another that affects the rates paid by real property owners. " Such elections may be held only on the third Tuesday in May and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and are limited to two elections each year. .f RAG EN,ROBERTS, O SCAN NLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 3 Section 8 states: "From and after passage of this Measure, the state, cities, counties, special districts, municipal corporations, quasi-municipal corporations, and other political and governmental subdivisions may impose special taxes or special assessments upon residents or property within such district, only upon a majority vote of the legal voters of the district voting on the question, or in the case of a proposed special tax or special assessment taxed or assessed against only a portion of the district, by a vote of the majority of the legal voters of the portion voting on the question, provided however, that neither any special ad valorem tax on real property nor any sales or transaction tax on any sale of real property may be imposed. " Section 9 of Ballot Measure No. 3 states: "This Article shall take effect for the tax year beginning July 1 following the passage of this Constitutional Amendment, except Section 7 and 8 which shall become effective upon passage of this Article. " General Obligation Bonds Currently, virtually all local government general obligation bonds in the State of Oregon are secured by the ability to levy an unlimited ad valorem tax suffic.ient to pay principal and interest on the bonds. This unlimited taxing capacity makes such general obligation bonds very secure investments and permits Oregon municipalities to obtain low interest rates. Of course, these low interest rates reduce the costs to municipalities of providing services to the public. Section 2 (c) states that unlimited .taxes would not be available to secure Oregon bond issues if the bonded indebtedness . were incurred after passage of the Measure. Once the Measure is in passed, therefore, Oregon municipalities could not issue general obligation bonds as they have in the past. Although the Legislature could grant municipalities the ability to borrow on some other basis, we anticipate that those borrowings would be less well secured than existing general obligation bonds, and, as a result, the interest rate which municipalities will be required to pay will be substantially higher . Since the Measure only exempts indebtedness which is s' incurred prior to or concurrent with its passage, general obligation bond issues must be "closed" on or before the "passage" RAGF_N, Rt_BERTS, O'SCANNLAIN, ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 4 of the measure. Presumably the drafters of the Measure intended the date of "passage" to mean November 2, 1982, and issuers should try to close their issues not later than November 2, 1982. Authorized but unissued bonds could not be issued after the date of passage. An argument could be made under Article IV, Section 1 (4) (d) of the Oregon Constitution that the date of passage means December 2, 1982; however issuers should not rely on this argument until the law is clarified. Bancroft Bonds Municipalities typically finance sewers, water lines, and street improvements by issuing Bancroft bonds. Bancroft bonds are secured primarily by special assessments against land, and are secured secondarily by the power of the issuing municipality to levy an unlimited ad valorem -tax. The vast majority of Bancroft projects are initiated at the request of the landowners who pay the assessments which are used by the municipality to pay principal and interest on bonds. No vote has been required to issue Bancroft bonds. The Bancroft bonding mechanism has permitted citizens of the State to bring utilities and street improvements to their property at a low cost because of the ability of Oregon municipalities to borrow at a low interest rate. Bancroft bonds are general obligation bonds and will not be issuable after the date of passage of Ballot Measure No. 3 if it is adopted. Cities and counties do have the authority to issue "assessment bonds" pursuant to ORS 223.785 which are secured only by assessment payments. Conceivably, such bonds could be issued to redeem general obligation improvement warrants. Unfortunately, a vote would appear to be required to levy the assessment; and the interest rate paid on assessment bonds will be substantially higher than the interest rate that would have been paid on general obligation Bancroft bonds, if there is a market at all. The interest rate charged to property owners will need to be increased to cover the increased borrowing cost, or the bond issuer will not have sufficient funds to pay bond principal and interest. Some Bancroft bond issuers are not currently empowered to issue special assessment bonds. They will have no way of taking out or refinancing any existing general obligation improvement warrants, and will be forced to default on those warrants if they do not receive legislative aid. TF RAGEN, ROBERTS, O SCANNLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 5 Municipalities having local improvement projects in - process should seriously consider pre-assessment and issuance of Bancroft bonds prior to November 2, 1382. Pre-assessment is a more costly and less politically attractive method than interim financing, but it avoids the risk of default. If pre-assessment is not practicable, projects should be delayed until after November 2, 1382. If a project is delayed until then and Ballot Measure No. 3 passes, the project may need to be delayed indefinitely. If Ballot Measure No. 3 is adopted, the costs of financing local improvements will increase substantially. Additional costs will include the cost of a heretofore unrequired election, and the higher interest rate municipalities will be required to pay on special assessment bonds which lack the security of an unlimited ad valorem tax. These costs will need to be passed on to residents benefited from the improvements, or the municipality and its residents will need to forego the improvements. Section 8 provides that special assessments may be levied A . . . only upon a majority vote of the voters in the district. Certain local improvement districts have no voters, although property owners may have petitioned for the proposed improvement. Can the petition or subsequent consent of a non- voter to be assessed be considered as meeting this requirement of Section 8? The answer will probably be provided by litigation. Interim Financing Many municipalities currently have notes and warrants outstanding which are intended to be replaced by long-term, general obligation bond financing. The most common examples include: a. General obligation improvement warrants issued to finance local improvements, which were to be redeemed with the proceeds -of Bancroft bonds; and b. Utility improvement interim notes issued by municipalities in connection with the sale of bonds to Farmers Home Administration and other government agencies, and other bond anticipation notes issued under the provisions of ORS 287.522 et. seq. Both of these interim financing mechanisms typically depend on the ability to issue general obligation bonds to repay ;` the interim lenders. Cities and counties may be able to repay RA.GEN, ROBERTS, OfSCANNLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 6 warrants with assessment bonds. If Ballot Measure No. 3 passes and municipalities cannot find, or the Legislature does not grant, power to issue long term debt, municipalities will likely default on their interim loans. Borrowing Secured by the General Fund Many Oregon municipalities currently issue tax antici- pation notes. In addition, a number of municipalities have financed capital projects through the issuance of lease participa- tion certificates or other devices that pledge the general revenues of the municipalities, but are not secured by a special tax. Because Ballot Measure No. 3 substantially reduces revenues available to municipalities, it is unlikely that munici- palities will have sufficient revenues available to them to utilize these financing techniques in the near future. Urban- Renewal Financings Because Ballot Measure No. 3 rolls back assessments to 1979 levels, and because it reduces the total amount of ad valorem taxes which will be levied, it will substantially reduce moneys flowing into tax increment funds. Since the money in tax increment funds is used to secure urban renewal bonds, Ballot Measure No. 3 will not only imperil existing urban renewal bonds, but it will substantially reduce or eliminate future urban renewal financings. The precise effect of the Measure on any given district cannot currently be determined. Although Ballot Measure No. 3 states that property taxes will be limited to one and one-half percent except under certain circumstances, it does not state how available taxing power will be allocated. Allocation will require legislative action, and only after that allocation is in place will it be possible to determine the effect of Ballot Measure No. 3 on particular urban renewal districts. We understand that when the Jarvis-Gann Amendment was adopted in California, the California Legislature appropriated money to urban renewal districts to avoid their default on their urban renewal bonds. At that time the California state government had substantial surplus revenues. This may not be a remedy in Oregon. The Oregon Legislature currently expects to have no surplus funds, and Article XI, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution prevents the WKWIN K- W NOW 9W RAGEN, ROBERTS, C SCANNLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 7 State from assuming the debts of counties, cities and other corporations. Comment on Municipal Revenues This memorandum is concerned with the effect of Ballot Measure No. 3 on the ability of Oregon municipalities to borrow. It does not address all of the effects of Ballot Measure No. 3 on the general revenues of Oregon municipalities, although the effects will be very substantial and very adverse. It may be appropriate, however, to note that Ballot Measure No. 3 measures "total revenues, " which include grants, in determining whether the one and one-half percent limitation may be exceeded. Municipalities which provide essential services or are otherwise permitted to exceed the one and one-half percent limitation, may have no incentive to obtain grants, because any grant funds obtained for capital projects could be used. to offset their tax revenues. A similar disincentive may apply to imposing fees for services which are currently supported by tax revenues, since fees are included in the definition of total revenue. Consider a fire district which has a substantial population increase after 1979, and which is permitted to exceed the one and one-half percent limitation. If population in the district increases at. a rate greater than two percent, the district will need increased revenues. If it imposes fees to obtain these revenues, the first fees will be used to reduce the property tax 'back to one and one-half percent. Ironically, this disincentive seems most likely to affect the providers of "essential services, " since they are the districts which are given the greatest ability to exceed the one and one-half percent limitation. Conclusion Many traditional financings will be disrupted or eliminated by Ballot Measure 3, if it is adopted. Issuers are strongly urged to complete any financings which are in process by November 2, 1982. A number of technical arguments are available which might soften the impact of Ballot Measure 3 in minor ways. These arguments have not been discussed here because none may be relied upon until the Measure is clarified. Clarification of the Measure may require litigation. RAGEN, ROBERT3, O SCAN NLAIN,ROBERTSON & NEILL Page 8 Obviously, however, no mere technical argument will eliminate the significant adverse impact that adoption of Measure 3 will have on the ability of local governments to exercise local control and to fund their basic activities. RAGEN, ROBERTS, O'SCANNLAIN, ROBERTSON & NEILL M E M O R A N D U M TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA SARGENT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT?I�' DATE: AUGUST 6 , 1982 SUBJECT: SIGN CODE ORDINANCE Staff is not prepared to hold a public hearing on the Sign Code Ordinance August 16. The Sign Code Committee is meeting regularly to work through language changes on temporary and off premises signs. Staff anticipates that the Sign Code Ordinance will be ready to be heard before Planning Commission on September 21 and before City Council on October 28 . In the interim, an ordinance extending the Sign Code time limitation has been prepared for your approval . LS dkr i REA:R• M ® Eff = aer t MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING STAFF SUBJECT: CPR 2-82 Dick Milligan NPO # 3 At the City Council meeting on July 26, 1982 the City Council asked staff to review the alternatives available ;:rich would allow Mr. Milligan to locate the antique shop on the property at 9960 S.W. Walnut. Staff Finds the following alternatives available in this matter. 1. NPO # 3 recommends to City Council that the C-3 Retail Commercial Plan designation be approved at this time and then the designation be changed to Neighborhood Commercial when the new complete Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Meanwhile, section 18.32.020 of the City Code should be amended to include rei.�ail sales as a conditional use in a C-4 Residential. Commercial Zone. (see attached minutes) The City attorney would not support the approval of a C-3 Retail Commercial Plan designation on this property without adequate findings. The C-3 designation is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. In addition, approval of the C-3 designation now with a change to C-4 in a few months could make the antique shop a nonconforming use. 2. Mr. Milligan, the applicant, would like the City to institute a permitted Commercial Use type which would allow the antique store and other similiar uses. Staff and the City Attorney would not support this alternative. The intent of the new ordinance of specific use types was to limit commercial uses allowed in the C-4 Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Allowing some Commercial Uses in the C-4 zones without review would defeat the purpose of the restrict- ions on commercial instituted with the new ordinance. 3. The City Attorney recommends that General Retail as a use type be allowed as a Conditional Use in a C-4 zone. Allowing general retail as a Conditional Use in a C-4 zone would require a review of each general retail use application before the Hearings Officer. This requirement would enable staff to review each application on all individual basis and make a determination as to whether or not the application meets the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council pursue alternative number three (3) an amendment to the zoning code would be necessary and if Council desires, staff would start the amendment process immediately. t i NPO # 3 MIf1UTES SPECIAL MEETING JULY 28, 1982 This meeting was called to consider the new proposed maps for the Comprehensive Plan and for Zoning. The other business was a request by Dick Mulligan for NPO 3 to reconsider its option at the last regular meeting. The meeting as planned to last from 7:30 to 8:30; it actually lasted from 7:35 to 9:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present were Bledsoe, Porter, Monnier, Horowitz, and Ramsdell. Vice Chairman Bledsoe conducted the meeting. Dick Mulligan reviewed the history of various actions concerning bis proposal to locate an antique furniture store at 9960 SW Walnut. He requested that NPO 3 reconsider its recommendation of denial of the Comprehensive Plan change to General Commercial. The NPO members were apprehensive about the long term possibilities under General Commercial (C-3); most of them still preferred it to be a conditional use under Neighborhood Commercial (C-4). The recent ordina:ce would have to be amended to allow for this possibility, In all, such a process would further delay Mr. Mulligan at least another two months. Mr. Mulligan stated that neither he nor the seller of the property would be able to endure that long of an additional delay. No motion was made because several members were absent and they were unaware this topic would be considered again. However, there was unanimous consent to recommend to City Council that those present all felt that a reasonable solution would be to pass the plan change at this time, and then to designate the property as Neighborhood Commercial when the new complete comprehensive plan is adopted for Tigard. Meanwhile, Section 18.32.020 of the City code should be amended to include retail sales as a conditional use in C-4 Residential Commercial. Probably this retail sales usage should be limited to smaller size than allowe' in C-3. Discussion of the maps for the comprehensive plan and zoning led to passage of the following motions concerning the proposed comprehensive plan map. The first two motions were unanimous. 1. The suggested ranges [for residential uses] are too broad. 2. Some major changes from the previous NPO 3 comprehensive pian need to be addressed by NPO 3 before they can be made: a. Low residential to medium. b. Commercial Professional to Linear Commercial. c. Medium residential to low. 3. The planned residential density proposed for the City has the possibility of doubling the [overall] density, and we think this is undesirable. A petition of 31 residents was received concerning item 2a above;. copies are attached. The meeting was adjourned late at 9:40 P.M. 5.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION CPR 2-82 Milligan NPO #3 ZONE CHANGE ZC 6-82 A request by Dick Milligan for a Comprehensive Plan Revision from Urban Medium Density residential to Commecial Residential and a Zone Change from C-3 (General Commercial) to C-4 (Residential Commercial) for the site. (a) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED • NPO Comment - The NPO #3 members recommended that the site be zoned C-4 (Residential Commercial). • Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation that the Plan- ning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan designation be changed from Urban Medium Density residential to General Commercial, and that the zone C-3 (General Commercial) be retained based on staff's analysis and surrounding land uses. L Applicant's Presentation - Dick Milligan, 15933 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon wants to purchase the property at 9960 SW Walnut, Tigard from James Moellman and Mary Ann Banky to establish an antique business . He stated next to this property is a Circle K store and two service stations. He thought the zoning was A-12 (Multi-family) and not C-3. In going to an NPO #3 meeting and after discussion, they felt the best zoning would be C-4 (Residential P Commercial). However, since it is C-3 he is satisfied with the zoning as is. (b) PUBLIC TESTIMONY a Ryan O'Brien, 140 NE 3rd Ave., Hillsboro, representing Dick Milligan, stated they would agree with leaving the zoning as C-3 with the exception of condition #2. (Dedication of additional 10 feet the width of the subject property.) He felt the dedication should be made at the time of occupancy. He stated the house would be preserved on the property and the antique business would be com- patible with the surrounding area. O There was no opposition. (c) CROSS EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL s Planning Director stated he had no objections to dedicating the property and filing City forms at the time of occupancy but stated the words 'prior to occupancy' should be in condition #2. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (d) COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION e Commissioners Helmer, Kolleas, Bonn, Owens, and President Tepedino j agreed the dedication should be filedrp for to occupancy. PAGE 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 8, 1982 MOM • Commissioner Moen agreed if the house is retained. • Commissioner Kolleas moved, and Commissioner Moen seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan desig- nation be changed from Urban Medium Density residential to General Commercial and that the zone C-3 (General Commercial) be retained with the three (3) conditions. Condition #2 should be changed to read: "The applicant/owner shall dedicate an addtional 10 feet of width of the subject property prior to occupancy. Such dedication shall be completed on City forms." Motion approved by unanimous vote of Commission present. 5.4 MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 23-81 NPO #1 An appeal by NPO #1 of the Planning Director's aproval of a minor land partition to partition 4.8 acres, zoned A-70/80 multi-family home for the aged into 3 lots; 4.0 acres, .3 acres and .5 acres respectively on property located at 13055 SW Hall Blvd. (Washington County Tax Map 2S1 2DA, lot 400) This item was continued from the May 4, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. (a) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED • NPO Comment - No report. It was stated that the report was given at the May 4, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. • Associate Planner Newton read the memo that was presented to the Planning Commission. Staff has attempted to reconstruct the dis- cussion and action that was taken by the development standards for the A 70/80 zone. • Applicant's Presentation - Dick Sturgis, representing his father and mother, stated the whole initial concept was to have the convenience store so the elderly would be able to walk to the store not drive. According to the plan, the convenience store will be connected to the residence with a covered walkway. He stated the only objection heard from the NPO is the safety factor. With the covered walkway, the safety factor should be solved. (b) PUBLIC TESTIMONY • There was no opposition. (c) CROSS EXAMINATION & REBUTTAL o Commissioner Helmer questioned if the residence or store would be built first. He felt the store should be internally built and the people could support it alone. PAGE 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 82 1982 _-- - August 16, 1982 r' MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Director t SUBJECT: Award of Bid, 74th Avenue LID #27 On Monday, August 16, 1982, bids were publicly opened and read for the construction of street and related work on SW 74th Avenue. Eight bids were received. Bids ranged from $68,881.00 to $93,125.00. The Engineer's estimate was $74,450.00. I recommend award to the low bidder, Baker Rock Crushing, of Beaverton, Oregon, in the amount bid. 8-16-82 SW 74th Avenue L.I.D. Bidder's Name Address Bid Bond Prequal. Bid Parker Northwest Paving P.O. Box 149 Oregon City, OR 9704 x $73.,892.50 R & R Excavatio Co. Silverton OR x `70 830.00* 7940 SE Division Arenz & Hurl Portland OR 97206 x $75.466.45 6101 SE Johnson Ck. Or on Excavati-ng Portland OR 97206 x $84,120.00 P.O. Box 02215 K.F. Jacobsen & Co. Portland OR 97202 x $93,125.00 1220 SE 190th Ave. Ore on Asphaltic Paving Portland OR 97233 x 1$69,292.50 21880 SW Farmington 3aker Rock Crushi Beaverton OR 97007 x $68,661.00** P.O. Box 4267 Cascade Constr. Portland OR 97208 x $87,223.00 *� qualification - payment on unit prices, etc. *'-..ld qualification - unit pricing will prevail w reen Wilson, Deputy Recorder Engineer's Estimate - $74,450.00 l w IMF 8-16-82 I SW 74th Avenue L.I.D. 00 V VA Bidder's Name Address Bid Bond Prequal. Bid Orl IaC 7 0 ' u ac, CG ,p O +3ox 1ai5 �H Co oV'1) '7 9 /cis ,G�� JZ�a 5� 1 go7r Ave ��, �o� �`7d 2l414MV -f o., 7617 & �G !G'lGl O n je, 97� oU �'C2i � Ter u �� ' �-r — 5 .�p to 7so to! p'�ua� c c�`t�-moi 1,� 17 cc.t-i tRz e r�� ►�- u}-, t '* �r)�-, ��,�: ' e`�C C L)C, '. u v r Emil August 16, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: Award of Bid, Tigardville Heights LID #28 On Monday, August 16, 1982, bids were publicly opened and read for the construction Of street and related work on SW 97th Avenue, SW McDonald Street and Solarcrest Subdivision. Six bids were received. Bids ranged from $189,668.97 to $256,881.00. estimate war. ; 222,983.90. The Engineer's I recommend award to the low bidder, Charles Schmidt, of Newberg, Oregon, in the amount bid. ELI WM 8-16-82 2:30 p.m. TIGRRDVILLE HEIGHTS L.I.D. 4 Bidder's Name Bid Bond Prequal. Schedule 1 Schedule 2 Bid Total Charles Schmidt x 145 162.00 44 506.97 189 668.97 Arenz & Hurl x 146 782.63 49 409.70 196,192-33 Cascade Const. x 190 780.00 66 101.00 256-881-00 K.F. Jacobsen Co. x 167 490.25 67 002.50 234 492.75 Pepper Const. x 161 599.85 49 125.19 210 725.04 Baker Rock Crushing x 147,938.37 47 406.35 195 344.72 Engineer's Estimate: $167,851.40 $55,132.50 $222,983.90 reen Wilson, Deputy Recorder Awme 8-16-82 , �-- TIGARDVILLE HEIGHTS L.I.D. rn, { Bidder's Name Bid Bond Prequal. Schedule 1 Schedule 2 Bid Total `4 ,s c 1 . .)0 y S 9 Part 1e 2 w- O C? a �ar tlar Cd.Sc4aAo- �ISv�,4'T. per'N car. s ^ 3 y '-/92. 7 s- w� ri 9 as. 0.utr�FUt'� J � �i N9 8/16/82 PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS S.W. 97th & S.W. McDonald - Area No. 1 NUMBER FRONT FRONT FOOTAGE TAX LOT OF LOTS FOOTAGE LOT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT TOTAL 100 1 101.5 .3.615.61 4,.381.67 . 7,997.28, , . . ` 101 1 181 .8 3 615.61_ 7,$48.15 . . 1,1,,.463.76. ' 103 3 200.0 1Q,846.84 _ 8f633.83 . _ 10 c.48p.b7. 10,846.84 8,633.83 Z3•,.48O.b7. 104 3 200.0 . . . . . . . . . . 105 1 50.0 3,615:61 2�158:�6 106 1 104.0 3j615.61. x,4.,489.59 8-,-1p5,20 . 107 1 85.0 7 3,615.61 3,669.38 . . . 7,284.9-9 . 200 i 90.0 3,615.61. 3.,885.22 . .77,5.00.83 . . . 300 1 86.6 3,615.61. :31738:45 7,354.06 . 301 1 96.5 3,615.61. :4,,165.8-2 _ 7.7$1043 . . 4 U2 2 96.5 7.23?=23 :4.1x.65:82 . . 400 1 84.0 3,615.61 r 626.21 . 74241,82 . , 500 1 83.9 3,615.61 . �3�621.89 _ 742�7�,5Q . 1000 4 382.8 14,462.45 X6,525.17 3Q,!J8'Z.62 . 14 22 1 ,842.6 79,543 50� . ,79,543.50. 1�9,,0$7,OQ . . . . S.W. Janzen & S.W. 97th Crt. - Area No. 2 1000 8 _ 35 6.05.54 _ _ 35,.k05.5.4 , 301 1 _ e4,450.69 _ 4,,,4,5Q.6.9 . 400 2 _ .8,901.38 _ 8,901.38 . 500 2 _ 8,901.38 _ 8,901-38 4 13 57,859.00 August 9, 1982 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING STAFF rG At their meeting of August 5, 1982, the Park Board revie--d the existing park rules which are a part of Title 7 of the Tigard Municipal Code. (Attached "Existing City of Tigard Park Rules") The Board unanimously approved recommendations for changes to three of the existing park rules. (Reference attached "Proposed City of Tigard Park Rules") The additions to rules number six and seven are underlined in the proposed park rules document. Language to be omitted in Rule # 12 of the proposed rules is in parentheses with replacement language underlined. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council incorporate the changes suggested by the Park Board into Chapter 7.52 of the Tigard Municipal code. If Council concurs with staff and the Park Board, an ordinance will be prepared for the August 23, meeting. E X I S T I N G - CITY OF TIGARD i PARK RULES The below listed rules reflect a composite of regulations extracted from Title 7 of the Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 7. 52 Pu-)Iic Property Use. The City Administrator has been delegated the authority by the City Council, to post these rules and regulations in "conspicuous places in the parks for the guidance of the general public and individual users. " The Tigard City Council finds that it is in the public interest and necessary for the peace,health and safety of the general public that the rules and regulations set forth below be enforced: A. 1. No person shall ride, drive or walk on such parts or portions of the parks or pavements as may be closed to public travel. 2. No one shall use loud, boisterous, abusive, or indecent language, or behave in a disorderly manner. 3. It is unlawful for any person to take into any park any intoxicating liquor, for other than his own use. 4. The sale or dispensing of malt beverages shall be allowed only after obtaining a permit to do so from the City Administrator subject to approval of the City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 5. It is unlawful- for any person to remove, destroy, break, injure, mutilate, or deface in any way any structure, turf, plantings or other property or improvements in any park. 5. It is unlawful for any person to place or discard any rubbish, or refuse or debris in or upon any park. 7. It is unlawful for any person to use firearms, firecrakers, fireworks, or explosives of any kind in any park. f S. It is unlawful for any person to solicit the acquaintance of another in any park, or annoy or follow children, or dis- tribute obscene -literature. 9. It is unlawful for any person to fish, wade, swim or bathe in any of the parks except in the places designated by regulation for such purposes. 10. It is unlawful for the owner, possessor or keeper of any animal to permit such animal to roam at large in any park. 11. No one shall enter or remain in the parks after the hours fixed by regulation to be posted at the entrance to the ( parks. 12. Use of the public areas herein described for organized group picnics, political or religious gatherings, or groups consisting of more than fifty adults in attendance at any one time, is unlawful unless a written permit has been issued with the approval of the City Administrator or City Recorder. 13. It is unlawful for any person to loiter about or to inter- fere with any park attendant in the discharge of his or her duties, or to cut, deface, mar, destroy, break, remove or write on any wall, floor, ceiling, partition, fixture or furniture in any public convenience station. 14. No one shall ride or drive any bicycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle, truck, horse, or any vehicle or animal in any part of the parks except on the regular drives designated therefor. 15. It is unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle on any park or playground area, except in regularly designated parking areas. B. 1. All other conduct or activities expressly prohibited by state law and city ordinances not mentioned above, shall be in full force; and violation of such state law and city or- dinance will be prosecuted; to include any and all felony and misdemeanor drug violations. ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY PROVISION STATED ABOVE, UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR BY IMPROSONMENT IN THE CITY OR COUNTY ..TAIL FOR NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. (ORDINANCE 71-12 §4, 1571) P R O P O S E D CITY OF TIGARD PARK RULES The below listed rules reflect a composite of regulations extracted from Title 7 of the Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 7. 52 Public Property Use. The City Administrator has been delegated the authority by the City Council, to post these rules and regulations in "conspicuous places in the parks for the guidance of the general public and individual users. " The Tigard City Council finds that it is in the public interest and necessary for the peace,health and safety of the general public that the rules and regulations set forth below be enforced: A. 1. No person shall ride, drive or walk on such parts or portions of the parks or pavements as may be closed to public travel. 2. No one shall use loud, boisterous, abusive, or indecent language, or behave in a disorderly manner. 3. It is unlawful for any person to take into any park any intoxicating liquor, for other than his own use. 4. The sale or dispensing of malt beverages shall be allowed only after obtaining a permit to do so from the City Administrator subject to approval of the City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 5. It is unlawful• for any person to remove, destroy, break, injure, mutilate, or deface in any way any structure, turf, plantings or other property or improvements in any park. 6. It is unlawful for any person to place or discard any rubbish, or refuse or debris in or upon any park. Px_a n in desi Hated trash rece ticles. 7. It is unlawful for any person to use firearms, firecrakers, fireworks, or explosives of any kind in any park, including airguns, bb guns, bows and arrows. 8. It is unlawful for .any person: to solicit the acquaintance of another in any park, or annoy or follow children, or dis- tribute obscene -literature. 9. It is unlawful for any person to fish, wade, swim or bathe in any of the parks except in the places designated by regulation for such purposes. i,. 10. It is unlawful for the owner, possessor or keeper of any animal to permit such animal to roam at large in any park. 11. No one shall enter or remain in the parks after the hours fixed by regulation to be posted at the entrance to the parks. 12. Use of the public areas herein described for organized group picnics, political or religious gatherings, or groups consisting of more than (fifty adults) twenty-five persons in attendance at any one time, is unlawful unless a written permit has been issued with the approval of the City Administrator or City Recorder. 13. It is unlawful for any person to loiter about or to inter- fere with any park attendant in the discharge of his or her duties, or to cut, deface, mar, destroy, break, remove or write on any wall, floor, ceiling, partition, fixture or furniture in any public convenience station. 14. No one shall ride or drive any bicycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle, truck, horse, or any vehicle or animal in any part of the parks except on the regular drives designated therefor. 15. It is unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle on any park or playground area, except in regularly designated parking areas. B. 1. All other condv-� c or actiaities expressly prohibited by state law and city ordinances not mentioned above, shall be in full force; and violation of such state law and city or- dinance will be prosecuted; to include any and all felony and misdemeanor drug violations. ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY PROVISION STATED ABOVE, UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR BY IMPROSONMENT IN THE CITY OR COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. f (ORDINANCE 71-12 34, 1971) .� a.i� M E M O R A N D U M f S_ TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: LINDA SARGENT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: AUGUST 6 , 1982 SUBJECT: YOHN MOBILE HOME On August 5, the Park Board considered the issue of the purchase of the Yohn mobile home at Cook Park as a caretaker ' s residence. The Board recommends to the City Council that the mobile home not be purchased but that a caretaker reside at Cook Park in their own housing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council move to recruit a caretaker to reside at Cook Park and to direct staff to develop an agreement for the caretaker ' s services. LS dkr i" July 22, 1982 z MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: Main Street Development LID Petition/SDR - Transportation JB Bishop, developer of the Mair. Street development, has petitioned the City for a local improvement district for the public streets in this project. In working with Mr. Bishop in a sort of preapplication process for Site Design Review, it is apparent that the public street improvements in this development are all part of either the collector street system as identified on the com- prehensive street plan or are critical segments of the downtown circulation plan. The improvement of the interior streets in this development and the extension of SW Ash Street to Fanno Creek have been identified as the responsibility of the developer by the City Council action of April 26, 1982. The facilities on SW Main Street and SW Pacific Highway have been identified as presently needing improvement even without the Main Street development. The Main Street development project will have an impact on this intersection which would further increase the need for improvements. For these reasons, staff would conclude that all these streets meet the Council's requirements as eligible LID projects (Bancroft Bonding) and further that the City participate on the grading, paving and signal changes of SW Main and SW Pacific Highway on a 50/50 basis with the developer, providing, however, that no participation by the developer on any extra capacity street will be eligible for SDC rebate. Em muff MWA�MIULMWKNR IK�AR� TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of Tigard County of Washington State of Oregon In the Matter of the Improvement ) Of lands described as: ) PETITION FOR AND CONSENT i TO CREATE A i LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Petitioners hereby request that the hereinbelow described area be improved by creation of an assessment district for the express purpose of ------------- (1) That the undersigned is in fact the owner(s) or the contract purchaser(s) of the indicated property(s). (2) That the undersigned represent one-half or more of the affected area as here- inbelow described. (3) That the cost of this improvement to be borne by the benefited properties and in respect thereto respectfully show: That the area proposed ::,,:?!reby to be improved by creation of an assessment district comprises =trroximately : . acres, and is legally described hereinbelow q.- .or in the attached sheet marked Exhibit "A" which by reference herein is made a part hereof) . WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that said lands be improved by creation of an assessment district and that the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon, expedite creation of the same as provided by law. Signature Address Map # Book # Tax Lot # Page # .00 • �o1:j� $�$� I��6� ,gam/ �OI�` aQ.�OQ.a�l�_®s!_s1F��®�� IL IL "0 • .T:�. i le I ai ■ � a i i �• i e � 1O v v1�S e e • I 4 ! i • ■ i AM SL ■ I L......................_» ! j • I .................. I • N a x = a 'R 1. -�.�........_.._..._»»»......�.....»»...__�_.._......»._».. o.........- ..... t A ' I � 1 N O I hs:a9s I — — 1_..__-- ■Seer IMF imr AW ®4a *Lee Jr AIA. Kcc Au Lo LiINA ti Jill V r r aj i f� moi+468 LLJ LU i. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED: August , 1982 BETWEEN: JB BISHOP ("Bishop") AND: THE CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation ( "City" ) Bishop is preparing to develop a shopping center in the City of Tigard to be called Main Street Center . In connection with that Center , certain on and off site improve- ments of a public nature need to be constructed. The City and Bishop have reached an understanding as to the fair and reasonable means of financing these improvements and allocating their cost. NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the City Council of the City and subject to all other requirements of the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Tigard, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City, with the full cooperation of Bishop, will form a local improvement district for the construction of the following improvements: a. Those interior roads in the Main Street Center as shown on the Main Street Center site plan approved by the City Council , which are to be built on dedicated rights-of-way and which will be built to City standards; b. A signal to be located at the intersection of Pacific Highway and the westerly entrance to the Center; t' C. A 32 foot wide improvement of Ash Street along its length abutting the perimeter of the Center with a curb and sidewalk along the property line of the Center , all built to City standards; and d. Such excavation and contouring as may be required by the City on that portion of the property owned by Bishop west of Fanno Creek and designated as park area on the site plan for Main Street as approved by the City Council. 2. Bishop shall be exclusively responsible for the payments required for the local improvement district described in paragraph 1 above. 3. The City, with the full cooperation of Bishop, shall form a local improvement district to construct the following improvements: the realignment and reconstruction of Main Street at its intersection with Pacific Highway, all as shown on the site plan for the Main Street Center as approved by the City Council. To the extent that property owned by Bishop is required to allow this realignment, Bishop will dedicate this property to the City. 4. With respect to the local improvement district referred to in paragraph 3 above, Bishop will be responsible for 50 percent of the payments required and the City will be responsible for 50 percent. 2 5. The parties anticipate further documentation of the agreements set forth above. However , upon approval by the City Council , this Memorandum shall be binding on the parties. BISHOP: JB Bishop CITY: THE CITY OF TIGARD By Bob Jean, City Administrator CITY COUNSEL: Approved As To Form: CITY COUNCIL: Approved by The City Council of the City of Tigard on July ( 1982 by a vote of By i 3 9 3 3 1 METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT 527 S.W.HALL ST.,PORTLAND,OR.97201, 503/221-1646 METR® Rick Gustafson EXECUTIVE OFFICER Metro Council August 2, 1982 CindyBanzer PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT 9 Bob Oleson DEPUTY PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICTI Charlie Williamson DISTRICT2 The Honorable Wilbur Bishop Craig Berkman Mayor Of Tigard DISTRICT3 P. V. Box 23397 Corky Kirkpatrick Tigard, Oregon 97223 DISTRICT 4 lack Deines Dear Wilbur: DISTRICTS Jane Rhodes At its July 22 meeting, the Metro Council passed DISTRICT6 Resolution Mo. 82-336, directing staff to establish a Betty Schedeen Westside Transfer Station Advisory Committee composed of DISTRICT one member from each jurisdiction in the Washington County Ernie Bonner service area. As Washington County' s resident Metro DISTRICT8 representative, I will serve as Committee chairman. Bruce Ettinger DISTRICT10 This Committee' s charge is to advise the Metro Council on Marge Kafoury the need for; type; cost; constructor/operator and level DISTRICT11 of service to be obtained from a Westside solid waste Mike Burton DISTRICT 12 transfer station. After reviewing the need for this project and making a decision about whether to proceed, the Committee would accomplish this charge by: Reviewing Metro' s Request for Proposal (RFP) criteria; Recommending proposal selection criteria; and Reviewing and ranking proposals and recommending the top firms to the Metro Council for formal action. On behalf of Metro, I would like to invite you to appoint a representative to this Committee. It is important that whomever you select is someone who will keep you advised of the Committee' s activities and will keep the Committee advised of your feelings about those activities. p M ME ® a M 'M August 2, 1982 Page 2 Attached is a tentative schedule which anticipates five meetings between now and February• r us to adhere to this schedule, we would reciate rAceiving the name of Tigard's representative by%August 16 If you have any questions, please act either myself or Phillip Fell at the Retro office (221-1646) . Cordially, Bob 0leson District 1 BO/PF/gi 6494B/Dl Attachment l TENTATIVE SCHEDULE t Week of: August 23 Organizational Meeting September 7 Public hearing (subsequent hearings to be scheduled if the Committee feels they are needed) September 13 RFP Criteria (presentation/discussion by Metro staff) October 18 Review criteria; finalize RFP November 15 Advertise RFP January 24 Receive proposals and forward to Committee members Mid-February Evaluate proposals and develop recommendations for Metro Council 6494B/314 WASHINGTON COUNT Inter—Departincnt Correspondcrtce /��✓f �- o� Date July 14, 798 To : Brent Curtis, Principal Planner From : Kevin Martin, Senior Planner f�� Subject SUMMARY OF MEETING WITH TIGARD AND KING CITY 7-13-82 In Attendance: Jean Young, Dick Fleer, King City; Wilbur Bishop, Bob _ Jean, Jeremy Coursolle, Tigard; Kevin Martin, Larry Svart, Washington County The purpose of this meeting was to determine the status of the planning interests of Tigard, King City and Washington County for two areas with- in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) adjacent to King City (see attached map). A question had been raised in the past by King City as to the planning and annexation intentions of Tigard for these two areas. Tigard's concern was that this area should be considered for future annexation to either King City or Tigard, and if King City was not interested in maintain- ing a planning interest for the area, Tigard would like to include it in its "secondary" area of interest. Bob Jean summarized the City of Tigardsarea of planning interest. The City will maintain an active planning stance .in its currently identified urban planning area, and in addition would like to create a "secondary" area of interest in- an area which includes the Bull Mountain Community Plan Area, portions of the Metzger/Progress Community: Plan adjacent to Tigard CI'ty limits, and a portion of the Aloha/Cooper Mountain Community Plan located between Scholls Ferry and Old Scholls Ferry Roads. The City will actively pursue annexation within its active plan area, and will maintain a passive annexation policy within their secondary area of interest. Jean Young summarized King City's planning intentions. Originally the City has not intended to expand its planning interest beyond the city limits. However, property owners within the two areas have expressed a preference to remain under Washington County planning jurisdiction with the option of annexing to King City-rather than Tigard. This being the case, King City indicated its willingness to include the areas within its planning area as a secondary area of interest. Kevin Martin summarized Washington County's stance. The County currently has planning jurisdiction over these areas and will continue to do the active planning in coordination with Tigard and King City, until the County plan is completed. The County would be willing to entertain a request from P a Brent Curtis July 14, 1982 Page 2 King City to amend the City's planning area to include these two areas as secondary areas of interest following completion of the County plan. Following discussion on the issue, an agreement was reached regarding planning interests for the two areas. Washington County will continue to manage active planning, while providing Tigard and King City oppor- tunity to review and comment. King City is strongly considering amending its plan to include the areas on a complimentary basis. Tigard is agreeable to this approach. If King City does amend itsplanning area, Tigard will want only to be kept informed of any future planning or dev- elopment activity, and will not seek annexations in the two areas. KM:mbm cc: Richard Daniels, Planning Director Yvonne Addington, Plan Manager Jean Young, King City Dick Fleer, King City Wilbur Bishop, Tigard Bob Jean, Tigard ✓' Jeremy Coursolle, Tigard Larry Svart, Associate Planner Richard Meyers, Senior Planner Hal Bergsma, Senior Planner T ,. � ■ , ,� �'�� \tom { _ .. - S ,, d- CITYF TIG WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON August 6, 1982 ELDON G. CHUINARD, M.D. 15537 S.W. SUMMERFIELD LANE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 Dear Dr. Chuinard: Thank you for your letter of July 24 regarding your concerns with the City of Tigard. Your letter initiated action toward the installation of a street light at the corner of 98th and Durham Road, and I thank you for your concern for our citizenry. In response to your concern for preservation of our fine trees, I must say that the City of Tigard does not have a board similar to Portland' s Tree Advisory Committee. In actual fact, the City has traditionally avoided the regulation of private properties. However, I do share your interest in the preservation of trees which, unfortunately, may one day become non-existent. I do think the preservation of Tigard' s trees li is worth exploring,- and that the best way of doing so would be to contact the chairman of our Park Board, Mr. Ron Jordan, 13235 S.W. Village Glenn Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223. The Park Board meets the fourth Thursday of each month, 7: 30 p.m. , at Tigard City Hall . I thank you for your interest in the betterment of your City, and encourage you to contact me should you have other concerns in the future. Sincerely, CITY OF TIGARD Wilbur Bishop, Mayor WB dkr cc: Park Board P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 634-4171 s ELDON G. CHUINARD, M.D. 15537 S.W. SUMMERFIELD LANE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 (503) 620-2744 July 24, 1982 Mayor Wilbur Bishop City of Tigard 12420 SW Main St. , Tigard, OR Dear Mayor Bishop, I wish to present the following considerations to you: 1) That when finances permit an overhead light be installed at 98th and Durham road. This corner is very difficult to locate in the dark, because of poor lighting, and could be dangerous to some �edestrian. 2) I wonder if the City of Tigard ha-, a Tree Advisory Committee similar to what the city of Portland has, and on which I serve. Since moving to Summerfield, I have noticed many fine old specimens of trees which might be identified and protected against removal by some developer, or city employee who does not know their value , i in our rapidly developing community. I am thinking of the sweet gum (liquidamber) in the margin of the yard at 12005 SW Hall Blvd. This is one of the finest specimens of this tree be- cause of the rare degree of brilliant coloring in the fall. The owners and the city of Tigard should know what a prize this tree is, and have it identified for preservation if possible ; when it is exfoliated its beauty is not apparent and it might be sacrificed as just another tree. I Sincerely, E. G. Chuinard, M.D. I i M E M O R A N D U M TO: ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR b6 DATE: JULY 2 , 1982 SUBJECT: WORK PROGRAMS, BUDGETS AND CUT-BACK OPTIONS As a reminder, all Department Work Programs are to be updated for the July-June 1982-83 Fiscal Year period and reviewed with me by July 15, 1982 . I would expect Division and Section Work Programs to be developed and reviewed by Department Heads by July 31, 1982 . Joy and I will be developing a 5-year financial projection by the end of July. We will be contacting you in this regard fairly soon. The 5-year plan will be based upon a maintenance of existing service levels projected for growth and inflation. Please contact Joy immediately with any preliminary information you may already have_ With the economy in general and unknowns as to the 12% tax limit, tax base, spring levies and other issues, a 5-year projection will be only a yardstick with which to measure our relative position. Cut-back strategies and program cut-back options must be developed. The 5-year financial plan and program cut-back options will be submitted to the Budget Committee by August 19, 1982. Each department is to prepare program priorities and budget allocations in priority I , II , and III order. Priority I is the basic administrative cost and primary program service, including all mandated services. Priority II programs are those necessary but not essential or mandated services, often those we do because we can do cheaper than contracting out. Priority III programs are those discretionary services which we are currently providing as a community service. No new programs or services, those currently not being provided, are to be added. This is a priority list of current programs and budget allocations . Attached are two examples. The City Administration department format should be useable for most departments, although the City Attorney format may be more useable for some of the programs with heavy Capital Project elements . Please begin preparing your thoughts. We ' ll discuss more at staff . I will want to review your proposals the last two weeks of July. Continued. . . ADOPTED _ CITY ADMINISTRATION 1982-83 I 11 III PERSONNEL SERVICES 121, 348 70,000 25,674 25,674 MATERIALS & SERVICES 14,800 10,000 2,400 2,400 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,200 800 200 200 CAPITAL PROJECTS 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BUDGET 137,348 80,800 28,274 28, 274 STAFF: CITY ADMINISTRATOR 1 1 EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 1 1 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2 1 1 TOTAL FTE 4 2 1 1 PROGRAM SERVICES: •ADMINISTRATION •CITY WIDE ADMIN.*MANAGEMENT •LABOR & MANAGE:i-IFNT & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NEGOTIATIONS oPERSONNEL & oPERSONNEL sAPPROPRIATE oPERSONNEL LABOR RELATIONS ADMINISTRATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM oVOLUNTEERISM eVOLUNTEERISM *PERSONNEL & STUDIES eCOMMUNITY *COMMUNITY LABOR eSYSTEMS RELATIONS RELATIONS RELATIONS STUDIES sBUDGET BASICS oCENTRAL *PURCHASING oMACC PURCHASING sMANAGEMENT oFINANCIAL SERVICES STUDIES oSPECIAL STUDIES oCDBG NOTES: •BASIC *EMPLOYEE eCITY-WIDE ADMINISTRA- TRAINING TRAINING TIVE COSTS eAA COSTS oAA COSTS ADOPTED CITY ATTORNEY 1982-83 I II III F^ PERSONNEL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 MATERIALS & SERVICES 70,000 49,000 11,000 10,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PROJECTS 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BUDGET 70,000 49,000 11,000 10,000 STAFF: 0 0 0 0 PROGRAM SERVICES: oCOUNCIL 12,000 2,000 2,000 eLITIGATION 2,000 oADMINISTRATIVE 7,000 3,500 3,500 ASSISTANCE oPERSONNEL & 2,000 LABOR RELATIONS *COURT 9,000 *POLICE 500 500 *PLANNING 10,000 3,500 3,500 oT.U.R.A. 500 500 oPUBLIC WORKS 2,OCI eLID's & BONDS 4,OC 1,000 1,000 NOTES: *LEGAL SERVICES *ATTENDANCE @ *FINDINGS OF & BASIC ADVICE PLANNING COMM. FACT oLEGAL *ORDINANCE & oMISC. RESEARCH DOCUMENTS RESOLUTION oCODE AMENDMENTS *REVIEW ORD. 'S PREPARATION oCT_TIZEN & RESOLUTIONS INQUIRIES oLITIGATION t WAL SECOND DRAFT - JUNE 25, 1982 CALLS FOR SERVICE MANAGEMENT jr RESPONSE PRIORITIES CRIMINAL PRIORITY TRAFFIC PRIORITY DISCRETIONARY P.IORITY Priority (#1) Priorit All Violent Crimes y (#1) Priority al) in Progress . Life Threatening Potential for violence or injury ®Homicide *Accident:Injury/ ®Alms (Fire or Police) *Robbery Fatal *Disturbances *Rape *Hit Itun:Injury ®Family Fights *Assault. *D.U.I.I. •Prowlers *Burglary *Reckless ®Extreme Hazards *Suicides or attempts (occupied bldg.) *Elude *Fires *Arson *Warrants Felony *Unwanted Persons *Wire down (Power) *Assist Agency (Criminal) *Hazards (injury threatening) • Priority (�2) Priority ATon-violent Crimes (#2) Priority (#2) In Progress zards to Public Non-violent *Burglary Safety *Assist *Non-Injury Agency (non-criminal (unoccupied bldg.) accidents on a ®Dog Bites ) eThe€t *Civil Matters eForgery Public street *Check Buildings *Fraud. *Directed Traffic *Hazards *Vice/NarcoticsEnforcement *Suspicious Auto/Person *Directed Crime *Random Traffic Enforcement *Hazards (no immediate threat) Patrol *Narcotics information *Subpeona/Summons Service *Persons: Drunk/sick/confused *Juvenile Problems ' *Check Occupant Priority 03) Priority *ReporteGe d crimes of (#3) Priori! (#3) all index crimes neral Traffic General which are cold *Traffic Nuisance *Traffic Problem *Parking *Abandoned Vehicles *Wire down (non-power) *Found Property *Non-injury accidents *Lost Propert Frith damage under y *Prowl Checks X400.00 value *Animal Problem *Assist Citizens *Deliver messages *Noise Abaitment *Private request for towing auto OVacation Checks *Unlisted Situations *Non-Injury accidents on private property (civil matter) Wit- • WHERE YOUR LOCAL TAX DOLLARS GO City of Tigard 1 ra Tigard School District Portland Community College b-C Tigard Water District O LZ @4 C2°O�� Unified Sewerage Agency $1,062 (62.5 ) $34 (.1'8%) Washington County ESD $30 ( .9%) Port of Portland •6%) Metro Service District $104 (6.1%) Washington County $293 (17.3%) Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District Note: This example shows the property taxes a Tigard resident paid to the various taxing bodies in Washington County during 1979-50. The example is based upon property assessed at $100,000. t W t es I b4z ,'P.— �` �.w.r.W lam..•�.'�' -� s � C y �.o b_ lu �� n G8 � 3 S - �� v._G•.fir G��yaaa� Vt wExAftk S�a �S 0% s� a�g fs �, th . lp �:`o� .S eo. ' � o� �a'S °"ii L�' j� �F a`°i - v.: •� is Sa "6u� � � py a� F7a � kgs �,-S7 99 09 000 ILA Cob Ef lz I It ''m m ca �. 1 4 MEMORANDUM August 10, 1982 TO: City Administrator FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: K-9 Program RE: Physical Problem with Joey and Washout of K-9 Program Sir: It is with regret that I must advise that I have had to wash out Joey for medical reasons. It appears that he has developed a bone disease (arthrosous) in his front elbows. This disease renders him unsuitable as a regular working dog, as he could not stand the stress. However, this problem can be corrected surgically; the prognosis is that he would be a functional pet. The kennel is going to refund to the City the $300 purchase price, and the owner has released the dog to Sgt. Martin as a house pet. Sgt. Martin has expressed an interest in the dog, and has scheduled Joey for surgery of both front elbows; the first surgery was completed last week. There is the possibility that Joey could be used in a limited capacity under controlled conditions; i.e. , building search for narcotics, tracking demnstrations. Subsequently, Joey may be considered an inactive reserve at this time. Sgt. Martin agrees that Joey's talents should not be wasted, as he had the potential to be a great working dog. I have replaced Joey with a large 10-month old AKC registered German shepard, named Jake. The cost was $50, the same price as Duke, our second authorized dog. The x-rays of both new dogs (hips and elbows) show no skeletal defects and are otherwise physically sound, as per our vet. Both dogs are in training at this time, indications are that they both will progress through the training in a faster than normal rate. There- fore, our on-line date of September may not be delayed more than 30 days. If there are any further questions relative to the above, please advise. Respectfully, R.B. Adams Chief of Police J RBA:ac �s MEMORANDUM July 30, 1982 TO: Officer Miller FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: K-9 Team Dog Handler Assignment RE: Duke I am pleased to advise that you will be assigned to the K-9 Team, and Duke. Effective date: August 2, 1982. Officer DeVeny will be the team leader, and responsible for the training of the dog and you as the handler. Subsequently, he has the delegated authority to direct and supervise the training through each phase to total certification of the dog and the handler. I will provide a program outline later. Also, this training can be certified by BPST and Chief Vickery's of Mt. Angel Police Department approval. Good luck and thanks for your interest in the program, it is appreciated. r R B. Adams Chief of Police RBA:ac cc: Officer DeVeny City Administrator MEMORANDUM July 27, 1982 a TO: All Patrol Division Personnel FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: K-9 Program Expansion HE: Patrol Officer/Dog Handler Recruiting There is the possibility of adding a second dog in the near future. Requirements: 1. Must be a resident of the city, or live within the growth boundary area at this time. 2. Must have facilities to .care for and house a German shepard dog, and family acceptance of the animal in the household. 3. Must be willing to devote considerable volunteer time to handler training and training of the dog, as well as maintenance training of learned skills thereafter. (Basic training time is 4 months). 4. Requires highly motivated individual in very good physical condition, who will strive for exceptional performance of his dog and himself as a handler. 5. Must be willing to coordinate vacation and holiday schedule with other handlers in the program. Also subject to call out at various times. This undertaking is a challenging assignment, and can be personally reward- ing. It is a tough assignment, and a strong belief in the program is essential, otherwise the program will fail. Supervisory personnel are excluded, as they must be available to manage their shift at all times. Any interested patrolmen are encouraged to advise me as soon as possible. Deadline date: 7-29-82. B. Adams Chief of Police RBA:ac WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 150 N. FIRST AVENUE \ HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DLPAR F%IENT VIRGINIA DAG G,Chairman 15031 648-8761 LYELL GARDNER,Vice Chairman JIM FISHER BONNIE L. HAYS LUCILLE WARREN July 19, 1982 Lou Ann Mortensen, Chairman Tigard Neighborhood Planning Organization # 3 11160 SW Walnut Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Mortensen: This letter is in response to your July 7th memorandum about the potential extension of SW Murray Blvd. or 135th Avenue. Let me assure you that the Washington County Planning Department is not promoting any particular al- ignment or extension of Murray Blvd. and has not formed a proposal for such a roadway. A connection between Murray Blvd. and Pacific Highway 99 has been listed by our staff only as a planning issue to be addressed in our community planning process for Bull Mountain CPO #4. I understand that, since your memorandum, representatives of your neigh- borhood have attended a Town Hall meeting for the Bull Mountain area and that you have talked with Richard Meyer, Project Planner for the Area, by telephone regarding the issue. I trust that as a result, you know what we know about the potential extension of Murray and feel more assured that we will make no plans without ample opportunity for participation of those persons it affects. As Richard related in Thursday night's Town Hall meeting, at least two current studies will provide helpful informatior on the Murray/ 99 connection issue. The transportation study being undertaken as part of our Transportation Plan development by our Planning Division and Public Works Department will shed some light on the need and ramifications of such an extension. Washington County Public Works and the City of Tigard also have recently hired a consult- ant to study an L. I.D. formation along 135th south of Scholls Ferry Road which will address the feasibility of such a connection and some of the location altern- tives. We are keeping close tabs on the results of these studies and informing our citizens accordingly. Additionally, the Joint Committee on the Regional Transporation Plan on which your own councilman, Tom Brian,sits may look into the potential extension in depth. I understand that your intent is to assure your neighborhood's voice in the planning of any road improvement affecting your property. You and your an equal opportunity employer Lou Ann Mortensen July 19, 1982 Page 2 neighbors are certainly welcome to keep up-to-date on these studies by continuing to attend our CPQ # 4 meetings. Additionally, may I suggest that you keep in close touch with your own representatives and planning staff in Tigard, who are also involved in the transportation studies that concern you. Sincerely, kichard A. Daniels Planning Director RAD:mbm cc: Tigard City Council ✓ Tigard Planning Commission Washington County Board of Commissioners Community Planning Organization # 4 (CPO #4) i 1 _ z r; a_ boo' -_. •"'"�sz�is - w ZZ NA R h 777777 e 5 v I Supurbon Low Density lensety O Density r --1 --1 K T y_LNi- Ret Consm4cial F? 410 4 F \ I _ :� _ <'• I of O '.AJC-•:{::•:. -.F'�;• IO J i `S.:i:�?F'�s.._•i-fit• ..: :S!I *f \ 2- �- ..9�.. -'' ,t:ry";F�•t:.�. :t.��a a OOIO �., � � '<:<^' �1'3_3'!.'is =:9=i