City Council Packet - 04/25/1983 ;1 AK X111 uuLNC1L PUBLIC Nu•i10E: Anyone wishing to speak onan
nc�:CLAR MEE'l1NG CILNDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
APRIL 19b3, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). it no sheet is available,
en
cu'�LEh 'LNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ask toare asked ecOg to be kept ized byChair.
4 minutesooralesda
ROOM
Chair.
and are heard at the discretion of the
KEUL'LAK htE'IING: '
1 11Call lO Order and Roll Call
t 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call 10 Stait, Council 6 Audience For Non-Agenda Items Under Open
Agenda
_ �UMSEKI AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may bet
anacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may reque
that an item be removed for discussion u
. ld separate action. Mor Lon to:
..1 Accept Kneeland Estates KESULUIIUN NU. 83- 40
;.crept Proclam
"M:, Y—til Employment Month"
ation
Receive and File:
• `iemo Regarding Washington tuunty Public Uificials Caucus
• City Council Calendar
• beaverton Lrban Planning .`.r>�:, r\greeuwut
• of a Municipal. Sales Tax
Summary Review .Y
• Letter trom Pacific Mobil S=rvice Center
• Letter from lsashington County Board of Commissioners
Approve Expenditures and
Investments Approve 286,588.15
Approve Minutes of April 4, 9, 1983
,,u accept Street Dedication anu Authorize Signing v
• Richard L. S Norma Lee Gronholm
• William S Martha L. Nickoloif
• Arlene B. Stites and Lynn b. S Monica McDonald
t
1NIKUDLCE 'FINANCE DIRECIUR ,
• City Administrator 4
i
KAbLE S1REE1 VACATION ORDINANCE Nt- 83-
5
• Director of Planning 6 Dr'v,,lopment
E
:;,!_A\'l AiVACIFIC ENGINEEKS REPUt:'I
Public Works Director s
t
!•:.FiMUC'll, LID KEPOKI
• I'ur)lic Works Director
f
ASh!PAClF1C LID, :.3a (cOntinueu lrom 4/11/1;3)
• Public Hearing Openeu C
• Summation by Public WOvks llirector
• Public lestimony: Opponents, Proponents {
• Public bearing Closed
• Council Consideration anu Action
OKDINANCE NU. 83-
F.AGUE uF OREGON COUNCIL 1RAININC - Discussion {
• City Administrator
upLN AGENDA: Consideration of Non-Agenda Items identified to the Chair
undi r item 1.3 will be discussed at this time. All persons are
encouraged to contact the City Administrator prior to the meeting.
1L. AD,;ULKN,IEN1
.\dNCI L AGENDA - APRIL 25, 1963
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors Tom
Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla and Ima Scott;
City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public
Works; Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City
Administrator; Penny Liebertz, Clerk III; Ed
Sullivan, Legal Counsel (arrived 7:43 PM) ; and
Jerri Widner, Finance Director.
2. CALL TO STAFF, COUNCIL & AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS UNDER OPEN AGENDA
o The City Administrator noted the following:
o Washington County Public Officials Caucus is April 28th.
o Under Item 2.6, Street Dedication acceptance from Richard and Norma
Gronholm is joint ownership with David and Beverly Hurt.
o City Administrator also requested addition to agenda of Sales Tax
Spending Limitation and Metro Workshop for Discussion.
o Under Item No. 4, item should read Public Works Director, not
Planning Director.
E
o Item 7 involves a resolution not an ordinance.
o Nancy Robbins, 12085 SW Summer Street thanked members of the Council
and City Administrator for their support during school closure battle.
o Councilor Scott requested Item No. 2.1 Kneeland Estates RES. No.
83-403, Item No. 2.3 - City Council Calendar and letter from Pacific
Mobil Service Center be pulled.
2.KNEELAND ESTATES - RESOLUTION NO.83-40 RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY
COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTED WITHIN
KNEELAND ESTATES II SUBDIVISION,
SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS.
o Councilor Scott asked Public Works Director about the maintenance
bond amount. He stated it is 206 of the cost of construction, and
will probably be in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000.
o Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt
RESOLUTION No. 83-40
0 Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
3. ACCEPT PROCLAMATION "MAY YOUTH EMPLOYMENT MONTH".
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to accept.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
4. RECEIVE AND FILE THE FOLLOWING:
Memo Regarding Washington County Public Officials Caucus.
Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement.
Summary Review of a Municipal Sales Tax.
Letter from Washington County Board of Commissioners.
(a) Motion to receive and file: Council Brian, seconded by Councilor
Scott.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
5. APPROVE EXPENDITURES AND INVESTMENTS $286,588.15.
(a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
6. APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 9, 1983.
(a) Motion to approve: Counc=lor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott.
I
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
i
7. ACCEPT STREET DEDICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE SIGNING:
Richard L. & Norma Lee Gronholm - David & Beverly Hurt. $12,850.
William & Martha L. Nickoloff $17,824.
Arlene B. Stites and Lynn B. & Monica McDonald $ 2,400.
(a) Motion to accept and authorize signing: Councilor Brian, seconded by
Councilor Scott.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
8. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR.
o Councilor Scott questioned June 28th special election date and reason
for June 30 Special Council meeting.
City Administrator verified June 28th Special Election date, which
will be dependent upon the May election results. Under Oregon law,
budget for the coming year must be adopted prior to the beginning of
that new fiscal year. If last minute adjustments are necessary before
Council votes to adopt the bu, at, then there will be need for the i
June 30th Special Meeting.
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983
o Councilor Scott noted that several dates were suggested for the
Council Leadership Training Program. Discussion followed and Council
consensus was to discuss this at a later date.
o Councilor Scott thanked staff for including Pacific Mobil Oil letter.
o Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scott to receive and
file Council Calendar and letter from Pacific Mobil Service Center.
o Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
9. INTRODUCTION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR JERRI WIDNER BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
o City Administrator briefed Council about new Finance Director's
education, background, accounting and finance experience.
10. KABLE STREET VACATION
O Public Works Director reported that at the last regular meeting staff
was directed to prepare an ordinance. This is a standard ordinance
for street vacations except for the last section, where clause is
added to require Southern Pacific Company to dedicate the necessary
right-of-way on 72nd Avenue at the condition of the vacation of Kable
Street. The ordinance will not become effective until such time as
necessary right-of-way on 72nd Avenue is dedicated.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 83-23. AN ORDINANCE VACATING SOUTHWEST KABLE STREET, A
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF TIGARD,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
o Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt.
o Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
12. ATLANTA/PACIFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT.
o Public Works Director commented that Cooper Consultants, lac. had
been commissioned in February to prepare an Engineering Report and
Feasibility Study. Boyd Davidson of that firm made a presentation of
their findings.
o Discussion followed by Council members regarding storm drainage
runoff, ownership of property, construction cost comparisons,
Engineering Administrative costs, assessment methods, etc.
i
r
i
PAGE 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES— APRIL 25, 1983
13. RESOLUTION NO. 83-41. DECLARING AN INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN STREET
AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA DETERMINED
TO BE A STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO
BE KNOWN AS STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 35, THE
SOUTHWEST 68TH PARKWAY, DESCRIBING THE PROBABLE
TOTAL COSTS THEREOF, DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
DISTRICT TO BE BENEFITED AND ASSESSED, APPROVING
AND ADOPTING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE WORK
AND ESTIMATES OF THE CITY'S ENGINEER, AND SETTING
PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING THE GIVING OF NOTICE
THEREOF.
o Legal Counsel clarified wording to be used in RESOLUTION NO. 83-41 as
follows:
In Sub-Section B of the first page, 6th line down, after the word
improvements, Add "utilizing Alternative B, as provi"-ed at Page 24
of the Engineer's report." In Sub-Section D change the date to
5/23/83. Add Sub-Section G, "That the City Engineer be, and
hereby is, authorized and directed to negotiate an Engineering
contract for the said improvements."
o Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt as
amended RESOLUTION No. 83-41.
o Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
14. DARTMOUTH L.I.D. REPORT
o Public Works Director reported on Dartmouth Extension, noting the
wide range of proposals as follows;
MacKenzie Engineering $ 7,000.
Robert E. Meyers Consultants $202025.
R. A. Wright Engineering $ 4,500.
o Public Works Director further commented there is also a wide range in
the approach that each engineer took to provide the necessary
information. Cost to a project might be less in long run with a more
expensive proposal up front, assuming that there might be problems.
Other engineer's proposals did not deal with that detailed work up
front. Public Works Director requested Council's direction before
making a recommendation for the project.
O Discussion followed with Public Works Director answering questions of
concern from Council.
Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian directing
Public Works Director come back with an agreement with R. A. Wright
for City Council review, meet with 4 largest property owners and a
representative of the NPO, and ask them to consider paying $4,500
engineering fee.
o Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
COUNCIL RECESSED AT 8:52 PM
PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983
COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9: 15 PM
15. ASH/PACIFIC LID, #38 (continued from 4/11/83)
o Legal Counsel said the packets contained a series of memoranda by
City Legal Counsel, Finance Director and special Legal and Finance
Counsel dealing with Ash/Pacific LID. The Counsel memos noted that
the major land owner was in the midst of corporate reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act. City Attorney also discussed
other memoranda from other consultants dealing with legal issues
concerning foreclosure when owner is in bankruptcy and salability if
Council proceeds with the L.I.D.
o Motion by Councilor Scott to table, died for lack of a second.
o Finance Director read report briefly summarizing project.
Public Hearing Opened.
o Motion by Councilor Scott, seconded by Councilor Cook to continue the
hearing to May 9, 1983.
o Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
Public Hearing Closed.
o Legal Counsel commented that they will work with all the property
owners, including the major principals to deal with the issues that
were raised here, and a further report will be sent to Council before
the May 9th meeting.
16. LEAGUE OF OREGON COUNCIL TRAINING.
o Council discussed possible dates for the program, a Friday evening,
full weekend, or four hours on a Friday and 8 hours the following day
to complete the block of the 12 hour program.
o Mayor Bishop contended if all Councilors are not interested, it is
not worthwhile to pursue.
o Consensus of opinion by Council is to discuss this program at some
future time.
17. OPEN AGENDA
o Sales Tax Spending Limitation.
o City Administrator discussed major reform issue which would be a
constitutionally limited sales tax dedicated to property tax relief,
and the various changes proposed. City Managers felt they could
support the limitation if it were a limitation on the operating
budget, but not a limitation on the capital project budget to give
some flexibility to capital projects. t
PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983
ULORM
o Metro Service District Workshop will be held the evening of May 17th
and all day on May 18th, at the downtown Hilton.
I
o Councilor Schecicla noted that the Mayor and Public Works Director
were at Summerfield on Wednesday giving the update of the Durham Road
situation and did a very find job.
18. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:52 PM.
City Recorder
ATTEST:
Mayor
d (0398A)
PAGE 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1983
i
i
i
r.
r w
PROCLAMATION
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT MONTH
'a MAY, 1983
• WHEREAS, a job means more to youth than just money, and the
V. employment of youth makes a positive and far-reaching contribution
employment
i to the community; and
t _r WHEREAS, the employment of youth provides an immediate payback
to the community by creating new buying power and new taxpayers;
i
WHEREAS, a major consideration of industries when considering
relocation sites is the education, training, and work ethic of
the available workforce; and
' WHEREAS, youth learn positive work habits best through firsthand
experience in the working world; and
WHEREAS, strong evidence exists that prolonged periods of
. unemployment as a youth increases probability of lower wages,
low self-image, and frequent bouts of unemployment as an adult;
and
! WHEREAS, research indicates that those who work as teenagers
I are better employees as adults; and
• WHEREAS, statistics indicate that the major reasons given by
young people for crimes committed are lack of work, poverty,
, .� drugs; and
WHEREAS, statistics also indicate that involvement with the
courts, drugs, and alcohol abuse diminish with employment of
youth; and
WHEREAS, youth unemployment has risen steadily for the past 25
years; is now at 23.8%2 and historically has risen to alarming
proportions each summer;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Wilbur A. Bishop, Mayor of
the City of Tigard, do hereby proclaim the month of May as
iYOUTH EMPLOYMENT MONTH
! in order to focus community attention on the need for job
opportunities for youth to better prepare them for a lifetime of
successful employment, responsible citizenship, and positive
'I contribution to the community.
Given under my hand as Mayor of the City of Tigard this 25th day
of April, 1983.
Mayor - City of Tigard
<s:
Y
� 3
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
1
FROM: BOB JEAN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 21, 1983
SUBJECT: MARCH 24 , 1983 , WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAUCUS
The March meeting of the Washington County Public Officials Caucus
was held in the City of Beaverton. The following topics were
discussed:
1. Cable television update. Mayor Jack Nelson of Beaverton who
is a member of the National League of Cities Telecommunications
Committee and Chairman of our Metropolitan Area Cable Commission
reported the latest progress at a national level affecting
cable t.v. negotiations. The industry is attempting for total
deregulation and invalidation of existing local government
franchises. Local governments are obviously concerned with
t regulating the quality and the pricing of service but not
content or censorship. The compromise at the national level
appears to be that franchises that are currently in effect
may remain in effect for half of the current franchise life
or 5 years, whichever is greater. Since our MACC franchise
is 15 years, then the half life of 7 years would be the term
of the current rate regulation of the franchise. At the end
of that time, the City' s ability to regulate rates would
lapse, although its ability to regulate quality of services
of franchised utility would continue.
2. Urban Services Study update. I provided the Caucus with an
update of the Urban Service Study. Phase I of the Study has
been authorized and is in progress. We had originally hoped
for a faster start up but the project is under way at the
present time with the City and special district members
participating. Phase I of the Study will deal with the base
level of Urban Services, essentially who provides what service
and at what base cost. Phase II of the Study is our next
objective as far as commitments on financing; that will deal
with the issue of who pays for what, the questions of double
taxation and urban subsidy. It is expected that the County,
some of the other special districts , some of the remaining
cities and the private sector will participate in Phase II .
Mayor Nelson is heading up a subcommittee on Phase II funding.
. . . Continued . . .
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 21 , 1983
PAGE TWO
3. Legislative update. 14r. Fred Neill of the League of Oregon
Cities staff presented a legislative update to the public
officials. Of interest to me was a proposed bill in the
legislature that would require LCDC acknowledgement of local
plans by July 1, 1984 , or the loss by the local government of
all state shared funds. The question of course arises, "what
if the City has submitted but LCDC has not yet had time to
acknowledge? Mr. Neill did not have an answer to that and
expressed that that was obviously the concern of the League
of Oregon Cities . An overview of other general legislative
issues was then discussed.
4. Economic Development. Mayor Nelson gave an overview of the
Regional Economic Development Committee and its interest in
using the cable t.v. interactive institutional network to
provide economic development information throughout most of
Washington County through the MACC communications system.
The next meeting date was tentatively set for the third Thursday
in April , which is April 28 , at the Washington County Court House.
Washington County will host this workshop. It is my hope that at
this Caucus meeting, or at some future Caucus meeting, we may then
discuss the Urban Service Study further, perhaps with an overview
�- of the Multnomah County experience by Multnomaf� County Executive
Dennis Buchanan. Additionally, I would hope that we could get
into a discussion of the W.C.C.L.S. library levy and a suggestion
in the paper by Executive Buchanan that a tri-county library
system ought to be formed.
RWJ dkr
's
4
April 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob -Jean, City Administrator Q�
SUBJECT: Council Calendar
I thought a Council meeting schedule preview
trying to theto the monthly uback 1 calendar
might be useful. As you can see, 1 er month now that the Budget and
regular meetings and one study ssion p
passed.
Comprehensive Plan peak workload are
May 9 - Regular Meeting
May 16 - Study Session
NOTE: May 17, Levy Election
May 19 - Budget Committee
May 23 - Regular Meeting
June 13 - Regular Meeting
June 20 - Study Session
- Regular Meeting
June 27
NOTE: June 28, Special Election'.
June 30 - Special Meeting? (Short!)
July 11 - Regular Meeting
July 18 - Study Session
July 25 - Regular Meeting
August 8 - Regular Meeting
August 15 - Study Session
August 22 - Regular Meeting
If Council wishes to pursue the League's Leadership Training Program one
weekend, any of the following Saturday/Sunday afternoons might schedule well:
May 7 and May 8
May 14 and May 15
May 21 and May 22
June 18 and June 19
June 25 and June 26
pm
(0458A)
April 15, 1983
' •h
C17Y OF TLGA RD
Mr. Kevin Martin, Senior Planner WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Washington County
Administration Building
150 N. First Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
RE: Beaverton Urban Planning Area Agreement
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed new Urban Planning Area
Agreement between the City of Beaverton and Washington County. 1 have
reviewed the document and exhibits. My only comment relates to Exhibit "A"
which illustrates the City of Beaverton's designation of primary areas of
planning interest.
Tigard has an interest in two of the areas shown, Washington Square and the
area between Lower Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road.
The City of Tigard recognizes Beaverton's interest. Tigard also wishes to go
on record as expressing interest in Washington Square as well as the entire
Metzger area to the east of the commercial center. Within Tigard's Urban
Planning Area Agreement, which will be prepared in the next few months
Tigard intends to illustrate its interest in moving toward.
Prior to execution of our final UPAA which Washington County, the City Council
will be asked to adopt a resolution which recognizes the adopted Metzger
Progress Community Plan and proposes a mechanism for the implementation of the
plan when the area is annexed to Tigard.
Tigard's other concern is the area between the Scholls Ferry Road. Tigard
feels that the Old Scholls Ferry Road is a more appropriate and logical
boundary line between Beaverton and Tigard. Tigard intends to adopt the land
uses proposed by the County in the Bull Mountain Community Plan, which apply
to this area.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please call.
Sincerely ,
William A. Monahan
Director of Planning; and Development
WM:ch
12755 S W ASH P0 BOX '1:1:19% I is SAI if) OI 11 (,f err: F'I i r,:1 �-•�1 71 —- - ---- .-
` G4 01V
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING= 150 N. FIRST AVENUE
HI L 1
``\
RF ✓ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
nL I (503) 648-8761
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Y'
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman G;,� ��,�` -`EPe•
EVA M. KI LLPACK ��►► 1 �? V
JOHN E. MEEK P
LUCILLE WARREN
t
March 31 , 1983
(
TO Interested Parties
FROM Kevin Martin, Senior Planner ''
SUBJECT BEAVERTON URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT (UPAA)
Washington County proposes to adopt a new UPAA with the City
( appreciate your reviewing the draft
of Beaverton. I would apP comments you may have to me b5'
-agreeme �and submitting any questions please call me
April 15, 1983. If you have any
at 6 2-
mbm
(
lover
an equal opportunft)• e�np
ON
WASHINGTON COUNTY
<3_ ADMINISTRATION BUILDING — 150 N. FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO,OREGON 97123
\OnE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (503) 648-8761
WES MYLLENBECK. Chairman
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman
EVA M. KILLPACK
JOHN E. MEEK
LUCILLE WARREN
2-3-83
WASHINGTON COUNTY - BEAVERTON
URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 19 by
WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter
referred to as the "COUNTY," and the CITY OF BEAVERTON, an incorporated
municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY."
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a
party to the agreement, its officers or agents , have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City,
County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall
be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and
regional plans adopted under QRS Chapter 197; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each
jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement
setting forth the means by which land use coordination in the unincorporated
areas within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre-
hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish:
1. A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth
Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest
in comprehensive planning;
2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the
Urban Planning Area; and
3. A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, THE COU!!TY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. _Location of the Urban Planning Area
The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY
includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement.
an equal opportunity employer
Page 2
II. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development
A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing
Regulation
1. Definitions
Com rehensive Plan means a generalized, coordinated land use map
and policy statement of the governing body of a local government
that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activi-
ties relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to,
sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational
facilities , recreational facilities , and natural resources and
air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan"
amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map
changes.
Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning
ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or
92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for
implementing a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation"
does not include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional
use permits , individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit
( development approval or denials , annexations, variances,
building permits and similar administrative-type decisions.
2. The COUNTY shall provide :ne CITY with the appropriate oppor-
tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments
to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing
regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the
appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on
proposed amendments to or adaption of the CITY comprehensive plan
or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be
followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one
another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or
implementing regulation:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify
the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the
proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini-
tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final
hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of
involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of
Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning direc-
tors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of
Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which
the responding agency shall participate in the adoption
e
Page 3
process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed
action, the responding agency determines it does not need to
participate in the adoption process, it may waive the
requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of
Understanding."
b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations
on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its
review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise
agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding
agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to
submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response
shall be considered "no objection" to the draft.
C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by
the responding agency either by a) revising the final recom-
mendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency
explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final
draft.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If after such consideration, the originating agency
�. acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the
responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the
appropriate appeals body and procedures.
e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi-
nating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to
the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if
not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen-
tation is available to properly inform the responding agency
of the final actions taken.
B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners
1. Definition
Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a local
government which requires notifying by mail the owners of
property which could potentially be affected (usually specified
as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action
which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or
parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be
limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map
amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual
subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit developments,
variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process
which is quasi-judicial in nature.
Page 4
2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review
a0 comment on proposed development actions requiring notice
within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide
the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed
development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that
may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated
Urban Planning Area.
3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the
CITY to notify one another of impending development actions:
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by
first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which
identifies the proposed development action to the other
agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the
responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the
originating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre-
tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral
f response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written
or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the
proposal .
G. If received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall
include or attach the comments to the written staff report
and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding
agency in such report or orally at the hearing.
d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
actioi. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures.
C. Additional Coordination Requirements
1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one
another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but
are not subject to the notification and participation require-
ments contained in subsections A and B above:
Page 5
a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the
proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall
send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen-
das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency,
hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest
opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the
date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure o` the
responding agency to receive an agenda shall not in- idate
an action if a good faith attempt was made by the or ,gi-
nating agency to notify the responding agency.
b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond
at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written
form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing.
Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no
objection" to the proposal .
C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con-
sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed
action. If, after such consideration, the originating
agency acts contrary to the position of the responding
agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action
through the appropriate appeals body and procedures.
D. The CITY and the COUNTY agree that when annexation to the CITY takes
place, the transition in land use designation from one jurisdiction to
another should be orderly, logical and based upon a mutually agreed
upon plan. Upon annexation, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan
and zoning designations to CITY plan and zoning designations which
most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of
the COUNTY designations. Such conversions shall be made according to
the tables shown on Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. Furthermore, the
CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the effec-
tive date of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning
Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation
is outdated and should be amended before the one year period is over.
III.
Special Policies
A. The CITY shall be afforded the opportunity to enter into a "Memorandum
of Understanding" with the COUNTY, as provided for in Section II (A)
2 (a) of this agreement, at the time the COUNTY begins the periodic
review and update of the Raleigh Hills/Garden Home (CPO 3) and
Metzger/Progress (CPO 4) Community Plans.
B. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive
planning and development actions to the Community Planning
Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures outlined in Section
II of this Agreement.
Page 6
C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend
the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the
text of the COUNTY zoning code shall be mailed to the CITY within five
(5) days after its introduction.
D. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone
land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be
mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction.
IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement
A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY
to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area
Boundary:
1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the propo-
sal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the
responding agency.
2. The formal request shall contain the following:
a. A statement describing the amendment.
b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amend-
ment is necessary.
C. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map
which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding
area.
3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating
agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the
request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review
to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received.
4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve
requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review,
the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or
make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants addi-
tional review. If it is determined that additional review is
necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY
and COUNTY:
a. 'If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved
in the review process as outlined in Section IV (3) , the
CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study.
Such a study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is
determined that a proposed amendment creates an incon-
sistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said
( date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct
of the joint study shall be mutually t greed upon by the CITY
and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study.
Page 7
b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recom-
mendations drawn from it shall be included within the record
of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment
shall give careful consideration to the study prior to
making a final decision.
B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years to
evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to
make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two
(2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60
days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any
inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review.
If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still
remain, either party may terminate this Agreement.
This Agreement commences on 19 k
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement
on the date set opposite their signatures.
t
{
CITY OF BEAVERTON
t
By Date '
Mayor '
t
I
z
WASHINGTON COUNTY `
By Date
Chairman, Board of County
{
Commissioners
Date
ecor ing Secretary
E
i
nvc
-2.5-2 5
Anpryla 2 . 3
ai
11"I.1 J T-1 1 J i 1.J - .... _ __._ ._ ..
i -_0._' d J86RJi8�4�P`i 1[I�i�i Jt�Jti iT tji Iji �! JiT (j 1�J Jai I[1 JI! ij. f(€ !{! ! C i ! J { F 8 1 J T_I J ! 8 J J e ! 1 i l t
_ � � t E � �. j �. -_ ( � � €. � Q t I 1 i I t t i it !' !�! Iti•1 1 J J !
NOTE: IF 7H IS MICROFILMED _ _ ._..I. 2 .3 'Q' __. ._ J C'8_ _ T _ _ 9 0
DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN i ��
THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ! .
THE QUALITY OF TME ORIGINAL i - •' _ -
DRA8IING.
OE 62 6Z G2 9Z SZ 4Z EZ ZZ IZ OZ 6t 81 Li ' 91 SP� 4i -El—_ Vii.___-it 01 _S ® t--'9*Ma 'r A"1 9 H'r
_ �w�lullnulluellulluulwn�Jlut<Jl� ! Otto �
9 0
Jm
--- —
_. -.
I y`
iL l ;I_L ,
I_ .
'l ''`� , Idll' .L i)!n 'x '; -� rI II 'u Jr '_ I yd.•' -� � i .�. �'•:-
iq ,i P;II+r Itar •1c r( ! II rtr c,S.
'a ltf h ➢��111 �I I�'c" I. IG.;
ys„a� �t+D� arr-�r I ii i It n lI I I 'il rr 4 �— — — —
�., x
.
4I,a � `� ,>�'''` r� � I t^ I lI�r 11`Ir � I -•- I,•I .n
{�.., c3 €, �a x I \', L,€3 k 7 -..I II rHI�I lL,1F �Fdl ': I .II_. •rL II ji
z\ g^ '�•.: (,.. '� �� RI i��. ,, 'ii r 'J;rfil! II � �I �- ✓
b -
r/LI`I { r \
r I
!! 11 :<qa � �``'`"' r - •�,''< $ y �i n :�� U�uI I_�.r�L !'13".1.=
i i�2 �' '^ * r•
JL
n. 414,
s'�(�� k�a ���,�� •�.� �l 1. 9U� t� ,a - � `� :• _ C f1�al ,R,��l ;� t
II a C70
��(��� ��'"L e �. 11 �I X71 I•;a l��eona nn oc, �_: t,! '_�L - �`7O
j1 r �•s g? m � II I'L dI'I� (•. �l�Dp 31 I tl
J01PJ.��1, P I`I'!I f'I r 11_-I"llr�t 11�_{• i '-Itr'1�' it - I V ;�9JI _ �fi "' t'` 2 it y�er
[ �I-f tl I.� �r li 4t v �•, „ �I +vyl� -Jr
,a 7(
_-
.�Q y/ x .�I ti-f'-�F"-3C�lli1�>;-r,'.�-�`�tl.lr.-• L�� r v11r���-_ 'i.'.�.,\l�)r '� � �.-m
J�-1I• (l�� f s.._
,, il t ���'nR�
�c�i Er7 I ��is lair �
S�'a .. �1,. lr 'u 1L• ._ �l �I �7E ya g \,'�
�
II ti ."1 y01� \3
'(� ��`s`'•�', '11 .9L—ll)'i Ill
ll
t�.;t1. y� r
�kIn � �'' ah '���r��
-
t F� [2-172 11`
,•q.3� ¢�cK L� y�,_ I
i F
II is I
ii CIE-
� 1 � �..�� r
}
rr W
f( I
4i �I �t .<: EXHIBIT, �
�I Urban Planning Agreement
Primary9a Of Manning Interest TIGARD -
`_\�%�
�7 r.7
y 111 � '•II • �r ��� � �; �-`U71 �'� -� ��
� � :.. """°"�""Y" .•`"""'-""``.:- :.::
jr► v a 1 t 1 { 1 1 i f .3 e iI 1 r i 1 a nl'�'7'T'�'r'1'T'I +P� {�E�f�►� ' t t� ! t+lipil+Jill13 r'juaE,l`alt+ +li llr�lil#+Iljlt+�rltEtlr�eltitll
NOTE: IF THISMICROFILMED i.�---�-- ., !._ - -2-- 3 4 5 6 7 g g (0 t 1 i2ULM
DRAMING IS LESS CLEAR THAN 1
THIS NOTICE. IT IS DILE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
r
OE 62 et 12 92 SZ bZ - 7J 88 �.� c9 ci el 57 14t of 21 it Of 6 a L
rmnrrrinlrinahutlaNltMllxn � I '
7 1.9.
MARCHf . .
y-
90 rr
_ _.
CITY-COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION EQUIVALENTS
County (CPO 3) Beaverton
Plan Zoning Plan Zoning
Low Density Residential RU-2, RU-3, RU-4 Urban Standard
Residential R-7
Low-Medium Density Residential R-U4, RU-6 Urban Standard
Residential R-5
Medium Density Residential RU-4, RU-6, RU-8, Urban Medium
RU-15 Residential R-2
High Density Residential RU-4, RU-6, RU-8, Urban High Density
RU-15, RU-20, RU-30 Residential R-1
Office Commercial B-3 Office Commercial O.C.
Retail Commercial B-1, B-2A, B-2, B-4 Neighborhood Service N.S.
Community Service C.S.
General Commercial G.C.
.ustrial RD, MA-1, MA-2, MA-E Industrial Park I.P.
Campus Industrial C. I.
Light Industrial L. I.
Institutional Shown on Plan Zoned to
the most
restrictive
abutting zone
Upon annexation, the City shall assign residential plan designations which permit the
maximum density allowed under County designations.
Industrial and Commercial designated properties shall be assigned corresponding City
designations that permit similar activity.
Land-Use:MK:15
0
CITY-COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION EQUIVALENTS
County (CPO 4) Beaverton
Plan Zoning Plan Zoning
Low Density Residential RU-3, RU-4 Urban Standard Density
Residential R-7
Low-Medium Density Residential RU-4, RU-6 Urban Standard Density
Residential R-5
Medium Density Residential RU-8, RU-15 Urban Medium Density
Residential R-2
High Density Residential RU-20, RU-30 Urban High Density
Residential R-1
Retail Commercial B-1, B-2A, B-2, B-4 Neighborhood Service N.S.
Community Service C.S.
General Commercial G.C.
h
Office Commercial B-3 Office Commercial O.C. s
f
ight Industrial MA-1 Industrial Park I.P.
Institutional Shown on Plan Zoned to
the most .
restrictive
abutting zone.
Upon annexation, the City shall assign residential plan designations which permit the
maximum density allowed under County designations.
Industrial and Commercial designated properties shall be assigned corresponding City
designations that permit similar activity.
Land-Use:MK:15
CITY-COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION EQUIVALENTS
a.' _
County (CPO 6 and 7) Beaverton
Plan/Zoning Plan Zoning
Residential 2-5 u/ac Urban Standard Residential R-7
Residential 2-6 u/ac Urban Standard Residential R-7
Residential 6-9 u/ac Urban Standard Residential R-5
Residential 10-15 u/ac Urban Medium Residential R-3.5
Residential 16-24 u/ac Urban Medium Residential R-2
Residential 25+ u/ac Urban High Residential R -1
Office Commercial Office Commercial O. 0
Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Service N.S.
Community Business Community Service C.S
Town Center T.S.
General Commercial General Commercial G.C.
Industrial Industrial Park I.P.
r Campus Industrial C. I.
Light Industrial L. I.
Institutional Shown on Plan Zoned to
the most
restrictive
abutting
zone
Upon annexation, the City shall assign residential plan designations which
permit the maximum density allowed under County designations.
Industrial and Commercial designated properties shall be assigned
corresponding City designations that permit similar activity.
Land-Use:MK:15
r
A SUMMARY REVIEW
OF A
MUNICIPAL SALES TAX
r"
Prepared By
OMFOA Committee to Review Local Sales Tax
RON CATON, Director Finance, Astoria
DORIS HARTIG, City Recorder/Director Finance, Tigard
ED TODD, Director Finance, Springfield
MARTI WYNNE, Director Finance, Gresham
JIM KERFOOT, Director Finance/Recorder-Treasurer, Bend
DO CITIES IN OREGON NEED A SALES TAX?
{
Cities in Oregon continue to struggle to meet their financial needs
for operation of a more efficient government and to provide the levels of
service that citizens desire and are used to. To meet the operational
needs the sources of revenue are primarily property taxes, and non-property
taxes such as franchise taxes, business licenses and transient room taxes.
Other sources of revenue include user fees, fees and permits, State and
Federal grants and various miscellaneous charges. Property taxes are
continuing to be a greater burden becaus- of the nature of non-property tax
revenue not keeping pace with inflation. The finances of local government
have been adversely affected by the slow economy and there seems to be an
increased voter resistance to local property tax levy proposals.
The State of Oregon currently ranks eleventh highest in the nation per
capita for the use of property taxes as a source of revenue for local
governments. It is pretty well a known fact that local governmental agencies
must lean very heavily on property taxes as a source of revenue, with the
greatest amount of property taxes going to schools. The current trend for'
property tax levies in local governments indicate an increase. The State
of Oregon ranks among the highest in income taxes in the nation and is one
of only five states which does not have a sales tax. Cities receive only
about 6.6 percent of the revenue distributed by the State of Oregon to
local governments.
Cities in Oregon currently depend primarily on property taxes for
revenue; a tax that has a statutory limitation which does not allow most
cities to keep pace with inflation. A sales tax may add a measure of
financial stability and help keep pace with inflation. Whether local
governments need a sales tax probably depends on the individual city's
financial needs and ability to meet those needs. There is no clear cut
answer as to whether a sales tax should be used. Certainly there seems to
be an extra-ordinary burden put on the property owner to finance local
government and a local sales tax is a way to relieve at least some of this
burden. A local sales tax would generate some revenue from tourists and
other transient visitors who require, use and receive city services.
Some cities could perhaps totally eliminate property taxes as a needed
source of revenue for operating if they had a sales tax.
1.
f
k
COULD CITIES IN OREGON GET LOCAL VOTER APPROVAL OF A SALES TAX?
The climate for passing any kind of tax for cities in Oregon is
certainly not good and would require a very well organized campaign. The
voters would have to be thoroughly educated in what a sales tax might do
for them. Some of the obvious things that a sales tax might do would be to
provide for needed essential services such as fire and police protection,
provide for needed capital improvements and perhaps most important provide
for property tax relief and a better revenue balance for the local
government. The very best organized and planned campaign would probably be
an uphill battle and may be said to be practically and politically impossible
in many cities.
HOW WOULD A LOCAL SALES TAX BE ADMINISTERED:
Taxing entities vary considerably concerning taxing of retail sales,
as many exempt food and medicine sales, and very few tax business services
or personal services and most exempt house sales. The policies of taxing
and exempting retail sales would have to be determined by the taxing
entity and to what sales taxes would be applied. In most states where a
local sales tax is used the sales tax is applied on retail sales the same as
the state tax is applied. Municipal sale Lax rates in other states varies
from .5 percent to 2 percent. The tax rate would have to be determined in
accordance to the amount of revenue needed.
The administration and collection of a local sales tax may be accomplished
in different ways, however for those cities in other states that have a
sales tax the most used administration methods are:
1. Contracting with state tax collecting agencies -- in Oregon
it would be by the Department of Revenue authorized by ORS 305.620.
This seems to be by far the most preferred method.
2. Contracting with the County Tax Collector; very few cities do this.
3. The municipality administers and collects its own sales tax. Very
few cities, and especially small cities, can economically administer
and collect a local sales tax.
COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS
1. The chances of a local sales tax being accepted by the voters is
best where there is a general State wide sales tax.
2.
2. A municipal sales tax should probably not be effected unless
there is also a county sales tax and perhaps a city sales tax by
other cities in the market area. an individual city sales tax
would probably drive business out of the city.
3. A city sales tax should be tied to property tax relief and not
used strictly as an additional source of revenue.
4. A city sales tax to make it less regressive should allow a
measure of exemption to the low income citizen.
5. A city sales tax should be collected and administered by the
state as it is the most efficient and may avoid duplication
and confusion.
This is just a brief synopsis of the use of a local sales tax as
a revenue source and is not intended to be an in depth study. There are
studies concerning the use of sales taxes available but a local sales tax
should be investigated thoroughly on its own merit by the local government
which might be giving consideration to a sales tax. The Bureau of
Governme-. al Research and Service, University of Oregon gives a brief
review of the use of sales taxes in, "Issues in Oregon State and Local
Finance", which they publish.
i
COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS
There is currently several proposals being made to pass an Oregon j
i
i
State sales tax and perhaps the Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association
as well as ocher municipal and local governments should be concerned that
they are not somehow prohibited from having the ability to pass a local sales
tax. It is recognized now that at least home rule cities have the
t
authority to pass a local sales tax. If a state sales tax is passed it I
i
should be made clear that this will not prohibit a municality from passing
i
its own local sales tax.
ORS 305.620 now allows cities to contract with the Department of
Revenue to collect local use and sales taxes. The State in their collecting
of revenues should provide a geo-coding system to insure that local
i
boundaries are maintained and that collected revenues are correctly
distributed.
The cost of collection by the Department of Revenue should be a t
fixed amount and should be relative to actual cost of collection. It
r
should not be an undefined amount.
i
3.
It is the consensus opinion of the Committee that the OMFOA should
take a positive and affirmative position in support of a state sales tax
insuring that the observations made above are retained and provided. This
action may be in the form of a resolution from the OMFOA, a legislative
presentation by the Legislative Committee or some other action deemed
appropriate.
j
.. 4
I
{
I.
- � --
r
Pacific Mobil Service Center . V
12325 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD•OREGON 37223
PHONE:(503)6394116
10-000-1
J
Mobil
Pacific Mobil Service Center
12825 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD,OREGON 97223
PHONE:(S03)639-0116
j
s
'�
Xee
Mobil
t
•
Pacific Mobil Service Center
12825 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
TIGARD,OREGON 97223
PHONE:('03)838-0115 /^/ �2�`.•/�G�� ��////�/�
Mobil .
C.M."MO"BLAKE III
Dealer - - -
- - PACIFIC MOBIL SERVICE CENTER(at Wald) -
• 12825 SW.Pacific Highway
- .. Tigard.Oregon.97223 Foreign and Domestic "
_ (5,M)639-0116 Fuel injection.7 Car Care
uneupS•Brake. .
Mobil
h
WASHINOTOI`4 COUNTY l
7i 48_ ~ r
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING— 150 N. FIRST AVENUE
3 �.
HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 �I L
O N (503) 648.8681 /
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ROOM 418
WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman
BONNIE L. HAYS, Vice Chairman
EVA M. KILLPACK
JOHN E. MEEK
LUCILLE WARREN
APR i 1983
April 15, 1983
Public Officials
of Washington County
Dear Fellow Public Officials:
As agreed last month, the Washington County Public Officials'
Caucus will be meeting in the Council Chambers at the Hillsboro
City Hall at 7:30 pm, Thursday, April 28. While Hillsboro agreed
Am to host the event, I 'm responsible for the notice and agenda.
I would like to discuss with you City-County relations and a
forthcoming growth management conference planned for September
at the Portland Community College Rock Creek Campus.
Let me know of any other topics we should consider and whether
or not you' ll be attending. I can be reached at 648-8681 during
the day and 644-7109 in the evening.
Hope to see you on the 28th.
Sincerely,
ai4l_
Wes Myllenbeck, Chairman
Washington County
Board of Commissioners
ew
i
r
an equal opportunity employer
a, y
PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
4;25/83
PROGRAM BUDGET
Community Services
1.1 Police 21,069.61
1.2 Finance & Records 4,659.37
1.3 Municipal Court 1,168.33
1.4 Library 1,723.60
1.5 Social Services 1,401.89
Total Community Services 30,022.80
Community Development
2.1 Public Works 17,544.61
2.2 Planning & Development 1,703.29
Total Community Development 19,247.90
Policy & Administration
3.1 Mayor & Council 1,344.81
3.2 Administration 1,823.31
Total Policy & Administration 3,168.12
City Wide Support Functions
4.1 Non-departmental 20,377.11
Misc. Accounts (refunds & payroll deductions, etc. ) 8,771.27
Investment 100,000.00
DEBT SERVICE
5. Bancroft Bond & LID Expenses 41,576.53
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
Contract 63,424.42
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHECKS WRITTEN 286,588.15
Ident. 17 � �o
STREET DEDICATION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Richard L. Gronholm and Norma Lee Gronholm,
as tenants by the entirety, (Vendor) and David Lee and Beverly Ann Hurt,
husband and wife (Vendee).
hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of $ 12,850.00 grant and
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 Exhibit "A" Attached
i ,/
To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated � h� unto the Public 'o-eA--
zt
for the uses and
purposes hereinabove stated. A4'�—ICcele_J ��,�,���/
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that Ix-, (5be) (they) k3c (are)�i "
fee a and have good and legal right to grant txi& (b=) (their) rights
above-described.
IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) txw (have) hereunto set Nj,5( (dimer) (their)
hand(s) and seal(s) this day of 19
7
/ (SEAL �, �.��✓ �; (SEAL)
(SEAL (SEAL)
/E -
• /7iui 4 D' �ti� - :-.`.���-.- (SEAL)
STATE OF OREGON )
Multnomah ) ss.
COUNTY OF 7dUK1fX;fiMX)
BE IT REMEMBERED that on this 24th day of January 19 83
before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Oregon personally
appeared the within-named David Lee Hurt
and Beverly Ann hurt
who 1;A (are) known to me to be the identical individual(s) described in and who
executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that h6t (s[tkR) (they) executed
the same freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 24th day of i
January , 19 83
i
i
o ary Pu i f Oregon i
My Co sion E,cpires: S= f
i
Approved as to form thisAZ�day of l -
�.
By:
City ttorney - City o igar
t19
Approved as to legal description this —7� day of v
By:
i
Approved this day of 19 !
i
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By:
�
STREET DEDICATION Ident. 17
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Richard L. Gronholm and Norma Lee Gronholm,
as tenants by the entirety, (Vendor) and David Lee and Beverly Ann Hurt,
husband and wife (Vendee).
hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of 5 12,850.00 grant and
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 Exhibit "A" Attached
t
To have and to hold the above-desrribed and dedicated iq�ht$ unto the Public '0�f/�
for the uses and
purposes hereinabove stated. ��- ,,�,�[,�`-`'ue.��;�--�.rlcv,.•<+
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that (adke) (they) kac
Feesimple and have good and legal right to grant Ni& (b=) (their) rights
above-described.
IN 14ITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) bw (have) hereunto set IklcSc 63ketr) (their)
hand(s) and seal(s) this^/ Lday of 19
(SEAL) .S'i�<?.A/ _ ? (SEAL)
n
LIZ,-'J� (SEAL) //�< (SEAL)
STATE OF OREGON )
Multnomah ) Ss.
COUNTY OF 7AMK1tiGT6X)
BE IT REMEMBERED that on this 24th day of January -, 19 83
before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Oregon personally
appeared the within-named David Lee Hurt
and Beverly Ann hart
who J2 (are) known to me to be the identical individual(s) described in and who
executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that tkIR (SchA) (they) executed
the same freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 24th day of
January 19 83 .
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Multnoman )
13G iT \L.i•IGmB--: Eij l;cae on :ni s r` day of
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
County and State, personally appeared the above named Richard
(`-- ;'Jn.-Iaa Lee Gronholm
wiio ire 2Viown to me to be t.ce identical ineiviruals described in
and who executed Zae above instrument and acknowledged to me
ti,az they axecuted the same f-eely and voluntarily.
IN TEST:MJI�Y WHEREOF, I have hereicnto set my :land and seal the
lay aad year last above written.
NotaPublic orOregon
My commission expires
Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A"
Ident. No. 17 Page 1 of 2
A parcel of land in the S.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 1, T2S, R1W,
W.M. , the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows:
Being that portion of the tract of land described in Book 991, Page
431, (Deed) of the Washington County, Oregon records (T.L. 1000,
Map 2S-1-1DD) which falls between a center line and a line 25 feet
southwesterly at right angles and a line 30 feet northeasterly at
right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line
being described as follows:
Beginning at a point that is N 89040'44" E, 20.00 feet from an
iron pipe with a brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16th
corner noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247; thence
N 0016'56" W, 2401.64 feet to the beginning of a 400-foot radius
curve to the left, (a stone at the recognized N.W. corner of the
East 1!2 of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 12, T2S, R1W, W.M. , noted
as Point "B" on County Survey No. 13,247, is N 0016'56" W,
225.612 feet and N 5900751" W, 23.370 feet) ; thence north-
westerly along said 400-foot radius curve to the left through
a central angle of 58050'55" , 410.841 feet to the end of said
curve (long chord bears N 29042'24" W, 393.019 feet) said end of
curve point is N 59007'51" W, 202.242 feet from said stone noted
as Point "B" on County Survey No. 13,247; thence N 5900751" W,
356.802 feet to the beginning of a 350-foot radius curve to the
right (a stone in a monument box at the easterly S.E. corner of
the W.W. Graham D.L.C. is N 59007'51" W, 202. 156 feet) ; thence
northwesterly along said 350-foot radius curve to the right through
a central angle of 60001' 14" , 366.645 feet to the end of said
curve (long chord bears N 29007' 14" W, 350.109 feet) , said end of
curve point is N 0053'23" E, 202.156 feet from said stone in
monument box at the easterly S.E. corner of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. ;
thence N 0053'23" E, 3648.45 feet to a 2-inch iron pipe at the N.E.
corner of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. also being the Initial Point of
t. the plat of "Hermosa Park" at the end of said center line.
12/3/82
80.194.118
oL
u
¢� .o-•moo. u� - �`r. d
w L � � ! /•...J y f�O
\
o •n o m.0 0 0 -R,y� 3 C F•-
u N / o£ O ~
__ IH
W
1rp-
z o
o i •c TLo Q
N'io (AF �t�o
D v. �• +'O•r E a{
mom 4c � v�N mt Lm�o+u Q OS
h1 •i. N •• u� o o- 3
^gyp' /• N�� v La��� i:;
�• a��� 004
h
0
A
\ on.
\ JG
� SGC
\ D
o � /
L J
o�E E
D T
G � S
o
O�
J
_� El
.} G
' STREET DEDICATION Ident. 59 o`
William Nickoloff and Martha L.
Nickoloff, as tenants by the entirety,
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that as to an undivided z ierestand
Mac Sharp, as to an undivided % interest(vendors) & Sharp & Associanttes, Inc., an —
hereinafter called grantor(s),'for the sum of $ 17,824.00 grant and 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 Exhibit "A" Attached
To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public
for the uses and purposes hereinabove. stated.
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and
have good and legal right to grant their rights above-described.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) .,ave hereunto set their hand and seals this
lathZ day of n/ /
(SEAL) (,(,(� (SEAL)
LJf l (SEAL) (SEAL)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned corporation has caused this Street Dedication
to be executed by its duly authorized, undersigned officers acting pursuant to
resolution of its Board of Directors.
SHARP do ASSOCIATES INC.
Name of Corp,)ration
i
BY
President OrvalcO. Johnson
By
Secretary DaVid L. Reichel
}
STATE OF OREGON )
COUNTY OF Washington )
On this 18th day of February 19 83 , personally appeared the above named
William Nickoloff, Martha L. Nickoloff,
nd nrvRl D "lohnson President and David L RRirhRl. SRcre_tary
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed.
Before e:
too y Public for Oregon
M ommission expires: 8/28/84
ACCEPTANCE
Approved as to form this day of + 19
�. By• c
City Attorney - Ci y of Tigard
Approved as to legal description this . ]41 day off , 19 83•
By: _j,. —
Accepted by the City Council this day ofV
By:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A"
Ident. No. 59 Page 1 of 3
Two parcels of land in the S.E. 4 of Section 12 of 172S. , R1W. , W•M• ,
Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Parcel 1 - being that portion of the tract described in Boos: 1137.
�._ Page 46 (contract) of the records of Washington County, Oregon
t
(T.L. 1200, Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between the recognized
center line of County Road No. 126 as it now exists and a line
25 feet East (right) at right angles and parallel to the following
described center line:
Beginning at a point that is N 89038'24" E, 20.00 feet from
the recognized East 1/16th corner on the South line of said
Section 12 (the southwest corner of the East ''-z of the south-
east 4 of said Section 12) noted as Point No. 289 on County
Survey No. 19,127; thence along said center line N 0021' 36" W,
2646.33 feet to a point that is N 89040'44" E, 20.00 feet from }
an iron pipe with a brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16
corner (the northwest corner of the East 1-2 of the southeast 4
of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No.
13,247; thence continuing along said center line N 0016'56" W,
2627.25 feet to a point at the end of said center line, that t
is N 89043'04" E, 20.00 feet from a stone at the recognized
1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the East z of the northeast
4 of said Section 12) noted as Point "B" on County Survey No.
13,247.
Parcel 2 - being that portion of the tract described in Book 1137,
Page 46 which falls within the following described parcel :
Beginning at a point that is N 0021'36" W, 405.69 feet and
N 89038'24" E, 40.00 feet from the recognized East 1/16
corner on the line between Sections 12 and 13 said 1/16 corner
being shown as Point No. 289 on County Survey No. 19,127;
thence N 89038'24" E., *5.00 feet to a point; thence south-
easterly along a 45-foot radius curve to the left through
a central angle of 106024'50" , 83.58 feet (long chord bears
i
f
Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A"
Ident. No. 59 Page 2 of 3
S 53034101" E, 72.07 feet) to a point; thence S 16046'26" E,
5.00 feet to a point; thence southwesterly along 281.31 -foot
radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 13017100",
65.22 feet (long chord bears S 79052'04" W, 65.07 feet) to a
point; thence N 0021'36" W, 59.01 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
12/16/82
80.194.118
\ N 89040'44" E Exhibit "A"
Brass Cap in Iron 20.00 Page 3 of 3
Pipe at Recognized
1/16th Corner C0
(Point
(Point "P" on a �;
C.S. 13,247) A
L Q
41 9
' C
Q/ T
N 'O
41
0
O 41 I
U O
v a v
o0 North
Scale: 1" = 100'
�1 I Date: 12/15/82
�oI Curve Data
W Q1 p = 106024'50"
z ' Rad. = 45.00
Assessment Iden t. No. 5 Arc = 83.58
c Tax Lot No. 1200 chord = 72.007
z chord br. = S 53034'01"E
^ I Tax Map No. S-1-1 D
Deed Ref.: ook 11 7, Pa a 46
3 I B ok 99 , Page 416-421
N Owner:
William Nick loff eller
Mac & Martha Sha (Sel er)
Sharp Associat s, In . (Pur haser)
Additional Right f-Way Contai s
4456 Square Feet ore or less
30 a Q = 13017'00"
Rad. = 281.31
0 Arc = 65.22
chord = 65.07
Ch rd br. = S 790 04"W
125 I 0 = 280 '11"
Rad. = 31
eg. 15Z'00'00"
tl
t Parcel 1
- c�S
C,
N 89038'24"E O
z , 5.00 OQQ�R
�O
N 8038'24"E
Q0 _ 1 A
4 C �c
40.00 - 2�O
Parcel 2 C)
`a
3
Recognized 1/16th o, N 89038'24"E
Corner on South 4.64
Line of Section 12 N 89038'24"
Pt. of Beginning 1 �� 20.00 Additional Right-of-Way
of C.R. No. 922
Pt. No. 289 on C.S. 19,127
DeHAAS&a°SSOCIA i E3' p99KC. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION MAP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SURVEYORS LID NO. 21
9 Ift50 4W Co *rc*, ts�ol W2-2aso CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
9x30 S.W Comm�rq 070 Age.606.6193
WstsMvlile,Oreppn 87070 %
File No. 80.194.118
Ident. 44
STREET DEDICATION CO
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Arlene B. Stites (Vendor) and Lynn B.
and Monica McDonald (Vendee)
hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of $ 2,400.00 grant and
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 Exhibit "A" Attached
To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public
for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated.
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that hms(ss#s) (they) iss (are) the owner(s) in
fee simple and have good and legal right to grant hdmx(4)WX) (their) rights
above-described.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) 4+a5 (have) hereunto set lsi"s k4er4 (their)
hand(s) and seal(s) this J day of �1 aY G{� n 19 S3
SEAL) (� �ouq� Q X . ' oe SEAL)
SEAL) (SEAL)
STATE OF OREGON )
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)
BE IT REMEMBERED that on this L5A- day of M O y Gla. 19 3
before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Oregon personally
appeared the within-named L�T\h B kc DOlym I M011%C0L R til C )6A O lel
_N r\ene 93 who 4-s- (are) known to me to be the identical individual(s) described in and who
executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-*e-{-_he4 (they) executed
the same freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this I5f day of
Nl.wf cik 19.5-5 .
N`
Alotary Pu lc o Or :.;Y --a.,
My Commissionxir�
Approved as to form this day of 19�L-
By:
C1ty Worney - C ty o �igar
Approved as to legal description this .74 day of 19 83
By:
Approved this ' day of 19
CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By:
- --
Ems
' Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A"
Ident. No. 44 Page 1 of 2
A parcel of land in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 12 of T.2S. , R.1W. , W.M. ,
Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Being that portion of the tract of land described in
t` Book 91.9, Page 978 (contract) of the Washington County,
Oregon Records (T.L. 500, Map 2S-1-12DC) which falls
between a center line and a line 25 feet westerly and
parallel to said center line, said center line being
described as follows:
Beginning at a point that is N 89038'24" E
20.00 feet from the recognized East 1/16 corner
on the South line of said Section 12 also being
the Point of Beginning of County Road No. 922
noted as Point No. 289 on County Survey No.
19,127; thence N 0021'36" W, 2646.33 feet to a
point, that is N 89040144" E, 20.00 feet from an
iron pipe with a brass cap at the recognized
1/16 corner, shown as Point "P" on County Survey
No. 13,247.
t
i
E
1
f
1
t
12/7/82
80.194.118
-- - Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 2
�`�- N 89040'44" E
Brass Cap in Iron Pipe at 20.00
recognized 1/16th Corner M
(Point "P" on C.S. 13,247)
N
Assessment Ident. No. 44 1' 20'
Tax Lot No. 500
Tax Map No. 2S-1-12DC
Deed Ref.: Book 919, Page 978 25' y
.(Contract) Ei v
Vendor: Arlene B. Stites
Vendee: Lynn B. McDonald and N o
Monica McDonaldu
30' m
Additional Right-of-Way Contains ,
631 Square Feet more or less ¢ Scale: 1 -50
o+ Date: 12/7/82
Ia�
N
•X
1 I W
i Im-all
Or��e
�a
I
t o
Z
1 i
o
1 y
0
0
3 1 U
M
N
O
O
Z
1
1
® Additional Right-of-Way
C W
uj
/ tC Z
Qj �
/ H Q
1 C
Recognized East 1/16th Corner, �
Pt. of Beginning of County Roa� d -
No. 922 (Point No. 289 on // N 89038'24" E
C.S. 19,127 / 20.00
DeaHAAS&ASSOCIATES, INC, Right-of-WaAcquisition Flap
LID No. 21
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS City of Tigard, Oregon
Suk1&445-AOC Cantor (509)682.2450
9450 S W.Comm—Ce CirCls Res.698-6195
W"sor-04.Orpon 97070
File No. 80.194.118
April 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council /�
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator l/Y /'
SUBJECT: Ash/Pacific LID Financing
As of Thursday, April 21, 1983, we have a tentative agreement with Mr. J.B.
Bishop to research the financing questions I raised. We have a meeting set
for Friday morning, April 222 1983 with City Staff, City Attorney, Bond
Counsel and Financial Council. If J.B. signs the tentative agreement and if
we can reach a consensus on how to proceed, then we will bring our report to
you on Monday, April 25, 1983. If not, then we will ask you to continue to
May 9, 1983, unless you wish to proceed with the L.Z.D. , without further
information.
P.S. Please bring materials previously distributed. If you should need
additional copies please contact Patt Martin in Word Processing.
PM
(Q458A)
i