The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/19/1983 PARKS TOUR AND PICNIC: 5:30 - 7:45 P.M. - COUNCIL AND PARK BOARD �cst*7cir�cic��kycicicicst�t:3ckiraY:in7r*Y�F�c�Y�cYiriricYc�r�r�ckY�kY�r�Y�Y�rY�c�iciricIcIcYtck�ctr�r�acztYttt�t�cxk7YrYYi:YkY TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate SEPTEMBER 19, 1983, 8:00 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start 10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are TIGARD, OREGON 97223 asked to be kept to 2 minutes or less; longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by con- tacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. F 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 CODE ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 83- Director of Planning & Development 4. BUSINESS TAX REVISIONS REPORT Finance Director 5. CIVIC CENTER REPORT (' City Administrator 6. DEVELOPMENT CODE Summation by Planning Staff (Continued from 9/12/83) D Consideration by Council D 7. 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 by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: , 7.1 Ratify Resolution No. 83-78 - Howard Williams t 7.2 Accept & Authorize Signatures: o Southern Pacific Transportation Co. - 72nd - LID #21 - Ident #63 - Easement for Utilities $1.00 & Street Dedication 7.3 Authorization of Office Assistant I 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 9. ADJOURNMENT E t c e (DH:lw/0316A) , PAGE 1 - COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 F kL 1_ T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 - 8:00 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilors: Tom Brian, John Cook (leaving at 10:35 PM), Kenneth Scheckla (leaving at 11:47 PM) and Ima Scott (leaving at 11:55 PM); City Staff: Doris Hartig, City Recorder; Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Director of Planning & Development; and Ed Sullivan, Legal Counsel. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS The following items were added 8.1 911 Communication Study 8.2 Library News Article 8.3 Comments on Legal Advice for past year 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA o Mr. Ken Allison asked to speak on agenda item #6. 4. WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 CODE (a) Director of Planning and Development summarized memo explaining zoning relationship to the fire code. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 83-45 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 81-01 AND 82-74; ADOPTING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 FIRE PREVENTION ORDINANCE FOR A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (c) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Scott to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. 5. BUSINESS TAX REVISIONS REPORT (a) Finance Director summarized memo recommending a rate change based on number of full-time equivalent employees working within the City limits. Council discussed the recommendation with Councilor Scott suggesting a reasonable flat fee and increase in penalties for c violations. City Administrator stated there were 3 alternatives: eliminate in Cita•/out of City rate; with a revenue loss; flat rate vs step rate charge; roll back rates and increase fines. City Administrator suggested staff bring back a fiscal analysis of the impact on revenue on the 3 options and any other recommendations. Council concurred. PAGE 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 6. CIVIC CENTER REPORT (a) City Administrator introduced Ralph Appleman, architect, who reviewed flip charts showing alternatives between rental space; site alternatives of Girod site on Main Street and Crow Civic Center on Burnham and Ash Avenue. Appleman spoke to the City's future space needs, remodeling features and staging of improvements. (b) Council noted Mrs. Girod's letter of 9/12/83 requesting the property be removed from consideration and Appleman's time spent on this project, noting the work was completed 9/13/83. (c) City Administrator introduced Rebecca Marshall who reviewed her financial analysis pointing out the Crow site funded by either bonds or certificates of participation is the lowest cost option. The Girod site is less costly than renting (if that site were available). Council discussed the report and considered various alternatives in staging the development of a civic center site. City Administraton referred to graph giving tax rate comparisons showing the cost avoidance by developing the Crow civic center site. City Administrator recommended the Crow/Civic Center Phase I project at 2.2 million and give the voters an opportunity to decide. (d) Walt Munhall of the Library Board commented on surrounding cities new or remodeled facilities, reporting that the Library Board favored the Girod site. It appears the Crow site is the only real option and urged Council support for Library civic center noting their lease is expiring and urged action now. (e) Chief Adams testified as to their need to have adequate facilities and urged support of the Crow site. Councilor Scheckla suggested expanding the existing facilities. Staff replied it was not economically feasible. (f) Nancy Phelps, representing CMA Development Corporation (property included in Girod site) urged Council to make a decision as soon as possible so they can get on with negotiations for leasing their building space. (g) Council and staff considered proposed resolutions, recommendation to get voter approval of certificates of participation, possible language changes to ballot title and Council chosing the financing method if both measures pass. Consensus of Council was to leave resolutions as prepared inserting the figure 2.2 million for measure 51 and 2.245 million for measure 52. PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 r (h) RESOLUTION NO. 83-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL + CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY A MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO SELL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE AND REMODEL OF A TIGARD CIVIC CENTER. (i) Motion by Councilor Cook, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. (j) Councilor Scott commented she could not support a civic center, she could support a library and police facilities. Councilor Brian felt the police and library needs are 80-90% of the space problems and the Crow site will fit the City's needs and is the least costly to the taxpayers. Approved by 3-2 vote of Council with Councilors Scheckla and Scott voting NAY. (k) RESOLUTION NO. 83-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE REGISTERED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY A MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION TO FINANCE THE LEASE/PURCHASE AND REMODEL OF A TIGARD CIVIC CENTER. (1) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to approve. Approved by 3-2 vote of Council with Councilors Scheckla and Scott voting NAY. 7. EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO CROW LEASE AGREEMENT (a) City Administrator requested authorization to extend the current lease under existing terms to June 30, 1984 per the agreement included in Council 's packet. (b) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Cook to authorize the continuation of the lease with Crow subject to legal approval. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. COUNCIL RECESS: 10:35 P.M. COUNCILOR COOK LEFT THE MEETING - 10:35 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED: 10:50 P.M. 8. DEVELOPMENT CODE (a) Mayor Bishop noted the Council will continue to accept comments from the audience but that this was not a public hearing. PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 J (b) Ken Allison of Pacific Village Apartments, 9655 SW McKenzie, requested Council consideration regarding setbacks in CBD zone next to residential property. He stated he is required to have a 30' setback on one side and zero setback on the other side. He is caught in a bind and requested flexible setbacks within a commercial area. Planning Director suggested flexible standards on any commercial development adjacent to residential property. Consensus of Council was to amend language slightly to resolve this problem. o Ralph Appleman, 12555 SW Hall Blvd. , member of NPO #1 and TURA, requested Council consider some flexibility in CBD zone. o JB Bishop, Suite 303 - 10505 SW Barbur Blvd. , Portland, Oregon, testified against the 206 landscaping requirements and stated the NPO #1 minutes supported allowing in the CBD zone, flexibility in landscaping, setbacks and parking requirements. (c) Planning Director noted the Mayor had requested discussion regarding accessory buildings. Discussion by Council followed with staff recommending article 7-37 be amended to read the Planning Director can give approval and notify surrounding property owners within 250' . Consensus of Council was that no barns were to be allowed on a lot smaller than 2 1/2 acres. (d) Planning Director reviewed errata sheets, with Council agreeing the lot size in article III-23 should be 7500 square feet. Twenty percent landscaping requirement was discussed and by consensus of Council reduced to 15% in all commercial zones. (e) Council discussed yard setbacks for commercial buildings abutting residential zones. Consideration was given to flexible standards other than when abutting residential zones. Council requested staff recommendation. (f) Consensus of Council was to continue this review until October 10, 1983. Planning staff to distribute additional information for Council review in order to complete and have code ready for adoption. 9. OPEN AGENDA (a) City Attorney Evaluation: This was the last Council meeting that Attorney Sullivan will attend before leaving for England and Council members individually expressed their appreciation for his guidance and assistance. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Bishop presented a gift to Mr. Sullivan. COUNCILOR SCHECKLA LEFT: 11:47 P.M. (b) Communication Study: City Administrator requested authorization to use a portion of Tigard's 911 allotment money to fund the study. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to authorize the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District to enter into the study on behalf of the City and use the City's portion of 911 money to fund the study. PAGE 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER la, 1983 f f I Motion approved by 2-1 vote of Council present with Councilor Scott voting NAY. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 83-78 A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE FUND RAISING EFFORTS OF HOWARD'S FAMOUS RIBS i (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to approve. Approved by 2-0 vote of Council present with Councilor Scott abstaining. 11. ACCEPT & AUTHORIZE SIGNATURES o Southern Pacific Transportation Company - 72nd Avenue LID #21 Ident #63, Easement for Utilities - $1.00 - and Street Dedication (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to accept and authorize signatures. Approved by 2-0 vote of Council present with Councilor Scott abstaining. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF OFFICE ASSISTANT I (a) Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Mayor Bishop to authorize an Office Assistant I position and direct staff to prepare resolution transferring $9,000 from contingency. Approved by 2-0 vote of Council present with Councilor Scott abstaining. COUNCILOR SCOTT LEFT MEETING: 11:55 P.M. 13. DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. City Recorder - City Tigard ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard (DH:lw/0867A) f PAGE 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 r MEMORANDUM SEPTEMBER 16, 1983 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: DORIS HARTIG, CITY RECORDER SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 9/19/83 AGENDA Please add the following to your packet. 5. Civic Center: e Final Report • Bond Election Resolution ® Certificate Election Resolution NOTE: Ed Sullivan is preparing and will bring the Election Resolutions to the City Council meeting Monday night. 7.4 City Attorney Opinion on Newsletter Legality (DH:pm/0855A) J k�A 6 Da to 9/19/83 t AGENDA ITEM It2 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print your name) x t (2 minutes or less, Please) Item Description Name, Address & Affiliation t t j $ C-0 \� 2 4 . 0"', m on } � ft 4 o � 6 - \ \y & � � k � 2 K w 2 4 V- \ k G ° 2 � isions £rev r Ilntroductory . **Procedures for ƒ ,mDecisioa kakis 7/ ezoni s District class- 2 Cf 2 fti£ication & requirement ® 2 overlay District � %§uppee=ental Provisions \ { &Si{e Development vie $ mOevelopm nt and H tAdmi istlati n \ mLand Development and &Develo nt Standards \ � 462 2 m t 9 \ M 7 ( I � 00 � q - ( CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 19, 1.983 AGENDA ITEM 6: DATE SUBMITTED: September 15, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: 81-01, 82-74 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Fire Prevention Ordinance REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is an ordinance adopting the Washington County Fire District No. 1 Fire Prevention Ordinance for that protion of Tigard served by the Fire District. Staff has modified the District's proposal slightly to include staff input supplied in November, 1982, when Ordinance 82-74 was adopted. amsa:memacs:seasmaism:a:ssasa:sss=saasssaaaxass=x======x=======xcax=x=xx=xx.00-===xcc ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council should accept the ordinance SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that Council adopt the ordinance accepting the Fire Prevention Ordinance. a 6 • $�ECEIV�D E 'UG1819R3 ON ��aGT 01 C'Ty OF TIGARD � y V1/ASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 �rrE�c� 20665 S.W. Blanton St. • Aloha. Oregon 97007 • 503/649 DIS 8577 August, 18, 1983 Mr. Robert Jean City Administrator City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Jean: Enclosed herewith is a copy of Washington County Rural Fire Protection District No. 1 Ordinance 83-1. Pursuant to ORS 478.924, we are requesting radification of this measure by the City of Tigard to permit its equal execution in all portions of Washington County Rural Fire Protection District No. 1. We believe you and the city council will find the measure rather self explanatory but we would be pleased to appear before the council to answer any questions that might arise if you a would be so kind to place us on the council meeting 9 therliesons possible date and inform us as to when to appear. If you have any q uesti regarding this measure in the meantime, or if I can be of service in any other way, please call me. Very truly yours, WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 l vCe Richard D. Butts Fire Marshal mk l STOP FIRES—SAVES LIVES L..,/ M E M O R A N D U M / ' i DATE: September 15, 1983 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerri L. Widner () `"J SUBJECT: BUSINESS TAX REPORT BACKGROUND: The City of Tigard imposed a new rate schedule for Business Taxes when the Business License Ordinance was repealed and replaced with the Business Tex Ordinance. This new rate schedule has three classifications for payment: Permanent Business $50.00 Temporary Business(less than 10 working days) $75.00 (ea. period not to exceed $100.00 per year) Itinerant(outside City location, working in City) $25.00 (ea.day not to exceed $100.00 per year) These rates are in some cases, double the previous Business License Fee. The City and the Chamber of Commerce have received complaints about the increased cost of doing business in Tigard. These complaints have been from small businesses located in Tigard and from small businesses who transact business within the City limits, but are located in another area. The Chamber has been told by some businesses that they are going to move out of Tigard, or drop their Chamber membership. In response to the many concerns about the Business Tax, I have reviewed the information from the Business License Committee meetings, talked with other agencies and contacted the Chamber of Commerce. FINDINGS: Comparisons of rate structures by the Business License Committee are as follows: Tualatin: Permanent $30.00 annually Temporary (10 days) 15.00 for 10 days Itinerant 25.00 per day Hillsboro: Varies based on business type from $10.00 per year to $50.00 per year Beaverton: Varies by number of individuals from $37.60 per year for 4 individuals, $47.00 for 5 individuals with $20,000 or less; to additional $7.50 for individuals in excess of 5 with more than $20,000. Lake Oswego: $22.50 per year plus $3.00 per employee. In addition, I contacted the following for information: Portland: Minimum $25.00 per year plus a percentage of gross or net income transacted within the City of Portland. Multnomah Co. : Business income tax collected by the Oregon Department of Revenue at time of tax return filing. The percentage is applied to income within Multnomah County and formulas are based on type of business, i.e. proprietorship, partnership or corporation. 1. The tax rate in its present structure is unpopular. 2. It would appear as if our rate structure is somewhat higher than our neighboring communities. 3. There are approximately 1300 businesses transacting business within the City. Of this number, there are nearly 350 businesses located outside Tigard. Does the additional $1700 in revenue from itinerant businesses outweigh the adverse reaction from them? 4. A different rate structure could accomplish the intent of the Budget Committee and City Council for revenue production. RECOMMENDATION: CAfter reviewing the information about our Business Tax Ordinance and in response to the unpopularity of the rates, I would recommend consideration by the City Council of the following proposal. Amend the ordinance rate structure to tax by number of full-time equivalent employees working within the City limits of Tigard, regardless of the location of the business, as follows: 0-10 employees (working in Tigard) $ 35.00 annually 11 " 1150 " " 125.00 - " 51- " 250.00 " ACTION REQUESTED: If the City Council concurs with the above recommendation, a motion directing staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance would be appropriate. JLW:ms(0081F) 1 5' MEMORANDUM f SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator Rd SUBJECT: Civic Center Summary The "apples-to-apples", side-by-side space and financial comparison of Civic Center/Space Needs alternatives clearly suggests the Crow/Burnham site. The Crow/Burnham site provides better space at a significantly cheaper cost than either renting space as needed or the Girod/Commercial site. This conclusion holds true whether considering: present value dollar comparisons, total project completion costs, or only Phase I costs. The cost avoidance in future years and the tax savings to community tax payers is literally in the millions of dollars. TABLE 2.4 D - PRESENT VALUE $, 7% CONSTRUCTION COST INFLATION, RENTAL INCOME SUBTRACTION, ALL PHASES: Rental Costs $3,664,000 Crow Bonds $2,889,000 Crow Certificates $3,126,000 Girod Bonds $4,379,000 Girod Certificates $4,649,000 Cost Avoidance (Rental-Crow Bonds) : $ 829,000 TABLE 2.2 C = TOTAL COST $, 76 INFLATION, RENTAL INCOME: Rental Cost $8,807,000 Crow Bonds $5,988,000 Crow Certificates $6,532,000 Girod Bonds $9,933,000 Girod Certificates $9,951,000 Cost Avoidance (Rental-Crow Bonds) $3,072,000 (All three phases. . .) Average Tax Rate Reduction: 5S1/$1,000 TABLE 3.2 - PHASE I $, 7% INFLATION, RENTAL INCOME: Rental Cost $8,807,000 Crow Bonds $3,922,000 Crow Certificates $4,299,000 Girod Bonds $52577,000 Girod Certificates $5,984,000 Cost Avoidance Rental-Crow Bonds) $4,885,000 (Phase I only. . . ) Average Tax Rate Reduction: 10¢/$1,000 TABLE 3.4 - PHASE I. TAX RATE. COMPARISON YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW. CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10.00 50.00 1985 50.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 j 1986 $0.20 $0.21 $0.18 $0.30 $0.27 -50.01 1987 50.20 $0.19 $0.22 $0.28 $0.30 50.01 1988 $0.19 $0.18 $0.20 50.25 $0.27 50.01 1989 40.0 $0.16 $0.18 50.23 $0.25 $0.01 1990 $0.27 $0.15 $0.16 $0.21 50.23 $0.12 1991 50.25 $0.13 $0.15 $0.19 $0.20 $0.12 1992 50.24 $0.12 $0.13 $0.17 $0.19 $0.12 1993 $0.22 $0.11 $0.12 $0.16 $0.17 $0.11 19511 $0.21 $0.10 $0.11 10.15 $0.16 $0.11 1995 $0.25 $0.10 $0.10 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 1996 $0.23 $0.09 $0.10 $0.13 $0.14 40.14 1997 50.23 $0.08 $0.09 $0.12 $0.13 $0.15 1998 $0.21 $0.08 $0.08 50.11 $0.12 40.13 1999 $0.20 $0.07 40.08 $0.10 $0.11 $0.13 2000 $0.20 $0.07 $0.07 $0.09 $0.10 $0.13 2001 40.19 $0.06 10.07 $0.09 $0.09 $0.13 2002 $0.18 $0.06 $0.06 $0.08 $0.09 $0.12 2003 $0.17 40.05 $0.06 $0.08 10.08 40.12 2004 $0.16 $0.05 $0.05 $0.07 $0.08 $0.11 I-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1963-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 Z--LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS I recommend the Crow/Civic Center Phase I project at $2.2 million. I suggest that both the Bond and Certificate financing alternatives be referred to the voters. I recommend that Council leave open any public-private lease alternatives for now, and defer current negotiations until after the voter's decision on Bonds or Certificates. I feel that this recommendations is consistent with both the intent of the Civic Center Committee's initial proposal, and the City's November Questionnaire where a majority of the respondents indicated they would support a scaled down Civic Center proposal. While the current administrative space in the rented City Hall is adequate, annual rental costs will soon equal City Hall's share of a Civic Center. Meanwhile, Library and Police space is wholly inadequate. Deferring this decision further is simply not realistic nor fiscally prudent. This problem will not go away; it will only grow larger and more expensive. Some $4,885,000 in community resource hangs in the balance. Shouldn' t the voters be given the opportunity to get informed and decide if they want to invest in their community's future and have 10% on their City taxes at the same time? (BJ:pm/0863A) �pv c�Ea 606,000 • �y 88.S�� Gomer 00,00e Av o s 04 t GQocd c£�eTs�rcATF. N S �p�jOL�Q 7�8,cE o?.aG /001000 pp ose FY 3 5 6 7 8 9 !o it I� t3 /y rs tb r7 t8 �� at �3 ;y as 600100 pk,vs-� oN�y . 13,;?30�060 yOo,000 `� {��y2oD CERT=�TGAT ' �z�vD Bon/OS �vo�000 SEP- /0 0 OW001) EE/a0O0 FY r -1 �f 5 6 7 R w to it 1,7 13 /Y G ,2o� - �s�o�J d��✓OS 7'.�� 1 3. 2 C 66®jo190 r 000. av oao vust� -- C 2 o w oniaOS. / ;twl000 c . /00 000 FYI 3 �f 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 /y t5 16 17 19 l7 X 91 ;3 ;2q as r • • i 0 J5 30 CF F i t F F as jo l® tfc P FY / 3 S 6 7 9 9 /4 // /2 /3 /y /S /6 /7 /8 l9 20 al X4 Z 7# Fssc-O.L YE>9.25 i e s t } CITYOFTWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON I i I E 4 S E qq 2' 9 TIGARD CIVIC CENTER: FINAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSES F c t ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: '. ra I p h app 6 e m an architect CLEMENTS, MARSHALL & CO. FINANCIAL COUNSEL a i a 4800 S.W. MACADAM AVE.. SUITE 309 PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 12555 s.w, hall blvd., tigard, or. 97223 639-9744 t i I 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 l t f E CLEMENTS & MARSHALL FINANCIAL.COUNSEL, 4800 S.W.NIACA13AM AVE..SUITE 300 110R"I AND,OREGON 97201-3080 15031 241-7243 FINANCIAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City engaged Mr. Ralph Appleman, Architect, and Ms. Rebecca Marshall, Financial Counsel, Clements, Marshall and Company, to analyze the costs of three civic center options: 4 (1) Continuing to rent or lease space (2) Purchase and remodel of the Crow site (3) Purchase and remodel of the Girod site Mr. Appleman produced cost estimates for the Crow and Girod sites. His analysis is presented elsewhere. Using his cost projections, plus the rental cost projections provided by the City, this report summarizes the following options: (1) "Rental" (2) "Crow Bonds" - Issuing General Obligation bonds for the Crow project (3) "Crow Certificates" - Issuing Certificates of participation for the Crow project (4) "Girod Bonds" - Issuing General Obligation bonds for the Girod project (5) "Girod Certificates" - Issuing Certificates of participation for 7 the Girod project The report has three main types of comparisons: Part I: 1983 Dollar Project Costs Part II: All Phases Part III: Phase One Only The report has several alternative comparisons: Phases The two purchase and remodel projects both have three phases, with the second phase occurring in 1988-89 and the third phase occurring in 1994-95. Inflation Since two phases occur in future years, the effects of inflation upon the costs of construction were examined. A rate of 7% per year was used, based upon the recommendation of Mr. Appleman. 6 i Rental Subtraction The Crow project has approximately 6,840 square feet available for rent or lease to non-city tenants. If successfully rented, the income would offset the cost of the Crow project. A rental rate of $8 per square foot was used. The report has several types of comparisons: Cost - The total costs of the project Tax Rate - The tax rate per $1,000 Present Value - The present value of the cost (the present value discount was 7%C) Summary of Major Findings 1. Dollar Cost of Project (1983 Dollars) The least costly option is the Crow purchase and remodel; the most costly is the rental option. This holds true even if the costs are inflated for Phase II and III. 2. Total Cost of Options The total cost of a purchase and remodel project must include the costs of borrowing. The following assumptions were made: All borrowings were for 20 year terms Phase II Phase I Phase II Inflated Issue Issue Cost Issue Interest Rate Crow G.O. Bonds $2,200,000 $ 660,000 $ 910,000 9.5% Crow Certificates 2,245,000 680,000 930,000 10.125% Girod G.O. Bonds 2,465,000 930,000 1,290,000 9.5% Girod Certificates 2,510,000 950,000 1,310,000 10.125% Present Rental Crow Value Options Bonds Difference Difference Total Cost - All Phases $8,807,000 $6,579,000 $2,612,000 $ 557,000 Total Cost - Phase I Only 8,807,000 4,962,000 3,845,000 1,083,000 Total Cost - Inflated 8,807,000 7,302,000 2,032,000 300,000 Crow Rental Space Income Reduces Cost 8,807,000 5,265,000 3,652,000 1,085,000 3. _Tax Rate Impact The 1983-84 Assessed Valuation was $775,325,000. It is increased 10% annually in the first 10 years (5%L general increase plus 5%6 new construction) and then 7.5% annually thereafter. The rental option has less impact in 1986 through 1989 but is more costly the remaining years. t i r Rental Crow Option Bonds Difference $0.15 $0.11 1985 Tax Rate $0.26 0.27 -0.07 (worst year) 1986 Tax Rate 0.20 0.27 0.04 0.23 i 1990 Tax Rate 0.11 0.09 2000 Tax Rate 0.20 f If Rental Income Offsets The Crow Bonds C Rental Crow Option Bonds Difference F $0.15 $0.11 1985 Tax Rate $0.26 0.21 -0.01* 1986 Tax Rate 0.20 0.08 ` 1990 Tax Rare 0.27 0.19 t 2000 Tax Rate 0.20 0.09 0.11 E * (Only year Crow is more expensive) r NOTE: In evaluating tax rates: $50,000 Home $100,000 Home Tax Rate Pis Per Year Pa s ier00Year f O.OI 0.50 s 0.10 5.00 10.00 s Overall Conclusion Based on the assumptions described above, the Crow project, funded either by bonds or certificates, is the lowest cost option. The Girod project is less roject costs is as Phase costly than renting only if no inflation in pu rchasin over II and III. No value is given for the equity acquired by p g renting. i (0854A) i I. PRESENT DOLLAR COMPARISON: Summary Table This overly simplified comparison is the starting point for the financial analysis using the architect's construction staging. It shows essentially the "purchase price" if you had the cash today, and the cost with 7% per year additional construction increases into the future. The relevant net costs are: o 20-Year Rental $8,807,100 o 20-Year Crow/Civic Center Phased Construction $2,694,100 o 20-Year Girod/Civic Center Phased Construction $3,972,700 Clearly the Crow/Civic Center is the better financial option under a Present Dollar Comparison with staged construction: 47% cheaper than the Girod/Civic Center and significantly less than renting. But, this is only a starting point. Since the City does not currently have the cash, the borrowed cost of money needs to be evaluated. From here the analysis gets more complex and important. f TABLE 1.1: PRESENT DOLLAR COMPARISON (All 1983 $) Crow Girod Crow Girod Today Today Rental 7% Inflation 7% Inflation 1983-84 2,128,335 2,390,923 (a) 2,128,335 2,390,923 1984-85 225,000 1985-86 185,000 1986-87 197,200 1987-88 210,700 1988-89 614,027 882,112 212,200 859,638 1,234,957 1989-90 369,500 1990-91 369,500 1991-92 405,000 1992-93 405,000 1993-94 4059000 1994-95 138,000 405,144 527,500 289,800 850,800 1995-96 5272500 1996-97 555,500 1997-98 555,500 1998-99 555,500 1999-2000 603,500 2000-01 603,500 2001-02 631,500 2002-03 631,500 2003-04 631,500 TOTALS 2,880,362 3,678,179 8,807,100 3,277,773 4,476,680 583,680(b) - 60,000(c) - 583,680(b) - 76,000(c) 250,000(d) - 428,000(d) NET COST 2,296 682 3,368,179 8,807,100 2,694,093 3,972,68 (a) 1983-84 Rent not shown since it will be paid in all cases. Reductions: (b) Crow - lease income at $8/square foot for 6,840 square feet = $4,560/mo. for 128 months (begin May 85-Jan. 92) -- no increase in rate (c) _Girod - Sale Falcon Building 1989, 5% annual (d) Girod - Sale W. 135 T.L. + Building 1995, 5% annual f A II. THREE PHASE TOTAL COST COMPARISON Assuming the three-phased development cycle with construction in year #1, year #6 and year #11, construction costs are shown inflated at 7% per year. The cost of borrowed money and repayment tables were then developed. The following tables show: 0 2.1 - A 20 year cost with no inflation for: Rental, Crow using Bonds, Crow using Certificates, Girod using Bonds and Girod using Certificates. These costs are similar to a home mortgage when you add up all your payments over 30 years and they, of course, total for more than your "purchase price." 0 2.2 - This is the same as Table 2.1 but adds in construction inflation as year #6 and #11 remodels occur. This .is similar to taking out a second mortgage to add a room onto your house. You then have the payments from the first mortgage to keep making and then the added costs of the addition. 0 2.3 - This shows the tax rate impact and differences but assumes no rental incomes from leased interim space and with it. 0 2.4 - This is a Present Value Comparison in today's dollars with future phases. This section gives a true "apples-to-apples" side-by-side analysis of . the total Rental, Crow and Girod scenarios. But, since it is a phased project, what is the impact of just the first step: Phase I? Section 3 addresses this issue. i TABLE 2.1 I CITY OF TIGFaRD i COST COMPARIE30N — NO INFLATION i (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 SO $0 SO f0 SO f0 1985 $225 $132 $150 $160 $180 $93 1986 $185 $254 $227 $284 $254 469 1987 $197 $255 $277 $284 $309 458 1988 3211 $255 $277 $284 $309 444 1989 $212 $220 $242 $234 $257 —68 1990 $370 $317 $345 $375 $407 $53 1991 $370 $331 $343 $393 $405 $39 1992 $405 5332 $361 $394 $426 $73 1993 $405 $329 $356 $394 $424 $76 1994 $405 5329 $361 $392 $423 $76 1995 $528 $472 $498 $795 $825 $56 1996 $528 $327 $357 $391 $426 $201 1997 $556 $334 $362 $397 $430 1222 1998 $556 $330 $358 5390 5421 $226 1999 $556 $334 $361 $393 $427 $222 2000 $604 $328 $357 $393 $425 $276 2001 $604 $330 $362 $397 $427 $274 2002 $632 $329 $359 $388 $425 $303 2003 $632 $328 $359 $393 $426 $304 2004 $632 $329 $357 $390 $424 $303 2005 $0 $78 $82 $109 $115 $0 2006 $0 $78 $92 $108 $117 $0 2007 $0 $73 $86 $106 $119 $0 2008 $0 $78 $85 $108 $115 $0 2009 $0 $77 $83 $110 $116 $0 TOTALS $8,807 $6,579 $7.087 $8.062 $8,632 $2,612 ,�— NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING i 1—FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2—RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3—LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS E r S t TABLE 2.2A i .. CITY OF T I(SARD COST COMPARISON — WITH INFLATION (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS SO CERTIfO VS LOW W0 1984 10 40 $0 $180 493 1985 1225 � $227 $294$132 $150 $160 $254 -$69 1986 $185 4_54 530q -$58 1987 $197 $255 $277 $284 $ 84 $309 -$44 1988 $2 $277 . 11 f255 -48 1989 $212 $220 $242 $234 $257 1990 $370 $340 $370 $410 $444 $30 5433 $441 411 1441 f370 $354 $368 $436 $473 444 1902 1405 $361 $391 $48 1993 $405 $357 $386 $431 $466 $362 $390 $434 4458 543 199{ $405 1995 $528 $650 $679 $1.287 S1.320 -$123 1170 $435 $468 1996 $528 $358 $390 f435 $471 5192 1997 $556 $364 $390 $466 $197 1948 $556 $359 $389 $433 $391 $434 $471 $193 1999 $556 $363 $433 $468 $244 2000 $604 $360 $391 2001 f604 $355 $395 $435 $473 $249 1359 4386 5430 $469 $273 2002 $b32 1437 $468 1276 2003 $632 $356 1390 2044 5632 $355 $391 $432 $469 $27b 2005 50 $103 $114 $149 $162 $0 $107 $117 $151 $162 $0 2006 $0 $151 1160 f0 2007 SO 1105 fi14 $163 $0 2008 $0 5108 $115 $150 2009 40 1104 $116 $148 $160 $0 TOTALS $8.807 $7,302 $7,846 $9.333 59,951 52,032 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROJ'NDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1484 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS t i I € TABLE 2.2B CITY (IF T I(3ARE) COST COMPARISON - NO INFLATION - RENTAL SUBTRACTION FOR CHOW $8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIRDD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0 SO $0 SO SO 50 1985 $225 $132 $150 $160 $180 $93 1986 $185 $199 $172 $284 $254 414 1987 $197 $200 $222 $284 $309 -$3 1988 5211 5200 $222 8284 $309 SID 1989 $212 8165 $167 $234 3257 $47 1990 $370 $262 $290 $375 $407 3107 1991 $370 $276 $288 $393 $405 $93 1992 $405 $277 $306 $394 $426 $128 1993 8405 $274 $301 $394 $424 $131 1994 1405 $274 $306 $392 $423 $131 1995 $528 $417 $443 $795 $825 $110 1996 $528 $272 $302 5391 $426 $255 ` 1997 $556 $279 $307 $397 $430 1276 1998 1556 $275 $303 $390 $421 $2BO 1999 $556 $279 $306 8343 $427 $276 2000 $604 $273 $302 $393 $425 $330 2001 $604 1275 $307 $397 $427 3328 2002 $632 $274 $304 $388 $425 $357 2003 $632 $273 $304 $393 $426 $358 2004 $632 $274 $302 $390 $424 $357 2005 $0 $23 $27 $109 $115 50 2006 $0 $23 $27 $108 $117 50 2007 $0 $1B $31 $106 1119 $0 2008 $0 $23 $30 $108 $115 $0 2009 $0 $22 $28 $110 $116 $0 TOTALS $8.807 $5.265 $5.773 $8.062 $8,632 $3.652 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDINE 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 19B3-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOIS IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS TABLE 2.2C CITY OF T I(3ARC COST COMPARISON - 77 COST INFLATION -- RENTAL SLJBTRACTION FOR CROW 8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0 30 $0 SO $0 f0 1985 $225 $132 $150 $160 $180 493 1986 $185 $199 $172 4284 $254 414 1937 $197 $200 $222 $284 $309 43 :988 $211 $200 $222 4284 $309 $10 1989 $212 $165 $187 $234 $257 $47 1990 $370 $285 $315 $410 $444 $B4 1991 $370 $304 4313 $433 $441 $65 1992 1405 $306 $336 $438 $473 $99 1993 $405 $302 1331 $431 $466 $103 1994 $405 $307 $335 $434 $468 $98 (� 1995 $528 $595 $624 $1,287 $1,320 -$68 1996 1528 $303 $335 $436 $468 $224 1997 $556 $309 $335 $435 $471 $246 ! 1998 $556 $304 $334 $433 $466 $251 1999 $556 $308 $336 $434 $471 $247 2000 $604 $305 $336 $433 $468 $298 2001 $604 $300 $340 $435 $473 $303 2002 $632 $304 $331 $430 $469 5327 2003 $632 $301 $335 $437 5468 $330 2004 1632 $301 $336 $432 $469 $330 2005 $0 $4B $59 $149 $162 $0 2006 $0 $52 $62 $151 $162 $0 2007 $0 $50 $59 $151 $160 $0 2408 $0 $53 160 $150 $163 $0 2009 $0 $49 $61 $148 $160 $0 TOTALS $8.807 $5,988 $6,532 $9,333 $9,951 $3,072 NOTE; COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CRON. BONDS TABLE 2.3A CITY OF TIGARD TAX HATE COMPARISON - COST INFLATED 7 i YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1985 $0.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 1986 $0.20 $0.27 $0.24 $0.30 $0.27 -$0.07 e 1987 $0.20 $0.25 $0.27 $0.28 $0.30 -$0.05 1988 $0.19 $0.22 $0.24 $0.25 $0.27 -$0.03 1989 $0.17 $0.18 $0.19 $0.19 $0.21 -$0.01 1990 $0.27 $0.25 $0.27 10.30 $0.32 $0.02 1991 $0.25 $0.24 $0.24 $0.29 $0.29 $0.01 1992 $0.24 $0.22 $0.24 $0.26 $0.28 $0.02 1993 $0.22 $0.20 $0.21 $0.24 $0.25 $0.02 1994 $0.21 $0.18 $0.20 $0.22 $0.24 $0.03 1995 $0.25 $0.31 $0.32 $0.61 $0.62 -$0.06 1996 $0.23 $0.16 $0.17 $0.19 $0.21 $0.07 1997 $0.23 $0.15 $0.16 $0.18 50.19 $0.08 1998 $0.21 $0.14 $0.15 $0.16 $0.18 $0.07 I 1999 $0.20 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 $0.17 $0.07 2000 $0.20 $0.12 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 $0.08 2001 $0.19 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.15 $0.08 I 2002 $0.18 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.08 2003 $0.17 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 $0.12 $0.08 2004 $0.16 $0.09 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.07 2005 10.00 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.04 $0.00 2006 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2007 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2008 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2009 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW BONDS i S 1 I S jt t pStp S TABLE 2.3B CITY OF TIGARD TAX RATE COMPARISON - NO INFLATION - RENTAL SUBTRACTION FOR CROW $8 YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW 6IROD 61ROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BUNDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 40.00 $0.00 1985 $0.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 1986 $0.20 $0.21 $0.16 $0.30 $0.27 -$0.01 1987 $0.20 $0.19 $0.22 $0.28 $0.30 $0.01 1988 $0.19 $0.18 $0.20 40.25 $0.27 $0.01 1989 $0.17 $0.13 $0.15 $0.19 $0.21 $0.04 1990 $0.27 $0.19 $0.21 $0.27 $0.30 $0.08 1991 $0.25 $0.18 $0.19 $0.26 $0.27 $0.07 1992 $0.24 $0.17 $0.18 10.24 $0.26 $0.07 1993 $0.22 $0.15 $0.16 $0.22 $0.23 $0.07 1994 $0.22 $0.14 $0.16 $0.20 $0.22 $0.07 1995 $0.25 $0.20 $0.21 $0.38 $0.39 $0.05 1996 $0.23 $0.12 $0.13 $O A7 $0.19 $0.11 1997 40.23 $0.11 $0.13 $0.16 40.18 $0.12 1998 50.21 $0.10 $0.12 $0.15 $0.16 $0.11 1999 $0.20 40.10 $0.11 $0.14 $0.15 60.10 2000 $0.20 $0.09 $0.10 $0.13 $0.14 $0.11 2001 10.19 $0.08 $0.09 $0.12 $0.13 $0.11 2002 $0.18 $0.08 $0.09 $0.11 $0.12 $0.10 2003 $0.17 $0.07 $0.08 $0.10 $0.11 $0.10 2004 40.16 $0.07 $0.07 $0.10 $0.10 $0.09 2005 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2006 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 30.02 50.02 $0.00 2007 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 2008 $0.00 $0.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 2009 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (E6., 19134 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS l i i TABLE 2.3C E CITY OF TIGARD TAX FATE COMPARISON - COST INFLATED 7% - RENTAL SUBTRACTION FOR CROW 43 '4 4 ' t i CROM CROW 6IROD 6IROD REN YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOM COSTS BONDS 40.00 $0.00 $0.00 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.15 $0.11 I 30.18 $0.14 $0.21 1985 $0.2b $0,18 $0.30 $0.27 -50.01 1986 50.20 50.21 $0.28 $0.30 $0.01 1987 $0.20 $0.19 $0...2 $0.01 L0.18 $0.20 $0.25 $0.27 1988 $0.19 30.15 30.14 $0.21 $0.04 1989 $0.17 $0.13 $0.32 $0.06 $0.23 $0.30 $0.21 1940 $0.27 $0.21 $0.29 $0.29 40.05 1991 40.25 40.20 $0.28 fO.Ob 1992 $0.24 $0.18 $0.20 f0._b $0.18 50.24 30.25 Y0.05 1993 $0.22 $0.17 $0.24 $0.05 $0.22 1994 $0.21 $0. $0.62 -40.03 1995 $0.25 50.282B 30.17 40.30 $0.61 $0.10 $0.13 $0.15 $0.19 $0.21 s 1496 $0.23 $O.I4 $0.18 $0.19 $0.10 1997 $0.23 $0.13 30.13 $0.16 $0.18 $0.09 1998 $0.21 $0.1.. $0.17 $0.09 $0.12 $0.15 $0.11 1949 50.20 $0.11 $014 $0.15 $0.10 . 2000 $0.20 $0.10 30.15 $0.10 30.10 $0.13 $0.09 2001 $0.19 $0,09 $0t2 $0.13 $0.09 . 2002 $0.18 $0.09 $0,12 $0.09 2003 $0.17 $0.08 $0.09 50.12 $0,08 $011 $0.12 $0.09 . 2004 $0.16 $0.07 30.04 $0.00 2005 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.03 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2006 $0.00 $0.01 30.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 40.03 2007 $0.00 $0.01 40.03 $0.03 $0.00 2008 $0.00 50.01$0.01 $0.01 40.03 $0.03 $0.00 2009 $0.00 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDIN6 IN YEAR SHOWN 4E6., 1984 IS 1983-841 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CRCM BONDS :lam �Q �/' ( meatio-vx - t ' TABLE 2.31) i CITY OF TIGARD TAX RATE COMPARISON - NO INFLATION YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW. CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1985 $0.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 1986 $0.20 $0.27 $0.24 $0.30 $0.27 07 1987 $0.20 $0.25 $0.27 $0.28 $0.30 -$0.05 1988 $3.19 $0.22 $0.24 $0.25 $0.27 -$0.03 1989 $0.17 $0.18 $0.19 $0.19 $0.21 -$0.01 1990 $0.27 $0.23 $0.25 $0.27 $0.30 $0.04 1991 $0.25 30.22 $0.23 $0.26 $0.27 $0.03 1992 $0.24 $0.20 $0.22 $0.24 $0.26 $0.04 1993 30.2 $0.23 $0.04 2 30.lB $0.19 $0.22 r $0.04 1494 $0.21 $0.17 $0.16 $0.20 $0.� 1995 $0.25 $0.22 X0.24 $0.38 $0.39 $0.03 1996 $0.23 $0.14 $0.16 $0.17 $0.14 $0.09 1997 50.23 $0.14 $0.15 $0.16 $0.18 $0.04 1998 $0.21 50.13 $0.14 $0.15 10.16 $0.08 1999 $0.20 $0.12 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 $0.08 2000 $0.20 $0.1! 04 $0.13 $0.090.12 40.13 $0.04 2001 $0.19 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.09 2002 $0.18 $0.09 $0.10 $0.11 2003 $0.17 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.11 $0.08 2004 $0.16 $0.08 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.08 2005 $0.00 30.02 $0.02 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 2006 $0.00 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 40.02 $0.00 2007 $0.00 $0.0! $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 2008 $0.00 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 2009 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (E.G.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LON IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE. OPTION, THE CROW BONDS TABLE 2.4A C,*ITY (31= TI(SARD F-RESENT VALUE COST COME"AR I:30N NO INFLATION (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) i YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIP.OD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1985 $208 $123 $140 $150 $168 485 1986 $159 $222 $196 $248 $222 -$63 1987 $157 $208 $226 $232 $252 -$J2 1986 $155 $195 $211 $217 $236 -$40 1989 $144 $157 $173 $167 5183 -$12 1990 $233 $211 1230 $250 $271 $22 1991 $216 $206 $214 $245 $252 $9 1992 $219 $193 $210 $229 $248 $26 1993 $203 $179 $194 $214 $231 $24 1994 $188 $167 $184 $199 $215 $20 1995 $226 $224 $237 $378 $392 $2 - 1996 $209 $145 $159 $174 $189 $64 1997 $204 $139 $150 $165 $178 $6 E, 1998 $189 $128 $139 $151 $163 $61 1999 $175 $121 $131 $142 $155 $54 2000 $176 $111 $121 $133 $144 $65 2001 $163 $104 $1115 $126 $135 $59 2002 $158 $97 $106 $115 $126 $61 2003 $146 $91 $99 $109 $118 $56 2004 $135 $85 $92 $101 Silo $50 2005 $0 $19 $20 $26 $28 $0 2006 $0 $18 $19 $24 $26 50 2007 $0 $15 $18 $22 $25 $0 ?008 $0 $15 $17 $21 $23 SO 2009 $0 $14 $15 $20 $21 $0 TOTALS $3.664 $3,188 $3,416 $3,858 $4.111 $557 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OP.ION, THE CROW BONDS. ( TABLE 2.4B i C,'I l-�' (71= l-I(SARC PRESENT VALUE COST COMPARISON - COSTS INFLATED ?i: i (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) i C �i P YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CER IIF V5 LOW 1984 $0 SO SO SO $0 $0 1985 $208 $123 $140 $150 4168 S85 1986 $159 $222 $198 $248 $242 -563 1987 $157 $208 $226 $2.32 4252 -S5� 198B $155 $195 $211 $217 5236 -$40 1989 $144 $157 $173 $167 3183 -$12 1990 5233 $227 $247 $2733 $296 $6 t 1991 $216 5224 $229 $270 $275 -58 1992 5219 $210 5228 $255 $275 $9 1993 $203 $194 $210 $234 $253 $8 1994 $188 5184 $198 5221 4238 $4 1995 $226 $309 5323 $611 5627 -583 1996 4209 $159 $173 $194 $208 $51 1997 $204 $151 $162 $181 $195 $53 1998 4189 5139 $151 $168 $161 $50 1999 $175 $132 $142 $157 5171 $44 2000 $176 $122 $132 $147 4159 $54 2001 $163 511: 5125 $138 5150 $51 2002 $158 $106 $114 5127 5139 $52 2003 $146 $98 $108 $121 $129 448 2004 $135 $92 $101 $112 $121 $43 2005 S0 $25 528 $36 $39 SO 2006 $0 $24 326 $34 $37 $0 2007 $0 $22 $24 $32 $34 $0 X008 $0 $21 523 $30 $32 $0 2009 $0 $19 421 $27 $29 $0 TOTALS $3,664 $3,475 $3,712 54,379 $4,649 4300 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING I-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL C0STS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW BONDS. F t t i 4 p TABLE 2.4C CITY OF TIGARD PRESENT VALUE (7%) COST COMPARISON - NO INFLATION RENTAL SUBTRACTION FROM CROW $8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROM CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 #0 1985 $208 $123 $140 $150 $Ib8 $85 1986 $159 $174 4150 #248 3222 -315 1987 S157 $163 $181 $232 #252 47 1988 $155 $153 $170 #217 $236 52 1989 $144 $118 4134 #167 #183 32? 1990 #233 $175 $193 $250 $271 358 1991 $216 4172 $ISO #245 #252 $44 1992 $219 $161 $178 #229 $248 357 1993 #203 $149 $164 $214 $231 353 1994 $ISO $139 $156 #199 $215 $48 1995 4226 $198 $211 $378 #392 $2B 1996 #209 $121 $134 $174 $189 $89 1997 $204 $116 $128 $165 $178 188 1998 #189 $107 $118 #151 $163 $82 1999 $175 $101 $111 $142 #155 $74 2000 #176 #93 #102 #133 #144 $84 2001 $163 $87 $57 $126 #135 $76 2002 $158 #81 $90 #115 $126 #77 2003 $146 $76 $84 $109 $118 $71 2004 #135 $71 $78 $101 $110 #65 2005 $0 $6 57 #26 526 $ 0 2006 50 $5 $6 #24 326 $0 2007 $0 $4 $7 $22 $25 SO 2008 $0 $5 $6 $2Z 323 #0 2009 #0 S4 $5 $20 $21 #0 TOTALS #3,664 #2,602 $2,829 33,858 $4.111 #1,085 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. �. 3-LO4 IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS. TABLE 2.4D CITY OF TIGARD PRESENT VALUE (77) COST COMPARISON - COSTS INFLATED 7% RENTAL SUBTRACTION FROM CROW $8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 t0 t0 $0 $0 $0 SO 1985 $208 $123 $140 4150 $168 885 1986 $159 $174 $150 $248 $222 -$15 1987 $157 $163 $181 5232 $252 -$1 1988 $155 $153 $170 $217 5236 $2 1989 $144 $118 5134 $167 $183 S27 1990 $233 $190 $210 $273 $296 $43 1991 $216 $189 $195 5270 $275 $26 1992 $219 $178 $196 $255 $275 $41 1993 $203 $164 $180 $234 5253 $38 1994 $188 $156 $170 $221 $238 $31 1995 $226 $283 t297 $611 $627 -457 1996 $209 4135 $149 $194 $208 875 1997 $204 $128 $139 $181 $195 $76 1998 $189 $118 $130 $168 $1B1 $71 1999 $175 $112 $122 $157 $171 $63 2000 $176 $103 $114 $147 $159 $73 2001 $163 $95 $108 $138 $150 $68 2002 $158 $90 $9B $127 $139 $68 2003 $146 583 $93 $121 $129 863 2004 $135 $78 $87 $112 $121 $5E 2005 $0 $12 $14 $36 $39 50 2006 t0 $12 $14 $34 $37 $0 2007 $0 $11 813 832 $34 $0 2008 $0 $11 $12 430 $32 $0 2009 $0 $9 $11 $27 52:' SO TOTALS $3.664 $2,889 43,126 54,379 $4,649 $829 MOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING i-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW BONDS. i f III. PHASE I ONLY: ALL THREE SCENARIOS COMPARED t What is the cost of the first phase, step one under each scenario? The attached tables show: 0 3.1 - A cost comparison with annual financing repayments. This is similar to a homeowner's annual mortgage payment. 0 3.2 - A net cost comparison after subtracting rental income from interim excess space. This is like a homeowner's annual mortgage payment less rent paid from a boarder who rents a room. This is the net effective annual cost. 0 3.3 - Since we are a City, what is the estimated tax rate needed to pay the cost if we don't have rental income. i< 0 3.4 - What is the estimated tax rate needed if we do rent out space? What is the estimated tax rate needed to pay the net effective annual cost? 0 3.5 - What is the difference in net cost between the high and low scenarios? What is the difference between doing nothing _ except renting as needed and the Crow Civic Center option? z a 0 3.6 - What does the difference in cost mean in tax rates to the taxpayer? e. 0 3.7 - Present Value Analysis 3:- g' 4� a. y; f f tpg l N c a V F. 5' k Gpp k x E tt 1 f t i 1 { TABLE 3.1 € 1 t CITY OF T I(3AIRE) COST COMPARISONS PHASE ONE ONLY j s (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) f V YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CRONE CRONE GIROD GIROD RE14TAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW _ 1984 f0 SO SO SO SO $0 1985 $225 $132 $150 $160 $180 $93 1986 $185 $254 $227 $284 $254 -$69 1987 $197 $255 $277 $284 $309 458 1988 $211 $255 5277 $284 $309 -$44 1989 $212 $255 $277 $284 $307 -$43 1990 $370 $254. 5276 $287 $311 $116 1991 $370 $253 $274 $285 $309 $117 1992 $405 $256 $277 $288 $310 $149 k 1993 $405 $254 $274 $284 $305 S151 1994 $405 $256 $275 $285 $306 $149 1995 8528 $257 $276 $285 $306 $271 1996 $528 $252 $275 $284 $309 $276 f 1997 $556 $256 $278 $287 $311 $300 1998 $556 $254 $275 $284 $306 $302 1999 $556 $256 $276 $285 $311 5300 2000 5604 $252 1275 $284 $308 $352 ' 2001 $604 $252 5278 $287 $309 $352 2002 $632 $255 $274 $283 $307 $377 2003 $632 $252 $273 $28B $309 $380 2004 $632 $252 $275 $285 $308 5380 TOTALS $8.807 $4.962 $5,339 $5,577 $5.984 $3,845 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) { 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 E 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW BONDS i . E 1 TABLE 3.2 CITY OF TIGARD COST COMPARISONS — PHASE ONE ONLY — RENTAL SUBTRACTION FOR CROW F3 (ALL NUMBERS 1N THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 f0 $0 SO f0 $0 SO 1985 $225 $132 $150 $160 $180 $93 1986 1185 $199 $172 $284 $254 414 1987 $197 $200 $222 $284 $309 1988 $211 $200 $222 $284 $309 $10 1989 $212 $200 522^c $284 $307 $12 1990 $370 $199 $221 $281 $311 $170 1991 $370 $198 $219 5285 5309 illi 1992 $405 $201 $222 $2BB $310 $204 1993 $405 $199 $219 $284 $305 $206 1994 $405 $201 $220 $285 $306 $204 1995 5528 $202 $221 5285 $306 $325 1996 $528 $197 $220 4284 $309 5330 1997 $556 $201 $223 $287 5311 5354 1998 $556 $199 $220 $284 $306 $356 1999 $556 $201 4221 $285 $311 $354 2000 $604 $197 $220 $284 $308 $406 2001 $604 $197 $223 $287 $309 $406 2002 $632 $.200 $219 $283 $307 $431 2003 $632 $197 $218 $288 $309 $434 2004 $632 1197 $220 $285 $308 $434 TOTALS $8,807 $3,922 $4,299 $5,577 $5,984 $4,885 NOTE: COLUMNS MANY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING i-FISCAL YEAR. ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW BONDS TABLE 3.3 c T.'I"Y OF T I(3AI tD TAX FtATE COMF'AFt I SON - PHASE ONE ONLY YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROk% CROV 6IP,OD 6IROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1985 $0.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 1986 $0.20 $0.27 $0.7.4 $0.30 10.27 -$0.07 1987 10.20 $0.25 $0.27 0.28 $0.30 -$0.05 1988 $0.19 $0.22 $0.24 $0.25 10.27 -$0.03 1989 $0.17 $0.20 $0.22 $0.23 $0.25 -$0.03 1990 $0.27 $0.18 $0.20 $0.21 40.23 $0.09 1991 $0.25 $0.17 $0.18 $0.19 $0.20 $0.08 1992 $0.24 $0.15 $0.17 $0.17 $0.19 $0.09 1993 $0.22 $0.14 $0.15 $0.16 $0.17 $0.08 1994 10.21 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 10.16 $0.08 1995 $0.25 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.14 $0.13 1996 $0.13 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.14 $0.12 1997 40.23 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 1998 $0.21 $0.10 $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.11 1999 $0.20 $0.09 $0.10 $0.10 $0.11 $0.11 2000 $0.20 $0.08 $0.09 $0.09 :0.10 $0.12 2001 $0.19 $0.08 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.11 2002 $0.18 $0.07 $0.08 $0.08 10.09 $0.11 2003 $0.17 $0.07 $0.07 $0.08 $0.08 $0.10 2004 $0.16 $0.06 $0.07 $0.07 $0.08 $0.10 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, THE CROW- BONDS s E i z TABLE 3.4 { r k. i CITY OF T I GARD � TAX RATE COMPARISON - PHASE ONE ONLY - RENTAL SUBTRACTION FOR CROW �8 YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROP CROW 6IROD 61ROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1985 $0.26 $0.15 $0.18 $0.19 $0.21 $0.11 1486 40.20 $0.21 S0.18 $0.30 $0.27 -50.01 1987 $0.20 $0.19 $0.22 $0.28 $0.30 $0.01 1988 $0.19 $0.18 $0.20 $0.25 $0.27 $0.01 1989 $0.17 $0.16 $0.18 $0.23 $0.25 $0.01 1990 $0.27 $0.15 $0.16 $0.21 $0.23 $0.12 1941 40.25 $0.13 40.15 $0.19 $0.20 $0.12 1992 $0.24 $0.12 $0.13 $0.17 $0.19 $0.12 1993 $0.22 $0.11 $0.12 $0.16 $0.17 $0.11 1994 $0.21 $0.10 $0.11 50.15 10.16 $0.11 1995 $0.25 $0.10 $0.10 $0.13 $0.14 $0.15 1996 $0.23 $0.09 $0.10 $0.13 $0.14 10.14 1997 $0.23 $0.08 $0.09 $0.12 $0.13 $0.15 1998 $0.21 $0.08 $0.08 $0.11 $0.12 50.13 ' 1999 $0.20 $0.07 $0.08 $0.10 $0.11 $0.13 2000 $0.20 $0.07 10.07 $0.09 $0.10 $0.13 2001 $0.19 $0.06 $0.07 $0.09 $0.09 $0.13 2002 $0.18 $0.06 $0.06 $0.08 $0.09 $0.12 2003 $0.17 $0.05 $0.06 $0.08 $0.08 $0.12 2004 $0.16 $0.05 $0.05 $0.07 $0.08 $0.11 i 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS i TABLE 3.7A I TY OF T I 6r=aRD PRESENT VALUE (T/.) COST COMPARISON — PHASE ONE ONLY (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW CROW Gl'.�'D GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 f0 $0 $0 $0 $0 80 1985 $208 $123 $140 $150 $168 $85 1986 $159 $222 $198 $248 $222 —$63 1987 $157 $208 $226 $232 $252 —$52 1988 $155 $195 $211 $217 $236 —$40 1989 $144 $182 $197 $202 $219 —$37 1990 $233 $169 $184 $191 $207 $64 1991 $216 $158 $171 $177 $192 $58 1992 $219 $149 $161 $168 $180 $70 1993 $203 $138 $149 $154 $166 $64 1994 $188 $130 $140 $145 $156 $57 1995 $226 $122 $131 $135 $145 1104 1996 $209 $112 $122 $126 $137 $98 .:997 $204 $106 $115 $119 $129 $98 1998 $189 $99 $107 $110 $119 $91 1999 $175 493 $100 $103 $113 $82 2000 $176 $85 $93 $96 $104 $91 2001 $163 $80 $88 $91 $98 $83 2002 $158 $75 $81 $84 $91 $83 2003 $146 $70 $75 $80 $85 $77 2004 $135 $65 $71 $74 $80 $70 2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTALS 53.664 $21580 $2.762 12,903 $3.100 $1.083 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1—FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOWN (EG.. 1984 IS 1983-84) 2—RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. 3—LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS. r,. TABLE 3.7B CITY OF TIGARD PRESENT VALUE (7X) COST COMPARISON - PHASE ONE ONLY - RENTAL SUBTRACTION FROM CROW- $8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) YEAR-1 RENTAL-2 CROW' CROW! GIROD GIROD RENTAL-3 COSTS BONDS CERTIF BONDS CERTIF VS LOW 1984 f0 $0 $0 40 $0 $0 1985 $208 $123 $140 $150 $168 $85 1986 $159 $174 $150 $248 $222 -$15 1987 $157 $163 $181 $232 $252 -$7 1988 $155 $153 $170 $217 $2.3.6 $2 1989 $144 $143 $159 $202 $219 $2 1990 $233 $133 $147 $191 5207 $100 1991 $216 $123 $137 $177 $192 $92 1992 $219 $117 $129 $16B $180 $102 1993 $203 floe $119 $154 1166 $94 1994 $188 $102 $112 $145 $156 $85 1995 $226 $96 $105 $135 $145 $130 1996 $209 $88 $98 $126 $137 $122 1997 $204 $84 $93 $119 $129 $121 1998 $189 $77 $85 $110 $119 $112 1999 :175 $73 $80 $103 $!13 $102 2000 $176 $67 $75 $96 $104 $109 2001 $163 $62 $71 $91 $98 $101 2002 $158 $59 $65 $64 $91 $99 2003 $146 $55 $60 $80 $85 $92 2004 $135 $51 $57 $74 $80 $85 TOTALS $3,664 $2.052 $2.233 $2.903 $3,100 $1,612 NOTE: COLUMNS MAY NOT FOOT DUE TO ROUNDING 1-FISCAL YEAR ENDING IN YEAR SHOK4 (EG., 1984 IS 1983-84) 2-RENTAL COSTS PROJECTED ONLY TO YEAR 2004. 3-LOW IS THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION. THE CROW BONDS. t J r. APPENDIX f s o Crow Option Analyses Details o Girod Option Analyses Details o Bond/Certificate Sizing Assumptions o Architect's Report { 1 CROW OPTION ANALYSES 1. Bonds - No Inflation 2. Certificate - No Inflation 3. Bonds - Cost Inflation 7Z 4. Certificates - Cost Inflation 7Z 5. Phase One Only - Bonds 6. Phase One Only - Certificates l 'i CITY OF TI6ARC CROW BONDS - NO INFLATION - RENTAL SUBTRACTION ( (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS' i ^-J DISC"T RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNIN6S= 8 I t YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE I PHASE 2 COST COST EAP.NIN6S COSTS VP.LUE VALUE-3 RATE 1964 $0 $0 s0 $0 s0 f0 $0 $775,325 $0.00 1985 $209 t0 $0 $209 $77 $132 $123 $852,858 60.15 1986 $254 $0 10 $254 $0 $199 $174 $938,143 $0.21 1987 %255 $0 s0 $255 s0 $200 $163 $1,031,960 $0.19 1988 $255 s0 s0 $255 s0 $200 $153 $1.135,150 $0.18 1989 $255 s0 $0 $255 $35 $165 $118 $1,248.670 $0.13 ' 1990 $254 $63 s0 $317 $0 $262 $175 $1.373,540 $0.19 1991 $253 578 $0 $331 s0 $276 $172 $1,510,890 $0.18 1992 $256 $76 $0 $332 s0 1277 $161 $1,661,980 $0.17 1993 $254 $75 $0 $329 $0 $274 $149 $1,828,180 50.15 1994 $256 $73 s0 $329 s0 $274 $139 $1,965,290 $0.14 1995 $257 $77 $138 5472 SO $417 $198 $2,112,690 60.20 1996 $252 $75 s0 $327 s0 3172 1121 $2.271,140 $0.12 1997 $256 $79 s0 $334 s0 $279 $116 $2,441,470 30.11 1998 5254 S76 s0 5330 s0 $275 $107 52.624,580 $0.10 1999 $256 $78 50 $334 $0 4279 $101 32.821,430 $0.10 '000 $252 S76 s0 5328 s0 $273 $93 $3,033,040 $0.09 2001 $252 %7B $0 $330 SO $275 i87 (3.260,510 10.08 2 002 $255 $74 s0 $329 s0 $274 $81 53,505,050 $0.08 2003 $252 Elb f0 5328 $0 $273 $76 $3,767,930 $0.07 2004 $252 $77 s0 $329 s0 s?74 $71 $4,050,.30 $0.07 2005 $0 $78 $0 $78 $0 $23 $6 $4,354,320 $0.01 2006 s0 $78 $0 $78 SO $23 $5 $4.680,890 $0.00 2007 $Q $73 s0 $73 so $18 $4 $5,031,960 $0.00 2008 $0 178 $0 $78 s0 $23 $5 $5,409,350 $0.00 2009 $0 $77 $0 $77 s0 522 $4 $5,815,050 $0.00 TOTALS $5,039 $1,514 $138 $6,691 $112 $5,265 $2,602 i 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,200,000 AT A RATE OF 9.5001 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $660,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 s 1` i E k 4 CITY OF TIGARD N CROW CERTIFICATES — U INFLATION — RENTFiAL SUBTRACTION ( (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS' DISCUUXT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 RATE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS so VALUE io VALUE-3 $0.00 SO f0 $0 1984 so so s0 $227 $77 5150 $140 (952,858 $0.18 1995 $227 s0 1277 iso $172 $150 :986 1227 $938,143 $0.18 $0 $27 s0 518 1222 1 (1,031,960 $0.22 10 1987 $277 50 so 40 5277 f0 $222 $170 $1,135,150 $0.20 !968 6277so 35 f787 $134 $1,248,670 50.15 1989 $277 s0 f0 $277 $ $345 $O $290 $193 41,373,540 (0.21 u S276 $69 SO f288 fl@0 $1,510,890 $0.19 19.0 $343 so 1991 $274 $69 so t $306 $178 $1,661,980 $0.18 $0 561 f0 1992 1277 $84 fib gn $301 $164 $1,828,180 $0.16 1993 $274 192 s0 $306 $156 $1.965,290 $0.1b so 5361 s0 1994 ;??5 $8b $499 s0 4443 $21l $2,112,690 10.21 1995 i27c 484 413E 3:57 so $302 514 52,271.140 $0.1? '996 5275 182 s0 T 3, 1307 $128 12,441.470 $0.11 1273 $34 so 1.52 5358 so 3303 $118 $2.624,580 so.l 3275 393 3o 17p6 $11, 12.921.430 S0.11. • � SC 5ti61 $' 1999 $_7„ s8_ :p 6351 $O 5 02 5102 $3,033,040 $0.10 _000 3215 $82 s0 4307 $97 $3,260,510 $0.09 2001 $279 $84 40 S'b`5;;59 fp 3;04 $90 $3,505,050 $0.09 2002 1274 185 30 1359 f0 $304 $84 $3,767,930 $0.08 20Q3 5273 $86 f0 $302 $78 $4,050,530 $0.07 50 1,T,57 s0 '004 $275 f0 482 s0 $27 $7 $4,354,320 $0.01 f82 2005 so so $82 $0 $27 $6 $4,680,890 $0.01 1006 so f92$86 $O $31 $7 $5,031,960 10.01 $0 $86 2007 f0 S30 fb $5,409,350 $0.01 .p08 $0 $85 s0 $83 so 428 $5 $5,915,050 $0.00 2009 $0 S83 f0 TOTALS 45,416 $1645 5138 $7,199 $112 $5,773 $2,829 , I-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,245,000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 MITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $680.000 AT A RATE OF 10.11-51 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 CITY OF TIGARD CROW BONDS - INFLATED COST 7% - RENTRAL SUBTRACTION $8 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 INVESDIEW RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 10 s0 40 $0 s0 s0 $0 $775,325 $0.00 1985 $209 s0 s0 $209 $77 $132 1123 $852,858 $0.15 1986 5254 SO 40 s254 s0 $199 $174 $938,143 $0.21 1987 $255 30 $0 $255 s0 $200 $163 $1,031,960 $0.19 1988 5255 SO $0 5255 f0 $200 s153 $1,135,150 $0.18 1989 5255 f0 $0 $255 $w $165 $118 $1,248,670 10.13 1990 $254 S86 10 5340 SO $285 $190 $1,373,540 $0.21 1991 3253 $106 s0 1359 s0 $304 $189 $1.510,890 $0.20 6992 $256 $105 30 $361 s0 $306 $178 $1.661,980 $0.18 1993 $254 $103 $0 5357 s0 $302 $164 $1.Sm.180 $0.17 1994 12,56 5106 SO 5.62 SO 4307 $156 51.965.290 19.16 1995 $257 1103 $290 $650 s0 $595 $283 42,112,690 40.28 ?06 3252 3106 s0 5358 s0 $303 s135 42.271,140 10.13 1997 $256 $108 s0 4364 so 1309 5128 $2,441.470 $0.11 '498 5254 5105 $0 5359 $0 4-304 $118 $2.624,80 50.12 1999 $256 $101 $0 1363 $0 1308 $112 12.821,430 $0.11 2000 5252 $108 40 5360 y0 3305 5103 $3,033,040 $0.10 2001 5252 $103 $0 $355 $0 $300 $95 43,260,510 $0.09 2002 5255 $104 40 $359 40 $304 490 53,505,050 $0.09 2003 $252 $104 s0 $356 s0 4301 183 $3,767,930 $0.08 2004 $252 $104 SO $356 $0 $301 $78 $4,050,530 $0.07 2005 $0 $103 $0 $103 $0 $48 $12 $4,354,320 10.01 2006 s0 $107 40 $107 s0 $52 $12 44,680,890 $0.01 2007 s0 $105 s0 $105 $0 450 $11 $5,031,960 $0.01 2008 s0 $108 s0 $108 SO $53 $11 $5.409,350 $0.01 2009 50 $104 s0 $104 50 $49 $9 $5,815,050 $0.01 TOTALS $5,039 $2,085 $290 $7,414 $112 $5,988 52,889 I-PHASE i ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,200,000 AT A RATE OF 9.5001 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $910,000 AT A RATE OF 9.5001 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.0001 FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 t r t t 1 F i i 3 CITY OF TIGARD CROW CERTIFICATES — INFLATED COST 7% — RENTAL SUBTRACTION $8 i (ALL N1,71BERS IN THOUSANDS) DISMMT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 f INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 YEAR ANNUAL DS—I ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX 4 PHASE I PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE t 1984 $0 SO s0 $0 s0 so so 5775,325 $0.00 1 1985 $227 f0 $0 $227 $77 8150 5140 5852,858 $0.16 1986 4227 SO EO $227 s0 $172 $150 $738,143 $0.18 1987 6277 SO SO $277 80 $222 $181 $1,031,960 50.22 1988 $277 f0 $0 $277 SO $222 $170 $1,135,150 $0.20 1989 $277 50 $0 $277 $35 $187 $134 $1,248,670 $0.15 1990 $276 194 f0 $370 s0 5;15 $210 $1,373,540 $0.23 1991 $274 $94 $0 $368 s0 $313 $195 $1,510,890 $0.21 980 $0.20 $336 $196 $1 661 1992 $277 1114 SO S391 s0 ' ' 1993 $274 1112 $0 1386 s0 $331 $180 $1,828,180 $0.18 1994 $275 5115 s0 S390 s0 5335 $170 $1,965,290 $0.17 109; $276 $113 $290 $679 $0 $624 $297 $2,112,690 $0.30 s0 s335 $149 52,211 140 $0.15 1096 $275 f115 SO $�=90 � K 1997 $278 $112 s0 4390 EO S.M. $139 $2,441,470 $0.14 1008 $275 $114 $0 8389 s0 S334 $130 S2,624,580 $0.13 �.. .999 3276 1115 $0 $391 s0 5336 $122 $2,821,430 $0.12 2000 $275 $116 SO $391 $0 $336 $114 $3,033,040 $0.11 2001 $218 $117 $0 $395 50 $340 $108 $3,260,510 $0.10 :002 s0 $331 $98 $3,505,050 $0.09 $274 $112 f0 $386 1 2003 $273 $117 s0 $390 $0 $335 193 (3,767,930 $0.04 € 2004 $275 $116 f0 $391 f0 $336 587 54,050,530 60.08 2005 $0 $114 $0 5114 1#0 $59 $14 $4,354,320 $0.01 2006 SO $117 $0 $117 $0 $62 $14 $4,680,890 $0.01 . 2007 s0 $114 f0 $114 $0 $59 $13 $5,031,960 $0.01 2008 $0 $115 f0 $115 s0 $60 $12 $5,409,350 $0.01 j Z009 SO $116 $0 $116 SO $61 111 15,815,050 60.01 TOTALS $5,416 42,252 $290 $7,958 $112 $6,532 $3,126 1—PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,200,000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 2—PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $930,000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 3—INCREASED RV BY 10.0001 FOR FIRST 10 YEARS. THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 i { r E t 1 CITY OF TIGARc CHOW BONDS — PHASE ONE ONLY — NO INFLATION — RENTAL SUBTRACTION $8 (ALL Nt1M)ERS IN THOUSANDS) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 YEAR ANNUAL DS—I ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGuS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 s0 $0 $0 s0 s0 s0 s0 $775,325 $0.00 1985 $209 f0 s0 $209 S77 3132 $123 s852,858 $0.15 1986 $254 $0 f0 $254 s0 $199 $174 $938,143 $0.21 1987 $255 s0 $0 $255 s0 $200 $163 $1,031,960 10.19 1988 3255 s0 $0 $255 s0 $200 $153 $1,135,150 $0.18 1989 $255 s0 SO $255 $0 $200 $143 $I,248,670 $0.16 1990 $254 s0 f0 $254 30 $199 $133 51.373,540 $0.15 1991 $253 f0 s0 5253 so $198 $123 U'.510,890 $0.13 1992 6256 50 s0 5256 s0 $201 $117 31,661,980 $0.12 1993 $254 s0 $0 $254 s0 $199 $108 $1,828,180 60.11 1004 $256 $0 s0 5256 s0 3201 $102 51.965,290 $0.10 1?95 $257 so $0 5257 $0 x202 $96 $2,112.690 $0.10 1995 $252 s0 s0 4252 so $197 $88 521271,140 $0.09 1997 $256 s0 s0 $256 30 $201 $84 $2,441,470 $0.08 ?98 $254 $O $0 $254 SO $199 $77 52,624,580 50.08 1999 $256 $0 40 $256 s0 3201 $73 $2,821,43Q $0.07 2000 5252 s0 s0 $252 s0 $197 $67 53,033,040 $0.07 2001 $252 s0 s0 $252 $0 $197 $62 $3,260,510 10.06 2002 $255 s0 SO 3255 so $200 $59 $3,505,050 $0.06 2003 $252 f0 $0 3252 s0 $197 $55 $3,767,930 $0.05 2004 $252 SO so $252 s0 $197 $51 $4,050,530 $0.05 TOTALS $5,039 s0 $0 $5,039 $77 $3,922 $2,052 1—PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,200,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 3—INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 1 i { , f CITY OF TIGARD CROW CERTIFICATES - PRASE ONE ONLY NO INFLATION - RE14TAL SUBTRACTION (ALS, NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) f { DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 Z r INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 f LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 COSTTOTAEARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE f PHASE 1 PHASE 2 CST f0 40 so $775,325 $0.00 1984 s0 s0 30 s0 $140 $852,858 $0.18 s0 $0 $227 $77 $150 1985 %227 s0 $227 $0 $172 $150 $938,143 $0.18 1986 $227 S0 $277 so $222 $181 $1,031,960 $0.22 1987 $277 $0 $0 $170 $1,135,150 $0.20 1988 $277 $0 $0 4277 SO 6222 $Q $p $277 $0 $222 $158 $1,248,670 $0.18 1989 s277 4216 SO 5221 $147 $1,373,540 $0.16 1940 $276 f0 f0 $0 f0 $274 s0 4219 $137 $1,510,840 $0.15 1 1991 $274 so $222 $129 $1,661,980 30.13 1992 $277 30 f0 $277 $�19 $119 $1,828,180 $0.12 $0 $0 $274 s0 1993 %274 fp S?20 $112 51,465,290 %0.11 1994 5275 s0 f0 $275 f0 $276 s0 $221 $105 $2,112,690 40.10 a 1995 6276 %0 $275 s0 S220 %98 $2.271,140 $0.10 f0 1996 5275 40 $ $278 so $223 $93 $2,441,470 $0.09 1997 $278 s0 f0 $275 s0 4220 $B`,, 42,624,580 $0.08 1998 4275 s0 s0 $221 $80 $2,821,430 $0.08 049 $276 s0 fQ 3276 � $p s275 fQ S22p $75 $3,033,040 $0.07 � 2000 $275 s0 3723 871 $3,260,510 $0.07 2001 s278 f0 f0 $278 $214 $219 $65 $3,505,050 40.06 ?002 5274 s0 '? f0 f0 $273 s0 $218 $60 $3,767,930 $0.06 2003 4213 s0 $275 to $220 $57 $4,050,530 $0.05 2004 $275 so f0 f 6 TOTALS $5,416 s0 s0 $5,416 $77 %4,299 $2,233 1 i-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,245,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% THEN INCREASED BY 7.8002 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.0002 FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, f i E_ . f i i r I GIROD OPTION ANALYSES 1. Bonds - No Inflation j 2. Certificate - No Inflation f 3. Bonds - Cost Inflation 7% t { 4. Certificates - Cost Inflation 7% 5. Phase One Only - Bonds 6. Phase One Only - Certificates ti f I i L i r i i 1i f L E 1 1 E S.: . - t CITY OF TIGARD I. GIROD OPTION WITH BONDS/NO INFLATION 1 E (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANPS) t Ep t DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 t YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESW ASSESSED TAX l PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS so VALUE VALUE-3 RATE PHASE 775,325 $0.00 !! 1984 so s0 $O SO 1985 5234 40 f0 $234 $74 4160 5150 $852,858 10.19 40 10 $284 $0 $284 $248 3938, 1986 $284 143 $0.30 s0 $284 $232 11,031,960 $0.28 1997 $ e 1988 $2B4 30 50 $289 284 t0 s0 $284 s0 3284 $217 $1,135,150 $0.25 SO $0 $284 $50 $234 $167 $1,248,670 $0.14 1989 $284 so $375 $250 $1,373,540 $0.27 1990 $287 $88 s0 $375 $108 5245 11,510,890 50.26 s0 $393 $0 $393 1991 $285 $0 $3394 $0 $394 $229 s1.b61,980 $0.24 1942 $288 $106 5 $0 $394 $214 $1,828,180 30.22 ;;93 5284 $110 10 5,94 $392 s0 $392 $149 $1.965,290 10.20 1994 5285 1107 30 fp f79� 1378 5`.112.690 $0.38 1995 $285 110: 340 6795 $391 1174 $2.271,140 f0.17 9 3284 3107 to $391 t0 3397 $165 32.441,470 $0.16 14.6 40 1997 $287 3110 s0 $397 M $0 3390 5151 $2.624,580 $0.15 1908 3284 $106 fA f39� ip 1393 3142 $2,821,430 $0.14 X999 528! $108 so $393 1133 13.033,040 $0.13 ` 2 $284 f 109 SO $39T. 1347 1397 $126 53.260,510 ` 30.12 i 1901 $287 Elio s0 , so $388 $115 $3,505,050 $0.11 2002 4283 4105 SO $,.BS $288 $105 s0 $393 i0 $393 f104 13.767,930 30.10 2403 tp $340 $0 $390 $101 $4,050,530 $0.10 2004 $285 $105 so $109 $0 $104 $26 54,354,320 30.03 2005 $0 $10. gp $106 $24 $4,680,890 $0.02 2006 s0 $108 s0 $108 $0 $106 $0 $106 SO 1106 $22 55,031,960 $0.02 2007 tp $108 s0 $108 $21 $5,409,350 $0.02 410 2008 f0 8 ip 1110 $20 $5,815,050 $0.02 2009 so filo f0 1110 TOTALS $5,651 $2,130 $405 $8,186 024 $8,062 f3:858 I-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,465,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL 6930,000 AT A RATE OF 4.5001 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.0001 FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% CITY OF TIGARD 2. GIROD OPTION WITH CERTIFICATES/NO INFLATION (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 % INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE 1984 $0 f0 10 f0 s0 s0 s0 $775,325 $0.00 1985 $254 f0 s0 $254 $74 $180 $168 $852,858 ' $0.21 1986 $254 f0 f0 $254 $0 $254 $222 $938,143 40.27 1987 $309 s0 f0 $309 $0 $309 $252 $1,031,960 $0.30 1988 $309 f0 $0 $309 s0 $309 $236 $1.135,150 $0.27 1989 $307 f0 $0 $307 $50 4257 $183 11.248,670 $0.21 1990 $311 $96 f0 $407 s0 $407 $271 $1,373,540 $0.30 1991 $309 $96 f0 $405 f0 $405 $252 41,510,890 $0.27 1992 $310 filb $0 $426 $0 $426 $248 $1.661,980 $0.26 1993 $305 $119 $0 $424 f0 $424 4231 $1,828.180 $0.23 1994 $306 $117 f0 $423 $0 $423 $215 $1.965,290 $0.22 1995 $306 $114 $405 5825 s0 $825 $392 $2,112,690 40.39 1996 $309 5117 s0 $426 s0 $426 $189 52,271,140 $0.19 1997 $311 $119 s0 $430 s0 $430 $178 32,441,470 $0.18 :998 4306 4115 f0 $421 s0 S421 $163 $2.624,580 $0.16 r 1999 $1011 $116 $0 $427 $0 $427 $155 52,821,430 $0.15 2000 $308 $117 s0 $425 $0 $425 $144 $3,033,040 40.14 2001 $309 $118 s0 $427 s0 $427 $135 13.260,510 $0.13 2002 $307 $118 s0 $425 s0 $425 $126 $39505,050 $0.12 2003 4394 $117 f0 $426 s0 $426 $118 $3,767,930 $0.11 2004 $308 $116 s0 $424 f0 6424 $110 $4,050,530 $0.10 2005 f0 $115 f0 $115 s0 $115 $28 $4,354,320 $0.03 2006 s0 $117 f0 $117 $0 $117 $26 $4,680,890 $0.02 2007 f0 $119 $0 $119 $0 $119 425 $5,031,960 $0.02 2008 s0 $115 f0 $115 f0 $115 $23 $5.409,350 $0.02 2009 s0 $116 $0 $116 s0 1116 $21 $5,815,050 $0.02 TOTALS $6,MS $2,293 $405 $8.756 $124 $8,632 $4,111 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,510.000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $950.000 AT A RATE OF 10.125% 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 CITY OF TIGARD i 3. G I ROD OPTION WITH BONDS/INFLATED COST 7 (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 Z INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS VALUE Sp VALLE-3 325 RATE 1984 t0 $0 SO f0 t0 so i 1985 $234 f0 so $234 474 $160 $150 4852,858 )0.14 11986 $284 $0 $0 $1294 s0 $284 $248 $938,143 $0.30 1987 $284 to f0 $284 $0 $284 $232 )1,031,460 $0.28 1988 5284 $0 f0 $284 50 $284 $217 $1,135,150 $0.25 1989 $284 $0 $0 S?84 s50 $234 $167 $1,248,670 40.19 ;p )410 t0 $410 $273 $1,373,540 $0.30 1990 $287 5123 $0 $433 $270 $1,510,890 )0.29 1991 $285 $148 so $433 !0 $438 SO )438 fM5 41,661,980 $0.26 1992 $288 $150 fp 5431 $234 $1,828,180 $0.24 1993 $284 $147 f0 $431 1994 s2B5 $149 s0 $434 SO $434 S22i 41.9b5,290 $0.22 5!,287 s0 $1,287 $611 $2,112,690 $0.61 1995 $285 $151 $851 to $436 $194 s2.2171,140 $0.14 i976 5284 $152 t0 $436 1997 $287 $148 SO S435 $0 3435 $181 $2.441,470 S0.18 5433 t0 S433 $168 $2,624,580 $0.16 :9�8 $2B4 )144 t0 so 3434 $157 $2,821,430 $0.15 1999 $28! $149 $0 $434 2000 $284 $149 SO $433 $0 $433 $147 (.,033.044 )0.14 $435 40 5435 1138 13.260,510 $0.13 2001 $287 $148 f0 so $430 5127 $3,505,050 $0.12 2002 5283 5147 s0 $430 4437 t0 $437 $121 $3.767,430 $0.12 2003 $287 $150 $U s0 $432 $112 $4,050,530 $0.11 2004 $284 $148 $0 $432 2005 to $149 $o $149 $149 536 (4,354,320 )0.03 2006 40 $151 SO $151 t0 )151 $34 $4,680,890 $0.03 2007 t0 $151 SO )151 f0 $151 E32 $5,031,4b0 $0.03 2008 f0 f150 30 $150 LO $150 f30 $5.409,350 40.03 2009 so $148 $0 $148 s0 $148 $27 $5,815,050 10.03 TOTALS $5,649 $2,957 $851 $9,457 $124 $9,333 $4,379 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,465,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1.290,000 AT A RATE OF 9.500% 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIPST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 I CITY OF TIGARD 4. GIROD CERTIFICATES/INFLATED 7:: (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) 1 � P DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 % t INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 � P t f YEAR ANNUM DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX EARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE PHASE 1 . PHASE 2 COST COST $0 gp $775,325 $0.00 1984 s0 $0 $Q 30 $0 1985 $254 30 f0 $254 $74 $180 9168 $852.858 50.21 s f0 3254 $222 $938,143 $0.27 SO $30 5309 $252 $1,031,960 $0.30 1986 3254 f0 3309 � � $0.27 1987 3309 f0 $O $p gp $304 30 8304 9236 $1,135,150 1988 $309 $307 $50 8257 $183 $1,248,670 $0.21 1989 $307 f0 $0 $444 $296 $1,373,540 $0.32 8312 $133 t 1940 $0 $444 SO $133 $0 $441 30 5441 $275 $1,510,890 $0.29 K 1991 $308 $473 $0 $473 $275 $1.661,980 $0.28 1942 $310 $163 $4 1493 3306 9160 f0 f4bb 30 $466 $253 180 $0.25 51,828, 4 '994 4306 5162 f0 $468 3o $468 $238 $1.465,290 $0.24 1995 s30b $163 $851 31,320 s0 st,320 $627 $2.112,690 $O.bZ so 3468 $208 $2.271,140 $0.21 1996 3309 8159 S� $468 So $471 3195 52.441,470 $0.19 1947 3311 6160 $471 , g 1948 3306 $160 f0 $466 SO $466 4181 52,524,.,80 $0..8 f0 $471 $0 3471 $171 $2,8Z1,430 $0.17 F 1997 3;11 $160 $p 5468 3159 $3.033.040 $0.'.5Ir -^000 5308 $i60 $0 $468 ,001 $304 3164 $0 $473 3o $473 $150 $3.260,510 90.15 2002 3307 $162 40 $469 SO 5469 $139 $3.505.050 $0.13 _+003 3307 $154 $0 $468 s0 5469 $129 $3,767,930 s0.i2 $161 $0 9464 s0 $464 $121 $4.050,530 80.12 2004 3308 f0 $162 $o $162 $39 $4,354,320 30.04 2005 3o $162 $0.03 P 2006 SO $162 30 1162 30 $162 $37 f4.6B0,89Q 2007 30 3160 $0 gi60 SO $160 334 $5,031,960 $0.03 gp $163 50 f163 $0 $163 $32 $5,409,350 $0.03 1 20� f Z009 to $160 $0 $160 3o $160 429 f5,815,05Q $0.03 i $851 510,075 $124 $9,451 $4,649 TOTALS $6.058 E3,166 • 1 P i i 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,510,000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 2-PHASE 2 ISSUED 1988-89 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $1,310.000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500: f I P 1 4 � E P: CITY OF TIGARD 5. GIROD BONDS - PHASE ONE ONLY ` (AL1. N1.91BERS IN THOUSANDS? DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 2 INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINSS= 8 YEAR ANNUs°•1. DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX PHASE 1 PHASE COST $0 COST f0 EARNINGS COSTS so SO VALUE VALM-- 3 ' RAT0.00 TE 1984 $234 $74 $160 $150 5852,858 $0.19 1485 $234 50 $0 852 $284 $248 $938,143 $0.30 1985 $284 $0 s0 5284 f0 $284 f0 40 5284 f0 4284 $232 41,031,960 $0.28 1987 1988 $284 $0 f0 $284 s0 $284 $217 $1,135,150 $0.25 1989 0284 $0 $0 $284 $0 $284 $202 $1,248,670 $0.23 1940 5287 f0 $0 $287 $0 $287 $191 41,373,540 $0.21 1991 $285 f0 $0 $285 $0 4285 $177 11,510,8" 50.14 942 $288 $0 f0 $288 f0 $288 $168 $1,661,980 $0.17 1 1972 5284 f0 $0 $284 $0 $284 5154 41,828,180 $0.16 1994 $285 $0 f0 $295 $0 $285 $145 $1,965,290 $0.15 1995 $285 f0 f0 f2es $0 $285 $135 12,112,640 $0.13 1996 6284 f0 $0 $'284 $0 $284 $126 $2,271,140 $0.13 $287 $0 $287 $119 $2,441,470 $0.12 1997 $287 f0 $0 1998 $284 f0 f0 $284 $0 $284 $110 $2,624,580 s0.11 1,430 60.10 +999 $285 $0 $0 $285 $0 s28S $103 $2,82 _000 $284 f0 $0 $284 $0 $284 $96 $3,033,040 $0.09 20,01 $287 $0 f0 $287 f0 $287 191 $3,260,510 $0.09 $283 $84 $3,505,050 $0.08 2002 %283 s0 s0 $283 $0 $80 $3,767,930 $0.08 2003 $288 $0 $0 $288 $0 $288 2004 $285 $0 s0 $285 $0 $285 174 44,050,530 $0.07 2Q05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 f0 f0 54,354,320 $0.00 2006 $0 s0 %0 $0 $0 $0 $0 44,680,890 $0.00 2007 $0 f0 40 $0 $0 s0 s0 45,031,960 $0.00 2008 $f1 $0 f0 $0 $0 f0 s0 $5,409,350 $0.00 2009 i0 to $0 $0 80 f0 40 $5,815,050 $0.00 TOTALS $5,651 $0 s0 $5,651 $74 $5,577 $2,903 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,465,000 AT A RATE OF 9.5002 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.000% FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.500% CITY OF TIGARD f 6. GIROD CERTIFICATES — PHASE ONE ONLY t` �. (ALL NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) `r DISCOUNT RATE FOR PRESENT VALUE= 7 1 e INVESTMENT RATE FOR EARNINGS= 8 S YEAR ANNUAL DS-1 ANNUAL DS-2 PHASE 3 TOTAL LESS BALANCE PRESENT ASSESSED TAX i PHASE 1 PHASE 2 COST COST EARNINGS COSTS VALUE VALUE-3 RATE . 1984 s0 so s0 f0 f0 $0 s0 5775,325 $0.00 1985 $254 t0 $0 1254 $74 5180 $168 $852,858 $0.21 1986 $254 t0 s0 $254 f0 $254 $222 $938,143 $0.27 - 1987 $309 f0 t0 $309 $0 $309 1252 $1,031,960 $0.30 1968 $309 $0 $0 $304 f0 4309 $236 $1.135,150 $0.27 1989 $307 f0 s0 $307 $0 $307 $219 (1,248,670 tQ.25 1990 $311 $0 s0 $311 s0 $311 $207 $1,373,540 $0.23 1991 $309 $0 s0 $309 $0 $309 $192 $1,510,890 $0.20 1992 $310 s0 f0 $310 s0 $310 $180 $1.661,980 $0.19 s0 $305 $166 $1.828,180 $0.17 1493 $305 80 s0 $305 1994 $.306 $0 $0 $306 t0 4306 $156 $1.965,290 10.16 1995 $306 $0 f0 $306 $0 1306 $145 $2,112.690 $0.14 # 1946 4309 f0 s0 5309 SO f30 9 $137 $2,271,140 $0.14 1997 s1411 t0 $0 $311 $0 $311 $129 $2,441,470 $0.13 $119 $2,624,580 $0.12 1948 $1406 t0 f0 $306 $0 $,.T Ob 1999 $311 s0 s0 $311 $o $311 $113 $2,821,430 $0.11 2000 5308 $0 $0 $308 50 $308 $104 $3,033,040 $0.10 2001 $1409 s0 $0 $309 so $309 $98 13,260,510 $0.09 $91 $3 2002 $307 so 10 $307 s0 $307 505 050 $0.09 2003 $309 $0 $0 $309 $0 $309 $85 $3,767,930 s0.08 2004 $308 $0 s0 $308 $0 $308 $80 54,050,530 $0.08 2005 f0 s0 s0 $0 $0 s0 so $4,354,320 $0.00 2006 $0 $0 10 f0 s0 $0 s0 $4,680,890 $0.00 10 $0 $0 $0 10 $0 $0 $5,031,960 $0.00 2007 2008 so s0 10 f0 t0 $0 $0 $5,409,350 $0.00 2009 $0 $0 s0 so $0 $0 $0 15,815,050 50.00 TOTALS $6,058 s0 $0 $6,058 $74 $5,984 $3,100 =. 1-PHASE 1 ISSUED 1983-84 WITH TOTAL PRINCIPAL $2,510,000 AT A RATE OF 10.1251 3-INCREASED AV BY 10.0001 FOR FIRST 10 YEARS, THEN INCREASED BY 7.5001 1 t. s i i NOTES t' 1. Issue Sizing Assumptions And Miscellaneous i 1 r E e i s i "r r! E{4 S 0 d E f i f k' E' Et} 2 i Y ISSUE SIZING S Total (rounded to Construction. Sale nearest & Site Discount Costs Registration Other $5,000.00) PHASE I. Crow: Bonds 2,128,335 22 (1%) 30 20 - 2,200 C of P 2,128,350 44 (2%) 50 20 - 2,245 C of P with Ins. + 55 2,800 Girod: Bonds 2,390,923 25 (1%) 30 20 - 2,465 C of P 2,390,923 50 (2%) 50 20 - 2,510 C of P with Ins. + 55 2,565 PHASE II. - No Inflation Crow: Bonds 614,027 6 20 20 - 660 (. C of P 614,027 16 30 20 - 680 Girod: Bonds 882,112 8 20 20 - 930 C of P 882,112 18 30 20 - 950 PHAcF III. - No Inflation Crow: Bonds 138,000 Girod: Bonds 405,144 PHASE II. - Inflated 7%/Yr. For 5 Years (1988-89) (=1.40) Crow: Bonds 859,638 10 20 20 - 910 C of P 859,638 20 30 20 - 930 Girod: Bonds 1,234,957 15 20 20 - 1,290 C of P 1,234,957 25 30 20 - 1,310 PHASE III. - Inflated 7%/Yr. For 11 Years (1994-95) (=2.10) Crow: Bonds 289,800 Girod: Bonds 850,800 f To: City Council September 15, 1983 From: City Administrator Re: Agenda Item #5 Civic Center Report Ralph Appleman has completed the "apples to apples" cost comparison and provided the information to Rebecca Marshall, who is doing the financial analysis on Thursday, September 15, 1983. This material will be typed by Word Processing and provided in special packets this week-end. r1 C � � Y) CITYOFTICARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON September 12, 1983 +.. MRS. L. L. GIROD JB BISHOP P.O. BOR 23215 10505 S.W. BARBUR BLVD. , SUITE 303 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PORTLAND, OREGON 97219 JOHN and SANDRA ZUPAN 19133 PACIFIC HIGHWAY WEST LINN, OREGON 97068 SUBJECT: CIVIC CENTER ALTERNATIVE/COMMERCIAL AND MAIN Dear Mrs. Girod, Mr. and Mrs. Zupan and Mr. Bishop: As you are aware from our discussions, the City is interested in considering a Civic Center using the Girod property at proposn. Commercial and Ma al for a Cis Some unfortunate and unnecessary confusion has arisen concerning alternative. I have been advised by the City Attorney's office to inform each of you that the City needs a firm proposal from you, either individually or in combination, before we may proceed further. The purchase price shall be firm. The City shall not be involved in buying out or securing releases from existing leased. I must have a proposal supported by necessary documentation to City Hall by 5:00 p.m. , September 16, 1983 if it is to be considered as a , finial alternative by the City Council at its September 19! 1983 meeting. As always, I thank you for your consideration. I apologize for any confusion and await your response. Yours truly, CITY OF TIGARD bent Jean, City inistrator RWJ dkr CC Mark 0,'Oonnell, City Attorney's Office ,eFtayor and city Council 12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 i } r -- C.-P.O. lax 23215 i �. 7i9ar8. Oreyozl 's 97223 . 9/12/93 i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS F WILBUR BISHOP, MAYOR � P.O.BOX 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: SITE #3 s Dear Friends: INTEGRITY INVESTMENTS, INC., represented by me, the president, was unable to obtain a release from the leasehold interests of J. Zupan and Richard A. Falk, lessees of the property located at Main and Commercial Streets in downtown Tigard. This is the site #3 under consideration by the Council for a possible location of a proposed Civic Center. For the above reason, I request that this property, site #3, be r removed from your records for any further consideration for the new Civic Center. I sincerely regret any inconvenience or expense that has occured as the result of my being erroneously led to believe that the releases would be forthcoming without an obstacle. My participation in this was motivated only by my desire to cooperate, and to benefit all those concerned with the welfare of the City of Tigard. Sincerely Yours, F C � Mrs. L.L. Pauline Girod ccs City Administrator Tigard Library Board (gauline e. ,pirad 11390 �.�'�• 92,-1.9 c42'eiizre Tigard. (9rego" 97223 6.39-5398/620-5685 p s z 'e e • TIGARD j RJUICPhone 639-9511 September 8, 1983 12568 SW Main-Tigard, Or.97223 t 4 Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop City of Tigard `. Tigard OR 97223 e Dear Mayor Bishop: inspection In accordance with youC1tegsite on Maint mae at our JStreeteaslagpossibleelocatio83fornthelibrary. was made of the old y Hall Ober, Dorene Thomas, Ima Scott, Ed Walden and Making the inspection with me were Peggy Irene Ertell. at the outsie of After inspecting the form eralCTelephonelbuilding),nside and lthelfollowing observationshwereJmadeoinil: buildings (up to the 1. There would be approximately 7200 sq. ft. available. This is inadequate for the library needs. The present site is 5300 sq. ft. The immediate need is 9000 sq. f t. with a shared meeting area in a civic center. A separate facility will increase the t need by several 1000 sq. ft. i to be 2. The buildings eadjoining wallsformer roofsC1tItHall theappear opinion ofhthe uboard members nand othe condition, , ; librarian that adequate renovation would have to be extensive and probably very ex- pensive for the area involved. 3. The adjoining store areas have recently been leased for two year periods. Library needs preclude that sort of time lapse. es would be off of 4. The parking area pos the corners ofnMaintStreetss Thisegseascongested area already Burnham Street y { and egress visibility is poor. The Library Board wishes to express its sincerest appreciation to Mrs. Scott for her interest in the library's needs and her energy in pursuing possible solutions. in workin with you toward a city-wide s. We would also like to express our continued interest g space needs solution. incerely, UJ)t Munhall, Chairman Tigard Library Board WM:w CLEMEN'rS & M_A_RSHALL r INANCIAI.COUNSEL r 4800 S.W.MACADAM AVE..SUITE 309 POWMAND.OREGON 97201-3950 (803)241-7243 August 18, 1983 Mr. Bob Jean City Administrator City of Tigard P.Q. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SALE TIMELINES Dear Bob: You asked me to provide timelines for two possible scenarios: 1. A November 8 authorization for a General Obligation Bond Sale. 2. A November 8 authorization for a Certificates of Participation sale, based upon participations in an installment sale contract. t' Before proceeding, please be sure that your legal counsel and bond counsel review the ballot title language. You will need to clarify whether the two measures are "either/or" (ie, the one with the largest vote is the only approved measure and the other one is void) or "any/both" (ie, if both are approved, the City may choose between them). Also, on the Certificates, your ballot title must clearly establish a charter amendment for debt outside the floating limit and authorize that debt by the voter approval . Given the WPPSS situation, I want to be sure that there are no loopholes in the authorization. Dick Roberts indicated that he sees no problem with issuing the Certificates based on an installment sales contract. We agree that the voter backing and the removal of the non-appropriation language will be very desirable in both a legal and market perspective. The timelines follow on an attachment. There are a number of variables can speed up or slow down these estimated timelines. Clearly pre-electio incur costs which will be paid by the City whether or not the election is successful . Please call me if you have any questions. Since y, Rebecca Marshall Partner SALE TIMELINES GO BONDS CERTIFICATES No Pre Pre Pre-Election Preparation ''When Authorized Legal Documents: Resolution of Sale, Installment Sales Contract, etc. 1 week 1 week 2 to 3 weeks Election November 8 same same Official Statement: Research/Writing Nov 9-23 Nov 9-11 Nov 9-23 Typing/Printing (depends on who types/prints and their schedules. Used estimates using our sub-contractors) Nov 24-Dec 8 Nov 14-18 Nov 28-Dec. 9 Passage of Resolution of Sale Before Sale Depending upon Council schedule Publish Notice of Sale Dec 12 Nov. 21 No notice (14 days or more before sale) Sale Jan 4 or 10 Dec 6 Begin Pricing Dec. 12 (Competitive Sale) (Negotiated Sale) NOTE: THE TIMING AROUND THE HOLIDAYS MUST BE EXAMINED CLOSER TO THE SALE TO DETERMINE PROPER SCHEDULING. Closing Feb 3 or 10 Jan 6 Jan 13 Tk7"AmRD LI PUr% IC Phone 639-9511 BL 12568 SW Main•Tigard. Or. 97223 MEMORANDUM September 8, 1983 TO: City Council FROM: City Librarian J,9.f— SUBJECT: Library Space Needs I am submitting this memorandum as a statement of my position regarding space needs for the Library. I will be out of the State from September 10 through September 24, thus precluding my participation in discussions relating to this matter. I have been asked by board members and others which site I prefer -- -the Crow site, the Girod site, a separate site. I feel very strongly that the selection of a particular site belongs to the people of Tigard who are represented by the City Council and the Library Board. My main concerns for a new library location are as follows: 1. Adequate total space for service needs; proper ventilation and heating; appropriate work areas and staff facilities; security for persons and books. 2. A location which is highly visible, easily and safely accessed by the public; adequate parking. I am on record with the former Civic Center Committee and the Library Board as favoring the Library in a civic center complex. I recognize the overall space needs of the city and also believe that there are economies in a center for all city services, not only in the initial construction but in time saved through improved inter-departmental access and communication_ I make most of the trips to City Hall because it involves use of a personal vehicle and loss of work time, factors which I hesitate to ask staff members to cope with. Nevertheless, if a separate site becomes the solution, I am prepared to accommodate myself. I am committed to working toward a joint space needs solution as was agreed by the Library Board and the City Council after last year's defeat for the civic center proposal. Should a civic center still elude us, I will work equally hard toward a separate site and solicit the Council's support. The Board and I have discussed these points and there is no con- tention between us. Additionally, I do not advocate spending more money than is necessary for suitable library space. Excessive spending is not required to afford us better library service in Tigard. The Board and I have always rejected a "Taj Mahal" concept for Tigard. I also wish to express my sincerest thanks to each of you for your concern for library space needs and your support for the library program. O'DONNELL. DATE September 7, 1983 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean, Tigard City Administrator 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Ed Sullivan & Adrianne Brockman { RE Statutory Requirements for Submission Of Ballot Measures to County __ er, 1983 election is considered a You asked whether the Novemb election in order to determine the general , primary or special timelines for notifying the county of your intent to hold an election. Mr. Bill Flynn at the Secretary of State' s office advises me s the November, 1983 election is considered to be a special election. This position was confirmed by Vicki Ervin at Washington County. The statutes , ORS 254. 095 and ORS 221 . 230 , require the city to ions authority a certified copy of submit to the county elect the city' s measures to be voted on, including the measure number and the ballot title for each measure, not later than the 34th day before a special election. i 1 rn'/i LG�� ' AB:mch 9/7/83 Now 11 r( EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT 8EP 3 1983 THIS EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into this day of ' 1983 , between GERALD W. and CAROL L. CROW (Optionor) , and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation (Optionee) . RECITAL: i Optionor and Optionee have entered into a lease for a portion of the real property described in paragraph 2 of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in said Lease. Optionor desires to grant to Optionee the right to lease the real property described in paragraph 2 of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. CONSIDERATION AND OPTION TO LEASE. There exists a Lease between Optionor as landlord and Optionee as tenant. This Lease is dated October 19 , 1981 and is for a term commencing October 30 , 1981 and ending October 31 , 1983 . In consideration for the grant of the option to lease described in this Agreement, Optionee-tenant and Optionor-landlord agree to extend the term of the existing Lease dated October 19 , 1981 for a term commencing November 1 , 1983 and ending June 30 , 1984 . Except for the extension of the term of said Lease, there are no other amendments or changes to the Lease dated October 19 , 1981 . All of the terms and conditions of said Lease shall continue and remain in effect except for the term as heretofore described. 2 . DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY TO BE LEASED AND TERMS OF SAID LEASE SUBJECT TO SAID OPTION. The real property subject to the option to lease consists of approximately 27 , 000 square feet on the ground flooranda builis ding located at 9040 S . W. Burnham Road, Tigard, Oregon, al property is more particularly described in that certain Lease Agreement dated June 27 , 1978 between Gerald W. and Carol L. Crow, husband and wife, and Tektronix, Inc . , an Oregon corporation. The terms and conditions of any proposed lease pursuant to the option granted herein shall be the same terms and conditions as set forth in that certain lease between Optionor and Tektronix, Inc. as heretofore described. All of the terms and conditions of said Crow-Tektronix lease shall continue and remain in effect except that the term for the proposed lease between optionor and Optionee shall commence January 1, 1984 and end December 31 , 1984 . C 1 - EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT 3. GRANT OF OPTION AND TERM. Optionor grants to Optionee the exclusive right and option to lease the real property described in paragraph 2 . The option to lease granted herein shall commence on the date of this Agreement and shall terminate at midnight of December 31, 1983 . If the option is not exercised or extended in writing by Optionor on or before midnight of December 31, 1983 , then said option shall automatically terminate without any further action by Optionor and without any notice to Optionee. The time and manner of exercising this option is of essence. This option shall be of no further force and effect in the event this option is not exercised within the time stated herein. 4. MANNER OF EXERCISE. This option to lease shall be exercised by Optionee giving written notice to Optionor by either tendering such written notice in person to Optionor or by sending such written notice to Optionor, certified mail, postage prepaid, which notice shall be effective at the time it is placed in the United States mails. The date upon which such written notice is tendered in person or the date when such notice is mailed as provided herein shall be the exercise date. 5. REMEDIES . s-. The parties shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract as may be available under applicable law, including without limitation, the remedy of specific performance. 6. NOTICE. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when actually delivered. If mailed, notice shall be deemed effective 96 hours after mailing as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, directed to the other party at the address set forth below or such other address as the party may indicate by written notice to the other: To Optionor: To Optionee: Gerald W. and Carol L. Crow City of Tigard 11552 S. W. Lesser Road P. O. Box 23397 Portland, Oregon 97219 Tigard, Oregon 97223 7. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inu-� to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, pei.sonal repre- sentatives, successors and assigns, but Optionee shall not assign any interest hereunder without the prior written consent of Optionor, 2 - EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8. WAIVER. Failure of either party at any time to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall not limit the party's right to enforce the provision, nor shall any waiver of any breach of any provision be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the provision or waiver of the provision itself or any other provision. 9. ATTORNEY FEES . In the event suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees at trial or on appeal of such suit or action, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 10.. PRIOR AGREEMENTS . This Agreement supersedes and replaces all written and oral agreements heretofore made or existing by or on behalf of the parties with the exception of that certain lease agreement for a portion of the subject real property with Optionor as landlord and Optionee as tenant. 11. SURVIVAL. All of the terms and covenants contained in this Agreement shall survive the closing and delivery of the deed. 12 . BROKERS . Optionee and Optionor warrant to each other that neither party has utilized a real estate broker in connection with this transaction and will defend and indemnify each other from any claim, loss or liability made or imposed by any party claiming a commission or fee in connection with this transaction and arising out of said party' s conduct. 13. TIME. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 14 . PREPARATION OF AGREEMENT. Optionor acknowledges that this Agreement has been prepared by O'Donnell, Sullivan & Ramiis, acting strictly for the benefit and protection of the Optionee. Optionor acknowledges Optionor' s right to have this Agreement and all matters related thereto, reviewed by C_ Optionor's own and independent counsel. 3 - EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. OPTIONOR: OPTIONEE: Gerald W. Crow Carol L. Crow i 4 - EXTENSION OF LEASE AND OPTION TO LEASE AGREEMENT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 19, 1983 AGENDA ITEM lf: DATE SUBMITTED: September 15, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: Four public hearings ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: have been held Development Code REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Council reviewed the Planning Commission errata sheets on September 12, 1983. The attached errata sheets and information must be dealt with on the 19th. Staff has indicated which items are controversial or have been covered already. Those items marked with an asterisk are controversial or require action. E x New information developed in response to Council direction from the 12th will be presented. Major issues left to be resolved: [ f -Setbacks - flexible or otherwise. -Definition of hardship. -Is R-40 realistic? Homebuilders say so. -Pages 4-1 to 4-4 - Changes suggested in -Landscaping percentage - is 207 too high. response to City Attorney's office -Mobile home parks. comments. -Satellite dish standards - see infor supplied by industry. -CBD Zone - Light industrial uses or not? -Percentage of compact parking - 257 or higher - e' asa-------aa=saaasassasasaaa-sa=azcsscaov=vo=__=___=====s..r==rcc-c-==sszc ss=sa szs F._ e ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 R Council may accept or reject any of the individual issues raised. Council action should guide staff toward the preparation of a final draft to be submitted for ratification on October 10, 1983. i r i SUGGESTED ACTION i i 1 Staff recommends that Council go through each of the input documents as well as the June draft of the Code and make final revisions. { i t f r t J o d U < epa H to w JJ U Q� P0 `e GV .+ v G r+ H i O o G ~ a N G � 8 u e .wry � m td H Bg J r E to G P H b lu ta bo w d l+ O 7 O rJl + m O 41 � v ..°+ - C ..tea w A J a t+ t d 40 to as 1 0 co � U 14-4 .'.�+ G d bau0tm+ •- + m y •JG Gy SA ad 7dF .�...+ W m .0 U N G dU► m 0 O Q m v a p —4 �43 w of 9 G tr %D`r" G 41 ad U V d d as 0 o m 03 —4 � •.. �n € t rat G m 14 t m <, 4+ v u as 0 We o � - R. ccOc oo s ra d G > d •-� G d 1 A t. O 41m w b -•U� AJH k H a V o d o t tr a td oa so N `° WW tt C r4 C -4 b G .rG+ ..G+ w ad b •.. W m ca -4..+ Dc. ! 41 oan t.+ aL.i < PC < •b.. O- N d P ta v Aja Cl)1 m w 0 al d d .d ? O to CD 4 dv t, -4 > W 4j 0 d N W 4.) 4a 0P 4 cis VJ N dV H ( < N t m ar d .>� d o s w G m N m m ..4 66 m - G N ..Ci .-J > U L to ..d is as d td d d G r- y j.a .rt W p a 41 N a ty P d d - ES ,,,,t w d d G r.4 to -. to O d O W A N u a d a0 1 P ..+ u O .�+.C•t O ..mi t.+ C d Qt O P d N O > d 47 Ll P .�+ ca ed tJ° O O ., ..s V d caw0. 4j ? u 1 .N U O d4.3 ci G ° U C7 to 3 G y H d V +) d14 " ..Gi V w P d H H > t+ d ai C 00 d LA t+ O w s y G dtd .G. m O .46)W ull p Pyv d O d d O O d - O 4 C %D m Cd LidU-W E Uao G O O G qc w ..+ td FA v t» cs to d oO O O "'t u93 ..+ P r-4 r4 0 1.V O y CD 94 vCd 0 :3 C cd ra A> . O al N A d G 4 -4 ti o O NA d 0OKI A > . .4 wto K P d .re O 4O m a> d) m . v Cd 4 d N 7W < r4 Cl. W ca .� '.� ..'• •m m d m 3 p fn O t-' O m tQto R+ A. �m O K O O Koo dcd O .0 s d Gda Ko W N tP P o r U N to U U t-+ -i 4 m 4O F C? G OG > P .4 a0 P > t' .H.. 0] m .4 ..+ ..+ �- o ° °0 m sdimoo aP°o adi Sao h ram vm A W m U h a tai c`I rn Cl) �1 � N N cn en i ` Cil N H N 1 1 .1H H H H ( V, N H .-+ H H H H H H H H < H H H H t-4 H H H H H CIA ) 01-40 o C"i 1-4 cn1 U < 1.4 m ` m Sami waOs .a Gd O y)t C gd ••m•� N U to to aw .i >a 0 as m tj ad o o O > eo G 4 -4 r4 J-- .ra CL a ma 41 4) cd )5 m fF as td d tm. V 40 CS V > ..to +' .>. a: m G O y p. m L' r♦ .0 41 .�. O O U U 01 � gi � m O a m O cd u t) � O . m � U .i 6 to cd > O N Gas CIS d C: � wmO > t) > CA 4) W sumwm Ob aaa) 1 O m m K d O +' m Gas ° aEEu U 4) r4 ca -, .. G .oE G G � H u aomas v m d > d 4)) C) m -- ra d d V w N m o 6 to o > w ora c bo o ebo G E 6 '•+ €. 03 O d m d m to G 0 O. W0 is G d w mo m m a N i) 14 .1.3 > m > G m r-1 0 n. U CIS d +' ,0 y L) m d N d m m .--) N a m ra a- m N N N O t+ ••+ GO Od < A N N p O. N t+ U tL p+' i d a) a .34 W € p A an m A w O t+ m rG C m W .-Ga G b w +) �+ r4 w O• E d 0 r] a O N m m V 0 d 1 m s 0 --' E .G ... m LA G m G > > t" H to d Cd m m •-4 a) .••) w c� m E a +1G m C o m E ? 14 to tom+ d r01 .'Gi G . 1 ..+ H 12)CIS tCIS 60 1. G > .e) N y N CIS 7 O G 1 U ..+ m G y r4 flu 10 4) tj " ; m G . o ..+ 4 m o1 of eo m •.+ «+ m + pC id .0 O B �1 G G r-1 ba O. 3) C3 O G LA m G0 ) od N O♦ Nd N -4 H > r1 t+ A N to a) m y Ln Cd xan m V O > Lf H � m C a ddd V d .6.1 a0 wp.. a N .. to d V m m E to 41 4) 60 14.4 4)O b ..+ m wed .4 to R. >' Cd ami m � C w a) a m 4 tj w H u CWj m of t+ d m «+ p aai v G ® m s V d E too O � E a) t+ ao >, t+ + v o G o GA3o w u ao d 41 d y = G �) w en o 0 O m m p G p ®3 4O U3 G { ,,4 w m � m C K t+ ,; m H N .ij d' Y! 1.4 O tea) a'Cd O+ m Cd as p C .0 t+ .&) O. Q) d < x m A t�-a v?i m 0�+U V oma b a H G y G to y N y ..+ O i U :0+ G >) 0 m m a) a) N m I PO O d O O O O O to ta tn t+ W 1 A G G to b O O W s d d eo d y m m r+ m N rj L Q7 C7 on U CIO W C) G G CIS � y O O O O ai U H as a as m co V e v o C� 1-4 H �Icn I 6, H N 7 H > > y ¢. H H H - - J > > w d 4 C O H C ra to 0 w is 1] m O O C Od .0 60 C10 0 4 AJ to m m 4 eo to C ,r t U o• I d m = w y IZ ..Ci w •O O -m0 TS .G OW.d O = O cis m C Ji u+ to m to to d A y m C r4m r4 d —>4 O 0 > to m O. .+ m .a m oC -4 to d -4 4 = ba .0 > m M .4 93W m tWo bmC yE LA y Q. tm+ m = t+ 'o m C' + .N °'• m -4 t* "' to ..d+ > m � d tO.t m to m ~' ad W to m 7 b b ..a +� 60 to b 7 O m 0 v' O 0 d to +-t +au t+ a m A r4 m to m tD m d m m H ..+ •, C 6d+ I!t H d C0O f4 r4 C ttP .a ya m z tca W d Ct t0 m O O to 4 o + rl to d •+ Z 00 CV Cd tj4mw 1 FA O cd O 0 m > .C+ �' td+ .rCa U d w X .&) r4 W cn w ci tH ..0a .14 a) La Cd w cdC d d w d f4-4 r4d to O ..+ CL m to m m O C •a� r4 N O +1 00 b •'•' O m m y x r+ d Pd w W. Cd U O to ` r4 AJ N r4 b 7C �0 4 K m W y I G > O y0 O co .0 m 32 d to 94 to W m d m ••+ Eto+ 7 a 3 g 41 fi CCd LA CdC 0 .a >+ w� 0) tj m 93 o v .+ to o >' y 0Cd y 6, 0 dch LA to d V to C O 4t m = m o m ► «, r-4 rt m O+ 17t RiE to V d O m m r- C w 0 d ..>a O. to E-! U r4 O m x G La N O U d to to d 0 9� CL r4 b N d Co CD O ..r O 00 r4 m >t oa ..+ b w : d C I ..Ca m 00 m W v m R. O v ca .54C:t > r+ C +� :HI to d m O ••j 41 . 4 tea w m W w u w C t' . d O d ... �Cf CL m O m 0 .G J.1 �W 14 .b t+ Ca] 41 rt m b C W >> .✓ w U —4 a' � � � 41 0 0 t0 !O V te0 C+• C+• w+ Ct Cl ..a Cl J.1 to to y� C m O m ad I= w m U CL t* a, 00 u W M 41 t.0 60 414 E ,0., .--1 C O :Q O m bw N ..C. w U to ..Va .rC+ ..C+ m O E CL r♦ .Cd d -Yi p iO r0 to b O 0 y _.a - O W .Ct K a 30 v, 0 rd 3 r 4 Ccisd C m w O O L a d Cta r4 Cl d b U .] H Od cn ..O rl CL d 7C m W >4m ..�+ m tJ m m m C Vy to Cl t* A m to m m CL O to O O ` co p O (Wa 4 -4 rpt d r-d .fit ryi 4, O 4 O m .m1 _ .a rt ra .a m d m V Q" p�0 PO CYl t� tt i $ 7C o0 7C dC x z `. C C o m o 0 0 V3 n ti ca n h h n n U go S CO t10 A O• cn I N •0 O• 00 co 00 N N N en Cl) cel cq cn IrI I (t( m N fn r! '4 N 14 HI I H H H C5 N r'I H H H 1.4H > > U O U d I� 61 O .W 41 r a, ... .., ca o a 'o -•+ U M y C 4t C y m m b w O a w v v cd c+ -4 M. u e a. u U v V V O W a� d) d) '0 aA. 4d C-4p D. U OO Q t7 a El V1-4 ..+ r4 to d o0 OC a! O $ O a 0) w G m b -4 w b G. . = w w 61 O a O +� 0 � t0., w � G m m m ca. v� +d 4+ ••+ 6 4' n. tom. V 1 C C LL "4 0 d 14 d) 0 a. o w co, �, a, a �+ m 4-4 .410 u m as .0+ •� a. .� r. W a 61 oj we m 0 > v ca a G > 0. o c+ ut ow m m > v m >+ u w G co m N ca+ a m d ..„; ) Cd p d 0 �tS O 44 cd G C a w of -4 .r�'a ... .r. d W � m, A ..G+ d N w •Cd 4L 0 m 0' d a v w c. w �. 6 V � d b . aw0 47 61 ..�.. CJ A.) O' Cl ... t+ cd i- m ..+ m -0 co 41 d a m e.. 41n � cQi ..G+ 0 VS t.od $ 6 6 r+ t/2 OS H eD 7 0 06 RS a `r a c. v m '.Ay C N N b J] tj CD N G CO a a O O 0 �' c ra Cd V O O ; 0 y �¢ c+ a. Cd a as m u wts. b JO a -4 .o 00 n O t: p w ..C+ a0 O. St a''b ,'• Id a CL 41 K c' ao O o V O. ; w C . 41 wV e0 O O -4 U 0 W d? O td O C Cl. e60 rl 61 � Gl 44 �u m LA 0 O m C! > +' . �] CF V CW) d) 0 :mv 43 a0 .►! d 60 F a m icisId La Cl. d 3 V p t* � fe ami rte+ O U a0 v u•, cn c. e0 tt N b O O N '- W Q of w b O N C W V31C cd Cd t? o 5 1A w f.n .Q-1 N41 0J O CO a 61 L+ U A Cd ca < U W CL G T' t+ 01 y 01 d co co c cn a a q H H �' H 39 N �C d y d O W rd r-4 r4 W m 00 m C pO O O .� O W 03 O • N on ►7 h 03 ca 07 U W G. -------------- f COUNCIL INPUT - 8/29/83 PUBLIC HEARING Reiterated many concerns raised by JB Bishop regarding Dennis Brun/AIA - landscaping, flexible setbacks, size of parking spaces. He stated that the code takes substantial opment that could be put to property away from devel 4 economic use. E_ Dan Dolan - Also opposed the CBD landscaping requirements. r - He supported Mr. Brun's statements. He stated Bill Cox/Robert Randall Co. that our code promotes urban sprawl by taking away land in by utilizing large setbacks. Also, recent cent rotecting changes legislation emphasize LCDC's change providing a ual land from commercial development to p g q protection for commercial development. He also suggested that the word "hardship" be modified in the cede because it doesn' t give enough flexibility. Wes Meacham/Time Oil - Suggested that Vehicle Fuel Sales and conversance sales be allowed in light industrial zones. Council expressed its approval of this. JB Bishop - Reiterated statements previously noted in the errata sheets. He also pointed out that Page 79 of the Policies, Implementation Strategies document Findings, ti - includes a statement that the 20% at 12.1.1 discretionary, a process landscaping requirement is y medium density based on good design. This applies to and high density residential only. He suggested that parking spaces be as follows : teG 9' for standard iz !� 8 1/2' for cag�r over 30% of all spaces be compact Bob Bledsoe - Page 111-39 - supports 20' - 40' setback between commercial and residential V-5 change to R4.5 (WAM:lw/0155P) 3 w O t 03 v G d t O O+ U Q w v Y .Oa lost m a p V m m i +a .4 • &a Q Oa W on am ao .. .oi a +� o d 40 v a FA r-4 v `' t4 ... W -4 w a $ w 42 O m p' m �. A {� O m a b :a d m H CL v m m t V`t - C� LL 02 m t � o m '� + v —o r-4+ o � w . o to O w P+ two C6 a , 03 dmeo zcm �m+ v pw bOm am 0 � m ' u� O ►, m o zc _ 41 r- r-4 m d 0ed mO t. o ci —4 C: 44 b v � .�+ r+ w m I Y > �• � G Q v v 1 pco> d El O Z > 0 b m C U d .0+ 41 co ... .r. •'+ t+ f3. C m O d d ..� m a ••.1 d c0 t7 Id i h 4.10 O rd 0 N O W => re x r♦ U w „fir .e+ m O U t+ N r-4 4t2 0 bc d A m r r1 O .. 1 .0 A _m .+ •A.+ m w 0 coOQ m Cd Id 094 y m 0 .i m m � = a r-4 .0 a .G .0 + 3 d] b O0d0 Wm r1 bO O S Aa Hm tB+ i wm = vv �p omM .0 °°0 0 d b m m7 rW > m.1 G OUL ° omp ° m 4)i en o CC) t+ " G r+ m .od ^ a ... s� m a. p a m ccn cN*f C U �] W m O C. b a W •.�+ d ® W w O ay ey m 00 O eD cc O A m m 0 OO "a G m G O 00 m m W to � S � r1 d ed Z AJ Q a d r! d ..+ A -� 41 r� a A d W S w Cd J3 S m G b m G > N I = o .4 m La m m Z .'� .. O G r-1 is i r —4 -4 r-1 cisLa G re 4 d to N r-4 r 4 to O _ O ea Gel U v m O O O � vi to M r-I O O A O N N m NN eel e'n e. 1 OD OO 00 D.7co .O b %O co Q Q h OCA lT re r1 r-1 -4 .N m m G. V � �.1 O �p+1 0 y 6 m (s] U a ..+ w N V O r-� m O 0 0 0 0 0 O ri ..Vi 0 pyc� O O rl �v-i N N N F03 0 Q N N N O N N N N C +) RV7 M M M Si M M M M C M d . pct 00 00 00 i) 00 00 00 40 J) m O . rl r4 r1 r1 r4 ra H m W rA f.a d A m A tjto ta T C Ls C „r m as m C 41 ..+ 0 bo V W X U T r-4 m .V Ca A A e D ao m = d b -4 C m b ..Ca ..Ca A 47 C as 41 O L m b b w u O C B u 4. as m m O O w+ O an d O L+ m m 64 to -4 C w ++ T Q+ O V .53 „O. 4 m ri c LOa U t0s tOa d C um U m b C aa. ma ain0 oaoa ..o+ w .tea w w m to r+ ® d o ..� d r+ -4 o A o o -4 V C d r-4♦ O N i m m b V i m ..a m u m u u u rmi 0 LO,, Mrn O T© .G m W � � W C6 W 0 C64a 00 r+ z .o or a ad p<t e+ E+ o Lo+ H `4 cn 00 O OoOoo ate }' u q G N N O r1 N r1 rl L 40 44 cp rq .0 O N 2 to 00 C LA m d ra te.a U m b d m A o x -4 V ..Hi W o v ..+ 6+ TJ V O = O O d p O v m C G T ..� .Wtj to + O . C V .0 r-4 14 4 Cd U C -4 G z > m ,4 y o m d o L,, o d L. m v G c a .•• rn m O .. p ., m o d 0. G C m o A v m m r4 V cn '4 E C rs .0 ro oo b v O .4 co dO d r4r-1 6+ Ls -.+ O >s M N O w Ls >% m t V O e0V 0+ .0 N — 4j m m w 4j G 4" M m d C U O-.+ - C G ... -4O C) b i, O O-4 wp O m W w 0 r') N N pd d V U O W +j V V m N N C 4) m W Ls W O m m +) Cl) M d) .1 m 0 oc� Q. QZAA m 4)_ 00 00 .,. i. v a _ m r� r• w O Q+ Q.H N M A t t t O O W r4 M �I rr H f-4 H 1-4 # pr H 1-4 N H H � w d l m r1 = r-- 42 Ow ca C: �n O @ O OV 10® ri Cd LA O C r @ G u M 44 4 O cis O 0. to ..+ CL d = COO 0 @ O gi m d o0 o C per'.m cd as V: � .o ..�+ 45 of Q . r4o�� Tw 0 C4 0 =� Cl) en to43� 0 mp m r4 m m s p m Q 'O A H .U.a � 1✓ N @ V4t�7 q C3. C3. 6 = _ 4 ..4 w-4 O w —+ v m r4 Id r_ @ @ r. A p @ ,s @ b c+ a H @ e :01 N G v1 @ v v V d tj r- O t9 O C: Cl O go co N r-1 O @ ..a m Aj j N N W C7 @ cn Pl s7 N1 to . Q *d A H r-4 CT Q' t!1 V1 N N N 1 l � � H H H T T T T :X' T T ;04d d m m w O C jr- Doco w C C p W LjWO O O 1 ts7 O O y s r 41 4.)41 '- [n y y u tj bft—4 N •C to i' m <' m S m d 'C V tea. w w w ..–+++ 4 wt" �+ C&. raw ... ... w N V O U O O O V O V O V O U O s m .V � C m w o � s m v u e0 d sg 14 cd1 b o e, L8 d "� O O O 0 csa c+ +� V 41 o n. o u' 1 a b .aa y U m m p m 14 c w c � J-- a, a w 41 .c o o 02 .o o 3 � b a' N d N10 3 V ..r Cd co r4 41 N O, N 00 r4 v Jd7 H (A d O d u'f -4 01 of O N m N d O ..Ca M d O m(1 j ..p'A r4 Vf m N ..{Ar•1 00 ..Ci C r♦ d IV i+ b 61 H '4 � m 0. C t+ rl O - N ,+ C y co d r♦ H,4 ji2 .o . 1 L a ..r of H aJ 4J — v v of N v r�1 01 v C O Oa a p O O rl u'1 O O O O O r♦ G O O P] cn M 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 ra H to O r4 r-4 r-1 'H1 4 -4 H r♦ r4 -4 pl N N V t a .T ✓1 00 N N F{ H 1 I 1 I 1 I Ian a m U u y a a a a v a a, a, b ;�iw �w 41w IS C&4 o 144 v vi3 U G i a u a a om 94ao m c-4 .5 j' o a a 1.4 o rr b a� u 03 > o ® � b o a A C o as -4 z m «. u d Lea d R. 42 ..+ d d L m a�0 > wC bo 10 t cm. a o m -4 w e.-le m rte+ m J° 1 4 m u - tm. c o m �4 z m m -•• ..a O a ba3c C7% w m m W d o0 A -4 ..a d G O T m a �, d O tom+ • m o v a o o d Ac `s d d -4 Go ca. as L d to ..+ r 4 „�� N d m m F o m +� cu .. .. ® V W m m r♦ z m majti U0 co — • v t. C e� ro — L a %O a v a�0 1 p ..1i A w m C= 0 N d r4 ' 41 .4 N N N *a o m r-/ o t.e m o coo m Aj O VJ co p oo a o- m 93- = m rn Co V oo w r- r4 L d U A r•4 = s-4 d 1-4m t� a m A O N O O 00 Pl r4 s7 W r4 r-1 N N Cn ! I 1 I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 9 1983 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTE19V15/83 PREVIOUS ACTION: -ounril RPnuPsrPd ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution No. Acknowledgment of Fund R icing Efforts 83-78 - Howard Williams _ REQUESTED BY: City Council Ratify Action - DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY This is a housekeeping matter in that Council did not formally adopt Resolution No. 83-78. Consensus of Council was to acknowledge and express appreciation for Mr. Williams fund raising effots. Resolution No. 83-78 and Key to the City were presented 9/12/83. No formal action, adopting Resolution No. 83-78 was taken by Council at that time. axaaaaxaa=s=xaaaasasazsiesmaaaaaaxzsxxxssxxs x=sma==xs===amsssax=smaascaxsxx==caaxxs ,- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Ratify Resolution No. 83-78 2. No Action :aszssaazaasas=ssasaasaaszaxaszaa ssa=xasxxs==xxsxxxxs==__===a=as sss===aasac c ssxa== SUGGESTED ACTION Ratify Resolution No. 83-78 to keep the City's records clear. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 19 , 1983 AGENDA ITEM k: DATE SUBMITTED: September 15 , 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Dedications and Easements REQUESTED BY: Public Works DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are 72nd Avenue related documents for easements and dedications from Southern Pacific to the City with respect to Ident #63 . It represents a 5 foot easement for utilities and a 5 foot dedication for roadway at at no cost. This compares to a $22, 573 estimate of cost for 10 foot right-of-way. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None ` SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends council accept the right-of-way and easement and authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to sign the attached documents. WLJ"l.:HAS:/ LZ H k="M "I--LALJ I=t= 1 VENDUR SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. C/V De Haas 6 Associates ,fes ADDRESS { /'► 1 / ®D 9450 S.W. Commerce Circle OF DATE 9/12/83 REQUESTED BY FAC UNIT/DEPT. Public Works PURCHASE REQUEST CHECK REQUEST O PREPARE PURCHASE ORDER xx CHECK TO BE MAILED WITH ATTACHMENTS SEND CONFIRMING P.O. NOTIFY REQUESTER WHEN CHECK IS READY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS CHECK NEEDED BY next run ACCOUNT NUMBER QUANTITY INVOICE NO. 6 DESCRIPTION TOTAL PRICE 45-52100-620 - S.W. 72nd LID K 21 - Utility Easement 5 1.00 i TOTAL REQUESTED $ 1.00 APPROPRIATION BALANCE $ / Amount / Initials APPROVALS: SECTION MANAGER (Less than $100) DEPARTMENT HEAD CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAP? ----------------------------- ACCOUNTINGS PURPOSES ONLY ----_--_--_---------__-_------ Amount Paid Signatures Checked P.O. No. Check Number Fin. D--to, Dato Paid ACCOUNTING J % v 95 TU Suite 445 - AGC Center 9450 S.W. Commerc, Circle 62 • Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 10.1 `. . . :297 s s®c 1 a t e�+7 Inc. (503) 6$2-2450 Hz Consulting Engineers & Surveyors /�d2ltil'�. September 8, 1983 Frank A. Currie, P.E. Director of Public Works �,yr�^/'` ;/0; P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Frank: Attached are 72nd Avenue related documents which we are providing for consideration by the Council . Ident 63 (SPTC) a. Street Dedication b. Easement for Utilities With respect to Ident 63, the five (5) foot Dedication and five (5) foot Easement for Utilities have been provided at no cost to the City of Tigard. This compares with a total appraised cost of ten (10) ft. of right-of-way and improvements of $22,575.00. Please note that SPTC has provided an extra set of documents marked "SPTC COPY". Both sets should be executed by the City. Return the "SPTC" copies to us and record the other copies in' the ususal manner. Sincerely, Marlin J. a Haas, P..E. MJD/dg Attachments cc: Ident 63 Project: 72nd Avenue Area - LID No. 21 Assessment Ident. No. : 63 Tax Lot No. : 100 Tax Map No. 2S-1-12D Deed Reference: Book 503, Page 303 Book 569, Pages 134 & 135 Plat of Kable Acre Tracts EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES Southern Pacific Transportation Company, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That of the County of State of in Consideration of the sum of One Dollar 1.00 to them in hand paid, do hereby grant an convey unto the City o. igar F . a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, a right-of-way and easement over, across and under the following described real property situated in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, to-wit: c PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED 4 f T E This permanent easement is granted for the purpose of laying, constructing, g replacing, and maintaining utility lines , and the easement herein granted shall include the right for the Grantee to go over, across and under said land for the purpose of installing said utility lines and maintaining and repairing them, 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 buildings, as will not interfere with the uses and purposes of the easement. Page 1 k Utility Easement TEMPORARY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION NONE This temporary easement is granted solely for the purpose of constructing utilities within the above described permanent easement. Said temporary easement shall cease to exist Thirty (30) days from the date of certifi- cation of completion of the project by the Engineer. Grantors covenant to and with Grantee that they will not in any manner interefere with or restrict, except as herein stated, Grantee's use of said easement. This right-of-way and easement is granted with the understanding that any work done by the City of Tigard pursuant hereto will be so done as to leave the premises here described in condition reasonably similar to the previous state thereof when any work is finished thereon. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE Herein described right-of-way and easement unto the City of Tigard, its successors and assigns, forever. In the event that it becomes necessary for any person now or hereafter a party to the benefits and/or obligations of this easement to institute any action or suit to enforce any of their rights hereunder, the party prevailing in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover its costs and disburse- ments and such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney' s fees to be allowed in said action or suit or any appeal thereon. t Page 2 Utility Easement r 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 28,T11 Day of V 19 (SEAL) (SEAL) —(SEAL)� Es"T SENIOR VICE PRES7DEN�lSEAL) (SEAL) ___I(SEAL) Assistant Secretary 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 None Mortgagee By — Title f. (INDIVIDUAL) STATE OF __ ) } ss. County of _) BE IT REMEMBERED That on this day of 19 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the above named and - — who are known to me to be—the identical individuals described in and who executed the above instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. Notary Pub=ic of Oregon — Pty commission expires Page 3 Utility Easement 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 r STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Washington) 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 municipal corporation. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year last above written. 8 Notary Public for State of Oregon C r4y Commission Expires : — g. • FF - S Page 5 Utility Easement t i { Utilities Easement Description Exhibit f 3 Ident. No. 63 Page 1 of Three parcels of land in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 12 of T.2S. , R.1W. , W.M. the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described s as follows: Parcel 1 being that portion of Lot 14 of the plat of Kable Acre Tracts, a subdivision of record in Washington County, Oregon, Records (T.L. 100 Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to a center line and a line 30 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line being described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" E, 20.00 feet from the recognized East 1/16th corner on the South line of said Sectiun 12 (the southwest corner of the East z of the south- F 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" ll ( 2646.33 feet to a point that is N 89040144" E, 20.00 feet from an iron pipe with a brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16th k corner (the northwest corner of the East z of the southeast 4 of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. R Parcel 2 being that portion of Lot 1 of the plat of Kable Acre Tracts, . a subdivision of record in Washington County, Oregon, Records (T.L. 100, Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to a center line and a line 30 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line being described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" 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 2 of the southeast 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 1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the East Z of the southeast 4 of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. r Exhibit "A" utilities Easement Description Page 2 of 3 i Ident. No. 63 i i Parcel 3 being that portion of the tract of land described in Book } 503, Page 303 of the Washington County, Oregon Records (T.L. 100, Map 2S-1-120) which falls between a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to a center line and a line 30 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" 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 i of the southeast 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 1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the East z of the southeast a of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. Excepting that portion of the above described parcel quit claimed to Ford Motor Company in Book 897, Pages 940 - 942. 12/10/82 80. 194.118 ' F Exhibit "A" �- Page 3 of 3 N 89040'44" E 20.00' k a, 6 c e i Brass Cap in Iron Pipe Spur Tracks at recognized 1/16th I ' k orner (Point "P" on U I C.S. 13,247) v Assessment Ident No. 63 Tax Lot No. 100 1 d Tax Map No. 2S-1-12D Deed Ref..:. Plat of Kable Acre Tracts i I F¢ I Book 503, Page 303 c Book 569, Pages 134 & 135 I Owner: Southern Pacific Transportation Company x Utilities Easement Contains n, 4561 Suare Feet more or less MI In to to clj N O 6 c Parcel 3 A O I I � T F� 20' ❑ Utilities Easement 0 � U O Scale: 1"=50'1 I Date:12/10/8 A 25' I --- --- -----�--,�-- Parcel 2 0. • ;� � f N 1 N .� I �\v � ' •� a o S.W. Kable Street a Parcel 1 i ZIN I O Recognized 1/16th Corner ' �'ty j .1 ..S '4- (Point No. 289 on County Survey No. 19,127) N 89038'24" E 20.00' DeHAAS &ASSOCIATES, INC.' UTILITIES EASEMENT MAP CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORSLID NO. 21 Suf1•445-AGC C•nI•r (SM)682.2,so CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 9450 S w Common cimse Pe.,E764165 WlLom.1116.o'*9on 67070 File No. 80.194.118 STREET DEDICATION Ident. 63 \y KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Southern Pacific Transporation Company, a Delaware corporation hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of $ 1.00 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) have hereunto set their hand and seals this 28�N day of U✓ /9X3 (. (SEAL) (SEAL) (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. _ Southern/Pacific Transportation Company Name of-12` a ion - By: Pre dent l.:=7:TANT Secretary STATE OF OREGON 1 COUNTY 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: Notary Public for Oregon k My Commission expires: ACCEPTANCE j Approved as to form this day of 19 By: City Attorney - City of Tigard Approved as to legal description this day of 19 By: Accepted by the City Council this day of 19 By: City Recorder - City of Tigard Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A" Ident. No. 63 Page 1 of 3 Three parcels of land in the S.E. 4 of Section 12 of T.2S. , R. JW. , W.M. , the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1 being that portion of Lot 14 of the plat of Kable Acre Tracts, a subdivision of record in Washington County, Oregon, Records (T.L. 100, Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between a center line and a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line being described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" 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 2 of the southeast 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 1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the East 2 of the southeast 4 of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. Parcel being that portion of Lot 1 of the plat of Kable Acre Tracts, a subdivision of record in Washington County, Oregon, Records (T.L. 100, Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between a center line and a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said center line being described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" 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 of the southeast 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 1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the East 2 of the southeast ; of said Section 12) noted as �. Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit "A" j Ident. No. 63 Page 2 of 3 f f � r s Parcel 3 being that portion of the tract of land described in Book 's 503, Page 303 of the Washington County, Oregon Records (T.L. 100, Map 2S-1-12D) which falls between a center line and a line 25 feet 4 easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said f center line described as follows: r Beginning at a point that is N 89039'24" 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 2 of the southeast y of said Section 12) noted as Point No. 289 on County Survey No. 19, 127; thence along said center line N 0021136" W, 2646.33 feet to a point }d. 1 '} that is N 89040'44" E, 20.00 feet from an iron pipe with a brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16th corner (the northwest corner k of the East z of the southeast a of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247. ? v (� Excepting that portion of the above described parcel quit claimed to Ford Motor Company in Book 897, Pages 940 - 942. t k E "c N K P 12/10/82 80. 194. 118 Exhibit. "A" Page 3 of 3 N 89040'44" E 1 I Iii 20.00' d 1 c Brass Cap in Iron PipeSpur Tracks at recognized 1/16th "L ai 1 orner Point "P" on I i C.S. 13,247) '�' FDeed Ident No. 63 I : . 100 W i . 2S-1-12D U . .Plat of Kable Acre Tracts 503,'PagQ 303 569, Pages 134 & 135 N Owner: Southern Pacific X Transportation Company I W Additional Right-of-Way Contains IE 4481 Square Feet more or less t0 N N G A Parcel 3 o � � 20El Additional Right-of-Way o � U G S Scale: 1"=50'i !i Date:12/10/8 -o 25' 301 Ii Parcel 2 C' ��•i '\•'-� C I� 1 E 1' I ! I i CD S.W. Kable Street Parcel N Qcli I I ' I Recognized 1/16th Corner (Point No. 289 on County Survey No. 19,1271 L' -N 89038124" E 20.00' DeHAAS&ASSOCIATES, INC.- RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION MAP CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SURVEYORS L I D NO. 21 S.A.445-AGC Con1w (5W)ea-:•so CI IY OF TIGARD, OREGON 9450 S.W.GOmm.,C.C1rC10 Rsa.696-6195 W1190_1116'otp0n 97070 File No. 80.194.118 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: September 19 1983 AGENDA ITEM !f: L'A DATE SUBMITTED: Sept. 14, 1983 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Building Division Position Authorization for Office REQUESTED BY: Building Official Assistant I. DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: '� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Building revenues and activities for Fiscal Year 83-84 are trending as estimated, however, activity in May-June last year did generate $20,000 more cash carry-forward than budgeted. The part-time clerical position has helped, but codes enforcement and some building code enforcement inefficiencies have resulted. Some revenue loss from less Business Tax enforcement may also be occurring. sear=arae-------------------aacszssc ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Cut code enforcement further end backlog building records 2. Add additional inspector/codes enforcement officer: $ 12,000 cost. 3. Add clerical support: $9,000 cost. SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize an Office Assistant I position and $9,000 contingency to replace part-time Office Aide effective 10/1/83. Direct staff to prepare resolution transferring funds from cash carry-forward. t f!! 1 F E MEMORANDUM } t i ( c s z i TO: Bill Monahan ��' FROM: Ed Walden c f DATE: September 14, 1983 s SUBJECT: Division Staffing Needs s r E The Building Division is in need of a full-time Clerical Person, to process applications, maintain departmental records, schedule appointments and answer this division has not decreased since March phones. The volume of work going thru that the of this year and indications are work load will remain fairly steady thru the fall months. I am sure you will agree that the extra Clerical help will improve productivity and help us become an efficient operation. It may also help relieve the outrsickrk load placed on the single Inspector when the other one is on vacation B b i' �f k ffF' 2 S. Ekk; a q� E • s O'DONNELL. DATE September 16 , 1983 RECEIVED 7 � Sltt„LIVAN & RAMIS f ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Tigard City Council SEP 16 1983 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209Ty �C y��pp� (5031 222-4402 FROM Tigard City Attorney R66 O+� i ufui 1 RE All About Town Article on TURA Election We have been asked to review the above article and to discuss the issue of whether the article is so unfair as to amount to advocacy of a ballot measure and is thus an illegal expenditure of public funds. The issues revolve around a Citizen Initiative to terminate the Tigard Urban Renewal Agency (TURA) , which initiative has sufficient signatures to be placed on the ballot, as well as a competing by the City Council , which would measure placed on the ballot limit the amount authorized for certain bonds of TURA without =` actually abolishing the agency. TURA, at its August meeting, authorized the expenditure of $50 to ction in All About Town, the city' s publish an informational se newsletter, regarding this election. At that time, I advised the Agency Board that such a newsletter must be stricly informational t cy of one side or the other would be and neutral , and that advoca unlawful. That advice, given orally as a result of the verbal inquiry at the meeting, is supported by Oregon statutory and case law. The leading case is Porter v. Tiffany, 11 OrApp 542, 502 P2d 1385 (1972) , in which the Oregon Court of Appeals found no authority for the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) , a municipally owned utility of the city of Eugene, to expend funds for a 1968 election campaign to support a bond issue for a nuclear power program and a 1970 campaign to defeat an initiative to delay construction of the nuclear power plant. The Porter court surveyed the various statutory, charter and other provisions authorizing epxenditure of EWEB funds and found none which would have authorized such campaign expenses, either expressly or by necessary implication. The court also cited, with approval, a s v. Del Valle, 201 Cal 273, 257 P 530 similar California case, Mine (1927) , to the effect that use of public funds to advocate a parti- cular vote on an issue deprived those taxpayers who advocated a position contrary to the authority governing body and was thus "manifestly unjust and unfair." 3 This is not to say that the Agency could not respond to citizen inquiries, or explain how funds are spent, or undertake other neutral acts to give the public necessary information as to its activities or its requests at the ballot box. The use of public f funds, however, places a burden on the public agency to act in an even-handed manner. The Porter court left an opening in this general rule to the effect that the EWEB commissioners might be free of personal liability for the campaign expenditures if they acted on the advice of counsel. See Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority V. Hopkins, 53 OrApp 212, 631 P2d 808 (1981) , Rev. Den. That is not an issue here, in that counsel was not asked to review the publication. EJS:mch 9/16/83 Page 1 } O•DOi., ELL. DATE September 16, 1983 SULLI-° N L RAMIS ATTORK kT LAW TO Tigard City Council 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM Tigard City Attorney i RE All About Town Article on TURA Election The personal liability aspect of Porter is underscored by the provisions of ORS 294 . 100, et seq, which allows a taxpayer suit for public funds illegally expended and personal liability against those authorizing such an expenditure. These statutes have more often been used to deal with expenditures of unbudgeted funds, but the Porter court found the statutes applicable to the illegal campaign expenditures. We now turn to the newsletter article at issue. A number of concerns have been transmitted to me over specific points treated in the question and answer portion of the newsletter. Some of those concerns were raised at the City Council/TURA meeting of September 12, 1983, and privately by members of the council and the public. Without attempting to deal extensively with all issues that could be raised, the following matters have been alleged, among others: --The response to question 5 (WHO PAD'S INTO THE TAX INCREMENT?) does not deal with contributions made indirectly by those outside the urban renewal area, who must sustain a greater tax effort because of the use by the urban renewal agency of tax increment financing. To some extent, this issue is covered in the response to question 9 . --The positive emphasis on the benefits of urban renewal given, especially in response to questions 6 and 7, without any treatment of possible negative effects. --The treatment given to the effect Measure 52 , the council ' s competing measure in question 8, without a comparable discussion of Measure 51. --An incomplete discussion in the response to question 9 as to the effect on those owning property outside the "district. " The question is the standard to be applied. That standard is not set forth in statute, except to the extent that ORS 294. 100 , et seq, prohibits illegal expenditures and Porter and Hopkins give some idea as to what an illegal expenditure might be. There is no statutory method for challenging the expenditure except a lawsuit (which this office would be required to defend) unlike a ballot title challenge under ORS 250 . 296. Thus, the standard to be applied is important to the disposition of the case. Porter prohibits the use of public funds for advocacy on a measure submitted to the voters. The article in question does not do so directly. The question then becomes whether by being "slanted" , or incomplete, or by the use of positive or negative emphasis, an "informational" article may amount to advocacy. I believe that such an article could amount to advocar--y by the use of such mechanisms EJS:mch 9/16/83 Page 2 i O'DONNELL. DATE September 16, 1983 SUJ.LIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAWTo Tigard City Council 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031222-4402 FROM Tigard City Attorney RE All About Town Article on TURA Election under the Porter rationale and that it makes little difference whether an item was labeled "informational" or not or expressly advocated a certain position or not--if, read as a whole, it amounts to advocacy such an article would be prohibited and the sanctions of t ORS 294.100, et se would be involved. The difficulty is in defining "advocacy. " The article in question t does not advocate a certain vote. It is said to be incomplete, to "shade" meanings, or to "explain" certain aspects of the question over others. It is not the article that ideally might be written F on these measures. Yet, none of these mechanisms inherently amounts to advocacy. The article was written by non-lawyers, who are responsible to elected public officials, rather than by the officals themselves. What is involved here is a "judgment call. " I cannot find any r authority that would lead me to conclude that this article is so written as to amount to an illegal expenditure of public funds and, x thus, personal liability for members of the city council . It is not impossible that a court would so find, but the tendency of the courts to defer to local action in a "gray area" such as this, leads me to believe that a court would not find the expenditure illegal . What is said above relates strictly to the legal issues involved. The public policy issue is for the council and beyond my area of competence. However, the council may wish to have the City Attorney' s ? office review newsletter articles related to election issues in the future to avoid other "gray areas" of a legal nature and, thus, potential legal liability. If you have further questions in this regard, please contact me. t c s i } i t a i F E E EJSsmch 1 9/16/83 Page 3 f r • CITY OF TIGARD t P.O.Box 23397 9020 S.W. Burnham POUCE DEPARTMENT Tigard,Oregon 97223 September 21, 1983 Chief Russ Washburn Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District P.O. Box 127 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 Special Attention: Diane Brandt Communications Officer RE: Washington County Communications Study Dear Chief Washburn; I wish to advise; the City Council at their meeting of September 19, 1983, authorized the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District to enter into the Washington County Communications Study in be- half of the City of Tigard. The funding resource is to be pro- vided by a portion of the City of Tigard's share of the 911 all- otment transferred to the T.R.F.P.D. in an amount not to exceed $2,952.00, dollars. Sincerely, B. Adams, a Chief of Police CC: City Administrator RBA:sc 1 RUH [ HE PRUIR110H M ® v P.O. BOX 127 i TUALATIN, OREGON 97062 o PHONE 682-2601 • RUSSELL WASHBURN. CHIEF September 19, 1983 Bob Jean, City Administrator City of Tigard P.O. Box 23557 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Washington County Communications Study Dear Mayor and Council Members: The Tualatin Fire District Board of Directors, at the Board meeting of September 14, 1983, authorized participation in the Washington County Communications study. The Board authorized payment of the District portion of $1667 and requested that contact be made with each city to determine if they are interested and if so, payment has been authorized by the TRFPD Board of Directors. This payment will occur upon satisfactory completion of the study through Washington County. The decision of the city is needed in writing as soon as possible (see the previous attached correspondence) . If any additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me. I am also available to present information or be available for questions for City Council meetings if necessary. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, §Ljane Brandt Communications Officer DB:dm Enclosures cc: Chief Washburn D.C. Schwartz • MR. WOODHOUSE MOVED WE RATIFY THE AUTHORIZATION TO PUR0-LASE 9L14-83, Pg. 3 PAGERS FOR VOI:.kXgrEERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5250. MOTION WAS Vol . Pagers SECONDED BY MR. WELLS AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. authorized MR. WOODHOUSE b'I.7VED THAT WE RATIFY AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO Auth. to purch. MODEL 534 FORD ENGINE BLOCKS FOR $2266. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY 2 engine blocks MR. RAGE AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY- Chief Washburn requested authorization to fill the two long- Auth. to fill standing Engineer vacancies created Iyz one Engineer moving to 2 Engr vacancie Central Stores and the resignation of Larry Ball. MR. WOODHOUSE MOVED THAT THE T%;O ENGINEER POSITIONS BE FILLED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. WELLS AND CARRIED UNZANIMOUSLY Authorization was request -d to hire Rick Harrington as the Asst. Auth. to hire Public Education Office- affective 9-15-83. Mr. Harrington was Pub. Ed. Asst. introduced to the Board and gave a brief background. MR. WOODHOUSE MOVEI) THAT THIS AUTHORIZATION BE GRANTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND CARRIED UNANT1MOUSLY. Authorization was requested to dire our messenger full '-ime. Due Auth. to hire to the workload he has been working a full-time basis rather than messenger full- part time as originally anticipated. MR. WOODHOUSE MOVED THAT time THIS ALTIHORIZATION BE GRANTED. MOTION 4-TAS SECONDED BY MR. WELLS AND CARRIED L.TNANIMOUSLY. Discussion followed regarding the establishment of a Lieutenant/ Auth. to estab. Paramedic eligibility list. Chief Washburn stated the Civil Lt/Pm list Service Commission has indicated their approval. This list would j be maintained in conjunction with the Lieutenant eligibility I �- list. MR. CHU4BERIAIN MOVED TfjAT THE RDFT BE AUTHORIZED. t. MOTION V�,.S AND CARRIED �for ni.cations Officer Diane Brandt gave background and request Wash. Ctyunding for our part- cipation in the Washington County Emer. Comm. Emergency Camm nications Study. Funding is requested using 911 Study, funding revenues for a total of $6,836. Breakdown is as follows: TFD - uth. i $1667, Durham - $126, King City - $126, Sherwood - $426, Tigard - $2952 and Tualatin - $1539. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. CIVU-BERUU N THAT WE CIWTP.CT F7LC H OF THE CITIES IN OUR DISTRICT TO DEIM41NE IF THEY ARE INTERESTED, PAY OUR $1667, AND PAY THE FEES FOR THOSE WHO WISH To PARTICIPATE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HAGE AND CARRIED WITH T-U= AYE VOTES AND ONE NAY VOTE BY MR. WOODE-€OUSE. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 9:26 PM. Authorization was requested to reapply for exemption from the Auth. to re- State Fire Marshal's office. MR. CHAMBERLAIN MOVED THAT 'HIS apply for exemp REQ(J'EST BE APPROVED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY !na. WOODHOUSE AND from SFNU CARRIED U uAN-IMOUSLY. Fire Marshal 'Yukon then presented the application which was signed. MR. CHAMEERLAINMOVED THAT THE REQUEST 'O PURSUE THE FEASIBILITY Auth. to OF RECEIVING RESIDENTIAL ALARMS FROM RUAU AS REQUESTED SY pursue f e a s. , JIM HICK, REPRESJ G THE CMIBONNEAU ' ASSOCIATION. Charbonneau MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. HAGE AND C7IRRIED LXW\NIMOUSLY. re s i d.a 1 a rm s i � 1 I T 110 (1 MIMI r � L � 1 I I 1 � � � � L d� 1 • RUSSELL WASHBURN. CHIEF P P.O BOX 127 • TUALATIN. OREGON 97062 • PHONE 682-260 August 25, 1983 I Ml yur City uf' City i Re: Washington Co. Emergency Cc:jmunications Study { t Dear f*i:syc?r :rano i s !d attic: . Attached is a copy of a letter from Washington County regarding the funding of a communications study relating to Central Dispatch, computer aided dis- patch, enhanced 911 and cable systems. Washington County, through the caTI-• mittee process, has recommended that funding for this ccrrmunications study be funded by 911 monies. F The Tualatin Fire District, 911 Ccx=unications Center, currently provides the 911 service for your area and has been operational since 1980. The Center is the initial answering point for all police, fire, and medical calls. Iunding for the 911 Center was originally acccrnplished through a three year serial levy which terminated in July 1983. A state-wide funding for 911 was provided for in HB 3178 in 1982. Currently, the Tualatin Fire District receives the 911 funding (State excise telephone tax) from the areas in which we provide service which was authorized by your city in 1982. These revenues are utilized in the General Fund budget for the operation of the 911 Center. t' There is not a budgeted amount allotted for participation in this ccnmuni- I cations study. At the present time, Tualatin Fire District's staff is concerned regarding the funding process, expenditure of these funds, and the need of the study as it relates to the Tualatin 911 Center and its €, users. Tualatin Fire is currently a 911 Center and a computerized dispatch t agency. Your opinions regarding this eci munications study would sincerely be f appreciated and I or Chief Washburn are available to answer any questions which you may have. We would sincerely appreciate your input prior to Sept. 2, 1983. t Sincerely, t Diane Brandt Cczanunications officer CC: D.C. John Schwartz i e e DB:dm z Diclosure s MIKE f • <pSON WASHINGTON COUNTY 1t 1� ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $ FIRST AVENUE HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 DEPT-OF FINANCE AND ADM. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ROOM 101 (5031648-8811 WES MYLLENBECK, Chairman August 5 , 1983 BONNIE L. STAYS, Vice Chairman: EVA M. KILLPACK JOHN E MEEK G' r' LUCILLE WARRENn Y `r' Tualatin Rural Fire District L) Chief Washburn �1 1 AUG 0g 1983 P.O. Box 127 Tualatin , Oregon 97062 Re: Washington County Emergency Communications Study Dear Chief Washburn : As you are aware, proposals were sought for performingan. Four Emergency s were received. Communications Study within Washington Countwhich made a recommendation to the They were reviewed by the RFP subcommittee , full RFP committee iand dthe Ovendor made RFP san ommitral Peesmetawith thea911uBoao rd on August 4 , 198 n August 4 asswConsultingnCoorporation� shouldabe engagedetooperfor it of Cmsthea the firm of Comp mechanism was 911 monies. study and the appropriate- funding ll s a ost A copy Of the proposal is enclosed for your within Washingtonmation as County. Sinceayourc911 funds breakdown for all jurisdictions wit will be are received and accounted for by the Tualatin Rural Fire District they setting up a meeting with your City the week of August 15, 1983 to discuss the proposal . A letter stating your Board' s decision should be returned to me by September 16, 1983. We anticipate The t e project betmaking�interimon Ocober 11983ndreporPsetocomltinthet within six months . rised of the status either through your RFP committee and we will keep you app representative or directly. ad 648n8661terest in the project . If you have any Thank you for your consideration questions please contact me at Very truly yours , " Margaret Post , Director Finance and Administration Enclosures f all (•(111141 u/�/�rfrlui+irr rnn(rlul rr WASHINGTON COUNTY ` Intcr—Dcpartmcnt Correspondcncr 1983 1 p,tC August 3, To - Marge Post, Director, Finance and Administration s Division Supervisor' From - Dick J. Slinger, Communications Subject - Cost Estimates for all Agencies for Communications Study re the cost estimates , by jurisdictions to funda�honCommunications Listed below a These estimates are based on pop Study using "911 monies" . Center for Population and figures supplied by Portland State University °hof County Cost Research and Census dated 7/182 Population Popu�tion_ Jurisdiction o.2 $ 83 510 Banks X3.0 5,564 33,640 Beaverton1 9 811 ` 4,880 Cornelius 4.6 1 ,967 11 ,910 Forest Grove0 2 83 555 Gaston 11 .3 4,836 29,240 Hillsboro 0.3 126 750 North Plains3 9 1 ,667 Tualatin Rural F.D. 10,019 Cities' 911 money 0 3 126 held b Tualatin Rural F.D. 700 0.7 126 Durham 1 ,860 1 .0 426 King City 2,550 2 ,952 Sherwood 18,000 6'9 11539 Tigard 3'6 7 ,007 9,400 Tualatin City Subtotal Tualatin R.F.D. 1 8 768 4,792 Forest Grove RFD 254 1 ,452 0.6 Gaston RFD 259 ,700 49.8 21 ,321* Washington County 129,442 42.820 Less cities & RFD's POP- Includes monies for 8,992 Fire District Number One: $1 027 Fire District Numbert: 347 Two: $ Tri-Cities Fire Distc Rural Firer Dist. :$ 256 Cornelius