Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/11/1985 t r. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL/REG. MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate FEBRUARY 11, 1985, 6:00 P.M. sign-up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are 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. 6:O0 1. SPECICa11EtolNG: CTY OrderlandHRo11 Call SW Ash Avenue Tigard, Oregon 1.1 1.2 Discussion of 2/11 Agenda 6 City/County Relations (No Action Taken) 1.3 Adjournment 7:30 2. REGULAR MEETING: FOWLER JR. HIGH SCHOOL 10865 SW_Walnut Street, Tigard 7 2.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 2.2 Pledge of Allegiance 2.3 Call To Staff and Council For Nan--Agenda Items 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) p 4. POLICE CHAPLAIN - RESOLUTION NO. 84-_,_.^ F o Captain Jennings S. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARIl_G { o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Finance Director Opponents, Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, o Recommendation of Finance Director o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration of Council s o Resolution No. 95- 6. CPA 23-84 PUBLIC HEARING - Subsidized Housing Policy o Public HearingOpened o Summation by Planning Staff opponents, Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opp } o Recommendation of Planning Commission o Public Hearing Closed t o Consideration of Council o Ordinance No. 85-_ 7. CPA 29-84 PUBLIC HEARING - Wetlands Designations Modification o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Planning Staff onents, Cross Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opp a Recommendation of Planning Commission o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration of Council o Ordinance No. 85-_____ 8. LID ASSUMPTION POLICY DISCUSSION o Finance Director 9. PURCHASING PROCEDURES UPDATE - ORDINANCE NO. 85- 9 City Attorney COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1985- PAGE 1 RECESS COUNCIL MEETING 10. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 10.1 Call To Order & Roll Call 10.2 Proposed Rule Amendment Discussion & Recommendation Ordinance No. 85- Resolution No. 85-_ - City Attorney 10.3 Adjournment RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING 11. WCCLS AND COUNTY LEVY DISCUSSION o City Administrator 12. 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: 12.1 Approve Council Minutes - 1/28/85 12.2 Approve OLCC Applications: o Coco's Famous Hamburgers, !/116, 10900 SW 69th Ave. p iicati`cnation o Godfather's Pizza, 12286 SW Scholls Ferry Rd• licat o Payless Drug Store, 12080 SW Main St. - PS App ion o Colonial Texaco, 11465 SW Pacific Hwy. - PS Application o Hi Hat Restaurant, 11530 SW Pacific Hwy. - DA Application o Tigard Beer & Wine, 12490 SW Main St. - PS Application o Plaid Pantry #19, 15485 SW Hall Blvd. - PS Application a Plaid Pantry #68, 11545 SW Durham Road - PS Application ` o Safeway Store #383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza - PS Application o Round Table Pizza, 11940 SW Pacific Hwy. , -- R Application o Plaid Pantry 024, 11006 SW Pacific Hwy. , - PS Application o Plaid Pantry #149, 11705 SW Pacific Hwy. , - PS Application o American Legion Post #158, 11578 SW Pacific Hwy. , - DBA Application 12.3 Receive & File - Planning & Development Quarterly Report - Community Development Land Use Decisions 12.4 Receive Dispatch Consultant Report And Direct Staff Followup 12.5 Approve Microwave Channel Application 12.6 Authorize Replacement of Police Communications Mobile Equipment 12.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract Renewal 12.8 Approve Agreement with Western International - R.R. Crossing 12.9 Approve Compliance Agreement with S & J Properties 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) to discuss labor relations issues. 15. ADJOURNMENT 2422A/lu) COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1985- PAGE 2 MANXMANKARAW T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L k REGULAR & SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 - 6:00 P.M. 1. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MEETING ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, and Jerry Edwards: City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Tim Ramis and Adrianne Brockman, Legal Counsel. tudy--S,:ssion format the following items: 2. Council discussed in a S o City-County relations discussion with Commissioner Roy Rogers. o Crow Lease Extension discussion with City Administrator o County Gas Tax and Road Maintenance handout o Civic Center Project - staff and committee relationships discussion with City Administrator o Purchasing Rules discussion with City Attorney s i 3, ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL MEETING: 7:25 P.M. 4. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom City Brian, Phil Edin, and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob Jean, i Administrator; Mark O'Donnell e l (leaving Counsel; aM a)Loreen AWilsonand �, Brockman (leaving at Deputy City Recorder. 5. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a, City Administrator noted that Councilor Scott was ill and unable to attend the meeting. b, City Administrator requested the following items be added under non-agenda- .1 Losli Steel Greenway Dedication .2 City Council Policy Calendar Civic Center Project Update and Change Order .4 Discussion Regarding Annexation Fees and Policy 6, VISITOR'S AGENDA - No one appeared to speak 7, POLICE CHAPLAIN PROGRAM a, Captain Jennings presented the history of the Washington County Police Chaplain program and recommended Council being such a program for the City of Tigard. b, RESOLUTION NO. 85-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE TIGARD POLICE CHAPLAIN PROGRAM, C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d, Rev. Blakely was introduced to the Council as the new Police Chaplain. Councilor Brian expressed his appreciation for Rev. Blakely's service to the Police Department and citizens in an unofficial capacity over the last few months. Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 i, 8. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing Opened b, Finance Director summarized the supplemental budget request. C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d, Finance Director stated the Budget Committee and staff recommended approval. e. Public Hearing Closed. f. RESOLUTION NO, 85-07 A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING REVENUES, RECOGNIZING BEGINNING FUND BALANCES, APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1984-85. g, Motion by Councilor Arian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present. 9. CPA 23-84 PUBLIC HEARING - SUBSIDIZED HOUSING POLICY a. Public Hearing Opened b. Community Development Director synopsized the history noting that LCDC had requested the City delete the policy for subsidized housing. Staff currently has new policy language which may be enacted at a later date, (post acknowledgment) if the City's activity requires. C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Community Development Director stated Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. e, Public Hearing Closed f, Consensus of Council was to support this compromise. City Administrator stated he felt LCOC would honor this compromise since Mayor Cook had worked with LCDC over this issue. g, ORDINANCE NO. 85-03 AN ORDINANCE DELETING POLICY 6.1.2, SUBSIDIZED HOUSING DISPERSAL IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, AND POLICY 12.1.1.4, RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (CPA 23-84) h, Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 10. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be i enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 10.1 Approve Council Minutes - 1/28/85 10.2 Approve OLCC Applications: Coco's Famous Hamburgers, #116, 10900 SW 69th Ave. - R Application Godfather's Pizza, 12286 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. - R Application Payless Drug Store, 12080 SW Main St. - PS Application Colonial Texaco, 11465 SW Pacific Hwy. - PS Application Hi Hat Restaurant, 11530 SW Pacific Hwy. - DA Application Tigard Beer & Wine, 12490 SW Main St. - PS Application Plaid Pantry #19, 15485 SW Hall Blvd. - PS Application Plaid Pantry #68, 11545 SW Durham Rd. - PS Application Safeway Store #383, 250 Tigard Shopping Plaza - PS Application Round Table Pizza, 11940 SW Pacific Hwy. - R Application Plaid Pantry #24, 11006 SW Pacific Hwy. - PS Application Plaid Pantry #149, 11705 SW Pacific Hwy. - PS Application American Legion Post #158, 11578 SW Pacific Hwy. - DSA Application 10.3 Receive and File - Planning & Development Quarterly Report - Community Development Land Use Decisions 10.4 Receive Dispatch Consultant Report and Direct Staff Followup 10.5 Approve Microwave Channel Application 10.6 Authorize Replacement of Police Communications Mobile Equipment 10.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract Renewal 10.8 Approve Agreement with Western International - R.R. Crossing & Authorize Signatures 10.9 Approve Compliance Agreement with S & J Properties a. After discussion on items regarding Police communications equipment, Councilor Edwards moved to adopt the consent agenda. Motion seconded by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. CPA 29-84 PUBLIC HEARING - WETLANDS DESIGNATIONS MODIFICATION a. Public Hearing Opened b. Associate Planner Newton synopsized the issues and showed Council a map outlining the areas in question. c. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak. d. Associate Planner Newton stated Planning Commission and staff recommended approval. e. Public Hearing Closed f. ORDINANCE NO. 85-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REVISING THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 84-36 AND AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 83-52 AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CPA 29-84) g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. f` Legal Counsel O'Donnell left: 8:15 P.M. Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 12. LID ASSUMPTION POLICY DISCUSSION a. Finance Director presented assumption criterion for Bancroft assessments prior to 1/1/84 and after 1/1/84. b. After discussion by Council, Councilor Edin moved to approve the criterion and directed staff to prepare an amendment to the non—assumption ordinance for Council. action. Motion seconded by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13. PURCHASING PROCEDURES UPDATE a. Legal Counsel Brockman presented the new proposed rules and procedures for purchasing and public contracts based on the Attorney General's model. She recommended adoption of the documents with an emergency clause so that the bid process on the Civic Center Project would be covered under, the revised rules. b. ORDINANCE NO. 85--05 AN ORDINANCE RELATING; "f0 PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PURCHASING, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-62, SECTION 2.46 OF 1HE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING REVISED PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD, AMENDING CODE SECTION 2..04.040(4), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. C. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt. 4 d. After further discussion, Councilor Brian moved to amend Section 11, paragraph 2 of the ordinance by deleting the words shown below in parenthesis. Motion seconded by Councilor Edin. "The Finance Director shall have the authority to obligate the City without prior specific Council approval provided the obligation is part of an adopted budget, the rules adopted by the Board are satisfied by written findings, and a record is made of the transaction which shows the rules have been satisfied and the obligation is for a public contract [or personal services contract] which does not exceed fifteen thousand dollars and complies with Section 13." Motion to amend was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Motion to adopt, as amended, was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS: 8:28 P.M. 14. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING a. ROLL CALL: Present: Board Chairman John Cook; Board Members: Tom Brian,* Phil Edin, and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Adrianne Brockman, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Milson, Deputy City Recorder. Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 11, 1985 b. Legal Counsel recommended approval of amendments based on the Attorney General's model. C. ORDINANCE N0. 85-06 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-63 AND ADOPTING RULES OF THE CITY OF TIGARD LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD FOR THE AWARDING OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. d. Motion by Board Member Brian, seconded by Board Member Edwards to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Board Members present. e. RESOLUTION NO. 85-08 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 83-109 AND ADOPTING A REVISED PURCHASING MANUAL. f. Motion by Board ►lember Brian, seconded by Board Member Edin to approve with typographical error on page 5 being corrected. Approved by unanimous vote of Board Members present. RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING: 8:35 P.M. LEGAL COUNSELOR BROCKMAN LEFT: 8:40 P.M. 15. WCCLS AND COUNTY LEVY DISCUSSION a. Head Librarian presented history information on the WCCLS levies and advised Council that Washington County has decided to go on a "cost recovery basis" for the current levy. $65,000 will go to the County from the $2.2 million request for costs. Also Storer Cable are not able to furnish the cable needed for WCCLS computer needs which would also add about $270,000 to the needs of the County libraries. WCCLS is going to acknowledge to Washington County that the original request of $2.2 million is no longer sufficient. They will now request $2.4 million, which would cover the $65,000 for the County and $2.70,000 for cable costs. WCCLS is requesting the County place this on the March ballot. b. Discussion followed regarding support of the coop concept and computer sophistication. C. City Administrator expressed concerns if the County includes WCCLS in their levy and does not treat the request as a separate ballot issue. He cautioned Council to be award that staff may request the Budget Committee look at a library levy for fiscal year 1985-86 if the WCCLS levy fails County--wide. 16. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: 16.1 Losli Steel Greenway Dedication Community Development Director stated that Losli Steel has gone F through a minor land partition and aensitive lands process and that there is a Greenway Dedication which is a requirement by the Planning Department. He recommended Council approval. Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve and authorize signatures. r Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. i 16.2 City Council Policy Calendar City Administrator highlighted the calendar and suggested Council approve. Consensus of Council was to move the 3/16/85 meeting to 3/9/85 and stated they wish to meet with the Park Board at 8:45 A.M. I 16.3 Civic Center Project Update and Change Order City Administrator state he would be acting as the Project Manager with Joy Martin assisting him. He noted that various staff members would be forming a committee to work through the bid and construction phase of the Civic Center Project. City Administrator also requested Council approve a change order s' for $12,400 for redesigning the 'police block--jail area . He noted that the Civic Center Committee has recommended approval for payment of this change order. After lengthy discussion, Council requested City Administrator work—out fee, which seemed excessive, with Architect and contact the Mayor for further direction. t 16.4 Discussion Regarding Annexation Fees and Policy Community Development Director discussed the problems with charming fees on annexations and sought direction from Council for the times citizens request fee waivers. Davis annexation petition was discussed at length. Council consensus was to charge Mr. Davis the cost for annexation of only his property and allow other surrounding property owners to annex at the same time with no additional fee 'being required. City Administrator noted that a policy needs to be set by Council regarding fee waiver requests in general. Staff will present more information on issue at a future meeting. 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council, at 9:59 P.M. went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(d) to discuss labor relations issues. 18. ADJOURNMENT: 10:26 P.M. Deputy City Recorder — City of Tigard ATTEST- - - �y`or _ City of Tigard i LW/2512A Page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — FEBRUARY 11, 1985 TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7-6242 P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)884-0380 Notice BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising RECEIVED e City of Tigard Y ❑ Tearsheet Notice FEB - 5 3985 • P.O. Box 23397 6 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, D COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. ISusan Pinkley being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am thg Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the. igard Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at-- Tj gar(I _in the aforesaid county and state; that the Pubic Hearing Notice a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive in the following issues: Jan. 31, 198 Subscribed and sw n before me this ^ ar11l N ary Public for Oregon i My Commission Expires: 92 /8 8 AFFIDAVIT If Y Y fi JI.i f � W1C1�3N-:18,� ��`�"'+, ai,_IGt '. L tx�. T bus M_ Woo }�"iej�L Trr� �I NMI CC A fa �ssray.Y..awt.a � # SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a Special Council Meeting, called by the Mayor with common consent of Council, will be held at 6:00 P.M. on February 11, 1985 in Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash Avenue, Tigard, 0regon. The meeting is called for the purpose of discussing the 2111%85 Council agenda and discussing with County Commissioner Roy Rogers issues relating to City/County relations. No action will be taken at this meeting. yC� — Cityo Tigard f r � I �f AGENDA ITEM # ! - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for ';.sted agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues on the agenda, but time may require that we schedule your items for a suture agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS 6 AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION f DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on i the following- item: (Please print the information) Item Description: , IS n1erj- "Z J Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation i DATE before the Tigard City t Council on wish to testify Please print the information) the following item: Item Description: ' 0 Fy S ainst*Issue)*************** f Opponent (A Proponent (For Issue) Name**Address*and*Affiliation ********** Name, Address and Affiliation [ ------------ if �- - � DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: C � ****�*,��t*�***,�***�****�*,�,t*�*�**�*���,�*�,�,�**��**�*******�*���t*�*�**,tea**�****�►** Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation ikdszklkic*SFsF*�t*9k�icrtirtkic�k�k�k�ir9k*�t*�Gr�k�tc�k��kic#1t*�4it**�R�Ir*�Icitlk�Aciritrl�kic�k�k�tRik*�k9t*�t�lr�k�t�k*#�t�k*�k�k*�t*#�4c* r t� CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM H: Ll. DATE SUBMITTED: February 6, _1_985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Police Chaplain Proqram PREPARED BY: Lt. Wheeler REQUESTED BY: Chief of Police DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY For the past several months there has been a County—wide Police Chaplain Program in progress known as "Officer Alive", consisting of two chaplains. They are serving approximately 600 police officers and family members. The Chaplains are presently under—staffed and have recommended Robert C. Blakely of the Tigard Christian Church to serve as the Tigard Police Chaplain. Blakely has agreed to serve the Department and community as Police Chaplain. The Police Chaplain Program will provide counselling services to the Police Department members and their families, as well as other crisis matters for citizens of the community. The Chaplain will be riding with officers and receiving police orientation and specialized training to enhance the Police Chaplain role. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend City Council endorsement of this proposal. 2451A/1w MEMORANDUM October 23, 1984 TO: Chief Adams FROM: Lt. Wheeler SUBJECT: Police Chaplain program for the Tigard Police Currently Washington County has a police chaplain program known as "Officer Alive." There are 2 clergy working this program and they are doing a commendable job, however there are over 600 police and corrections officers they are responsible for. This is far too many people for 2 chaplains to handle effectively. Therefore the Tigard Police would like to implement a Tigard Police chaplain program that primarily serve our community with back up support to the Washington County chaplain program. We have identified a minister in our community who has expressed an interest in serving as the Tigard Police Chaplain, Robert C. Blakely with the tigard christian church at Hall/Omara. Mr. Blakely has been in touch with the Washington County Chaplain program and has a good understanding of what's expected of a police chaplain. I propose that we swear Robert C. Blakely in as our Tigard Police Chaplain and issue him identification that will allow him to function as a police chaplain. His commission would be limited to chaplains duties and would not include the power of arrest. However, he would be covered under the city insurance policy should he become injuried -::hila working in the capacity of the Tigard Police Chaplain, or if he were named in civil litigation while working as the Tigard Police chaplain. The Tigard Police Department would send an F-4 BPST form in to the Board on Police Standards and Training to obtain a BPST number for Mr. Blakely so that credit would be given for any and all training received by an approved instructor of BPST. A very general discription of what the police chaplains duties would be is to provide spiritual guidance and support to the members of the Tigard Police and their families, as well as provide counselling to members and their families. Further, he would avail himself to those in the community who have experienced crisis or he would help in cases of catastrophes. Lt. Robert i. Wheeler ,� Patrol Division Commander CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: FEBRUARY 11L_ 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: --T DATE SUBMI'iTED, January 18, 1985 r PREVIOUS ACTION: Recommended by Budget- ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SUPPLEMENTAL Committee January 9 1985 BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 PREPARED BY: J. Widner DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: J. Widne CITY ADMINISTRATOR: r INFORMATION SUMMARY The budget committee at its meeting of January 9, 1985, recommended a ; supplemental budget for fiscal year 1984-85. ' The supplemental budget with a resolution adopting same, is attached for your review and approval. i 4 k V ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a i 1 SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution for the approval of the supplemental budget for Fiscal Year 1984-85 (07G5F) t l { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON (` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: 6 DATE SUBMITTED: Januark 30, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Ordinance 84-38 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Subs dizedadopted July.9, 1984 (attached) Housing Policies 6_.1.2 and 12._1.1 PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton REQUESTED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a memo which outlines the status of the subsidized housing policy issue yet to be resolved before: the Comprehensive Plan gains acknowledgement from LCDC. As you are aware, LCDC will acknowledge the plan upon deletion of policies 6.1.2 and the locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 related to subsidized housing i.n October 2, 1984, the Planning Commission voted 6-2 to recommend to City Council that policies 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 be deleted. On October 8, 1984, the Council voted to retain the policy, however, a final. ` order was not passed while the Council awaited an alternative solution from staff and LCDC. The memo attached describes the alternative policy 6.1.2 which was initiated by LCDC staff and was reviewed by their st:arf attorney. The alternative policy language is also attached. The City attorney's office has reviewed the language and finds that the alternative policy would be legal. The City staff feels that if at the post acknowledgement stage, it is necessary to amend the plan to include the alternative policy, it would not be difficult to administer. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Delete policy 6.1.2 and the locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 which relate to subsidized housing. 2. Retain policy 6.1.2 and the locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 which relate to subsidized housing. SUGGESTED ACTION Delete policy 6.1.2 and the locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 which relate to subsidized housing. -- O99OP/dmp i f r s i MEMO l TO, City Council FROM-, Elizabeth A. Newton, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Subsidized Housing On January 14, 1985, Bill Monahan, Director of Community Devel�isnisptheeonly S the Council with a report on the subsidized housing Policy, outstanding issue to be resolved to gain LCDC acknowledgement of the City's attached he Comprehensive Plan. In Bill Monahan's memo of January 9, 8 t , to resolve the outlines the steps which had been taken at that point Since that time, the City staff has received the subsidized housing issue. revised suggested language from LCDC and has reviewed i.t with Adrianne Brockman of the City Attorney's office. b LCDC staff suggests deleting policy 6.1.2 and The revised language proposed y 1?,1,1 of the City's the locational criteria for subsidized Comprehensive Plan. LCDC staff suggests ��sinal ternativepolicyin to policy 6.1.2 which to y' s Plan at post could be proposed as an amendmentout ofathatplan unt i needed, or acknowledgement. inse trait The City could hold the policy immediately after acknowledgement. The proposed language, as modified by staff, is attached for your review. The problem with the City's subsidized housing policy is that the restrictions are placed only on single family units owned and operated by the This places Washington County Housing Ruthority , es an unfair burden on the Housing Authority units which is not placed on other renter occupied single gested by LCDC staff would family units. The alternate policy being sug require that any, contiguous single family units owned and managed in common be required to file a maintenance agreement and be subject to a modified site design review process. by modified City Councilsign relati.veetopsubsidizedlhousing ensure that the issues raised y the during the Comprehensive Plan adoption process are addressed. These concerns, i.e. : the continued maintenance of units and property, opey. appearance, and the construction of units out of character with surrounding units, can be a problem whenever units ng Authority. and maintained in common not just with units managed by e The alternate policy being suggested by LCDC staff would require that any time contiguous single family units are owned and managed in common, a maintenance agreement would be filed with the City for the units and they are subject to a modified site design review process. The modified Site Design Review process would address issues and impacts related to the following: a. Parking b. Noise C. Buffering d. Color and Exterior Treatment of Structures e. Building Orientation f. Landscaping g. Ongoing Maintenance i Adrianne Brockman of the City Attorney's office, after reviewing the LCOC staff proposal, stated that the approach proposed would be legal. City staff ( has asked Jim Sitzman, our LCDC field representative, to have the LCDC attorneys review the proposal and indicate whether or not they support it. Council should be aware that the deletion of policy 6.1.2 and the subsidized housing locational criteria in policy 12.1.1 would leave the City without a policy governing subsidized housing the Comprehensive Plan. The benefit of deleting the policies now is that the Comprehensive Plan will be acknowledged in March. The City then will have an alternative policy which could be submitted at post acknowledgment which LCDC has helped to develop and supports. In addition, the City will have the assurance from LCOC that the Policy would have been approvable by LCDC in acknowledgement and that LCOC will not object to inclusion of the policy at post acknowledgement. On the other hand, if the City attempted to insert the replacement policy now, there are no guarantees of success since 1. LCOC did not give us the option of replacing the policy at our last hearing and; 2. Any new policy would be reviewed and commented upon by the various review agencies which commented earlier. Time delays are inevitable given the review period involved if we attempt now to take any other action than to delete the policy. 0972P dmj 4 f MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the City Council January 9, 1985 s FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Report on Subsidized Housing t Since our acknowledgment hearing before LCDC in November, two important s meetings have been held. The first meeting, attended by Mayor John Cook in ector Eldon Hout and Salem, was held on December 7, 1.984, with Assistant Dir LCDC staff. The discussion during that session centered on LCDC's requirement that policy 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 of the plan dealing with subsidized housing t dispersal be deleted. We explained our concerns and convinced LCDC that we need to have the option of inserting an alternative policy if we eliminate =' 6.1.2 and 12.1.1. Our discussion resulted in a commitment from LCDC that they g would work with us to draft language we hop to accomplish our purpose of drafting a policy or Code provision which LCDC can support. The alternative could be proposed as an amendment to our plan at post acknowledgment. Although LCDC is not required to approve our modifications at post acknowledgment, being in a position to argue that the language which we may propose is language which LCDC supports could be in our favor. k LCDC staff, Jim Sitzman and Dale Blanton, met with Liz Newton and I on I I December 27, 1984, to discuss their ideas for alternative language. Our intent was to develop a policy or implementing technique which performs the same purpose as our original policy, that is, preventing an undue : concentration of subsidized housing. One possibility being discussed is a process which requires a review of any subdivision which will result in common ownership of over three adjacent units or more than thirty per cent of the units in the subdivision. The review would involve an analysis of building type, siding, and maintenance of the structure and grounds. Thus, the concern which were raised during the comprehensive plan process about subsidized units such as appearance and preservation of property values could be dealt with within a review processIT which is not restricted only to subsidized units. Such a process could I eliminate the criticism of our plan that we are singling out subsidized units only for additional review. ; We are awaiting revised suggested language which LCDC is working on. Once this language is received, the staff and City Attorney' s office will review it then submit it to you for consideration. At that time we will outline the appropriate steps needed to complete the process. 09O1P dmj CITY OF TIGARD: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLAN AND CODE RE: HOUSING. 6.1.2 THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS WHICH ASSIST FAMILIES IN SECURING ADEQUATE HOUSING. 6.5.2 IN ADDITION TO 6.5.1 (b), WHEN THREE OR MORE CONTIGUOUS SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ARE OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON THE CITY SMALL REQUIRE COMPLETION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES 1. (add) THE SITE [DESIGN] DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR ESTABLISHEMENT OF A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WHICH IMPLEMENTS POLICY 6.5.2. THIS PROCESS SHALL BE USED TO ASSURE THAT CONTIGUOUS UNITS OLJNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON ARE DESIGNED, SITED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER W14ICH MINIMIZES CONFLICTS BETWEEN THESE UNITS AND SINGLE FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO DETERMINE HOW, (NOT WHETHER) UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON ARE SITED. FINDINGS As types and intensity of uses intermingle [and transition across an urban area,] conflicts may arise involving noise, odors, air pollution, dust and visual incongruities. These conditions create the potential need for buffers to minimize or eliminate the conflicts. 01 - UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED I.N COMMON, [HAVE,] WHERE NOT REVIEWED, HAVE RESULTED IN COMPLAINTS AND CONFLICTS INVOLVING DESIGN, BUILDING AND YARD MAINTENANCE AND OTHER MINOR PROBLEMS. THESE ISSUES CAN BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH THROUGH APPLICATION OF SITE [DESIGN] DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS WHICH CONSIDER [ISSUES OF] HOW SUCH UNITS ARE SITED WITHOUT IMPEDING THE SITING OR RESTRICTING HOUSING CHOICE. SUCH A PROCESS SHALL NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE COST THROUGH CONDITIONS OR DELAY AND WILL NOT BE USED TO REDUCE DENSITY OR LIMIT 6iOUSING TYPES PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONE. 6.6.1 C. Application of siting and design standards to single family units owned and managed in common. Eliminate Policy 12.1.1.4 (Locational Criteria) - 1 - v 18.120.020 t A. (Add in 1) "CONTIGUOUS HOUSING UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON E SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE REVIEW, CONSISTENT WITH PLAN POLICY 6.5.2 IMPLEMENTING STRATEGY 1 AND FINDINGS SUPPORTING APPLICATION OF THIS y' PROCESS." 18.120.030 g` A. (Add) If the applicant is to own and manage three or more continuous housing units in common, [then] an agreement between the owner(s) and the City regarding siting, design and maintenance which complies with : 18.120.055 shall be consummated through a modified [the] site [design] DEVELOPMENT review process. 18,120,055 SITING, DESIGN AND MATNTENACE STANDARDS A. [APPLICABILITY] OF THE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. THIS SECTION APPLIES TO UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COm1ON WHERE THREE OR MORE UNITS ADJOIN ONE ANOTHER. g, PURPOSE — THE PURPOSE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS TO ASSURE BY SITING, DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE THAT UNITS OWNED AND MANAGED IN COMMON ARE INTEGRATED WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS. STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO MAINTAIN HOUSING DIVERSITY AND CHOICE WHILE AVOIDING UNDUE UNIFORMITY, INS"TITUTIONAL APPEARANCE AND LONG TERM NEIGHBORHOOD BLIGHT. THESE STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO DETERMINE HOW, [NOT WHETHER] UNITS ARE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH UNREASONABLY SITED, STANDARDS SHALL NOT DE INCREASES COST OR RESTRICTS HOUSING CHOICE THROUGH CONDITIONS OR PROCEDURAL DELAYS. CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS WILL NOT BE USED TO REDUCE DENSITY OR [RESTRICT] LIMIT HOUSING TYPES WHICH ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONE. C. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL — STANDARDS GOVERNING THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED r BY 19.1.20.030: 1. UNITS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO AVOID UNDUE UNIFORMITY AND INSTITUTIONAL APPEARANCE. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT OR UNITS COVERED BY THIS SECTION ARE LIMITED 1"0 ISSUES OR DESIGN AND IMPACTS RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING: a) [TRAFFIC AND] PARKING b) NOISE [c] [AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES] [d] S) BUFFERING [e] d) COLOR AND EXTERIOR TREATMENT OF STRUCTURES [f] A) BUILDING ORIENTATION [g] f) LANDSCAPING [h[ g) ONGOING MAINTENANCE 2 !E E { f K 2. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ANO OPEN SPACES USED IN COMMON SHALT_ BE INTERIOR TO THE UNITS SERVED AND SHALL BE ADEQUATELY BUFFERED THROUGH BUILDING ORIENTATION, FENCING OR LANDSCAPING, 3. AN EXECUTED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ASSURE UPKEEP OF THE GROUNDS, LANDSCAPING AND STRUCTURES AT A LEVEL COMMENSURATE AND TYPICAL OF SIMILAR PROPERTY WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. [(EXAMPLES IF DESIRE)] B s D. CONDITIONS — CONDITIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THOSE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION C (STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL) AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH LIMITATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION B (PURPOSE). s a 3 4 PLEASE NOTE — This language was proposed by LCOC staff and then reviewed by the City staff and City Attorney's office. The words in [brackets] are words City staff proposes to delete. The words underlined are words City staff proposes to add. f 0919P 5 lam- - 3 -- s CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON �• ORDINANCE N0. 84- _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 6.1.2' SUBSIDIZED RESIDENTIALUSING LOCATIONAL DISPERSAL I IASINGLE FAMILY ZONES, AND POLICY 12.1 , DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (CPA 14-84) EAS the City of g rd adopted a Comprehensive Pian for the City by WHEREAS, Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and WHEREAS, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and s submitted to the Land WHEREAS, the comprehensive Plan waConservation and s Development Commission (LCDC) on November I£, 1983; and Commission held an WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development. acknowledgement hearing on Tigard's Comprehensive Plan on April 26, 1984; and 1 1984, LCDC Hearing, WHEREAS, at the April 26, the Commission voted to continue acknowledgement on Goal #5 with In Order to Comply Statements ; and Policy 6.1.2 was amended by Ordinance No. 84-29 on May 14, 1984; and WHEREAS, y WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 12, 1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was made to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984, for Council consideration of the Planning Commission' s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDi% INS AS FOLLOWS: to Section 1: Policy 6.1.2 shall blined�dedforth lo Language to bedelew. guLanguage deleted in be added is under [brackets]. "6.1.2 [SUBSIDIZED HO UNITS SHALL CONFORM TOALL APPLICABLE GEOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 1'U PREVENT CONCENTRATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND INSURE A BALANCE IN THE NIMUM DISTANCE BETWEENDISTRIBUTION OF SUCH HOUSING, THE MI SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS LOCA w1THIN ANY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE FIVE 'I IME 'lHh: MiN[MUM LOT WIDTH ON ANY STREET 1N THE DEVEI,OPMEN'I . J 1u \VOID CONCENTRATIONS OF THE FlOUSING IN SINGI.1•: FAMILY ZONED"SIRICTSS' StiALI. BELOC,1Vrl0NAI. CRVIE_K1A IN SECTION APPLIED WHh:N 5I'l1N,l; SUfiStUl:'h:U `kllt ttvl �)f'Rlllll:;l�l'111 1:Y 1Ni.tI: FAMILY Ll)N1Nl; U1S'1KICTI) 1'UK TERM "SUB:;IU1"t EU HOUSING;" SHALL MEAN AN1 Ilt�l!SINI:�I)1'i�l,i`AK'ITiLIN1I L l:l)NS1RUCTED WITtl h'[NANt:l A1. ASS t ti'!ANS ()h1111.OF HOUSING AND (ORS URBAN IUI:Vh.Lu!'MI:N'1 \N1 1111. STATE OFi)KI(iOf• OWNI•:D AND FIA I NI A I NKD til T. NON i`l41_: 1 ' I'l�lil.1� j 1'I: 1�'a'1 i•. tlit l:uVh:IfNMt:N'I Ai:1.NI 1". " Section 2: Policy 12.1.1 shall be amended to add a Section 4. as set forth below. Language to be added is underlined. "4. Subsidized Housing in Single Family 'Zoning Districts "A. The following factors will be the determinants for locating subsidized housing, as defined in Policy 6. 1.2, in single family zoning districts: "(1) All units should, if possible, be within 1/4 mile of a route of public transit. "(2) Additional subsidized units should be encouraged in areas which exhibit a lower-than-average level of subsidy and medium-to-low level of poverty. "(3) No more than 30 percent of the units in a development of 10 units or more shall be subsidized. 11(4) No more than two subsidized housing units shall adjoin." Section 3: In order that the Community Development Code may comply with LCDC regulations, to improve the operation and implementation of the Code and to protect the public health, safety and welfare, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall become effective upon its passage by the Council and approved by the Mayor. PASSED: By /" e, I OJ' •/(. vote of all Council members present after being read by numbdr and title only this -day of 1984. Deputy Recorder - Cit of Tigard APPRUVED: This �j day of ��„ 1984. Ma or - City of Tigard (04761') ORD INAN(.)-. NO. lie, TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION r REGULAR MEETING — OCTOBER 2, 1984 1. Vice President Owens the the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The meeting was held at the Fowler Junior Nigh - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Ownes, Commissioners Fyre, Butler, Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell. President Moen (arrived 9:15 P.M.). ABSENT: Commissioner Bergmann. STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A. Monahan (arriving at (9:30 P.M. ); Associate Planner Liden; Associate Planner Newton (arriving at 9:15 P.M.); and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: s Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to approved minutes of September 4, 1984, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve minutes of August 22, 1984, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 4. PLANNING COP`/'1ISSION COMMUNICATION 6 Commissioner Butler commented that he had been called at home regarding item 5.1, Mallard Lake. Several other Commissioner had also been called. • Commissioner Vanderwood stated she had communication regarding item 5.10, the Richard Smith appeal. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 4-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-84, SUBDIVISION S 9-84, VARIANCE V 15-84; WARDIN/FARR DEVELOPMENT/MALLARD LAKE NPO # 6 Request for a rezoning from R-4.5 to R 4.5 (PD), Planned Development Detailed approval and Preliminary Plat approval for a 43 lot, single family residential development, and a Variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 feet to allow a 460+/1 foot length. Located: North of SW Sattler St. between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivisions, (WCTM 2S1 11AD, lot 6500). 9 Associate Planner Liden reviewed the status of the application, recommending approval with conditions. Discussion followed regarding the wetlands/sensitive lands, density, and NPO # 6 comments. PLANNING COo"M"1ISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 1 5.5 ZONE CHANc;F LC 15 -84 c.I.1Y OF 1 [GARD HLSTOR[C D151Rwr (IID) 0VLRI_AY A request to assign the 11istor-i.c 1.)istricL Ovc�r-l.ay ort the 7-orci.ng Di.str'icL Map to the following proper'tios: .Toy Tho, l.r-e (W( fM 1S1 350D lot 2700); Tigard Granye (WCIM 2`;I "1D) lot 600); Iiyard Street. Farmhouse and Windmi I1 (Wt I-M I.S1 14DD lot 100); ,:end Tiy.+rd Food .,erid Sec!d (W(.1M 2S1 2AB lot 5400) . • Associate Plartner Newton reviewed the forte chtartcle recommendation explaining how Lho Pla n•rirul Commi ss ion had to apply I.hn HD Overlay or- she would heave to r ewr'i t.c the [ I !;[' A l so, the Joy 1 hr eaLr e and ;w Tig,-Ard SLreet Far-mhouse .ou-cd Windmill opposed havirr(J a 111) Ovor'lay; Lhe Tigard Fvvd and geed had called SO they only owned Che bu i ld i rig, Lhe land is ownod by :;oea l l-r n Pacific; •yrcd s la f f h.-cd boffin unable to contact artyono freta the 1 igord Grwriye Discussion followed. PURI, :LC: ICS, " • Larry Der•r-, 33 NW It,t., Pur-t.Lwid, reFrre•,c•rtt.iru; Iii�lard Pl.;l,"h, opposed having Lhe Joy Threatrr:• design,-Al-d A 11is .or ic. Wstr-ict. His moire concern was for the lack of adc•qu,,iti• per k i n�1 • Bob Di.dsoez, NPI) N 3 i,Viairni. -ere r'rc(_ouunetdrri Lh.j1 Lhicr c;har'le=s Tigard house located at 11180 `.W Fow-wr Lw i rw Ii.tded uredc!r the Ili storic District. Discusss ion followed . PUBLIC IiFARING C10SI:D i;OMMISS:[ON DISCUSSION AND ACILUN • Consensus of the Conuni.ssi.orn wens rent it, require the HD design-.rti.on on properties who opposed it. Commissioner Variderwood moved and Commissioner- Peter-sori seconded Lo delete all but Tigard Feed and Sood .And Tigard Gr'artge from the request to have a HD designation. Also to setraver the hearing to October 3, 1984, for Tigard Frerd ,-ered `',r•erd ,,nee I-ho Tig'er•d Grange. Motion carried unanimously by C;ontruissioner preseril. 5.6 MMPREIIEN`;LVE PLAN AMFNDMI.Nr CPA 23 -84 ;tlfl`;t D I if D 110115 I NG A request by Lhr Ci Ly of* 1 iclard t.o ­virw verid mwrid pol k-ies 6. 1 .2 and 12. 1 . 1 4 . 4.)r l hey Compr-ohwis i ve P 1,an Vo 1 i,ntm 2 I 1 NO I NGS, POI .1('11:S, AND IMP I.EMI.N I Al ION Sl RA-1 I GI I :; • Associate Plarutor Nowl.urt reviewed the• sl.atu•, of Lhe policy and Lhe op I.i.on•s „vai1able. ',he regl.wsl-1 1.1 it. c'ennmi it)rt rocomitiQi ono of 1.Yee opt i ons. . PI ANN]NG COMMI1'-Slc)N! R MIN01I S; Oc Lubrr 7, 19tM Pogc• 6 PUBLIC TESTIMONY 0 Geraldine 11�tlI sutmL ,i1.Lvd o lot.Lor ir, u the record rer.onnucndirig that. Lhe City r.,_,py Lho -mbsidi,­d housing policy from Me C;ily of I.-ak(! Oswego . 6 Bob Dl.c•dsue, 1.7.800 SW Walnut, r_er:onimended LhaL the Commission ddc,f,t one of the f ir%L LI-ir-e upl:ions. PUBLIC HEARING C1,OSr1) COMM'CS:S EON OTSC.USS[ON 6ND At;I I ON ® Consensus of Lho Conaui`i i i on was to go fur apt ion number- f i.yr which h would delol.tr 1.1-u:• r:,xist.i,,g policy ocid replac:o it with a policy Lhal cummit.s t.hc• City c,r,r Wau;hinyLorr Cot.rr,ty Ilousinc3 Aut.hc.riLy to dc•vc,lnp quidel.i.rwti to Iso ,.r•,od for, lac,rt.ir,g srtbsi.diiod housing uni.Ls in Lyre City of ligan-d. Commissioners Moon and Vanderwood pr-eferr•ed option numbrrr• Lhr-i-o which would revise Lhfi policy changing Lho l imiLat.ion un the number of units allowed cont.iquous to Ona another from 2 to 3 . t._enghty discussion followrd. Commissioner- Iyre moved and Commissioner t_c:verett seconded to fur-ward a recommendciLion to CiLy Counr;iI for option number, four-, whish ro,ids as fo l lowt;: Delete Policy 6 . 1 .2 and Policy 12. 1 . 1 4 . . Motiun car-rir,d by majuriLy vote. Commissioners Moon :,nd V,.,ndcsr-urjod voting no. 5.7 ZONE, ORDINANCE. AME:NDMENI ZOA 6- 84 C11Y Of TIGARD A r-equost by Lhe City of Tigard to r•evicw amundmenLs to Lhu following sections of the Community Development Code. 18.130 Conditional Use 18.120 Site Development Review 18.94 ManufacLur-ed/Mobi le Nome Regulations 18.138 Established Area - Developing Area Classification 18.32. 1'20 Notice of Derision by the Dirpctur 18.1.36 .020 AnnoxoLion - Admirri.str-aLion and Appruval process . 1.8.31.. i'i0 Por•s,ms ent i t.lod Lo NoLic:e on Appeal or- Rravi.ew - lypo of NoLic.o 18. 114 `:,igns 18.26 Dofini1.ions "We LIand s", "Rev iow", "Accept" "Rr,r,r,ipL" "Appeal" „Pub] is Bus irross Day" "Corrrp1vto" "IncidenL,.rl", "Ear-mirrrl" 18.60 050 fr,dusLr•i.il Park Front. Y.-rrd solb.ack 18.70.01.,0 1 i+lFrt Iralras.lr i,-rl f ronL Yard Set.bo(.k 18.12.0'i0 Ilo.rvy Tr,dt.rsLr•i.31 t-r•unl Yard `lotb<ar.k 1.8.40.0411 Rw.idonLial Dens.iLy lransilion 18.100 1 .arrdsr:-tping .-trrd !;crooning - sparring of Lroo buffor 18.42 Us,• iffriz. 18. 117 Non C;,,nforming llsos 18.108 1riod( qu,,to (,r II,r:,Hrclr,r.rs. Ac.cos's PI ANNCNG, t:OMN[;S1)N1.R MINIM !, 0, L,,hor 2, 1984 page / T I G A R 0 C I T Y C.0 U N C I.L. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8. 1984, - 7:40 P.M. L ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil Edin, Kenneth Scheckla, and Ima Scott; City Staff: Frank Currie, Director of Public Works; Bob Jean, City Administrator:Tim iRami Monahan. Director of t gal Counsel; and Patt Planning Main, Development; ' Deputy City Recorder. 2, CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL. FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Scott, to reaffirm appointment of Patt Martin as Deputy City Recorder. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. b. City Administrator requested the following action: o Withdraw Item #10 CPA 24-84 a Item #14. 18.26 Farming and 18.44 tnrough 18.52 Livestock postpone until November. notation Bid Awards. o Add 20.1 Fanno Creek Park Contract Q O Add 20.2 Mayor Roy Rogers Sister City Proposal 3, VISITOR'S AGENDA a. of Terrace Heights Mobile Court, Kenneth Steuart, resident requested the Council sign off as Friends of The ce Height have to give them some legitimacy and some backing. residents as submuart itted n a v letter notice can obeOcindividually tober 31, 98tQ eiction signed by each subm Councilor. 4, EMPLOYEE/VOLUNTEER AWARDS/RECOGNITION Mayor Cook noted approximately 40 people attended Volunteerism Day on October 6, 1984. a Mayor Cook read a proclamation on volunteerism and presented Mary Payne with the 15t Volunteerism Award of the City on her efforts in restoring the Windmill. Mayor Cook also presented Molly Cady a Key to the City for mowing the lawn around the Windmill. there was about 0 volunteer ours. Cook In 198384 thereted in lwas in-80 excess of 9,000 volunt0eer hours. b. Mayor Cook recognized Sandy Crowand h Bobby ere White for attend ebeing mployed with the City over 5 y Frank Currie Volunteerism Day and the City Council mooting. Also• { was recognized for his 5 years on Volunteerism Day. pages 1 -- COUNCIL. MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1.984 'r RAILROAD CROSSING a. Diref the ctor of Public Works stated the developer wasHe walsoare rstated railroad crossing requirement fromsystems development rebate. The { the developer would get a sy applicant appeared before the Planning Commission requesting the item regarding the railroad crossing in the Notice of Decision be p deleted. Council discussed the Code regarding railroad crossings. Councilor Brian asked if the railroad crossings would Justify an i LID. Director of Public Works said yes. Brian, to require b. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Blicant come back the railroad crossing be constructed or the apP and build a cul--de-sac. Approved by 3-2 majority vote of Council present, Councilors Scott and Scheckla voting Nay. 16. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 23-84 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING a. Director of Planning and Development gave a summary of the material on this in Council packets. He stated there were 6 th for LCDC. Four items were taken remaining items to comply wi care of either in correspondence and minor code revis`tich is out hearing tonight on ESEE. The two remaini:�g items: 1) of our control for Washington County to adopt a combined L be ne b plan aenidd zone designation, and 2) Subsidized Housing Y R Locational Criteria 12.1.1 (4). Staff Recommendation Director of Planning 6 Development recommended comme deed the policy He felts it has 12 .1.1 (4) be deleted completely accomplished what it was set out to and didn't feel it was needed anymore. LCDC also suggested this. b. Public Hearing Opened Geraldine Ball, 11515 SW gist, representing herself, attended the LCDC hearing and recommended Council seriously consider removing Policy 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 (4) . Mark Weintraub, 1200 SW Main Bldg. , Housing Authority Washington Co. , concurred with the Planning Commission in deleting Policy 6.1.2 and 12.1.1 (4) . Bob Bledsoe, 11eOO SW Walnut, NPO H3 Stated the NPO supported retaining the existing language or Option 03 which was to revise the policy changing the limitation on number of units allowed per two or three. They felt some protection was needed rather than deleting completely. Page 7 COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1984 17 the current language• Councilor Scott recommended retaining of principle over money . t stated it was a question lot of staff and money Councilor Edin retained a ° along Ulic'" were He felt if the p Ne felt the Cityshouldg � would be spent at LCDC hearings, et the Code passed. with LCDC if that's what it takes to g councilor Scheckla concurred• and revise the Councilor Brian felt they should go by principle policy to 90 towards Salem' s LCDC approach. onsibility Council has a special resp the citizens She recommended to retain q Councilor Scotfofelt e he City to look out current language. Mayor Cook concurred with Councilor Brian. to revise seconded by Councilor Scheckla, m°ved. plan and c Councilor Edin the limitation on number of units allowed per the policy changing with the policy in Salem' s comp p of the • two or three to114 mmile to 1/2 mile in each direction to amend the location• subsidized housing resent, Councilor Scott Approved by 4-1 majority vote of Council p voting Nay. ga ESEE DOCUMENT COt«,PRE!{ENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 25- and stated this 17, ave summary of �, Development g the designation a• Director of Planning issue and that is i Planning Commission recommended deals with an housing staated the of the historic district overlay* amended to give the owners ut under the the ESEE document$a of having their property p districts the Option wanted. lie also stated the future ure anytime they in historic overlay y attention more properties brought to the Director's that would apply under the historic district- that the Bob Bledsoe, 8A0 Sw walnut. NPO #3 wanted to reconfirm future properties for historic districts. b Staff Recomendation recommendation of the of Planning 1S• Development's the language as Director that the Council approve Planning Commission proposed. to approve Councilor Brian. seconded by Councilor CEdin, ission C. Motion by a recommended by the planning the proposed lan•�ua g s vote of Council Approved by unanimoupresent. ordinance to Director of Planning 6 Development will bring back an be adopted on to/22/94. Page B COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, i98r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ( COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY e AGENDA OF: February 1f 1985 _ AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: January_29, _198a_ PREVIOUS ACTION: Ordinance # 84-36, ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _Floodplain _ 84-28 and 83-52 Wetlands Map DCPA?4w8A� PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton _ REQUESTED BY: Planning Staff___ DEPARTMENT 11EAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _ T�INFORMATION SUMMARY s The purpose of the rloodplain and Wetlands Map is to identify potential areas which may be within thn 100 year floodplain, significant natural resources or within a wet land s/drainageway. The difficulty with designating these areas on a map is that it is almost impossible to be precise enough at such a scale to provide exact boundaries for these areas. t The Floodplain And Wetlands Map should be usod as a guide with exact locations of floodplain anr.; wetlands determined by a field survey. } as watlands on the Floodplain and Wetlands In addition, some areas designated s �. of these designated areas may have been Map are not wetlands areas. Many wetlands at one time, but have since been filled developed. fr At the January 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a map showing areas which should not be designated as wetlands and recommended an to the map which states that exact locations of floodplain and addition addit ionnds should be determined by an actual field survey. The Planningwetl { Commission voted unanimously to recommend to City Council that the changes proposed by staff be approved. (see attached minutes) Thuse changes should make the Floodplain and Wetlands Map more useful to the public and easier, for staff to use as a guide when reviewing development proposal. An ordinance is attached for your consideration. ALTERNATIVES ONIDERED Approve the attached ordinance adopting the Planning Commission recommendation. Modify the recommendation and direct staff to prepare a new ordinance. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached ordinance adopting the Planning Commission recommendation. 0968^ t TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION t REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 8, 1985 1. Vice President Owens called the meeting to order at 8:05 PM. The meeting was held at the Fowler Junior High - LCI Room - 10865 SW Walnut. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Vice President Owens; Commissioners Butler, Fyre, Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, Bergmann, and Campbell. k Y ABSENT: President Moen. STAFF: Director of Community Development William A. Monahan; Associate Planners Liden and Newton; and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks. i 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Bergmann seconded to adopt the minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote of Commissioners present. Commissioner Campbell abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION o There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 27-84 CITY OF TIGARD/MALLARD LAKES A request by the City of Tigard to designate property known as Mallard Lakes as Wetlands. Located: North of SW Sattler St., Between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 11AD lot 6500). * Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to set over CPA 27-84 to the February 8, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. 5.2. ZONE CHANGE ZC 12-84 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 4-84, SUBDIVISION S 9-84, VARIANCE V 15-84 - G. FERD WARDIN/MALLARD LAKES NPO # 6 A remand from City Council to Planning Commission for review of the above: application with additional and more detailed information. Located North of SW Sattler St. , Between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park Subdivision (WCTM 2S1 11AD lot 6500). Associate Planner Liden reviewed proposed changes resulting from the City Council remanded the Subdivision application back to Planning Commission. He distributed an addendum to page 6 and 7 of the staff report and made recommendation for approval with 18 conditions, adding that condition number 6 should be deleted if the Variance is approved. PLANNING COMMISSI0N MINUTES January 8. 1985 pane 1 APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION SW t nd o Mel Stout, David Evans & Associates, 26to reviserbettPhase 4rtlThey 97201, explained why the were proposing accepted all the conditions on the staff report. o Stephen Bleek, 20945 SW TV Hwy. Aloha, stated they had met with the NPO and the NPO was delighted with their proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o No one appeared to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Consensus of the Commissioners was to support the proposal. i * Commissioner Vanderwood moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to approve PD 6a Commissioners nersed on present staff's findings. Motion carried unanimously b Y RECESS: 9:20 RECONVENE: 9:32 5.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 29-84 CITY OF TIGARD FLOOD PLAIN MAP A review of the Flood plain Wetlands Map to consider modifications to the wetlands designation. Associate Planner Newton reviewed the flood plain map and the areas they were proposing to eliminate from the map. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Geraldine Ball, 11915 SW 915t, supported removing the wetlands designation from the area by Landmark Ford. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Discussion followed regarding areas to be deleted from the wetlands map. * Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to forward to City Council recommending gne staff's rs changes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously by 5.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 30-84 CITY OF TIGARD Review Finding, Policies, and Implementation Strategies for Policies 3.1.1, 3.4.1, and 3.4.2. he had Associate Planner Newton reviewed by the Publics Works Director ted to the .. Commission adding changes proposed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1985 Page 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: FEBRUARY 11 1980- AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMI'ITED: February 06, 198. PREVIOUS ACTION: Council request at ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: LID - ASSUMPTION time of non-assumption ordinance POLICY - DISCUSSION _ PREPARED BY: JERRI WIDNER REQUESTED BY: CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Assessments may be paid in two ways: in cash or in installments. In order to pay in installments, the current property owner at the time of the assessment may make application. If accepted, the installment payment becomes part of a Bancroft Bond issue. If the property changes ownership during the life of the installment agreement, the new proper" owner must make application to assume the outstanding assessment balar ti In order to protect the City's position, the following criteria are r posed for assumptions of assessments prior to January 1, 1984 and after 'T uary 1, 1984: ASSUMPTION CRITERIA FOR BANCROFT ASSESSMENTS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1984 1, No assumption on any Bancroft less than $3,000.00. 2. Assumptions will be at current bond selling interest rate allowed by ORS 288.520, which is 137E unless no bidders then 14%. 13% would be the rate used. 3. An assumption fee of $50.Oa will be charged. Fees for recording the lien and the release of the lien will also be charged. 4. There will be no assumption, if Bancroft is on vacant land that is being parceled for residential or commercial development. 5. There will be no assumption, if there is a history of slow-payment* on other debt to the City by the buyer of the property. xGlow•-payment as defined by Dun &. Bradstreet to mean payment over 30 days delinquent. ASSUMPTION CRITERIA FOR BANCROFT ASSESSMENTS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1984 1. No assumption on any Bancroft less than $3,000.00. 2. An assumption fee of $50.00 will be changed. Fees for recording the lien and the release of the lien will also be charged. 3. There will be no assumption, if Bancroft is on vacant land ti-tat is being parceled for residential or commercial development. 4. There will be no assumption, if there is a history of slow-payment* on other debt to the City by the buyer of the property. *Slow-payment as defined by Dun 6 Bradstreet to mean payment over 30 days delinquent. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1, Approve these as assumption guideline policy. 2. Continue with the non-assumption ordinance. SUGGESTED ACTON A motion directing the preparation of an amendment to the non-assumption ordinance, incorporating the above guidelines should be made, if Council approves. (0651F) Y E h f l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: February 7, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Adoption of Purchasing ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Purchasing Rules 12/19/83 Procedure update _ PREPARED BY: Adrianne Brockman REQUESTED BY: City Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: i INFORMATION SUMMARY In Decemberof 1983, the Council adopted new rules and procedures for purchasing and public contracts. During the 1983 Legislative session, the Attorney General was requested to prepare and maintain model rules of procedures for Contract Review Boards. That model is available now and has indicated areas where changes are necessary in our current manual. Legal Counsel and staff have prepared a new sett of documents to adopt, for the City, the Attorney General's model. The ordinances proposed for adoption include an emergency clause to ensure that the Civic Center bid will be processed under the revised rules. i The first ordinance (Agenda Item #9) has been amended to add "public improvement" as a definition under section 3 and Section it indicates the new dollar limits for purchase authorization. The second ordinance (Agenda Item #10) has been amended as set forth in the g attached memorandum drafted by the Attorney's office. The resolution (Agenda Item #10) has been changed to indicate the revised purchasing authority dollar amounts as explained in the Attorney's memo. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the revisions as set out in the Attorney Generals model. 2, Maintain the current purchasing rules and procedures. SUGGESTED ACTION Legal Counsel and Staff recommend adoption of the revisions as presented. t 0775F/lw • O-DONNELL. DATE February 4 , 1985 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean, City Administrator 1727 N W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 Adrianne Brockman, City Attorney' s 1503; 222-4402 FROM / office \+ RE Revision to Purchasing Rules You have asked for a memorandum explaining the proposed changes to c the Purchasing Rules. As background for the changes, you should know that the 1983 Legislature enacted legislation calling upon the Attorney General to prepare and maintain model Rules of j appropriate procedures. The changes in the Rules incorporate the provisions of the Attorney General' s Rules. There are no other modifications. The following are the changes to the Rules: 10. 010 (d) (1) Definitions (5) thru (11) were added. 10. 015 (1) Allows the City to let contracts for goods for $15, 000 or less without formal competitive bidding if certain standards are met. The current Rules set the amount at $5, 000. (2) Allows the City to let contracts for the construction, maintenance, repair, etc. , $10,000 or less and for _ $25,000 or less for maintenance or repair of roads with- out competitive bidding if certain standards are met. The current limit is $5, 000. NOTE: The City will be required to obtain three competitive quotes as opposed to the competitive bid process. 10.020 No Change 10. 025 No Change 10.030 No Change 10.035 No Change 10.040 Part (2) is changed to eliminate the requirement that the Purchasing Agent report any repair costs over $10,000 to t the Board where a formal bid process was not followed. , O'DONNELL. SULLIVAN & RAMIS DATE February 4, 1985 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N W HOYT STREET TO Bob Jean, City Administrator PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman, City Attorney's Office RE Revision. to Purchasing Rules Page 2 10- 045 Auction Sales deleted. 2t is now Chapter 60. 000. 10. 045 Purchase of Jsed Personal Property added. (1) Allows the direct purchase of used equipment which costs $10, 000 or less. (2) Allows the purchase of goods costing more than $10,000 by three competitive quotes. 10. 050 Part (2) is added and it allows the City to use the requirements contract of another agency when a formal interagency agreement exists. An example of this is when another agency, for example, has bid the price of gasoline and has negotiated a contract . The City could buy its gasoline on that contract provided there y was a formal interagency agreement. 10. 050 No Change 10, 060 Minor changes, but the substance has not been changed. 10. 065 No Change 10. 070 Substantially the same except that it eliminates the reporting of to doesoctebecauseuthe cCouncil we agent ill It would be redundant 10. 075 selectthe insurance agent. No Change 10. 080 Data Word Processing Contracts This section has been modified as follows; O'DONNELL. DATE February 9, 1985 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW To Bob Jean, City Adminstrator 1727 N W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222.4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman, City Attorney' s Office RE Revision to Purchasing Rules Page 3 - - - (1) For contracts of $15, 000 or less, the City can use informal quotes. (2) For contracts of $15, 000 or more the City can use requests for proposals. (3) For contracts of $500,000 or more, there are additional requirements 10.081. Telecommunications Systems Contracts it is a new section and it is essentially the same as 10, 080. 10. 082 Telecommunications Services and Equipment It is a new section and simply allows jurisdictions to continue using their current equipment, 10.083 Office Copies Purchases It is a new section allowing, the City to enter into multiple price agreements or requirements contracts 10. 085 No Change 10.090 Contract Amendments No Substantial Change 10. 100 Affirmative Action Contracts No Substantial Change 10.105 Life Cycle Cost Analysis No Substantial Change O'DONNELL. DATE February 4 , 1985 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean, Administrator 1727 NW. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222-4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman, City Attorney' s Office ^ RE Revision to Purchasing Rules Page 4 - - - 10. 110 Request for Proposal This is a new section which allows the City to use the Request for Proposal method for securing prices. 20. 010 No Change 20. 020 No Change 20. 030 Single Manufacture or Campatible Products ' r� This section is essentially the same except it raises the limit from $5, 000 to $15, 000. 20. 040 No Change 30. 000 Public Bidding Procedures Sections 30. 002 to 30. 155 are new and are from the Attorney General' s Model Rules. It sets forth detailed procedures and Rules regarding the bidding process; i.e. advertisement, prequalification, bonds, bid opening , rejection of bids, bidder disqualification and bid award. This section is of invaluable assistance and covers most potential problems. It will be of great assistance in the bidding process. 40. 000 Public Improvement Contracts Sections 40. 000 to 40. 045 are new and are from the Attorney Gener-11' s Model Rules. These rules apply to public improvement k contr. ::ts and are in addition to Section 30. 000. This section covers public notice, contract cancellation, retainage, progress payments, final inspection, and final payment. �l O'DONNELL. DATE February 4, 1985 SULLIVAN & RAMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW TO Bob Jean, Administrator 1727 N W. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 15031 222.4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman, City Attorney' s Office RE Revision to Purchasing Rules Page 5 - - - 60.000 Property Disposition Sections 60. 010 to 60.025 are new and deal with tho sale and auctioning of personal property. It also allows for the sale of personal property through a liquidator or yor the City to donate property to nonprofit social or health services organizations. 70. 000 Personal Services Contract No Change 80. 000 Procedures This section establishes procedures for the Board. The only change is Section 80. 025 which requires 7 days prior notice before a rule is amended, adopted or repealed. 90. 000 Emergency Contracts There are no changes to this section. The changes to the Rules will be of great assistance in the bidding and administration of the Civic Center contract. It is my recommendation that we put these Rules before the Council as soon as possible so that we will have them in place at the time that we go to bid on the Civic Center contract. C. 2--4--85 AB: js a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #; 1)- - DATE SUBMITTED: February 5, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Prior approval by City Council ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: OLCC License Renewals PREPARED BY: R.B. Adams REQUESTED BY: CAV110--s DEPARTMENT HEAD 014: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY The following businesses are requesting OLCC License application renewals. All have been previously licensed in the past year. See attached addendum of the respective businesses requesting renewals. 4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval and forwarding to OLCC. Respectfully, r•,..,r• .fir' R.B. Adams Chief of Police ADDENDUM TO COUNCIL AGENDA OF FEBRUARY 11, 1985 1. COCO'S FAMOUS HAMBURGERS #116 10900 9vi 69th Ave., Tigard 2. GODFATHER'S PIZZA 12286 SW Scholls Ferry Rd., Tigard 3. PAYLESS DRUG STORE 12080 SW Main St., Tigard 4. OOLONIAL 17EXACO 11465 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard 5. HI HAT RESTAURANT 11530 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard 6. TIGARD BEER & WINE 12490 SW Main St., Tigard 7. PLAID PANTRY #19 15485 SW Hall Blvd., Tiqard 8. PLAID PANTRY #68 �- 11545 SW Durham Rd., Tigard 9. SAFEWAY &IVRE #383 250 Tigard Shr-Wing Plaza, Tigard 10. ROUND TABLE PIZZA 11940 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard 11. PLAID PANTRY #24 11006 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard 12. PLAID PANTRY #149 11705 SW Pacific Hwy., Tigard 13. AMERICAN IMION POST #158 11578sw Pacific Hwy., Tigard MEMORANDUM January 28, 1985 TO: Chief Adams, Police Department \ J\ FROM: Penny Liebertz, Finance Department( SUBJECT: OLCC Liquor License Renewal Applications Please review the attached OLCC Liquor License Renewal applications and have recommendation to us by Wednesday, February 6th so we may include them in the packet for the February 11th Council Meeting. Thanks. R COCO'S FAMOUS HAMBURGERS #116 10900 SW 69TH AVENUE TIGARD OR 97223 i A>10 ORT SEAFOOD BROILER W 69TH AVENUE RD 7223 (PL:2376A) r1 FT N • 2113 12755 S.W.ASIi ` `- P.O.BOX 23397 Date TIGARD.OR 97223 Name IfCOCO "SLO rXJ, i. Lot Block/Mali Subdivision/Address Permit Vs Bldg. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other Other Rec Acct. No. Description Amount i 10.432 Building Permit Fees 10.431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10.431.601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10230.501 State Bldg.Tax T I 10.433 Plans Check Fee 10.435 Other Licenses & Permits Ltt U -� •r 30.443 Sewer Connection _- 30.444 Sewer Inspection _ 24.448 Street Syst. Dev. Charge 25.449-610 Parks I est. Dev. Charge E 25.449-620 Parks ii Syst. Dev.Charge _ 31.450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge +0.430 Business Tax j t 434 Alarm Permit _- 10.227 Bail 10.455- ____ Fines-TrafficlMisdfParkin9 10-230- - CPTA Traffic/Misd/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30-446-401 Sewer SenricefUSA 30-446.402 Sewer Service/City 31.447 Storm Drainage 40.475 Bancroft Prin. mt. 40.471 Bancroft int. P mt. I 10.451 Other Charges for Services TOYA 2=0 L f I t1Y. . f J J . MEMORANDUM January 25, 1955 TO: Chief Adams, Police Department FROM: Penny Lieberta, Finance Department SUBJECT: OLCC Liquor License Renewal Applications Please review the attached OLCC Liquor License Renewal applications and have recommendation to us by Friday February lst so we may include them in the packet for the February 11th Council Meeting. Thanks. R jGODFATHER'S PIZZA VC HI HAT RESTAURANT 12256 SW SHOLLS FERRY ROAD 11530 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PS AYLESS DRUG STORE PS /TIGARD BEER & WINE 12080 SW MAIN STREET 12490.SW MAIN STREET TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 PS "COLONIAL TEXACO 11465 SW Pacific Highway Tigard OR 97223 (PL:2376A) t� ITY OF Ti N o. 2064 ~ 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 Date TIGARD,OR 97223 ff~ Al t Name Address I Lot Block/Map Subdivision/Address --]Permit Ws 1131dj. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other 10ther Rec. By Acct. No. Description Amount 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees i 10-431-601 Mechanical Permit Fees _ 10-2.30.501 State Bldg. Tax 10-433 Plans Check Fee 10-435 Other Licenses 8 Permits �-r c> 30-443 Sewer Connection 30-444 Sewer Inspection _ 24-448 Streett. Dev. Charge 25.449.610 Parks I Syst. Dev. Charge 25-449-620 Parks II Syst. Dev. Charge 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge i 10-430 Business Tax -434 Alarm Permit it 10-227 Bail 10-455- Fines-Traffic/MisdlParking 10-230- _ CPTA Traffic/Misd/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30.446-401 Sewer Service/USA 30-446-402 Sewer Service/City 31-447 Storm Drainage 40-475 Bancroft Prin. P mt. 40-471 Bancroft Int. mt. ` 10-451 Other Charges for Services TOTAL DEPT. t r f i. I CITYOFTliVARD N o. M, ~ A 12755 S.W.ASH P-O.8OX 23347 2 TIGARD,OR 37223 Date 1:_ -a y O s 7 s �e 40 Block/Map Subdivision/Address It#'s Bldg. Plumb Cash Check I r Other OiherRac.$�g 5 I. No. `- Description 32 Building Permit Fees Amount 31.600 Plumbing Permit Fees - 31•fi01Mechanical Permit Fess 30-501 State Bld . Tax 33 Plans Check Fee t 35 Qther Licenses & Permits \ 43 Sewer Connection 44 Sewer Inspection 48 Street S st. Dev. Charge 49-610 Parks I S st. Dev.Charge _. 49-620 Parks ll Syst. Dev. Charge^�- 50 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge 30 Business Tax 34 Alarm Permit 27 Bail 55• Fines-Traffic/M i sd/Parki ng - 30 CPTA Traffic/Misd/Vic. Asst. 56 Indigent Dafense 446-401 Sewer Service/USA r 446-402 Sewer Service/City 447 Storm Drainage 475 Bancroft Prin. Pmt, 471 Bancroft int. P mt. 451 Other Charges for Services x E i i F t P ---t CV Tj6iwRD No. 2032 I 12755 S.W.ASH f P.O.BOX 23397 Date-.—q_S Z 4 f TIGARD,OR 97223 i- n4i 1��0 L4 U 4r,1-,T� e Name j Address f / Lot Block/Map Subdivision/Address f Permit N's Bldg. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other Other Rec. F- Z Acct. No. Description Amount 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10.431.600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10-431.601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230.501 State Bldg.Tax 3 10-433_ Pians Check Fee ' 10-435 Other Licenses & Permits :vim." .U0 30-443 Sewer Connection 30-444 Sewer Inspection i 24.446 Street Syst. Dev. Charge _ t qV10 Parks I S st. Dev. Chara 20 Parks it Syst. Dev. Charge Storm Drainage Syst. Dev.Charge Business Tax I Alarm Permit 10-227 Bail 10-455- - Fines-Traffic/Misd/Parking 10-230- - CPTA Traffic/Misd/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30.446.401 Sewer Service/LISA 30-446.402 Sewer ServicelCily 31-447 Storm Drainage 40.475 Bancroft Prin. mL 40.471 Bancroft Int. P mt. 10-451 Other Char es for Services - f E TOTAL c, ` �. D"T `t l CiTyOFTIFAIW No. 2080 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.90X 23397 Date ? `{" IT TIGARD,OR 97223 c" jj Name -" IL Address t Lot Block/Map.;" Suboivision/Address f Permit 's Bldg. Plumb Cash Ch i'seck Sewer Other Other Rec, B Acct. No. Description Amount 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10-431-601 Mechanical Permit Fees j 10-230-501 State Bldg. Tax 10-433 Plans Check Fee 10-435 Other Licenses& Permits jet AA W 30-443 Sewer Connection ( 30-444 Sewer Inspection 24-448 Stre®t Syst. Dev. Char e ' 25.449-610 Parks t Syst. Dev._Charge ; 25-449-620 Parks ii Syst. Dev. Charge 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge 10-430 Business Tax 10-434 Alarm Permit 10-227 Bail 10-455- Fines-Traffic/Misd/Parking 10-230- CPTA Traffic/Mild/Vic.Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30-446-401 Sewer Service/USA 30-446-402 Sewer Service/City 31.447 Storm Drainage 40-475 Bancroft Prin. P mt, i 40-471 Bancroft Int. Pymt. 10.451 Other Charges for Services TOTAL . a CWT. i - t MEMORANDUM February 1, 1985 TO: Chief Adams, Police Department FROM: Penny Liebertz, Finance Departmen SUBJECT: OLCC Liquor License Renewal Applications Please review the attached OLCC Liquor License Renewal applications and have recommendation to us by Noon, Thursday, February 7th so we may include them in the packets for the February llth Council Meeting. Thanks. PS / PLAID PANTRY #19 i PS PLAID PANTRY #24 ` 15485 SW HALL BLVD. 11006 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY PS �/ PLAID PANTRY #fib PS PLAID PANTRY #149 11545 SW DURHAM ROAD ,/ 11705 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY ' PS / STORE #383 DBA AMERICAN LEGION POST #158 r 250 TIGARD SHOPPING PLAZA 11578 SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY (PL:2449A) CITY TIS RD No. ^- 12755 S.W.ASH P.0.80X 23397 Date 2- TIGARD,OR 97223 1 rt NameIr Address t '' M 04 970/C` Lot Block/Map lsubdivision/Address Permit ti's Bldg. Plumb Cash Check i Sewer Other Other Rec. By rz Acct. No. Description Amount 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10-431-601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230.501 State Bldg.Tax ` 10-433 Plans Check Fee 1 10-435 Other Licenses & Penm5i / vU { 30-443 Sewer Connection r ` 30-444 Sewer Inspection 24-448 Street S st. Dev. Charge 25.449-610 Parks I S st. Dev. Charge 25-449.620 Parks II Syst. Dev.Charge 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge •19-430 _ Business Tax 434 Alarm Permit 10.227 Bail 10.455 Fines-Traffic/Misd/Parking 10-230- — CPTA Traffic/Mild/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30-446-401 Sewer Service/USA 30-446.402 Sewer Service/City 31-447 Storm Drainage 40.475 Bancroft Prin. P mt. 40-471 Bancroft Int. P mt. 10-451 Other Charges for Services TOTAL DEPT. - `i CITYOFTIGrARD No. 2166- 12755 16612755 S.W.ASH r P.O.BOX 23397 Date VBG G TIGARD,OR 97223 ` Name , Address Lot Block/Map Subdivision/Address Permit#'s Bldg. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other Other Rec. By-) ; 7� Acct. No. Description Amount i 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10-431-601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230-501 State Bldg.Tax 10-433 Plans Check Fee j10-435 Other Licenses & Permits 30-443 Sewer Connection — 30-444 Sewer Inspection 24-448 Street Syst. Dev. Charge 25-449-610 Parks I Syst. Dev. Charge 25-449-620 Parks 11 Syst. Dev. Charge 1 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev. Charge j 430 Business Tax -434 Alarm Permit l 10-227 Bail 10-455- - Fines-Traffic/Misd/Pa.rking 10-230 CPTH Traffic/Misd/Vic. Asst. 10-456 Indigent Defense 30-446.401 Sewer Servicelli 30-446-402 Sewer Service/City 31-447 Storm Drainage 40-475 Bancroft Prin. P mt. 40-471 Bancroft Int. P mt. 10-451 Other Charges for Services TOTAL DEPT. 1 CIFTIN0. 2203 t ` 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 Date2i-L r TIGARD,OR 97223 Name ) Address Lot Block/Map SubdivisionlAddress Permit#1's Bldg. Plumb Cash Check Sewer Other Other Rec. By, Acct. No. Descri tion Amount 10 432 Building Permit Fees 10 431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees 10.431601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230-501 State Bid . Tax 10-433 Plans Check Fee 10-435 Other Licenses & LE- 30-443 Sewer Connection 30-444 Sewer Ins ection { } 24.448 Street Syst. Dev-Charge 25-448-610 Parks I S st. Dev. Char e 25-449-620 Parks ii Syst. Dev.Charge 31.450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev.Charge 430 Business Tax 434 Alarm Permit 10-227 Bail 10-455- Fines-TrafficlMisdlParking 10-230- CPTH I rafficlMisdlVic.Asst. 10.456 indigent Defense 30-446-401 Sewer Service/USA 30.446-402 Sewer Service/City 31-447 Storm Drainage 40475 Bancroft Prin. P mt. 40 471 Bancroft Int. P mt. 10-451 Other Charges for Services TOTAL 00 ' DEPT. No. 2078 92755 S.W.ASH _ i P.O.BOX 23397 Date� �? TIGARD,OR 97223 Name i } Address Lot Block iM Subdivision/Address i Permit#'s Bldg. Plumb Cash Check � oc� Sewer— Other Other Rec., Acct. No. Description Amount 10-432 Building Permit Fees 10-431-600 Plumbing Permit Fees I 1 10-431-601 Mechanical Permit Fees 10-230-501 State Bid .Tax 10-433 Pians Check Fee 10-435 Other Licenses & Permits 30-443 Sewer Connection 30-444 Sewer ins ection 24-4433 Street Syst. Dev. Charge _ 25-449-610 Parks I Syst. Dev.Char e 25-449-620 Parks it Syst. Dev.Charge _ 31-450 Storm Drainage Syst. Dev.Charge "0-430 Business Tax -434 Alarm Permit 10.227 Bail 10-455. Fines-Traffic/MisdlParking 10-230- - CPTA Traffic/MisdlVic. Asst. 10-456 indigent Defense 30-446-401 Sewer Service/USA 30-446-402 Sewer Service/City 31.447 Storm Drainage 40-475 Bancroft Prin. P mt. 40 471 Bancroft Int. P,-mt. 10-451 Other Char es for Services TOTAL .2 k CC CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11 1985 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: 3anuary 30, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION'. I.SSUElAGENDA TITLE: Quarterly_. Report October - December 1984 PREPARED BY: PLANNING b DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED BY: WILLIAM A. MONAHAN _ DEPARTMENT IIEAD OK, ��I��y% CITY ADMINISTRATOR- INFORMATION.. DMINISTRATOR:INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached for your information is a copy of the second quarterly report prepared by the Department of Planning and Development. The next issue will be the first by the new Department of Community Development. Copies of the report are available to the public, city boards and committees, the press, and other interested parties. t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Accept and place on file SUGGESTED ACTION Accept and place on file. 0970P dmj r TIGARD. OUARTERLY REPORT Vol 2 ISSUE 2 October - December 1984 BUILDING AND PLANNING ACTIVITY - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Prepared by Colleen Zielinski BUILDinG PERMITS October-December October-December 1984 1983 Single Family No. Units.............. 46 42 High and Low Unit Value $45,000.00 to $107,000.00 $35,000.00 to $101,000.00 Largest Unit Size...... 3,000 sq. ft. 2,509 sq. ft. Smallest Unit Size..... 1,061 sq. ft. 901 sq. ft. Duplex No. Units.............. 2 High Value Per Unit $48,500.00 None Low Value Per Unit $48,500.00 None Multi-Family No. Units............. 48 0 Average Value Per Unit $36,420.00 0 Largest Unit Size..... 1,020 0 Smallest Unit Size.... 1,020 0 (0674P) SUI L ING PERMITS October - December 1984 Commercial and Industrial Proposed Use Square Footage $ value George Mull Industrial 3,547 $ 80,000.00 The Dunham Co. Comm./Pro. Bldg. 28,750 $900,000.00 Robinson Development Commercial Bldg. 12,997 $261,000.00 Jerry Kolve Commercial Bldg. 1,220 $ 36,000.00 Great Western Chemical Commercial Bldg. 16,974 $249,000.00 OTHER None Number of Commercial/Industrial Permits this period: 5 FY to date: 15 fIEW PROJECTS October - December 1984 Subdivision ,`►pF,rovals # Lots Range Lot Size None Multi-Family Projects # Units Status None Commercial and Industrial - Site Development Reviews Square Footage Status Southern Pacific/Hardwood Industries 28,800 A.R. Peavey Station Inc. 14,000 A.R. Tigard City Hall/Library 31,600 A.R. f A.R. - Application Received A. - Approved C - Completed t NEW BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS Page 2 October-December, 1984 quarterly Report _ 10220 SW Nimbus 2 Trade/Commercial Printing Impressions West 8 Forms Distributor In-form Graphics 10110 SW Nimbus B-11 10170 SW Nimbus H-8 5 Electronic Distribution Insulectro 1 Plumbing J. Skerton Plumbing P.O. Box 5028 1 Janitorial service John Vander Burgh 3400 D Kauffman 2 Soldering & Testing KDT Soldering 12300 SW Knoll 2 Taxicab/Courier King City/Sherwood Taxi 12755 SW Ash 1 JaniCoral Services Kirwan Janitorial 11530 SW 72nd Ave. 16578 SW 72nd Ave. 4 Industrial Knife Sales Lancaster Knives 3 Design, Engineering Magnetach Corporation 12140 SW Garden Place o General Contractors McCullock Hering Const. P.O. Box 848 1 Commercial Fueling System Metropolitan Fueling 13295 SW Pacific Hwy. 1 Commercial Fu ng Mid Vally Glass 10150 SW Nimbus E-1 6 Application of Wallboard Milwaukie Wallboard 11153 SE 21st Avenue 10 Retail Ski Shop Mogul Mouse Ski Shop 12070 SW Garden Place 13 Sale/Business Systems Monroe Systems for Bus. 10180 SW Nimbus J-3 Selling of office machines Multigraphice 16152 SW Upper Boones 28 Heating & Vent. Multnomah Heating & Ven. 431 SE Hall DriveC 1 Resales My Attic 13815 SW Pacific Hwy. 3 Retail Pneumatics Northwest Pneumatics 10110 SW Nimbus 18 Manufacturing optical Data, Inc. 16600 SW 72nd Ave. 3 Private Investigation Oregon Detective Agency 11825 SW Greenberg #2-B 1 Non-profit Organization Oregon Free From Drug 16785 SW 72nd Ave. 9 Comm./Indus, General Cont. Ostrom Construction 2654 Commercial St. SE 7 Equipment Refurbishing P.E.R.C. Inc. 16156 SW 72nd Ave. 10695 SW Murdock 1 Apartment Management Panorama West Apart. 11507 SW pacific Hwy- 8770 Tanning Salon Perfect Tan lg Printing Precision Graphics 8770 SW Burnham Rd. Communications Satelite Programming 7000 SW Hampton Suite 116 1 Sales of pneumatise tools Senco Fastening Systems 12124 SW Garden Place Motel Operation Shilo Inn 10830 SW Greenberg Rd. 10 2 New Plumbing Installation Shoe Makers Plumbing 350 SW Zobrist l plumbing Skerton Plumbing P.O. Box 5028 Software Research 11315 SW Willow wood Ct. 1 Evaluation of Computer 9814 SW Tigard St. 2 Manufacturing Hand Tools Speed Corporation 1 Remodeling construction Steve Richey's Remodel. 14941 SE Burkley Ct. 2 Distributor of Sunglasses Summertime Industries 10080 SW Nimbus 2 Drywall Application Taw Drywall & Const. 10120 SE Wichita 4.5 Ice Cream & Candy Store Tillamook Ice Creamery 11945 SW Pacific Hwy. 1 Design & Manufacturing Timberline Systems 16186 SW 72nd 5 Electronics Time Electronics 16125 SW 72nd Bldg. 2 1 Retail sales of steel/pipe U-Fab Surplus Steel 10250 SW N. Dakota 15 Newspaper Delivering U.S.A. Today 10170 SW Nimbus Universal Video 14463 SW Pacific Hwy. 1 Video Rental Sales 4 Lawn Care Western Farm Service 7220 SW Bonita 5 property management Westwood Green Apart. 10650 SW 121st 1 10 unit apartment Williamsburg Apartments 12265 SW Hall Blvd. 1 General Automative repair Work's Custom Auto 8900 SW Burnham #F20 (0674P) �y nEW SUsinESS TA _ RECEIPTS October - December 1984 Name Address Employees Type A.I.D.S. Systems 16176 SW 72nd Ave- 7 General Contractor 3 Heating & Air Condition Air Test & Balance Inc. 10220 SW Nimbus K-10 1 Marketing & Advertising Alton International 16285 SW 85th #304 1 Representative of scholars American Scholarship 14470 SW 100th 1 Mobile Tool Serivice American Tool Service 6950 SW Hampton St. 1 Plumbing Contractors Anctil Plumbing 2060 SW 170th 1 Heating & Air Conditioning Andrew Heating Co. 2800 SE Division Small-second hand clothing 2 Bad Craziness 11654 SW Pacific Hwy- Small-second Salon ( Barrett/Benjamin on Hair 12190 SW Scholls Ferry 1 Manufactures Represen. Basic Controls & Value 16770 SW 72nd Avenue 1 Computers & Systems j Becomp, Inc. 7155 SW Varna Rd. Betz Laboratories 10170 SW Nimbus Ave Ii-2 4 Industrial Water Treatment l Personal Computer Rentals Bit-by-Bit Computers 10220 SW Nimbus K-10 management a amnge Bonita Firs Apartments 7930 SW Fanno Creek 7 Sales &5 Property imaage of phone Cascade Communication 10110 SW Nimbus B-1 2 Theatre Cinemagic Productions 7123 NE Fremont Electrical Construction Commonwealth Electric 12005 N. Burgard Rd. 3 Computer Services Computer Aided Design 10240 SW Nimbus L-11 3 ComputerSales/reSertal is computers Computron/Movie Magic 11705 SW Pacific Hwy. 1 Building Contractor Concorde Designer Homes 10260 SW Nimbus M-2 Mail Order Sales Conroy LaPointe, Inc. 12060 SW Garden Place 30 Mail Order Sales Manufacturer Custom Alloy Sales 16300 Sw 72nd Avenue 1 Software-Arnc Manufacturer Datasphere Computer 10260 SW Nimbus M-11 1 Selling Collectors Stamp Dowler Northwest P.O. Box 230301 FDK Field Service 16192 SW 72nd Ave. 1 Computer Maintenance Falbo Construction 4802 NE Holman 1 Remodeling Contractor 45 Sales & Service of copiers Finxer Business Systems 16165 SW 72nd Avenue 1 gloorcovering Supplies Floorcovering Dis. 16130 SW 72nd Ave. 3 Mortgage Loans Freedlander, Inc. 11519 SW Pacific Hwy. 2 Package Express G & L Package Express 8955 SW Commercial 5 Printing Germac Printing 207 Tigard Plaza 1 Professional Massage Grant Johansen L.M.T. 13185 SW Pacific Hwy. 26 Furniture Warehouse Grantree Furniture 16290 SW 72nd #2 11 Vending Greyhound Food Man. 10120 SW Nimbus C-1 3 Concrete Construction HaH Concrete 4010 SW 116th 1 Electrical Contracting Hall Electric & Control 10220 SW Nimbus K-1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February li 1985 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: February 7, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Director's approval ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Community granted 2/7/85 Decelopment Land Use Decisions PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan REQUESTED BY: William A. Monahan DEPARTMENT HEAD OK. t':'�"`_/!� __ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY As I mentioned at the last City Council meeting, the Department of Community Development will be forwarding Director's Decisions, Nearing Officer's Decisions, and Planning Commission's actions to you on your Consent Agenda rather than holding the items until monthly reports are prepared. This will afford the Council an opportunity to review decisions within the applicable period in most instances. One decision is available at this gime, the SDR and MLP for the Tigard Civic Center. ALTERNATIVES C-ONSIDERED 1. Receive and File. 2. Motion to remove from Consent Agenda -- Motion to call up for Council review at a later meeting. SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file. 1O00P/dmj CITY OF TIGARD J NOTICE OF DECISION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR-29-84 APPLICATION: Request by the City of Tigard and Richard Sturgis for Minor Land Partition and Site Development Review to divide a 4.8 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.0 and 3.8 acres each, and to allow the establishment of the new City Hall, Police Department and Library, and related facilities on property zoned CBD (Central Business District) and located 200 feet south of S.W. Burnham on the west side of Hall Blvd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 2DA, Tax Lot 400). The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described applications subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Directoe based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Background Information No previous land use cases have been reviewed by the City for this property. 2. Vicinity Information The property is located on the west side of Hall Blvd. and north of Fanno Creek. All the adjacent properties on the west side of the street are also zoned CBD and are partially developed. The land east of Hall Blvd. is zoned I-L (Light Industrial) and is used by a bus company. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property is presently vacant and the Fanno Creek flood plain includes the extreme southern portion of the property. The applicant proposes to divide the property into two parcels of 1.0 and 3.8 acres in size, with 77 and 195 feet of frontage respectively on Hall Blvd. The smaller parcel is to remain undeveloped at this time. The larger tract is to be utilized for the City of Tigard Civic Center. The Center will include a police station (approximately 9,000 square feet), a library (approximately 11,560 square feet), and administrative offices (approximately 11,070 square feet). The major driveway access shall be on Hall Blvd., with secondary access provided to Burnham Street. The parking area will include handicapped and 117 standard or compact parking spaces. Landscaping consisting primarily of deciduous and evergreen trees and lawn will surround the building and parking area. t NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 29-84 & MLP 4-84 - PAGE 1 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. A public improvement project on Hall Blvd. is presently being considered between the railroad tracks and Fanno Creek. Half street improvements will be necessary along the Hall Blvd. frontage. is required prior to depositing any b. A Sensitive Lands permit land fill within the 100 year flood plain. The State Highway Division notes the following: a. The general site development is acceptable but additional information regarding the highway frontage construction is necessary before a complete evaluation can be made. b. The partitioning concept is appropriate, however, the access to the smaller parcel should be limited to the southeastern corner when it is developed. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District has the following comments: a. Fire Department access roadway surface shall be of all-weather type capable of carrying imposed loads of not less than 40,000 pounds total. UFC 10.207(a) b. Turning radius in Fire Department access roadway(s) shall be not less than 30 feet inside and , 52 feet outside. (UFC 10.207(a). If meeting the turning radius requirements above is a problem, then move the automatic sprinkler connections out to the street. C. Vertical clearance for Fire Department access roadways shall be not less than 13-feet 6 inches. (UFC 10.207(a). d. Provide an approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are constructed. UFC 10.301(F). e. Approval of submitted plans is not an approval of omissions or oversights by this office or of non-compliance with any applicable regulations of the local government. NPO #1 has not submitted any written comments. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION. The proposed partitioning is consistent with the requirements of the code. The CBD zone does not have any minimum lot size or lot dimension standards and adequate services are available to the site. iX-- NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 29-84 & MLP 4-84 - PAGE 2 NNW The proposed site development is also consistent with City regulations for landscaping, lot coverage, setbacks, building height, and vision clearance. There are two items that will require further consideration: 1. Parking The site plan exceeds the required number of parking spaces (72). However, it is not clear how many are to be standard and compact spaces. The code allows for 25% of the required spaces to be for compacts and therefore, a minimum of 54 spaces must be devoted to full-size automobiles. The code also specifies that one bicycle rack space be provided for every 15 required vehicle spaces. The 5 necessary bicycle spaces should be located near the main entrance, preferably under cover. 2. Sensitive Lands ° Since the proposed site plan will include some fill and regrading within the 100 year flood plain, a Sensitive Lands Permit is j necessary. This permit must be granted by the Hearings Officer before the initiation of any work within the flood plain. 5 C. DECISION "t The Planning Director approves MLP 9-84 subject to the following condition: 1. After review and approval by the Planning Director and Public Works k l Director, the partitioning shall be recorded with Washington County. i 2. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. i f The Planning Director approves SDR 29-84 subject to the following conditions: t 't 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Standard half-street improvements including a bikepath and bus turn € out, sidewalk, curb, streetlights, driveway apron, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the S.W. Hall Blvd. frontage. Said improvements along S.W. Hall Blvd. shall be built to Minor Arterial stana . and conform to the alignment to be established by the City ar.., otate Engineer(s). Above improvements shall be completed ar . , ondition of occupancy. 3. Five (5) gets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one ' ) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. 4. Sanitary sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of the t, building permit plans. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 29-84 MLP 4-84 - PAGE 3 4 5. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has approved public improvement plans. The Section may regcire posting of a 100% Performance Bond and the payment of a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a state street opening permit shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the acknowledgment of City-approved public improvement plans. 6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the Hall Blvd. frontage to increase the right-of--way to 45 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the right--of-way centerline as established by the City of Tigard. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. 7. Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed and recorded on City standard forms for all common driveways. Said agreements shall be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel deeds. Said agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Section. 8. An amended site plan shall be submitted for approval of the Planning Director which includes the following: a. A minimum of 54 standard parking spaces (9 x 18 feet). The remaining spaces may be designated for compacts (8-1/2 x 15 feet). b. A minimum of 5 secure bicycle rack spaces located near the main entrance. The rack location and design shall also be approved by the Director. 9. A Sensitive Lands Permit shall be granted by the Hearings Officer prior to any filling or landform alteration within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek. 10. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON February 19, 1985 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 29-84 & MLP 4-84 - PAGE 4 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. 2-19-85 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. 2-7-85 William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED (KSL:0994Pbmr) 4 i \ Sd � I t J � {l r4s'` • NOTICE OF DECISION - SDR 29-84 & MLP 4-84 - PAGE 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM ##: DATE SUBMITTED: February 5, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Police Dispatch Study Implementation' PREPARED BY: Clay Durbin REQUESTED BY: City Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is Clay Durbin's final report on the Police Dispatch Study. The consultant has concluded that the City should not contract with Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District, but should retain its inhouse dispatch for the next few years until a merger with the countywide dispatch center can be accarplished. The consultant has recommended our system be upgraded, to include an interconnect 'to the fire district microwave system, and the purchase of new base station equipment. 4 Please refer to your copy of Mr. Durbin's draft final report. If you need another copy, contact Loreen. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Contract with Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District for dispatch services. 2. Contract with Washington County Central Disp.�atch for dispatch services. 3. Continue in-house dispatch and begin coordination with Washington County Central Dispatch. SUGGESTED ACTION Per Option #3, continue in-house dispatc -or FY 85/85 and possibly FY 86/87, continue coordination with Washington County Central Dispatch, direct staff review of 911 funds, review interconnect with T.R.F.P.D. microwave system, and direct police department to prepare necessary base station and related communications system equipment purchase documents.. f January 25, 1985 Mayor and Council Members: Attached are my final summary and recommendations concerning the consolidation of the Tigard Police communications. It has been a pleasure conducting this review for you, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Cl Durbin F 5 CITY OF TIGARD r` CONSULTANT REVIEW AND SUMMARY CONSOLIDATION OF POLICE COMMUNICATIONS This summary, along with any recommendations, is based on a review and analysis of the Compass Consulting Group Report, "Emergency Communications Planning Project," dated August 1984; the Request for Proposal (RFP) developed by the City of Tigard, dated September 24, 1984; a review of an "Overview" document of the Tualatin Fire Communications Facility; the written questions provided to the contractor by City Council members; and the contractor' s experience in and knowledge of public safety communications, 9-1-1 emergency telephone systems and the consolidation of these activities into a consolidated system. This is the final report and will consist of two (2) sections. The first section will consist of two (2) parts, the first being a review of those issues or questions which the contractor believes are critical to the City Council members achieving sufficient understanding of the issues to make an informed decision concerning the future delivery of police communications for the Tigard Police Department. The second part of the first section is a further discussion of these issues, along with recommendations from the contractor. The second section will be an attachment of the informal reply to questions posed to the contractor by Tigard City Council members. i i f REVIEW OF ISSUES: } s E i In this review, I will discuss those issues or questions which I believe are F central to consolidation and to which the Council should give special f emphasis in considering the future delivery of Tigard Police Communications services. - Should the City of Tigard contract out their Police dispatching services immediately and prior to moving into the new Civic Center? - Is it cost-effective to move into the new Civic Center for a period of two or three years prior to contracting for police dispatching services? If so, what equipment will be required? - There are several options open to the City of Tigard with regard to the future of ')olice communications. One option is to become a member of the emerging county-wide system, within two or three years. A second option is to contract with the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District prior to moving into the new Civic Center. A third option is to continue to have the Tigard Police operate their own separate dispatch center. - Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of a consolidated system versus retaining and operating separate police communications. - In a consolidated relationship, what structure should be provided to ensure the contractor has input into the sys"Cern operation, resources and policy; and the formulation process? - What should be the staffing level of the Support Services Operation for the Tigard Police Department if communications are consolidated with an outside agency? After reviewing the Compass Report and receiving input from various persons involved in the effort for consolidation of public safety communications in Tigard and Washington County, it is evident that many decisions remain to be made by all of the local governments involved in this process before the final �. form of the system, its location, the type of services the Center will provide or its final structure (i .e. , is it an ORS 190 type of agency or will it be owned and operated by one of the larger public safety agencies which will contract out their services?); even though there has been considerable movement in the planning and development of such a system, I believe it will be several years before it is a reality and the final decisions are implemented. For this reason, I believe it is premature for the City of Tigard to enter into an outside contract for police communications services simply to accomplish this before they move into the new Civic Center building. Because of the estimated growth of the area and the type of support this will require, I recommend the City look for long-term solutions, rather than short- term fixes caused by existing situations, such as the move into the Civic Center or the present economic shortfall of the City. It appears that the time is ripe for the City to become involved in the ground floor of the planning process of a new county-wide communications facility. Through this activity, you could exert your influence in establishing a system which meets your present and future needs and requirements, along with having input into the control of system costs and structure of the adopted management concept. With regard to the concept of whether it is cost-effective to move into the Civic Center for a period of time and then contract for police communications at a later date, I believe you must first separate this issue from that of replacing and upgrading the current police radio network. Other costs involved in a temporary move into the new Civic Center can then be considered. In considering other costs, you could use the equipment presently utilized by the police communications operation and move into the new Civic Center, based upon your estimate of its aesthetic value in the new area and its reliability to support the police communications operation. If it is the City's intention ` to keep investment to a minimum, this should be considered. The determination of economic feasibility or cost-effectiveness would depend upon the City of Tigard in replacing only that equipment, etc., which is absolutely necessary. In terms of the replacing and/or upgrading of Tigard Police Department's present radio system, I would recommend the City seriously consider not only replacing the present radio base transmitter/receiver syst.-in. As I have previously indicated, the radio station is obsolete and has lived beyond its useful operational life. The City should consider the long-range needs of the Police Department and the City for a system which provides adequate coverage and support of the Police Department and Public Works by upgrading of this system to meet the future growth caused by annexation and geographical spread of the City boundaries. This may well require a system composed of the base transmitter, possibly a repeater to access difficult reception areas and the use of satellite receivers with a voter selector to receive the strongest signal . This replacement and upgrading of the radio system must be accomplished regardless of whether or not you move the communications function t into a different facility in the future. This investment will continue to be used to provide communications to the Tigard Police Department. It would simply be linked to the new Communications Center by microwave or control line. It is needed to insure an adequate level of radio coverage to the police and to ensure the proper protection of life and property of the citizens of Tigard. In reviewing the various options open to the City of Tigard concerning the future of police communications, I agree with the basic conclusions and recommendations of the Compass Group's report, that being that a county-wide consolidated public safety communications system would best serve the citizens of Washington County, the City of Tigard and other public safety agencies. This would provide a reduction in the overall operational cost for delivery of services and this cost-sharing can equalize the cost across the board for this service to each citizen, that is, each citizen will pay the same for the service. This type of system provides maximumization of coordination for public safety agencies in delivery of the various services when needed. This provides an increased ease of coordination and gives the public a better measure of service for their dollar along with saving seconds and possibly minutes in calling out other public safety agencies for mutual aid. Another advantage of one centralized system is it would eliminate the need to transfer or relay information received through the 9-1-1 PSAP. As I pointed out in response to the Council 's questions, this is time-consuming, labor-intensive and defeats the purpose of the 9-1-1 emergency telephone system, which is to shorten or save time in public safety response to emergencies and to provide easy access by the public to these agencies. f In addition to these problems, there are other economical reasons ' consolidation should be considered. Presently, there are three 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Points serving i Washington County residents. Each of these activities have their own facilities, call-receivers and administrative staffs. If all of these 9-1-1 1 PSAP's were consolidated within one county-wide communications center the same economy of scale should be realized that would occur from the consolidation of k communications systems corm ty-wide. In the case of the City of Tigard, they presently turn over to the Tualatin Rural Fire District approximately $53,000 of 9-1-1 tax funds for this service. These funds are returned to local governments on a per capita basis from the state. It is not unreasonable to believe that if one activity handled this function county-wide and funded their operation on a per capita basis, the City of Tigard could realize a substantial savings in these revenues. Under an Attorney General ruling, 9-1-1 tax revenues may be used in any aspect of the delivery of public safety communications; as a result, any cost savings in the cost of providing 9-1-1 call-reception could be utilized to offset dispatching costs or the upgrading of the communications network. Regardless of what the future decision is concerning the location or delivery of police communications, I recommend the City of Tigard review the present cost factors of 9-1-1 for the delivery of this service. Areas which should be reviewed are: How are the budgets determined and approved? How are the revenues spent? What type of rationale or formulas are utilized to determine each local governments share of the cost? In addition, the City of Tigard may wish to insist it have some input and control over the budgeting process and expenditures. It should be remembered these funds are returned to each local government for the provision of 9-1-1 service and should not necessarily be automatically turned over to the 9-1-1 PSAP provider without the City having some management control and being fully aware of their precise use. All of these factors impact upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the services being provided and the City of Tigard should be involved in these decisions. The issue of a policy formulation and manalement role for agencies considering participation in a consolidated center is of great importance along with some type of control of their resources. Should the City of Tigard enter into a contractual relationship for these services, it is recommended the City insist upon the creation of some type of management structure which determines policy/operational matters and that the City of Tigard have representation on this management committee. This is essential to ensure that the services provided are cost-effective, that the services provided are adequate and that the City has sufficient input to ensure the agency is responsive to the City's and the public's needs. One area which requires more study by the City and would be impacted by a decision to consolidate communications is that of the Police Department, Support Services Division, referred to in the Compass Report as Records. I agree with Councilman Edwards' comments during my presentation, that these employees perform many support functions other than communications which are critical to the operation of the Police Department. Further, as he stated, "No one can make an assessment of this impact unless they have visited the Police Department and observed this operation firsthand." Although it was beyond the scope of work I was asked to review by the City, but because of Councilman Edwards' comments, I conducted a telephone inquiry of the manager of the Support Services operation to determine their full range of duties. Based upon the manager's imput, I find that Support Services does perform considerably more functions to support the Police Department than simply police communications and records-keeping. This Division "Iso serves as the Processing and Property custodian for all property taken in as evidence or otherwise by the Department; they provide telephone reception for the Department; and counter contacts by walk-in traffic; fingerpint and ID work; their personnel work clerical support for the Department, process supplies and i requisitions, act as matron, and a host of other functions needed by the Department. It is impossible to predict the utilization ratio of the staff's time based on this information and a time and motion and study would be required to determine this. However, the Support Services manager verbally estimated to me that she believes communications-related duties consume approximately 34% of the staff time and that the remaining 66% of staff time is utilized to perform the other support functions. This type of analysis could provide the City insight into two areas of knowledge, one being the time utilization factor for the remaining staff level to continue providing the same acceptable level of support services to the Department, minus the communications function. It also provides you a basis for the present personnel cost to provide your own communications center, i .e., 2.3 times annual personnel and fringe costs. From this factor plus other costs for providing your present communications, you could determine what contract price for communications would result in a cost savings to the City. These percentages are not to be taken as valid; they are simply to indicate a process to determine cost. In determining actual operational percentages, an on-site review of the Department would be required. I would recommend the City take a very thorough review of the Support Services Division to determine their actual role in support of the Department. This role and workload must be determined before they are reduced to an insufficient level which would impair the Department's overall ability to deliver their primary service, that is, to provide an acceptable level of protection to the citizens and property in the City of Tigard. In conclusion, I believe that a consolidated county-wide public safety communications system could provide the Police Department and the citizens the services they require at the most economical cost, especially if the 9-1-1 emergency telephone public safety answering point is co-located and operated as part of the communications facility. In order to implement it properly, this requires the City to look at the long-term cost and benefits, not the short-term. With this stipulation, I recommend the City of Tigard explore this type of system. �F.� CITY OF TIGARD t` REVIEW OF POLICE COMMUNICATIONS CONSOLIDATION QUESTIONS The attached report is an informal response by the contractor to questions previously submitted by members of the City Council . These responses are based on a review and analysis of the Compass Consulting Group and the Request for Proposal (RFP) by the City of Tigard for Police Dispatching Services, and on the contractors' experience and knowledge in the field of consolidated public safety comnunscations. f.. 1 1 , Is it economically feasible or cost-effective to move into the new Civic Center for a period of two or three years before contracting for police dispatching communications? In terms of required equipment, the RFP provides limited information upon which to base a decision on cost, as it is incomplete; however, based upon known variables, I feel that, regardless of whether you move to the Tualatin RFPD, a new Communications Center or any other facility, there are Police Department support costs which must be incurred. Your present radio equipment was built in 1967, it is not state-of-the-art. It is an old tube set which requires considerable maintenance. It has excluded its operational life, which was approximately 10 years when built, and it l could become a safety liability along with expensive to maintain. In order to provide adequate emergency communications to Tigard PD, it will be necessary to update the radio equipment, regardless of whether or not you move into a different facility (e.g., the new Civic Center, as is the present plan). Today's investment in the upgrading of radio equipment can be used at a later date to support Tigard PD, regardless of their physical location. If you make a minimum investment, in other words, by upgrading only that equipment which you need to provide an adequate level of service, you could possibly move into the new Civic Center for two or three years until decisions have been made regarding the future of public safety communications in Washington County, the establishment of a county-wide system and the City of Tigard's future involvement in this center, or a move to the Tualatin RFPD center. With the minimum investment in equipment, this could very easily be cost-effective. i "Minimum investment" does not mean buying new, elaborate equipment other ! G than that which is necessary to provide adequate radio communications for Tigard PD. Basically, a determination of economic feasibility or cost- effectiveness depends upon the City of Tigard and Tigard PD in replacing only that equipment and furniture absolutely necessary for a move into i the new Civic Center. Once the decision is made to consolidate or not, ` then the decisions regarding the City's desires regarding replacement of other equipment can be made. 2. What is the minimum equipment required in the Center if the Tigard Police t was to move in two or three ears into a consolidated Center? . E Department Y { If you are to consolidate in two or three years, you may consider two options: (1) You could use the equipment presently in the old City Hall and move it into the new Civic Center, based upon your estimate of its reliability for the next two or three years. (In other words, will it last, and serve the PD for the next three years, or will it become a maintenance and safety hazard? (2) Your present radio equipment is very old and unreliable, and the time has come to consider replacing it, since its operational life was 10 years when it was built. So, I believe the minimum requirements would be to replace your transmitter station, and use the present furniture, file cabinets and the dispatch console. In this way, you would keep your investment in new equipment to a minimum, at the present time. When moving into a new facility, it will be necessary to consider whether or not these items will look appropriate in the new facility. However, if the goal of the City is to keep invest- ments to a minimum until a firm decision has been reached on consolid- ation, then this may be the logical way to proceed. 3. What equipment would be required in the Civic Center if the City were to contract for communications immediately? This depends on several things. As I have indicated in my two previous responses, there is a need for the City of Tigard to upgrade their base transmitter station. I am assuming that your base station will remain in the vicinity of City Hall (or wherever it is presently located, so I believe you would need a new base station, even if you consolidate immediately. The base station would be linked to the Communications Center either by control line, or by a microwave or the method of your choice, unless you locate the base station at the Communications Center. As a minimum requirerr3nt, I believe the PD would need a remote, or control, station at Tigard PD, where the Chief of Police or his command { staff could have access to the radio net, particularly in cases of emergency. There are occasions in which a command decision may be required, or information may be necessary from the Chief or staff to the field units. Other than the remote, or control station, and the base transmitter station, there is no other required equipment. However, a remote or control set could serve as a backup Communications Center in an emergency, such as the consolidated Center going out, as long as the transmitter site is still operating. 4. Any proposal to contract out dispatch services involves arranging for another agency to assume responsibility for operating the LEOS terminal, etc. Please comment on how such a transfer of responsibility is handled, what kinds of protection does the City need in case of violation of t� confidentiality, and are there other confidentiality issues that the council should consider? LEDS provides a criminal justice telecommunications and information system for the State of Oregon. In order to have access to LEDS information or to have a ZEDS terminal , you must be a criminal justice agency as defined by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). In this particular case, it must be a police force/department, in all governments, which is responsible for enforcement of general criminal law. This responsibility, or the responsiblity for LEDS and security of LEDS information, cannot be transferred. It remains the responsibility of the criminal justice agent; in this ease, the City of Tigard would E continue to be responsible. What would occur is that you may, through a management control agreement, enter into a written agreement between a criminal justice agency and a non-criminal justice agency which provides 1 services such as dispatching, records-keeping or computer services to the criminal justice agency. In the case of the City of Tigard, if they were to consolidate with the Tualatin Fire District, this agreement would give the criminal justice agency (i.e., Tigard PD) management control over the i operations of the non-criminal justice agency as they relate to accessing the LEDS network. This management control means Tigard PD would have i authority to set and enforce priorities; standards for the selection, 3 supervision and termination of personnel; and policy governing the operation of computers, circuits and telecommunciations terminals used to process, store or transmit information to or receive information from the LEDS system. Any agency using a terminal to access LEDS, whether directly or through another agency (as in the case of the fire district F gaining access through Tigard PD), the agency (the RFPD) must adhere to all applicable LEDS rules and policies, and must sign an agreement with I 4 f LEDS to that effect. (This agreement is in addition to the one signed with Tigard PD). Further, any agency that enters any information into LEDS or NCIC files is responsible for the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of that information. LEDS sends a record validation review list regularly to each agency. The agency must review the status and content of the records and make any necessary changes, and return signed certification of their validity. This validation must be returned to LEDS within sixty (60) days. If you contract out for communications services, the Fire District would be required to designate an agency LEDS representative who would be the primary contact for all matters relating to the use of the terminal by the agency. Only Tigard PD is entitled, by law, as a criminal justice agency, to access LEDS. They would merely extend that access to the agency with whom they contract, if it is a non- criminal justice agency. Tigard PD remains the responsible agency. } Regarding the kinds of protection needed by the City in case of violation of confidentiality, I believe an understanding must be reached with the Fire District or the agency with whom you are contracting (if they are not a criminal justice agency) that this information may not be released; it must be stressed that release of such information is illegal , and some type of written safeguard should be prepared to protect the City, as the contractor becomes liable should there be monetary loss due to unauthor- ized disclosure. One other area that should be mentioned in reference to LEDS and confidentiality issues is the Oregon Computerized Criminal History (CCH) files. Access to the CCH information by means of terminals is limited to criminal justice agencies. A criminal justice agency may obtain CCH information only in situations in which it is required by that agency for the purposes of fulfilling its legal responsibilities. All .. inquiries to CCH records must be based on a valid reason for obtaining t 1 that information. Inquiries for non-official purposes, or the checking of records for persons or agencies outside the criminal justice community, are prohibited. In the case of contracting out for communic- ations services, the need for protection of these sensitive records should be emphasized. 5. Both the Compass Consulting report and your previous conversations made reference that 75-85% of calls are police related with the balance related to fire and 9-1-1. Please comment on the significance of the high incidence of police calls and what possible problems this mix could have if Tigard were to have a fire district handle their dispatch requirements. Nationwide, an average of between 80-85% of all calls to a 9-1-1 center or to a public safety Communications Center will be for police services. I have found this ratio to hold true, in my experience. What is the significance of this high incidence of police calls? I believe it means that the level of the intensity of communications is more pronounced for the dispatcher in handling police calls than in handling fire calls. (In police communications, there is an approximate average of five to six radio transmissions involving any given police call (an officer may ask for various types of information; this means that the dispatcher is working on the computer, getting a records check, and/or running a warrant check on a particular individual, etc.). The basic theory is that many more actions are required on a given police call than for a fire call . So, if the rate of police calls is higher, this means that the dispatcher is more occupied as aop lice_ dispatcher than as a tr firedispatcher. There is no waiting or rest time for the dispatcher i between police calls; they are continuously busy. In a fire or ambulance situation, on the other hand, there may be a considerable amount of time between calls. Again, this is not true in a police environment. The problem I would foresee, due to this mix, is a fire district where dispatchers work a 24-hour shift. Are these dispatchers adaptable to this level of intensity? Could they maintain this level of concentration for this period of time? it has been my experience that a police dispatcher handling a normal call load and running all the records checks, etc., have reached peak productivity after approximately six (6) hours on duty; at the end of an 8-hour shift, they are extremely tired; it would not be advisable to require them to work a 12-, 14- or 24-hour shift as I believe the Tualatin RFPD does. I do not belive a police dispatcher could remain alert or interpret data correctly, etc., and I believe long shifts, such as Tualatin RFPD now has, could present not only a stressful situation for the dispatcher but could also Jeopardize the safety of police officers and, possibly, the security of the public. 6. The Compass report refers to several options for Tigard police including a county-wide dispatch center; two centers (one for fire and one for police); and Tigard PD remaining separate. Please comment on the pros and cons of each of these options. I agree with Compass Consulting Group's conclusions and recommendations. My belief is that the citizens of Washington County, the City of Tigard, and other public safety agencies would best be served by one county-wide dispatch center. The advantages of a consolidated, or county-wide, Communications Center are that it reduces the overall operational cost for services; if properly structured and negotiated, the cost-sharing equalizes the cost for all county citizens in all { jurisdictions (when I say "equalizes the cost," I mean that it costs every citizen the same amount to obtain public safety service). If you have a separate or a single center by itself, or one small police department and a rural fire district working together, then the cost is far greater for this same service. In addition, one of the greatest advantages to a county-wide system is it allows for the coordination of services. For example, a significant event takes place, in which mutual aid from the sheriff and/or another police department is needed; if everyone is dispatched from one center, then other phone calls are not necessary. The dispatcher is not required to dial yet another phone number and explain the situation to another person, who then must dispatch the call . The result is, precious minutes are being saved. The same is true if you have a police call and a fire truck or ambulance is { needed. If all operations are co-located in one room, ease in coordin- ation of services is far greater and much faster. This provides the f public with a better measure of service for their dollar and, in many } cases, minutes and seconds saved by services being co-located has saved lives. Housing all public safety communications operations in the county-wide system elminiates the need to transfer telephone calls, s particularly in reference to 9-1-1. Right now, for example, Tigard's calls are received by the Tualatin Fire District; each time an emergency call comes in for Tigard PD, the operators at the Tualatin RFPD have to transfer that emergency call to the PD. This is time-consuming, labor- intensive and defeats the entire purpose of 9-1-1, which is to save time and, to provide easy access by the public to emergency services. In the case of two centers, one for fire and one for police, you again have the problem presented by transferring 9-1-1 calls when there is no way to f E f L sort them out by jurisdiction, and when you have the police located in i F i C one area and fire in the other, because 9-1-1 is a number for all public safety agencies; you would need to transfer the call . It also does not provide the reduced overall operational costs; you would still be oper- ating two facilities, and would have a staff that you would not otherwise k need. In the case of Tigard PD remaining separate, again you have the problem of transferring 9-1-1 calls. Tigard PD presently has six people who operate as records and communications specialist and a manager (hours unknown); this seems a heavy commitment for a city the size of Tigard. � You do not have the coordination of services that you would have in a consolidated center. The advantage to Tigard PO remaining separate is it gives the City total control over the Communications Center; the City can set all policies and operational procedures without any regard to any other activity. This would not be true if you were in a consolidated center. However, in a consolidated center, you can establish a manage- ment structure in a manner which allows you input and control concerning policies/procedures. The greatest problem I see in having Tigard PD maintain an independent Communications Center is the cost of this activity, in the lack of coordination of services and the transferring of 9-1-1 calls between activities. Call transfer is cumbersome, and slows the process of getting public safety services dispatched to the public. 7. The Chief's RFP includes references to ORS 190.020, related to transfer of personnel and preservation of benefits. Please discuss how consolidation affects the employment rights of the personnel both for the remaining dispatchers and those who are displaced. _ ORS 190.010 covers the authority of local governments to create i f f intergovernmental agreements for performance of services, or functions/activities between two government entities by consolidating a department, or by jointly providing administrative services, etc. Basically, this statute requires that any intergovernmental agreement must provide for the transfer of personnel and the preservation of their employment benefits. However, ORS 236.610 gives better guidance on the rights of an employee when their duties have been assumed or transferred to a different public employer. Basically, it states that no public employee will be deprived of employment solely because the duties of their employment have been assumed or acquired by another public t employer, whether or not an agreement, annexation or consolidation with i 1 their present employer is involved. Notwithstanding any other statutes, 6 etc., public employees involved would be transferred to the employment of { the public employer who assumes or acquires these duties without further 3 r civil service examinations. This means that if Tualatin RFPD were to E take over your dispatching, you would transfer employees without their F having to take a civil service examination for Tualatin RFPD. This statute also requires, in the transfer of a public employee, that the transferring employer furnish the employment records of that employee to i the transferee employer at the time of the transfer, and that the time of transfer must be by written agreement between the public employers involved. As to the status of the transferred employee, a public 6 employer who receives a transferred employee under ORS 236.610 must place that employee on its employee roster, subject to certain conditions; i these are that if the employee was serving a probationary period with his F I employer at the time of transfer, the past service on probation will f i apply on the regular probationary requirements of the transferee r �. employer, and notwithstanding any other provisions of law applicable to a retirement system for employees of the prior employer or of the transferee employer, the employee, at their option, may elect to continue under any retirement system in which they were participating prior to their transfer, or if they meet the qualifications therefor, they may elect to participate in the retirement system available to employees of the transferee employer. The employee's election must be in writing and i made within thirty (30) days after the date of their transfer. If the employee elects to continue under the retirement system in which they g i were participating prior to transfer, they will retain all rights and be entitled to all benefits under that system, and they will continue to make contributions to that system; the transferee employer will make 9 S contributions to that system; the transferee employer will make contributions on their behalf to that system as required of employers participating in that system as if the transfer had not occurred. In addition, the employee will retain the seniority they accrued under their prior employment; however, no regular employee of the transferee employer may be demoted or laid off by reason 'of that seniority. Otherwise, the employee will enjoy the same privileges and be subject to the same regulations as other employees of the transfer employer. Regarding authority of the new employer over the transferred employee, F the employer will place that employee in a position comparable to the position they enjoyed under their prior employment, subject to certain rules. One rule is, the transferee employer, in determining a comparable position, must consider the employee's education and physical qualifications, experience and salary, duties and responsibilities of their prior employment. If the transferee employer finds that no comparable position exists under this rule, the employee will be offered a lesser position; that is, if such a position is available, according to i their qualifications by the transferee employer. The finding and action of such an employer, under this rule, is subject to a hearing upon the employee's request, and subject to review under ORS 34.010-34.100. In the case of those dispatchers who are displaced, if the transferee employer finds that no positions exist, the employee will be listed as a regular laid-off employee and will have priority to appointment over other persons eligible for any position for which they are qualified. Basically, this means they have first opportunity at any vacancies that come up, subject to a time limitation. One other point to remember is the re-employment of employees at the end of any coopers, in agreement; that is, at the end of the cooperation agreement, the transferred employee is entitled to their position with the transfer employer, if they have remained an employee of the transferee employer in good standing to the termination of the agreement. Basically, this means ( that should Tigard enter into an intergovermental agreement with Tualatin RFPD, they would transfer employees if jobs existed for them. If not, these persons would be laid off; however, should the agreement be cancelled at some point, they would have the opportunity of reverting to their previous employer (the City of Tigard). 8. The RFP refers to a 30-day termination right for either party. Please discuss the pros and cons of this versus a three-year fixed contract. I find the 30-day termination right, as suggested in the RFP to be an insufficient amount of time for notification of contract termination. The budget year normally runs on an annual basis, and a 30-day termin- ation notice in the middle of a budget year could be disruptive. An �. orderly transition could not be made since a 30-day notice would not allow for the hiring of staff by either party, the movement into a new Center, the acquisition of equipment, and/or other preparations which are required for setting up a Communications Center. It takes long-range planning to accomplish this, and 30 days would be insufficient. The advantage of a 30-day termination is that if you were in a contract situation which was intolerable, a 30-day notice might then be desirable. Generally speaking, I believe you would find it unworkable for either party. From the same viewpoint, the 3-year fixed contract I would not recommend, as you may find yourself in a contract situation which is not working, or which is not providing the level of service you feel the City of Tigard requires; if you are into a 3-year fixed contract, then ,you have a legal obligation to serve out that full period of time. On the other hand, you may wish to consider an indefinite contract which runs basically on an annual basis which is automatically renewed unless either party serves notice to discontinue, but contains provisions for cancel- lation by either party. A 90-day or a 6-month notice prior to the first day of each budget year could be set. My experience has shown this to be the most workable; it provides some leeway, yet allows a reasonable escape clause; you are not tied into a contract for a specific period of time, but its renewable if both parties agree, or either party may cancel it with a 6-month or 90-day notice, whichever is required. I believe you would find this option much more flexible and to your advantage. 9. Based on your review of the RFP language, are there requirements included which cause you concern and are there requirements which in your Judgment are missing? t In addressing RFP language and the requirements, I find that it is not a precise or descriptive document regarding what services the City of Tigard is soliciting from a vendor. It appears cumbersome, in that it goes to great lengths in quoting ORS 190 (intergovernmental cooperation agreements) and ORS 236 (transfer of employees). Both documents come into play only if the City decides to consolidate their communications with another agency. I find them both unnecessary in an RFP. Further, I find that the document includes specifications for a radio control console, and a satellite receiver/voter as if the City were soliciting bids for this type of equipment, rather than communications services. Those sections addressing direct dispatch requirements and indirect dispatching requirements are more in line with what I believe should appear in an RFP. One area where I noted the RFP to be seriously lacking is that it failed to include any provisions for the City to have input in the policy-making process, or any type of representation by the Police Department on an operational board with Tualatin Fire District (or other agency), so that the City may have direct input into the operating protocols/procedures of the Communications Center. This, I believe, is a serious area of concern any time you are soliciting this type of service, because you wish to have some type of control over the system. It is very necessary that this is documented and what the procedure would be. 10. The RFP lists many pages of equipment specifications. In your Judgment, is this necessary or would any type of equipment be adequate? As I stated in the above response, I felt that the specifications of the radio control console were inappropriately included in the RFP. If you are contracting for coamunications services, I do not belive that it ., would be appropriate to state specifications of the various elements of a piece of equipment. What would be appropriate is to specify your communications needs, e.g., coverage for the entire city of Tigard, levels of audio output and reception. I believe specifications in a docuR3nt of this nature are incorrectly included, that the type of equip- ment utilized by the vendor/Communications Center is irrelevant as long as it provides the level of services you require. 11 . When police agencies use a central dispatch service, do they still need the same radio equipment in their individual station? If so, where do the proposed savings from centralized dispatch occur? Earlier, I stated that, should the City of Tigard consolidate their dispatching into a central dispatch service, Tigard PD should retain some type of a radio receiver/transmitter at the department. However, I did specify a remote, or control , station which can be procured for $300- $400, possibly a little more, and this is considerably less than the cost of a normal base station. The basic cost savings of centralized dispatch are realized through reduced personnel costs where, in a consolidated center, one dispatcher handles many jurisdictions simultaneously; this personnel cost is shared equally among all users, based upon variables such as calls for service, population, assessed value, or some formula of this type. The Compass Consulting Group study of Washington County illustrates this very well on page 59, where Alternative #5 (staffing pattern to handle the average peak hour workload) shows that, through consolidation, twenty-seven (27) full-time operational positions, plus ten (10) part-time positions could be saved. This potential savings has been translated by Compass into $765,000 per year; on a per capita basis, C_ this is approximately a $76,000/year savings in communications dispatching costs to the City, if this fund is distributed equally throughout the county. Personnel costs do not comprise all of the savings; there are others, such as shared facilities (heating, lights, paper and pencils, etc.), which are shared among the users; and the shared management costs, also, as there are several law enforcement agencies accessing the LEDS terminal and teletype, phone lines, etc. All of these are cost savings which, when you spread them among many users, drastically reduce the cost of any operation. The maintenance/operation of a separate communications facility does not provide the economy of scale that consolidation does. 12. Does the Fire District have legal access to LEDS terminal information? I have addressed this issue in an earlier response to another question; (� however, I will reiterate. A fire district does not have legal access to LEDS terminal information. It may only have access through a management control agreement with a criminal ,justice agency which does have legal access. However, once a management control agreement is established between a criminal justice agency and a non-criminal justice agency which provides a service, the agency using the terminal (in this case, a fire district), must adhere to all applicable LEDS rules and policies, and must sign an agreement with LEDS to that effect; this agreement is legally binding. 13. Wouldn't having the Fire District in one center and the Police in another be more economical for the entire county? Having the fire district in one center and the police in another would s s not be the most economical for the entire county, as pointed out by the t, Compass Consulting Group research, which shows that having two centers ?. would save the citizens of Washington County approximately $594,000 in personnel costs versus $766,000 in personnel costs if Washington County F established a single consolidated center. Again, we are talking only # about personnel costs. If yni have two separate Communications Centers, fi you are still paying for the operation of that facility; you would have two management staffs, plus all operating costs (heating, lights, etc.). t A major concern about two Communications Centers is the problem presented by transferring all 9-1-1 fire/EMS calls received at one center to the other one, or vice versa: police calls being received by fire and having j to be transferred to the PD. Again, this complicates and slows down the operation and defeats the purpose of 9-1-1 . Also, you would need to have the additional managerial and technical staff to handle two centers; this is another cost. The most economical option would be the unified county-wide system. 14. Now many police clerks will still be necessary for filing and report- writing? Neither the RFP, compiled by the Tigard Police Chief, nor the Compass Consulting Group report identifies the number of calls for service received by Tigard PD, or if call-takers perform more than one function (e.g., call-taker/dispatcher). In reviewing the Compass study, I find that Tigard PD indicates they have one manager and six call-taker/ dispatchers, for a total of seven (7) personnel devoted to this effort. Given the fact that communications is a 24-hour operation and it normally E C, takes 5.0 personnel to cover a given position on a 24-hour basis, this I NO IN l E i would indicated that two of these current positions could be assigned to records and administration. However, I have insufficient information upon which to base any conclusions about the number of police clerks required. An on-the-jab audit is necessary to determine the staffing level for records. 15. How can contracting with Tualatin Rural Fire District be more economical when their dispatchers' salaries are three times more than the police dispatchers' salaries? The economy of contracting with Tualatin Fire District cannot be based on salaries alone. Whether or not it would be more economical to contract with Tualatin Rural Fire District for communications services depends solely upon the contract amount which they offer to contract for your dispatching services, versus how much you would save in salaries and other costs by doing this. I would agree that, if we are going to base the cost solely on ddispatchers' salaries and Tualatin RFPD's salaries are three times those of your present police dispatchers, then, of course, this would not be economically attractive. The City must carefully weigh all the variables involved, to ensure that the citizens of Tigard receive the level of service they require, that dispatching service provided by Tualatin RFPD or any other vendor meets the needs of Tigard PD and that there is an adequate cost savings. The cost savings in this case must be determined by looking at contract cost, plus the cost to operate your records section efficiently, versus your present budget which the Compass Group Report indicates is $133,700 per year. 16. If Tigard PD were to contract for "dispatch services," what equipment, if any, would TPD need to retain? (Would there be no local communication capability with patrol cars, detectives, etc.?) As I have indicated in answering previous questions, if Tigard PD should contract to receive dispatch services, they would require a remote, or control, radio off the base station so the radio net may be accessed by the Chief of Police or his staff from the police station. Also, Tigard PD would continue to own the base radio transmitter station, although it may or may not be located at the Tigard Civic Center. 17. TPD dispatchers do typing, filing and other duties while providing dispatch coverage. A patrolman can ask a dispatcher to pull a file, check an incident report and other tasks which help an investigation under way. What happens to this capability to assist officers if the dispatch function is separated from the records function? Along with consolidating of the Tigard PD communications function with a central center, there remains a need by the TPD to retain a records function managed/operated by a level of staffing sufficient to continue the provision of typing, filing and other records functions in support of the Department operation. I am unable to determine/recommend a level of staffing based on the documents I have reviewed. However, those clerks retained may continue to pull a file, check an incident report or perform other tasks to assist field officers in an investigation. Depending upon the number of support staff in the records section, it might be feasible to schedule work shifts where this function could continue to be performed for 16 or more hours per day. During those hours when this {� capability is not available, (i.e., records is not staffed), the officers could check records themselves, if necessary. Although this may not be the best situation, it may be one of the trade-offs of consolidation. It would appear that, considering the growth factor predicted for the Tigard area, it will be but a matter of a few years before the workload on the Tigard PD dispatchers is of such magnitude they will be unable to perform peripheral duties such as typing, filing and records maintenance, and it will be necessary to curtail these duties, regardless of consolidation, and you would have to provide additional staff for the records function at that time. Many small departments face similar problems concerning access to local records during non-office hours and, in most cases, if the need exists for information from local records when the records office is not staffed, the officer carrying out the investigation reviews the file personally. 18. Is it advisable to have a 30-day (or even larger) notice, single-party 4. cancellation provision on a three-to-five-year dispatch contract? I believe it is advisable for a contract for communications services to contain a cancellation provision, whereby either party may withdraw from the agreement after adequate notification. I do not believe a 30-day notice of cancellation is adequate. As indicated in an earlier response to a similar question, this does not provide adequate time to make an orderly transition. If the service provider were to notify the City that they were invoking a 30-day notice of cancellation of the contract, Tigard PD would be unable to re-establish their communications operation within this time limit. As I recommended earlier, I believe a minimum of six months is a more realistic time factor. This provides protection to the City of Tigard from cancellation with short notice and vice versa for 7i the contractor/provider of services. 19. In a contract relationship, what provisions should be made for dispatch/patrol joint sessions to maximize working relationships, field coordination, TPD working orders? The City of Tigard should ensure that provisions are included in any contract to provide "communications services" for the establishment of some type of structured committee or board, which determines operations/policy matters for the communications operation, with the City of Tigard having representation on this committee. This management role is necessary to ensure that services being provided are adequate for the needs of the user (Tigard) and that the City has sufficient input and control over the Center's resources and policy formulation to provide responsive service to the public. 20. The Compass Report (Alternative #5) recommends dispatch consolidation at Fire District #1 over the next 3 to 4 years (including moving of Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District's equipment to that location). This is projected to reduce personel needs 25-30% and save at least $760,000 per year initially. Given this report and recommendation, the following questions come to mind: a. Is this a good time to contract with any outside dispatch provider given the possibilities of change in two to four years? b. If TPD does not contract out, is this a good time to purchase (or �., lease substantially upgraded equipment? The Compass study appears to be a valid document which has adequately reviewed the various aspects and alternative to the consolidation of public safety communications in Washington County. I concur with the Compass Report that Alternative 5 would provide the greatest cost savings to the public and would eliminate the call transfer problem presented by the 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone System. In addition, it provides the optimum scenario for the coordination of activities by all county public safety agencies. At the present time, 1 do not know the status of the movement to implement recommendations in the Compass study. After reviewing the political circumstances and activity involved in obtaining the consensus of several political entities to consolidate communications services, I believe it will be several years before a county-wide system evolves, and its form, membership and location may not necessarily be in accordance with the outlined suggestions in the Compass study. For this reason, I believe it would be premature for the City of Tigard to enter into an outside contract. I believe the overall situation is fluid at the moment and some difficult decisions must be made by all of the local governments in Washington County concerning the future of public safety communications. I believe a consolidated, county-wide communications system best serves -the interest of the public and provides the economy of scale needed by local government. I believe it would be in the best interests of the City of Tigard at the present time to continue providing their own communications services for the next year or so until there are further developments on the County-wide system. I would recommend the City enter into discussions and planning activity with the other agencies working toward development of the county-wide system, so that the City of Tigard`s needs and requirements are included from the beainnina of the process. I recommend anticipation and planning rather than reacting to reality. Further, I would not recommend circulating an RFP at the present time. In addition, I would recommend that, whenever a decision is made by the City to contract out this service, they not solicit it by an RFP, but, rather, they should develop written needs and requirements and notify interested agencies of the City's needs, and negotiate a price or cost formula to assess costs that is agreeable to all parties. 21 . If a dispatch RFP is timely, is the TPD draft RFP adequate? Does it fairly and completely cover Tigard's needs? I do not believe that it is appropriate at the present time to submit an RFP for communications dispatch services. As I indicated in an earlier response, there are competing agencies actually seeking customers for { their services in a bid to ensure their existence or to become the a county-wide Center. The real issue is which activity will survive and become the central Communications Center. I believe there are some difficult decisions yet to be made by the various local governments concerning the issue of a county-wide Communications Center. This could be used to the City's advantage if they become involved early in the planning process for such a center, and express their interest to the backers. The City could then exert their influence in seeing a system established which meets their needs and would have input into the estab- lishment and control of the system costs, rather than waiting to identify needs after the system is consturcted and operating, and then seeking entry on another entity's terms. I have previously adressed the issue of the Tigard PD RFP in a previous response. There are portions which are adequate; however, there are some concerns regarding content, such as s the inclusion of console equipment specifications in an RFP for the purchase of services, not equipment; I believe it would be more approp- riate to develop and describe the desired services. A major problem with the RFP is that it fails to provide for a management role for Tigard PD on a continuing basis where services delivery or operations are concerned. I believe a more realistic approach to a communications services contract is to develop requirements and negotiate a cost with the government entity for their delivery. i Another area which should be explored concerning the issue of consolid- ation of public safety communications into one center is the cost savings which might be realized from providing the 9-1-1 service. A county-wide 9-1-1 system should result in a decreased requirement for 9-1-1 call- takers, thus providing another cost savings to the City of Tigard. Since the Attorney General has ruled that 9-1-1 tax revenues may be spent by local governments on any aspect of the delivery of public safety com- munications, any savings in the cost of providing 9-1-1 call-reception could be used to offset the cost of dispatching. I would recommend the City of Tigard review the present 9-1-1 call-reception operation in view of this thought. Questions you may wish to review are: a A. How are the present 9-1-1 tax revenues being spent? Are we receiving cost-effective service? B. How is the budget for the 9-1-1 operation determined and approved? t C. What input and control does the Tigard City Council have over the expenditure of these funds? i t E i D. Are these funds being properly accounted for? f l f= CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: I�•S _ DATE SUBMITTED: February 6, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TI'T'LE: microwave Channel Reservation Request • PREPARED BY: Chief Adams REQUESTED BY: Chief Adams DEPARTMENT HEAD OTC: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY In the process of planning to uixjr�,de Lne police : auio communications system and the microwave channel linkup with the Fire District, I have requested an informal reservation of two channels, one at King City and one at the Sylvania location, to tie into the Ccvanercial Street Fire Station. Chief Washburn of the Fire- District advised they will need a formal request from the Tigard City Council. The Fire District advises they 'only have a few channels available, and the City needs to move on this request as soon as possible. This request is also consistent with Clay Durbin's reconznendation. f ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION i Request City Council forward a formal request to the Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District for the microwave channel reservations, and the City Attorney prepare any legal docmients for the agreement, if required. Respectfully, ! / R.B. Adams Chief of Police OEM C11YOF TWARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON February 11, 1985 Board of Directors Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District 8455 S.W. Elligsen Road Tualatin, OR 97062 ANON: Fred Hage, Chairman Dear Chairman Hage: The City of Tigard is in the process of upgrading its police radio ccmmmications sytem. The Police Department. has been working with your staff aver the past several months in this planning process to interconnect to your microwave system. Therefore, the City of Tigard hereby requests the reservation of two (2) microwave channels; one at the King City Station; and one at the Sylvania location, to interface with the Ccmmrcial Street Station. The City will interconnect to the Cccmeercial Street Station by land line. Thanking you in advance for your prompt consideration of this request. Sincerely, iyo-:�O'Tbhn Cook JC:ac 12755 SW.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #t: 12.6 DATE SUBMITTED: February 5, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Purchase Request for Replacement PREPARED BY: Chief. Adams/Lt. Wheeler of Portable Radios REQUESTED BY: Chief Adams DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY There is a critical public safety need to replace 8 portable (walkie talkies) and one mobile (vehicle mounted) police radios. The portables are 8 years old, 3 years past their effective useful life of 5 years, and the mobile is 16 years old, 6 years past its expected life of. 10 years. We have contacted the State of Oregon Purchasing Department to identify radio equip- went that is under State Contract agreements, and would meet the department's needs. There are only two vendors that meet the specification requirements, they are G.E. and Motorola. The State of Oregon price agreements on G.E. equipment expired on 12-31-84; the Motorola agreement is still in effect. (See attached continuation). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Purchase under State of Oregon purchasing contract. 2. Purchase from factory outlet under government discount. 3. dated purchase agreement of compatible equipment from factory outlet at prior State of Oregon contract price agreement. SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend end Alternative #3. The purchase of G.E. radios as per the extended price agreement of the State of Oregon Purchasing Department. Contract # M.B.P. 32182 as offered by G.E. This pricing agreement is good to February 21, 1985. ATTACHED CONTINUATION - ITEM #12.6 FOR FEBRUARY 11, 1985 AGENDA ALTERNATIVE #1: The Motorola equipment is priced under State Contract #34-261-3312, and is as follows: 1. Portables with two active channels $895 each 2. Mobiles with three active channels $887 each Cost Summary: 8 portables ($895 each) $7,160 1 mobile 887 Sub-Total $8,047 Supplemental Additional Cost (Conversion to Motorola from GE Equipment) 1 rack charger $900 8 batteries @ $74 each 592 8 carry cases @ $45 each 360 25 belt clips for carry cases @ $10 ea. 250 Sub,-'Total $2,102 TOTAL COST: $10,149 ALTEPd,IATIVE #2: Purchase from factory outlet under government discount. This pricing was excessive, and not pursued. As an example, Motorola portables were quoted at $1.,790 each, and G.E. portables were quoted at $1,511 each. ALTERNATIVE #3: Negotiated purchase agreement of compatible equipment from factory outlet at prior State of Oregon contract price agreement. We also developed a price agreement through Ccmnunications Enterprises of Oregon, Inc. and General Electric Com mnications Division, NW Regional Office. GE has agreed to extend the State of Oregon price agreement, Contract #M.B.P.32182, to February 21, 1985 for this purchase request. The GE equipment is priced under the extended State Price Agreement as follows: 1. Portables with two active channels $887 each 2. Mobiles with three active channels $985 each Cost Summary: 8 portables @ $887 each $7,096 1 mobile 985 $8,081 Supplemental Additional Cost: -0- TOTAL COST: $8,081 moll NOTE: We are presently using GE portables of the same specifications as indicated above. Therefore, supplemental conversion requirement is not required, and is a savings of $2,068. JUSTIFICATION UNDER CONTRACT RUM'S 10.085 Single Seller of Product Required Subject to all requirements of rule 20.030, the City may purchase without competitive bidding if there is only one seller of a product of the quality required, or if the efficient utilization, of existing equipment or supplies requires specification of a compatible product for which there is only one seller. 20.030 Single Manufacturer Or Compatible Products 1. If there is only one manufacturer or seller of a product of the quality required, or if the required product is data processing equipment which will be used for research where there are requirements for exchange of software and data with other research establishments, or if the efficient utilization of the existing equipment or su22lies requires a compatible product of a particular manufacturer or seller, a public contracting agency may s22cifv such particular product sub- ject to the following conditions: a. The product is selected on the basis of the most competitive offer considering quality and cost. The term 'cost' includes riot only the product price but also other items of expense such as costs related to quality of conversion. b. Prior to awarding the contract, the City has made reasonable effort to notify known vendors of competing or con-parable pro- ducts of the intended specifications and invited such vendors to submit competing proposals. If the purchase does not exceed $15,000, such notice and invitation may be informal. If the amount of the purchase exceeds $15,000, such notice shall include advertisement in at least one newspaper of general circulaiton in the area where the contract is to be performed and shall be timely to allow con peting vendors a reasonable opportunity to make proposals. SUMMARY Alternative #3 is the most cost effective purchase, and seems to meet the contract rules (10.085 and 20.030) mentioned above. The radios provide an efficient utilization of existing equipment, and is compatible to pre-existing radios relative to operation, batteries, carry cases and battery charger. The G.E. radio equipment is reccarmended, as there is no conversion cost required, and is a competitive offer considering quality and overall cost. We have identified Motorola and G.E. as the only vendors providing this equipment of the quality and specifications required through State of Oregon contract price agreements. As indicated above, Motorola has an active price agreement with the State at this time, and G.E. 's agreement with the State expired December 31, 1984, and G.E. has agreed to extend the state price agreement 'to the City until February 21, 1985. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l" MEWRANDUM TO: Chief of Police February 7, 1985 FROM: Lt. Wheeler SUBJECT: Purchase of Portable Radios Sir: The portable radios we are currently using were purchased in 1977, and are no longer doing the job for us. The expected longevity of these radios in police service is 5 years (according to our radio repair shop - Communicatios Enterprises), and as you can see, we are going on 8 years now. I have researched the possibility of retro-fitting the radios; however, General Electric Ccupany has no such program, and beyond "going through" the radios, which Communication Enterprises (the factory representatives for the Portland area) has just recently completed, there is nothing that can be done. Communication Enterprises explains the solid state circuitry components break dawn and wear out. The portable to portable co mmications is impossible, while the portable to car communications is difficult to impossible. Many times the base will have to relay messages from unit to unit, thereby creating a very hazardous situation, especially when several units are working hostage situations, armed robbery surveillance, or a drug search warrant where timing is crucial, and everyone must be able to hear when to convene on a targeted suspect. Needless to say, the lack of ability to connunicate creates some very unnecessary hazardous situations that could easily be overcome with good radio equipment. I have checked and found there is a previously established contract price agreement W.B.P. 32182 with the State of Oregon that will allow us to purchase G.E. portable radios (that will work in our chargers) for $887 per unit. We need 8 portables at this time, and the $7,096 we spend on portable radios is a cheap price, as compared to the potential hazard that exists with our current equiF mnt. Lt. Ro eeler Patrol D ision Commander L i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY �1 n AGENDA OF: February 1i, 1985 __` AGENDA ITEM #: Ick DATE SUBMITTED: February 1. 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: 1anuary�4_Renewal ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: Renewal of Contract for Professional Services PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan _ for Hearings Officer REQUESTED BY: Bill Monahan DEPARTMENT MEAD OK: 1. _. _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: — INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has a contract for professional services with Beth Mason as Hearings Officer which expired on January 26, 1985. The City staff and Attur'ney Mason feel that the language and terms of the present agreement are sufficient. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Renew the agreement at the same terms for the period from February 1, 1985 until February 1, 1986. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the Council agree to the terms of the agreement with Attorney Mason and authorize Mayor Cook to execute the contract on behalf of the Council. (WAM:br10981P) CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A CONTRACTED entered into between the CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, 12755 S.W. Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (herein as "CITY") and Ms. Beth Mason (herein as "OFFICER"). Wherers it is in the best interests of the CITY to retain the services of a Hearings Officer to conduct quasi-judicial hearings required under Tigard Municipal Code Ch. 18.84; and WHEREAS Ms. Beth Mason is qualified to perform said services; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO THAT: 1. OFFICER shall perform the services as set forth in Position Description and Specifications (Exhibit A), copies of which are attached to this agreement and incorporated by this reference herein, as modified by this agreement and shall perform the services pursuant to the Hearing Officer procedures approved by the Council. 2. In consideration of performance of all services and as payment for all expenses incurred by OFFICER, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AGREED IN WRITING TO t BE SEPARATELY REIMBURSABLE AND BEFORE BEING INSURED, CITY agrees to pay to OFFICER: 2 An amount based upon actual hours of service performed during the given month at the rate of $_50.00 per hour. 3. CITY shall make monthly payments to OFFICER, based upon actual hours of service performed during the given month. 4. OFFICER acknowledges that for all purposes related to this agreement, OFFICER is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of CITY, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to which an employee of the CITY is entitled and shall be solely responsible for all payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the event that OFFICER is found by a court of law or an administrative agency to be an employee of the CITY for any purposes, CITY shall be entitled to offset compensation due or demand repayment of any amounts paid to OFFICER under the terms of this agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other remuneration OFFICER receives (from CITY or a third party) as a result of said finding and to the full extent of any payments that CITY is required to make (TO OFFICER or to a third party) as a result of said finding. 5. OFFICER shall prepare and submit to The Finance Director , a statement of services rendered, indicating hours and dates of services together with a request for payment duly authorized by the Council or its designee at least TWENTY DAYS prior to due date of each payment (excluding first payment); payment by CITY of an interim amount shall release CITY from any further obligation for payment to OFFICER for services performed or expenses incurred as of the date of the statement of services. 6. Commencement and Termination: This agreement will commence on February 1, 1985 and terminate on February 1, 1986 This agreement may be cancelled and terminated for any reason on 90 days' written notice by either party. The CITY may terminate the agreement at any time should the OFFICER fail to perform the duties required without prior written authorization from the Planning Director or all funds budgeted for this professional service contract are expended prior to January 10, 1985 Any work performed by the OFFICER up to the point of termination shall become the property of the CITY. 7. Any modifications to this agreement resulting in increases of compensation or extent of services must be made in writing. AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES HERETO: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By � (signature) - DATES V G tact lr BY Beth Mason (type name) (signature) is DATE — (WAH:pm/0253P) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY rr�� AGENDA OF: February 11 1985 AGENDA ITEM N: �yc . DATE SUBMITTED: February 7, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Adoption of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Agreement With Final Order on Site Design Review Western International Properties PREPARED BY: W. A. hinahan Concerning Railroad Crossing REQUESTED BY: W. A. Monahan DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: ��.�Ia) CITY ADMINISTRATOR: INFORMATION SUMMARY Western International Properties has received approval to construct two industrial buildings on Tech Center Drive. The condition of approval is a commitment by Western to construct a railroad crossing. A copy of the final order containing the condition is attached. Western has proposed a modification to the commitment to allow the City to grant a building permit while the City and Western pursue an approval of a railroad crossing through the P.U.C. Western has made this request because it has had difficulty receiving a bond ii now when there is no definite time frame for development. In fact, it is possible that the P.U.C. will deny the request. In addition, the cost of the crossing can not be determined until the crossing is approved. Rather than require the posting of an open—ended bond, with an estimated construction value, Western seeks another solution. Western has proposed an agreement which binds the company to construct and bond for the crossing once a permit is received. The language of the � , . agreement was formulated by Western following a meeting between Western, Tim Ramis, Frank Currie and I. The proposed language has been reviewed by Tim Ramis. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Accept the proposed agreement with Western. 2. Deny Western's request and require the posting of a bond for the improvement now. SUGGESTED ACTION The staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreement. We feel f that . the agreement is an equitable adjustment and accomplishes the City's intention to bind Western to participate in the railroad crossing. (WAM:br/0997P) AGREEMENT DATED: February 1985 BY: WESTERN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, a joint venture composed of I .L.C. , INC. , a Washington corportion, and JAMES B. NEUMAN Western IN FAVOR OF: THE CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation Tigard Western is the owner of certain real property situated in Washington County, Oregon, described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property" ) . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises, agreements and covenants described in this Agreement, the under- signed do hereby agree as follows: 1. Application for Railroad CrossinG. Tigard desires to seek and obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Public Utili- ties Commission ( "PUC" ) for a railroad crossing for an extension of Tigard Tech Center Drive on Western' s property across the adjacent Southern Pacific railroad tracks (the "Southern Pacific railroad crossing") . The railroad crossing will be constructed in connection with a related crossing of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks adjacent to certain property owned by Milton O. Brown. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Western irrevocably covenants and agrees with Tigard that West- ; ern will be responsible for paying the costs of constructing the Southern Pacific railroad crossing, provided a permit for such crossings is obtained and not denied by the PUC within the two- . : • year (24-month) period specified in paragraph 4.3 below, and unless a local improvement district ("LID" ) is formed to con- struct such crossings. Western will promptly proceed to prepare and submit to Tigard the application to the PUC for the permit for the South- ern Pacific railroad crossing, in form reasonably acceptable to Tigard, which will be responsible for presenting the application to the PUC. 2. Construction of Crossin In the event the permits are approved by the PUC, and provided the work is not performed pursuant to an LID established for that purpose, Western will promptly proceed to prepare detailed plans and specifications for construction of the Southern Pacific railroad crossing and i� to obtain a construction commitment or contract with Southern Pacific Railroad (or other party reasonably acceptable to it) for the construction of the Southern Pacific railroad crossing. The plans and specifications and any construction commitment or contract will be in form reasonably acceptable to Southern Pacific Railroad and will comply with any applicable street or code requirements of the City of Tigard. Western will cause such work to be performed and be responsible for its cost, and further will cause such work to be bonded by a payment and performance bond covering the faithful performance of the contract for the construction of the Southern Pacific railroad crossing and the payment of all obligations arising thereunder. The bond will be for a term of at least 12 months after the date on which the plans and specifications and construction contract are approved and construction is ready to commence (but in any event not less than the construction period under the construction contract) . Tigard will be named as an obligee on the bond. Prior to the date construction is commenced, Western shall submit evidence satisfactory to Tigard that such bond has been issued, at Western' s expense. Tigard shall not be responsible for the payment of the premium of the bond, nor shall Tigard have any obligation under the bond. Tigard will cooperate with and promptly respond to all reasonable requests for information or approvals required by Western, Southern Pacific Railroad Company, or the contractor in connection with the permit and construction of the Southern Pacific railroad crossing. 3. Lien on Property to Secure Obligation Concerning Bond. Western' s obligation to pay for the construction of the Southern Pacific railroad crossing and to obtain the payment and perform— ance bond described above pursuant to this Agreement shall con- stitute a lien and charge against the Property (the "lien") . Such lien shall be in favor of Tigard, and shall be appurtenant , • to the Property. Such lien is and shall be subordinate to any mortgage(s) , deed(s) of trust and other loan and security instruments currently affecting the Property, and all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements and extensions thereof; provided, however, that Western shall obtain from the current lienholder(s) a consent and agreement in substantially the form attached to this Agreement, for purposes of consenting and agreeing to a continuation of such lien notwithstanding any foreclosure or sale of the Property. Performance of Western' s obligation to obtain the bond at the time required under this Agreement will satisfy the lien, and Tigard will promptly exe- cute on request a good and sufficent release of lien, in record- able form. 2 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 4.1 Protection of Rights of Secured Parties. No breach of the provisions in this Agreement shall defeat or ren- der invalid the lien of any contract of sale, mortgage(s) or deed(s) of trust now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion thereof; provided, however, that if the Property or any portion of the Property is sold under a foreclosure of any such contract of sale, mortgage(s) or deed(s) of trust, any pur- chaser of such sale, and its successors and assigns, shall hold any and all property so purchased subject to all of the provi- sions of this Agreement (including, without limitation, the lien described in paragraph 3) . 4.2 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon Western, each successive owner of any portion of the Prop- erty, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns. 4.3 Term. This Agreement shall automatically termi- nate in the event the permit for the Southern Pacific railroad crossing is denied or not obtained within the two-year (24-month) period, commencing on the date that Western submits the applica- tion described in paragraph 1 to Tigard, or will terminate upon formation of the LID to perform and pay for the railroad cross- ing construction work, or upon completion of construction in accordance with this Agreement. Tigard will promptly execute a good and sufficient release, upon termination of this Agreement, in recordable form. 4.4 Notice of Nonperformance. In the event Tigard determines that Western has not performed any obligation under this Agreement within the time required, Tigard will give writ- - - ten notice to Western (and any lender with a secured interest in the Property, which has notified Tigard in writing of its request to obtain notices under this paragraph) specifying in reasonable detail the action which Western failed to perform and a reasonable opportunity to cure the problem by p-- :,.ptly commencing and thereafter pursuing diligently the required action. 4.5 Notices. Notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when actually delivered. If mailed, a notice shall be deemed effective 72 hours after mail- ing as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows, or to such other address as a party may designate by notice to the other: 3 t, To Western: To any other subsequent owner: 1805 NW Glisan Street The address to which notices Portland, Oregon 97209 of property tax assessments affecting the Property are mailed by the Washington County Assessor' s Office To Tigard: 12755 SW Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 4.6 Estoppel Certificates. Within 10 days after Western' s written request, Tigard shall deliver a written state- ment stating whether Western is in compliance with its obliga- tions under this Agreement, and any other matters that may reasonably be requested by Western (or its lenders) . 4.7 Ap licabl.e Law. The Property is located in the State of Oregon. The parties agree that the law of that state shall be the governing law under this Agreement. 4.8 Attorneys' 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 sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys fees at trial, on appeal of such suit or action, and on any petition for review, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 4.9 Consent. Whenever either party' s consent or approval is required under this Agreement, the party will promptly exercise its judgment in a reasonaole manner. 4. 10 Waiver. Failure at any time to require perform- ance of any provision of this Agreement shall not limit a party' s right to enforce the provision. Any waiver of any breach of any provision shall not be a waiver of any succeeding breach or a waiver of any provision of this Agreement. 4.11 Prior Agreements. This Agreement is the entire, final, and complete agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set forth in this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all written and oral agreements and requirements existing between the parties or their representatives with respect to such matters. This Agreement satisfies the pre-condition for the building permit contained in the City of Tigard, Oregon, 4 Final Order Resolution 84-80, dated December 10, 1984, concern- ing the construction of the railroad crossing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. WESTERN: WESTERN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, a joint venture By Authorized Agent on behalf of the Joint Venture Accepted and agreed to: TIGARD: THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON By STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of Multnomah ) On this day of 1985, before me, personally appeared the above-named and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed, as authorized agent and on behalf of WESTERN INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, a joint venture. , , . Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: 5 om 7 CITY OF I1GAR0, OREGON t RF:;OVUTION NO. 04- p0_ A FINAL ORDER IN TNC MAT-11R OF Itil: APPLICATLON FOR A S11C OI.SLGN REVIFW RF-91JESTED BY WESTERN INTERNATIONAL. PROPERTIES, FILE NO. SOR 12-84, UPFIOLDING T14E PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON POLTCY 1 1 .5. 1, AND REVERSING TIIC PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON fill= RAIZ-ROAD CROSSINt; REQUIREMENT, UNTFRING 1 1NOINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. The Tigard City Council heard the above application at its regular meeting of October 0, 1984. Alan Fox represented the applicant. The following individuals either spoke or whrrro r•eprosrrnted in favor of the application: Wayne Jolly, F.C. Jensen, Carol Stewart, Richard Alberts and Fred Trumble. ;r�vr.r-al members of Neighburhood Pl.anninr3 Orrjanization H S appeared in opposition to the application F"ollrrwinrj the• meeting the Council initiated a review of Policy 11 .5. 1 which rr.sulLod in Planning Cr,mmission and City Council approval of a modification to the Policy . The final order for SOR 12--84 has been modified to reflect the revised policy as it applies to this project. The Council finds the following FACTS in this matter: 1. The applicant, Western International, requested approval to partition (MLP 2-04) a 6.9 acre parcel into three lots of 2.5, 2'.4 , and 2.0 acres each. Site Development Review approval to construct one industrial office building on :ach of the proposed parcels was also requested. The property is zoned I-P (industrial Park) and is located on the northeast corner of 72nd Avenue and Tech Center Drive (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IDC, Tax Lots 700 and 800). The information supporting this request is found in Planning Files Numbers SOR 17.-04 and NLP 2-84. 2. The two applications were approved by the Planning Director on July 26, 1984, subject to conditions. The decision for SOR 12-04 was appealed to the Planning Commission by the applicant because of the requirements outlined in Conditions number 1 and 4 of the Director' s approval. The requirement for a sidewalk along Tech Center and the responsibility of constructing a portion of the proposed Tech Center Drive railroad crossing were the specific subjects contained in the appeal . 3 . An adjoining neighbor �1so appealed the SOR 17-04 decision on the tjrounds that sufficit?nt buffering had not been providod. 1 , The P 1 arot i nrj Como it,s i ori ho.-rrd t ht• •aplre a l ti .n `.a.Iptr•mht•r 4 , 1`)84 Tho C+nnmissi(io vt.)tr?d un,animou-3ly to uphold PoIii.y I1 .S 1 11 C.,nnmiS5lon voted, with Ont` dig-,t•rnt trnl v,,,t not. I rt•-)uirrt• th'• ..bill i. "an I. l provide the railroad r.t —slllq RE ;()I i 11t0;: Nti 014 � P.. l,• 1 i °,. The Council had hefore it the record of the proceedings frefore the Planning C(.mmission. The matter was brought before! the City Cr)unr.-il urod or Section 18.32.090 D ple pub ir. hear ing wars hold ren Or.tuhor. 11, 1984, before the City Council. 6. The relevant approval criteria in this case are the Statewide Planning Goals t, 2, 9, and ti; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.. 1 . 1 ; and Community Development Code. Chapter 18. 120. Policy 11.5. 1 . was modifii!d by the City Council on Novemb4!r 26, 1904, a; ,a result, the restrictive setback requirements contained therein are not applicable to this project. Based upon the record in this case, the Council makes the following FINDING!;: 1 . Statewide Planning Goal N 1 is mr!t because thr! CiLy has adopted a Citizens Involvement pr(igram including review of all d( velopuu-nt applic-Lion% by th(! N+!ighborhood Pltrnninq Orrj:anit.ati"n (NPO) . In addition, all public notice requirements were n,c_L. 2. Statewide Planning Goal H 2 is met because the City applied all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Development Code requirements to the application. 3 . Statewide Planning Goal H 1t is met because public facilities are available to the site. 4 . City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2. 1 . 1 is satisfied hecause tho. Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding properties were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant' s proposal. 5. City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 11 .5. 1 as modified does not apply to the residential properties adjoining the Site. 6. Community Development Code Chapter 18.120 is met by the conditions attached to this approval . r , The Council adopts the following CONCLUSION of law: 1 . Based upon Findings 1, 2, and 3 above, the Council has determined that the applicant's proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning k3oa 1 s . 7 . Based upon Finding 6 the Council has determined that the applicant' s proposal, as modified by the conditions of approval is consistent with Chapter 10 . 170 of the Community Development (-14- NOW, 11WRI't'00 , IW 11 I1C5OLVI:D by the Tigard City Counc i 1 that Tho Cnuriv i 1 th(-refor-,- OR0t:R,. Chat the above referenced roquost he, and herohy r is, 11PPItovl'l) s-abil-A tip r:-ndiLiuns seL for-Lh below I�.aye f r f ,r�t,�rp`prl.eo unsihlc for cck onst.ructi s++ Aa � ,Ju:• 1 . ��f+t, applicank shall he resp o C crossing across the licatior, forrif tht trraa road�crossirrg Diu s t hr The aPP prior to prepared and plans for- the crossin, +Host be submitted p issuance of building pern+its- uding sidewalks, curbs, street 2- Standard half-street improve tmc pro provided along the 77nd +Auirud lights, and driveway and Tech CenterDrive rivtr�frun t;,ye. sidewalk shall nr,t be along the Tech Cen P Tans lan-profile public improvements con P a . Seven (7) sets of p ruvea,ents and one (1) itemiatd construction costrr,e�5��apublicti+tnPed by j rr•r3istered civil engineer, detailing all P P shall er submitted to the City' s Ertginoerirtg Division for review. Hol rununr.nr:rt unt-i 1 q (,r,n,trur_tton =,f prripos+•d publit. impr4vrtn=,rtes shall uhltt improveim.nL after the E_ngir+eerir=g Division has issued wppruvtd P'rformance bond) • plans (the Division will requir+a Posting ufnain00allatior+/streetlight the Payment of a permit fee and a sig ening Permit or the execution of a street °p prior to. or deposit. Als°' fiance agreement shall occur p construction comp roved public improvement plans . concurrently with the issuance of app f S, ng permits on the Prior to issuance of buildieastern parcel (Eluilding containing the items n°ted below, shall be submitted 'for Planning A Director approval: a. Parking facilities and driveways consistent with Chapters 18 . 106 and 18.108 of the Code. t i Bicycle rack placement and design• b, thebuilding and a justification C. Projected use of the of the number of parking spaces. 6, Prior to issung building permits bmitted for its on the two western Parcels i Building 8 and C), the following information shall be su + • planning Director review and approval: i a. A revised grading plan. F b. A revised utilities Plan- C . A revised site plan which includes : trnt_ th (1) Pdrkin�) (,+r. ilt••• ,arui cirivc•waYs cnnsiswi 10 . 106 asci ld in=.ludin=3 .a j.+thstil'i�,ati=�++ dE Lhc• nuntt+d r of It,ark in=1 1=.++ +'ti h.+sc d u1tcN+ r ,ant th + iatr+i use € f Cho bui ldtnc3s t 1 j. (7) birycl+. i Ic1::atLlt 1'Iltt. No tln it.a=i.• i � , r (3) a minimum of one, two--way driveway. 24 feet in width. d. An ,amended landscaping plan including: (1) location of the trees along the northern property line that are not shown on the "Existing Site Conditions" sheet. (2) preservation of this group of trees for buffering purposes. (3) retention of as much as possible of the northern landscaped strip that was originally proposed. (4) screening along the northern property line that is consistent with Chapter 10. 100 of the Code. �. Prior to occupancy of any b�.i I(Iintj, plant materials shall brt installed as shown on the "pproved landscaping plan for the corresponding lot. 8. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. The third phase must be initiated within three years or a new Site Development Review application will be necessary. This resolution shall become effective upon its approval by the Council and signing by the Mayor. PASSED: This 10 day of _.4.t. 1-1014.1 1984. rr -City of Tigard r ATTEST: s A D"PUty City Recorder — City of Tigard (EAIV:dmj/003313) i 1p No , 114 r s t E r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON j COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: February 11, 1985 AGENDA ITEM H: DATE SUBMITTED: February 6, 1985,___ PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sanitary Sewer Compliance Agreement & Performance PREPARED BY: Community Development _ Bond, authorize Mayor & Recorder_ to execute in City's behalf REQUESTED BY: John Haqman DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �� 1'� rTTY ADMINISTRATOR: _ INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. The proposed "Dakota Street" sewer extension is lecated south of Scholls Ferry Road and West of 121st Avenue. It is intended to serve the Meadow Creek development. 2. The attached Compliance Agreement and Letter of Credit (Performance) Bond has been submitted by the developer, ass is required by the City, to assure completion of installation of all public sanitary sewer facilities. 3. Construction plans are ready to be issued and all required public improvement fee's have been paid. Issuance of said plans is pending Council action (as is suggested below). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to execute the Sanitary Sewer Compliance Agreement for Dakota Street (Sewer) Extension in behalf of the City, and, also, accept the Letter of Credit Performance Bond. (JH:br/0995P) SANITARY SEWER COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated thisyl%V% day of f,- J,Yom' 19 85 , between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City", and S 6 J Builders, Ltd. a PartnerG ip. hereinafter termed "Petitioner". W I T N E SSETH: WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City for approval of construction of a sanitary sewer, to be known as the Dakota Street Extension being within the boundaries of an area as described on the attached Exhibit "A", and by reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard requires applicants for construction of sewers, and appurtenances thereto, to submit to construction inspection, and testing therewithal, to grant public easements, therefor, and requires the payment of fees; and WHEREAS, the City has approved and adopted the standard specifications for Public Works construction by APWA, Oregon Chapter, and the 'Unified Sewerage Agency specifications for sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for Public Works construction; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed are incomplete, but petitioner has nonetheless requested that the City permit / granting of the property to the public, and the parties herein named desire to protect the public interest generally to assure the public improvements will be installed as required and completed within the time hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premise and the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the Petitioner and its contractor and contractors surety, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. Petitioner shall proceed to complete all public improvements as shown on herewith improvement plan, as approved by the City of Tigard and prepared by Westlake Consultants Inc. dated January 1985 Said improvements to be completed no later than one (1) year from the date of this agreement, and Petitioner hereby agrees to comply with all standard specifications adopted by this City, or as may otherwise be approved by the Department of Public Works and to use only such materials and to follow such designs as may be required to conform thereto. Petitioner shall provide certification of installation conformance, via a registered civil engineer, to the City prior to City inspection of petitioners improvement work for City tentative and final acceptance consideration. 2. To assure compliance with the City's requirements and the provisions thereof, Petitioner agrees to obtain, provide and tender to the City, a surety bond(s) in form approved by the City, with liability in the amount equal to the contract price of $ 12,200.00 prior to issuance of a permit for construction of said improvements; Petitioner's contractor shall be licensed, and insured. - 1 - 3. In the event that the Petitioner shall fail, neglect or refuse to proceed with the work in an orderly and progressive manner to assure completion within the time specified, upon ten (10) days notice by the City to the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety, and such default and failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety and in the event the same be not paid, to bring an action on the said bond to recover the amount thereof. In the event that _ such action be brought, the Petitioner and the Petitioner's surety shall be required to promise and agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and cost incurred by the City, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court, if any, or the City may at its option bring proceedings to enforce against the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's surety, specific performance of the contract and compliance with the standards adopted by the City of Tigard, and in any event, in a like manner, the City shall be entitled to recover such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable for the City's attorney's fees and cost, both in the Trial Court and and Appellate Court, if any. 4. Petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, agrees to pay the , following fees: a. A plan check fee to cover the cost of review and approval of construction plans and inspection of sewer construction (except house connections) in the amount of $ 488.00 b. A permit fee to cover the cost of processing the permit application and performing the inspection of property connection(s) in the amount of $ C. A connection charge to connect directly to an existing sanitary sewer, which was installed with/without (strike inapplicable word) cost to the Petitioner, in the amount of $ d. A monthly sewer service charge for the use of the public sanitary sewer system. 5. Petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, also agrees to pay a surcharge in the amount of $ * as required by that certain contract entered into by the City with for the reimbursement of sewer construction costs pertinent thereto. 6. The City agrees to make periodic inspections as, in the City's ,judgment, is necessary to assure compliance. 7. The Petitioner agrees to insure that the City receives 48 hours advance notice of commencement of construction and, also, 12 hours advance notice for all requested field inspections. 8. The Petitioner agrees to insure that the Petitioner's engineer obtains accurate as-built (field) construction records of said sewer installation and, also, agrees to insure that the City is furnished with one accurate as-built mylar thereof. * To be determined and levied at time of application for building permits. 2 - g ( 9. At such time as all public improvements have been completed in accordance t, with the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of to notify the City of the readiness installation conformance" to the City on notification by the for acceptance consideration inspection and up have been the Department of Public Works that all requirements of goode City a and y sufficient met, the Petitioner will submit d byttthe City in a sum equal to twenty maintenance bond in the form approverice to provide for correction of any percent (20X) of the contract p n4nce becoming apparent or arising within one year defective work or mainte City- after final acceptance of the public improvements by the City. 10. Upon receipt of certification. by the Department of Public Works that all year Maintenance Bond, the City requirements have been met, and a one y subject to the Council agrees to accept the public improvements, period of requirement of correction of deficiencies and maintenance for a one year. 11. That the Petitioner, in consideration of the City's approval o£ the ct does sanitary save, h ld e eby covenantsewer tand agree to boundarieshin the application to construa easements held by the C Y+ its officers, agents and employees, for harmless and indemnify the Ci damages, and each and Pvery other obligation and from all claims, demands, g his officers, that can or could arise from the o e$fros trespasof s upon Petitioner, outside agents, contractors and employees, if any, of the easement area, including attorney's fees and such cos ndsuchs claims, with necessarily incurred by the City indefending against be made whole with respect to / the intent and purpose that the City sefen t any amounts it may be required to pay to be held liable for iconnection .n with the exercise of the Privileges afforded Petitioner to utilize the area within the City's easement for sewer construction purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement pursuant to authority vested in each of them. PETITIONER: S. tx J. Builders, Ltd. (Attached Acknowledgment Hereto) CITY OF TIGARD:7 ftp T ,. May � IL��� '4 J, R corder (JH:pm/0959P) 3 _ cc 16. o 3 ul I i _ IVA z.^c E D it `> // ✓ 17 1 . ot � I Q 2 0 PARTNER (S) ACKN0`,Vl,F,D-.lH'l vT f STATE OF ()�lh-GON 6S. ('Ul.iNTY OF WASHINGTON _ _) 28th } c>f _January ROBERT G. JOHNSON to ::.e S & J BUILDERS, LTD. a 1)i4.r1 i.,, .•r, ho l'.Xi'i.'i1t C'd LhC firm. ti IN herE-unto -It my i•,:'i,d i.; d a ; f ixod my of f ilial -•+,al .+,d �:ay 1+ ilfj )'+ .+ r t :i`_;t .:'t:,�, i• ,1 ,• i i t .-^ , ';ot ary P;cl,l is I or +c , i } i r e s 11-7-86 1 Mal UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK Ut- UKtIiUN International Banking Division -P. O. Box 4412, Portland,Oregon 97208 slow IRREVOCABLE STANDBY Telex No.: 360540 USNB INTL PTL. LETTER.OF CREDIT Cable Address: UNITBANK City of Tigard DATE February 1, 1985 12755 S.W. Ash Tigard, Oregon 97223 NUMBER S- Tigard, 7144. `s s AMOUNT. US$12,200.00**US Dollars a M GENTLEMEN: `o � We hereby authorize you to draw z° on UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON,PORTLAND.OREGON `o_ for account of S & J Builders Ltd. 5355 S.W. Murray Blvd. a Beaverton, Oregon 97005 L up to an aggregate amount of Twelve Thousand, Two Hundred and no/100 US Dollars a available by your draft at SIGHT `o accompanied by the following documents: A signed statement from the beneficiary stating the following: "We certify that the funds drawn are required relating to the Street Dedication Compliance Agreement dated January 28, 1985." SPECIAL CONDITION: In thee vent tla S & J Builders Ltd. (the Petitioner) shall fail , neglect or refuse a to proceed with the work in an orderlyand progressive manner to assure completion within the time limited, upon ten (10days' notice by the City to the Petitioner and eU—k default a►.t; failure to proceed continuing thereafter, the City may at its option proceed to have the work completed and charge the costs thereof against the Petitioner U and draw on the said letter of credit number 5--07144 to recover the amount thereof. a t: G 4 Drafts must be drawn.negotiated and presented at this office on or before February 1, 1986. U E Each draft must state that it is"Drawn under United States National Bank of Oregon,Portland,Oregon E Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No.S- 0 7 1 4 4 We hereby engage with you that drafts drawn and/or documents presented under and in compliance with the terms of this Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit will be duly honored upon pre=entation to us. a Subject to Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits(1983 Revision), UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OREGON International Chamber of - Commerce,Publication No.400. aooe oa Authonted Signature David E. Eriakss©n 16-3958 a�si Asst. Vice Pres. & UC Mgr. o T y �• T � u x o _ u u 1 d u u m W y V 6 l .•P •r G it a n k m .p�,! u E6� �t�$ w � «�'gp77� a} 0 5Eb s c �t•}j• a�[