City Council Packet - 12/09/1985 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
BUSINESS & STUDY AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available.
DECEMBER 9, 1985, 7:00 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items are
10865 SW WALNUT asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
either the Mayor or City Administrator.
1. REGULAR BUSINESS& STUDY MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items: Motion to approve
as amended.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please)
3. PRESENTATION OF KEYS TO THE CITY
o Mayor Cook
4. QUARTERLY CITY/COUNTY ISSUES DISCUSSION
o City Administrator
40
5. AUDIT REPORT PRESENTATION
o Coopers & Lybrand
6. PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FY 85-86
o Public Hearing Opened
o Declarations or Challenges
o Summation by Budget Officer
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Budget Officer
o Council Questions or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council - Resolution No. 85-
7. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED). - HALL BLVD./BURNHAM LID FORMATION - Phase III
o Public Hearing Reopened - Continued From 11/25/85
o Declarations or Challenges
o Summation by Project Engineer
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Project Engineer
o Council Questions or Comments
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
88. CIVIC CENTER PROJECT REPORT
o City Administrator and Civic Center Advisory Committee
8. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT DISCUSSION
o City Administrator
99. URBAN SERVICES POLICY PLAN DISCUSSION
0 Administrative Assistant
9. CONSENT AGENDA, These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
9.1 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions
9.2 Authorize Release of Funds For Penn Lawn Estates Subdivision, and
authorize signatures ($42,441.04) - Resolution No. 85-105
9.3 Approve and authorize signatures for Agreement with John Alexander
at such time as Mr. Alexander signs agreement - Dartmouth Street
LID right-of-way
9.4 Approve amending agreement with Southern Pacific for 72nd Avenue
mainline sewer crossing by extending expiration date - Resolution
No. 85-103
9.5 Approve Amendment To Resolution No. 85-99 - Utilities and
Franchises Committee - Resolution No. 85-104
9.6 Approve Council Minutes - November 25, 1985
9.7 Ratify Phone Bid Award To GTE For $34,326 & appropriate same
amount from Contingency - Resolution No. 85-1.06
8 Receive and File: Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Film
Report
9.9 Approve Updated Consulting Engineer List
9.10 Receive and File Memo Re: Christmas Tree Lighting On Main Street
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) 6 (h) to discuss
labor relations and current/pending litigation issues.
12. ADJOURNMENT
3479A
i
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 9, 1985 - PAGE 2
x�.
ills
T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian (arrived
at 8:53 PM), and Jerry Edwards; City Staff: Bob Jean, City
Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development
Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson,
Deputy City Recorder.
2. QUORUM CONCERNS
a. Mayor Cook noted that under advise the Legal Counsel, the City
Council members present would consider matters informally. Upon
the arrival of Councilor Brian the Council would have a quorum
present and be able to take action on the agenda items.
3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS None were presented.
4. VISITOR'S AGENDA No one appeared to speak,
5. PRESENTATION OF KEYS TO THE CITY
a. Mayor Cook presented a key to the City for Wally Hoffman a former
Budget Committee member• and chairman and Mr . Phil Edin, former
Councilor.
b. Jeanne Caswell, Tigard Chamber of Commerce Director, presented Mr.
1 Edin with a certificate of appreciation for his community service.
6. QUARTERLY CITY/COUNTY ISSUES DISCUSSION
a. City Administrator synopsized some ongoing City-County issues and
stated Commissioner Rogers would be visiting with the Council
after the first of the year.
7. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT DISCUSSION
a. City Administrator discussed the process and job description for
the Police Chief position.
b. Councilor Edwards stated that he has decided to not be a candidate
for the Chief's position and will be able to participate in the
discussion.
C. Consensus was to wait for Councilor Brian for further action on
this item.
8. AUDIT REPORT PRESENTATION
a. Former Councilor Edin introduced Mr. John Dethman; of Coopers 6
Lybrand, who was responsible for the 1984-85 fiscal year audit of
the City books. Mr. Edin suggested that Council continue to have
a Councilor be the Finance Representative and work with the
auditors through the year. _
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985
as
b. Mr. John Dethman presented the audit to the Council and
highlighted the report. He noted concerns about the net loss in
the Storm Drainage Fund and stated that staff is currently working
on ways to remedy the problem. Mr. Dethman continued by saying
the internal financial controls are good.
Next Mr. Dethman presented the Report to Management. The
recommendations included in the report were as follows:
1. Improve employee travel expense reimbursement policies and
procedures.
2. Evaluate the adequacy of Storm Drainage Fund service
charges.
3. Review accumulated vacation policies
4. Consider billing special assessments and sewer and storm
drainage service charges more often.
5. City Council expense reimbursements should be subject to
review and approval.
6. Reconcile sewer and storm drain subsidiary records to the
general ledger on a regular basis.
7. Develop complete and accurate record of storm drainage
assets.
C. Council discussed the appointment of a finance representative on
the Council since Mr. Edin has resigned. Mayor Cook stated that
until the vacant positions on Council are filled at the March 25th
election, he would serve in that capacity.
9. URBAN SERVICES POLICY PLAN DISCUSSION
a. Administrative Assistant Joy Martin introduced Brian Hartung who
has been hired on a temporary basis to conduct the
Metzger/Washington Square Urban Service Study.
b. Mr. Hartung presented the draft preliminary study of urban
services provided to the Metzger/Washington Square Community and
noted the following points of interest.
o Metzger/Washington Square has received approximately $435 per
capita or $2.5 million less in services over the last 5 years
compared to Tigard.
o Metzger/Washington Square tax payers have paid approximately $130
per residence more in property tax than services received.
o Metzger/Washington Square total tax bill would only increase
approximately $57 if annexed to Tigard.
o Metzger/Washington Square residents have "abandoned" approximately
$250,000 (1985-86 rates) in shared revenues due to a lack of
incorporated status.
C. Final draft of the study will be available in late January for
Council review.
_f
Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985
t
Will I
10. CIVIC CENTER PROJECT REPORT
M a. City Administrator and Civic Center Advisory Committee member
^ Craig Hopkins discussed current status of project. Mr. Hopkins
encouraged Council to hire a Building Maintenance person as soon
as possible to best preserve the condition of the new building.
After further discussion, Council requested this be placed on
consent agenda for the 12/16 meeting for approval.
11. TIGARD/BEAVERTON JOINT COUNCIL MEETING
a. Mayor Cook noted that the joint Council meeting for Tigard and
Beaverton on December 18th has been cancelled, This will be
rescheduled after the first of the year.
12. PUBLIC HEARING — SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FY 85-66
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. City Administrator highlighted the proposed changes as set forth
in the resolution to ratify the supplemental budget.
C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. City Administrator stated Budget Committee recommended adoption.
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. Consideration by Council will occur upon arrival of Councilor
Brian for quorum. Legal Council noted that since there was no
public testimony Councilor Brian could take action on this item
this evening.
13. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) — HALL BLVD./ 1M LID FORMATION — Phase
III
a. Public Hearing Reopened — Continued From 11/25/85
b. Stu Cato, Project Engineer, submitted an updated "Addendum 2"
which set out the alternate for the elimination of tax lot 200
from the LID, improvement of the road to approximately 7 feet from
the center line and assume additional right—of--way would be
purchased.
C. Public Testimony:
Opponents:
a Richard Sturgis, representing tax lots 702 and 400, stated other
properties had been eliminated from the LID and hp also wished to
be since it would not be economically feasible to itoprove the road
until the lots were developed.
Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 9, 1985
N
o Jeff Sturgis, also representing tax lots 702 and 400, discussed
the cost of bancrofting over a 10 year period and requested the
lots be removed from the LID at this time. He was also concern
that the updated material received by Council had not been mailed
to the property owners.
COUNCILOR BRIAN ARRIVED: 8:53 P.M. - Quorum Present
d. Project Engineer recommended proceeding with the project by not
paying for the right-of-way acquisition.
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. Legal Counsel recommended Councilor Brian hear the meeting tape
before voting on this issue at the 12/16/85 meeting.
g. Consensus of Council was to take action on this issue at the 12/16
meeting.
14. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET (FY 85-86) ADOPTION
a. RESOLUTION NO. 85-10;--"A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS.
b. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Brian, to
approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
15. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT ACTION
a. City Administrator synopsized prior discussions for Councilor
Brian and noted that the job description had received approval
except for the "at will" discharge section.
Lengthy discussion followed with consensus of Council to remove
the requirement of "at will" discharge in the job description and
have the Chief of Police and other employees discharged "for
cause" only.
b. City Administrator discussed the process to selection a new Chief
and recommended the use of a consultant to develop dimensional
criteria and operate the assessment center.
C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to
authorize Administrator to hire a consultant for the recruitment
process and authorized contract up to $5,000.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
16. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
16.1 Receive and File Community Development Land Use Decisions
16.2 Authorize Release of Funds For Penn Lawn Estates Subdivision, and
authorize signatures ($42,441.04) - Resolution No. 85-105
Page 4 COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985
t>
16.3 Approve and authorize signatures for Agreement with John Alexander
at such time as Mr. Alexander signs agreement - Dartmouth Street
LID right-of-way
16.4 Approve amending agreement with Southern Pacific for 72nd Avenue
mainline sewer crossing by extending expiration date - Resolution
No. 85-103
16.5 Approve Amendment To Resolution No. 85-99 - Utilities and
Franchises Committee - Resolution No. 85-104
16.6 Approve Council Minutes - November 25, 1985
16.7 Ratify Phone Bid Award To GTE For $34,326 & appropriate same
amount from Contingency - Resolution No. 85-106
16.8 Receive and File: Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Film
Report
16.9 Approve Updated Consulting Engineer List
16.10 Receive and Fi1R Memo Re: Christmas Tree Lighting On Main Street
a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to
approve.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
RECESS: 9:20 P.M.
RECONVENE: 9:25 P.M.
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) & (h) to discuss
labor relations and current/pending litigation issues.
( 18. ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 P.M.
t
Ltics
64eputyity Recorder - City of Tigard
ATl"EST
a�
- City of Tigard
LW13520A
�J
Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985
r
lip
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal 7-6568
BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075
' Legal Notice Advertising ftCe,�/FO
e City of Tigard o 13Tearsheet Notice 1985
o PO Box 23397 0 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, OR 97223
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHNGTON, )ss'
I,– Thprgaa Butcher
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk,of the Tigard Times --
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193,020;published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
City Cniincil Regill r Meeting
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for 1 —successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
LIU We
Su t cribs d liijfis to before a this Dec -Lo . 1985
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 9/20/88
AFFIDAVIT
IF 11
x
BATE 12-9-85
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
` Item Description: #6 - PUBLIC HEARING -
Supplemental Budget Fiscal Year 85-86
atfk�k�itlkttir��k*�raksk#�k�k�ic**dk�kat�r�r�cir iE�k***�t�t*�r�k�t*�k�k�lr*ik�k�t*�k�tie�k**�t�nk�k�k*lc�Ank�titink�kik*ik#ik�4�kyk�k*it�kAc
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
�Pr�lk*atria+4�k�titic*st*at9tfrkirika4*#dctkik*it#at�t�Ar�An6k**tk**it****�**is�k*it*#�k�k*�k�ktk�kielk�t�kik�ksk*�k*#ikiF*lkit�lcic*�k
Name. Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
iefnR#*ArfF�lrs�tt�tlkfk9lnfnlntlk*,tikici�ak#ylydt�Ar*+k�klk*�klk��k�tR*sk��klklk�k�k!!*ik*�k�1ti�+tskik��lr*�tik#�Ylkie+t�ir�*yket*�4*�c
y�
4�® now
pg ss
4
DATE 12-9-85
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: #7 - PUBLIC HEARING -
Hall/Burnham LID
Proponent (For Issue)
Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
s s��►�
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council December 3, 1985
FROM Loreen Wilson, Recorder Ui�
SUBJECT: Council Agenda
Please add the attached materials to your packet of material from the 12/2/85
meeting. New #7 is added. Old #7 (Phone Award) is now on Consent Agenda as
item # 9.7. New #88 procedes Old #8 and new #99 precedes old #9. Consent
items added since the 12/2/85 meeting agenda are from 9.6 on.
lw/3478A
i
M
i
f
i
f
f
}
f
i
}
i
t
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 12/2/85 AGENDA ITEM 0: 1J
DATE SUBMITTED: 11/27/85 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
KEYS TO THE CITY PREPARED BY: Donna Corbet
REQUESTED BY: Council
z
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
Presentation of Keys to the City.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
A Key Plaque is being presented to former Councilor Phil Edin.
Key to the City Certificates are being presented to former Budget Committee
members Wally Hoffman and Howard Duffy.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
N/A
1089P
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorably Mayor and City Council November 25, 1985
r
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City-Council Issues and Commissi er Roy Rogers Discussion
The following are some of the ongoing City•-County issues you may want to
review with Commissioner Rogers:
Library - The cities are of the opinion that the WCCL.S computer automation
Contract should not be awarded until the user's Agreement between the County
and WCCLS member libraries is financed. Disputes remain in the users
Agreement as to ongoing operations and maintenance costs, capital replacement
sinking fund payments, and contingency funds.
Once the computer Contract and user Agreements are done, the governance of
WCCLS remains as a top concern. The latest suggestion is the reorganization
of the WCCLS Policy Advisory Board to include elected officials from the
Cities and County along with board members from the community libraries.
Funding could then continue per status quo on a County-wide levy with share
back formulas without the need for another governmental district.
Police/Sheriff - The Sheriff has appointed an "advisory" committee to review
law enforce:sent options. Is the County open to the full range of "advise,"
including the Sheriff turning over local patrol to cities whenever feasible?
If not, is this just a "rubber stamp" to tell the Sheriff what he wants to
hear (i.e. Sheriff only, no city Police)?
As to contract services, how much longer will cut rate contracts continue
(e.g. to Tualatin and King City) along with the urban subsidy? Full fair cost
contracts should be the basis for any city-to-County or County-to-city
contracts. Council may also want to discuss the suggested law enforcement
levy as to a City share back.
Communications Center - Status on consolidated dispatching, service and cost?
Storm Drainage - Status of County $2/month utility proposal? $2.2 million Ash
Creek program in Metzger?
County Roads - County road maintenance (i.e. potholes and sanding) vs.
transfer of roads inside cities to city at city's request? Discuss timing and
conditions attached by County?
dc: (1075p)
r
-.� �• CITY OF TUALATIN
18880 SW MARTINAZZI AVE. PO BOX 369
TUALATIN,OREGON 97062-0369
(303) 692-2000
November 27, 1985
WCCLS
Citizens' Advisory Board
P.O. Box 5129
Aloha, Oregon 97306
Dear Citizens' Advisory Board Members;
As you know, there have been some misunderstandings about the
proposed Countywide automation system. Members of the
Washington County Mayors and Managers group met on November
19, 1985 to discuss the system, and out of our discussion came
an agreement that we would write you a letter expressing our
concerns about the system. The Cities of Beaverton,
Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, Tigard,
Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville were present, and all
participants agreed on the following general points.
We all strongly support the purchase and implementation of an
automated library system, but we believe that at the present
time, a vendor contract should not be awarded. This belief is
based on the fact that the cost to the system participants is
not certain and funding for the operation of the system has
not been finalized.
Even though the automation system has been designed to stand
alone outside of any governmental or other agreements
regarding its operation, we believe that until there is clear
agreement on how the system operation and maintenance will be
covered, it is inappropriate to award a vendor contract. On
that basis, the award should be postponed until there is
agreement among all the parties which assure that we will be
able to fund the operation of the system once it is in place.
\4
Y
i
WCCLS
November 27, 1985
Page -2-
We offer our full assistance and cooperation in resolving
these issues so that the automation contract may be awarded to
a vendor in a timely and prudent manner.
Sincerely,
9Cvry JAL I�
Luanne Thielke
Mayor
LT/jn
ccs Donna Selle, WCCLS
Washington County Board of Commissioners
Washington County Administrator
City of Beaverton
City of Cornelius
City of Durham
City of Forest Grove
City of Hillsboro
City of King City
City of Tigard
City of Sherwood
City of Wilsonville
.� CITY Cid TUALATIN
18880 SW MARTINAZZI AVE. PO BOX 369
TUALATIN,OREGON 97062-0369
(503)692-2000
November 27, 1985
Ms. Donna Selle, Coordinator
WCCLS
p.0. Box 5129
Aloha, Oregon 97006
Dear Donna%
As you know, there have been some misunderstandings about the
proposed Countywide automation system. Members of the
Washington County Mayors and Managers group met on November
191 1985 to discuss the system, and out of our discussion came
an agreement that we would write you a letter expressing our
concerns about the system. The Cities of Beaverton,
Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Ring City, Tigard,
Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville were present, and all
participants agreed on the following general points.
While it may have been implicit in past discussions regarding
WCCLS and operating levies, many of us did not understand the
full impact of providing for the costs of operation and
maintenance and replacement of the automation system. In
addition, many of us were not prepared to pick up part of the
costs of the system. At a time when all of our revenue
sources are shrinking, it is extremely difficult to face
unanticipated costs and a further reduction in the limited
resources available to operate our libraries.
Before executing the automation agreements, or the 1985-86
contract, we would like to explore additional alternatives for
funding the costs of the system. Among the alternatives which
need further investigation are: reduction of the first year
costs by removal of the replacement fund and deferment of that
cost until future years; potential use of the contingency to
cover first year operation and maintenance costs; and ways to
fund the additional equipment and telecommunications costs.
We hope that a tentative automation agreement can be worked
out in the very ni ar future and that the vendor contract for
the automated sys. em would be put on hold until such a
tentative agreement has been concluded.
Ms. Donna Selle
November 27, 1985
Page -2-
The terms of the 1985-85 contract include a budget which shows
a proposed $200,000 contingency. Since we anticipate
exploring an alternative use for this contingency, we believe
that the contract should also be put on hold until all of the
issues can be resolved.
We wish to assure you that our goal is the same as yours, that
being, a state of the art automation system for the libraries
in Washington County.
Sincerely,
IV.4 wrvrw J2 U�
Luanne Thielke
Mayor
LT/jn
cc: City of Beaverton
City of Cornelius
City of Durham
City of Forest Grove
City of Hillsboro
City of Ring City
City of Tigard
City of Sherwood
City of Wilsonville
C
k
5
3
F
t
3
f
-ter
.L
I A
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Inter—Department Correspondence
Date November 18, 1985
To Board of County Commissioners
From Richard A. Danie s D -tor, Land Use and Transportation
Subject RECOMMENDATIONS ON FOLLOW UP OF NOVEMBER 5 ELECTION FOR MSTIP BOND
AUTHORIZATION
At their November 12, 1985 meeting, the Washington County Transportation
Coordinating Committee (WCTCC) reviewed the preliminary results of the
MSTIP bond election of November 5th and recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners resubmit for voter consideration another
road bond proposal that, at a minimum, satisfies the match require-
ments for those MSTIP projects utilizing state and federal monies.
This recommendation was made based upon the following observations
and discussion.
1) The Committee remains committed to the intergovernmental approach
to transportation planning. They also feel the MSTIP truly
identifies the priority road improvements necessary to resolve
( existing deficiencies in the current roadway system. The
Committee further believes that failure to correct these de-
ficiencies will worsen already unacceptable traffic capacity,
congestion and safety problems.
2) Any ne,i funding proposal must continue to build upon the cooperative
county/cities/state relationship. This requires that any funding
proposal must be project specifie.and geographically distributed.
3) While there is overall public objection to increased property
taxes, the public has demonstrated its willingness to support
measures which fund short-term capital improvements proposals
that satisfy a well identified community need. Approval by
voters of the Tualatin Hi s arks and Recreation District
projects, Tualatin City Park acquisition/development project,
Tigard City Hall/library, Tualatin library, and Sherwood street
improvements are recent examples.
4) There are a number of reasons which have been expressed for
the election results including low voter turnout, bond amount,
interest rate, repayment schedule, and specific projects.
The Committee feel the primary reasons is the lack of the
necessary public understanding which can only be overcome
by an extensive public information program. A voter survey
as a follow up to the election would specifically identify
reasons and assist the County in assessing its options.
MSTIP Bond Authorization — Follow Up
November 18, 1985
{ Page 2
5) The bond authorization, if approved, would have provided $28.5
million of state and federal funds for certain projects.
Failure to provide the "local match" for the state and federal
projects will mean a loss of $28.5 million which will worsen
our funding problem. According to Metro, this "local match"
requirements must be satisfied by October 1 , 1986.
6) At a'-minimum. the Board of County Commissioners should submit
to the voters a proposal to provide the "local match" for
the state and federal funded projects. The Board of County
Commissioners should also consider submitting, on the same
ballot, a separate measure to fund the remaining projects
from the MSTIP list.
7) The County should determine its course of action as soon as
possible to be able to build upon efforts to date. A March
election would be soon enough to build upon work done to date.
If unsuccessful , this would allow resubmittal at a May, June
or September election to avoid loss of federal and state funds.
A May election allows more lead time and use of the voters
pamphlet for increased public information. Any funding proposal
must be proceeded by an extensive public information effort_
The County and Cities must provide the .public with information
about the issues? -0ptions, costs, solutions and consequences -of the transportation system within Washington County, This
will assure that any course of action will not jeopardize
the road maintenance county fuel tax election in November
1986.
8) The Committee also feels a joint county/cities transportation
public information program is desirable and could be funded
from-the- county fuel tax revenues. ATry-s-uch program--would
develop and standardize the message and coordinate efforts.
The program must also be localized and tailored to meet the
needs- of al-l- communities.
JD
c: WCTCC
Donald D. Stilwell, County Administrator
City Managers
DLUT Division Managers
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council November 27, 1985
FROM: Loreen Wilson, Recorder
SUBJECT: Audit Report Presentation
The City's Auditors, Coopers 6 Lybrand, will bring the annual audit report for
FY 1984-85 to the meeting for presentation.
lwl3478A
SEE CENTRAL FILES FOR ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT
own
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY f
AGENDA OF: DECEMBER 2. 1985 AGENDA ITEM 0: QCs
DATE SUBMITTED November 15, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: BUDGET COMMITTEE
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION
BUDGET FY 85-86 PREPARED BY: J. Widner
REQUESTED BY: B. Jean
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 14J�td'► CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
Continuation of City programs.
� �- INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Budget Committee at its meeting of November 6, 1985 recommended to City
Council a Supplemental Budget for FY85-86 of $520,000.00. The attached
resolution addresses this recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
n/a
SUGGESTED ACTION
I recommend adoption of the attached resolution for a Supplemental Budget of
$520,000 for fiscal year 1985-86.
(1137F)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 9, 1985 — AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: December 3., 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Adoption of
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Resolution Declaring Intent
Form Hall/Burnham L.I.D. PREPARED BY: Jerri Widner/Duane Roberts
REQUESTED BY: Bob Jean
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �r}' vCITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
To form the Local Improvement District to make half-street improvements on SW
Hall/Burnham.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached is a revised ordinance forming the Hall/Burnham LID based on your
discussions of November 25, 1985. The ordinance includes right of way costs
with a total cost of $179,000.
The right of way costs are based on an asuumption that they will be uncontested.
Also attached for your information is the construction cost estimates for the
other options requested by Council at your 11/25/85 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the proposed ordinance.
2. Adopt a revised ordinance.
3. Decide not to proceed with formation.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt proposed ordinance.
(JW:bs/3486A)
by c\ sneer no.
project 11 V
ff 1
locatbn i Dora 1, `! i�J �•��
client /. Checked job no.
consulting engineers
l. r
t- pa,bnd coe� zznn
i
_t zAlz
t.
1
t
Ni
� I
1 ! �-
4
1.1
'
t �
i
_
- --
0
_ d }
< �
A). COI .
_. — —
i/ r•.! ) %heel no.
`. plojeci by
^
kpffiOcollon-�- �,7 gale; .Z-1 f
consulting engineers Client r"I! l chocked job no'
V e ,
--.
O
•arm—��
7E —
1
t
— T
r._
N
_
"
r•5. - p ._ Ap. _
_
--
� rt _
hJ
i1 �rJ
_
-- - c; - --
4C—
-.4p<
F. 1
F 1
1'V
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 85—
AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF OCTOBER 28, 1985, WITH RESPECT TO SW HALL/BURNHAM (STREET)
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LID #185-1; APPROVING, RATIFYING AND ADOPTING AMENDED
PRELIMINARY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SAID
STREET IMPROVEMENT: DECLARING RESULTS OF HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT THERETO:
DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION: PROVIDING FOR THE MAKING OF
SAID IMPROVEMENTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, a resolution was duly passed by the City Council of the City of
Tigard at its regular meeting of October 28, 1985, copy attached, and by this
reference, made a part hereof to the same legal force and effect as if set
forth herein in full, by the terms of which the boundaries of a proposed
street improvement assessment district were described, and the Council
declared its intention to construct street improvements and to assess the
costs thereof against the property within the boundaries specially benefitted;
and
WHEREAS, by the terms of said resolution a hearing was duly called to be held
in Fowler Junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, on
November 25, 1985, the hour of 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of affording an
opportunity to any parties aggrieved by the proposal to make objections or
remonstrances to the proposed improvement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said resolution, due and legal notice of said hearing was
given by publication in the Tigard Times on November 7, 1985, prior to said
hearings; and
WHEREAS, said hearing was duly and regularly called to order and held in
Fowler Junior High School at 10865 SW Walnut Street, Tigard, Oregon, on
November 25, 1985, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. ; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council of November 25, 1985, found it necessary as a
result of the public hearing to modify the boundary and scope of the project
as represented in Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, by the terms of said resolution and publication, written objections
or remonstrances from the owners of not less than 66-2/3% of the property
within the boundaries of said area were invited, and all objections and
remonstrances as thus presented prior to and at the hearing represent the
owners of less than 66-2/3% of the property in the area within the improvement
assessment district and that the percentage of remonstrances is not a ban to
further proceedings in the making of said improvements; and
C"
ORDINANCE NO. 85-
r Page 1
WHEREAS, all proceedings to date have been in conformity with ORS 223.387 and
/ 223.359 and Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 13, of the City of Tigard, and all
`. procedures were regularly and lawfully conducted;
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That all matters set forth in the resolution of the City Council
of the City of Tigard, Oregon, on October 28, 1985, a copy
whereof is hereto attached marked Exhibit "B" and by reference
herein made a part hereof to the same legal force and effect as
if set forth herein in full, be, and the same are hereby
approved, ratified and confirmed, except that the engineer's
report be amended to incorporate relevant public hearing
engineering testimony and the boundaries of the area known as SW
Hall/Burnham (Street) Improvement District as heretofore
described in said resolution be, and the same are hereby declared
and fixed in accordance with said description, except that Tax
Map 3S1 2DA, Tax Lot #200 be excluded from the Improvement
District, said improvements to extend to within seven feet
(westerly) of the roadway centerline.
Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Tigard, having acquired
jurisdiction to order the improvement to be made, does hereby
authorize and direct the construction of street improvements
within the boundary of said SW Hall/Burnham Street Improvement
District in conformity in all, reasonable particulars with the
plans and specifications by said resolution adopted and hereby
amended, ratified and confirmed.
Section 3: That the City Administrator and the City Engineer be, and they
are hereby, directed to invite proposals for the construction of
said improvements by publication in the Tigard Times in not less
than ten (10) days prior to the date and time for opening of bids
in the City of Tigard, Oregon, City Hall, all proposals to be
then and there publicly read.
Section 4: That all lands situated within the boundaries described on the
attached Exhibit "B", excluding Tax Map 2S1-2DA, Tax Lot #200,
are determined and declared to be a street improvement assessment
district, and it is further declared that each lot, part of lot
and parcel. of land within said boundaries will be especially
benefitted by said improvements, and that the estimated cost is
$179,000 for said improvements, the assessable costs are
estimated to be $179,000 which shall be assessed in full,
according to benefit on a front footage and area basis, against
all lands within said improvement district.
a+
ORDINANCE NO. 85—
Page
5 Page 2
Section 5: The Tigard City Council finds that the SW Hall/Burnham LIQ #85-1
improvements are of the character described inS 273.205,
73. 0 , and
that they therefore qualify for financing by general
ion
improvement warrants pursuant to ORS 287.502 - 287.510.
Section 6: General obligation mpaa to nbe issu d einWthelaggregate
LIQ 085-1 are hereby uthorized
amount of $179,000. The warrants shall bear interest the
lowest rate that the City can borrow on the date of issuance and
shall constitute - general obligation of the City of Tigard that
shall mature on or before rantsshall beretired asfunds are
Wasraidate of se
, but not
lter than June 30, 1998.
received in accordance with ORS 287.506.
Section 7: The Mayor and Finance Director are hereby authorized to execute
the described warrants on behalf of the City of Tigard.
Section 8: That inasmuch as it is necessary for the peace, health, and
safety of the people of the City of Tiga that
delay, ain
id
improvements be constructed with the least possible
emergency is hereby declared to exist, and Councils and ordsiginance
shall
become effective upon its passage by
the Mayor.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after
being
read by number and title only, this ____
ay
of 1985.
Loreen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder
APPROVED: This cia_ y of 1985.
John E. Cook, Mayor
(2174P)
ORDINANCE NO. 85-
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A"
SOUTHWEST HALL BLVD/BURNHAM LID 85-1
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Additional meetings were held with property owners in November 1985 to discuss
the proposed improvements. One alternative discussed was to eliminate T/L 200
from the LID, improve the road to approximately 7 feet from the center line.
The costs for this alternate are as follows:
Item Improvements
Street improvements to curbs $ 45,000
Sidewalks 15,000
Storm drainage 33,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 93,000
Right of way Acquisition 42,000
Administration, engineering
and contingency 44,000
PROTECT COSTS $179,000
The proposed assessments for this alternate, shown in Table 2, would be
reduced to the following amounts:
Half-Street
Tax Lot Owner West
400 Richard N. Sturgis $ 24,000
401 City of Tigard 93,000
702 Richard N. 6 Francis C. Sturgis 26,000
701 Tigard Christian Church 36,000
Total for Half-Street $179,000
(JW:bs/3486A)
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 85-_EZ
DECLARING AN INTENTION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT HALF
STREET IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE SW HALL/BURNHAM, SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTING NOTICE TO BE GIVEN.
WHEREAS, the City Council has ordered preparation of a preliminary engineering
report, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Tigard Ordinance No. 85-40, City Council finds it
expedient and necessary to order the improvement of the hereinbelow described
lands by construction of half-street facilities and appurtenances thereto, and
pursuant thereto the City's Engineer has submitted to the Council plans.
specifications, and estimates for the work to be done and the probable cost
thereof, together with a statement of the lots, parts of lots and parcels of
land to U- benefitted and the apportionment of the total cost of the
improvemervty which each of said lots, parts of the lots and parcels of land
shall be assessed on account of the benefits derived; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that said plans, specifications and estimates are
satisfactory.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 11 RESOLVED by the Ii
Bard City Council that:
(a) That the City Council does hereby deem it expedient and necessary-'1
and does hereby declare it's intention to improve the aforesaid portion of SW
Hall/Burnham by construction of curb, sidewalk, street, storm sewer, and
appurtenance thereto
(b) That all lands situated within the boundaries described on the
attached "Exhibit A" are determined and declared to be a street. Improvement
assessment district, to be known as SW Hall/Burnham Improvement District
85-01, and it is further declared that each lot, part of lot and parcel of
land within said boundaries will be especially benefitted by said
improvements, and that ' the total estimated co-st of $253,000.00 for said
improvements shall be assessed in full, on a front footage and area basis,
against all lands within said improvement district.
(c) That the plans, specifications and estimates with respect to the
improvements as submitted by the City's Engineers be, and the same are, hereby
adopted and ordered to be maintained on file by the City Recorder for public
inspection.
�.i
RESOLUTION NO. 85-_
Page l
(d) That Monday November 25, 1985 the City Council will hold a public
hearing at Fowler Junior High School, 10865 SW Walnut, Tigard, Oregon.
beginning at 7:00 p.m. . At this time City Council will consider objections or
remonstrances to the proposed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby.
(e) The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice in the Tigard
Times November 14, 1985.
(f) Oral or written objections and remonstrances shall be made with the
City Recorder prior to the close of the public hearing.
PASSED: This day of , 1985.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard
(2036P)
RESOLUTION No. 05-17—
Page 2 -
Ex14I0I T "A"
Description of Assessment and district boundary for Local Improvement District
85-1 (Hall—Burnham)
A tract of land located in the East half of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range
1 West, W.M. . City of Tigard. Washington County. Oregon; said tract being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the north line of SW O'Mara Street
(County Road No. 567) with the west line of SW Hall Blvd. (County Road No.
227) thence North 440 30' 00" West 280 feet, more or less to a point
that is 220 feet west of the west line of said SW Hall Blvd. (when
measured at right angles); thence parallel with the west line of said SW
Hall B1vd.. 970 feet, more or less, to the south line of that tract of land
conveyed to Robert and Marilyn Hudson and recorded in document No.
78-55052, Washington County Deed records, thence on the boundary of said
Hudson tract North 890 00' 00" west 70 feet, more or less. to the
southwest corner thereof; thence North 010 30' East 160 feet to the
south line of SW Burnham Street (County Road No. 997); thence on the south
line of said Burnham Street South 890 00' 00" East 170 feet, more or
less, to the west line of the relocated SW Hall Blvd. , thence southestarly
and southerly on said relocated line and the west line of County Road No.
227 1350 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion of property along SW Hall Blvd. and SW
Burnham Street that will be dedicated as public road right--of--way.
(RSC:bs/1725P)
t
i
ul
S.W. Hall Blvd. LID
Revised 11/27/85
page 12 J
Addendum 2
CONSTRUCPION COST ESTIMATE
Additional meetings were held with property owners in November 1985 to
discuss the proposed improvements. One alternative discussed was to
eliminate T/L 200 from the LID, improve the road to approximately 7 feet
from the center line and assume aciditional right-of-way would be purchased.
The costs for this alternate are as follows:
Item Imyrovements
Street improvements to curbs $ 43,000
Sidewalks 15,000
Storm drainage 33,000
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 91,000
Administration, engineering
f and contingency $ 46,000
Right-of-4fty Acquisition $ 42,000
PROJEM COSTS $ 179,000
For this alternative the proposed assessments shown in Table 2 would be
reduced to the following amounts:
Half-Street
Tax Lot Owner (West)
400 Richard N. Sturgis $ 24,000
401 City of Tigard 93,000
702 Richard N. & Francis C. Sturgis 26,000
701 Tigard Christian Church 36,000
Total for Half-Street $179,000
� Q
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY T81
AGENDA OF: December 9, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: December 5, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Civic Center
Loreen Wilson S to
Project Discussion PREPARED BY: Jerry McNurlin
REQUESTED BY: Wilson & McNurlin
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Gv/ti CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
Whether the City should continue to contract out for janitorial and building
maintenance services or hire an employee to perform these tasks.
_._ INFORMATION SUMMARY
In looking at the building maintenance and janitorial needs for the Civic
Center, it has become evident that the current practice of contracting out has
become very costly. Staff has investigated the cost vs benefit of contracting
out vs hiring an employee to do this work.
To contract out the janitorial service with building maintenance/upkeep being
done by a combination of employee efforts (not thorough P.W. Operations) and
contracting with various vendors (i.e. Arrow Heating for heat pump cleaning.
etc.) would cost as follows:
FY 85-86 (based on a► 1/1/86 move-in date):
a Janitorial Service Only $12,500
o Civic Center Cleaning - prior to move-in $ 500
o Civic Center Clean up - after move-in $ 300
o Prior Locations Cleaning (P.D. , Library, & City Hall) $ 2,000
FY 85-86 TOTAL $15,300
FY 86-87:
0 Janitorial Service Only $27,000
� sem
PAGE 2 OF 3
CIVIC CENTER PROJECT DISCUSSION
CIVIC CENTER MAINTENANCE/CUSTODIAN NEEDS
DECEMBER 5, 1985
The hiring of a Building Maintenance/Custodian Worker through P.W. Operations
would cost as follows:
FY 85-86 (based on a 1/1/86 hire):
o Salary & Benefits for FY 85-86 $1 ,500
5
o Materials & Supplies $ 5.200
($3,680 would be a 1 time cost to purchase
necessary equipment - i.e. vacuum, floor
buffer, etc.)
FY 85-86 TOTAL 15,700
FY 86-87:
o Salary & Benefits $23,100
o Materials & Supplies $ 3,000
FY 86-87 TOTAL § 100
The proposed job description for the Maintenance/Custodian Worker is
attached. A further detailed explanation of the duties is as follows:
o All custodial services which the janitorial contractor is now
providing, plus more frequent cleaning done in the high traffic and
entry areas;
o Building maintenance for all City buildings (This was done, prior to
service level cuts, by P.W. Operations and took about 400 hours per
year at service level II. This is currently being done primarily by
management staff and outside contract which is expensive.) All major
electrical or mechanical repairs or improvements would still be
contracted with outside vendors;
o Ground Maintenance may be performed by this employee, if time permits,
however, snow/ice removal would be a high priority to limit liability
exposure;
o The employee will be scheduled to work a modified swing-shift and would
be available to assist with building security during evening meetings
(i.e. Council, various boards and committees, and Municipal Court);
o The employee would assist City staff with the move-coordination as it
requires some special maintenance/janitorial attention (i.e. current
city hall building will need some wall patching, re-hanging of
curtains, etc.).
After comparing the cost vs benefits of the two options, staff feels the hire
of a Building Maintenance/Custodian Worker is most cost effective and will
allow more complete upkeep to the new facilities. The Civic Center will
remain in better condition for a longer period of time with more consistent
maintenance and janitorial attention. This would cost $400 more this fiscal
year and $900 less next fiscal year than just contracting janitorial
services. We would recommend hiring as soon after 1-1-86 as possible to give
the employee an opportunity to help with move related maintenance/repair
issues.
PAGE 3 OF 3
CIVIC CENTER PROJECT DISCUSSION
CIVIC CENTER MAINTENANCE/CUSTODIAN NEEDS
DECEMBER 5, 1985
This item is currently budgeted in City-Wide Support and the monies left at
1-1-86 (approximately $5,000) would need to be transferred to Community
Development - Operations/Services along with additional funds from Contingency
($10,300 for contracting out services or $10,700 for proposed hire) to cover
the increased cost of maintaining the Civic Center.
�- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Direct staff to prepare resolution to appropriate contingency and authorize
hire of Building Maintenance/Custodian Worker as soon after 1-1 -86 as
possible.
2. Direct staff to prepare resolution to appropriate contingency and continue
current contracting-out policy for janitorial and maintenance needs on an
as-needed basis.
( SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff would recommend alternative 111 as being most cost effective.
lw/3478A
�r
BUILDING MAINTENANCE/CUSTODIAN
WORKER
GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES: Performs a variety of skilled building maintenance
and janitorial work on city buildings and equipment. Work is generally routine
in nature. Must be able to work any type of shift and be bonded.
SUPERVISIGN RECEIVED: Works under the general supervisi3u of the Operations
Superintendent and will receive assignments and daily supervision from the
Operations Office.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED: Supervision is not normally a responsibility of positions
in this classification. However incumbants may occasionally exercise lead respon-
sibility for employees assisting in assigned tasks.
EXAMPLES OF PRINCIPAL DUTIES: (Any single position of a class will not usually
involve all the duties listed and many positions will involve duties which are
not listed).
1.. As a member of a crew or individually, performs work in construction, maint-
enance and repair of city buildings, equipment and related city facilities.
2. Wash and clean city building.
3. Wash, wax, polish, clean/vacuum carpet and floors.
4. Maintain yard and flower beds.
5. Performs minor carpentry, plumbing and electrical repairs.
6. Assists supervisor in setting up and maintaining work schedules and programs.
7. Maintain a safe, clean work area for employees and the public.
F`.
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:
K n o w l e d g e o f Standard methods, materials, tools, equipment, and
technology of the trade; occupational hazards and safety precautions of building
maintenance and of chemicals used in the trade.
A b i 1 i t Y t o: Locate, diagnose and repair malfunctions of equipment
'and buildings. Understand and execute oral and written instructions; establish
and maintain :effective working relationships with other workers and supervisors;
work any type of shift; be self-motivated and work alone.
S k i l 1 I n : Use and care of tools, equipment and materials, chemicals
of the building maintenance/custodian trade.
f ;
4 Oeq
E x p e r i e n c e a n d T r a i n i n g High school gratuate or equive-
lant and three (3) years of custodial experience and two (2) years journeyman
level building maintenance egperience.
Ne c s s a r y Spe c ial Q u a 1 1 f i c a tion possession of or
ability to obtain a valid drivers license As issued by the -State of Oregon.
CHANGE OWNER [Xl
ARCHITECT (x]
ORDER CON TRAC IOR ih
IILLD
:VA DOCUMENT G70) OCHER L
PROJECT: Tigard Civic Center CHANGE ORDER NUMBER- 2
(name,address) Tigard, Oregon
TO (Contractor)
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 84-12-4
McCartney-Johnson/General Contractors
P.O. Box 185 CONTRACT FOR: Construction
Clackamas, Oregon 97015
L CONTRACT DATE: June 13, 1985
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
1. Add the appropriated number of calender days to the "time of completion" (section
01010) for the following staging of substantial completion dates:
a. Substantial completion of "City Hall" portion of Tigard Civic Center (not
including Women #101 and Poen #102 or Town Hall #163) to be January 31, 1986.
b. Substantial completion of "Library" portion of Tigard Civic Center to be
February 7, 1986.
c. Substantial completion of "Town Hall" portion of Tigard Civic Center to be
February 21, 1986.
d. Substantial completion of "Police" portion of Tigard Civic Center to be
February 28, 1986.
Acceptance of above dates of Substantial Completion waives and releases all claims
for delay or extention of time under Article 8.3 of the "General Conditions of the
Contract for Construction" through December 2, 1985. Final Completion for entire
project shall be March 14, 1986. All warranties to begin at date of last substantial
completion.
The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . $ 1,753,515. 00
Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,607.00
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . • . • • • • • • $ 1,760.122. 00
The Contract Sum will be (unchanged) by this Change Order. . . $ 0.
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,760,122. 00
The Contract Time will be (increased) per thi s Change Order (number of days vari es)
The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is as noted per thi s Change Order
Smith/Dull Partnership, Arch. McCartney-Johnson/Gen. Contr. City of Tigard
C v Ra OR OW E
b_.'Jox_185 ------------- — -_. Box 23397 _
Address Address Address —
Tualatin, Oregon 97062 _ _- Clackamas, Oregon 97015_ Tigard, Oregon 97223 _
—�- • C" -_ `��
p _
BY�� (3Y/ BY
/7
DATE ,"L r� DATE LZ 1QT�Q� DATE
7
AIA DOCUMENT G701 CHANCE ORDER APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAB 0 1970 THE ONE PAGE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE.,NW,WASHINGTON,D.C.20006
u.
CITYOFTIOARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
December 5, 1985
Dear
Tigard's dream for a Civic Center is coming true. Our efforts and
perseverance have borne fruit for which all citizens of 'Tigard can take
credit. Such an attainment cannot go uncelebrated nor be taken for granted.
Therefore, I'm sending you this invitation to be a part of the Civic Center
Dedication Committee so that this wonderful achievement can be properly noted
a and shared by everyone.
We are expecting to move into the new facility during late January and early
February. I'm guessing that April will be an appropriate time to plan our
celebration, though that final decision will be left to you committee members.
I hope that you will accept my invitation to join in planning a very special
dedication for the new Tigard Civic Center. I'm confident that you will be
able to enlist all necessary help from our community as well as the City
staff. I've appointed Irene Ertell, City Librarian, to be your initial staff
contact.
Again, thank you for your part in making the Tigard Civic Center a reality and
please join me in this final phase of joy and celebration. Please call Irene
at 639-2083 at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John E. Cook
Mayor
JEC/dc:1106p
12755 S.W.'ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
CIVIC CENTER
DEDICATION COMIMITTEE
Charles H. Samuels
11740 S.W. North Dakota
Tigard, OR 97223
Walter Munhall
14805 S.W. 103rd
Tigard, OR 97224
Valerie Johnson
12091 S.W. Lincoln
Tigard, OR 97223
Wilbur Bishop
10590 S.W. Cook Lane
Tigard, OR 97223
Floyd Bergmann
11600 S.W. 90th
Tigard, OR 97223
Nancy Stimler
11525 S.W. Terrace Trails
Tigard, OR 97223
t"
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor and City Council December 4, 1985
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Police Chief Job Description
Attached is a survey of comparable cities and the experience/education mix of
their Chiefs. You will notice two basic "types": 1) those with less
education but alot of experience, and 2) those with alot of education and
medium experience. Also please note that 50% are F.B.I. National Academy
graduates but all have Advance, Management, and Executive BPST certificates.
1.) 2-3 years of college and experience (command/total):
Coos Bay 29/32
Beaverton 23/33
Hillsboro 17/29
Oregon City 7/21
4
Average 19/28 (Low Average 12/25)
Minimum? 10/15 and 2 Years College
2.) Bachelors degree and beyond with experience (command/total):
Lake Oswego 13/18
Forest Grove 10/22
Gresham 17/25
Milwaukie 10/17
Newberg 17/24
Wash. Co. Undersheriff 9/21
Bend 16/22
Springfield 10/16
Average 12/20 (Low Average 10/18)
Minimum? 8/12 and Bachelors
The proposed Job Description incorporates the above minimums and requires at
least a BPST Advanced Certificate or equivalent.
(BJ:bs/1103p)
}
{
41
j V Al Ag
ML
` F
` •
L t,,
OrQ1 ct
aJ
S I
tt
lb
vi
Si
Q' r� � �' � � y a ® � � $ � p Q 4 0 •sem '
..� y +p D VDlio Ile 10
-Cly
er
311
RL
th
$ �, ekzh,
POLICE CHIEF
GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES: An executive management position as the City's
Chief law enforcement officer, manages the City's Police Department and
administers the City's law enforcement functions. Coordinates all other
related Public Safety functions for the City.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED: Appointed and removed by the City Administrator.
SKMMwild f.the._.Cityri�r# t as appointing
authority. Works under the general direction of the City Administrator who
occasionally reviews for the goals developed, results obtained and procedures
followed.
SUPERVISION EXERCISED: Provides general supervisions for all employees
assigned to the police department.
EXAMPLES OF PRINCIPLE DUTIES: (Any single position of a classification will
not usually involve all of the duties listed and many positions will involve
duties which are not listed.)
1. Directs law enforcement programs consistent with applicable city, county,
state and federal laws.
2. Determines department policy and procedures; directs, plans, organizes and
coordinates the activities of the police department personnel consistent
with police department mission and goals.
3. Provides the full scope of supervisory responsibilities including:
assigns, hires, and terminates personnel, adjusts grievances.
4. Manages, directs and assists with investigation work where major crimes,
accidents and other unusual incidents are involved.
5. Prepares, manages and monitors department budget.
6. Performs periodic inspection of all divisional operations to ensure that
departmental goals and objectives are met.
7. Attends conferences and meetings in conjunction with assigned
responsibilities.
8. Represents the City before the public. Hears complaints and answers
inquiries of the general public.
4. Advises Administrator and Council on Public Safety policy matters.
10. Administrates special programs.
11. Coordinates work with other city departments.
12. Participates in a variety of city organizational meetings on a periodic
{ basis in conjunction with assigned responsibilities.
R
POLICE CHIEF JOB DESCRIPTION
Page 2
DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:
Knowledge of: Thorough knowledge of modern principles, practices and
techniques of police administration, organization and operation, and their
application to specific situations, technical and administrative phases of
crime prevention, juvenile delinquency control; record keeping; the are and
custody of persons and property; and city, county, state and federal law.
Considerable knowledge of budget preparation and fiscal management.
Ability to: Plan, direct and coordinate police department activities,
establish and maintain effective and harmonious working relationships between
divisions and with subordinates, peers and supervisors; deal tactfully with
the public, express ideas effectively orally and in writing; accurately
develop budgets and estimate projected program costs; interpret law and
develop procedures; supervise; establish goals; work with boards and
committees. Considerable independent judgment and discretion required.
Skills in: Planning and administrating police activities and use of human
resources; communicating; supervision.
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING: Bachelor's degree in relevant field, eight years
division level command experience with twelve years total law enforcement
experience in comparable sized agencies; or, required minimum of two years
division level command experience with
college level course work, ten years
fifteen years total law enforcement experience in comparable sized agencies.
Oregon Board on Police Standards and Training Advanced Certificate or BPST
accepted equivalent certificate from other States required; BPST Management
and Executive Certificates preferred. Or, any satisfactory equivalent
combination of experience and training as determined by the hiring authority.
(BJ:pm/1156F)
MEMORANDUM
r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO; Mayor & City Council November 26, 1985
FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Police Chief Recruitment Process
It is my opinion that the selection of a new Police Chief to replace retiring
Chief Bob Adams is one of the major decisions we will make for many y
Assuming the next Chief stays 10 or more years, they will manage over $20
million tax dollars, direct our largest operating department budgets, and
have more daily impact on the community over time than any other decision
we'll face for awhile. I believe that a thorough process and timely decision
is essential.
The selection of our next Police Chief should not be left to the
Administrator and Council alone. If we value community and staff
involvement, then we must include the community and staff in the process.
Since we are also likely to draw candidates from within the Department and
from neighboring law enforcement agencies, objectivity and neutrality are
even more important than normal.
I recommend that we retain professional assistance in the Police Chief
recruitment and selection process. I believe that this will provide for a
ocess. The following schedule is offered
thorough, timely and objective pr
for your consideration:
11/25 *Council authorizes job announcements.
12/2 *Council discussion of recruitment/selection process, costs,
requirements and performance dimensions. City Attorney advise on
process and confidentiality of applications.
12/6+ Staff surveys comparable positions for "K.S.A.s".
12/13 City Administrator updates job description.
12/16+ *Council authorizes Chief job description and consultant selection.
12/16+ *Consultant(s) interview Council, staff and community members.
1/13 Consultant(s) preliminary report to City Administrator.
1/20 *Council finalizes performance dimensions and selection criterion.
Police Chief Recruitment Memo
�.- November 26, 1986
Page 2
1/21+ Consultant(s) prepare Assessment Center, Supplemental Application,
and testing/selection procedures.
1/24+ Resume/applications cut—off date. Screening of applications by
Consultant(s) and mail Supplemental Applications.
2/6 Supplemental Applications received.
2/7+ Select Semi—Finalists for Assessment Center (6-8) .
2/21 Assessment Center by Consultant.
2/22 Finalists (3) interviewed by City Administrator.
2/24 Background checks on finalists) by Consultant.
2/25+ Community visit(s)7 Tentative offer and acceptance.
3/7 *Hire decision by City Administrator for Council consent.
April New Chief starts.
If this approach and the above general outline meets with Council approval,
then we can begin the necessary steps now and still allow adequate times
later for further Council input. Discussion of the specifics of the Job
Description, preferred performance dimensions, and consultant selection can
be continued to the meeting of 12/16/85.
Recommendation: Council motion authorizing City Administrator to proceed
according to this outline and report back to Council on 12/16 for further
Council discussion and direction.
(BJ:pm29;
Attachments: Current Job Description
+ Week of. . . .
# Council action. . .
�i
71
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
December 9, 1985
FROM: Joy Martin, Assistant to City Administrator
Brian Hartung, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Metzger/Washington Square Urban Service Study (REVISED)
The following is a draft preliminary study of Urban Services
provided to the Metzger/Washington Square Community. Staff
has provided comparative data in regard to expenditure levels
between the Metzger/Washington Square Community and the City
of Tigard.
Points of interest in the report are:
o Metzger/Washington Square has received approximately $425
per capita or $2. 5 million less in services over the last
5 years.
o Metzger/Washington Square tax payers have paid approximately
$130 per residence more in property tax than services received.
o Metzger/Washington Square total tax bill would only increase
approximately $57 if annexed to Tigard.
o Metzger/Washington Square residents have "abandoned" approx-
imately $250,000 (1985-86 rates) in shared revenues due to
a lack of incorporated status.
�L
METZGER/WASHINGTON SQUARE URBAN SERVICES
STUDY OUTLINE/DRAFT (10/15/85)
I. General Background
o Process and Legal Requirements
o Timeline
a Map and Study Area
o Special Districts
o Park L.I.D. (keep as is)
o Services Mix and Changes upon Annexation
o A.P.A.A.
o Demographics and Tigard Growth
o Washington County History of Expenditures in Area
(5 year average vs. City?)
o History of Tax Rates S Comparative Tax Rates (8A/85 actuals)
IZ Resources
o Per Capita (Population X $)
o Assessed Value
o Franchise Fees
o Vacant Buildable Lands Inventory (Rough)
o Fees and Charges Baseline — growth related and utilities
o Park L.I.D.*
III Expenditures
o Basic Services Costs
a Debt Service
o Special Expenditures
p Park L.I.D.
IV Net Resources Available for Neighborhood Programs
o Five Year Phase—In vs. Full Participation
o Capital Needs
o Program Needs (CPO Draft)
o Grants
o Key Issues of Importance (CPO 6 Survey)
V Appendix
o Resource Tables
o Expenditure Tables
(1039p
INTRODUCTION
This is a preliminary report of the Urban Services study of service delivery
in the Metzger/Washington Square area by Washington County and a comparison of
those expenditures in relation ro like services provided by the City of Tigard.
Urban service delivery systems examined were:
o Public Safety
o Finance
a Community Development
o General Administration
o Parks
o Library
The term of the study covers the budget years:
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
A tax rate study is included in this report and covers the base years plus
1985/86 for surrounding municipalities providing urban services.
A comparison of per capita expenditures for the study area versus the City of
. Tigard per capita in relation to the amount of property tax paid (based upon a
$65,000 average assessment) is included as well as an estimate of
intergovernmental shared revenues abandoned due to the lack of incorporated
status for the area.
o -
�Jt. e r .� - a i:. � Sr `� � }� •=.J�..-r� •,.'►'rti. I! t "r it � '�
r L..1�`li• � :�� .kms � u ... M...'.' '}f, r � , - , �. - .��• ,
ro
L R
i '—`- --. -% —; ,. 1 � _ih 7a ;' Is err �'t�_ •�. '
(
T4I 7T ,
FF
I
s
f
1' T � ,}'i � ,� � rs L.� I.� �1 ' � �• i •_ � u " til' . .
f ` ��^ ..a, -1—.� � 11"t-.��.:.�.�vq•l• S � h ±�rr ..r... .! � TIN
�r �•,.���"�'-J• _
•� �r +2' i tv I i LKfM K Ili •°tca
iT
iA-
�:
WIN
N
METZGER/WASHINGTON SQUARE SERVICE AREA
The area uner study is defined as: East along the Multnomah-Washington County
line; Westerly along Taylors Ferry Road and a line to Oleson Rd. ;
South--Westerly to Hall Blvd. ; Northwesterly to Scholls Ferry Rd. ; Southerly
along Highway 217 to the Tigard City limits; Easterly along the Tigard City
limits to the Multnomah-Washington County line.
Area (Sq. Miles) 1,5 Sq. Miles
Population (1985 Est.) 6,088
Assessed Valuation $244,599,600.00
(1985 Wash. Co. Assessment)
Road System 25.1 Miles - Wash. Co.
Sewer System 25.5 Miles - USA
Water System Metzger Water Dist,
School School Dist. N23/School Dist. #48
SERVICE LEVELS (Expenditures Comparision)
The Metzger/Washington Square community receives consistently lower levels of
urban services than if in the City of Tigard. The Metzger/Washington Sqaure
area currently receives a per capita service level approximately 45% of that
provided for City of Tigard residents. Of specific categories studied, only
Parks consistently has a greater per capita effort greater than Tigard. The
most visible of urban services delivered, Public Safety, shows an expenditure
level of approximately 47% of Tigard's delivery level. On average, Metzger
receives half the services provided in the City of Tigard.
For the purpose of additional comparison service level expenditures for the
City of Tigard provided by Washington County have been included.
TOTAL URBAN SERVICES
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
.ca.
iso. �. ... . f,
--� Tigard
E
iletzger: i
.. 0. L _-
80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85
5 Year
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES
PER CAPITA
Over the last 5 years the Metzger/Washington Square community has received
approximately $340 per capita in expenditure effort versus $775 per capita for
City of Tigard residents. This is $435 per capita less or approximately $2.5M
based upon 5,800 residents, the average over 5 years.
METZGER/Wash. Sq. Tigard
169.38 Public Safety 305.00
31.00 Finance 79.45
81.60 Community Development 276.45
8.67 Administration 40.06
34.89 Parks 24.42
13.73 Library 49.16
339.27 Total 774.56
�r
n:r
Metzger/Wash. Sq. 1980/81 Tigard
Population - 5,445 Population - 14,855
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
141,810 26.04 Public Saf. 812,700 54.70
19,350 3.55 Finance 128,857 8.67
53,573 9.84 Comm. Dew. 649,354 43.71
7,272 1.33 Admin. 79,205 5.33
33,958 6.23 Parks 120,839 8. 13
13,909 2.55 library 110,748 7_45
269,872 49.54 Total 1,901,703 127.96
1981/82
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,555 Population-15,750
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
192,360 34.62 Public Saf. 955,789 60.70
29,741 5.35 Finance 206,975 13.14
63,414 11.41 Comm. Dev. 849,073 53.90
8,431 1.51 Admin. 127,085 8.06
38,786 6.92 Parks 103,459 6.56
16,120 2.90 Library 135.048 8.57
348,852 62.71 Total 2,377,429 150.93
1982/83
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,675 Population - 18,000
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
222,569 39.21 Public Saf. 1,034,428 57.46
29,741 6.61 Finance 301,879 16.77
120,667 21.26 Comm. Dev. 951,528 52.86
8,431 1.61 Admin. 154,184 8.56
38,786 6.74 Parks 67,927 3.77
14,772 _ 2.60 Library 149,435 8.30
434,966 78.03 Total 2,659,381 147.72
mm7l
1983/84
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,790 Population - 18,200
Total Per Total Per
.Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
209,566 36.19 Public Saf. 1, 130,715 62.12
42,169 7.28 Finance 370.839 20.37
108,761 18.78 Comm. Dew. 1,077,356 59.19
12,128 2.09 Admin. 168,500 9.25
39,030 6.79 Parks 53,030 2.91
16,366 2.82 Library 175,980 9.66
428,020 73.95 Total 2,976,420 163.50
1984/85
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,940 Population - 19,000
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
197,950 33.32 Public Saf. 1,330,500 70.02
48,816 8.21 Finance 389,500 20.50
120,631 20.31 Comm. Dew. 1,269,073 66.79
12,684 2.13 Admin. 168,500 8.86
48,773 8.21 Parks 55,00 3.05
17,000 2.86 Library 228,824 15.20
445,854 75.04 Total 3,501,397 184.42
(1) Public Safety -
(a) 60% of Administration plus operation times .0375 (equivalent
population of unincorporated Wash. Co.).
(b) 40% of Administration plus jail time .022 (equivalent population of
Wash. Co.).
(2) Comm. Dew. - Total Expend. time .0375 (equivalent population of
unincorporated Wash. Co.).
(3) Parks - Total expenditure of Metzger Park Special Assessment District.
(4) library - 25% of West Slope library operations.
(5) Finance and Admin. - Total expenditure of budget times .022 (equivalent
population of Wash. Co.).
SOURCE: Washington County Annual Budget
Tigard Annual Budget
flgr
u+ G a. .0 •o n .a o m u+�a•
s
d . ea ., m v �o r N .o -+
Cr
co
.+ c a, .r u� z Z .a .+ c er •o o C o o
�o m
m ar NN w Ln
O X N eUN enn en a O X Ln N I O Ln O P
►- w .•1 .4 N F- W P NN N n
.ti .Z of
.gyp e�'n c� ¢ m ate+ m mai O •�D Iii tin
eat. V� Z ZI.4 d .�D N .a. �+ N a')h
pp p
Q P Z Z L w n h M1 cD fP. -
►c� � to�f tN t5 a� in
10
•-e C N a� ~ tNn m t� Gf tin r �t
MA .i LOOS tV
•+ ~ '+ N a 1� w
W S ,.j .y 1•f
to
03
41 in
00U,
N to
to J .S .•e .+ a• �C' T
r
w 4. Kil L G en P 'a d L
O a ty .•e .r N �a eiC 1O• X I .r a v .� .a
N
J
dZ
.�pp n
Lr. ne .•+ d n g W .e aD N u et+ M n
� Cyg O �• � Y
eDcr� ..'i p, x a ro
4 7 CCC.+ .•� n en .+ a, co T
SCWgT, {y^. > CO O O qA S _
7 �W iV re O �i ¢ q iCi .�O P�t Ifs O 1.14
;w � s � ssc xv m `� � .�a � wo o`
C, W% on .+ ��O W 1— L.
a• N in .a a0 r�w 40 4.
a
� a
a$ a� o-. 4. $ a to
an aD .a 7 N n O 'E n m d
a. x aa�� o� o o
r nen .e w .�. a q .Oa .DU. :y : p "� m
►�- w u tcOW
- w N v u
CL c c
W r M
N 3
d x d c v -•
G W ,O„ ..Ca Y 9 � W aL #
W ti J H v v v d i
LL.
iz
PROPERTY TAX VERSUS PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
For the purpose of comparison, the amount of property taxes paid versus the
total per capita expenditure effort was evaluated.
During this period, the average residence paid $893.75 in property taxes and
received aibout $764.39 in expenditure effort per residence or a net loss of
$129.36 The years 1981/82 and 1982/83 showed a net subsidy to other
Washington �Iounty areas (primarily due to the roads serial levy). During the
same period, Tigard property owners had a net positive return of $1,369.28
(property tax - $334.75, expenditures per residence - $1704.03).
PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT
General Gov't. Property Tax Vs. Household Expenditure Effort (1)
Metzger/Wash. Co. Tigard
1980/81
1.65 x 65 = 107.25 .60 x 65 = 39.00
49.54 x 2.2 = 1010^T� 127.99 x 2.2 = 281-56
1981/82
4.23 x 65 = 274.95 1.19 x 65 = - .35
62.71 x 2.2 = 137.96 150.93 x 2.2 = 332.05
<136.99> 254.70
1982/83
4.02 x 65 = 261.30 1.12 x 65 = 72.80
78.03 x 2.2 = 174> 147.72 x 2.2 = 324.98
752.1
1983/84
1.88 x 65 = 122.20 1.18 x 65 = 76.70
73.95 x 2.2 = 1166x699 163.50 x 2.2 = 359.75T.70
1984/85
1.97 x 65 = 128.05 1.06 x 65 = 68.90
75.04 x 2.2 = 165.094 184.42 x 2.2 = 40S.72
(1) based upon Assessed Valuation of $65,000 and 2.2 Residents.
PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT
Tigard/Washington Co. Property Tax Vs. Household
Expenditure Effort (1)(2)
1980/81 1.65 + .60 x 65 = 146.25
138.02 x 2.2 = 303.64
4.23 + 1.19 x 65 = 352.30
164.80 x 2.2 = 362.34
10.'R
4.02 + 1.12 x 65 = 334.10
161.63 x 2.2 = 35 �9
1.88 + 1.18 x 65 = 198.90
178.33 x 2.2 = 392.33
173.43
1.97 + 1.06 x 65 = 196.95
199.86 x 2.2 = 439.69
J (1) Excludes Wash. Co. Expenditures for Parks, library and Contnunity
Development.
(2) Based upon Assessed Valuation of $65,000 and 2.2 Residents.
TAX RATES
-. Tax rates are compared for the municipal jurisdictions in the
Metzger/Washington Square area per $1,000 AV. 'rhose jurisdictions are
Beaverton, Portland, Tigard and Tualatin. During the term of the study period
the City of Portland and the City of Tigard both show the least percentage of
change, with the City of Tigard showing the lowest municipal tax rate.
MUNICIPAL TAX RATES
JURISDICTION 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86
Portland 6.29 6.48 6.79 6.58 6.43 6.71
Beaverton 5.37 7.01 6.48 5.23 5.52 4.23
Tualatin 2.12 3.59 3.36 3.30 3.51 4.13
Tigard (1) .60 1.19 1.12 1.18 1.06 1.35
(1) Excludes Cost Fire Protection
._ ? ......._.._.......... ..........
80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86
The following Table shows tax rates adjusted to include applicable Fire
Districts.
URBAN SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
TAX RATE PER $1,000 AV
JURISDICTION 80181 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86
Portland 6.29 6.48 6.79 6.58 6.43 6.71
Beaverton 5.37 7.01 6.48 5.23 5.52 4.23
Tualatin(1) 5.52 6.80 6.64 6.45 6.63 6.73
Tigard(2) 3.40 3.94 3.82 3.88 3.77 4.00
(1) Tualatin base rate plus Tualatin RFPD.
(2) Tigard base rate plus Wash. Co. RFPD #1.
PROPERTY TAX COSTS
The following is a table of tax rates as they would apply for
Metzger/Washington Square tax payers and the estimated property tax cost for
1985/86 based upon a $65,000 assessed valuation. -
TAX AGENCY METZGER TIGARD BEAVERTON PORTLAND
Municipal - 1.35 4.23 6.71
Wash. Co. 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93
USA .36 .36 .36 .36
School Dist. 023 11.55 11.55 11.55 11.55
Metzger Water .03 .03 .03 -
Metzger Sanitary •28 - - -
Metzger Water Combined .64 .64 .64 .64
Wash. Co. ESD .25 .25 .25 .25
Port. Comm. Coil. .58 .58 .58 .58
Wash. Co. RFPD #1 2.65 2.65 -
Port of Portland .37 .37 .37 .37
Metro Serv. Dist. .16 .16 .16 •16
Metzger Park .19 ? - -
Tual. Hills Pr.
6 Rec. Dist. - 1.34 -
Total Tax Rate 18.99 19.87 21.44 22.55
Total Property Tax $1234.35 1291.55 1393.60 1465.75
From Washington County Summary of Assessment 6 Tax roll, 1984-•86.
< (?)Tigard is willing to support Metzger decision on keeping park levy as is or
incorporating into City-wide system. Question decided by Metzger.
ABANDONED REVENUES AND ENTITLEMENTS
Revenues of the State of Oregon and Washington County are returned to
incorporated areas through various revenue sharing programs. These
intergovernmental shared revenues (ie. gas tax, cigarette tax, etc. . .) are
essentially "abandoned" by residents of unincorporated areas such as
Metzger/Washington Square. These are taxes which are currently being paid,
but to which only City residents are entitled. For 1985/86 this amounts to
more than $250,000 with over one—third designated for streets, sidewalks and
other transportation system improvements.
ABANDONED REVENUES
METZGER/WASHINGTON SQ. STUDY AREA
STATE OF OREGON SHARED REVENUES
ITEM RATE(1) x POP.(2) AMOUNT
Cigarette Tax $1.89 x 5,940 $11,226.60
Liquor Tax 7.31 x 5,940 43,421.40
Street Tax 18.25 x 5,940 108,405.00
Library Grant Aid .1244 x 5,940 738.94
Revenue Sharing 5.23(3) x 5,940 31,066.20
Total $194,858.14
WASH.T_NGTON COUNTY SHARED REVENUES
Gas Tax 5.76 x 5,940 $34,214.40
Library 4.78 x 5,940 28.393.20
Total $62--- 607.6a
State Shared Revenue $194,858.14
County Shared Revenue 6207 60
Total Abandoned Revenue $257,465.74
or
$43.34 Per Capita
(1) 1985/86 Rates
(2) Est. Population 1985 per PSU Population Center
(3) Est. Per Capita Rate
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS*
Metzger/Washingtion Square Study Area
1985!86
Assessed Valuation $244,599,600.00
Current General Fund Tax Base .86
Property Tax Revenue ($.86 X $244,599.) $210,355.14
Abandoned Shared Revenues $257,465.74
Total Potential Revenue $467,820.88
* Computed assuming 1985/86 Assessed Valuation and current City of Tigard
general fund Tax Rate. Does not include Debt Retirement.
l
e
CONCLUSION
Currently the City of Tigard would be the "Best Buy" based upon:
A. Greater return for the dollar paid,
B. Greater tax stability over a given period of time, and
C. Lowest total property taxes paid for comparable services.
(BH:pm/1088p)
MEMORANDUM
° CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Mayor and City Coun�il ,r December 5, 1965
FROM: Brian Hartung, Admini trativ4� Intern
SUBJECT: Metzger/Washington Squa e :lfrban Services Study
Attached is the Metzger/Washingtgn are Urban Services Study Outline/Draft
for the scheduled discussion. !
ti
r
1105p
e
as �
METZGER/WASHINGTON SQUARE URBAN SERVICES
! STUDY OUTLINE/DRAFT (10/15/85)
I. General Background
o Process and Legp_i Requirements
o Timeline
o Map and Study Area
o Special Districts
o Park L.I.D. (keep as is)
o Services Mix and Changes upon Annexation
o A.P.A.A.
o Demographics and Tigard Growth
o Washington County History of Expenditures in Area
(5 year average vs. City?)
o History of Tax Rates 6 Comparative Tax Rates (84/85 actuals)
II Resources
o Per Capita (Population X $)
o Assessed Value
o Franchise Fees
o Vacant Buildable Lands Inventory (Rough)
o Fees and Charges Baseline - growth related and utilities
o Park L.I.D.*
III Expenditures
a Basic Services Costs
o Debt Service
o Special Expenditures
p Park L.I.D.
IV Net Resources Available for Neighborhood Programs
o Five Year Phase-In vs. Full Participation
o Capital Needs
o Program Needs (CPO Draft)
o Grants
o Key Issues of Importance (CPO & Survey)
V Appendix
o Resource Tables
o Expenditure Tables
X
y+ •(1039p
a
w INTRODUCTION
This is a preliminary report of the Urban Services study of service delivery
in the Metzger/Washington Square area by Washington County and a comparison of
those expenditures in relation to like services provided by the City of Tigard.
Urban service delivery systems examined were:
o Public Safety
o Finance
o Community Development
o General Administration
o Parks
o Library
The term of the study covers the budget years:
1980/81
1981/82
1982/83
1983/84
1984/85
A tax rate study is included in this report and covers the base years plus
1985/86 for surrounding municipalities providing urban services.
A comparison of per capita expenditures for the study area versus the City of
Tigard per capita in relation to the amount of property tax paid (based upon a
$65,000 average assessment) is included as well as an estimate of
intergovernmental shared revenues abandoned due to the lack of incorporated
status for the area.
G
'j1� s {C<11
.i-�7 �'4�.' i• ._ jr '•��- ��• ..! iLl-t tti� _"'r� i7["l�r����� '-jT
r
T (� ..r � r l : ;�.' ' � �,Z .- r IY •��� �-? T,it�-'ll rr
�t j' �•( � t•t .:.�r-_�T`` ,
� L ti
L w _
� - u
+3
1 C..j
a L ...�.y �l i '4' •T"r"�T�}{'� .�., �.fJ L--1 rt 1 t!�7'•a. r_..� ,r", y'1 �. itr
� L-• t �1�L i ,
' �L `��1 I ,�, .ai a1��' r- 1 T•l�. t --1t jlr _ '��.� `� 1t q• ..
\T'
�'.
11 1
1 ,
1 i 1 T
j �:..
_..
1 Jt rr�. i i ..•-
�T . �• ( `, _r t, , �t -�� r-T L;r� w 1�( •. +
r 1�� , r
4
- `
-�. �.-.._ _, _.._ �.." 1~'—� ' �"'� :i,� {i - I ,1 �:_' , r r. t ci., T,j-ate— � \••(y\•�^". .
,/ ?•<� ti+ / L'n-r-�r�T-t r'Jj•i �^r"7 x C,tit r- t i � r, � ; ,�'� ��,,,':•..
TT
r
iw��. --�-• i � ' t -� - - �_: 1 ,�:i ���-si�.T -e"��r 1 S�.` �. �_• , :�a►•��.a'.� •�i.� '�\
NT'i-F\TAY 11 141 t J-
W-T
EA�
- ,'l ! ii� � �_. •1 j i 3:• •t(. :V,,' �. �.I_a :� �\'
-i 'L, 4%
i �J; s , t•
AT
I
i 1 _1- � •.
1
_-_-�—_.�� --_�=_'�'f� ��}•✓. ��,dr7t Vit- 1 ; f 1. � {
,
S{{
SERVICE LEVELS (Expenditures Comparision)
The Metzger/Washington Square community receives consistently lower levels of
urban services than if in the City of Tigard. The Metzger/Washington Sqaure
area currently receives a per capita service level approximately 45% of that
provided for City of Tigard residents. Of specific categories studied, only
Parks consistently has a greater per capita effort greater than Tigard. The
most visible of urban services delivered, Public Safety, shows an expenditure
level of approximately 47% of Tigard's delivery level. On average, Metzger
receives half the services provided in the City of Tigard.
For the purpose of additional comparison service level expenditures for the
City of Tigard provided by Washington County have been included.
TOTAL URBAN SERVICES
PER CA"ITA EXPENDITURE
• -- -+--''7 f Bard
ita !.... ..............
E w Netzger:
40. �.
{
a 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85
5 Year
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES
PER CAPITA
Over the last 5 years the Metzger/Washington Square community has received
approximately $340 per capita in expenditure effort versus $775 per capita for
City of Tigard residents. This is $435 per capita less or approximately $2.5M
based upon 5,800 residents, the average over 5 years.
METZGER/Wash. Sq. Tigard
169.38 Public Safety 305.00
31.00 Finance 79.45
81.60 Community Development 276.45
8.67 Administration 40.06
34.89 Parks 24.42
13.73 Library 4918
'' 339.27 Total 774.56
i` 1980/81
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,445 Population
- 14,855
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
141,810 26.04 Public Saf. 812,700 54.70
19,350 3.55 Finance 128.857 8.67
53,573 9.84 Comm. Dev. 649,354 43.71
7,272 1.33 Admin. 79,205 5.33
33,958 6.23 Parks 120,839 8.13
13,909 2.55 Library 110.748 7.45
269,872 49.54 Total 1,901,703 127.96
1981/82
Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard
Population - 5,555 Population-15,750
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita
192,360 34.62 Public Saf. 955,789 60.70
29,741 5.35 Finance 206,975 13.14
63,414 11.41 Comm. Dev. 849,073 53.90
8,431 1.51 Admin. 127,085 8.06
38,786 6.92 Parks 103,459 6.56
16,120 2.90 Library 135,048 8.57
348,852 62.71 Total 2,377,429 150.93
1982/83
Metzger/Wash. Sq. - 5,675 Tigard 18,000
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Cita
222,569 39.21 Public Saf. 1,034,428 57.46
29,741 6.61 Finance 301.879 16.77
120,667 21.26 Comm. DQv: 951,528 52.86
8, 631 1.61 Admin. 154,184 8.56
38,786 6.74 Parks 67,927 3.77
14,772 2.60 Library 149,435 8.30
434,966 78.03 Total 2,659,381 147.72
K
1983/84
Metzger/Wash. Sq. - 5.790 Tigard 18,200
Total Per Total Per
Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capit
209,566 36.19 Public Saf. 1,130,715 62.12
42,169 7.28 Finance 370,839 20.37
108,761 18.78 Comm. Dew. 1,077,356 59.19
12,128 2.09 Admin. 168,500' 9.25
39,030 6.79 Parks 53,030 2.91
16,366 2.82 Library 175,98 9.66
428,020 73.95 Total 2,976,420 163.50
1984/85
Metzger/Wash. Sq. - 5,940 Tigard 19,000
Total Per Total Per
Ex 2enditure Capita Expenditure CaLita
197,950 33.32 Public Saf. 1,330,500 70.02
48,816 8.21 Finance 389,500 20.50
120,631 20.31 Comm. Dew. 1,269,073 66.79
12,684 2.13 Admin. 168.500 8.86
48,773 8.21 Parks 55,00 3.05
17,000 2.86 Library 228,824 15.20
445,854 75.04 Total 3,501,397 184.42
(1) Public Safety -
(a) 60% of Administration plus operation times .0375 (equivalent
population of unincorporated Wash. Co.).
(b) 40% of Administration plus jail time .022 (equivalent population of
Wash. Co.).
(2) Comm. Dew. - Total Expend. time .0375 (equivalent population of
unincorporated Wash. Co.).
(3) Parks - Total expenditure of Metzger Park Special Assessment District.
(4) Library - 25% of West Slope library operations.
(5) Finance and Admin. - Total expenditure of budget times .022 (equivalent
population of Wash. Co.).
SOURCE: Washington County Annual Budget
Tigard Annual Budget
wig
PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT
General Gov't. Property Tax Vs. Household Expenditure Effort (1)
Metzger/Wash. Co. Tigard
1980/81
1.65 x 65 = 107.25 .60 x 65 = 39.00
49.54 x 2.2 = 108.99 127.99 x 2.2 = 281.58
1.73 242.57
1981/82
4.23 x 65 = 274.95 1,19 x 65 = 77.35
62.71 x 2.2 = 137.96 150.93 x 2.2 = 332.05
<136.99> 254.70
1982/83
4.02 x 65 = 261.30 1.12 x 65 = 72.80
78.03 x 2.2 = 171.66 147.72 x 2.2 = 324.98
<89.60 252.18
1983/84
1.88 x 65 = 122.20 1,18 x 65 = 76.70
73.95 x 2.2 = 162.69 163.50 x 2.2 = 359.70
40,49 283.00
1984/85
1.97 x 65 = 128.05 1.06 x 65 = 68.90
75.04 x 2.2 = 165.09 184.42 x 2.2 = 405.72
37.04 336.82
(1) Based upon Assessed Valuation of $65,000 and 2.2 Residents.
PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT
Tigard/Washington Co. Property Tax Vs. Household
Expenditure Effort (1)(2)
1980/81 1.65 + .60 x 65 = 146.25
138.02 x 2.2 = 303.64
157.39
4.23 + 1.19 x 65 = 352.30
164,80 x 2.2 = 362.34
10.04
4.02 + 1.12 x 65 = 334.10
161.63 x 2.2 = 355.59
21.49
1.88 + 1.18 x 65 = 198.90
178.33 x 2.2 = 392.33
193.43
1.97 + 1.06 x 65 = 196.95
199.86 x 2.2 = 439.69
242.74
(1) Excludes Wash. Co. Expenditures for Parks, Library and Community
Development.
(2) Based upon Assessed Valuation of $65,000 and 2.2 Residents.
U) .. -1 r ro 9 0 -n o ...-•.. -1 r "D 3> -n ro
0 .. 0a' pi C CL 0 W. a LL) P+ o �• Q1 a0 c
91 SU
C7 fn i¢+ to 3 3 r• Y Il w 7 3 �..
rxi �c a � n X m ° o m `,
ID ( "0 Ch rc cn
c .. 91
La w w 91 =rw m a v
m 0
3 c #A m9
M �
�D r•
¢sl 0 O N rk
O O 0
t1Qt r m ct r+ iT co m iJi �•+ N i0 a CD CO pt V- ?'c 3 p O OO �D 'D r �D r+ X X y
W w W iT W W fD O r• w \�, w \ V N
rct f!1 Q A A m %D %D A O A r a� r+ r 3? 3> A 3> _= a
W.
ct t,p "..r M 10
O C
7 M m
f'D - m O '0
w w a r+ to !r rm+ a �"' ►+ w 0 ►+ ¢
tt - m V O> Ci+ w N . 1 C7.a �2 Z Z '..
O a r 01 V N aD r• X W 3 9 w 37 ij1 iT" LV w Cs r+ N Ul s�.' C
C')
a
a+ m -t
rkgo
Ote0
m N 0 et %4 LDro m0 iT A m O� Pi 91 O
fD A M w 0 kD m m ►-' O 'S V V O pLnOAOOOV aa.. r ,ZZ �OGr1D Cl tlf
• NALTm V mm In 0
�D m a-� O 0 O 2> =0
90
� g -8 < m
•- \
w o+ to m c7 ro m '� C+ --t r-• m
su a co0% %Owm -4 Ar m N � �• w .+ u+ vN 4s m x
V Lim 0 %0 N m r• .S 3? -p O9i V � � A 2\ r+ r r• � rri
'O
O V ON N O m V et ;o ftt -4 13> 3> 0% V
o pr M
�D f+ t- %0 M. rk p
A01 V 000 ch iT N ON & M
tno V 0 fn pi
►' !
tAAt0r+ tTrOt O r .;nZZr02 wN
N m W A � N \ \ PD \ N r
�^' r� a A O+
%0 ro '° a
co m
Os ANO+ � ro \ O w r tTO+ m pAi ISD O
ro w Z 2 2 W ^
0% wV �DmAw r• � ��+13* �0 0kOp ma et v
W O V tJ+ O+
W r+ �••"
a V iT 0 V m 0 C+
o+ iT w r V iT N iD �7 tiD w t3'+ ►+ ; �
w000wwo 'OZ 2O2om O. r
V m W V 0 A m
�0
00 %0 m N V %0 13> 9 �D 3> W
r r
�O cO
CD m
w W
(� V \ \
to OD r m 5 lD
m 1t� N ►+ 'O 01 m r• 'S
W � tO -4 % %0 ►0-m et w9 ANaN � fU
W � r 1QI
w r•+ r
V N N N iT At*1 -� N
�Om0001NO X O t0 w WN X O
LT m LT W 10 N Ot c w A w i1r !D Sct
U
OmO000% Ab ►-' 0+ z00z Z0 r
w NO 4014 W 0 w \\ �D \ wO
r+ AOA W 01A Aa0:0A 3> 0fA
�O b
m co
01 N V ¢I tQ m r m Al ID
o+ r• Z v+ to 13), v 01 u+O 0% V v M eF Acom N0%1 L" CcwO' A p� AN3> N
TAX RATES
Tax rates are compared for the municipal jurisdictions in the
Metzger/Washington Square area per $1,000 Av. Those jurisdictions are
Beaverton, Portland, Tigard and Tualatin. During the term of the study period
the City of Portland and the City of Tigard both show the least percentage of
change, with the City of Tigard showing the lowest municipal tax rate.
MUNICIPAL TAX RATES
JURISDICTION 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86
Portland 6.29 6.48 6.79 6.58 6.43 6.71
Beaverton 5.37 7.01 6.48 5.23 5.52 4.23
Tualatin(l) 2.12 3.59 3.36 3.30 3.51 4.13
Tigard (1) .60 1.19 1.12 1.18 1.06 1.35
(1) Excludes Cost Fire Protection
Portland �, •-->-.;'__-`�._�y:_�_" __-. .
Beaverton ! �_-
4. ... ...........
Tualatin
?
Tigard , . -�.......
a 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86
PROPERTY TAX COSTS
The cost to the average property owner in the Metzger/Washington Square area
based upon 1985/86 tax rates and $65,000 average assessed valuation is shown
below.
sco.
436.15
Boa
Boa 274.95 256.75
sna
$ 87.75
Hca.
a
Port Bvtn Tigl Tig2
Tigardl is the current municipal tax rate while Tigard2 includes the cost
for the Tualatin RFPD to more clearly compare the property tax bills of
Portland and Beaverton.
ABANDONED REVENUES AND ENTITLEMENTS
Revenues of the State of Oregon and Washington County are returned to
incorporated areas through various revenue sharing programs. These
intergovernmental shared revenues (ie. gas tax, cigarette tax, etc. . .) are
essentially "abandoned" by residents of unincorporated areas such as
Metzger/Washington Square. These are taxes which are currently being paid,
but to which only City residents are entitled. For 1985/86 this amounts to
more than $250,000 with over one—third designated for streets, sidewalks and
other transportation system improvements.
ABANDONED REVENUES
METZGER/WASHINGTON SQ, STUDY AREA
STATE OF OREGON SHARED REVENUES
ITEM RATE(1) x POP.(2) AMOUNT
Cigarette Tax $1.89 x 5,940 $11,226.60
Liquor Tax 7.31 x 5,940 43,421.40
Street Tax 18.25 x 5,940 108,405.00
Library Grant Aid .1244 x 5,940 738.94
Revenue Sharing 5.23(3) x 5,940 31 ,065.20
Total 194,858.14
WASHINGTON COUNTY SHARED REVENUES
Gas Tax 5.76 x 5,940 $34,214.40
Library 4.78 x 5,940 28,393.20
Total $62,607.60
State Shared Revenue $194,858.14
County Shared Revenue 62,07.60
Total Abandoned Revenue $257,465.74
or
$43.34 Per Capita
(1) 1985/86 Rates
(2) Est. Population 1985 per PSU Population Center
(3) Est. Per Capita Rate
!1
111111 NNE
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS* ;
Metzger/Washingtion Square Study Area
1985/86
Assessed Valuation $244,599,600.00
.86
Current General Fund Tax Base
Property Tax Revenue ($.86 X $244,599.) $210,355.14
Abandoned Shared Revenues $257,465.74
Total Potential Revenue $467,820_88
* Computed assuming 1985/86 Assessed Valuation and current City of Tigard
general fund Tax Rate. Does not include Debt Retirement.
l
H.
CONCLUSION
Currently the City of Tigard would be the "Best Buy" based upon:
A. Greater return for the dollar paid,
B. Greater tax stability over a given period of time, and
C. Lowest total property taxes paid for comparable services.
(BN:pm11088p)
�4..
t:l t r t)t I l�:i,ul), uut ir,a
UpUNCIL AGENUA ITEM SUfTiARY
December 9, 1985 AGENDA ITEM 0: —L_-1----- -
AGENDA OF: —_------ ,
DATE SUBMITTED: December 2, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Notice of Decipn
TU 9-85 - Patricia Sigler
PREPARED BY: Community Development
HOP 23-85 - Leonard C. Donovan. REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: !� CITY ADMINISTRATOR;
POLICY ISSUE
INFORMATION SUt'1(1ARY
Attached are the Notice of Decisions for:
TU 9-85, by Patricia Sigler for a Temporary Use Permit for operation of
a used car sales lot on property zoned I-P, located at 12530 SW Hall Blvd.
HOP 23-85, by Leonard C. Donovan for a business office for his r stom
paving business in an R-4.5 residential zone, located at 12480 3rook Court.
ALTERNATIVES OONSIDERED
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.
f
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF DECISION
TU 9-85
APPLICATION• A request by Patricia Sigler for a Temporary Use Permit for
operation of a used car sales lot on property zoned I-P. Location: 12530 SW
Hall Blvd. (WCTM 2S1 IBC Lot 2300). Expiration: 60 days from the date of
final approval.
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
automobil
SOR 14-84 was approvedin
August
gssubj subject to certain allowing
cord tionse sales
business on property zoned IP
2. Vicinity Information
The area west of Hall Blvd. is zoned CBD (Central Business
District). The property immediately adjacent to the subject
property on the east side of Hall of the property is aed and R-4.5 zoned
for light industrial (I—L).
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property is located approximately 130 feet south of Hunziker
Street. A single family residence and an accessoryeconvert structure
e
occupy the property. The applicant has proposed
property to a car sales lot and utilize the house as an office and
living quarters for a watchman. Separate entrance and exit
driveway have been provided.
4. Agency and NPO Comments
NPO #5 was notified and Craig Hopkins responded. He stated that
NPO #5 still is concerned about the conditions set in SDR 14-84,
namely: potential congestion due to location;
2) lack of
southbound turn lane for safety; 3) visual obstruction and
distraction of drivers caused by signs and vehicles on display;
and 4) a lack of a sidewalk improvement provision. NPO #5
recommends denial of this Temporary Use application until all
conditions have been met.
y.
Lee Gunderson of the Highway Division remarked that the landscaped
driveway delineation areas should be installed prior to opening
for business. Signing for the entrance and exit only driveways n
should also be installed prior to opening day.
R.B. Adams of the Tigard Police Department had no comment.
NOTICE OF DECISION — TU 9-85 — PAGE 1
t
B. ANAYLSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.140 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
At the time of expiration of this Temporary Use Permit, all agency and
NPO comments and conditions as stated in SDR 14-84 and repeated below
shall: 1) either be satisfactorily and fully completed or 2) the
applicant shall cease and desist from further using the property as an
automobile sales lot until that time that the applicant can demonstrate
by an on-site inspection by our Engineering Division (Prior to the 60
day expiration date) and subsequently in writing that all conditions
have been met. Section 18.140.020 of the Tigard Community Development
Code states that this Temporary Use can be valid only for 60 days;
therefore the applicant's request for 90 days duration has been revised.
C. DECISION
Temporary Use Permit TU 9-85 is approved subject to the conditions
referred to in 4 above and repeated here:
1. Standard half-street improvements including an an 8-root wide
sidewalk, curbs, street lights, and driveway aprons shall be
provided along the Hall Blvd. frontage (waived in lieu of
non-remonstrance agreement).
`6 2. Seven (7) sets of pian-profile public improvement construction
plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by
a registered civil engineer, detailing all proposed public
improvement shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Division
for City and State Highway Division approval. (Met).
3. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering division has issued approved public
improvement plans. (Met).
4. Drainage plans shall be submitted to the Building Inspection
Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits for change of occupancy. A satisfactory means of
disposing of storm water runoff from the site shall be developed;
a drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction with any
application for a building permit. Drainage to Hall Blvd.
requires State Highway Division approval.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, a revised site plan shall
be submitted for Planning Director approval with the following
f.
changes:
(a.) Four parking spaces consistent with Chapter 18.106 of the
Code.
(b.) Addition of at least two street trees along the Hall Blvd.
frontage.
(c.) The revision shall reflect the additional 5-foot
right-of-way dedication required by the State.
n .
NOTICE OF DECISION TU 9-85 - PAGE 2
071
6. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along the Hall Blvd.
frontage to increase the right—of-way width from centerline to 45
feet. The legal documents for said dedication shall be reviewed
and approved by the Engineering Division prior to issuance of
building permits.
7. A "Do Not Enter" sign shall be installed at the northern driveway.
8. The landscaping material shown in the approved landscaping plan
shall be installed before the business opens.
9. This approval shall expire 60 days from the date of final approval.
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 Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
2. Final Decision:
THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON December 9, 1985, 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 18.32.370 of the Community
Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be
filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given
and sent.
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. December 9, 1985.
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.repared by: Deborah A. Stuart, Assistant Planner DATE SIGNED'
Will A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED
�_.
(OAS-pm/2114P)
NOTICE OF DECISION - TU 9-85 — PAGE 3
,
c�
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF DECISION
HOP 23-85
APPLICATION: A request by Leonard C. Donovan for a business office for his
custom paving business in an R-4.5 residential zone. Location: 12480 SW
Brook Court (WCTM 2S1 388 Lot 1500).
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
No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning
Department concerning this property.
2. Vicinity Information
All of the surrounding property is zoned and developed R-4.5 (low
density residential).
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
There is a 1600 square foot home on the property. The applicant
is proposing to use 80 square feetlQ th the
25%business. h The business
use as proposed will not occupy
4. Agency and NPO Comments
NPO 07 will be notified of the Director's decision and will have
the right to appeal.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.142 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
C. DECISION
HOP 23-85 is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no people working in the home in conjunction with
the business who are not residents of the home.
// 2. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior
of the premises.
NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 23-85 PAGE 1
3. There shall be NO customers or clients coming to the residence in
conjunction with the business.
4. The Home Occupation Permit shall be renewed annually.
5. A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business.
6. There shall be no noise emitted from the home connected with the
business which is audible to abutting residences.
7. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles, or
products on the premises. Indoor storage of material or products
shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the
Building, Fire, Health, and Housing Codes.
8. 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 December 9, 1985 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 18.32.370 of the Community
Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be
filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given
and sent.
The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. December 9, 1985.
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.
REPARED BY: Debora A. Stuart, Ass'stant Planner DATE
— Wil iam A. Monahan, Director of Planning b Development DATE APPROVED
(KSL:pm/2171P)
NOTICE OF DECISION — HOP 23-85 — PAGE 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 2 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: t
DATE SUBMITTED: November 26, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE. Notice of
Decision - HOP 27-85 Budnv PREPARED BY: Community Development
HOP 28-85 Starns REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
w INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached are the Notice of Decisions for:
1. HOP 27-85, by Kathryn Budny for a Home Occupation Permit for a gift
basket business on property zoned R-4.5 located at 12240 SW 106th Dr.
2. HOP 28-85, by Robert r. Starns for a Home Occupation Permit for a home
office for Starns Rockeries, Inc. on property zoned C-P located at 12130
SW 69th Avenue.
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.
(2185P)
CITY OF TIGARD
` NOTICE OF DECISION
HOP 27-85
APPLICATION: A request by Kathryn Budny for a Home Occupation Permit for a
gift basket business on property zoned R-4.5. Located at: 12240 SW 106th
Drive (WCTN 2S1 3AA Lot 2100).
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
No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning
Department concerning this property.
2. Vicinity Information
The surrounding property is all zoned and developed R-4.5 (Single
Family Residential). A few hundred feet south is Washington
County land.
{
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
There is a 1300 square foot home on the property. The applicant
is proposing to use 100-150 square feet for the business. The
business use as proposed by the applicant will not occupy more
than 25% of the home.
4. Agency and NPO Comments
NPO #2 will be notified of the Director's decision and will have
the right to appeal.
8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.142 of the
Tigard Community Development Code.
C. DECISION
Home Occupation Permit HOP 27-85 is approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. There shall be no people working the home in conjunction with the
business who are not residents of the home.
NOTICE OF DECISION - HOP, 27-85 - PAGE 1
�r
2. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior
of the premises.
3. There shall be NO customers or clients coming to he residence in
conjunction with the business.
4. The Home Occupation Permit shall be renewed annually.
5. A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business.
6. There shall be no noise emitted from the home connected with the
business which is audible to abutting residences.
7. 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:
t4 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON December 6, 1985, 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 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 2:30 P.M. 12/6/85
4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of
Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW
Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171.
P EPARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart, Asst. Planner DATE
;ilam A. P9onahan, Director of Planning & Development GATE APPROVED _
(DAS:pm/2182P)
NOTICE OF DECISION — HOP 27-85 — PAGE 2
j\
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF DECISION
HOP 28-85
APPLICATION: A request by Robert T. Starns for ae tomeOnedpCtP n ioPL ated mit oata
home office for Starns Rockeries, Inc. on prof y z
12130 SW 69th Ave. (WCTM: 2S 1AA 2400).
DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of
The
Tigard ions on which the Director based his certain d decision are i
has been APPROVED subject to are as n ted below. and
conclus
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. Background
No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning
Department on this property.
2. Vicinity Information
The surrounding property is all zoned C-P (Commercial-
Professional). Property one block to the west is zoned R-3.5 and
property to the east is zoned C-G (General Commercial).
3. Site Information and Proposal Description
There is a 731 square foot home on the property. The applicant is
proposing to use 120 square feet for office use. The applicant
and family will occupy the remainder of the home. The business
use as proposed by the applicant will not occupy more than 25% of
the home.
4. Agency and NPO Comments
NPO 04 will be notified of the Director's Decision and will have
the right to appeal.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.142 of the
Tigard Municipal Code.
C. DECISION
Home Occupation Permit HOP 28-85 is approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. There shall be n nu people
wotsiof ththe home e home, in conjunction with the
business who are
NOTICE OF DECISION - HOP 28-85 - PAGE 1
2. There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior
of the premises.
3. There shall be NO customers or clients coming to he residence in
conjunction with the business.
4. The Home Occupation Permit shall be renewed annually.
5. A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business.
6. There shall be no noise emitted from the home connected with the
business which is audible to abutting residences.
7. There shall be no outside storage of materials, vehicles or
storag
erial or
shallcts noton the exceed theises. Ioolimitationsrimposedebyfthetproducts
provisions of the
Building, Fire, Health and Housing Codes.
8. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final
decision data 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 Organization
X Affected governmental agencies
2. Final Decision:
THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON _December 6, 19852UNLESS AN APPEAL
IS FILED.
3. Appal:
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 2:30 P.M. 12/6/85
4. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of
Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 12755 SMI
Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171.
Ile; �J� le S
AREaa1EDZ81Y: rah A. Stuart, Asst. Planner GATE
W am A. Monahan, Director of Planning 6 Development DATE APPROVED
(DAS:pm/2183P)
NOTICE OF DECISION — HOP 28-85 — .PAGE 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: Nov. 19, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Accepted Project
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Penn Lawn ComRliance Agreement & Performance Bond
_Estates (Letter of Commitment) PREPARED BY: Engineering Division
Partial Bond Release #1, Resolution REQUESTED BY: John Hagman
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: �n.� CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
M INFORMATION SUMMARY
1. The project is located at SW 115th Avenue and Cottonwood Lane (i.e.
adjacent to Englewood Subdivision)
2. Construction has progressed satisfactorily and, subsequently, the
developer, Arthur & Associates, has request release of installation
guarantee monies for that portion of the work which is complete.
3. Staff has reviewed the request and hereby recommends that the Council
authorize release of the amount(s) detailed in the attached summary.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
Pass the resolution to authorize release of commitment funds for Penn Lawn
Estates Subdivision; authorizing the Mayor and City Recorder to execute a
letter in behalf of the City providing for a partial release of installation
guarantee monies for Penn Lawn Estates, in the amount of forty two thousand
four hundred forty one dollars and four cents ($42,441.04).
(JH:bs/2148P)
F
November 25, 1985 CITYOFTIGrARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
Arthur & Associates
8875 Sw Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy.
Portland, OR 97225
Attention: Mr. Art Lutz
Reference: Penn Lawn Estates (Letter of Commitment Partial Release)
Dear Mr. Lutz:
In the matter of the seventy one thousand five hundred twenty nine dollar and
fifty five cent ($71,529.55) Letter of Commitment between Washington Federal
Savings Bank and the City of Tigard, and Arthur & Associates, this is to serve
as official notice to allow said Washington Federal Savings Bank to release to
Arthur 6 Associates, a portion of the deposit entrusted to said Washington
Federal Savings Bank.
The amount hereby authorized to be released is forty two thousand four hundred
forty one dollars and four cents ($42,441.04).
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 twenty nine thousand eighty eight dollars
and fifty one cents ($29,088.51).
This notice shall not be construed to nullify or alter the terms of the
aforesaid Letter of Commitment in any way; it is merely an authorization to
release a portion of the entrusted monies.
City of Tigard, Oregon
By: .�
yor
v
By:
City Recorder
(JSH:bsf2148P)
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD.OREGON 97223 PH:539-4171
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 85-10 S
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF COMMITMENT FUNDS FOR PENN LAWN ESTATES
SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard, Oregon, has executed a Compliance Agreement for
development of a subdivision known as Penn Lawn Estates Subdivision and has
accepted a Performance Bond in the form of a Letter of Commitment, (copy
attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), to assure completion of installation of
certain public improvements therein; and.
WHEREAS, said documents provide for the City Council to authorize partial or
full release of commitment monies upon satisfactory completion of installation
of said improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the Council deems that a partial release of said monies is warranted
at this time in accord with the attached "Summary" denoted Exhibit "B".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
The City of Tigard, Oregon, hereby authorize the Mayor and City Recorder to
execute a letter providing for partial release of Commitment Monies,previously
set aside for Penn Lawn Estates Subdivision .in the sum of $42,441 .04 dollars.
PASSED: This Th day of D,ot 1985.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
J • t
i-Oeputy City Recorder - City of Tigard
(JH:bs/2148P)
RESOLUTION NO. 85-12
Page 1
LETTER OF COMMITH NT
(Performance Bond)
y�c�c� , to finance the
We have received from Wash in ton Federal 5� improvemen
in s b Lean Assactlending instituri
a loan commitment in the amount of ard, said subdivision being commonly
This loan commitment . specifically
of a subdivifor cc
sion located in the City of lg of the aforsaid total
known as Penn Lawn estates
oor $ 71,529.55 ceceedir
structiun purposes for: CtLon purpose
oses for: (strike p
commitment has been allocated for consti�cluding driveways. aprons, sidewalks .
inapplicable part) 1) public streets. domestic water 4) unde
lighting and curbs 2) sanitary and storm sewers 3) All such improvements ar
ground telephone,and Power and street lighting• fans and the sut
to be completed in conformity with City approved construction p
division compliance agreement thereinregard.
will be made in accord with ct
We have agreed that disbursements of the $2/.or
?/oi.! item(s); but not including,
following schedule upon completion of each,
hold-back described below-
AMOUNT
ITEM
40,699.85
Strrets ( k N,o�is� 17 ,376.00
Sani:'ary Sewer b appurtances 4 ,114.20
Storm Sewer b appurtances 4 ,398.50
Water Line b appurtances
00 )DIMNK �s 4 ,94 1.0
Undue rTe �er 1cal�{ Light i n�; -
" whereby we have
the virements of the
We have entered into a "Subdivision Compliance Agreement Y
agreed to install all improvements in accordanceouwtohhold the above-stated fund:
City of Tigard and Ve are hereby
n the fallowiaglhasybeen adhered to:
to pay them to us only
ion
That the City of Tigard has provided certificurauant
acknowledging completion of any or all work p
to the above itemized schedule of improvements.
fnds (ie
05-91
Pursuant to the above schedule, 20% of the commiame�Ceeuperiod•or•until3'n°a
will be held back through the normal one year gu is provided with
City Acceptance of the project taken place or until the Cid one year Pperiod from the date
a separate maintenance bond, effective for sa
ofCouncil tentative acceptance of the work, to assure continued freedom from
�1,erfnA.-.the .�uaXantei3.
Page 2
Letter of Commitment
Concurrent With the final release of these funds, establishment proceedings will
be instituted.
It is understood and approved by all parties of concern to this letter of commitmen
that the City of Tigard shall have first claim and
Pni�heteventthe
of any defect s29or
less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard,
failure(s) to correct such in the construction of the required improvements.
ity of
is
IC is further understood and aBlnedhethat
lendingforsaid institutionrmaking thelloan and
paramount to all parties including t
that the lending institution has covenanted and agreed that the sum of 571 .529.55
less disbursements approved by the City of Tigard shall be held available to
satisfy any aformentioned claim by the City notwithstanding default on loan by
borrowing party or termination of loan by lending institution.
Sincerely yours ,
DATE: u r-i,
Arthur 6 sociates
by: •
Approved and Accepted:
Mendip Institution
" ' (Attach notary information and
BY: signature(s) authority)
itle V,cE ritntcc=1-1-1
! I
• t
N
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
RE: Penn Lawn Estates Subdivision; Performance Bond Reduction Request #1.
LETTER OF CREDIT (BOND) REQUIRED HOLDBACK RELEASABLE
ITEM AMOUNT MAINTENANCE* INCOMPLETE ITEM COMPLETE ITEM
Street $27,162.60 i $ 5,432.52 $21,730.08
San. Sewer 17,376.00 3,475.20 13,900.80
Storm Sewer 4,114.20 822.84 3,291.36
Water Line 4,398.50 = 879.70 3,518.80
U.G. Tel/Elect. 3,191.00 $ 3,191.00
Walks/Aprons 7,875.00 1 7,875.00
A.C. Overly 5,662.25 5,662.25
Lighting 1,750.00 1,750.00
TOTALS $71,529.55 $7.0,610.26 $18,478.25 $42,441.04
*Required withholding for one year guarantee period assurance.
(JH:bs/2148P)
C
C'
Nc:vember 25, 1985 MA
WASHNG70N C xrm,OREGON
Arthur & Associates
8875 Sw Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy.
Portland, OR 97225
Attention: Mr. Art Lutz
Reference: Penn Lawn Estates (Letter of Commitment Partial Release)
Dear Mr. Lutz:
In the matter of the seventy one thousand five hundred twenty nine dollar and
fifty five cent ($71,529.55) Letter of Commitment between Washington Federal
Savings Bank and. the City of Tigard, and Arthur & Associates, this is to serve
as official notice to allow said Washington Federal Savings Bank to release to
Arthur & Associates, a portion of the deposit entrusted to said Washington
Federal Savings Bank.
The amount hereby authorized to be released is forty two thousand four hundred
forty one dollars and four cents ($42,441.04).
`- 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 twenty nine thousand eighty eight dollars
and fifty one cents ($29,088.51).
This notice shall not be construed to nullify or alter the terms of the
aforesaid Letter of Commitment in any way; it is merely an authorization to
release a portion of the entrusted monies.
City of Tigard, Oregon
By: _
—Mayor
By: ,
City Recorder
(JSH:bs/2148P)
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD.OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
n COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY �/
AGENDA OF: December 2, 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: r -..-
DATE SUBMITTED: November 26, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Authorization
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: John Alexander for Staff to Draft an Agreement
Agreement PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan
REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 'i: '�Kl}� CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
. �r,
POLICY ISSUE
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The attached agreement was prepared by staff to complete negotiations with
John Alexander for land to be used as right--of-way for the Dartmouth LID. The
( agreement represents City Council direction on the conditions of dedication
and the improvements which will be made should an LID be formed.
Mr. Alexander has approved the language of the agreement, as has City Attorney
Tim Ramis. Mr. Alexander will submit the original with his signature along
with the legal description needed to complete his lot line adjustment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Authorize Mayor Cook to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of
Tigard, at such time as Mr. Alexander signs the agreement.
2. Revise the agreement and authorize Mayor Cook to sin^. 'L'ie agreement on
behalf of the City of Tigard.
R. Direct staff to ~eegotiate further with Mr. Alexander
SUGGESTED ACTION
The staff suggests that the Council authorize Mayor Cook to sign the agreement
's
on behalf of the City of Tigard, at such time as Mr. Alexander signs the ,x
agreement.
(WAM:br/2190P)
t
ffi ffi
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
t-- De��'rZ, COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: November 19, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Southern Pacific
Transp, Co. A reement Amendment PREPARED BY: Jahn Hagman
R�sotk fah
(for San. Sew. Crossing_R/R Tracks) _ REQUESTED BY: Community_ Development
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK- _�_ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
POLICY ISSUE
INFORMATION SUMMARY
1. The City & Southern Pacific executed an agreement dated Jan. 7, 1983
whereby the City could proceed to have a sanitary sewer line installed
which crossed the railroad spur track on SW 72nd Avenue (near
Pre-Delivery Company). This work was intended to be done at the time of
improvement of 72nd Ave; but wasn't.
2. The original agreement expired on January 7, 1984. Now, with
development of adjacent properties, it is necessary to have the see,:er
crossing work done; and subsequently, "railroad staff and City staff"
have determined that the most expedient means of accomplishing that is
to provide for an extension of the original agreement time limit.
3. Therefore, City staff recommends that the Council authorize execution ctc
the Agreement Amendment to facilitate installation of a necessary
sanitary sewerage line crossing the railroad's right-of-way.
4. The line will be installed by a private contractor at the expense of a
private developer (Beaver Bolt Co.) in accordance with City reviewed and
approved construction plans.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends Council approve the resolution amending an agreement with the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company for the 72nd Avenue mainline sewer
crossing, extending the expiration date thereof.
(JSH:br/2159P)
l
nNll W,U N Irl t rrNlrl 116th 11 Ir, - ,
ALSO A.`S!GNED
I
LE:AZE"'oE DEED
n.l.l..•••ti ' 1U ! `� AUDIT No.-•y
t..lv AUDtT NO7.. .............._...�.......
.....
.....
nt. j 1
t
51-ACE A140VE TINS LINE 1 OR NtCU/tnL It•S USE
REI34IS: FD-749 . 43-X (N)
THIS INDEN'T'URE, made t1iis day of 1983 /
by and between SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTA COMPANY,a Delaware
col—porat it)II, ho l• in 14.1.1m•tl 'rlt.tilrtaad, " .incl CITY OF TIt;AHD, a nituiic:ipal
r
corporation of the State of Oregon, address: P. O. Box 23397 , Tigard,
Oregon 97223, herein termed "Grantee" ;
WITNESSETH:
1 . That Railroad hereby grants to Grantee, subject to the reserva-
tions, covenants and conditions herein contained, the right to construct,
reconstruct, maintain and operate an eight (8) inch sewer pipeline, here-
inafter termed "struc'ttlrc, " in, 11IIUn, aloncl, across and beneath the
property and tracks t>f R,ti l road, at or near Cook (Tigard) , in the County
of Washington, State of Oregon, crossing the center line of said tracks
at Engineer's 327+10, Mile Post 749.43, in the location shown on the
print of Railroad' s Shasta Region Drawing No. L-5400-A dated November 30,
1982, attached and made a part hereof.
Said structure shall be installed in accordance with minimum require
meats of Form C. S. 1741 , also attached and made a part hereof.
-1-
�.
2. Project markers in form and size satisfactory to Railroad ,
identifying the facility and its owner, will be installed and cor.-
stantly maintained by and at the expense of Grantee at Railroad
property lines or such locations as Railroad shall approve. Such
markers shall be relocated or removed upon request of Railroad with-
out expense to Railroad.
Absence of markers does not constitute a warranty by Railroad
of no subsurface installations.
3. This grant is made subject and subordinate to the prior and
continuing right and obligation of Railroad, its successors and assigns, }�
its dut
to use all the property anddtherebd herein is reservednthe unto Railroadl,citsfsuccessors
as a common carrier,
the right (Consistent with the rights herein granted) to
and assigns, ain and use j
construct, reconstruct, maintnces and existing and future transporta-
tracks, facilities and appurtena
tion, communication and pipeline facilities and appurtenances in, upon,
over, under, across and along said property.
4. This grant is made subject to all licenses ,
lleases,
easements,
restrictions, conditions, covenants, encumbrances,
claims of
title which may affect said property and the word "grant," as used here-
in, shall not be construed as a covenant against the existence of any
thereof.
5, The rights herein granted to Grantee shall lapse sdnnot ccomid
menced
if the construction of said structure upon said progerty
within one (1) year from the date first herein written.
6. Grantee shall bear the entire cost oand
expense
of co structingy. a..tee
reconstructing and maintaining scuupon
agrees that all work upon or in connection withsaid structure shall be
done at such times and in such manner as not to interfere in any way
whatsoever with the operations of Railroad. The plans for and the con-
struction or reconstruction of said structure shall be subject to tY:�
approval of Railroad.
Grantee agrees to reimburse Railroad for the cost and
laborexpense
connac-
Railroad of furnishing any materials or performing any
tion with the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and removal of
said structure, including, but not limited to, the installation and
lng road' s
removal of such falsework and other protection beneath
orialoectors ro
tracks, and the furnishing of such watchmen, flagmen
as
Railroad deems necessary.
7 . In the event Railroad shall at any time so require, Grantee, at
loca-
Grantee' s expense, shall rec nstrsetimprove�saidmakestructure in the
tion of said structure or
of written notice from Railroad so to do.
-2-
T
x
8. t its expense, comply with all applicable laws ,
Grantee shall, aregardless of when they become or became
regulations, rules and orders,
ation those relandnwaterhandtairsafety,
effective, including without limit
noise, environmental protection, waste disposal,
quality, and furnish satisfactory evidence of such compliance upon re-
quest of Railroad.
Should any discharge, leakage, spillage, emission, or pollution of
any type occur upon or from the premises due to Grantee's use and occu-
pancy thereof, Grantee, at its expense, shall be obligated to clean
the premises to the satisfaction of Railroad and any governmental body
having jurisdiction thereover.
against
Grantee agrees to indemnify, hold harmlwithout ess and limitatnd ionlany dfines,
all liability, cost and expense (including fees) incurred by
penalties, judgments, litigation costs and attorneyresul
Railroad as a result of Grantee' sP ch b
rea
of any such discharge, leakage, llage,oemission this eorlpollution,on, or asareaardt
ss of whether such liability, cost or expense arises during the Life
less
this indenture unless such liability, cost or expense is proximately
caused solely by the active negligence of Railroad.
9. As part consideration, Grantee agrees to pay Raillroaad of any cunt
equal to any and all assessments which may be levied by
authorized lawful body against the property of Railroad (and which may
have been paid by Railroad) to defray any part of the cost or expense
incurred in connection with the construction. of said structure upon said
property commenced within one (1) year from the date first herein written.
10. Grantee, its agents and employees subject to orthe hereof,
i
shall have the privilege of entry on said prop Y
coof
nstructing , and making necessary repairs
reconstructing, main
oad
to said structure. Grantee agrees to gi�or}caanysaid�structureayexcepty-
ten notice prior to commencement of any
emergency repairs , in which event Grantee
nkeepvsaid Railroad' s
properauahor
ized representative by phone. G grees
said structure in good and safe condition, free from waste, so far as
affected by Grantee' s operations, to the satisfaction of Railroad. if
Grantee Fails to keep said property and said sperftoure in a good rm the necessarydworke
condition, free from waste, then Railroad may . to Railroad
at the expense of Grantee, which expense Grantee agrees to pay
upon demand.
11. in the event any work upon or in connection with said structure
or its appurtenancesletdonetopancontractoradjacent or to the tracks and rop-
byGrantee, such work
erty of Railroad, should be
shall not be begun until such contractor shall have first entered into
an agreement with Railroad, satisfactory to Railroad, and indemnifying
claims ,11
Rallroad from and against the workto beliability, expense growing
done by such contractor.
out or the performance
-3-
• 12. Insofar as it lawfully may, Grantee agrees to release and in-
demnify Railroad, its officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns,
from all claims , liability , cost and expense howsoever same may be
caused, including reasonable attorney fees, for loss of or damage to
property and for injuries to or death of persons arising out of the
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, presence, use or removal of
said structure, regardless of any negligence or alleged negligence on j
the part of Railroad employees.
The word "Railroad," as used in this section, shall be construed
to include, in addition to Railroad, the successors, assigns and affili-
ated companies of Railroad and any other railroad company that may be
lawfully operating upon and over the tracks crossing or adjacent to
said structure, and the officers and employees thereof.
13. Should Grantee, its successors or assigns, at any time abandon
the use of said property, or any part thereof, or fail at any time to
use the same for the purpose contemplated herein for a continuous period
of one (1) year, the -right hereby given shall cease to the extent of the
use so abandoned or discontinued, and Railroad shall at once have the
right, in addition to, but not in qualification of, the rights herein-
above reserved, to resume exclusive possession of said property or the
part thereof the use of which is so discontinued or abandoned.
Upon termination of the rights and privileges hereby granted, Gran-
tee, at its own cost and expense, agrees to remove said structure from
said property and restore said property as nearly as practicable to the
same state and condition in which it existed prior to the construction
of said structure. Should Grantee in such event fail, neglect or refuse
to remove said structure and restore said property, such removal and
restoration may be performed by Railroad, at the expense of Grantee,
which expense Grantee agrees to pay to Railroad upon demand, or Railroad
may, at its option, assume ownership of said structure.
14. This indenture shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents
to be executed in duplicate the day and year fist herein written.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CITY OF TIGARD,
COMPANY,
By i '` ,�ZL BY
�•
(Title) / mayor
Attest: :- IIy
Assistant Secretary Clerk
-4-
3:�
O. + m N, �� I cr
L O'
of I I Qi
O
zi
0 ~
w a
z cr
V; I
vl
W O
/ d,
I 1
r,
i
G
1 ti C
d� cn
m x 4`
4 -
J N t:V
o t--; cr U T• r. C `` c
�.
>
°�1 3
W c�
`� J
V r� cc
-j �� d R V U r
N O Z 0i C €�
f
0.
� y U C
Q 1 r1 EO L a� b. d N O it+' C
y C C
CT Q� ri r m O ilk: C d -4 W 4 � � Vtr
V L J k fi C .�
aC
YOn OF �
i v
K c 6 C: S7O a . E3
..
"
G d r: b a.
l� tom, .e c, C n; d �. _. L. v p v:
p N lL mIc 0r r+ N L i r, h c a . R
z s w f c. m m O 1 / u0o.
o 11 0 v: N U W Q m a U U ►+ 1 1 y
O X $ a vo v
_
Y dl W _a
• F- CL o a L. 6
f n N m d v c a� y a, v 7 c� R 4 n
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council November 27, 1985
FROM: Donna Corbet, Executive Secretary i7
SUBJECT: Utilities and Franchises Committee Resolution A-mandment
Attached please note the amendment to the above Resolution was inadvertently
left out of Resolution No. 85-99 passed November 25, 1985. The intent was
clearly to have this included and this attached resolution will effect the
original intent.
Cr
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO; Honorable Mayor and City Council December 3, 1985
FROM: Doreen Wilson, Recorder Q-Lj
SUBJECT: Phoi►e Bid Award
Ratify the Phone Bid Award action which was taken over the phone by the City
Administrator on Monday. The Councilors contacted, verbally approved awarding
the bid to GTE for $34,326 which includes purchase of the system and options
now.
Council needs to appropriate $34,326 from contingency to Account #
10-41000-631 from the $50,000 which was held there for this purchase. This is
$15,674 lower than the budgeted figure.
lw/3478A
r
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
s COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 2 1985 AGENDA ITEM #: 17
DATE SUBMITTED: November 27, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Authorized
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Phone Bid Bid
Award PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson
REQUESTED BY: Loreen is n
0t_J_t
DEPARTMENT HERO OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
�''�� _
POLICY ISSUE
Council approved the Request For Proposals (RFP) and bid specifications and
authorized staff to requests bias. $50,000 was appropriated for this purchase.
_ INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City opened phone bids on November 7, 1985 at 2:30 PM. There were four
bids submitted as set forth on the attached Bid Tabulation Sheet. Westel
Communications, Inc. bid was rejected under the Purchasing Rules Section
30. 100 (2)(c) in that the bid was not accompanied by a bid bond which was
required in the RFP.
After bid opening, Info Cam Consulting (the City's phone consultant) and the
staff review committee studied the bid documents to make an "apples to apples"
comparison. The phone systems bid by the remaining vendors were viewed by
staff and the consultant.
Once it was determined that the other bids would meet the City's needs the
responses were viewed by applying the following three primary issues which
make this phone installation more difficult than some.
A. How do they propose to deal with the potential radio frequency leak
problems as a result of the co-locating with a transmitter and antenna on site
at the Police Department?
B. How would their system support the unique requirements of the Tigard
Police Department?
C. What is the cut-over plan so as to eliminate down-time for the critical
services to the Police Department.
The response that best addressed the above issues was submitted by GTE. They
stated that if, after installation, their system was experiencing radio
frequency interference, the problem would be corrected without cost to the
City. Their system design best met the needs of the Police Department and the
r cut-over plan was proposed to provide dual service for the PO at both the old
and new locations until installation was complete. This way, there will be no
interruption of phone service to the PD.
MMM M�i
U.S. West was the other vendor who met the specifications and addressed the
above issues adequately. However, the purchase price is approximately $20,000
more than GTE.
The attached summary will set out the bid amounts and system enhancements
which staff considered. Options 1-3 below are explained in detail on this
attachment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Award bid to GTE for $28,821 and purchase system options at a later time.
2. Award bid to GTE for $34,326 which includes purchase of system options now.
3. Award bid to US West for $48,375 and purchase system options at a later
time.
4. Award bid to US West for $55,413 which includes purchase of system options
now.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends Option #2. This will allow the phone purchase with system
enhancements to be $15,674 lower than the budgeted appropriation.
lw/3478A
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
BID OPENING RESULTS — TELECOMMUNICATIONS REQUEST
( Bids were opened at 2:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time on November 7, 1985 at
Tigard City Hall, 12755 SW Ash Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. The following bids
were received:
OUTRIGHT
VENDOR MODEL LO% BID BOND PURCHASE PRICE
my� 7
t► 1� d i ho -519,aG
Ca�,eO
OD
;. ..
00-
Y
Loreen'9 Wtlson,;4tecorr3er
November
PHONE BID MATRIX
SYSTEM & ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS GTE U.S. WEST
Basic Phone System $27,810 $44,592
(For Civic Center Bldg.)
Battery Backup 11011 3,783
1-80 Button OSS (Busy Lamp) 438 N/A
(US West — Included in base
bid)
4-40 Button DSS (Busy Lamps) 1,188 1,432
(US West is only 24 Buttons)
1 Additional Trunk Card 530 1,771
(GrE Card = 4 ports
US West Card = 16 ports)
1 Additional Single Line Card 749 1,368
(8 ports/card)
1 Modem For off—site
Maintenance/Trouble Shooting 325 N/A
(US West included in system
cost)
2 Headsets (Console & Court) 350 N/A
(US West Costs Not Available)
Public Works Shop System 1,925 2,467
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE + OPTIONS $34,316 $55,413
lw/3478A
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of the City Council December 2, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, �Z �y�
Community Development
SUBJECT: Alternative to Sewer Film
At the City Council meeting of October 28, 1985, Bob Bledsoe of NPO X13
suggested that the City Council view a film dealing with alternative
wastewater collection systems. The Council asked me to make arrangements to
see the film then to report to the Council my findings and recommendation. My
staff and I viewed the film on November 26, 1985 with George D. Ward of
Clearwater Utilities Corporation. Mr. Ward has previously shown the film to
officials of Multnomah County.
The film deals with a pressurized disposal system which can be self—contained
on a building lot, The system can be very useful in areas which are far
removed from a larger disposal system or in areas with health problems
associated with septic systems. The systems also can be used in circumstances
where an existing municipal treatment plant is at capacity and unless a system
such as this is employed, no further development can occur.
Given the system which we now have in Tigard, I do not feel that we need to
use an alternative disposal system, therefore, I do not think that the Council
should view the fim at this time, Should the circumstances arise that cause
us to have to either discontinue issuing building permits or allow development
with individual disposal systems, we then may wish to review the film again
and determine if revisions to our Code and Plan are needed.
cc: Bob Bledsoe, NPO
(WAM:br/2207P)
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Members of The City Council December 2, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, LV.VV`_
Community Development
SUBJECT: Consulting Engineer List
The last approved list of consulting engineers was prepared by Frank Currie in
December, 1982. Since three years have passed, and the City is preparing to
undertake a number of projects requiring engineering services, we feel it is
appropriate to suggest a revised list. Pursuant to this, a list of ten firms
is suggested for your approval which would be used by the Community
Development Department. Firms on the list will be asked to submit information
concerning the types of projects which they consider to be their areas of
expertise and their fee schedules. The staff then will choose an engineering
firm for each project based on the type of project involved, the expertise of
- the firm in that area, and the availability of the firm to complete the job in
a timely manner.
The revised engineer consulting list suggested by staff is as follows, in
alphabetical order:
Compass Engineering Portland
Cooper and Associates Tigard
Dellaas and Associates, Inc. Wilsonville
Drinkwater and Associates Tigard
KPFF Consulting Engineers Portland
Lee Engineering, Inc. Oregon City
Mckenzie-Saito Engineering Portland
Robert E. Meyer Consultants, Inc. Beaverton
OTAK, Inc. Lake Oswego
R. A. Wright Engineering Portland
Attached for your information is a copy of the prior list used since 1982.
(WAM:br/2207P)
December 16, 1982
a
( MEMORANDUM a ��
Sf
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Frank A. Currie, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consultant Selection List
The following list of consulting engineers is recommended to the City Council
for approval. The Public Works Director will be able to select from this list
engineering consultants most qualified and available for City projects less
than $150,000 which cannot be accomplished by the City Engineering Department.
Harris & McMonagle Tigard
Drinkwater b Assoc. Tigard
Fred Cooper 5 Assoc. Tigard
James Montgomery Engineers Tigard/Salem
Burton Engineering Tigard
Marlin De Haas & Assoc. Wilsonville
Ginther Engineering Beaverton
Robert E. Meyer Beaverton
R. A. Wright Portland
David Evans b Assoc. Portland
Dorner Tunks b Murray Portland
McKenzie Engineering Portland
Martin Engineering Portland
FAC:pm
(0333A)
3 �
w
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
�R
TO: Members of the City Council December 4, 1985
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, ✓ "
Community Development
SUBJECT: Christmas Lir;'' ung
Since 1982, City personnel have been involved in stringing Christmas lights as
part of the "Light Up Tigard" program. Last year, Frank Currie, former City
Engineer, reported to the Council that the effort had been reduced to his
participation and that o Jerry McNurlin. Please be advised that this year
Jerry will install lights on the tree in Liberty Park. However, no additional
lighting will involve City personnel. We have not been contacted by members
of the original committee, therefore, no volunteer effort by non—City
employees is expected.
(WAM:br.2213P)