The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/17/1985 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate y JUNE 17,' 1985, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s)., If no sheet is available, FOWLER JUNIOR NIGH: ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items 30865 SW WALNUT TIGARD. OREGON 97223 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. 1. SPECIAL MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Ag*ella Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: SW 70TH d. HAMPTON STREET VACATION o Public Hearing Opened o Summation by Deputy Recorder nests, Cross-Examination o Public Testimony: Proponents, Oppo O _ Recommendation of Deputy Recorder - o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration 6 Action of City Council Vacation Request o ORDINANCE NO. 85- - Ordinance Approving 4. 1964-85 AUDIT AGREEMENT o Presentation of Certificate of Conformance O Finance Director 5. PERFORMANCE AUDITING DISCUSSION o Finance Director 6. MUNICIPAL COURT WORKSHOP 6 CODE REVISIONS - ORDINANCE NO. 85-__ o Deputy Recorder 7. REVENUE MANUAL REPORT C Administrative Assistant 8. COUNCIL. COMMUNITY RELATIONS DISCUSSION 8.1 Volunteerism 8.2 Boardmanship 8.3 Community Relations o City Administrator 9. CONSENTAGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and maybe thatt an items bem removedon lby motion thout separate discussion and nseparayone te action. Motion to: 9.1 Approve Council Minutes - 6/10/85 9,2 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions 9.3 Receive and File 911 Revenue Report and P.ecommendations 9.4 Award Bids - Mower and Sewer Cleaner 9.5 Approve Street Dedication Compliance Agreement - Rimkeit - 121st Avenue 9.6 Approve Winterlake Sidewalk Bond Reduction - Gordon Hobbs - Release $2,649.84 9,7 Approve Crow Lease 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 11, EXECUTIVE SESSION: Tigard City Council will go into Executive tiv consider Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) and labor relations and pending litigation issues. ^ 12. ADJOURNMENT lw/2793A `COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 17, 1985 - PAGE 1 i , ai T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, and Phil Edin; City Staff: Frank Currie, City Engineer, Bob Jean, City Administrator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Jerri Widner, Finance Director (left at 9:00 P.M.); and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator synopsized status of agenda items and requested the following be discussed under non-agenda: .1 Metzger Neighborhood Meeting Re: Annexation ,2 Metro Solid Waste Report - Transfer Sites .3 Miscellaneous Reports b. Mayor Cook added the following: 4 Civic Center Groundbreaking Report 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Tom Cornilles, 10905 SW Tigard Street, presented a petition and letter requesting waiver of appeal fee opposing the extension of 108th Avenue as approved in the Director's Decision MLP 8-85. b. After lengthy discussion, Councilor Brian moved to conditionally waive the appeal fee until staff can furnish Council wish further facts in the matter at the 6-24-85 meeting. Motion seconded by Councilor Edin. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - 70TH 6 HAMPTON STREET VACATION a. Public Hearing Opened b. Deputy Recorder synopsized request noting utility companies were notified of the request. i C. Public Testimony: j o Fred Schriever, petitioner, requested approval and noted area would be used for parking and landscaping for development on his lot. o Geraldine Ball, NPO #4 Chairman, stated the NPO recommended approval of the request. d. Deputy Recorder stated Planning Commission, the City Engineer, and staff recommended approval. e. Public Hearing Closed Page 1 -`COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 17, 1985 f. ORDINANCE NO. 85-25 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 20 FOOT PORTION OF SW 70TH AVENUE AT HAMPTON STREET AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. g. Motion by Councilor Edin, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 5. _ 1984-85 AUDIT AGREEMENT a. Finance Director presented the Certificate of Conformance which the City was awarded. She introduced Mr. John_ Dethman from Coopers and Lybrard. 4 b. Mr. Dethman noted the agreement terms for the 84-85 audit by his j firm. He discussed ways in which more information could be given to Council during the audit process. C. Councilor Edin, Finance and Audit Representative for Council, stated that the Council hasn't given a forum to Coopers and Lybrand in the past for informal information sharing. This year he will be discussing issues relating to the audit with Mr. Dethman and then reporting back to the Council those items which are of most concern. d. City Administrator noted staff's support of this process and recommended approval of the audit agreement e. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to approve an agreement with Coopers & Lybrand for the 1984-85 audit with a cost not to exceed $15,700. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. PERFORMANCE AUDITING DISCUSSION a. Finance Director presented information received from Price Waterhouse and Pacific Economica, Inc, regarding rate studies for waste water for the City. She stated the end product of the study should be an ordinance or resolution which sets out the criteria for rate making, b. City Administrator stated there is $10,000 in the 85-86 budget for a performance audit. He discussed time frames, citizens committee, and the development of the scope of the project for the committee and the consultant's responsibilities. C. After lengthy discussion, Councilor Brian noted concerns regarding the study and wished to discuss this issue at a later date. d. Consensus of Council was to bring item back at 6/24/85 meeting for further _consideration and directed staff to prepare information outlining the committee and consultant's scope of the project/study and a problem statement. �..L" Jam. JUNE 17, 1985 Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES 7. MUNICIPAL COURT WORKSHOP 6 CODE REVISIONS a. Deputy Recorder/Court Administrator synopsized memo in packet noting growth related challenges faced by the Court, the streamlining efforts, and reported on current legislation affecting Municipal Court. She also synopsized the code revisions and recommended Council approval. Judge Pelay and the new Court Clerk, Linda Estrada, were introduced to the Council. b. Judge Pelay offered his support of the streamlining efforts and noted dramatic changes have occurred with the increased caseload in the court -systen over the last year. He expressed concern regarding the decorum of the Court and stated with the new Civic Center, Court would be able to be even more efficient and effective. He stressed the importance of locally trying cases instead of sending them to District Court and invited the Council to attend an evening session to view the process first—hand. C. ORDINANCE N0, 85-26 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.16, 2.20, 2.24, 2.26, AND 2.32 AND ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL COURT FUNCTIONS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY d. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. REVENUE MANUAL REPORT i a. Mayor Cook noted this item would be set over to July. FINANCE DIRECTOR LEFT: 9:00 P.M. 9. COUNCIL COMMUNITY RELATIONS DISCUSSION a. City Administrator discussed when this item could be reset for Council discussion in a workshop setting. Consensus of Council was to set a date and requested Administrator report back on 6/24/85. 10. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be f enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 10.1 Approve Council Minutes — 6/10/85 10.2 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions 10.3 Receive and File 911 Revenue Report and Recommendations 10.4 Award Bids — Mower and Sewer Cleaner 10.5 Approve Street Dedication Compliance Agreement — Rimkeit — 121st s _ Avenue 10.6 Approve Winterlake Sidewalk Bond Reduction Gordon Hobbs - Release $2,649.84 10.7 Approve Crow Lease ,. Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — JUNE 17, 1985 a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edin to approve Consent Agenda with 10.3 being pulled and considered :at 6/24/85 meeting and 9.4 being amended to show Sewer Cleaner bid awarded to General Equipment at $52,011.10 and Gang Reel Mower/Tractor awarded to Bull Equipment at $28,500.00. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 11.1 Metzger Neighborhood Meeting Re: Annexation City Administrator stated a meeting would be held on 6125/85 with the Metzger residents to discuss annexation issues. Associate Planner Liz Newton and he would be attending on behalf of the City. fie encouraged the Councilors to attend and stated Council should consider adding this item to their goals list for the year. 11.2 Metro Solid Waste Report Transfer Sites City Administrator presented letter from MSD and stated the City has been asked to give input on the transfer sites being considered. Consensus of Council was to have staff notify MSD of their desire to be kept advised of the progress in transfer site selection since no sites are within the Tigard area. 11.3 Miscellaneous Reports o City Administrator noted meeting with County regarding "pay-as-you-go" road system for June 20th. o City Administrator urged Council call Paul Phillips encouraging support of H82938 which allows a portion of the lottery dollars to be used for match of federal dollars for transfer sites. He also urged Council to question the passage of N82855 which would prohibit local ordinances regulating loaded firearms. O City Administrator discussed times the Transportation Committee's Forum would be aired on cable channel 12 over the next few weeks. o City Administrator discussed Sorg Lease for Library and said that the Trust Investment Officer suggested raising the lease amount from $1200/mo. to $1248/mo. and questioned whether the City would be removing the heating system upon termination of the lease. Administrator recommended the Council may want to agree to $1200/month lease payments and leave the heat system in the building with lease cancellation date flexible for move to Civic Center. Consensus of 'Council was to have Legal Counsel prepare agreement with terms as recommended by Administrator. O City Administrator noted that in the 85-86 budget request there will be a new position requested which is funded from the cash carryover from Community Development. This is a Planner/Tech. I who will be responsible for the Community Development Counter work. Page 4 -"COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 17 1985 t is Council expressed some concern regarding ability of entry level ' person to be able to serve Planning, Building, and Engineering adequately as a troubleshooter. Community Development 'Director will report at the next meeting. 11.4 Civic Center Groundbreaking Report Mayor Cook stated 50 to 60 people attended the groundbreaking ceremonies and the contractor` is scheduled to begin the project z -- within the week. RECESS: Council Meeting at 9:32 P.M. 12, EXECUTIVE SESSION: Tigard City Council, at 9:38 P.M. , went into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (t) (d) and (1) (h) to consider labor relations and pending litigation issues 13. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 P.M. € 6Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard ATTEST: f - tlayor City of Tigard lw/2888A Page 5 COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 17, 1985 Eke �F_WmmTIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legg! 7_64b8 P.O_BOX 370 PHONE(503)884-0360 C®VEDVBEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 � Legal Notice Advertising s • 0 Tearsheet Notice City ,of, Tigard PO Box 23397 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, OR 97223 e • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as 1, Ja.couelyn Agee being first duty sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director,or his principal clerk,of the TigFLrd a newspaper of general circulation as defined In ORS 193.010 and 193.020;published at T i g a:r d in the aforesaid county and state;that the City Counsil Meeting i a printed copy of which is hereto annexed,was published in the i entire Issue of said newspaper for 3 successive and consecutive in the following issues: C June 13, 1985 _ r- June ' 1985 ' q ae cribysr1 a fore mthis Notary Public for Oregon My,eomm ssion Expires', 9/20/88 AFFIDAVIT 41 oMfl X' �y J AGENDA ITEM # — VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE (� (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The; Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you. -1 NAME, KESS 6 AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION + V` DATE I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following,item: (Please print the information)- Item Description: /0 "`r' /�a�nff�`a►. P"L r; ea Y i ►r• Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation CAA 3 R tol Tigard Planning Department rtment June 14th, 1985 Tigard City Hall (Y\L P S' 12755 S.W. Ash C/o William A. Monahan S S Dear Sir, This letter and petition is in regards to the notice I and several of my neighbors received recently telling of the decision being proposed regarding the division of Joseph and Glenda Jacobs' 1.48 Acre parcel of land located at 10905 S.W. Tigard street. (Washington County Tax map 1S1 34DD, Tax Lot 800). The division of that land is totally acceptable, but we are definit- ely making .this an official appeal to the Engineering Division's proposal of running S.W. 108th Ave Southerly "through the Northerly, portion of the applicants tract, to pwovide for future connection to S.W. Tigard Street." You also mentioned on page one of the notice, Section 4-A at the bottom, that this continuation of 108th Ave "would be in the best interest of the tial connection of S.W. 108th through to Tigard .community to extend the par n. It is street." We want you to know that we will. not let that happe ( not in the best interest of us, the surrounding neighbors. we also feel that if you would take the time to come and see for yourself how terrible it would be for the residence of the existing home located on the applicants IXoPosed 0.58 upper parcel, there would be no question in your mind either that the street should never come through. We appreciate you revetwing this letter, and hope that you understand how important it is that this proposal be forgotten. Sincerely, f 9 , - 7 c CONTINUED PAGE ##2 PAGE #2 offY t/JAS sa) /0 ' ' /4?g.5 a 5,t,.J, •t/�r � �z It'o _5f. j 0 / CONTINUED M 3 a y PAGE #3 u �; 6AD CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 17 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: On 5/13/85 Council ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 70th& Hampton Initiated Request & Set Hearing Street Vacation Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson REQUESTED BY: Council DEPARTMENT HEAD OR: CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE Council has already set policy foi -initiating vacation requests, and the ORS and TMC set out requirements to hear and either approve or disapprove requests. INFORMATION SUMMARY Mr. Frederick Schriever contacted the City in December, 1984 and requested vacation of a 20 foot parcel of right-of-way along SW 70th Avenue. Staff investigated the request and found no reason to stop the request._ Utility companies and "other jurisdictions offered no concerns regarding the proposed vacation within the 20 foot parcel. Mr. Schriever has paid all fees and charges for this vacation request. City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-29 on May 13, 1985 initiating the request and calling for a public hearing to be held on June 17, 1985 at 7:30 PM. Staff published this item in the Tigard Times and notified all abutting and affected property owners by mail. The Planning Commission and City Engineer recommend approval with the following condition: this vacation should not be effective until the 31st day after the hearing and it shall not be effective until a certified copy of the vacation ordinance has been recorded with the Washington County clerk, assessor and surveyor. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the ordinance approving the vacation request. 2. Request staff to prepare resolution denying proposed vacation based on objections and remonstrances received during the public hearing. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff would recommend adoption of the attached ordinance if no objections or remonstrances are received during the public hearing lw/2817A May 16, 1985 CIS'0 F T16ARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Re: 70th & Hampton Proposed Right-of-way Vacation Hearing Dear .Property Owner: The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 17, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at 'Fowler 'Junior High School Lecture Room, 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon to consider the proposed vacation of a 20 foot strip of SW 70th Avenue right-of-way at SW Hampton Street. (See enclosed location map.) Any interested person imay appear and be heard for or"against the proposed vacation of said lands. Any written objection or remonstrance shall be filed with the City Recorder by June 12, 1985 at 3:00 P.M. at Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash Avenue,' PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, The vacation request was 'initiated on May 13, 1985 by the Tigard City Council at the request of Elm Street Investments, (Mr. Frederick H. Schriever) to accommodate new site work planned for tax lot 1100. Thelegaldescription of the parcel to be vacated is described as follows: That portion of SW 70th Avenue, being 20 feet wide and 154.42 feet long, and abutting lot 17 of Beveland No. 2 Subdivision. Said lot is on the corner of SW 70th Avenue and SW Hampton Street in Tigard, Oregon. If-you-meed further information, please contact my office. Sinc,,erely, Loreen Wilson Deputy City Recorder lw/2784A CCs Community Development Director City Engineer 12755 S.W.ASH P_O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 C 2500I 2400 OG 9101 STREET VACATION 17 Sim _ FOR -T-7 - T T t-T.T T SCHRIEVER 1 �.�•v�.••Atfec ted•• Bt.�.e _ oi. 8- n.�d.�•1.. property boundar? 1 ! .1 I / (is'XT20 2 :2A41 _ —Wash. Co. Ta: Map 2S1 IAB Map 2S1 IAA , —_Map Boundaries I., W .. — .. • tr ®..Abutting.. ovnerc Map 2S1 IAD 0 300 100 • 2600 •'Affected•' owners 1 e 9 . 2 7 O " 6Q 19 O too i� •' a:• ap• '.IS"T" R E E T >r 2000 • 16 ' 2900 � 2100 . ••!. 22oc _ rz00 1100 kREA To 13 E, 7-INi .- i� • � � 3 Scale Vit" 100' .6 �! 17 2s 2 101 1 •r. < Q it lei 20 21 22 23 24 25 •1 tt• is tc• to te• ai • s " aTPEET 1 r ; I S w >: HA: Tl 1t,•00 ! I T r T T , T - 1 • .1 T r .1 Y T Y ra NKK D.t Ita O t It 4':9 A C' 3100 a I 1 se 3200 ae as w as i 1213� ig 15-1 4-IT ILI i_ -�---� 9 36 to 35 I 0 34' 121 X33 - : 13 X32 14 31 1S 3c } --- ' 1 WE 11.wr rt.. m a... alaan ay..�a ' -1 ~• 17 2 4 or- 3 to 27 .IT� lTTTT1 TTT - 1 Pill120121 122123 24l23� t�' to jii l L L l Lts sa�asla•�ae•l1:s•.Las•ss•is11'.� x >. J Robert A. & Shirley A. Lucas 7020 `;W Gonzaga Tigard, OR 97223 Charles C. & Joyce M. Hagel 7035 SW Hampton a Tigard, OR 97223 Alfred F. & Dianne M, Kindrick 12560 'SW 70th Avenue Tigard OR 972.23 Von 0. Carstens 12565 SW 69th Avenue Portland, OR 97223 Gilbert & Verna J. Taylor 7060 SW Beveland Tigard, OR 97223 Grant F. Hicks 7086 SW Beveland Tigard, OR 97223 Neal A Nulton 7025 SW Gonzaga Tigard, OR 97223 Jacob F. & Marian Jean Gieszler 7075 SW Gonzaga Tigard, OR 97223 Jacob F. Gieszler 7070 SW Gonzaga Tigard, OR 97223 Donald A. Vredenburgh 7125 SW Hampton Tigard, OR 97223 Sunset Terrace Apartments Verdugo Parkview Apartments By Howard F. Ruby 2222 Corinth Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90064 Donald E. Pollock David A. Tozer, Linda Stupfel 10211 SW Barbur Blvd. #202 8770 SW Thorn Portland, OR 97219 Tigard, OR 97223 Donald E. Pollock & Roy L. 'Sims 12775 SW 69th Avenue James R. & Eddine C. Slaver Tigard, OR 97223 177 w 10211 SW Barbur Blvd. #202 Portland, OR 97219 John A. & Wanda Anne Beland Portland Fed. Employees C.U. Attn: John Camp 17225 SW Blanton P.O. Box 4267 Aloha, OR 97007 Portland, OR 97209 MEMORANDUM // CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON 1, TO; City Council June 13, 1985 FROM: Planning Staff + ( SUBJECT: Street Vacation SW 70th north of Hampton On June 4, 1985, the Planning Commission met and reviewed the above mentioned StreetVacation. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to forward the proposal to City Council with a recommendatiun for approval Motion passed unanimously by _Commissioners present. Commissioners Fyre and Bergmann were absent 01486P dmj yx mr �8��8�®8�i®814'R 1 - AGENDA ITEM4. MEMORANDUM t, CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON TO: Planning Commission June 4, 1985 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT, Street Vacation - SW 70th north of Hampton Mr. Fred Schriever, owner of Tax Lot 1100 on the West side of 70th north of SW Hampton wishes to vacate a 20 foot strip of right-of-way on 70th adjacent to his property. Mr. Schriever wants to reclaim the property to accommodate parking and landscaping as part ,f a new building development. At Mr. Schriever's request, the City Council initiated the vacation process. Mr. Schriever has paid all of the necessary fees to advertise and process the vacation request According to the new street vacation process, the Planning Commission is required to forward a recommendation to the City Council based on compliance or noncompliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. The applicable plan policies are as follows: 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND + SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. The proposal complies with policy because a public notice is being published in the Tigard Times for 5 consecutive weeks. In addition, a public hearing will be held before City Council on June 17, 1985. NPO # 4' will review the proposal at their June 5, 1985, meeting. 8.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. 8.1.2 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA THROUGH COOPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. The proposal complies with policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 because vacation of the 20 feet of right-of-way will not be detrimental to the existing or proposed transportation system in the area. The right-of-way width on 70th in front of Mr. Schriever's property is 50 feet. Mr. Schriever's proposal would reduce the right-of-way width in front of his property to JO feet. In addition, SW 70th is an unimproved right-of- way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. F 1450P/dmj { Y �. 29 .•r.. STREET YAGT ION 2500 ?..400 !WI q gods P R SCHRIEVER is v1 T s»amom•m"At(ecced" property Eoundary • la.acxxlat L2 4ti .--Wash. Co. Tax Nap 2S1 IAi< map�2S1 IM ) rf• lisp Boundaries 1 r' .. • •. r• sf "Abutting" owners 100 11 •i Kap 251 IAO a 2600 "Affected" owners e , (STREET tOOO , 46 1000 �— =� a ` 2900 • , tzot rp r�oo s l oo RF1�Ta E ffi .'•'- Sea too* 1" t00'�- S Z5 Nw. •.ZS I�t �1 �'A AM 2324 is mf [a age, as ale a to •• tz iTPEET SW HA: It 2 TL lf�gO Ic TT T v 'r ► • .! r s .• * v if 4.4f Ar– a• as FW FM 1 ® ! 3100 �' M.1�. a�� M_Ilt1*14 �514i f?t Ll' II 341 10 31L ' Ib a3 -- . -�- . �-- 32 4 X30. , Is an r Ag M!o1>�slaaaa�waerosa�mi ( ��$® ` • ZT JITTTTr � TTT 7 Li L i.a° aeL11,14aa• aelas•nr 4 ONO • cam, J June 4, 1955 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ON PROPOSED VACATION OF SW 70TH AVENUE JUST NORTH OF S.W. HAMPTON The City Engineer recommends the vacation known as "S.W. 70th Avenue" just north of S.W. Hampton Street be approved without condition. This recommendation is based on 'findings that (a) there is no effect on traffic, pedestrian or bicycle circulation, in that said S.W. 70th Avenue is undeveloped at the present time, and is not a part of any plan for future transportation needs. No response was received from fire or police relative to response time. Drainage in the area can be adequately provided for without use of the subject street, and, no response was received from any utility company relative to existing or proposed facilities; (b) the proposed vacation is not contrary to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, and; (c) is not contrary to the Capital Improvements Plan. i C +,t (FAC:br/1446P) certified Public accountants 2700 First National 972Q1k Tower in principal areas of the world Coopers J ftrtl&Lybrand telephone«,227436W June 13, 1985 Mr. Robert Jean, City Administrator City of Tigard, Oregon P. 0. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Jeans We are pleased to have the opportunity to again provide ding audit services for the Citexamination will be r made egon f�n conformity r the year nwith Jure - 30, 198t3, Our ex generally accepted accounting principles and tae Minimum Standards for Audit of Oregon Municipal Corporations'. Billings for our services will not `exceed $15,700 providing City person satisfactorily complete requested schedules by August 19, 1985. We will issue our audit report not later than September 30, ` with a management letter containing comments and 1985 together recommendations regarding City operations we become aware of during the audit. We look forward to working with you and the City Council. Very truly yours, Coopers & Lybrand by: /rj cc: Jeri Widner -k z,. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council June 10, 1985 FROM Doreen Wilson, Recorder/Court Administrator Qu) SUBJECT: Municipal Court Workshop On July 1, 1484, Tigard Municipal Court was placed under my supervision. Upon looking at the court function, I found that revenues were below average for a court with our caseload, the process system for ran the caseload load was administrativecumbersome, and there were many concerns by court, Police, taff regarding whether or not to even continue Tigard Municipal Court. As a few years have passed since I have been involved with the Municipal Court function on a daily basis, the first few weeks were spent in: researching state and local _law require Jud a CourtiClerk,rh and courts and viewing Police management staff�r process; and working with the Judge, After studying the Court functions and concerns, time was spent "revising the give the court a more professional image, and process, developing ways to working with all involved staff members to eliminate misunderstandings. The City has not had a Court Administrator for some time. State laws have changed, but these changes were not incorporated into our court system. There is always a liability risk when changes in the laws are not implemented. This experience has proven to staff that Court Administrator/Supervisor is essential to run an efficient, up-to-date This first year a great deal of time has been spent accomplishing revisions in the court process. i_anticipate much time being spent this next fiscal year, also, but at two separate times: (1) July to September - training the new Court Clerk who is to be hired by 7-1-85: and (2) December to March - accomplishing` the move to the civic center, changing all forms, and changing the docketing process should night-time court be discontinued. The discontinuance, or reduction, of night-time court sessions is an issue which needs to be considered before the move to the Civic Center. The major advantages and disadvantages to this change would be: advantages - staff would not be working nights and the Town Hall room would not be tied up two nights a week for court: disadvantaaes - defendants would find it difficult to get off work to appear for arraignments and this could increase suspensions for failure to appear, increased court staff time in processing cases since Judge would not be clearing as much of the workload in Court, and it seems court staffing would need to be increased so that one clerk can attend court sessions while the other clerk 'mans' the court counter for walk-ins, caseload processing, and phone calls. At this time, I'm not prepared to speak to this proposed change, but wanted you to know staff is studying the issue. asp ez � Page 2 Municipal Court Workshop With Council ( June 10, 1985 There are two issues currently being addressed by this session of the legislaturewhich directly affect Municipal Court. o One is 'a Joint interim Judiciary Committee Draft to set requirements for the hiring of indigent defense attorneys. We currently pay an ,IDD attorney $75.00 to $150.00 per case. The Legislature is considering a change to the QRS which would require the City to pay an hourly rate for such services. If this is passed, the cost to the City will increase at least double what our current code requires. ointments per year over Municipal Court is averaging 28 IDD attorney app p y the last four years. At that figure, attorneys under the current code would cost '$4200/year and under the proposed law would cost $8400/year or more. I will keep you informed as information is available on this matter. o The second bill being considered is forming a' Special Courts Advisory Committee (HB 2981) which will b2 commissioned to study issues relating to court merges,- specifically Municipal Court with District Court. - (This may be just the tip of the iceberg since LCOC started in this same manner.) Municipal Court has major traffic cases processed by District Court now, and the City receives 50% of the revenue generated from the cases. If Municipal Court were operated under District Court, jurisdiction in the future, it seems fair to assume that little revenue would be returned to the City. Based on next year's revenue and expenditure projections, revenue from Municipal Court will cover the court's expenditures and still allow approximately $30,000 revenue to supplement funding the Police Department. Again, as this issue evolves, more information will be sent to Council. Attached is a review of the performance indicators for Municipal Court. From this information you will see that the traffic caseload has increased 214% in the last five fiscal years with the case clearance rate swinging from 62% for the Judge and 38% for the Clerk to 50.7% for the Judge and 49.37E for the Clerk (as of 5/31/85). The traffic caseload increase is mainly due to the motorcycle enforcement program with hazardous infractions (i.e. fail to yield right—of-way, speeding, traffic signal infractions) making up the majority of that caseload. The misdemeanor caseload has averaged, over the last four fiscal years, 140.5 cases per year. As of May 31, 1985, there have been 178 cases filed in Municipal Court. This change is partially due to an increased activity by private detectives hired by various business establishments in the City. Since misdemeanors are usually tried as crimes, the Judge clears each case. The offenses most usually filed with the Court are Thefts and Minors In Possession. T. s y hus PP page 3 Municipal Court Workshop With Council June 10. 1985 This overall caseload increase is especially significant since the Court Clerk position was filled by 1.5` FTE's through 'FY 1982-83 and there 'is only 1 FTE since.then. The ratio of-1 FTE/#-of cases filed since 1980-81 is as follows: 1980-81 1/1,269 1981-82 1/1.267 1982-83 1/1,439 1983-84 1/3,536 1984-85 1/3,632 (as of 5/31/85) This makes a 286% increase in caseload handled per employee in court over the lastfive years, or more dramatically, a '252% increase in the last two years! (This figures includes the assistance of a part-time office aide in court for a portion of this year assisting with form typing, data entry, and filing.) That increase alone would explain why the old case process system was outdated and inadequate, the case backlog was increasing, Court was not cost efficient, andstaffwas questioning whether Court should continue to be supported under the jurisdiction of the City or sent to 0istrict Court for processing. In the FY 1985-86 'budget, there is funding for an additional .5 FTE (Office Assistant I) for Court. That would bring the ratio of FTE/# of cases to 1/2876 for next fiscal year based on the projected case increase. n. The court is also experiencing an increase in diversion and civil compromise This involves our Legal Counsel and will increase requests on misdemeanors. their cost to support the Municipal Court function. Another area of increased workload is the number of license suspensions processed by the Court. In the last four years, we have increased suspensions by 241%. The suspension increase is not out of line in comparison to the increase in caseload, however, each suspension represents a citation being handled at least six times and involves time from the Court Staff and the Accounting Section. Since suspensions have increased, and the Court was not recovering costs for that process, a reinstatement charge of $20.00 is now required before the license is cleared. With the increase in caseload it was evident that there would be an increase in the hours actually spent in court sessions with the Judge. However, while the caseload has increased 286%/FTE the hours in court have only increased 202%. This indicates, as discussed earlier, the Court Clerk is clearing a greater percentage of the traffic cases than occurred in past years. Following are some examples of streamlining and cost reduction which have been implemented .over the last few months: a o The Misdemeanor Arraignment hearings have been scheduled in conjunction with trials on a weekly basis so Court holds sessions twice a week instead of three times. The court session hours were also -changed. Court was beginning at 7:00 P.M. and running until 9:00. Now court starts at 4:30 >> and 5:30 and runs two hours. This has been a great help in that staff is 3 not working as late in the evening and doesn't have to wait around after work for court to begin. Page A Municipal Court Workshop With Council June 10, 1985 o The Clerk was determining how to try the crimes and determining what witnesses tosubpoenato trial to support the City's_case. The arresting officer now decides who should be subpoenaed and I make the decision how to try the crimes. This relieves the Clerk of some additional workload and also some responsibility for trials and misdemeanors heard by the Court. o Bail and Fine schedules were updated by the Judge. We are now assessing fines which meet the minimum requirements in ORS 153.623. This accounts for the marked increase in revenues over last year. As the statutes change so will our :i%hedules. - o As each traffic citation is received, the fine amount is noted on the face of the citation. This keeps consistency in the fine amount being assessed whether by the Judge or by the Clerk. o One trial night a month is now being scheduled for the two motorcycle enforcement officers since they issue 43.2% of the total traffic citation caseload. This eliminates them appearing two or more times a month for trial and helps decrease the Police Department overtime cost. o Staff is working with the Baptist Church to eliminate some of the difficulties they are experiencing with Court being held in their facilities. They have stated Court will be able to use the social building until the Civic Center is completed. Rent increased from $20.00 per session to $40.00. This is still cost effective when compared to the other alternatives we have. o Court decorum has been, at the best, informal over the last few years. With court being held in a church building, it is more difficult_to have court perceived as professional and serious in nature. The Judge is now wearing a robe to improve the image the court makes on the community, however, the decorum will not be greatly changed until we relocate. The relocation to the Civic Center will not only help establish a better court decorum but will allow better service to the community during court sessions with records located in the same building. o One difficulty in court was the time lag between the citation issuance and the first arraignment date. Citations were scheduled for hearings 1 1/2 to 2 months after issuance. With a 1 month set-over after a defendant missed the first arraignment date, a citation would not be ready for suspension or clearance for almost 4 months from the issuance date. There were a lot of defendants which staff was unable to contact because of this length of time. Citations are now scheduled for the first arraignment night within two weeks of issuance and set-over for the second arraignment within'another two week period. Revenue over the last two years has increased with the caseload increase and the change in the fine schedule. In 1983-84, $60,000 was anticipated for revenue in court and $62,870 was actually, received. , By 4/30/84 80.7% of the total revenue had been received. In 1984-85, _$45,000 was anticipated for Page 5 Municipal Court Workshop With Council June 10,' 1985 t court revenue and as of 4/30/85 $103,271 was received. If this again indicates 80.7% of thetotalrevenue for this year, I would project $123,202 would be received by the end of the fiscal year. This would be an increase of 196% over last year's revenue when there was only an increase in the caseload betweenthe two years of 14%. Lowana Murray, our Court Clerk, has submitted her resignation which was effective 6-7-85. We are sorry to lose Lowana, but know that she gave the decision much thought and felt this move was best for her and her family. With ,the resignation of Lowana, a training period will be needed for the new Court Clerk. ide additional time for staff to study This will, however, prow the court functions 'from the bottom up` and assist in the assessing of the operating procedures for that desk. The changes made in our court process and the ORS need to be in the Tigard Municipal Code. Attached is a copy of the revisions which have been approved by Legal Counsel. If these changes meet with your approval staff would recommend adoption of the enclosed ;ordinance. An emergency clause has been included to make these changes effective immediately. Municipal Court has experienced many changes over the last year, however, we are not finished yet. Through the next year we plan to continue our progress in streamlining# become increasingly cost effective, and continue to develop �. performance measurements which truly reflect the court activity. lw/2816A - rF,- TIGARD MUNICIPAL COURT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TRAFFIC CASELOAD CASES TERMINATED FY CASES FILED % CLEARED BY JUDGE % CLEARED BY CLERK 1980-81 1,786 6296 38% 1981-82 1,733 58% 427E 1982-83 2,041 57% 437E 1983-84 3,375 49.776 50.37E 1984-85* 3,862 50.7% 49.3% ' 1985-86m* 4,314 — as of 5/31/85 * — caseload anticipated MISDEMEANOR CASELOAD FY CASES FILED 1980-81 118 1981-82 168 1982-83 115 1983-84 161 1984--85* 178 �f 1985=86** 195 — as of 5/31/85 ** — caseload anticipated LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FY SUSPENSIONS 1981-82 270 1982-83 190 1983-84 269 1984-85* 650 t i * - as of 5/31/85 HOURS IN COURT SESSION (With Judae Present) FY HOURS 1981-82 121.25 E 1982-83 121.00 1983-84 167.25 1984-85* 244.75 ` * _ as of 5/31/85 _ lw/2816A Ur V �F' x. woming Of toy' �iwtI ON C.. Thi!psrtlal 116t of VOur C" �'��'a nls dura tl+a Qast� ae�s a'partlasn art�r aHoRs ►maKs the CI4y of Beaverton a desk'" and - x Pleasant plate to uv*, - - ` � �� t�v��mrr�s��ngaid t� N eLoop, PLEASE CAALL�/t�lS WIITpi f YOUIst OBSERV,ATIIONS:&SU�G/GESTIONS Y SpaF,0 o Oi Wi�,�,..[ .' 6�99 E.iiTiQi t a WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING—150 N. FIRST AVENUE HILLSBORO, OREGON 47123 (503) 646.0601 BOARD OR COMMISSIONERSROOM 418 WES MYLLENBECK.Chairman BONNIE L. NAYS.Vice Chairman c EVA M.KILLPACK JOHN E.MEEK LUCILLE WARREN, April 10, 1985 To: ' All Interested Parties From: Commissioner Bonnie L. Hays Subject: Citizen Participation In the County's Goals and Objectives session in November,'1984, the Board of Commissioners adopted the following language as part of; priority'.Goal #1: ...to develop a comprehensive pian in regard to citizen participation leading to a 'coordinated-effort eliminating duplication and areas of neglect." On April 9, 1985, the Board adopted a timeline and format to bring to resolu- tion this:outstanding goal . We invite you to become a part of our process. Please see our adopted timeline (Attachment "A"). I am also enclosing several other items pertinent to this process. These include; specific proposals as developed by community groupsandindividual Citi- _ tens, as well as-a report and recommendation on Citizen Participation from Washington County's Committee for Citizen Involvement.' r. Because this issue is a priority for the Board, and, due to the very nature of the subject matter, requires maximum;exposure and input, the adopted timeline may be amended. You will be notified if such a change occurs. Thank you in advance for your consideration ofandparticipation in this process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call 648-868. r s r - r� e x . fi^ an 'equal.,,o r'? f^ pportunity employer 3 i M aF{ i1 _ T "A•• ATTACE0 � a .a� Adopted Time Line T CL N 4!S.44.a April 9 - Work Session discussion on project concept, formaty-a and timeline. Adopted. Directed distribution with cover T latter to: t 4-1 wb d Department Directors affiliated with Task Force members. •• --Current Advisory Committee/Task Force members City-Councils` and Managers chambers of Commerce -CPO/CCI c o --i+ledia +o �. 402). 7:30 p.m., Board Hearing Room May 1, Bound Table Presentatians before Board proposalsponsor, Meeting for: oral presnetations by followed by open questAns and answers. No formal testimony. Public encouraged to attend. ,y 2, 7:30 p.m. 9:30 p.m. PGE Auditorium, 'Murray Blvd. at Schalls Ferry Rd. Round Table Presentations before Board Commissioners. Meeting for oral presentations by can �, proms as 1 sponsor, followed by open questions answers. Na formal testimony. Public encouraged to i attend. C - tial Work Session. Utilizing the Week o£ May 13 17 SPe blit convent, Board develops proposals, input, and Pu ,, policy statement and program format for Citizen Defines roles of government and Participation. sled by scribner and approved °a co®unity. Product as comp Lby Board to be distributed for review and comment to 4jparties noted above (and to others per request). f Ct May 28 - Board Evening Meeting. 6:30 p.m. County Court Houdire Rom 409. Upon conclusion o£ hearing, implementation of approved Citizen Participation format (could take form of Resolution and Order, Ordinance, Charter amendment). �w _ 1 ' aim November 16, 1984 Was Myllenbeck, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Courthouse Hillsboro, ®R 97124 Dear Mr. Myllenbeck, The Committee for Citizen Involvement welcomes the opportunity tt offer proposals on how to most effectively expand our citizen planning organizations in order to improve citizen participation in making decisions concerning county government. You specifically asked how ,to better represent cities and the wssteri' end of our county. We offer suggestions in those two areas, as well as proposals to improve all citizen participation. A point our committee believes cannot be overemphasized is that it is necessary to have an effective organization that has a demonstrable effect in county decisions in order to broaden the base of citizen_participation. In order to have a more effective citizen organization we make the following proposals. 1. The Board of County Commissioners together with the CCI discuss R&O 80-108. We believe the R&O is a realistic approach. The discussion should include but not be limited to: a. communications and timeliness b. Initiation of action c. h community needs assessment program 2. Have regular monthly meetings between the Hoard of Commissioners and the steering committee of the CCI. 3. staff assistance should be provided on topics of interest to individual CPos. - Too often we are asked for suggestions in theabsenceof knowledgeable background. 4. The CCI needs to make sure that' CP®s take advantage of Commissioners' willingness to attend their meetings by extending invitations at appropriate times. continued- -2- 5. Letters from the CCI and CFOs should .receive a promp,. reply. Lack of response could be interpreted as disinterest. 6. The appointment of CPO representatives to task force committees, and that task force reports be sent to CPOs for commentbefore' the Board takes action. To expand the Ccl to each city we suggest including a representative and alternate. It is important that the representative come from the citizen sector and not the _governmental sector. It is our purpose to represent the views of the citizens to the governmental body. The city government shall provide the representative from their citizen involvement organization with all necessary information on pending action of interest to citizens in a timely manner. It is our hope that our plan will ,generate representatives from the cities' citizen involvement organizations because of their special perspective on county wide concerns. Regarding citizen participation in the western and of Washington County we suggest a new approach for this area. Realizing it is important that the people in the western end have an input in ,. county decisions, we suggest the Board designate a number of citizens as listening posts and as voting member to the CCI. There are three elements to this approach. 1. These people will be provided with information that has recently been promised to CPO chairmen. a* agenda of the Board b. Minutes of Board work sessions c. Summaries of reports that would be germane to their area 2. The Board will develop the proposed "key communicator" newsletter. A special effort will be made to develop a mailing list in the western end of our county. The names and phone numbers of "listening'post'people" will be published in those newsletters going to the west end. additional effort will be made to make "listening post people" known. It our hope,. with this effort, Community Manning Organizations will again be active in western Washington County. -continued- { 1, -3- We after'these proposals in conjunction with our earlier propria: dated April 19, 1984, so that combined with Board suggestions we may have an effective citizen organization that has a : constructive impact, on county=wide concerns. Sincerely, Gary�,Sundgcist,,`ehairman ComI'aittes for citizen Involvement mct Enclosures c. Commissioner Bonnie Hays CI,Imissiomer Eve Killpack Commissioner John leek Commissioner Lucille Warren Administrator' Don,Stilwell k D .d j _:v x Jr 12835 H. W. Laidlaw Rd. Portland, Oregon 97229 April 20, 1984 Mr. Wes Myllenbeck, Chairman Board of county Commissioners Court House Hillsboro,_Oregon 97123 Dear Mr. Myllenbecks' � zclosed is the CPO evaluation and our recommendations for improving the CPO program. Shortly after you took office you requested that the CPO Is and CCI identify areas of interest for future programs. After completion of the community plans the CCI and CPO's commenced a thorough evaluation of our needs and desires. This included CPO discussions, CCI discussions and the development and implementation of a survey to our identified membership. We believe that the results that we are presenting accurately reflect the CPO and CCI member's interests. . We are looking forward to working with you on this. Sincerely, L Ma rine Warneking Chairman Committee for Citizen Involvement cc:Eve Killpack Bonnie Bays John Meek Lucille Warren Donald Stil•We11. Charlie Cameron Attachments � 4 t r ^dt L ( ` CCI PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS *THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN CONCERT WITH THE CCI SHOULD DISCUSS R & 0 80-106 TO DETERMINE THE EXPECTATIONS, NEEDS AND DESIRES OF PARTICIPATING CITIZENS AS WELL AS THE COUNTY. DISCUSSIONS SHOULD INCLUDE THE ISSUES OF COM- MUNICATIONS AND TIMELINESS. It is clear in reviewing the survey results that CPO interest remains very high in land,use and transportation. Urban services and capital improve- ments were also rated highly. Fortunately, these issues will be centered in one dr-artment, Planning and Transportation. . Unfortunately, recent CCI evalua,4ons of land use and transportation planning activities have been criti- cal of the process. This may be a normal outcome of a very intense activity. Then again it may reflect some basic differences between what CPO participants and county officials expect from the program. The future success of citizen involvement in county government (especially in the areas of primary CPO interest) will rest upon an agreed to philosophy, expectations and structure of the program. The main focus of interest for the CPOs remains land use and the continuing function of monitoring the implementation of the community plans, comprehensive framework plan, and the development code, as well as any future changes to these documents. *A COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM SHOULD BE INSTITUTED. Through this process CPOs could identify needs related to roads/transportation, some urban services, capital improvements and public safety. Coordinated by a department or individual appointed by the Board, these need reports could be reviewed, ranked and possibly negotiated between CPOs and the appropriate departments. Final disposition of statements would be made by the Board. The "need report" is a reciprocal tool . It alerts the county to what a community needs and it requires that some action take place. At the same time it requires the CPO to identify and rank needs, suggest solutions, and describe possible sources of funding. *WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE CCI SHOULD EXPLORE THE DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF AN ANNUAL CITIZENS FORUM TO ASSIST COUNTY GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE CCI, IN IDENTIFYING ISSUES OF COUNTY-WIDE CONCERN AS WELL AS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. Written comments by survey participants indicate that either CPOs represent too narrow a group or that they should represent "neighborhood" interests, In either case it seems that both responses indicate that CPOs are geared to cam- munity, not county-wide issues. A community forum concept would help CPOs look at broader issues. At the same time it would provide county officials with an opportunity to gather input on issues of county-wide significance. It is not intended that the community forum should be mutually exclusive from the CPO program. CPOs should be involved in the planning and implementation of such a program. *THE COUNTY SHOULD ENCOURAGE CPO MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE ON COUNTY ADVISORY COMMITTEES. Those surveyed strongly indicated the desirability of CPO representation on county advisory committees. The county should make vacancies specifically known to CPOs. Community PlanningOrganization leadership should actively seek out persons to apply for these vacancies. "THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GCI AND SHERIFF, SHOULD EXPLORE THE CREATION OF A CRIME PREVENTION AND-NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM. Thes_- surveyed indicated an interest in CPOs addressing public safety_ issues. ` Historically, ,county.residents _rank`public safety as a .high priority matter, especially during the passage of county-wide serial levies. A -crime prevention and neighborhood watch program could have mutual benefits to the county and residents. The county (through the Sheriff's office) would gain valuable exposure in meeting and working with the public on an important and mutually agreeable issue cutting down on neighborhood crime. Citizens could learn ways to cut;down on crime while at the same time develop a`mechanism through which they could watch dog their neighborhood from a crime prevention standpoint. *COUNTY BUDGET As a first step an education and information program to inform the citizens of the budgetary process should be insituted. Possibly the needs assessment process or the community forumcould be integrated into a budgetary process. *EXPANSION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The CCI should explore the possibility and feasibility of expanding its membership to include representatives from cities. April 4, 1984 Steering Committee - CCI April 19, 1984, Amended Washington County Coormittee for {. Citizen Involvement t r w h • �a.aa,uesemerr. �SO i� VICE CPO SURVEY RESULTS The survey was administered during the month of December and during the first week of January. Approximately 1 ,471 persons were identified and sent surveys via the. Community Planning Organization newsletter. One hundred and sixty responded for a 10..8 percent response. ' Please keep in mind that the survey population was drawn from individuals primarily involved in a community-based -land use planning program. Thus, there may very well be a built-in bias towards the ranking of issues. On the other,hand the population, due to earlier, updates of the mailing list, represents*an"up-to-date and active group to survey. The population represents people who are actively involved in the CPO program via their participation at meetings or by receiving the CPO newsletter. A review of the responses (see CPO Percent of Total Response, p. .2) reveals that the majority of respondents came from east county with an unusually large response (31.3 percent) coming from CP0 I. While the total number of responses were broken fairly evenly between participation groupings (How long have you attended CPO meetings? P. 2) this was not the pattern found in individual CPOs. RANKED ISSUES By weighing and then ranking the data, two issues generated the greatest response: land use and transportation (ranked issuesp. 1). A comparision of these ranked issues to how individual CPOs ranked them (p. 3) confirms that a majority of CPOs ranked land use and transportation respectively. (This is further reinforced when the CPO 5 ranking is eliminated because it reflects the response of only one individual.) A second clustering of issues were identified by the respondents including capital improvements programing, urban services, county budget and public safety (in that order). However, the range in weighted scores between capital improvements and public safety was only 93. This indicates that these issues, while ranked relatively high, did not individually dominate at any particular level (i.e. 3-6). A comparison of the -ranked issues to individual CPO responses (p. 3) bears this out. The- individua? rankings in any.one CPO virtually have no distinct pattern. However, this second group of issues received a majority of rankings from III - VI. - This becomes more apparent when the single response from CPO 5 is eliminated. While it may be difficult to differentiate between the second group of four issues, it may be safe to assume that these issues are in the top six rankings. Regarding the question of whether there should be CPO representation on count/ advisory boards, the overwhelming response was yes. CONCLUSIONS Based within the limits .of•the survey approximately 10.8 percent of those people on an active mauling list answered the questionnaire. These people either participate directly in their CPO or indirectly by receiving the CP© newsletter. continued - >t 1 -2- - Those surveyed are primarily from the east end of the 'county. - Those surveyed are evenly distributed in teras of longevity in the program. - Land use and transportation are clearly dominant issues. Capital improvements programing, urban services, ,the county budget and public safety are also ranked in the top six, however, no one issue in this grouping appears to dominate. In terms of program planning four of the issues (i.e. land,use, transpor- tation, capital improvements programing, and urban services) will primarily be found in one department (Planning and Transportation). This will concen- trate CPO involvement in one primary area. Prepared by:' {~ MENSION'_SERVICE _ Oregon State.University r Washington-COUnty- Richard C. Beck, CEA SCROC GIN & MASON Suite 310 Attorneys at Lew 8196 S.W.Hell Blvd.Beaverton.Oregon 97005 (503)EQ1-7990 March 25, 1985 Commissioner Bonnie Hays` 150 N lst Hillsboro, OR 97123 Dear Bonnie: please find enclosed a "final" version of WCN' s report on Citizen Participation for inclusion in your packet of proposals. Final is in quotes, because, as you know, we will be trying to consolidate our position with the CCI and Dick Beck's draft. Very truly yours, SCROGGIN & MASON even Scroggin SSf ses cc: R. lPopkin r J!b WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS WASHINGTON COUNTY NEIGHBORHOODS Report on Citizen Participation March 25, 1985 Introduction Washington County established the Community Planning Organization (CPO)/ Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) system, a network for citizen Involvement, now contained in R&O 80-108. This system was developed as a part of the comprehensive planning process mandated by the Land_Conservation`and Development Commission (LCDC) . Fourteen CPO districts were established representing the cities, the urban part of the county and the rural part. As originally envisioned, each CPO would draft the plan map foritsdistrict. The CCI was to coordinate the efforts of the individual CPOs. As implemented, each CPO had some opportunity to comment on plan maps prepared by county planning staff. During preparation of the Plan, CPOs commented on individual landuseapplications as they might affect neighborhoods in the context of LCDC goals. While organized to represent all parts of the county, many CPOs never became active, or have since become inactive. Since the Plan has-been adopted, the vitality of the CPO/CCI system has declined. In his first campaign, WFs Myllenbeck Chairman of the Board of -County-Commissioners, pledSed to foster citizen participation, through the CPOs. In office, he asked the CPOs for suggestions on how to expand their participation. In 1984, the CCI issued a report and survey of its members, making a variety of suggestions. County Goal #1 is to improve citizen participation. The Board referred the issue to County Administrator Don Stillwell for a response. His initial report proposed abolition of the CFOs, for a "key communicator" newsletter, and for a professional survey of citizen attitudes, among other recommendations. The Board adopted parts of his report, such as the survey. Others, including abolition of CPOs, were referred for further study. The CCI is continuing to be active in making recommendations. WCN believes that past proposals and present inclinations would lengthen the perceived distance between the county administration building and the taxpayers. WCN believes that the CCI recommendations, while helpful, call for tinkering with a woeful status quo. WCN has looked outside the county, to Portland, Multnomah County and Clackamas County for models. We propose the creation of a Department for Citizen Participation, with paid staff modeled on the Portland Office of Neighborhood Associations, to support a revitalized CPO/CCI network. We would revitalize the CPO/CCI system by granting CPOs and qualified neighborhood organizations certain rights and responsibilities--powers which would make creation and perpetuation of such organizations beneficial to their members, to the Board, and to County Administration. In outlining the structure we would support, we define five t . 1. R HIM elements, each discussed in detail below: 1 ) definition of Neighborhood Associations and the Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) ; 2) powers of Neighborhood Associations and the CAB; 3) ' _administrative support functions; 4) incentives for citizen participation and 5) benefits to the county of the proposed program. Definition of Neighborhood Associations and the Community Advisory Board Neighborhood Associations. A Neighborhood Association would be any group of people organized for the purpose of considering and acting upon a broad range of issues affecting the livability of their neighborhood To be recognized as a Neighborhood Association by the county, such an Association would have to meet certain minimum standards as to nondiscrimination, representation of minority views, a procedure for reconsideration, and bylaws. (See Portland Ordinance 3.96.030. ) We would change the name of CPOs to community organizations (t-)s) , to distinguish them from Neighborhood Associations (NAs) , and to broaden their charge from just planning matters. COs are ex officio Neighborhood Associations and would have all the powers of NAs. Other Associations could be created, with or without overlapping boundaries. CPOs have been criticized as being too large, and for having artificial boundaries. This proposal allows coverage for the entire county, with a reasonable number of entities, without constraining the development of smaller, more cohesive groupings. Cos are also the areas from which membership in the CAB is determined. Citizen Advisory Board. The Board of County Commissioners would-choose two representatives to the CAB from each CO district, from at least three nominations from each CO. (See Multnomah County Draft Ordinance section 3.B.1. ) The CO districts would be based on present CPO boundaries. A CO district with many active Neighborhood Associations would be limited to two representatives on the CAB. The purpose of this limitation is to ensure that representation on the CAB is not dominated by one area of the county. The CAB would be a re-enforced CCI. As with the current CCI, the CAB would coordinate the COs, as well as make recommendations to the County. In addition to CCI powers, the CAB would set policy for and administer the Department for Citizen Participation (DCP) , and manage a budget for its functions. Powers of Neighborbood Associations and the CAB Neighborhood Associations (NAs) . 1 NAs and COs have access to start staff for meetings of their organizations, subject to a budget constraint administered by the CAB. 2) - NAs and COs shall have ample notice of and an opportunity to participate in design review. 2 ' 3) The CAB shall administer a budget for land use appeals and transcript fees to allow NAs and Cos to appeal land use matters without payment of a fee, within the budget constraint. 4) NAs, COs and the CAB shall foster two way communication with the county to minimize surprises. The CAB shall be involved in the county's annual goal setting process and budget process. 5) NAs, Cos and the CAB shall have the authority to contract with the county on a neighborhood level for services Subjects of such contract may include the citizen participation elements of county programs, including LCDC matters, and federal programs, crime prevention programs, employment programs and others. (The Portland program provides many illustrations of this technique. ) b) NAs may sponsor neighborhood level mediation services, to resolve family and neighborhood disputes informally at the local level. 7) NAs and COs may provide a forum for mediation between developers and neighbors. This will be feasible only if Planning St 'ff channels developers to the DCP early in the development prc,aess. CAB. 1 The CAB shall submit a semi-annual report to the Board. The Board shall respond in writing to the semi-annual report. The report may address any aspect of county government. (See Multnomah County draft ordinance section 4.A.4. ) 2) The CAB shall be established as a separate, autonomous department of County government, subject to the annual budget process. Portions of its budgetearmarked for land use matters shall be treated as a part of the Department of Land Use and Transportation (DLUT) budget so that the budget for staff time and appeals may come from DLUT revenues as well as the general fund. 3) The CAB shall periodically conduct a sunset review of the county's citizen participation process, including the county' s standing advisory committees and task forces. 4) The CAB shall set the geographic boundaries of the CO districts and mediate geographical jurisdictional disputes between NAs. Administration The citizen participation program shall be administered by the Department of Citizen Participation. The Department shall be composed of the CAB, the member COs and NAs, and a professional f staff. The duties of the staff shall include but not be limited to: 1) Maintenance of a mailing list of members of COs and NAs. 2) Preparation of a periodical newsletter for the mailing i list. Individual NAs may be responsible for distribution to f their membership. The administration should contemplate local newsletters as needed. 3) Provision of support services to the CAB, including minutes, maintenance of a resource library, and knowledge of `contact people in County staff and in other NAs, COs and other j I 3 j J . organizations. The staff will have some of the functions of an Ombudsman. 4) Provision of support services, including record maintenance, for mandated county advisory committees (standing committees) and county task forces. These committees, subject to CAB sunset review, shall 'continue as presently_ organized. Public Incentives The Public will be active in this revitalized system for several reasons: 1) once established and recognized as influential, the CAB will be a useful ally and aid to citizens interested in a variety of matters: a) Planning and transportation. b) Annexation and urban services issues. C) Crime prevention. d) And other areas. 2) The County Administration and the Board have a strongly stat.:d policy favoring open government. However, because of their heavy time commitments, and pressing priorities, this policy cannot always be followed. The DCP will provide an open door to county government for the ordinary citizen. Value to the Board The Board of County Commissioners will find the DCP a useful entity for a variety of reasons: 1) The County' s image will be improved by mediation between the county and its constituents. The DCP will be good public relations for revenue measures. 2) The DCP will meet legal requirements for citizen participation. 3) The DCP will act as an intermediary between the public and the Board, refining and focusing the concerns of the public so that the Board's time can be spent in decision making more than in fleshing out concerns. 4) with the DCP, the County will be more intimately aware of citizen concerns on a personal basis. 5) The NAs and COs will provide ready made opportunities for Commissioners to have dialogue with their constituents in their neighborhoods--in informal contacts, coffees, town hall meetings or whatever other format is most appropriate for the Commissioner and the organization. 6} The NAs and COs will provide mediation between developers and neighbors. An opportunity for a developer to approach the DCP and come away with a contact in the neighborhood with which to discuss neighbors concerns will streamline the development process, and minimize Planning Staff time demands. 7) The NAs can provide an opportunity for neighborhood mediation, to resolve disputes informally at the local level, without intervention of police or the judicial system. 8) The NAs can provide a locus for neighborhood crime watch ffectiveness in Portland, programs. These programs have proven e and their aggressive implementation though NAS could limit the 4 drain on the County's law enforcement resources. Implementation The DCP should be established by ordinance, and placed inx the County -Charter =when the Charter comes up for review and a vote. Portland, Multnomah County and Clackamas County all have high profile citizen involvement programs. - Nothing in the WCN proposal departs from benchmark established by other Portland metra jurisdictions. Indeed, it proposes more budgetary limits than other jurisdictions impose. Part of the DCP should be funded out of DLUT fee for service funds, but some 'funding from the General Fund will probably be necessary. The County is suffering substantial budget pressure. „k While a citizen participation program will cost something, the benefits, even if limited to public support for permanent funding, historically have far outweighed the costs. The DCP is as noun, a capital investment as other investments the county has made in %Lnternal reorganization and computer processing. Citizen s participation programs are part of the cost of urbanization and growth. Wasbington County Neighborboodss Washington County Neighborhoods (WCN) is an organization formed to maintain and improve the quality of neighborhood life in' the; urban unincorporated portion of Washington County through participation in the County's legislation, execution and adjudication of its land use process, including public improvements of all kinds. We are comprised of community activists and leaders of Neighborhood Associations and the County° s citizen participation programs. our members, are officers of the following organizations: Cedar Hills Homes Association, Fir Acres Association, Marlene Village Neighborhood Association, Oak Hills Homes Association, Sunny Hill Neighborhood Association, CPO 1 . (Cedar Hills/Cedar Mill), CPO 4 (Bull Mountain) , CPO 3 (Raleigh Hills/Garden Home) and the CCI, among many others, and include a variety of community activists such as Jim Fisher, Ed Sullivan and,BethMason. For more information concerning this report or WCN, please contact Steven Scroggin at 641-7990, or Keith Ehrensing at 646 0342 or 796-5157. 5 EXTENSION SERVICE 9 e:fion. Mailing Address: Washington Count y Courthouse Branch County Bldg. County UTIiVETSIt:)/ Hillsboro,OR 97124 2448 S.E.Tualatin Valley Hwy. (503)648-8771 March 8, 1985 Bonnie Hays, County Commissioner Washington County 130 N. First Avenue Hillsboro,Oregon 97124 Dear Bonnie Pursuant to our recent conversations enclosed please find a revised draft of a Washington County Citizen'inv lvement ordinance. The document consists of three Philosa h Proposed P Y/Preamble, involvement structures (CAB, Advisory Committees, CPO/Neighborhood Groups and Task Forces) and a sut:set provision. It is intended to serve as a Philosophical and operational base for citizen involvement. If the document where adopted by ordinance, two additior al ordinances and an R & Q would be needed to im le the entire package. P went Since we reviewed it in February it has gone through two revisions. The evangelistic language in the opening paragraphs has been toned down. Section 1 was revised eliminate the red flags which ou w cd t Y were concerned about. I also made the changes you ..wanted regarding the County Administrator's office. _ The document will be distributed to the Committee For Citizen Involvement at its March 21st meeting. I trust you shall distribute copimbers of the Board and staff. es of the document to other me If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Richard C. Beck Extension Agent Washington County kdt f 1 � n 1/ enclosure WASHjjV(;rO f 80AR4 COIINTy OF COIHAlISSIONgRS SMVM■®v�� E��iculturo Home Economics,4-H Y®uth,Forest rpy arx Marine Advlao ry+Community t?evslopment, United States �'tomograms.®repan State University, �ePartment of Apryculturo,and Washington County coo�eatlnp. B 0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION t s Draft 2 r I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take if from them, but to inform their discretion by education. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Charles Jarvis September 288 1820 It is recognized that our reprg�snwellvandohas prm ofassedrthe ntest sof served Washington County Citi overnment n:ely time. However, the size and complexity of g overwhelm it's ability to give careful and sensitive guidance to the number of programs under their control. By itself, the periodic election of a n Ease al detailed information, ongals the critical# andfsom timesy Y and leadership may owhat citizens need and want. Taken together, unless the citizens of Washington County wish to entrust their destinies solely to the discretionary authority of elected officials and appointed personnel, a means to supplement } representative governmental structure with more direr- _ involve- ment in government is necessary. DE IT RESOLVED THAT: It is important for Washington County citizens to be involved in county decision making Processes- -continued- -2- County citizens will respond when they perceive their activities significant and consider themselves capable of making an important contribution to the process. Direct citizen involvement in Washington County is inevitable and desirable due to the historical tradition it has held in the county;-and' by a population that is as educated and as rich in the voluntary associations found throughout this Jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED THAT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT: Improves the decision making process. Democratizes !,nd humanizes political and social institutions. Increases the responsiveness of government institutions. Generates a_greater variety of information and alternatives for citizens, public officials and elected officials, and Enhances individual and group social awareness and civic responsibility. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THESE VALUES THE FOLLOWING OWECTIVES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ARE ESTABLISHED: 1. The quality of citizen participation process can be improved by clarifying the roles that participants play in a given decision making process. Every public decision is made in a unique situational context. These boundaries are defined by: 1.1 Time 1.2 Distance 1.3 Resources 1.4 Legal Requirements - 1.5 Operational Requirements 1.6 Institutional Requirements Only when these boundaries are defined shall the decision making process proceed. 2. To further the purpose of citizen involvement county government shall: 2.1 Promote educational opportunities for citizens to gain an understanding of the group involvement process; to develop leadership and group involvement skills; and to further an understanding of county government. 2.2 Clearly enunciate their commitment to citizen participation as an on-going operative segment of the total governmental process. { -continued- -3- 2.3 Actively encourage citizen participation by their own - actions in publicizing agendas, operations, plans, policies, and other aspects pertinent to government through existing and innovative techniques. 2.4 Provide visible,timely and viable opportunities for involvement. citizen participation activities shall be implemented early in,the problem solving process. 2.5 Encourage through positive recruitment and formal recognition of citizen participation groups, a wide spectrum of groups and individual citizens. 2.6 Share all information, data, and criteria pertinent to particular decisions. 2.7 Provid prompt and relevant feedback to citizens to gauge the responsiveness of government to their input. Public involvement shall be documented to the public by reporting the results of workshops, surveys, townhall meetings, and studies. 2.8 create a variety of citizen participation mechanisms to permit citizens a choice as to which best meets their needs for involvement, for being heard, and for achieving community identity and a sense of responsible citizenship. 3. To further the purpose of citizen involvement, citizens advisory committees and community groups shall: 3.1 Participate early in the involvement process. 3.2 Seek to understand the issue from all perspectives. 3.3 Search out and comprehend the background leading up to an issue including its history, previous actions, and the legal, monetary and institutional environments. 3.4 Recognize and participate in the various informational and educational activities available to them. 3.5 Provide relevant, and if need be, documented, information early in the process. 3.5 Participate in meetings but especially those in which information is `given and the exchange of information and ideas is stressed. 3.7 seek opportunities for continued involvement. -continued- f, E -4- 4. To optimize Citizen,involvement opportunities a variety of t county advisory 'structures_ shall be made available. 4.1 The :County Administrative officer is directed to prepare an ordinance to create a Community Advisory Hoard (CAB) . ? 4.1.a The purpose of the CAB shall be to provide overall guidance to Washington County's citizen tt involvement process. 4.1.b. CAB shall prepare citizen involvement performance objectives in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of this document for submission to the Board of County Commissioners for review and action. Upon adaption this committee shall monitor county adv' 3ory committees and county departments for adhe •ence and periodically report their findings to the Board of County Commissioners. 4.1.c. CAB shall provide information to counter government on the, impact of county programs and policies on the citizenry. 4.1.d. CAB shall assist in the development of new communication's techniques to improve citizen involvement. 4.1.e. CAB shall identify critical issues, new alternatives, conflicts and opportunities for citizen involvment. 4.1.f. CAB shall assume the responsibilities of the Committee for Citizen Involvement. 4.1.g. CAH shall be composed from the membership of existing county-recognized neighborhood associations, standing advisory committees and all active Community Planning organizations. Additionally cities and unincorporated portions of the county not presented by the aforementioned [ groups shall be represented on the CAB. 4.1.h. CAB shall be staffed by the county or a designated agent. 4.1.i CAB shall report directly to the Board of County commissioners. 4.2. An omnibus resolution and order shall be prepared recognizing standing county advisory committees. -continued- -5- 4.2.a. Each standing committee, in consultation with the r department head it advises, shall prepare for inclusion in the Resolution and Order: its charge, source of authority, by-laws, staffing, who it reports to and the method by which it recruits and advertises vacancies. 4.2.b. A committee may determine than it is no longer serving a useful or needed purpose. It, there- fore, may recommend that it be sunsetted. 4.2.c. A complete and updated listing of these committees shall be maintained in the county Administrator's Office, 4.3 It is direct-1 that an ordinance be prepared for the re-establishL-nt, recognition and functioning of Community Planning Organizations (CPOs) and neighborhood organizations.' 4.3.a. The ordinance shall contain program philosophy, goals and objectivea, operating procedures, a specific charge, policies for recognizing CPOs and neighborhood associations, staff support and roles, specific communications procedures, and organization reporting procedures and respon- sibilities. ;- 4.3.b. The ordinance shall address the recognition of municipal community organizations. 4.3.c. The ordinance shall be developed in consultation with the County's CCI and recognized county neigh- borhood organizations. 4.3.d. Upon adoption of the ordinance the CCI's charge under Resolution and Order 80-108 shall be withdrawn. Representation from each CPO represented on the CCI at that time shall be reseated on the CAR. 4.4 The task force concept, as outlined in the County Administrative Report on citizen involvement, dated 8/84 shall be continued. 3. It is recognized that the needs and desires of the county and its citizenry change. As a result committees or organizations may no longer be functioning or serving the purpose they were created for. -continued < b THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT A REVIEW AND SUNSET PROCEDURE HE INSTITUTED. 5.1 Commencing in 198() (no.) county committees and/or community organizations shall be reviewed in light of the county's need of its citizens 5.2 Specific recommendations will be made to the Hoard of County Commissionersfor continuance with modifications or sunsetting. 5.3 This review will be performed by the CAH with the involvement of the committee under review, the appropriate staff and in accordance with procedures established' by the CAH. 5.4 Upon completion of 'ts assignment the CAH shall be reviewed by the Hoard of County Commissioners. s Prepared by: Richard C. Heck Washington County Extension Service F 3 a-. _ .. ,. .. ^4;.�" "? ..'^•wnn.'.?R'•'vvoeme�fa C-'�3"...i-.-..- �C...':.3-.," Philosophy on Citizen Participation Commissioner Bonnie L. Hays 3/85 "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People" is the basis and the success of the quality of life that we enjoy. One vote does count; goverment is by our peers; and we can exercise choices and options. And that is why we are here as Commissioners Myllenbeck, Meek, Killpack, Rogers, and Hays; because someone voted, and, by choice, elevated us from peer-level to representative-level. With that process came the responsibility to maintain and promote the interaction of the citizen and the government, otherwise known as Citizen Participation. Why do we need it? How in you implement it? Will it make a difference? Before projecting my own thoughts further, I would concur with the following: "We are faced with an almost insurmountable opportunity." --Pogo Washington County has a rich heritage of citizen involvement and participation, and I believe that this Board desires to enhance that heri- tage. However, the political and financial realities of the county cause us to put definition of format to the process; to utilize our resources (people, time, and tax revenue) efficiently and effectively; and not to . fall prey to the "bigger is better" syndrome. With that assumption, I would offer a possible policy statement on Citizen Participation: IT IS TYNE POLICY OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF WASHINGM COUNTY TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES OF PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION THROUGH A VARIETY OF RECOGNIZID AND SUPPORTED PROCESSES. These processes include public hearings, town hall meetings, advisory committees, task forces, community organiza- tions, volunteer participation, and direct access to the Board of Commissioners. Citizen participation is one of the chief means through which a county governing body can .assess public opinion. The success and con - timaation of citizen participation depends on the attitudes of the par- ti,.�3pants and the interest of the governing body. We must recognize that we cannot mandate citizen participation, but that we must provide access for participation at all levels of government if we are to re- ceive the level of input desireable to make informed decisions as a _representative form of government. B. Hays CITIZEN PARTICIPATION - page 2 Format for Citizen participation Public Hearings: , By definition, a public hearing is an oral proceeding which provides an opportunity for all sides of an issue to be presented. While we are very familiar with public hearings, both legislative and quasi-judicial, I would suggest that we define their conduct and document our rules as a part of the implementation strategies for Citizen Participation. Since the purpose of a public hearing is to obtain public input rather that the views of department heads or other county staff, the role of staff at a public hearing should also be defined. I suggest that the appropriate role is to present background info iation and to answer specific questions that might be raised by the governi„g body or by those testifying. The Chairman should not allow staff members to engage in debate with members of the public or to make argumentative statements at a public hearing. . Staff members should be careful to avoid conveying any impression of inattentive- ness or making any indication of agreement or disagreement with comments of the governing body or the public, except as specifically requested. Town Hall Meetings: Up until now, our use of town hall meetings has been for the presenta- tion of a specific subject, such Storm Drainage. The resulting input has been beneficial and utilized, but I proteose that we have not used them to their fullest extent. By using this informal meeting, and without specific subject or subjects, we would be providing citizens with the opportunity to carry on a face-to-face dialogue with public officials. Maybe we could call them Round Table .Discussions, take them to various locations quarterly, and demonstrate our desire to provide answers to questions as well as the desire to be available to listen. Advisor► Committees: Before we start eliminating any of our Advisory Committees, we need to look beyond the question of being mandated. We must first recognize why we utilize advisory bodies in the first place: 1) to satisfy state and/or federal requirements; 2) to obtain "functional expertise" (committees may be charged with the responsibility to become "experts" on a particular subject in order to advise the governing body; e.g. Unified Sewerage Agency Advisory Committee); 3) to conduct in-depth studies of special issues and to serve as a sounding board for various proposals for county action (e.g. Charter Review Committee); and 4) to irmrove communication with various segments of the county's consti- tuency. We have made progress on providing a standardization for the operation of Advisory Committees (appointments for a 2-year period; geographic repre- sentation; designation of purpose. However, I would like to see ai formali- zation of Policy for Advisory Committees, to include: 1. Formation and Dissolution of Committees; creation by the Board; ` B. Hays CITIZEN PARTICIPATION page 3 specified allocation of staff time and fiscal resources; obli- gation of the Board to provide a specific charge; provision for sample by-laws; and regular, periodic review of advisory committees by the Board (at least annually). 2. ointment Process: advertising of vacancies; review of applica- tions for appointment, including consultation with existing comrait- tees; non-eligibility of county employees to serve. 3. Communication with the Board: dissemination of advisory committee minutes; definition of aTd members' role as liaison; and committee reporting requirements (e. :. all advisory bodies created by the Board shall report their concerns and recommendations to the Board rather that taking action or policy positions on behalf of the County upon their own initiative.). 4. Staff Support: role definition; duties of staff assigned to support advisory committees; staff recommendations in agreement or opposition to committee recommendations. This formalization may appear to be an unwelcome task, but I believe that it is our obligation and a fair commitment to a process that generates a value beyond our financial capabilities in terms of volunteer time and expertise. Community Organizations: This is my recommendation in response to the question of the future of the CPO/CCI organizations. In the most general sense, a community organization is a group of citizens united by geographic location and organized to work on matters affecting the 3 community, such as traffic, transportation, social services, housing, zoning, land use, and neighborhood facilities. A community organization may also serve as a vehicle for communication between the county governing body and the citizens.. There is a concern, however, that unless properly founded, a com- munity organization may become a parochial unit which contributes to politi- cal factioning and detract from the leadership and responsibility of the elected governing body. I would choose to make community organizations responsible for maintaining their capability of accurately representing the views of their communities on a wide range of matters of county concern, fording adequate notice and written minutes for public meetings, and { for eping the board informed regarding its officers and charter changes. In turn, the County's policy should be to supplycnngmnity organizations with Board meeting notices and agendas, information regarding land use plan- ning and regulation for the area, and other information and assistance necessary for the organization to perform its functions. k The last statement may be interpretted to mean an allocation of staff time to meet as a resource with any recognized community organization on a quarterly (for example) basis. I do not think that this would be abused, mid I do believe that we need to make that kind of committment to the process. B. Hays CITIZEN PARTICIPATION t' page 4 i! p I am including the Lane County model of their ordinance on citizen participation, more specifically, the language relative to Community Organizations. Obviously, there are some changes that would enhance the intent (not to mention changing Lane County to W�asshingto_n. County:). Also, you will note the date of January I do not know if the ordinance has been since revised, or revisited. Community Organization Program 3.513 Community-organization Program 1 Recon tion. In order to be officially recognized by the Lane County Board of Commissioners, a community organization must: (a) Have a-membership large enough to represent the community sufficiently. (b) Have a membership representative of the various interests of the community. (c) Show that the proposed Charter was posted in public places or.otherwise made generally available within the community prior to the official adoption of the Charter. (d) Make a written request to the Board for recogni- tion. A copy of the organization's Charter, the name and address of its representative for the receipt of notices and other communication, and the names and addresses of the organization's officers and Board members must accompany the request. r (2) Charter. The organization's Charter shall: a efine the physical boundaries of the community. Any boundary conflict must be resolved by the groups involved. Decisions regarding the boundaries should include a consider- Won of the limited staff time available to work with the organizations. Organizations should have a logically similar community of interest. (b) Provide for a democratic organization which elects officers periodically for a specified term and encourages the rotation of those officers. (c) Define the relationship between'the officers and the membership as a whole. (d) Provide for membership which is at least open to all residents and property owners IS years of age or older who live or own property within the community. liermbership fees must not be required. However, voluntary contributions may be used as a source of revenue. t January A 481 B. Hays CITIZEN PARTICIPATION page 5 (e) .Include criteria regulating voting. (f) Provide thatallmeetings be open to the public and well publicized in advance. (3) ®r anizational Responsibilities. Responsibilities of a recognized organization shall be to: (a) Advise and consult with the County government on matters affecting the livability of the community. Such matters would include, but not be limited to, planning, zoning, housing, parks, open space and recreation, human resource delivery systems, traffic and transportation systems, water and sewage disposal systems, and other matters affecting the livability of the community. It is understood that County governmental decisions must be based on their long-range Countywide influence; however, recommendations of community org3nizations will be seriously consic red. (b) Be informed and familiar witty the views and opinions of the people of the community and be able to give an accurate presentation of those views. The organization must be flex- ible enough to avoid causing unnecessary delays in the County decision making process, and it will be responsible for com- municating information from the County to the community. (c) Provide,that all meetings, including executive committees and subcommittees, must be open to the public. Public notice of a meeting, reasonably calculated to give at least 24 hours' actual notice to members of the organization ., and interested persons, shall be given. The notice shall con- tain the time and place of the meeting and, if possible, thg agenda Provide that all meetings, including executive com- mittees and subcommittees, shall have written minutes taken. Although a verbatim transcript is not necessary, the minutes must include: The members present. {(iii� All motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, and measures proposed and their disposition. (iii) The results of the votes and, except for boo es consisting of more than 25 members unless requested by a mer of that body, the vote of each member by nom. (iv) The substance of any discussion on any matter. (e) Distribute notices of upcoming meetings and take minutes. Copies of the notices, a listing of their distri- bution, and a copy of the minutes of each meeting shall be sent to the County to be filed. (f) Keep the Board informed of any changes in its Charter, its officers and Board members, and the name and address of its representative for receipt of notices and other communications. B. Hays , CITIZEN PARTICIPATION page 6 (d) County Responsibility. Responsibilities of the County 5A.3q_'11 shall include: (a) Providing recognized organizations with copies of the agendas for future work sessions and meetings of the Board of County Commissioners. (b) Notifying organizations of all proposed subarea plan proposals and changes in all zoning, conditional- use-permit and planned unit devalont (PUD) applications in advance of the date they are scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission. (c) Notifying organizations of any other proposals seriously contemplated by Lane County which would apply specifically to that area and which would make a major change in the livability_of the community. (d) Providing, subject to budgetary and time limita- tions staff assistanca for liaisoi and infomational purposes. le) ' Providing workshops on specific technical subjects when there is sufficient interest to warrant the staff time. (f) Reviewing recognition of each organization every two years. (5) --4-i al Communitl Or anlzations. The Board may recognize a Community or neighborhood) organization which has been officially recognized by a city within Lane County, based on guidelines substantially' similar to those provided in this section for recognition of community organizations, when (a) The boundaries of the community organization are entirely within the boundaries of the city, or (b) The boundaries of the community organization include areas within and without the boundaries of the city and the conanunity organization has a logically similar community of interest. I believe that a format similar to this could be an appropriate vehicle to resolve the CPO/CCI question. The active CPOs have already complied with the essence of this proposal: boundaries, published officers and meeting dates and minutes, etc.. I would offer that this allows the active CPOs to go through the formality of re-structuring, mid maintain a sense of continuity in the future. Inactive CPOs would be dissolved, but at any time a connnmity group decided to participate, there would exist a vehicle for recognition. The CCI began as an informal Leaders Group. I would encourage the return to that informality, with the leaders of recognized Community , Organizations extending a line of communication to one another. This process is not dissimilar to the process outlined in our Comamity Development Code, and by which the 9unnyhill Neighborhood Association or- ganized. However, it does specify the obligations of each party to the other. This process does not preclude the establishment of Camtmity Organza- . tions within the boundaries of a larger Community Organization (for example, B. Hays CITIM PARTICIPATION Page 7 CPO 1 might choose to reorganize as a large Community Organization, but the Sunnyhill Neighborhood Association would still be recognized as such). I think it appropriate that I convey my belief that this system will work, but it will be most cost efficient if we incorporate a reliance upon the position of the OSU Extension Community Development Office. I realize that Richard Beck, who currently holds that position, will be leaving to acquire his Doctorate, but it would be in our best interest to encourage OSU to fill that position in the future. The true emphasis of a Community Organization should be all matters affecting that community...public safety, families, public facilities, etc.. ..not just land use planning. Therefore, a designated Community Development Officer as 1 ovided by OSU would cer- tainly be of more value to corrmamity organizations as an over-all reference than to suggest that these organizations be reliant upon our Land Use and Transportation Department, or any other single department. Task Forces: We have had success with reliance upon the task force concept, but, again, I would have us formalize our procedures. I recommend the following: 1) Task Forces will be created by Board action. 2) When the Board creates a task force, the following procedures will be followed: a) The Board will give the task force a specific charge, and that charge will be transmitted to the task force through a formal notification. The charge will include a date on which the task force will complete their deliberations and report to the Board or request an extension. b) In creating a specific task force, the Board will designate membership. c) At the first meetin#, a chairperson will be elected, the charge of the task force will be reviewed and a time frame will be established for meeting that charge. d) 7be chairperson will be responisbie for developing a memorandum to be sent to the Board, listing the chairperson and the schedule for meeting the charge. e) No later than every two months, the chairperson will submit a memorandum to the Board, detailing the progress of the task force and outlining the status of deliberation. 2) When the task force has accomplished its original charge and has prepared a report to the Board, the chairperson will contact the County Administrator to put the report on the Board agenda. If the Board does not set any additional specific tasks or charges to the task force (upon the presentation of the report to the Board), the task force will cease to exist. 3) The Board of C nissioners will provide written response and acknowledgment to the members of the task force upon formal Board action. F B. Hays . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION page $ I would look at the report on current citizen participation efforts as prepared by staff in August, 1984. Acknowledging that .it was intended to initiate a discussion on citizen participation, we need now to bring the discussion to a close. The primary criticism of the County's current citizen participation program, as stated in the report, is the lack of broad based participation. My response: we cannot mandate participation; we must seek it and provide opportunities for it, but just because there are only a few people on our standing committees, that doesn't reflect the total degree of citizen participation. I don't think that the current structure is broken, so why fix it? It can be improved upon, yes, but we do maintain accessibility, -md that's the key to participation. The second criticism of our current system dealt with perceived overlapping responsibilities among our current advisory committees, out- dated charges, and cumbersome structures. By adopting the standards as outlined herein for advisory committees and task forces, I believe that we can correct that problem. The Board has the responsibility for the review of the advisory committees, and we must designate a time to ful- fill that responsibility. The specific recommendations contained in the report included the creation of a Citizens Advisory Board. I do not support this concept, as I see it as a layer of authority rather than direct accessibility. Again, it is not promoting broad-based participation, but merely funneling infor- mation through to a few. The other items included in the report suggested the need for our Board to develop and implement policy on Communication, both internal and external. I see this as an integral part of Citizen Participation, and in need of our focus. Conclusion: There is no magic here, only a strong desire to resolve this issue of Citizen Participation and to implement the opportunities contained therein. I would encourage the Board to adopt the time-line and concept for this resolution. 'Then we must study our current system and fulfill our res- ponsibility to it. C Y, ! CITIZEN PA11TICIPATION - :or CCI members study and eonsidarsticn to be given to Oommissioner Hays. PFIL030PHY, ,akin. best use of the bretit weal+h of the county - its,citizens - t::rcu�,h their participation in numerous well defined roll-- in the governi ni: ;rocess. The beundaries of successful citizen involvenc.:t are defined by: fine, di,tance, resources, legal rcosire.mcrats operational require:ients, irctit3tional re-c.uirenerts. POLICY It is the policy of the governing body of 1-iashington County to provide o_:nor tunities'of participation and public policy formulation through a variety of recognized and n-annorted processes. These processes include public hearings town hall meetinEs, adrisory committees, task forces, community organizations$ volunteerparticipation and direct access to the Board of Commi.ssionera, and promote educational opportunities. COUNT) i-ra'JId.�. To maximize ana'encour:.L.e citizen involvement in county gvverrrert the county win to the best o, its abllitJ• rr ovide the following services to the citizens. A. The county will prc�-ide technical zssistrnce and firunci41 aid to the CPC program to ensure its existence as a structure to facilitate citizen involvement. 3. The county will ser.: funds from local, state rnci federal sources to promote and expand citizen involven.e-t. C. The county shall initiate snc maintain a proEran to actively^u'hlicize the prograr, throe hout the county. D. The county shL11 Lssist in the reproduction and msilink of newsletters and other printed materials when supplied b ::?Os of the CC?. E. The county shall provide timely notification to the C?Os, CCI and Washington Co%inty Neighborhood :.ssociation of relevant and pertinent ncet_ngs, hearings, elections, etc. F. The county shall providc inforat:.on on et;:dies, reports and land use preappli cations and ap:lications. Go The co:.nty shall assist tnc participate in educational efforts rciated to citizen participation in government and planning process. H. The county shall maintain up-to-date lists of CPO, Cwl and the Neighborhood Associat'_cn as well as their principle officers. Z. Notify or;:arizatizns of all proposed subarea ?clan proposals and chances in all zoning, conditional use permit &nd planned unit development (?UD) a?plic=tion in advance of the gate they are scheduled for consideration by the Plarnin g Commission/Hearings officer, J. Notify organizations of any other proposals seriously contemplated by Washington County which would adply specifically to that area ana which would rake major char.go in the livability of the community. K. Provide, subject to budgetary znu time: limitations, staff assistance for liaison and informational purposes. L. Provide workshops on specific technical subjects when there is sufficient interest to warrant the staff time. Me Review recognition of each organization every two ;ears. FOMUT PUPLIC WJ.P.IHGS Staff reocrt - not their recommendation, their report should be thorough and so clearly stated that their recommendation should not be needed - all CIJtestimiony should be heard on an equal besis. The hearing body and those testifying be allowed to ask staff specific questions and should receive a complete specific answer. If party testifying can prove chaff ann:er isn't complete or misleading, a brief rebottle should be allowed. Pale 1 A A;1L7L."CY:: CO T-!IT' �S Formalization of nro:euures. - -_ 1) '-ask Fo:ces will be created by Board action 2) :.hen the-Bor.r v crer:tes a. task force, the following prccec:.r,--s will be usc--;,,- a) 71,e • r:' will i.•c the tLsk force a specific change, tr- nsr-itted to the tcxk force throti,!?,h a formal notification, the charEe will incl;:de date or. %,hick the t=Fk 'rill completed ,with deliberations aru reported to the 3oard or requczt an extension. b) In creating a specific task force, the ,oars Will designate mertersh_p. c.) At the first :meeting, a chairperson will be elcted, charge of the task will be reviewed and time; frame will be extablished for meeting that charge. d) The shairoerson will be responsible for developing a memorandum to be sent to the '-oard, listift chairperson and schedule of meetings. e) No later than every two months, the chairperson will suL:ait a meso to the Board detsiline the progress and outlining the stratus of deliberatiorg 3) :71:en task force has accomplished its original charge and has prepared a report to the,Board, the chairperson will contact the county Administrator` to put the report on the Board agenda. If the Board does not act anq additional specific task or chsrees to the task force (upon the presentation to he report) the task force will cease to exist. 1�) ,Tru Board of :.om^'.csioners will provi a written res?onse a^.c: acknwdedgemert to the meribers of the task force upon fczria.l Board action. Special Taskforces: One limited study issue only - ::hen conplete, copy of report to citizer. orgzrizatjons (CCI rnd Neighborhood Assn. to be presented to their nem*"rs for corr*e t and. further recom. .cndations if desired, and to follow throw;: to county action, atandine Comnitteess They si ould cone up for review at s?eci!'i.c internals to see if 1) ir.tmt is being followtd, 2) Are stili needed„ 3) if duties could or should 1:e expended to receive fullest benefit cf citizen efforts. Quarterly or seii-t..-mala reports for citizen crga%izatior. study. W'ti MLL Ti-ugly for CPO newsletters and NeiEhborhCod Assn. Newsletters. 1. Community Torn Hall M ct nr.s, a. Called by staff on epeci_ic plarninz issues (1) Notices sent to reri:icrccs/propfrty o.:r:ers. 2) Concerned CEOs notified 3) :;n County Neightor hood Assn. (a) Notify Assn wittin %?0 boy n-vary, 2, Board Town Hall Meeting a, An annual large one. 1) To get it stafted have one or two drawing card items for warning Ercup up, than go into give an6 take -• dontt sit on high podiums. b. Hound :able Discussions. 1) In smaller areas. 2) To help start talk acing, one or two sugEested topics as warm. ups. Maybe something pertinent to general area discussion is being held* CM%LW AM WAUZATICNS 1. CaTiLhITY ?A::TZCI.aATI02� Cf.G1.I3IZl.:'ION (Cao) a. Recognition 1) Bylaws 2 Elected officers 3) Recorded minutes of general membership meetings �) At least one general membership meeting per year. §) Record of meeting attendance 6) Notify Board of newly elected officers (annual elections) 7) Ftembprs!.ip includes all citizens living within CPO bcv-jn::rrys, property _ owners and business owners. k 8) Publicized agendas of each r.ceting - newsleter is desirable which roust follow CCI/C?0 adopted rules if mailed through the Extension Service. b, Responsibilities 1) Advise and consult with county government on matters affecting the # _communities livability, 2) serve as a vehicle for comm.imicat-on between governments and citizens. Pa c 3 a) A known on goinC mrr-tinL plrce for roard incmber:3 to deliver inff'. wticn to citizens b) A place for leC_slators to in.orm citizens on vital legisl. ti.t: billj, etc. C) I:eceipt boz:rd r,-etine notices, aLcr...as an-c minutes. \ r-a i '" lll::tlon;, crl_` s eI: a itenz. d) recc].Jt 1:.^c. use notIces eFara_n� plr.nr�r.E, ` e E '' c) Be provided st"ff SSS_:;�1^.�= for liaison '.:..� lil+�Jrl'c tiCP.F.l �li"�O:if S sub,-'eat to t.rtc arl"' t aC`Efa. C. Scope CPOs Will review and rake recon-mendations to .eclsion-m-kers by e..gal inE in the following types of activities: 1) review existing, as *cell as'pronn-s-e, lrn,4 develonme:,t ordinances. 2) :Rake recommendations an cu itz1 improvement priorities and expenditures. 3) Make recommendations' to apprroriate decision-rakers on planning acti•dti..s at local, rcgional and state levels. G) I.eview and nake reconnendations on all amendments to the '•!n. Co Conn P1F.n. 5) Review and :u.ke reco.r mendations on LJ3 proposed zone c!7anges, subdi visicrs, variances, minor partitions anti conditional Use applications. Q.Review rand make recon-nendstions on intended uses of lard even -.char. the application i4 :, ^~)liance with zona or plan des�inats cn s. 7) Traffic, transportation, so:ial service, housing, zoreing, lend use, nei,hborhood S..cilities, parks, sewerage Urposal, other batters affecting livibility of the county, 2 !:ASI-:Il;vI N L;CUr:TY ASSO::!kTIOIJ a. i?ecosrition 1) Each asso.iation have by-lay.s ant: be kept it*he r.ssocia`ionz Gounsil office. 2; £rich association hLve elected officers 3) Elected officer be reps,-.tentative to Assn's :.o ncil h) Each assn. and ;.ssociation council record minutes c. mcetires K) Each ass:. and Assns. Co,mcil record meeting attn ace. '- 6) Membership includes a Ero p c.1 people organized for the pur;•ose of considering and acting upon ary broad range of issues affecting the li�a_ility of their neighborhoodo 7) Meetings of assns and Alen. Council shoal;: Le puL'licisec. 8) .,.ssn. Council have a newsletter. b. Responsibility 1) Association Qouncil office. a) known address for County Board to deliver irfcrrAticn for rlc-rerz. b) Newsletter to all member associations. c) Peceipt ofoard_ a. enea, minutes and meeting notices d) assist neiC_I*,onccod volunteers in coordinating projeVts. 2) Association members a)`Newsletter to members b) Notify members of meetings, hearings, elections and other events. c) Notify Assn council office of list of members and officers. d) Mect officers on a regular basis. e) Encourage individuals to work with existing neighborhood associations. f) Encourage association now-hers to work with existing CPOs. g) Encourage associations in inactive CPO areas to revitalize UM and have more standing in C'CI. 3. MMIC_IPAL COI2t4 LAITY OR::t,?.'jUTION5 The Board may recognize a co,ITanity (or neighborhood) organization which has been officially recognized by a city °Withln Washington Countyt based on guidelines substantially similsr to those provided in this section for recog- nition of comurity organizations when: 1) The boundaries of the cor.Qmurity orCarization are entirely within the boundaries of the city, or 2) The boundaries of the comrunity organization include QrEas within snC with out the boundaries of the city and the community organization has a logically similar community of interest. z • _.0 . .... .: ,..L.i _...i.T F.;T (CCI) (C?0 and Assn. Voura,I Leaders% • . a• Pur:�os@ 1) To to dedicated an: c"-dttec: to the success of citizenF -rtthe gov�rrmcntal de._s;cn making process. n �. 2) =o assist 7!ar- :_ngton ;,ci my Eoverrxitrt in co.-iol-ing with 'r,:jC Goal -'1 bk• ` de rrlci3in r a citizen involve icrst pro€r i.:._tI 1r :;::ures the ;�n; orturii,�� fc:• Citizens to be involved i►: hases of th- plannint process 3) To evaluate the cit:zcn involvement process h) To encourage and pronote the expansion of the citizen program 5) To `provide'a direct line of communication between citizens and county government 6) To serve as the officially recognized citizens advisory com-ittee vtich is broadly representative of geographic areas and interests b. role The CCI will assist Washinbten County "government with the development of a program that:enhances and promotes citizen participation in the go.ernment decision maldnc- process. St will assist o,:irtY government affe: ment vrith the ir9ple- mentation of the citizen involvement program and Will. evaluate the system beim, used for citizen invclvenent. It will also serve, as an euvisor y group ofelected leaders or representatives of C,?Os, Feibhhc.hcod Assn anti also those of the ;-lunicipal Com unity Orta i.zat.ons. The CCI shall not interfere vith the internal policies, act=crs yr activities of the indivicual groups. It will not rtti:e,..., or pass Judiment on the indi- vidual actions of the Zrrups. :he Cul hc:s no intention of isrupting the essential link of direct contact between €overr..ert or nrivstc entlties of the;indS�:dudl,grcups. z. Accountability hhe CCI will be accountable to the CPOs, NciChhcrhood associations and Municipal co--ur!ity organizations they represent, d. Scope of Activities 1) To meet regularly. 2) To devise a 3yCtem for a continuous or^crtunity for c:itizer. involvement. 3) To act as a forum .or the exchange of ideas anon; leaderscip, n":�er shdp a:Zc interested parties. L) To promote communications a^tong the C?Os, Neighbonccod ;xsn. and Municipal i Connurity Organization, county, state and regional governments. $) �e-a�s0-ae-a-fst�}�-fes-t#�e-exekapge-ef-e eae-aMea To proviLe su aort for the C?0s, Neirhborhood Assn and IiOO incl:dirg ir,formatiorazl, educational and prorotio-l-c l assistance$ 6) To evaluate the Wast{ngton County Community Planning Organization Program and the entire citizens involvement process. 7) To provide for continuity of citizen participation and of i:format;on t::.t enables citizens to identify and comprehend issues. 8) jo assure that technical information is available in an understanable foist. 9) To assure that citizons receive a response from policymakers. e. 3tructure 1) Two representatives and two alternates from each CPO. 2) Two representatives and two alternates from Neighborhood „ssr. Council., These four should be one representative from each designated County Goovdasioner's district. (Could be four representatives and four alternates) 3) representatives from each Municipal Community Ortarization lt) in6s shall be held at specified tir►cs and locrtiona decided upon _ by members. L 1?8E,8 • K Codi• J:iT_iY CooidjTNATCH •� The Coan.�nity LevFlopr►a:�t Coordinator , an Extension Agent, shall onl;• coordinate ti d CPOs shill be ccns tiered active if the; ti ose �.os that are �.,r;.idere� active. �,,. meet the cr{tpria sz: s?t �cifiec. nctive :;.?Os shill bE- d'eternined the vC�ra_nc.o:a The :,omrjunity_ievc:onnent Coordinator's responsitilities shawl-be a.' Maintain essential coru:.unia::.tions link bet•zcen interested citizens, May ent, local, a and regional CPos ' ashington County Plannin6 Departnon governmental bodies. Promotion of internal information exct^.:.nges m.Ma: include occasional visits to C"t'Os. b. Conducts educational prograns on effective "citizen" involvement: techniquos and land use planning,or government at the request of Washington County, CFOs or the CPO Leaders Group, c, Assist in resolving C?O related issues. d. Edits and distributes a newsletter to all a:.tive CIM members, city and county officials and others. e. Maintains limited m iline.- for active CPos provided: 1) Cr Os meet appropriate established guidelines. 2Z -!as ington County provides aperorriate secretarial backup. f. ,.rooks with C?o Leaders Grcup. Coordinritior. resnonsibilitiee as outlined by-%k— shall be reviewed b�• WashinEton County, ti-e en Leaders Group and the Extension ciervice on a sen'-Lnnual basis„ CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 17 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: jca DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, `1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None - ISSUE/AGENDA•TITLE: Director's Decision MLP 6-85, and MLP-7-85 PREPARED BY: Community Development REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 1ZI CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Director's decisions for MLP 6-85, requested by Gary Grass to divide a 2-acre parcel into three lots at 11455 SW 115th Avenue, and MLP 7--85, requested by Paul and Sharon Dahl to divide a 0.62 acre parcel into three lots at 11665 SW Greenburg Rd. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive and file. 2. Motion to remove from Consent Agenda and call up for Council review at a later meeting. SUGGESTED ACTION Receive a►nd file {1473P} CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 6-85 APPLICATION: Request by Gary Grass to divide a 2 acre parcel into three lots of 8,050, 8,050 and 71,020 ,square feet on property zoned R--4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) :and located at 11455 SW 115th Ave. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 340CQ Tax Lots 100, 101, 102). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of ` Tigard has APPROVED . the above described application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background In March, 1982 a Minor Land Partition (MLP 20-81) was approved by the City to allow the division of _a two acre parcel into three lots of 8,050, 8,050. and 71,020 square feet. This approval was valid for a one-year period and it expired because the division was not recorded within this time period. 2. Vicinity Information t The surrounding area is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). The area to the east consists of small acreage homesites that are comparable to the subject property and the land west of 115th Avenue is developed with single family residential lots. A minor collector street designation applies to 115th Avenue which has a bike lane along the frontage of the subject property. 3. Site Information and Proposal Description . The applicant is proposing the same _property division that was reviewed in 1982. The existing house and accessory buildings will be within the 71,020 square foot lot (Parcel C) and the two 8,050 square foot lots (Parcels A andfrontage on 115thbe Avenue.in the with northwest corner of the property 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. Public sanitary sewer facilities are not within the 115th Avenue right-of-way. A sanitary sewer line should be extended to serve the proposed parcels or Washington County Health Dept. approval for septic systems on Parcels A and B will be necessary before 'building permits can be issued. i NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 6-85 - PAGE 1 b. Due to its minor collector status, a right-of-way width from centerline of 30 feet is required. C. Half-street improvements should be provided along the entire 115th Avenue frontage. The Building Inspection Office has no objection to the application. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposeddivision is consistent with the applicable standards in he Community Development Code for minimum lot size (7,500 square feet), minimum lot width (50 feet), building setbacks, and access. The lot configuration will also allow for further division of Parcel C in the future. This proposal will keep development options open for adjoining properties as well. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves MLP 6-55 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PARTITION. 2. Standard half-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage al-4 utilities shall be installed along the S.W. 115th Avenue frontage. Said improvements along S.W. 115th Avenue shall be built to minor collector standards and conform to the alignment _of the centerline of S.W. 115th Avenue as established by County Survey No. 20,267. 3. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) 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 public improvement plans. In lieu of constructing this sanitary sewer, the applicant, shall execute a sanitary sewer non-remonstrance agreement (on City forms) and gain septic system approval from the Washington County Health Department. 5. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the engineering Section has issued approval public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100' Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuanceofapproved public improvement plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS NOTICE OF DECISION MLP 6-55 - PACE 2 s L 6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated tot he Public along the '+ S.W. 115th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by County Survey No. 20,267. The dedication document shall be on CityForms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 7. The "basis of bearings" for the Partition Survey shall be County Survey No. 20,267, which is part of the Tigard field Survey Network. 8. The partition survey and legal descriptions shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. - THE CITY SHALL RECORD THESE DOCUMENTS AFTER THEY ARE APPROVED AND A COPY SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT. 9. 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; X The applicant owners X_ Owners of record within the required distance X - The affected Neighborhood Planning organisation Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 6-17-85 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED 3. A eal: 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 5:00 P.M. 6-17-85 4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Haul, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639--4171. ` aaum A. Monahan, Director of Community Develo eret 7-7-85 Pm DATE APPROVED (KSL:psk'1457P) NOTICE OF DECISION - MLP 6-85 - PAGE 3 atI 1 i MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 6-85 GARY GRASS one The Director has approved with conditions a rQquast to .divide at 2 pparcelz into three lots o� 8,050, 8.050, and 71,020 sq. ft. on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acro� Located �1A55 SW 115th Ave. (a1C7Y1 ISI 34OG lots 100. 102). l_l-J!'L- 11 101. eft 1 r - , 1 } .a f,r,q.. 1' S:+, 111..•gzl. i CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 7-85 APPLICATION: Request by Paul and Sharon Dahl for partition approval to divide a 0.62 acre parcel into three lots of 11,040, 9,847 and 6,480 square feet each on property zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) and located at _11665 S.W. Greenburg Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map 1S1 35DC, Tax Lot 2600). DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background In October, 1982 a Minor Land Partition (MLP 10-82) was approved by the City to allow_the`division of a 0.62 acre parcel into three lots of 11,040, 9,847 and 6,480 square feet. This approval expired because it was not recorded within the one-year time limit. 2. Vicinity Information The surrounding area is developed with single family residences. R The land to the south and west is zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) and the properties north of Greenburg Road and east of 91st Avenue are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre). 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The property contains one residence that is near the corner of 91st Avenue and Greenburg Road, which is designated as a major collector street. The house will be within the 11,040 square foot parcel and the other two lots are undeveloped. The 6,480 .square foot parcel will have frontage on 91st Avenue and the 9,847 square foot lot will have a 20 foot wide access strip onto Greenburg Road, 4. Agency and .NPO Comments a The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. The existing and proposed driveway onto Greenburg Road should be combined. b. As with the previous, approval half-street improvements are required along the Greenburg Road/91st Avenue frontage. C. It appears that ; adequate right-of-way has been dedicated along the property frontage. The required right-of-way 3 width from centerline is 35 and 25 feet from Greenburg Road and 91st Avenue respectively: NOTICE OF DECISION - MLP 7-85 PAGE 1 - lk The Building Inspection Office notes that all lots should have access to sanitary sewer. - - B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed division is consistent with the applicable standards in-the CommunityDevelopment Code for minimum -lot size (5,000 square feet), minimum lot width (50 feet), building setbacks, and access. It should be noted that the flag lot with access to Greenburg Road will require a lo-foot side yard setback as provided in Section 18.96.090 of the Community Development Code. The allowable building`heights on flag lots are also limited under certain circumstances according to section 18.98.030 of the Code (copy enclosed). C. DECISION The Planning Director approves MLP 7-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Standard half-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the S.W. Greenburg Road frontage. Said improvements along S.W. Greenburg Road shall be built to major collector standards. Said improvements shall be designed to eventually match both vertically and horizontally, improvements in front of Barbee Court Subdivision. 2. Standard half-street improvements including sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, driveway aprons, storm drainage and utilities shall be installed along the S.W. 91st Avenue frontage. Said improvements along S.W. 91st Avenue shall be built to local street standards. 4. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and one (1) 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. 5. Sanitary sewer plan-profile details shall be provided as part of f the public improvement plans. 6. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the engineering Section has issued approval to public improvement plans. The Section will require posting °f a ,10070 Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur blic prior to; or concurrently with the issuance; of approved pu improvetacnt plans. SEE THE ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVINA MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARbING FEE SCHEDULES BONDING-AND AGREEMENYS. MLP 7-85 PAGE 2 NOTICE OF DECISION - IME 7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. Gr•eenburg Road frontage to increase the right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall ` be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City Forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 8.' Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the S.W. 91st Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline. The description for said dedication shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by Washington. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCLOSED. 9. 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. JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FORMS ARE ENCLOSED. 10. The partition survey and legal descriptions shall besubmittedto the Planning Director for review and approval THE CITY SHALL RECORD THESE DOCUMENTS AFTER THEY ARE APPROVED AND A COPY SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT. 11. 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: X The applicant 6 owners X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 6-17-85 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and Section 19.32.370 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 sant. The deadlinefor filing of an appeal is 5:00 P.M. 6--17-85 'NOTICE OF DECISION - MLP 7-85 _ PAGE 3 4`, 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, r 6-7-85 Wil lam A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE APPROVED f (KSL:pm/1469P) i MINOR LAND PARTITION MLP 7--85 PAUL & SHARON DAHL NPO # 2 � The Director has approved with conditions a request to divide a 0.62 acre parcel into three lots of 11,040, "9.847, and 6.480 sq. ft. each on property zoned R--7, (Residential, 7 units/acre). Located: 11665 SW Greenburhg Rd. (WCTM 1S1 350C. ;lot 2600). r f 4 t E .. 7-85 PAGE 4 NOTICE OF OECIS16N — NILP �k. + CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Q AGENDA OF: June 17, 1985 AGENDA ITEM N: DATE SUBMITTED: June 12, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Director's Decision for V 12-85 and TU 2-85 PREPARED BY: Community-Development REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are the Director's decisions for V 12-85 for a Variance to allow the construction of an 864 square foot building on a lot zone R4.5, requested by Edward and Kay Echauri, and a requestbyEdward A. Sassone for a Temporary Use € to allow operation of a booth to sell fireworks at Greenway Town Center, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive and File 2. Motion to remove from Consent Agenda and call up for Council review at a later meeting. SUGGESTED ACTION Receive and file. } CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION VARIANCE V 12-85 't i i Echauri for a Variance to allow the } APPLICATION: Request by Edward and Kay with a maximum height of 13 feet � permitted on Property ty zoned construction of an aFaot�anadr�12o Foot heig are ted 9780 S.bi. McDonald St. where a 500 q 4 5 units/acre) and loca R-4.5 (Residential, (wash Co Tax Map 2S1 118A. Tax Lot 500)- of given at the Planning Director for the City DECISION: Notice E hereby g that application subject to certain Tigard has d conclusions on wh ApPROVt� the above described conditions. The findings an the Director baser! his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background have No previous land use applications relating to this property been reviewed by the City, 2, Vicinity Information ernes are zoned R-A.5 (Residential, All of the surrounding propertiesto the 4.5 unitslacre). McDonald McDona d Streesubdivision t a d west larger parcels are to the border the property on the north and south. 3, Site Information and Proposal Description A residence is situated in the northern section of the property with access to McDonald Street. There accessory buildings rtio of the of in poor repair in the central po to construct a 36 by 24 foot building The applicant proposes at the roof totaling 864 square feet. The height wi 1 hbuihave a�i 8 30, and 52 peak will be 13 feet. The building and west property lines foot setback from the east, south, redpectively. An acce3s drive is proposed to Elrose Street. All. other accessory buildings on the parcel will be removed. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division notes that a street opening Permit will be required to obtain access to Elrose Street. The Building inspection Division has no objection. 85 PAGE 1 NOTICE OF DECISION — V 12— MF i g, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION approval Section 18.134.050 of the Code requires that the following criteria for variance proposals be met: variance will not be materially detrimental to the 1. The proposed licies of the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with c he pololicieo and comprehensive Plan, to any other app district d standards and to other properties in the same zoning vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances . that h t or exist which peculiar othercircumstances over the lot size or shape, topontro y licable which the applicant has no control, and .which are not app to other properties in the samepermzoning district; er this e and 3, The use proposed will be the same ato thel greatest xt nt�thatais City standards will be maintained some economic use of the reasonably possible; while permitting land; ot and natural systems, rms ited to suchors�parksn will 4. be q, Existing physical dramatic land � traffic, drainage, affected any more thanwould occur. adversely if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5, quested is the The hardship is not self—imposed fate the hardship nd the variance re minimum variance which would alley ot (12 feet) The primary purpose f the size (500 square feet) and heighstructures is to maintasn of lea limitations for detached accessary not allowing building residential character of neighborhoods by appearance. The size. and size that are commercial or industrial in buildings. Attached height limits only apply to detached accessory nly to the height and setback requirements for a garages are subject o residence. Also, the Code has no limit on the number of accessory applicant could have two 500 square foot buildings and buildings and the ape meet the applicable requirements. The lding�is possible. in such a manner that only a detached accessory applicant presently does not have a garage andthe activity The Fp building. will servesed nor would one be permitted. is proposed The building w2 feet. ill exceed sll thrvidei considerably maxmum heightamor than the llowance oflrequir ed ant w Pote 13 building setback of 5 feet. This ads building in ca moray pensathat However, the applic he would foot height by- not locating an oversized adversely affect an adjoining Property. Except fize variance, the or the height and s proposed structure is consistent with all other aspects of:the City Code 12-85 PAGE 2 CL NOTICE OF DECISION - V S a�egzz a amsas�� _ C. DECISIOiti The Planning Director approves V 12-85 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits shall be obtained prior to construction. g, R street opening permit shall be obtained from the�E�cessring Division (contact John Hagman or Randy Clarno) Elrose Street. 3. The building shall not exceed 13 feet in height or 864 square feet in floor area. The building shall be located as shown on the plan submitted with a minimum setback of 8 feet to the east and west and 20 feet to the south. 4. No commercial/industrial activity shall be permitted. 5. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. NNotice was pub otice: lished in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: The applicant 6 owners xx Owners of record within the required distance xx The affected Neighborhood Planning or9 aniztion Affected governmental agencies 2, Final Decision: HALL BE FINAL +0N June 21„ 1985 UNLESS AN APPEAL THE DECISION S IS FILED. 3. f� Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(A) and eseCthat ation 8•written 32.370 o appe&If the Community bee Development Code which provides filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:00 P.M. 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. (� 91 RS APPROVED Wil zam,A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE (KSL:pm/1480P) NOTICE OF. DECISION V 12-85 PAGE 3 ;: is J- ' x CITY OF TIGARD f. NOTICE OF DECISION { TEMPORARY USE TU 2-85 ' F APPLICATION: A request by Edward A. Sassone for approval of a temporary use to allow operation of a booth to sell fireworks from June 26, 1985 to July 6. 1985 at Greenway Town Center. The property is located at 12220 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Tigard (Washington County Tax Map 1S1 34BC Tax Lot 300). The t property is zoned C-G. t: DECISION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background A Temporary Use permit was approved for the same site in 1984 to benefit the same organization. All conditions of the permit approval were met. 2. Vicinity Information Residential development and vacant land within the City of Beaverton is situated on the north side of Scholls Ferry Road. Undeveloped land zoned C-P (Commercial Professional) lies to the west and commercial developments related to the shopping center are situated between the subject property and 121st Avenue to the east. Residentially zoned land (R-20) is south of the shopping center. Multi family units are under construction on that parcel at this time. 3 Site Information and Proposal Description The applicant wishes to establish a temporary booth for the sale of fireworks. The proceeds are to be used to raise funds for the New Life United Pentecostal Church. The booth is proposed to be - open from June 26th through July 6th. It will be located in the t north and of the parking lot serving Thriftway, Century Drugs. and k; Baskin Robbins, Y. 4. Agency and NPO Comments Comments have not been solicited but reviewing agencies and NPO 7 u, will be given a copy of the decision and given the opportunity to appeal. NOTICE OF DECISION - TU 2=85 - PAGE 1 N' 8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposed activity is consistent with the approval criteria set forth in Section 18.11140.050 C. of the Code. The use will be temporary; safe access and adequate parking is available; no hazards to pedestrian are apparent; and no adverse off-site impacts are anticipated. C. DECISION Temporary Use Permit TU 2-85 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The sale of fireworks shall not commence until June 26, 1985 and no appeals have been filed. 2. The fireworks booth shall be removed by midnight July 6, 1985. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant 6 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 _June 21, 1985 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Appeal: e 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 3:00 P.M. June 21, 1985 . 4. 49estions: 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. Wil - nahan , Director of Community Development /DATE APPROVED (KSL:czI1477P) NOTICE OF DECISION — TU 2-85 — PAGE 2 KNEW Mani MEMORANDUM 9,, 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON l TO: Mayor and City Council June 13 1985 FROM: Eoreen Wilson, Recorder SUBJECT Agenda Item # 9.3 This item will be considered at_the'6/24 '85 Council meeting on consent agenda. lw/2868A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY . AGENDA OF: June 17, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: '7 t DATE SUBMITTED: June 12, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA:TITLE: Award Bid Mower and Sewer Cleaner PREPARED ,BY: Jerry McNurlin REQUESTED BY: Jerry McNurlin DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: /Z�'� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Bid Openings for the Mower and Sewer Cleaner were opened Monday, June 10, 1985, at 3:00 P.M. Following is a summary of bidders prices: Sewer Cleaner Gang Reel Mower/Tractor General Equipment a $50,336.100") "C r Yeager Ford * $16,307.00 Samco ba btok $52,011.10 Bull Equipment $28,500.00 E.P.C. $54,336.10 Turfgo $33,500.00 These were budgeted items for this fiscal year, with the Sewer Cleaner being budgeted for $70,000.00, and the Gang Reel Mower/Tractor was budgeted for $35,000.00. *Does not meet specifications. - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Award bid 2. Readvertise SUGGESTED ACTION After reviewing,each bid, as to their qualifications to our specifications, � staff suggests that the Sewer Cleaner be awarded to'General,Equipment for a $50,336.10; and the Gang Reel Mower/Tractor be awarded to Bull Equipment at $28,500.00. 3 a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON w COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: �" (-7 AGENDA ITEM ##: � DATESUBMITTED: May 20, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: NONE` ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: St. Dedication Compliance 89reement Rimkeit — PREPARED BY: John Hagman Authorize CitV execution REQUESTED BY Development Services Dept DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: G'J V CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY - 1. This dedication and half street improvement project is locatedon SW 121st Avenue north of Rose Vista Drive; 121st Avenue being a County Road 2. Public improvement construction plans have been reviewed by the City and are approvable. All required fees and (bond) deposits have been made. 3. The attached Agreement is acceptable to staff. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the Mayor and City , Recorder to execute the Street Dedication Compliance Agreement for SCJ 121st Avenue on behalf of the City. VSH:bs/1383P) .s STREET DEDICATION COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated this 1-7 day of M ti� , 1985 , between the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter termed the "City", and Gene Rimkeit and hereinafter termed ".Petitioner W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Petitioner has applied to the City for approval for dedication of a street to be known as S.W. 121st Avenue (half street improvement) as described- on the attached Exhibit A , and by reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard requires Petitioners for street dedications to install streets, sidewalks, street lighting, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, underground utilities and other public facilities for the development of the street 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 specifications for sanitary sewers prepared by professional engineers for Public Works construction; and WHEREAS, the public improvements required to be constructed or placed in t _ the said street area are incomplete, but Petitioner has nonetheless requested the City to permit dedications of the property to the public and the parties herein named desire to protect the public interest generally by legally enforceable assurance that 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 surety, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Petitioner shall proceed with the intent and purpose complete City public improvements as shown on the improvement plan, as app • of Tigard, prepared by Burton Engineering (Tigazd Oze�un) Said improvements to be completed no later than one. (l) year from the date of with standard this agreement, and Petitioner hereby agrees to comply specifications as adopted by the City, or as otherwise ith be r have terms band approved by the Department of Public Works, to comply provisions specified hereinregard this improvement by the Council and Planning Commission of the City of Tigard, Oregon, and to use only such material 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 hereof, Petitioner tenders herewith to the City a surety bond in form approved .: 16,400.00 by the City, with liability is the amount of t S 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 limited, 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 inthe 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 promiseand agree to pay, in addition to the amounts accruing and allowable, such sum as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees and costs 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 costs, both in the Trial Court and Appellate Court, if any. 4. Petitioner, concurrent with the execution hereof, has deposited with the City an amount estimated to equal_rental and maintenance fees with respect to the street lighting facilities according to Portland General Electric Schedule /91, Option E together with a further sum equal to the estimated cost of providing electrical energy to energize the street lighting facilities for a period of two (2) years from the date of initial energizing of said lights, ' in the sum of $ 349.44 ,._ 5. The City agrees to make and provide periodic and final inspections which in the City's interest are desirable to assure compliance herewith, in consideration whereof the Petitioner has paid prescribed inspection fee of 4% of the total estimated cost of the construction; said fee being $ 656-00 . 6. The City agrees to installation of certain street identification and traffic signs for said street, in consideration of payment in the amount of $ 66.60 7. At such time as the public improvements have been completed in accordance with - the City's requirements, Petitioner shall submit a "certificate of installation conformance" to the City to notify the City of the readiness for acceptance consideration inspection and upon notification by the Department of Public Works that the requirements of the City have been met, the Petitioner will submit to the City .a good and sufficient maintenance bond, if not already provided with the performance bond form approved by the _ City, in the sum of $3,280-00 to provide for correction of any defective work or maintenance becoming apparent or arising within one (1) year of tentative acceptance of the public improvements by the City. 8. Within one year of tentative acceptance of the public improvements the Petitioner agrees to place a un asphaltic concrete Class overlay on all roads. 9. Petitioner agrees to provide for correction of any defective work ' and/or maintenance becoming apparent or arising during the guarantee period as hereinabove set forth. 2 — 10. At such time as all public improvements have been completed in s requirements, Petitioner shall notify the City of accordance with the City the readiness for final inspection andofu the pon certification havebeen met, the t Council Public Works that all requirements ---- for operation and maintenance agrees to accept said improvements, guar bond. responsibility thereinregard, and release the Petitioner's g• ties have executed this agreement pursuant to IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the par authority in each of them. PETITIONER Gene Rimkeit: X CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON BY: ` yo ° BY: <c l ? s_ Recorder STATE OF OREGON )ss. County of _ _ ) b 19 �~. Personally On this - day of — appeared the above named and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be voluntary act ,and deed Hefor me: Notary Pub is or Oregon My Commission expires: H b'1 7 !- ENGINEERING & ` SURVEYING r Civil Engineers O Land Surveyors , 97223 • 503-639-6116 302 Tigard Pt:::a '• Hall Blvd.&Pacific Hwy. • Tigard, Oregon April 29, 1985 STREET DEDICATION Job No. 85-169 Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 3, Township 2 South, `Range< 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; thence North 0030' East along the West line of said Section 3 ,a distance of 1320 feet to the Southwest corner of that certain tract of land de- scribed in Book 179, page 117, deed records of Washington County; thence continuing along the West section line North 0046' East 495.00 feet to the Southwest corner of "WILLAMETTE PLAT 2 a duly recorded subdivision; thence South 86055' East along the Southerly line of said Subdivision 1417.60 feet to a point in County Road No. 411 ; thence South 29026100" West along the centerline of said County Road 599.30 feet to the most Easterly Southeast cornerof that certain tract of land last described in Book 283, page 505, deed records of Washington County thence North 76042100" West along the Southerly line of said last-mentioned tract 20.82 feet to a point on the existing Westerly right of way line of County Road No. 411 , and the Point of Beginning of a 10.00 foot wide dedication strip; thence continuing along said Southerly linea distance of 10.41 feet, North 76°42'00" West; thence South. 29026'00" West, parallel to and 10.00 feet Westerly of said West= erly right of way line a distance of 353.24 feet to' a point on the South line of that certain tract of land described in deed to Robert Kennedy and Jean Kennedy, husband and wife, in Book 730, page 630, deed records of Washington County; thence South 83°00'00" East along the South line of said Kennedy tract 10.82 feet to a point on the Westerly right of } way line of said County Road No. 411; thence North 29026'00" East along said Westerly right of way line 352.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. a Containing 0.081 acres. 'I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: June 17 1985 AGENDA ITEM# ' DATE SUBMITTED: June C, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Sidewalk bond ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Winterlake reduction on March 4, 1985 sidewalk bond reduction PREPARED BY: Randy Clarno REQUESTED BY: Engineering & Developer_ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK; (/6 ` "CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Winterlake -is a 29 lot subdivision located east of SW 135th Avenue and south of SW Brittany Drive. The Developers (OR—AK Corporation) are requesting a reduction in their sidewalk bond since ' additional sidewalks have been completed since the last reduction. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Engineering recommends that Council authorize this reduction of OR--AK Corporations sidewalk bond for Winterlake: (RSC:cxl1459P) :mom mom June 6, 1985 CITYOFTIIFARD WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON Gordon Hobbs Or-Ak.Corp. 13050 SW Forest Meadow Way Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 RE: ''Winterlake Subdivision (Sidewalk bond reduction) Dear Mr. Hobbs: In the matterof ,the eleven thousand three hundred four and 00/100 dollars ($11,304.00) Sidewalk bond, between Or-Ak Corporation and the City of Tigard, Oregon and Washington Federal' Savings Bank; this is to serve as official notice to allow said Washington Federal Savings Bank` to release to Or-Ak Corporation, a portion of the deposit entrusted to said Washington -Federal Savings Bank. z The amount hereby authorized to be released is two thousand six hundred F - .forty-nine and 84/100 dollars (2,649.84). t The amount to remain entrusted to Washington Federal Savings Bank as a cash performance bond to assure the City that all remaining requirements of said Subdivision are completed, shall be four thousand five hundred thirty-nine and 06/100 ($4,539.06). This notice shall not be construed to nullify or alter the terms of the aforesaid sidewalk bond in any way; it is merely an authorization to release a portion of the entrusted monies. i City of Tigard, Oregon P 3 y r 1 A, By (RSC:cz/1459P) 12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:5394171 9: 7 LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT THIS LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT made this day of 1985, between GERALD W. and CAROL L. CROW, husband and wife; " _�) ' and CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation ("Tenant") ( Landlord 1. CURRENT LEASE. There exists a Lease Agreement between Landlord and Tenant dated October 19,' 1981. The term of this Lease commenced on October 30, 1981 and terminated on October 31, 1983 By an agreement dated September 19, 1983 and entitled "LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT", Landlord and Tenant extended the term of said Lease to and including June 30, _1984. By an agreement dated February 20, 1984, and entitled "LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT10, Landlord and Tenant extended the term of said Lease to and including June 30, 1985. This Lease and Lease Extension Agreement are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth 2. ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF LEASE Landlord and Tenant Agree to extend the term of to and for a period commencing July 1this extended lease , 1985, and ending on January 31, 1986.. 3. OPTION TO EXTEND AGREEMENT. Landlord and Tenant agree that Tenant shall have the option to extend the date of this Agreement to February 28 Marc April 1986, if Tenant first gives written notice to Landlord honlorrbefore 30, December 1, 1985. 4 . TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE EXTFNSION AGREEMENT, The terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement dated October 19, 1981, the Lease Extension Agreement dated September 19, 1983, and the Lease Extension Agreement dated February 20, 1984, shall continue and the monthly rent shall be fixed at $4,425.00, not including the pro rata share of sewer, maintenance and taxes per this Agreement. The City agrees to pay $50,00 per month towards water; $65.00 per month towards electricty; and $35.00 per month towards insurance. The City will continue to pay its pro rata share for the sewer and property taxes should the exemption no longer apply, 5. CLARIFICATION OF TERMS OF LEASE. The Lease Agreement dated October 19, 1981 in paragraph 23, Maintenance, provides for the maintenance of landscaping. At a meeting held on October 5, 1984, and memorialized in a memorandum dated October 5, 1985, Landlord and Tenant interpreted the provision relating to maintenance of landscaping to mean that the Tenant shall maintain the landscaping as follows: a. Mow all lawns every two weeks. b• Trim or spray around building completely as needed. C. Sweep all of parking lot as needed. �. d. Clean islands -inparking lot. , 0-1 3 1 - LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT e.- Mow and trim perimeter of the parking lot as needed. f. -Trim all trees as needed. g. Clean flower beds as needed. 6. The City agrees that, at the time it vacates the premises, the premises shall be left in a clean condition. 7 ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Lease Extension Agreement supersedes and replaces all written and ural agreements heretofore made or existing by or on behalf of the parties with the exception of that certain Lease Agreement between the parties dated October 19, 1981, Lease Extension Agreement between the parties dated September 19, 1983, and the Lease Extension Agreement between the parties dated February 20, 1984 8 PREPARATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement has been prepared by O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott & Crew, acting for the benefit and 'protection of the Tenant. Landlord acknow- ledges Landlord's right to have this Agreement and all matters related thereto reviewed by Landlords own and independent counsel. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in duplicate as of the day and year first above written. 3y; CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal Gerald W. Crow corporation By; By: Carol L. Crow le: i j Y J., } " 2 LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT; Co 1A I Irl Yha I I jj METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT Providing Zoo,Solid Waste and Local Government Services eek MEMO June 11, 1985 527S,w xattst.' Partlane,Oregon 97207-52&T M)221-1646 The Honorable John Cook Mayor of Tigard Rick Gustafson P. 0. Box 23397 Erec„riveOfficer Tigard, OR 97223 Metro Council Ernie Danner Dear-Mayor,Cook PresidingO f— Dis,ricf$ _. Richard Waker For over a year Metro and an Advisory Group have been holding Dep p aiding public meetings to discuss the siting of a transfer station rKf2 in the Beaverton area or Washington County. The Advisory olewn Group and the community have identified six areas for dis- mt cussion. we are planning to meet with the residents and businesses in each of these areas to discuss the transfer �'"'�a'd"" center. After the area meetings, a public meeting scheduled District 3 for July 16, 1985, will bring together all of the issues and c°`�` ts`"`�` concerns on locating an acceptable site for a 'transfer and recycling center. 7bm Dejardin District 5 „ I have enclosed a copy of the revised criteria and the evalu- ation of the 79 sites along with the staff report. Maps depicting the six proposed areas are also included. Sharron Kelley Distrirf 7 Throughout the siting process, I feel the public has had a �iay, ys,a good understanding of the need for a transfer and recycling center. However, agreeing on a site is difficult. Metro and i"YCOO the Advisory Group have identified six areas that would be foury suitable for a- transfer center. We have not prioritized the MD`wrictif areas, since all of them appear to be workable with the proper design. I am asking for your help and participation in locat- oanit12 ing an acceptable area that will provide both a service and a benefit to the residents, businesses and the commercial haulers in Washington County. Sincerely, Rick Gustafson Executive Officer RG/PH/srs-3606C/D2-3 2, Enclosures ;t EVALUATION PROCESS FOR SITING WASHINGTON TRANSFER & RECYCLING CENTER REVISED CRITERIA Step 1 Fatal Flaw Analysis - Step 2 Cumulative Analysis of Eight Criteria Step 3 Additional -Information for Most Promising Sites -_Step i Fatal Flaw Analysis For sites to be considered in the cumulative phase of site evaluation, sites must meet the following minimum criteria. A site must be: a. No more than seven miles from the center of waste b. Four acres or greaten c. No smaller than 3001 for one dimension Step 2 Cumulative Analysis of Eight Criteria Weight Criteria Point System Factor I. Size of Site 5 Greater than 5 acres 1 3 4-5 acres 2. Geotechnical 5 Moderate slope, moderate soil, 1 Considerations no floodplain 4 No slope, moderate soil, no floodplain 3 Slight slope, severe soil high groundwater table 1 No slope, severe soil, high groundwater table 3. Availability of 5 All utilities I Utilities , E (within 1000 ' 4 All except rail of property line) 3 Power, water only 2 Sewer only I No utilities a, Weight Criteria Point System Factor >° 5 Permit 2 4. zoning 4 Type II process 3 Type III process 1 Plan amendment/zone change 5. Distance from 5 Less than 2 miles 2 Center of Waste 4 2--4 miles 3 4-6 miles 2 6-7 miles 6. Transportation 5 - fit mile or less from highway 2 Access serviced by arterial (Transfer Trucks) 4 h mile or less from highway serviced by arterial 3 1 mile or less from highway serviced by arterial 2 More than 1 mile from highway serviced by arterial l Greater than 2 miles from highway serviced by arterial 7. Transportation 5 Predominantly direct access 2 Access from highway (Collection Vehicles) 4 Mixed highway/arterial use with four access points 3 Predominantly arterial use with three access points 2 Mixed arterial/collector with two access points 1 Predominantly local streets or ` central business district y r. aye-�,qgmm�-f Weight CriteriaPoint System Factor 8. Compatibility to 3 Adjacent Sites* (500 ' radius) Developed Land Vacant Land 5 Heavy industry 5 No existing exclusive farm use development plans 4 Warehouse/distribution 3 Mixed use, auto _3 Developer has commercial, development food processing plan or master plan 2 Campus environment/ 2 User has develop corporate office ment plan or or master plan 1 Residential/school Step 3 Additional Information From Public Meeting and Discussions with Landowners for Most Promising Sites 1. Availability of Site 2. Cost of Land 3. Compatibility *Sites adjacent to a variety of uses (either developed or vacant) will be determined by using an average figure of adjacent uses. RW/srs 3560C/412-3 05/20/85 L �i EVALUATION OF SITES 4 After three advisory group meetings , a revised edition of criteria were used to evaluate 79 sites. The list of sites has Increased because of input from the public and the Ad Hoc s Committee of the Sunset Corridor. The revised criteria sets minimum standards by which all sites are evaluated. Sites with physical limitations for development or seven 'miles from the - -----center--of—waste-generation were eliminated-from-the-evaluation - process . Twenty eight sites were eliminated by the "fatal 4 flaw" analysis. Fifty-one sites meeting these minimum standards were evaluated in a cumulative manner using the point system for eight additional criteria. These criteria included: size of ;; site, geotechnical considerations, availability of utilities, zoning, distance from center of waste, transportation access for transfer trucks, transportation access for collection vehicles and compatibility. Six ureas surface as being the most favorable areas for location of a transfer station. Ten sites are located within these five areas. Staff recommends that sites with fifty-five or more points be carried forward to a public meeting in June. Fifty-five was chosen as a cut off point to ensure that a variety of areas were evaluated by the public on the issue of compat- ibility. Also, a variety of areas ensures that a diversity of _ public groups will be involved in building the_needed consensus to site a transfer station. These six areas include: Area A- Allen Blvd. and Western. Ave. Area B- Denny Road and Highway 217 Area C- Millikan Road and T.V. Highway Area D- Jenkins Road and 158th Area 8- Cornelius Pass and Sunset Highway Area F- T.V. Highway and 229 All these areas would be suitable for siting a transfer station. The six areas are depicted on the attached maps . Sites in Areas A and B are close to the center of waste generation with good access from Highway 217. Several sites are In existing industrial areas , while some sights are in close proximity to residential areas. Area C is close to the center of waste generation with good access from T. V. Highway. These sites are in close proximity to existing and future high-tech development. One site would require a zone change. Area D is close to the center of waste, but further from principal high- ways . These sites are surrounded by a mix of adjacent uses including food processing and unplanned vacant land. Area E is further from the center of waste but with good access from Sunset Highway. The adjacent uses includes existing and future high- tech and corporate office development. Area F is further from the center of waste generation along T.V. Highway and is surrounded by unplanned vacant land. The site is located, in the Rose Way ,� Industrial Park in the City of Hillsboro. At the July public meeting, ; comments and concerns regarding the five general areas for site selection will be solicited. Information from the public meeting, along with information gathered from landowners in regards to availability and price of land, will be assessed by the Advisory Grouprand Metro bef_o `�""'rat11 tai—fi;il -s3f-es- and making a recommendation to the Metro Council . } °'� { 1 �� qJ• MCMILLA PARK V� CYPR ESS T� ST. . k�✓ U; d �© cc 11`i' Vit'. HARV Y CT. z 45 a: w �� g tarp � w BLVD. � SUNSH NE �o CTS 1 GLASS .�. a AREA . Allen Blvd.& Western Ave, Beavert®n C3 sites 1.wt M sT s 2 Otv0 cp 6401 . i _ s�s.....f ? I� cl. «. �Ctwa 40 4 BEA 1 .3�,`i� ^ RTO 4� ` -C.SS pop 33.540 �.. .- Ess Ce $«file C• CT i "OV W M(1°a OI H(rMU ` Afi. A417VWi (� e4 f44 w NAKE01 1; Af Q. s •'E N ,i s w1941 C Q 4 CAOI Ar _CC � � a. -Tac!RC1 Re z S. aEaaeY a' a OEahEY� $ no. L >t `ti4 C C Sl cwvT►t i g ti wsle'sc/+oar ` e 40 ; � 0U1 TE IN v ftv fes, R W[ATMEf1 � lN. c` •Owo sT. a s e t._ , N�wfcEME� f Y �A t�,3C- r•�' �.. 10 E1 aT, Q�/ flCt[ * P Pt GAROE, CL&I 'MOI CINQv ST. 1 r v, � MitKAV��p ••. rf110GEV4c%w 4IroA PAi1K scm. 4 4LICNra J �'� F ~`~ TERw. r 1 fr sv►U" fO_ftOO Jt. Prw• z�rj,♦ �Oii' PPv p // Y � EAccE � 4 KLAIfIE qtr Q a CAVSTAl ST C ILII w000 1 LIL��JJJ v G ^�� GwEYTw000 0 45V+ S PflOGOES GOLF �� PAfIKVICW Lf' i StRAr MO�CSTEA M�V L04. f AMMO VS O NC `CRC3� CNC VE 0w 000 ST bm�l0 IT rVICKEfewfJO0 eT. . PROGRESS d GO441II EL cT. > 4 C f O c1 rAPIA-OUSt f. AREA Denney Road & Hwy. 217, Beaverton (1 site) J e via ao. q0� j{45 0 4 IP RVS L 40 PAaeK 37 d �; pF A ti 3 4 tee 401ti eQOAC VOw •OVS CREEK CW V"c dK-Cv C[ea, 56 T(/A�Ar O GA L c- W � N + S.T. •AAft eye o vewCfMT ! Of T04K 4 ST.t14 Tom£*AAOVS > V"4cm < �q�(.M wts weoeea ct. d v. L ST. SC*OOOL = wee+r0 On. o- z ui �4 a t � HC). xo i ec4t c LIaM : ~ `Se i , M rrIACY eANN Vii. ( r� AREA Millikan Road & T.V. Highway, 3 „e'IBeaverton/Washington County (3 sites) �V r U 0~0 Q Q' c Ln 'sem. m �� ,A Y O ✓��,/ f/ Off. 35/ ` AREA D Jenkins Road & 158th, Beaverton/Washington County (2, sites) EST UNION o , of Sr. �`�tv• w4' NON AT 16 O� .,I- a R Y Vr��P�Oa` w �+ LENOX p T V ELEM SCH. m W59 % U r� H L.APINE Uj � w l S O o ©1) c,� l CH LOQU �Q AY C h� s AREA E: Cornelius Pass Road : Sunset Hwy, ��,�, ► Washington County (1 site) w i � ,Na o r < �_ TRACtS —s M I IGOLDEM '1 1O RD. I BASTION - > r VIIIA S, I < z w� ►• I 0 J W"Ct[NOA C7 MACttaQA . �QS C b CT.<DIEi V sI-It n. tet- SIC iew CT I D E 9 P� �-- O `t CRAKE JOHN �S& , ' ST� < IL f Put�� G4'>" _ !T JOHNSON CT. .1OHNS01 WITC"HAd OLD E OAK 3T. Lo� _ DAVIS ST. Y wei Z I ti a� r N ,HfASAtrT ST. E!TINGER POND R_. r AREA Fa. T.V. Huey. & 229th Ave., Hillsboro C! site MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council June 17, 1985 FROM Joy Martin, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Transportation Forum The Transportation Forum, sponsored by the Tigard Transportation Committee and held on June 6, 1985, was videotaped. The unedited tape is scheduled to be cable cast on channel 12 at the following times: Monday, June 17 at 12:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 18 at 7:00 p.m, Thursday, June 20 at 7:00 p.m. Monday, June 24 at 12:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 25 at 7:00 p.m. Thursday, June 27 at 7;00 p.m. Monday, July l at 12:00 p.m. �'` Tuesday. July 2 at 7:00 p.m. �4w The video taping was a cooperative effort of the Transportation Committee, staff, and MACC. Additional times may be scheduled in July of either the full, unedited version or a shortened version. The Transportation Committee will decide the question of whether or not to do an edited version. JM:lw/0885p _ an