The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/22/1994 Jill Revise0 2/i7/94 CITY OF• 6 iGARReD OREGON PUBLIC t4OTLCE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minrlrac or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated• it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Busing agenda items mare be heard in any order aW 7-M Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Exit 309 (voice) or 584-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the "m"eeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, EKt 309 (voice) or 584-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22,1994 - PAGE 1 a: ii I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1994 AGENDA (PLEASE NOTE: ALL AGENDA i T EMS Irnv,'i THE °.3/15/ 9a MEETING HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING AGENDA) • STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.) 5:30 - 6 p.m. - METRO TRANSFER 1 AX REVIEW AND UPDATE • Representatives from Metro 6 - 7:30 p.m. - YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM DESIGN • Risk Manager 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. 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: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Coilson - Resolution No. 94-j2l 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94--09 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Dater Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-L COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 lmuffi~mwmlol S t• 4. COUNCIL CONSIDEFLATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION ('this agenda item is continued from the February 8, 1994, City Council meeting.) a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 1 5. PUBLIC BEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public 'T'estimony • Proponents Opponents • Rebuttal e. Council Questions/Comments f. Close Public Hearing q ~ C-- innit a Consideration: Resolution No. 94- ~ . 6. ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION • Staff Update:' Community Development Director 7. DISCUSSION - INTERIM MAYOR SELECTION PROCEDURES • Staff Update: City Administrator 8. PION-AGENDA FTEMS d'cc 8AS~ I c1 rQ c r~r is "z -1 7-6 9. (EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go nto Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT =ao=%K COUNCIL. AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 EMM Council A-Wenr3a Tten 3j T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETI1-G MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Judy Fessler. 1. ROLL CALI, Council Present: Mayor Pro Tem Judy F®ssler, Wendi Conover Hawley, and Paul Hunt. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Loreen Edin, Management Analyst; Bill Monahan, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Dandy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION G METRO TRANSFER TAX REVIEW AND UPDATE Metro representatives Craig Prosser and Rob Monroe were present to review this agenda item with Council. Mr. Prosser advised that approval of the Metro Charter changed the priorities of operation for Metro. He said the that the Charter stipulates that Metro must: 1) Adopt a future vision for the region. 2) Establish a regional framework which addresses nine areas (listed on Page 2 of the Charter). (Note: A copy of the Charter has been filed with the Council packet materials.) Mr. Prosser reported that the Charter did not give a source of funding, but prescribed the mechanics to develop financing. He reviewed the financing options available to Metro. Some taxes must be referred to the voters; some can be adopted by Metro Council (but can be referred to the voters). The current Metro tax structure was described. The Metro Tax Study Committee must review Metro-imposed taxes prior to implementation. (See packet for a copy of the "Metro Tax Study Committee - Report and Recommendations to the Metro Council - November 15, 1993.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 1 The Tax study Committee has developed a recommendation; two COmpOIIBYltB of the reCOlRl&eIEtdFit' ivia iia~:iiiuc w construction n i o :Ci°~° tax for new construction and a real estate transfer tax. There appears to be more support for the construction excise tax than the real estate transfer tax. It was noted that the real estate transfer tax is now a funding source for other entities. The Tax Committee hearing process was described (see pages a and 9 of,the Committee report.) Discussion followed on ramifications of different types of taxes, excise fee increases, voluntary dues (for which some cities cannot pay), etc. Mr. Monroe advised that planning must be done for the region to protect livability. Millions of Federal dollars will be lost if the required planning is not done. Mr. Monroe noted that the 2040 Plan should be in place by early Fall 1994. There was discussion of the review of the Urban Growth Boo-andcary a-nd t age pressure to expand Mr. Monroe informed Council that Metro would be asking for continued input as c i iue yocs il%. • WARD DEBRIS PROGRAM Management Analyst Loreen Edin reviewed her February 2, 1994, memorandum to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (A copy of this memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) This memo highlighted areas of three attached technical memos: Technical Memo 1 - History of Yard Debris requirements by EQC and EDQ. The City is required to offer yard debris collection at curbside as a recyclable no less than monthly. Technical Demo 2 - Assesses the yard debris program alternatives. Technical Memo 3 - Details a model to assess costs of program options. Ms. Edin reviewed the process timeline (see Page 2 of above- mentioned memorandum.) Rich McConaghy of Harding Lawson Associates reviewed the following overhead frames with City Council. (A copy of this material is on file with the Council packet.): CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES,- FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 e > List of" Study Session Objectives m7l Re"view Lard wasirls Program acJlyiv Ylau G Summarize Key Collection Alternatives • Review Supplemental (Non-Collection) Alternatives Receive Council Direction/Input on Alternatives/Options > Yard Debris Diversion Goals > Program Requirements > List of Rejected Options > Primary Alternatives > Comparative Benefits > Relative Monthly Cost m > Supplemental Alternatives There was Council discussion on the program in general, how possibly to structure fees, and a discussion of the was L1dC type of equipment needed by the haulers. Nis. Edin advised that all the CIT's would receive information and an opportunity to comment on the yard debris program. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Summerfield Civic Association also receive the program information. Council discussed the program options including frequency of pickup, what is required now (monthly pickup) and the possibility of a weekly pickup requirement some time in the future. Council members expressed interest in hearing what the reacti:un is from the CIT's and Summerfield Association. Ms. Edin advised she will communicate comments received from these groups back to the Council. Council meeting recessed - 7:40 p.m. Council meeting reconvened - 7:50 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 BIISTNESS MFET.F.NG , AAk 2. VISITORS AGENDA - No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, esconded by Councilor Hawley to approve the following Consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Collson - Resolution No. 94-p1_7 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-08 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Water Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-09 Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; 3-0. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 4. C®UNC1 . CONSIDEPmTION. OF FORNAT19 OF A a EINB Hg DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION Mayor Pro Tem noted the Council had the prerogative of addressing this issue or turning it down at this time. She referred to questions raised with regard to methodology for a reimbursement district. City Administrator Reilly advised the first question to resolve is whether or not the Council wants to have a reimbursement district formed under this particular set of circumstances. If yes, then the Council may want to take more comment and discuss the apportionment of the costs. There has been interest expressed in reviewing the reimbursement district ordinance, including the philosophy behind it as well as procedural matters. Councilor Hunt advised he, at present, was leaning toward voting to refuse the reimbursement district request. He noted concerns with individual rights being subjugated, especially in this instance. Developers and builders appear to receive preferences many times over individual citizens. Councilor Hunt said he is not in favor of a developer building a subdivision and then requesting individuals to pay for the sewer. He said there are subdivisions being developed and the developers are not asking for reimbursement district formation. CITY COUNCIL :MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22; 1994 - PAGE 4 e t I Councilor Hunt said the reimbursement d4 -*r4 -4- a -j prcY101VJ.tS ase FAR6 not well defined in the Code. He added, however, that he is not against the concept entirely. Councilor Hawley said the reimbursement district concept was a good economic development policy. The reimbursement district ordinance allows a developer,to spread his cost and move his product. She said, perhaps, the Code provisions do need reworking. Councilor Hawley supported a review of this application at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler recalled an earlier reimbursement district request which had benefitted a smaller landowner. She said the way she envisions a reimbursement district is that it would be for smaller landowners, who have to hook up to the sewer because of a failed septic tank or because they want to develop one part of their land. She questioned whether the same parameters should apply to smaller landowners and a development project (i.e., above three or four parcels). Councilor Hawley said that she did not think this was really "relief," but rather, a financing process. Legal Counsel Monahan said the City would be nroy;diny a colleot==ri =echanism. Councilor Hawley said that whether the reimbursement is collected from the developer or individual people and disburse it back to the developer, it is simply a difference in the process the paperwork and the timing. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler advised she had methodology concerns, especially in this instance. She said would like review of criteria and discussion of what the intent was of the reimbursement district provisions of the Code. City Administrator Reilly noted that this proposal. must be reviewed on the basis of the current ordinance. Once a decision has been made on this issue, the ordinance may be reformatted. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Mr. Reilly advised that Legal Counsel Coleman had advised this application was consistent with the ordinance. It is Council's discretion whether to authorize this reimbursement district. Legal Counsel Monahan agreed the formation of the reimbursement district was at the discretion of City Council. City Administrator clarified that the first question to be determined by Council was whether this was a legitimate reimbursement district before deciding how the costs should be apportioned. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 5 I Moslem= rig Potion was offered by Councilor Hunt to disapprove formation of a reimbursement district as requested. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler called for a second. Councilor Hawley noted no discussion or testimony had been heard on this issue. After brief discussion on process, Legal Council Monahan advised that since Council requested new information from staff at the last meeting that reaction to this information should be heard from the public. Councilor Hunt withdrew his motion. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. At the last meeting, Council determined that the connection charges should be based on the number of units and not the size of the lot. A letter from Mr. Petrie was received (filed in the Council packet) concerning how to determine commercial development with regard to the number of unit connections. Staff prepared language which should reflect the Council's direction and still reacts to Mr. Petrie's concerns. rg ....a., i ng-,e _ ~ The language provides If a s fa:-.2-23y, d~; el' 'aa connects, it would pay for one unit. Later, if the lot is subdivided and another house is connected, they would pay for the second unit. If a lot is zoned commercial and has a house on it requesting connection, then it would pay for a single unit; however, if this house is torn down and the lot was developed for commercial use, then it would pay for the full number of units assigned to the lot. Over the term of the reimbursement district, no lot would pay for more than two units. (The above changes were, made by adding NotA 4 to Exhibit D and also has been reflected in the Erglneer'& Report.) Councilor Hunt asked how much of an audit is done to arrive at the total number of dollars eligible for reimbursement. City Engineer responded that, in all cases, the applicant is asked to show some evidence of what their costs actually were. Usually, a billing is submitted from their contractor or a copy of their contract. In this case, Mr. Petrie submitted a letter from his contractor saying how much 'the Petrie Company was charged for the sewer portion of the development. Also there were engineering costs and fees charged by the City. Staff reviews and asks for evidence that these expenses were actually paid. Also, staff reviews to determine whether the costs appear to be reasonable; that is, what would be expected for this type of development. In this case, staff reviewed the costs and made some changes downward because it appeared a there were some items included (side sewer stub outs for the new subdivision) which should be removed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ° FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 6 jilgi ,q 1 Mayor Pro Tem Fessler asked about the cost for a current sewer hookup for property not in a reimbursement district. City Engineer advised there are sewer connection charges established by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) which must be paid whether or not the property is in a reimbursement district. A connection charge for a a.-Lngle family dwelling is $2,200 plus a $35 inspection fee (total = $2,235). Currently, in Tigard if the property has not participated in building the sewer, they are also subject to a surcharge of $3,000 per connection. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification: If part of the reimbursement district, then a property owner would not have to pay $3,000? City Engineer Wooley responded yes, but cautioned there has been some question raised about the current ordinances (regarding the surcharge). This question is in the attorney's office and is under review to determine if in compliance with USA agreements. inayar Pro Tem Fessler asked if there was any dff_erenev_, in charges between single family and commercial. City Engineer advised that for multi-family, the charge is still $2,200 per unit. Fees for commercial is based on the number and type of plumbing fixtures. Councilor Hunt said the $3,000 surcharge makes a difference, as far as he is concerned, about this reimbursement district formation. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Legal Counsel Monahan advised that participating in the reimbursement district would be evidence in the property's participation in the sewer construction and the surcharge would not be assessed. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler questioned the difference in the commercial and residential connection charges. City Engineer advised that the USA connection charge is based on the plumbing fixtures; however, the reimbursement district charge is a separate calculation. Councilor Hunt asked for further clarification on the surcharge. City Engineer advised that the surcharge of $3,000 is charged per connection. Councilor Hunt noted that it would be less expensive for property owners to participate in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 PAGE 7 reimbursement district. City Engineer said that it would be less expensive assuming that the surcharge "stays on the books." In response to a request for clarification from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer advised that USA charges $2,200, which is independent of the reimbursement district charge. The $3,000 is a surcharge, collected by the City (into the sewer fund) to those persons who did not participate in extending the sewer. Discussion followed on the City sewer fund, equity issues of those who did and did not participate and the role of the reimbursement district. Mr. Craig Petrie said: (transcription of tape follows for Mr. Petrie's comments) "I'm going to ask to withdraw this right now...because of philosophical differences. Councilor Hunt, I heard you say that you had a problem with reimbursement the whole issue. Then, when it became money ...you flopped the other wary. I don't think I'm getting a fair shape here, a fair hearing. I think before we started here, at least two out of three voiced what your concerns were. I point out, Mayor, that the lady who developed her property developed her property... You know, developers you folks always think... (we've) just got a pot full money sitting somewhere. That's not the case. So, I am asking to withdraw this... another meeting, hopefully when there's a lot more Councilors here. I don't feel like I'm getting a fair shake the decisions were already made like I said, philosophical, Councilor Hunt the issue of reimbursement, whether it is fair or not...can develop something, and I have a real hard time with that. I am asking to withdraw this." Legal Counsel advised the Council was bound to accept the withdrawal. Tony Maksym, resident of Tigard, said that if Council voted to den; this request that this would provide the opportunity to put protection in a new ordinance. Mr. Petrie, `.dvised Mr. Maksym, would then have to apply under the new ordinance. He said there is a need for safeguards in the ordinance and urged that work begin on this issue. City Administrator Reilly advised that staff will be coming back to the Council for review of this ordinance. The review would focus on improvements to the process. Also, the philosophical purposes of the ordinance should also be worked through. The reimbursement district concept is a useful tool for a variety of reasons. This will be set on.a future Council work session agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 8 5. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELORO-W GE ODOLOGY a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report: Associate Planner Acker reviewed the Staff report which is on file in the council packet. The methodology is unchanged from the methodology which was used by the Tigard Water District. There was brief discussion. City Administrator Reilly advised further analysis of the SDC would be needed after the Capital Improvement Program is updated. d. Public Testimony - None. f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, STATING THE METHODOLOGY AND SETTING THE AMOUNT FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICES. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 94-10. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 6. ANN- HTIONOLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Associate Planner John Acker reviewed this agenda item. Staff referred to a current annexation map as well as a memorandum dated February 7, 1994, from Ed Murphy, Community Development Director to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) Senate Bill 122 requires urban services agreements to be developed for the areas within urban growth boundaries. These agreements can then be used to develop an annexation plan. Councilor Hunt suggested further review of the annexation policy be deferred until January 1995 after Council elections are completed. After brief discussion, there were no objections raised to continuing the annexation policy discussion. it was noted that growth was continuing in areas (such as Bull Mountain) and to defer action would mean that any problems identified would become more critical. daft CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 9 i FBI City staff advised that annexation is only one method to attain the goal of growth management. Management could be achieved through amendment of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County by dealing with urban services planning in that document. City Administrator Reilly suggested that a goal statement with regard to the UPAA be developed prior to approaching the County for amendment. Councilor Fessler requested a copy of the UPAA for review. This item will be on the March 8, 1994, Council agenda for further discussion. 7. D1SC_UaS:E0N - Mrium MAYOR ST&LECTIQU PROCEDURES City Administrator advised that two letters of interest were received Mr. Michael Brewin and Mr. Jack Schwab asked that they be considered for the Interim Mayor appointment. After discussion by Council with the City Administrator about process, CoLlncti1 c_ornsermnuS ru:±s for all Council members to develop two questions to ask the interim candidates. The candidates would be asked to give a two to three minute statement at the beginning of the interview process outlining why they would like to serve as interim Mayor. The interviews will be conducted at a special council meeting, March 1, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.; the meeting will be called to order at 7:00 p.m. 8. N0N=&GE1TDA. ITEMS • City Administrator Reilly announced that the joint School Board/Council meeting has been rescheduled to March 16, 1994 at 6 p.m. • City Administrator Reilly advised that Westwood Corporation has asked for approval to construct another "pad" next to the Key Bank at the Tigard Towne Square site. There has been an issue of noise and buffering efforts between this commercial site and the adjacent mobile home park. Efforts will be made to get cooperation from the developer to mitigate the residents' concerns. Councilor Hunt noted pedestrian access problems at this site. For example, the sidewalk in front of Albertson's cannot be used because there is inventory for sale on the sidewalk. Staff will review the code to determine if something can be done. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 -'PAGE 10 9. cECUT VE SESs ~Cri: The Tigard City . Counc: l went into Executive session at 9:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss-labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. AwCFORM m: 9:50 p.m. Attest: datherine Wheatley, City ecorder I o je~_ Ci of igard C.sea.,ac4L • Date : ccaai0222.94 I. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGES 11 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC Legal TT 7758 1 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.03 C y %4;. ® Notice BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 t, I} Legal Notice Advertising ~ pN 1 ~ 199 (IGA~CI. *City of Tigard a Tearsheet Notiogl( Of 13125 SW Hall Blvd. s Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® LJ Duplicate Affidavit 0 The TiF;fd Citi'Oc& cji will candGct pubfic~hesring n Behr ry 2 19 , at 730,P%- , ut tl~c'Ibeaa 1101 at Tigard,Cft ;i,,: co a cr nt#a :16T 1. a cyst iit`I~eygop_' ant Ctlrge tnethodolojy for trte as sysrteos A cr y of the,:~i:ethQdplo$y available,at Uhe,City of.,Ti 12,125 SM. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION lvd) r;tddfatarsaat irr~Qrrci2iion contact tho.Citg ,kecorda[~t Ti d City Full 639 417t (ezr 3f29. STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' M758 Publish January 13,1904. Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the - a"-i-i:~-,Tim ; a newspaper of general circulation as de i in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti garr3 in the aforesaid county sodd state; that the City Council,Hearing Notice a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ON-F successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 13,1994 Subscribed and sworn t afore me thisl3th day of January OFFICIAL SEAL ROSIN A. BURGESS _ NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON Notary P for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 Ii CQia.miSSION EXPIRES MAY 16,19_97 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ i ~ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS; INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 I1,1p00 U,T 7 7 9 7 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 [2 E C 199 Legsi Notice Advertising ale s ~e o4a itaer>! MA"p Ct_ eCd 1 • ® ❑ Tearshest Notice pv YIGARD'; Baule~prcl,`r,bp~ itti%iv PAR City of 'Tigard ,}Lr 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CITY ®Tiga:rd,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit x ® • 3312 " S 3T+~ E.r011~; Study I~4ou3isa wn Hall i°tirr,fi -cf ce N - ® Update 6a Cad!ti 1l C'urrti its ~t rtulev>H•w` AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Rosiness P~feehng f~~~ f'.M, STATE OF OREGON, ; Council Considerati6m ` COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' 1, ICai;by Snyder ! -_FUrmaiion,©f a Rei[nt5urs9nkeni T~istrFCt :or Paa inn Ridge, being f;rst duly sworn, depose and s lthat Im-the tdjertisirp i Su iivi ian Director, or his clerk, of the qar ua a in imeG principal (Contmusdfromtrel'~ary;3,t>1?i;Coanceettrg~ a newspaper of general circuMon as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at ga In the Pi tz)icI€nga.. afo;esr;~id county g st te; that the Cottid+~r adoption Gf a Sy_stc►res ~eveiL~ric'nthurge i C1t!jr Counc1 M1Tq.February 22 metwelogyfortheWater SysWnl a printod copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Local. Coniruct P'eview Pdard tee > g f entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: E~ a~Rive e4s>i0n X114' Tigarck C>It COnncii may g0 mt) Lx t1U1iC,; Si sstor~ u~oea tile;Provisauns o,C?; 192:60 {Z}?(49}, 03,,x; Ahto Feb:l.uary 1719 9 4 s~ ! s tahoa r~tu 4~r, real ge-.y mm sons cmenta€~d pensh,tg iSS F1_Q. Publish P'eby t7,14X , i 'Imanwtlr~.wRtl.~'.i Subscribed and sworn to be me this 17th day of Februa y 4 OFFICIAL SEAL. ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary Pu for regon COMMISSION NO. 024552 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDDAVIT - mmil Rig Al 11 _:r -L tha P% WO eNe. IiMi4 Oho fllYf^I Int Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the 01IM ul UI VV11Vu ..star of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. 1M1~tl*c ..w ~A I`~13a 2~, I PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I ii lllj FUME P PINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) e N0 Nam 9 fees Address Name Name Address Address Name Name fese ress j, 2drte Name Address Addraw Name few Address Name Name I Address Address Name Name ress Address me Name dress Address Name Name fees ress Name Name Address Address • 3 ' ~d SPII SSid~'1 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Loreen Edin, Management Analyst DATE: February 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Yard Debris Program Design - Consultant's Report The Tigard City Council hired Harding Lawson Associates to conduct a Yard Debris Design Study. The attached report is the formal report which will be presented to the Council at their 2/15/94 Study Session. REPORT DETAILS There is a lot of information contained in the report. This memo will highlight the attachments and note the steps to be taken between now and May 1st when a program must be approved by Council. Technical Memo .11: This memo notes the history of the Yard Debris requirement by the EQC and DEQ. The City is required to offer yard debris collection at curbside as a recyclable no less than monthly. Technical Memo 92: This memo assesses the yard debris program alternatives and is broken down into 3 main sections. The highlighted page numbers in the comments column contain information for a quick review without reading all the detailed explanations. Section 1 Pages 1 - 2 What other communities are currently doing in the region. SEE PAGE 2 If more information is desired, call me for the referenced Attachment A (12 pages of other jurisdictions' experience) Section 2 Pages 3 - 4 Program alternatives considered workable for Tigard. SEE PAGE 4 If more information is desired, call me for the referenced Attachment B (7 pages of detailed alternative information) Section 3 Pages 5 - 10 Assessment of 4 primary program alternatives. SEE PAGE 6 Section 4 Pages 11 - 14 Assessment of non-collection & supplemental alternatives to enhance the program. SEE PAGES 11-14 CIll iiiiiiijilill 11 II ill 6 AftPAGE 2 OF V %"M r%lonD T Q DDr1nD T V Li£.M0 1 L1a~L LJ J:+a)i~iJ rL\V Va~Laa'a FEBRUARY 4, 1994 Technical Memo #3: This memo details a model to assess the cosies of proposed program options. PAGE 3 gives an overview of the information. The attachment of 18 pages of detailed cost modeling is available from me if you would like to review in more detail. REVIEW PROCESS TIMLIN Since the City must make a decision on the design of a Yard Debris Program Within the next couple of months, the following timeline was developed. 2/15/94 Study Session with Council - Council and staff should come away from this meeting with an understanding of the options being considered and where the process is heading. Staff will be asking Council to identify their preferred program option(s) for, presentation to the CITs. 2/16/94 tL_____gi ~iirvuyu 3 3/15/94 Meetings with Haulers - The Consultant and Staff will meet with the Haulers to develop agreement on the different cost assumptions made by the Consultant and Haulers. 3/1/94 through 3/15/94 Public Information )Program - Staff will present information on the Yard Debris Program requirements and option(s) being considered by the Council to the following groups: * All CITs * Summerfield Civic Association * Other groups who express interest 4/12/94 Public Hearing before Council 4/26/94 Decision by Council 5x'1/94 Direction to Haulers to impalement program - Startup of program will depend on the type of program adopted by Council (i.e., cart purchases, equipment purchases, hiring of additional staff). Disseminate Program Information - Staff will share program design information with citizens through meetings (CITs), Cityscape newsletter articles, and mailers from haulers. DEQ and Washington County Solid Waste staff will also be notified of our program design and implementation plan. Should you have questions about this process or the report before the Council meeting, please feel free to call! 1111~ ill Ira a„ Technical Memo #1 low ,low Yard Debris Program Design Requirements and Performance Standards, The following information is based on conversations with staff from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Metro and Washington County, as well as a review of the Oregon Administrative Rules 340-90, Dec. 11, 1992; Metro's v asi&ned Yard Debris Collection System Evaluation report, July 1993; Washington County's draft revised yard debris plan, November 1993; and Metro's Regional Yard Debris Recycling Plan, January 1991. 1) Regulatory Framework: When the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) listed yard debris as a principal recyclable material in the fall of 1983, curbside collection became the service standard for cities with populations of 4,000 and larger, and the areas within their urban growth boundaries. In response, Washington County local governments jointly developed a yard debris plan characterized by a low density depot system supplemented by an on-call fee-for-container recycling service. This plan was advanced under EOC aclm;nIatr»tiv-e r'•'^^ '-tau=^'- ' ' •aac.'a Vval iCddiLSCCeld 1OCaI governments to develop such alternatives as long as they could be shown to be as effective as regularly scheduled curbside collection. Li January of 1990, the Department of Environmental Quality granted conditional approval to the Washington County plan. One of the conditions of the approval was that if the system should fail to perform adequately, Washington County and the cities within it would be required to conform to the Regional Yard Debris Recycling Plan and to implement curbside collection if warranted by the regional processing and marketing capacity. Two primary documents govern implementation of the metropolitan region's yard debris collection programs. The first is Metro's Regional Yard Debris Recycling Plan (RYDRP), which was adopted by the Metro Council in January, 1991 and approved for implementation by the Oregon DEQ. The RYDRP directed Metro staff to perform an evaluation of the regional yard debris collection system by August, 1993 to determine the need for weekly curbside collection or other higher intensity programs consistent with market capacity. The second document is the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) January, 1990 conditional approval of Washington County's yard debris depot system. This approval permitted Washington County to follow its own plan in lieu of the RYDRP. Metro's Yard Debris Collection System Evaluation, written in July of 1993, found that there is adequate capacity and sufficient market demand to handle all of the yard debris which is. expected to be collected in the region. As a result, Washington County revised its yard debris recycling plan to provide curbside collection of yard debris and recently received preliminary approval of its draft Yard Debris Recycling ` Plan Prevision from DEQ. This plan outlines the County's strategy to achieve the Technical Memo #1 Page 1 HLA - 2/94 t 1 INNER; I otIctm-U; ycagLZ L:~vala lecYL:11116 guius of 67 1o by 1773 d 73-1o by 1776 so that u:e entire AHM wasteshed (most of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties in aggregate) can achieve an overall recovery rate in 1995 of 40 percent required by OAR 340-90- 050. 2) Evaluation Criteria/Perfr iar±ce -Star+► 'lords. Because final authority rests with DEQ, Washington County's Yard Debris Plan, including those requirements which differ from Metro's requirements for other jurisdictions, will be approved by DEQ. The DEQ has indicated that the City of Tigard, through its franchised haulers, must implement some form of regularly scheduled curbside collection service and that implementation of its curbside yard debris program must be initiated by July, 1994. OAR 340-90-040 requires local governments to provide curbside collection at least monthly. Metro concluded in its yard debris evaluation that there is regional market capacity which is adequate to absorb the supply of yard debris generated by Washington County. The evaluation also concluded that Washington County's self-haul program does not capture yard debris at as high a rate as do programs that have frequent curbside collection. Although its not explicitly stated in the law, both DEQ and Metro are encouraging cities to implement weekly curbside programs-as a result of the readily available market capacity. There is an expectation that requirements for weekly yard debris collection may be considered for the whole region when plans are next updated. Metro's RYDRP identifies an ambitious yard debris diversion goal of 67% by 1993 and 93% by 1996. Based on conversations with Metro staff, evaluation of the recycling rate for each local government will include the amounts diverted through self-haul at depots and composting facilities, through curbside collection programs and through source reduction resulting from aggressive public education efforts, such as promotion of backyard composting and gr asscycling (the practice of allowing grass clippings to naturally decompose on the lawn). Consideration also will be given to a jurisdiction's average lot sizes and to yard debris generation estimates made from waste characterization studies. Because quantitative measures of progress in meeting this performance standard are difficult and may be imprecise, Metro and DEQ have indicated that programs will be evaluated on the basis of performance measures as well as reaching the numeric goals. A dramatic decrease in the volume of yard debris sent to landfills for disposal, is the intended result of this whole emphasis and will be an indicator of program acceptance. The Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program Yard Debris Plan Revision identifies a number of steps which County staff, the Cities, their haulers and DEQ and Metro are to undertake in 1994 to better evaluate the performance of yard debris diversion efforts. Technical Meme, #1 Page 2 HLA - 2/94 5 REM 3) Alternatives The City of Tigard has several alternatives available for meeting state, regional and county requirements/expectations for a yard debris diversion program: ® Promotion of home composting & monthly (or more frequent) collection ® Promotion of home composting & seasonal monthly (or more frequent) collection with year-around monthly (or more frequent) drop-off m Promotion of home composting & monthly (or more frequent) collection and seasonal weekly drop-off depots (concentrated in high density areas) Basic Requirements: (Language extracted from Oregon Administrative Rules Division 90, December 11, 1992 provides the specific direction for these requirements): 1. Promotion of home composting of yard debris through written material or some other effective media form that is directed at the residenti al generator of yard debris; (340-90--040(3)(e)(A)) and Note: Metro and Washington County currently provide a substantial portion of the required promotional effort; as a result, the City of Tigard is not expected to duplicate these efforts. Appropriate promotion related to specifics of the programs service will be necessary. 2. At least monthly on-route collection of yard debris from residences for production of compost or other marketable products; 340-90-040(3)(e)(B) or 3. Provide monthly or more often on-route collection of yard debris during the months of April through October with (year-round) drop-off depots for non- collection service customers available at least monthly, 340-90-080(5)(d)(A) or 4. Provide monthly or more often (on-route) yard debris collection, supplemented by a weekly or more often yard debris depot during the months of April through October, [both] within one mile of the yard debris generators, or such that there is at least one conveniently located depot for every 25,000 population. 340-90-080(5)(d)(C) OAR 340-90-040 lists other non-curbside alternatives for collection of this principal recyclable; however, discussions with DEQ staff indicate that those options have already been implemented by Washington County as a provisional approach and that they were considered sub-optimum in meeting the diversion goals.. Therefore, the above listed basic requirements do not include a non-curbside option. Any one of these options is equally satisfactory if undertaken with sufficient vigor. However, if the City of Tigard fails to undertake one of these efforts and if significant volumes of yard debris continue to be observed in Tigard's residential waste stream it is possible that DEQ might, at worst, require the City to implement a more aggressive yard debris program. Technical Memo #1 Page 3 HLA - 2/94 W INE Technical Menlo #2 Assessment of Yard Debris Program Alternatives It is dear from the requirements outlined in Technical Memo #1 that the City of Tigard must undertake some form of curbside collection on at least a monthly basis soon after July 1 of 1994. This memo identifies and assesses alternative approaches for complying with this requirement and examines other program alternatives which could supplement or support Tigard's diversion goals and help to control program cost or garner community acceptance for the new service. P) The Experience of Other Communities with Yard Debris Collection: Approaches taken by other nearby cities/counties in response to the same or similar requirements for establishing curbside service may be instructive in understanding the choices available to Tigard and in overcoming some of the challenges which have been encountered. Attachment A to this memo summarizes the designs of eleven local yard debris programs. The matrix on the following page summarizes key parameters of these programs. It can be seen that the frequency of collection includes weekly, bi-weekly (every other week) and monthly, and in one case even changes with the seasons. Container sues include 32 gallon cans, 60 gallon roll-carts, and 90 gallon roll-carts. In some cases kraft bags or bundles can be used for regular set-outs of for extra set-outs which won't fit in the primary container. Some communities have allowed individual households to be exempted from receiving and/or paying for the curbside yard debris service. In a couple of cases, exempted residents are banned from putting yard debris into their trash can. None of the surveyed jurisdictions except West Linn, which is not yet offering curbside collection, provided specific yard debris drop-off opportunities, althcugh existing yard debris depots or processors (such as Grimm's located four miles southwest of Tigard) are available in many communities. Monthly fees for residential waste (at a 32 gallon can service level), recyclables and yard debris service vary widely from a low of $9.50 per month in the Corvallis area (where garbage tipping fees are below $30 per ton) to $19.30 per month on Portland's V'Jestside (where garbage tipping fees are $75 per ton - the same as Tigard's). Residents in Clackamas County, the City of Gresham, the Eastside of Portland and the City of Tualatin all pay between $17 and $18 per month for setting out 32 gallons per week of trash, their recyclables and their yard debris. Washington County residents in urban areas pay $15.83 per month for the collection of 32 gallons of refuse per week along with recydables and yard debris. Technical Memo #2 Page 1 HLA - 2/94 cass C°crtrt YaA4ebru pgpGRAMf~pgCA M~ddYgau C4114V ~dmK g ECEEpYARD~EBAI Scyv10 se 77P tm d`) filytFatutca cons Yuiw St3I+AliY(J T, GlIk"Ve 35 utop ° YudIIebr* OOrdteaR S9 `,O ExM`tstd Bongo ~OB,Ktian Cpllectt P vo oxnF aUAS go ~ wucot avail 575.00 'a A ~9eb9t `SctdtkbtU YGon M`~ red Yam da N° A140- terrd~ res t Cart foB'nt~ 28 J of t.6810 deotlvlbodl`~t 10 140 ku IOdwde 0.° 'r1r fOatlw 440 dentsbaee 60 g°1 -0 CM Mf F than' CpBa#~ 908a1''Oao+dY ,ddi8andrb"ge pva0 been SaAtf 5720 txlot &It 7 BrWeekty rtAmGyi°' - Yea nobaulet YD°rly-31 $i01T2OR Vol tl -ealt 50 AC~z+Y> °r Y~ Yc,NBtb rdk -Pico YD°n1 .60 nateeDQe n yCorval" 32~ vciOvc on g18JGU 575.00 tNeeklY -leg 61) VL act°4b0n Notraa B *~8°a next est 32f ndk awl'? Pec SIS.W vs W yCou°tY Yea.W$aBowtd pvv~'m `'t°` ~cet53Jea°) 20gad00 57755 50 dwl fA~ cn t Pdc+P NO A m{e oetpVfB 328'BOIf) ) svt.5 S7500 Its ~yoa1 so 00) ~ NO ~ 32 ~32ft^dpA 51515 COUntyViA 10fi~ [DerFeb) (itg)basla 52 fee Yea 910 oredme 328att(dBaIYD°Pd~~ les serg-W Ti f,.Doto, 630 00 Ys Wee~Y 328a1'lraak `!es OOWests+de St9:i0 975. of 17 °m vi ~catt°Pt°0 -leg t nOf°x-at 79~onWeatside $14.60 60 Y Yes tat exeO P wael cot 32 f~ aide 51170 ofC° 32~ie preaibY ?Af7~O°nEas~dee~S1570f GtY cek1Y caxCORM1san Ito 1aulert°1e 3ZFTBD°" -A 00 e vi no eet`^ extn' 66 e~0 Ym to NO tS2l bs6~ 517.0` 5750 Gtyoflal~ baao Yes,St g 35gai.W10 '.12334 NA fee haw, S1 3.09 %75A0 32~ fu ice„ 8i•W~ OPtionfot~ ~ 'Its A Cato CttYofFacdard 027 No NO 20 g3 IN tvw,. role h.'A-bY nOsiOOat:SLt X75) T fee ) ~ $75~ ~Mned I 22 Last A'ro~l.rea~bl °INDt~OOns. C&S for debts SL&W 9D~p°S°u NO nob►>+kt CdY lea minicm 510.60 NO Yea ylt.cuideotiat~m 7A~Bon ~u-21 WsesN Jbnt+lle 94 YCA Yea, ea fyonvao 6csed' CityofT a+ ran uatao^ 32~ feec On for. retvice) ataoO. -,Its B•rWczklY 60 .wrt No NOcOaiaebhb~) aerv~ce ~Waatd°SttY Ya,baBlb°ndt gO6ooa (nose 1 bask e 1 No W GH°tWmtltnr -Haul tycelY earttm°°1n[os fee page2 - Yea 32t 1A.*4 nO CWDII GtYOtWdaon a Terhni°iMemO f2 sF~s Estimates of the impact that .'addAJIaag yard debris service to existing refuse routes has on rates range from a low of $1.57 per month in the City of Portland to a high of $5.50 per month in Clark County Washington (where yard debris is a subscription service). Currently in Tigard residents pay just $13.10 per month for the collection of 32 gallons of refuse and recyclables. As indicated in the matrix, recovery of yard debris through the surveyed curbside programs varies from about 20 pounds per household per month to about 86 pounds per household per month. Metro's July 1993 Yard Debris Collection System Evaluation noted that jurisdictions with curbside programs were recovering between 10.0 and 18.36 pounds per household per week (43- 79 pounds per month) while jurisdictions with mainly drop-off programs were recovering between 5.0 and 5.3 pounds per household per week (22-23 pounds per month). These figures are reported as drive-by rates indicating that the total tons collected are converted to pounds per household estimates based upon the total number of households that are eligible for service (in Tigard there are 8,600 households currently receiving garbage service and who will be eligible for yard debris collection service). Pounds of yard debris aCt1dA11~ 3C"-- sea-GUafo" nnllection by those residents who narticipat- era U...1.- +-a , r~--Yj.,»~o, aaac augaaca than the drive-by estimate because not all residents are expected to participate in the program on every collection day. Reported participation levels for the programs noted range from 20 percent (for the Clark County pilot program which is totally voluntary based on subscriptions) to between 55 and 60 percent (for the Albany-Lebanon and City of Portland programs it is assumed that these are monthly participation estimates). In its planning for the Washington County yard debris curbside program County staff assumed a participation rate of 60%. Unless a program is extremely well promoted and convenient monthly participation rates are not expected to average much above 80%. Participation in home composting or grasscycling options, opportunities for self-hauling, the availability of landscaping services, yard sizes, types and maturity of landscaping, population demographics and climate -are other factors besides participation that affect the anticipated recovery of yard debris. 2) Options for Yard Debris Collection: As seen from the experience of other communities, there are a wide range of options to be considered in design of a yard debris collection program. These options have been classified into three categories including: ® Design variables for curbside collection ® Rate variables for curbside collection • Supplemental program alternatives to curbside collection Technical Memo #2 Page 3 HL.A. - 2/94 17 Attachment B provides a listing or menu and brief discussion of the full range of program design variables and alternatives which were considered for the City of Tigard. Within that listinf- alternatives which were considered to be fatally flawed for use in Tigard were designated by an "X". Options which were preferred as workable for Tigard's situation were designated with an This initial evaluation is summarized below: Preferred Alternatives Fatally Flawed Alternatives 1. Year-Round Collection 1b. Seasonal Collection 3. Same Day as Garbage Collection 2c. Monthly Collection 4. Hauler Supplied Roll-Carts (60 gal) 3b. & c. Alternative Weekday or On- 5a. Mechanically -Assisted Trucks Call Collection 6a. Service Provided by Franchised 4d. & f. Plastic Bags or No Containers Haulers 6b. Service Provided by Contractor 7a. Uniform Service to All Residents 7b. Subscription Service 7d. Limited Class Exemptions 7c. Individual Service Exemptions 8c. Extra Material Allowed w/Charge 8a. Limited Volume Basic Service 8d. Volume Based Service 8b. Extra Material without Charge 8e. Encourage Subscription to Lower Level of Service to Off-Set Rates 15. Xeriscaping Incentives 16. Aggressive Promotion 17. Grasscycling Promotion Fourteen additional alternatives/design variables were identified for which classification into the above two categories has not been made; indicating no clear preference nor disfavor towards undertaking further assessment and evaluation for these options: Unclassified Alternatives a Weekly and/or Bi-Weekly (every other week) Collection (2a. & b.) ® Using 32 gallon cans, paper (kraft) bags or bundles for containing set-out materials (4a. c. & e.) ® Using Manually Loaded Packers or other vehicles to collect material (5b.) e Providing Service Options to Residents: Home Compost Bin, Yard Debris Chipper Rebatea, Mulching Mower Rebates as Same Cost Alternatives to Those Who Would Otherwise Seek Exemptions (9a. b. & c.) e Rate Ramping (10) a Yard Debris Collection Depots (11) e Provide Vouchers for Depot Use (12) a Ban Yard Debris in Trash (13) m Provide Self-Haul Assistance (14) ® Christmas Tree Recycling (18) Teduvcr.1 Memo ##2 ?'age 4 HIJ - 2/ 94 3) Assessment of Primary Alternatives for Yard Debris Collection: Consideration of the preferred and fataiiy flawed -alternatives by the consultant, City staff and the City's franchised haulers lead to the definition of four primary program alternatives for providing the yard debris collection service. These alternatives integrate the preferred elements with a mixing and matching of many of the elements for which there was no identified preference. These alternatives were labeled A, B, C, and D: A The City's Initial Request and the Haulers Proposal B An Interim Approach to Minimize Costs C The Haulers Modification of "A" with Reduced Frequency for Recyclables Collection (to Bi-Weekly) to Minimize Costs,* D More Frequent Collection Than "A" (Weekly) The following page (page 6) summarizes the differences and similarities between these primary alternatives. Assessments were made for each of these alternatives to compare the costs as well as the advantages and disadvantages + *+-suit's of at___ are n»mrnarl7efi in the gnllnwinor n crpq OI each. Sceu1 Ul lltex mj3caoaa.a a.w --O Ncy - (pages 7 through 10). Technical Memo #3 presents the assumptions and calculations used to evaluate and compare costs. The cost figures presented in this analysis are not intended to serve as rate recommendations for any of the } alternatives which might be selected. Further evaluation, discussion and adjustment of the assumptions in coordination with the City's franchised haulers should be undertaken after a final alternative is selected before the actual rate impact is determined. At this time no recommendation. is provided on a single collection alternative which the City should pursue. Advantages and disadvantages, of the various alternatives from the standpoint of residents, the City and the haulers need to be considered along with cost in deciding on the appropriate alternative. It is anticipated that the February 15 Work Session will provide an opportunity to discuss key policy issues and that a preliminary recommendation can be proposed at that time. Technical Memo #2 Page 5 HLA -2/94 all! OEM CITY OF TIGARD SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROGRAM ALT'ERNAT'IVES FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT A B C D PARAMETER City's Initital Request Interim Lowy-Tech Hauler's Alt. to A More Frequent Haulers Proposal Lower Cost Alt. Bi-Weekly Recycling Collection Frequency Every Other Week Every Other Week Every Other Week Weekly Container Size 60 gal. Roll-Cart 32 gal. Can 60 gal. Roll-Cart 60 gal. Roll-Cart 60 gal. Roll-Cart Option (@ base fee Plus) Scheduling/Seasons I Same Day as Trash -Year Round Collection Equipment Mechan. Assist Man/Mech. Mechan. Assist Meehan. Assist Applicability Uniform Service - No Individual Exemptions Service Options Extra Vol ® $ Volume Based Extra Vol (9) $ Extra Vol ® $ 32 gal/60 gal/120 gal 60 gal/120 gal Encourage Mini Can Encoura Mini-Can for Trash as a Rate Reduction Approach Aggressive Promotion Promote Source Reduction Alternatives & Service details Impact to Curbside Decrease Curbside Service None None Recycling Collection None to a Bi-Weekly Service 3 Technical Memo F2 Page 6 HLA - 2/94 Assessment Summary for ALTERIVA=3 A The City's Initial Request and the Maulers Proposal Deecriution of Alternative: All residents would pay a uniform fee for a 60 gallon roll-cart provided by their hauler and collected every other week throughout the year on the same day as trash: Haulers would collect yard debris from everyone using a mechanically-assisted equipment. Extra yard debris that doesn't fit in the container could be set-out in kraft bags, 32 gallon cans or in bundles for an additional charge (these would require manual loading). Residents would be regularly encouraged to use either the yard debris container, at home composting, grasseycling or self-haul alternatives rather than mixing yard debris into their trash. Along with the announcement of the new yard debris service, residents would be encouraged to consider whether their current trash service levels could be decreased to fewer cans or to a mini can. (Italicized text indicates eatures that a ly to all alternatives). Key Advantages: & Key Disadvantages: For Residents ® Ability to control costs by lowering o Some adjustment may be needed level of trash service for remembering collection weeks Convenient container. is provided or for timing of yard maintenance for segregating yard debris activities (bi-weekly collection) ePayment of additional fee may be p hardship on some For the Ci ® Diversion of yard debris and a Participation and diversion may consistency of service will help not be quite as high as with achieve solid waste plan goals alternative D s Minimal involvement in o Some residents may not be happy administering the effort with rate increase For the Haulers e Roll-carts improve efficiency and o New crews and equipment will reduce worker safety concerns f costs need to be put into service ® Coincides with plans to automate ® Program differs in most cases from trash collection those of surroundin service areas Cosh Increase in monthly rate: $4.72'per month (per hauler's proposal) 2.41_ per month (consultant's assum lions) [range - $1.77-$3.041 Technical: Memo #2 Page 7 HLA - 2/94 Y T JS ~AY' ' mw g lAssCaOaiac ALTERNATIVE „!7 An Interim Approach to Nfinitnize Costs, Description of Alternative: For an interim period (e.g. 2 years) residents :could have the option of paying for collection using their cyan 32 gallon can or to pay an additional amount ($1.33) to have the hauler provide a 60 gallon roll-cart (2 60 gallon carts would also be an option). After an initial period, everyone may be required to convert to a roll-cart service ("A"). Yard debris would be collected every other week throughout the year on the same day as trash. Haulers would collect yard debris from everyone using manual/mechanically-assisted equipment. Other features would be the same as in Alternative A - See Italicized description. Key Advantages: & Key Disadvantages: For Residents • Added abili to control costs by not • Some adjustment may be needed purchasing the 60 cart service or by for remembering collection weeks lowering level of trash service or for timing of yard maintenance ® Convenient container can be activities (bi-weekly collection) provided for segregating yard debris ® Payment of additional fee may be or residents provide a smaller one hardship on some For the City • Diversion of yard debris will help • Participation and diversion may achieve solid waste plan goals not be quite as high as with o Possible confusion on available alternative D service levels - switching problems • Fewer residents may be unhappy • Minimal involvement in with rate increase than under "A" - administering the effort may result in fewer com faints 9 For the Haulers • Basic program features are • Dual collection system needed to consistent with those of serve customers on same route - surrounding service areas (Wash. • Affects schedule to convert to Co. & City of Portland) automated trash collection • Equipment is already available • Worker safety/cost an issue with • Customer selection hard to Eredict manual lifting of heavy cans Cost: Increase in monthly rate: $1.44 per month (consultant's assumptions) $2.77 per month (for 60 gal cart option) [basic svc range - $.93-$1.941 Technical Memo #2 Page 8 HLA - 2/94 11111111 1 :111,111 _11011110111110 i NEUMV, Assessment Summary for ALTERN-A I-VE C The Haulers Modification of "A " with Reduced Frequency for Recyclables Collection (to Bi-Weekly) to Minimize Costs Description of Alternative: All residents would pay a uniform fee for a 60 gallon roll-cart provided by their hauler and collected every other week throughout the year on the same day as trash. Haulers would collect yard debris from everyone using a mechanically-assisted equipment. The frequency of recyclables collection, currently weekly, would decrease to bi-weekly (reducing the hauler's cost for performing that function). Alternative DEQ criteria (ORS 459A.010-3B) would need to be met (5 of: container, expanded/promo, multi-family, yard debris, commercial on-route > 9 employees, depots, rate incentives). Other eatures would be the same as in Alternative A - See Italicized descri Lion. Key Advantages: & Key Disadvantages: For Residents ® Lower monthly cost than A • reduced convenience for recyclables ® Ability to control costs by lowering set-out AIZAL level of trash service . Major adjustments needed for ® Convenient container is provided remembering collection schedules for se a atin and debris For the Ci ® If approach is sold right, may be a Greater admin. involvement with able to take the lead in innovative DEQ & Wash. Co. governments in program that provides for greater "departing from the norm" efficiency and fewer trucks on the ® Overall participation and diversion street may be decreased ® Greater emphasis may be provided - Some residents may not be happy in promo/ed., multi-faro & o4th rate increase & loss of commercial diversion efforts recycling service For the Haulers • Opportunity for reducing o Customers may complain of operational impacts and for decreased service and higher rates improving efficiency of curbside ® Program differs from those of 12rogram surrounding service areas Cost- Increase in monthly rate: $1.24 per month (consultant's assumptions) [range - $.61-$1.871 Technical Memo #2 Page 9 HLA 2/94 Assessment Summary for w rTE t!7 UIVE D ~L i Li~J. \ ~ i 6 i More Frequent Collection Than "A" (Weeldy) Descri lion of Alternative: All residents would pay a uniform fee for a 60 gallon roll-cart provided by their hauler and collected every week throughout the year on the same day as trash. Haulers would collect yard debris from everyone using mechanically-assisted equipment. Other features would be the same as in _ Alternative A - See Italicized description. Key Advantages: & Key Disadvantages: For Residents ® Ability for some to control costs by Payment of additional fee may be lowering level of trash service hardship on the average household • Convenient container is provided ' lJr segc.5"~ Lg y rd rdeb-is ® Convenience equal to recyclables and trash collection For the Ci * Diversion of yard` debris will be ® Many residents may not be happy maximized and consistency of with rate increase-particularly those service will help achieve solid using other forms of diversion waste plan goals ~ Hauler investment commits City to ® City may be recognized as a leader ongoing service level even if in providing service "ahead of its participation and recovery don't time" follow - options for future Minimal involvement in expansion of service are reduced administerin the effort For the Haulers ® Roll-carts improve efficiency and ® New crews and equipment will reduce worker safety concerns/dusts need to be put into service o Coincides with plans to automate ® Greater risk may be involved in trash collection equipment purchase/ capitalization a Program differs in most cases from those of surrounding service areas cost: Increase in monthly rate: $141 per month (consultant's assumptions) [range - $2.57-$4.251 Technical Memo #2 Page 10 HLA - 2/94 i Kim 4) Assessment/Recommendations for Non-Collection and Supplemental Atfgrna fivgs! Once a decision is made on the primary collection service alternative, several other alternatives may be considered to support the programs focus, to control costs or to garner increased community acceptance for and participation in the yard debris program. This section provides an assessment of and recommendations on those alternatives. Avolicability of Fee/Service Two options were eliminated from consideration as being fatally flawed for use in Tigard. These included a subscription service (such as that of Clark County's pilot program) and individual house-by-house exemptions from the service (such as those offered by Clackamas County, the City of Gresham and Lake Oswego). The subscription service would greatly increase the costs for those who did subscribe and may not be accepted by 3DEQ since it charges more to those who segregate materials for recycling than those who don't. The individual exemption option was not favored primarily because of the administrative burden and complexity it would place on City staff or the haulers but also because it would have an impact by increasing the rates paid Vy UtUZ1Z W1LV are 1lVL CJlClllFMU. Uniform basic service provided to all residential customers is considered the best option for Tigard. It is the easiest to administer and reduces the unit cost for all. A primary disadvantage of the uniform service standard is that those who currently handle their yard debris through home composting, grasscycling, self-hauling or through contracted landscapers may consider that consider that they are being double charged. A key message of the promotion and education effort needs to indicate that continued or expanded efforts on these do-it-yourself approaches will keep the service costs lower and that overall the community benefits by providing the service. Since there are a number of residential areas or associations, such as Summerfield, which contract for their landscape maintenance, it is believed that provisions are needed to provide class exemptions from the yard debris collection service/fee. This might be accomplished through clear definition of these areas as something other than basic residential service areas (as has been done in Tualatin and Wilsonville). It is recommended that clear exemption criteria be established for existing associations of more than 20 households to apply with their hauler for such an exemption. Once criteria and have been established on the exemption process, the haulers should have the primary role in administering exemptions to their customers - with the City only being involved where hauler designations are contested. A cap should be placed on the total number of residents within the current 5,600 customer base (or the customer base of each hauler) that could be exempted and a deadline should be set for making application. Technical Memo #2 Page 11 HLA - 2/94 F P MM= IM, Level of Service Options Not allowing for generators to set-out extra amounts of material that don't fit into their container is not considered practical since it is likely that,this will occur frequently. It is appropriate that when this occurs, residents be charged extra, thus providing an incentive to source reduce excess material by home composting or grasscycling or to self haul volumes of material from large uaua~ ever' ts. R is recommended that iiees be charged for amounts of yard debris set-out that are in excess of the container capacity charged for a scheduled level of service. It is also recommended that rates be set for customers who anticipate regularly setting out additional volumes of yard debris. For example a household with a very large lot may fill 2 sixty gallon containers at each pick- up. As with existing services haulers will need coordinate the ability of customers to shift from one service level to another and a limit might be considered on the frequency with which service levels can be changed (e.g. should households be allowed to have two sixty gallon carts only during the main growing season and then to decrease to one cart for the winter?). It is also recommended that with the promotion of the new yard debris service and the new rates that residents be alerted to the options of decreasing their level of trash service as a means of controlling or reducing their total monthly bill. For example, families currently with two can trash service might be able to change over to a single can if yard debris is currently a high portion of their current set-outs. Similarly, households that currently set-out extra materials for trash collection following their semi-annual yard work might be able to realize some savings by paying for the regular collection. which will handle the bulk of these materials. Table 3-1 in Technical Memo #3 indicates how such service level changes might impact various types of households. Options for Alternative Services Three alternative services were identified that might be offered to residences that will be paying the basic fee but don't expect to use the curbside collection service. These include: ® Hauler provision of a home composting bin in lieu of curbside collection (perhaps including distribution and instruction) e Hauler provided one-time rebates for the purchase of prunnings clappers in lieu of curbside collection ® Hauler provided one-time rebates for the purchase of mulching mowers which facilitate grasscycling in lieu of curbside collection The costs of anyone of these options can be covered if the amount of the available alternatives (the price of the composting bins or the ,amounts of the Tedmical Memo #2 Page 12 HL A - 2/94 4 , MOM WOM Ell rebates) are equal to or below the estimated cumulative amount of annual (or All bi-annual) fees to be collected from those customers who won't use the curbside serl Rules of such an alternative program need to be clear and simple and must limit the ability of residents to play the system through frequent service switching. Theca aftenLati'res can generally be administered wholly by the haulers once they are set-up. The haulers do have concerns about the complexities of setting up such a set of alternatives and their is also uncertainty about how such options would be valued by Tigard residents (i.e. there may be greater interest in have a total program which is uncomplicated than in providing a relatively small segment of the population with special choices/ incentives for doing what they might do otherwise). It is recommended that the program be first proposed without these types of service options. If there is significant opposition to a program without the opportunity for individual exemptions or choices, one or more of these options can be discussed. Rate RampinZ Rate ramping can be accomplished in two primary ways. One by scheduling the implementation of the services (such would be the case if it were decided to go with collection Alternative B for two years then to go with Alternative A); and two by collecting revenue at a different period of time'than when it .is needed to pay current costs. Washington County took the second approach by implementing half of its rate adjustment for new yard debris services in the Summer of 1993 when the actual service wasn't provided until January of 1994 (the a.*nount of the increase was not so great and the full amount of the fee is not needed until the Summer of 1994). Alternatively consistent with the second approach, a service could be started and charged at less than the full cost if agreement was reached to recover the cost by charging higher rates in a later period. Besides the first approach (scheduled step-ups in the services offered) it was concluded that under the second scenario (offering services and collecting fees on staggered schedules) rate ramping is not a desirable approach. Washington County received complaints when a sizable rate adjustment was made in advance of the new service and accounting for costs to be recovered in future rates is difficult and inconsistent with the City's current strategies k' for regulating and adjusting hauler rates. Yard Debris Collection Depots Additional hauler operated depots open for limited hours at temporary locations within Tigard are not recommended. Grimm's facility on Cipole Road is conveniently available to Tigard residents throughout the year and for many hours. A hauler operated service would require a higher cost and serve a very limited number of residents. Technical Memo #2 Page 13 I3L.A - 2/44 { Provide Vouchers for DeDOt Use This might be an attractive option for some residents who currently self-haul and who would no use the curbside service very frequently. Providing vouchers would have a cost to all users of the curbside service to support activities that could in some cases be better performed through the service. The benefit wn191r1 l lrnl! be leas than 2u'/o tai U-Le residents. it is preJlera(Dle to keep the overall program costs low and for residents who self-haul to pay their full costs rather than to have other users of the system provide a subsidy. This option is not recommended. Ban on Yard Debris in Trash The shifting of trash collection to automated systems will make it difficult for drivers to examine trash set-out.by individual households. Enforcing a ban would be difficult because of this. Also it is anticipated that the City does not want to employ additional staff to enforce a ban. The haulers are reluctant to enforce a ban and appear to be a regulator to those whom they serve. A ban often is perceived by the community as a punitive and invasive role of government. Voluntary cooperation in getting yard debris out of the trash is a preferred approach if it is effective. This option is therefore not recommended. Provide Self.-Haul Assistance For the same general reasons as the Vouchers for Depot Use option, this option is also not recommended. XeriscaRing Incentives and Grasscycling Promotion It is recommended that the City together with County, Metro and DEQ staff coordinate in implementing effective programs to promote the practice of grasscycling and xeriscaping. The design and structure of these efforts are outside of the present issues related to hauler roles within the yard debris program. Aggressive Promotion of New Service and Source Reduction Options This approach is a necessary support function to implementation of the yard debris curbside effort and other program areas. Specific roles and responsibilities should be defined for the haulers, for the City as well as for the County, Metro, DEQ and community groups. The rate set for yard debris collection should include specific compensation to the haulers to provide agreed upon services. Such services might include scheduled mailings or distribution of City or County designed and produced materials, can hangers, phone or door to door contacts to provide information on specifics of the new service and to encourage or inform residents of options for reducing trash service levels. Christmas Tree Recr_c It is recommended that this be incorporated into the curbside program. Technical Memo #2 Page 14 1- LA - 2194 ISO= rMM Technical Memo #3 Assessment of Haulers' Cost Proposal and Costs of Other Alternatives Introduction This technical memo presents a model for estimating the cost impacts of various yard debris collection systems. Four alternative collection systems, as described in Technical Memo #2, are evaluated for costs. These alternatives are: A Every other week yard debris collection 60 gallon roll-cart provided by hauler Mechanically assisted collection No change to recycling collection B Every other week yard debris collection 32 gallon container provided by resident; 60 gallon roll-cart can be leased Manual and mechanically assisted collection No change to recycling collection C Every other week yard debris collection 60 gallon roll-cart provided by hauler Mechanically assisted collection Recycling collection alternates weeks with yard debris collection D Weekly yard debris collection 60 gallon roll-cart provided by hauler Mechanically assisted collection No change to recycling collection A fifth program is also evaluated, which is called A' ("A prime"). A' is exactly the same program as A; the difference lies in cost and diversion assumptions. The evaluation of alternative A uses cost and diversion assumptions provided by the haulers' in their proposal to the City. The evaluation of alternative A' uses a different set of cost and diversion assumptions, discussed below. The assumptions used to evaluate alternative A' are the same assumptions used to estimate rates under alternatives B, C, and D. Table 3-1 summarizes the results of these evaluations, and shows how these rates would effect four different types of households in the City of Tigard. The haulers' proposal (alternative A) called for a monthly rate of $4.72, after franchise fee and profit. Alternative assumptions (A') lead to a range of $1.77 to $3.04, with a mean of $2.41 per month. This lower rate is due to new assumptions of lower collection of yard debris, higher collection efficiency, lower administrative support, and a longer amortization period for trucks. Technical Menlo #3 Wage I HLA - 2194 111111111111% 1 NMI Pig jil~ilill f Table 3-1: Comparison of Rates for Four Alternatives and Monthly Impact of Service on Four Different Types of Households (no exemptions) Service Alternative: Garbage A A' B C D Description Service ~ Frequency of varies every other week every other week every other week, weekly Collection: alternating with c Container varies 60 ggallo roll cart 32 gallon can 60 gal. roll cart 60 gallon roll-cart 60 gallon roll-can Size and haulers costs revised coats (resident owns) (resident leases) Monthly Coati varies $4.72 $2.41 $1.44 $2.77 $1.24 $3.41 ($1.77-$3.041) ($0.93-$1.94) ($2.26-$3.27) ($0.61-$1.87) ($257-$4.25) {{rit4;•:v:::YY?Oi}:{^ :,:nt::+::»Y::: ni::4'.i i:J}: 'i.24Y,i::,:t/%!!i{i iii pe {/and rr .}}'.fnr.:.: vv,...n•: S}:4iiS::; :•~w::;: ...tY C{•'fi.;iS%:.:SS3;•S%e•%^SSiji:S L+r..4 ::,Q...,i!.: :•}t.. f:{i! v..v:::O};x^;.+•}r+v?:: vry.• L'4'S:v'~•. ...n rn.....m.. i.+:.n. v{{t•:xr.)... 3: . d ~+i r.:f:;'•L•:gii;"!i ~''rii%':. .f.3!L: v". ~`•'i.;+:. Y..J J• } . ~ r..:.:rn,.; + v. r+.: r. :ni. n:,r rl » {..v.F..r. v r Y..::rkn:•4.•'.Y;v.:{. vr. ..1.. ,..9 •Y , --4~~'(jQ faII 4, )ay~ y ! •v\: nS.. :i~ niA:O}ii}}i:4;:n;:2.}}}}::4: IG..n,;,.::!: {4. ~r:::::::::::.v:::v + .r!v: v.. J.. ,r4 , ++ff`` ,J -O .F.. .t::<Ri iS~ !,YV?:v.4...r ...nn:;n r:.v??•M ••`•S'rity,n. t .M. : i'J.f}}lr ,/Jf" A Yf ! Al.. 4i )S;}.`•i:~'}?:;.i};.... :::}vv::: v:':{: .n..w•, v;+:.}h its •f.J•::... ..vv; Y.%'rr.. Y.•r}~. %:•r. ~df /'f.W: ••Y„ ,:n+:•n•:,. +.a ...w,•r.4}i;•~.••r.:.i.;;\.. n.r.: ».}n+:.}:<i+b+.;.1.,., ?:L::?':..,. 42. r. J~7:...~ n9s v~.: v.:+ .....:..::.N 4:)::i}4..; n . n..tv .....v.. r+:{!•: tr v /....»s: .+.3.. J vY v. 'i:•:4:3<{.SS:v'?.:iv: ;v::w}:4'M};.v: w: n,}.r v..n v..n;h.• v}::....; ..r. .f .:L........+. .i i:,... rS.rri+Yf:rWV.n.v N:rfu..,.: xr:: ..f Nn/i.,n ~l v:•'J .ri:.}.v..vv{.!{:...}:{+r: ti},}: ,+rv{.».v. N%.5:. v.i.:in.hr•.f. !44:h F...: v{.r.:?.,?tir r~ySV:3': +.F: APf ,.;.r. 3iY Yx•.. r + :}.fir •~n rt does their iT (•v.;+ . {:%'r`••f OwrllaMlSCa +nr. ..r„ 3:f4 %%i:` ?'t iSY^irGiJ 'r':'+'• :,y.;,ch. , G .:,,.4: :vl, :•{:;:i; :;ti• ..rr:: n•%:.. +...r.~:::.!.•:4:i•}:t't..n.3.?,<:.:: n.J•.........3. ~1.:n•v:i ~h..•n,. f..•r~•b: f,..`~ ++I~. •3y;: • :.::itf•}Fi'h:•;}i'•}i}:i:i.: y.;::., . Y•;t:%+J+l:•'f ry.;v.Y.:ii}:4::.'r... ::vti S: •vh v.•: nn•}n•: n?• F.O +ir 'in:4}, t{!i•};•:i::.}}Sig?r4F. h'4. fJ ; berere' ..4•:.+ Jr»rJ~' 26.2 . 2 cans of garbage ii ,:i:4`%• f%ri •<tfv'. "?Fi'!ii' +..4 ..f.-.: .M ••h. ~:Fi?il is %n ive l+'YV.S Jr Y r Y' {i . v{R' . . f::: G:>'; n •.i'# ;:{5`..hf+ ' " ~ i'r.•'r':°• :.t!:n r % f+ N' :Jn.+i::% ~i...+ .1:~'LL`ff F•Y. u,r. :.!:v. r t.iv. :h4<} Sv4i;S1:.r v4h% . f... ^i:{{{•: ..f{ F.. •4n :i:~:•} }i'f.^? .}'Fit r:~"4:h}.. r. v.:}. :rr'i:: f..'v: YvSF4'f.4r3}Sy`!.'f hSS:{;:v:.};h»:: n..... w:::;:: v.vn{S:;. nn.. •t• +.n:-. ,,cc vt .v.......} » ,v,Lt: SS:}v: \v.4i::`.,:S:v:{..:'r+:::::::.^: i'r' :•N :vi'?.v'ii:.niv. •fvi'+. ..4:Yf N..t'iifF ................r::.v!.;3::::+:.,,}iii'.i::4;•:4;:.iiir{%x:•}:ai::{•:u{:.?.}}::;;"ii%'ii'.}... ....r .".::r: .f... rr, v;?,. :::::::::.:.::r r::::::;::..... tn.+n:::+:::::2:. r.i.t•;:.i;•:i;:: .:tit ,::..t::v3::. F..v:.::;?..., .i;{.:..............,...... f..... n;•.... .r... 3+..t.n:...:.............:+ri..v....:..:+.:.....:..v,/.... ,lt;...i1f. .l.::.. after. l can of garbage $13.10 $17.82 $15.51 $14.54 $15.87 $14.34 $16.51 changr. ($838) ($10.70) ($11.67) ($10.34) ($11.86) ($9.69) N r .yr; r:••r.•3: • .w\? »•..:..n:::. .i: n:.. n::v. w.. n::4}•.; v.'•:tih' i";r•'F.: niiyii t:;i: v:~,:::.:•: ::..Y%:S f.:SSr: Yr: , ...t rnv:;:., .,.::n:.n.,.. v. . + u....+,......+ n:. r {i+i.?•. „ . Nr. ii':•/.:Yi :.:tiE:4};;%• i; ~~~taL :::.;}}}Y.3•h3•t?:fn ~;.EY.~.: r....., •.:.:v.~:.... .:r..r: ra,',....t•.....,...t:n}}v+. .::YU:~:y.}rv..,,.~. r..,},.. . s+.. +.Jtf +.,?::f::'•3•rt<i... ..v.: '.:r. l n.r. . fff.. r. i.i f/.,..: Gl S7t7 ...r..Y ...t..3.:.rY.:: .r::.t..:.... ..i ...J..+. 7f». !..r..u•)3 F hY r ++.4: f;.:.. r `•Y! n{t{:.:::;::.::},, v+}: »:.:r:......t - ,.........,:},:..,{+..t..;,v t:,.:t..:? ...W :nrnl~F•:: nr...... h:+fir. ! + .f.., fan* ................t..:..:,...... ?:t.................+... ;.::..::::::::::lli}::.::.:.... •:.4•:•.:::::::... n,.f. t• +..v..+..+ ..r,+. r. , } ~,.v,,::n ...+Sl./%.d r... Y:r}. v.....: n;,v?..v.:.....::: w:::} ::...........v•: nv, :h •:.v:::: nvv: Fi.. ..nr.:.. .l..:::,.:: .vt S :t{{+ ..Y.h+ v: v.. t:.....v r.r. r. r n.:....r..... n..+.........v.r.. f..:. ..vf L,;:,ih i}};:::: n%n... ..1.?.. h::•i ..J S vl F.•v ~V h.. \:v4 :?:?:::4.r. n•. n..:.::n;{wtw:; n..,. :.:.».:.:.v. w::fr..:: ..n}y+.. ^}~.:.Y:•::.n:'?.ilt•Yf v; 4:i4: ir;: v.•.:~ ..r ,i:::.:: ..f N%ir is v ifl }%f. r J.~ n:t ::pv r yyJJ .r} . fi{ , f . F{~%:v{rf . h:t :tn .l.. r~ •:4~• n does their own landscaping . :.4i;.:. ! f% ;n:..r..r...+.,.r+%4i. is ; Jn • r M~ L......., r. .i..,. :nor., • :na:::+.. :~L{sl:%^~l:iil<:h:;s .+...:f4n r:+: .,w: f,..,,r. p f f:i:rri. n:r4i before: l can of b . e 14.88 $ `?:,,•?{~>::i'.i'•}:.::.:;?<~:., f • fr::':r..n?. r..{.. ::.w:r.r:.i•:i:%o :•itY::::;:,.: ...?R.+r;: Yx. :i/r i. }`yn ..v...:n• ~.v: .:.:,,.+:.v. ;;yn;.......•~::•- .n..+~.. :i:.;:•:{•;:?. •n:..: •:.L::rn•::. n.:..:: ryn:•n?:. , n F tr l1:`1~; !,..A F ,.:...n,.,...+,+.:+ .........:....,.....tr..r.....,...........n.,::::::...}nf. Y,. 3ri;+ir'r3•.irr;:ra!t•}:•i:;y;..r;'nYlh.:.!:+,rrf:::r.. ?LYS:.~:YQ.r:.".,..11..,t r_. :.{k; ~.r.:..:...:::.,..r.. .+r.., <ffi.:.i:in?.,.:.: 1.::::.f.Jn . . i... ; f,..r•: •,.ir i:::..r..n.,....: . r.3,Y::::;•;:r.4•ii.4:::ii ..<:o:.ri:.};;}q.:: r. ::Y.!4S•.Y .:'f,.:r:f:?•i3"e%4`:}{:?ifj:?f.?r, y v..r•v:.•n::.::nM4::•ii:}}:.}}}}}}:3}}. i}};.i: nl:: r, 4Fr. :ii: n,...• '~?fti(` .f n.t. +;SSr r , ....:'rv3::vw::!:.:::::::: '.v J.:{.T. •.:i. .}i3%v'Nt;tt{tv'ih:.h...... "evt•;:C4}'.~:r •.iv:: x}::.:: } A;... 6 "eXt aiate,.9" . n•n:•:;:n,:•; .::•v{:;i3iw•S:r;•;oYV?,,•%Y:;ryv:1:r: f.,':~t~f+,v3t:: ::3J. F r 1133 ear 33:4.3.4:::,rr.,.:,: v.v:: ...1 . ........<:!u:v;•::::r:r.3rc.v::•w:r:vfne 4'.}::......n........ v:: n:v. :v.:..... r.. Ffr +n.f...: ..:F..:f,: n.: tj~'.,., 'r.'Y%' i.`-~+f n ....::::::..:::::nv:: i}:: r: ...........,:...+.v....n ::...:.nn:•:::::: n::v:::::.......n }:v........: ::::n....n;,;?:.r......... J...........v. ::ntY:n]ylf.•n4.:i.0:.(n•::+::..v....: ».N..S4'. J.," f.et....~ . after. 1 can of garbage $13.10 $17.82 $15.51 $14.54 $15.87 $14.34 $16.51 no extras" ! change <':< `:r>?::%>'s''•>> $295 $0.63 ($0.34) , $0.99 ($054) .$1.64 N. •:.:vlnn..v::'ir:. v:;:.}, ..:.:::....:.v::nvr:::::::: .•x:: th':4:{hw.}:m:r:.::3% .f .r nvi`F::iiiii:•:^il}.;y !•rir%4 y nS}}}i??.""r'r%S' :].v: n.:... n%vii}i'4i'w:r.:•::.v::». 4::: n.::. 'r+f¢i%N??:?S: SiS1?;: ...::::.:.:Y v} n.....:%: .':3:{.... F.??•}ii+:vi%'l.,. :iSYw Si l::;+nrv vn r 4,viii: wv;.}3:::: p: i};}:::h• :::::::::::.v... v •.v::% . nvn r; h' . }$iR Small family :.:.::............4.::t...::....:.:.;.:.t.n..}.•::•,.::................,;.:.,::.i.....n..:r.v, . .:h:+:..»..:3.;.ii:t;;:;.:xi:};; is%:.;cs:::i<]. :.:.:»,•::.t..:..: i..:...:..n•.::n::•.:.:•.....+ :4: . > ,........v n•wvC: v::: n.. v:::....... { n.: 4:..:}:vnnv}•.S}}yY.:i:i-'e;t:4}i}iSSi ~4:n;i}:: ..l... r. Y 'L~::it{{:MY%T'%%S'f'»:v v.. l..f.:4yr}?n ..1 fi , n•v::: y,.},.v.:w::}}:: n....; .....w:n..........n;v.:C4..i; m;i:::.v.........,. v.;.... ..y.+...;.....:: r.w t:•:}i%: i:•S}.t^:::: v:f•vlitii•i': r. •.J.. vff ..n. ...n......n.+.. v....... 4Si:::::nv: n.}n n:G.... .+4:.:..... i}'S r s'rf.:riff,.: n.:: ,%/l..A.M:J N w:. ••...rvvr .:nv::.:v::+::::::. •.t.t n....::::}3:•:4:2•}:•f.::{:•Xni :•.tiC{•i:+'ri;:vvn; !v:.:•iiii' ::v.C4Y.:C{Cv.v.... n.... '"+•i;};i};%n;•fvi?4:C'ii:"•v n:::::::::nv+. .................:..v..... w::: nv:: r::::.v.v: w::: r,:v.v:: v::::;; : ..:::.;:4}i::::. nr; .......»nv..... n. v:Y.: vv; + f v.,.l...f..: »+rfi: rrrr r r .fF. r does theirownlandsca in .................+.....i.:l....:............. , »..Y!{:+:+. .P,;JJ..f.ri• ...+T.»~. i'h}:•iY•ir:•r:{..'n}..,.:f.4F•'..I'•[:i4}:{•t!•r?iii: x. n:r•......, v}iSri{n:C4'J.C~}miS%fdil!' ir4}v'v? n... f......:rN.: + i:.`..',..:... ,n:,t.}::::}>,} :...........:..+n,.ri,:.:'+::+..1~:; L.... Yr% ..f ? before. l can of garbage 13.10 r4:. r:::t,,;}};..i...~::::.}}::::::.}:..n{..:.:.,:,..::r::.t•:r!:e:::n{..:,:.w:.. ;?s'.... r 4nn::•:::1.• :•:n•:: r::n.v .:n.:+.,.:.:..n•::::,•::::::r..,:2•i:.:::;•;:;::;<;•1:i;•1i}:;t{.z:.::: ::.:::::::............t.:. ..::.3:.r{i?.::::.:,.?•::: .rr r.n.r. ................:n:?:;•:::.~:: ..............,-.r.................v,.....:..... n: r:::: .::!::.x:::•..:41}3i: s:..:rrir..r:•f.,"•}.'::'<;J3Yaii :J..,...n; r..n . ..;{erne}}::::.::::: .»:..::n .:.n..:::.»n 7 ....».....:.,....R...... rn. ....{n: n.,,: r vY.. N.vl ri. •:f r` ?4i: f.?tvS"+S^.::.: SY h f..+. v 3:;l v;{ I. l3r . after. ndni-can of garbage $10.85 $15.57 $13.26 $12.29 $13.62 $1209 $14.26 7 $0.15 ($0.82) $0.51 ($1.01) $1.16 a cyan < €v $247 n•:::::.~}3:41:.,}:. s ....................,.41,3;; , .:..n. n:: r, + i:t4i}:•1}::?;»::;,•..;.var;. }:4,.}:::::.i:G":;4:o;;r;iiiii:nii::::::: •i:4}:?t;•}:;•;.t43;:~ : .:::4, :•ii'•ini]:::~i 38: ~:}+::...n..::m:n•.J.t..tt .:........::n;•;, iS.ri iii?L::i^;i:•:4:;t::. , Cv-''LLIdYlk' ,J Nln».. .F»'u,rtrYfr.•». . .n:n• :..................:....::::.v::r:::.. n., er.,,.: •:.v:.w:}rY:.. ........:::4:4+: r •}ri»ir.!•n{•.:Y4;»•}i}i:+iiiR;i%:iiii4},r'....r.a}:+} ,i.r :L . r, /.r ~jn_LLy_ »'fiNf; •F%?S:':»f,r .r!nr'r:JY/.n ::f...Jf'. nrY F.'r~!ri: u.: ».i:K.,n. . v:.;:nw::.:v::.i:4 rv';i.},+:{•+3v: n:....vv. r.....1 ::.l::•:w::::.v:{/. 4+,.•1• n: .nv: nv:::vn..:;n» .v:.vn.av.}W}y %tS: ir'titt•.wr: :m r r}nv}:4»:r m:\..».r..nr l~. ii r.n: v: F.nn; ..nl,. .h/,r:}l. i:•3•:'f .;+•irr;,w; n.C.. ..fM. ; N•F t",r. rr r-Y`•. f J...Frf.. +..n :}:1..,... }•.tvi:; :(".:Y.......n.....i......ui •:r;" v.. .:iwv . .:.f v./n.r lJ.r'r rff rf f: •+r-... r...r. n.v :Si:??'.;•: ?f..r:C?u2C4}?•:::t • .l...... r .Yfi. n.: w::;:.:::.. ....r??.:.:v:.::;:?4:: v .r.. r.. .....n...... •:.},..?E.:,.:. :..1 ...r ........:r+ ......,:.::.:.n r.... . n....:., ;.y.;~v .r. n..f .1f. ,.?.....14• . r.,.. , ../.n:+:!..L + v:::..:..,. +...Yt .......v.r.n•...............:; r F t.:...+..,...v,,..+3?:+..:.o.t•.u::•ici:r%i A..%, r ..+....n.n..t:.+. 4:.+...:..it....,..n...... ....r r..,:gii x,...,.:i:%:i%.:%~:+. +,.i%':i':. n::».., .:..m:t i.,.}»3,:...+ ..................................'k/,~...v!.::rr: :.r: :.:n :n r. 4f3f.•'• ~r : r{f.:n.4•yr: "•4"`!>•'r .,Y•x'+% l+aslank,ca or no and .............................+...........r... ..n.r.....:. r... r.. r.:....rnr..:..+.....:+.:::..::.<;r::~l..,.:. r. r 4< !^'r'..... • x:; ,rfr..JJ:i}iif{:%{:S!?.' l::fF 4•n;: r.. ri :•y::'. it .v':+f r ::::N.i•}i}:4:-:::i +:}:{/?ty,+•{. . f r f' 1. i::c4: r~: %4•.`:n^ , .;,rf. Yf . +1.f . before. i can of garbage $13.10 iif4Si%:'i'i::S: ' i?lf.+ifir•:?Sii;'•'::SiS?i.`•iS.v,':r}:iJ:Yiyr 8 ge 10 :.ysi... <:>fn rr>.•.•f;:•.<•<:.. Jrn: ......F.. r.l . J .::3i:~:::1:::.;Li!,:: ,v;,..i'.: ..3r.r: r;:: +,.'}3•;•33i;"i .rl:'`ii+.. r. »+~:,..,}:.+n„!. ~n!;,;+.n..{.:?y;:i+}':';1?;r: ••3;N:,kri:ir.;:% a•}iii;;:rt4?ii,..., n».. ..5<;..n+n. :J.l.' .Grr?'.• . J . aw.... <'tiS i ::,r.~:::::,:r.;•: :.:ty.,:x4::: it::ir%: n ~f} .n....n.•;:t:.,u;it::a;,.n..::{:;;:S::.ti::.::.:tt%::}::r.:l::i....r ,:r.}:t ..................Y...... .l: v::>..:..; .nv. ..;........v:::.,.,.:.,.l:i^;.:::.:.:+.;..{i}:{. r. ,!.F:,,rf..r:: ~:rr:, f. Yr/` f.: l,. f :r+r. r r .pF.nif. N. n4nvnn^:v]»:. ri+f.::r•;f::•: :4:::::,h. ..M .+rSh f.. :N. .F .F!... r. ::.v:n:......n....;. :::::n..:n;v..... :..v v:. nv::.:i:.:i:::::::.m:f .:3»W::: :r r: r: ~.r..::.ttr.. ...:........:::.v:::::::::..v::::::: w:: n,4: n:v... n...:.... .?r:?F.v:nflf.{fl rf..'!.{.. n/: ::::::::::.wn.r:........ n... .fnnl........ ».....v rt:.:: •.v::.i?.: n?v: - after. l can of garbage $13.10 $17.82 1 $15.51 $14.54 $15.87 $14.34 $16.51 f•~ than :::a:# <>:<„%» $4.72 , $241 $1.44 $277 $1.24 $3.41 Alternative B has a range of costs from $0.93.to $1.94 per month, with a mean of $1.44. B is lower than A' primarily because carts do not have to be purchased. For those residents choosing to lease carts, the range of costs runs from $2.26 to $3.27, with a mean of $2.77. This is slightly higher than A', although the service is identical, because of the reduced economy of scale of not providing carts to every resident. Alternative C is the same as A' but realizes cost savings from reduced recycling service. 'T'hus, monthly rates are projected to increase between $0.61 and $1.87, with a mean of $1.24. Finally, alternative D results in the highest rates under the new assumptions, ranging from $2.57 to $4.25, with a mean of $3.41. These higher rates are due to providing collection service weekly rather than every other week. Table 3-1 shows the impact of these rates upon four different types of households: 1. A household which is able to reduce its garbage service from 2 cams/ weCk t:, 1 can/week because of the yard debris service. 2. A household which is able to eliminate setting out 6 "extra" cans of garbage per year because of the yard debris service. 3. A household which is able to reduce its garbage service from 1 can/week to a minican because of the yard debris service. 4. A household which is not able to reduce its garbage service, either because it has minimal landscaping, a private landscaper hauls all yard debris away, or has already been diverting its yard debris through some other method, such as backyard composting, self-hauling, or illegal disposal. Households which are not able to reduce their garbage service will, of course, experience 100% of whatever rate increase is chosen. However, households which are able to reduce their garbage service will see a smaller net rate increase, or may even see their rates decrease. For example, under alternative A', a household which is able to reduce their weekly garbage set-out from one 32-gallon can to one 20- gallon minican would see their monthly net rate increase only $0.15. Under alternative B, if this household could fit their yard debris into a 32-gallon can collected every other week, their monthly net rate could actually decrease $0.82. Overview of the Cost Model The cost model used is similar to that provided by the haulers' in their proposal to the City. Drivers, support staff, trucks, truck operations, carts, processing, and avoided disposal costs are all listed as separate line items. Different assumptions are used to arrive at costs; these assumptions are discussed below. The cost model shows, for each line item, the quantity required, the unit monthly cost, the total Technical Memo #3 Pagf 3 HLA - 2,/94 monthly cost, and the per-household monthly cost. Assump ns are noted to the right of the cost•calculations. This cost model addresses only the incremental costs of providing this new service. That is, it allows for fractional quantities, such as trucks, drivers, and support staff. It assumes that drivers, support staff, and vehicles can be productively utilized in other functions and other franchise areas when they are not occupied with Tigard's yard debris program. Table 3-2 shows the cost model for alternative A, using the cost and diversion assumptions provided by the haulers. For alternatives A', B, C, and D; a range of assumptions are used, rrn-suiting in high and low cost projections. One final variable is exemptions. The issue of exemptions is discussed in greater detail in Technical Memo #2. Tables 3-3 through 3-10 show the high and low costs for alternatives A', B, C, and D assuming no exemptions. Tables 3-11 through 3-18 then show the effect of an assumed number (500) of exemptions upon each of these alternatives. The introduction of 500 exemptions is expected to raise rates for non-exempt ratepayers approximately 5% over rates when no exemptions are allowed. Technical Memo #2 also discusses a number of supplemental programs, such as compost bin distribution, grasscycling promotion, rebates for mulchers, and a ban on the disposal of yard debris. This cost model includes a line item under alternatives A', B, C, and D for a basic but comprehensive level of promotional and education. Assumptions Participation The haulers' proposal (alternative A) assumes that all 8,600 households currently served by regular garbage collection in the City of Tigard will be eligible to participate in the yard debris collection program. On any given collection day, an average of 90% of these residents are expected to set out yard debris for collection. Alternatives A', B, C, and D (without exemptions) also assume that all 8,600 households will be eligible for yard debris collection. Experience collecting recyclables and yard debris in other jurisdictions shows that weekly or bi-weekly participation rates are generally much lower than the annual participation rate. Therefore, these alternatives assume that on an average collection day, 60% or less of eligible residents will set out yard debris for collection. anti of Yard Debris Collected The haulers' proposal (alternative A) assumes that on each collection day, an average of 90% of 8,600 customers will set out an average of 75 pounds of yard debris. This results in average monthly collections of 630 tons. Expressed in a different way, Technical Memo #3 Page 4 HLA - 2/94 collection is assumed to be an average of 146 pounds of yard debris per drive-by each month. However, as discussed in Technical Memo #2, ya.-d debris collection programs in this region have historically collected between 21 and 36 pounds'per drive-by per month. The program with highest recovery (86 pounds per drive-by per month) is the City of Tualatin, which collects yard debris weekly in 90 gallon roll-carts. After Tualatin, the highest recovery is 50 pounds per drive-by per month. However, recovery is expected to rise as residents become more accustomed to these new programs. Therefore, for alternatives A' and C (bi-weekly collection of yard debris in 60 gallon roll-carts), a range of 40 to 80 pounds of yard debris per drive-by per month is assumed. Alternative B is the same as A' and C, except some residents will be using their own, 32 gallon cans, and therefore is expected to recover less, at an assumed level of 20 to 60 pounds per drive-by per month. Alternative D, with weekly collection in 60 gallon roll-carts, is expected to result in collection of 50 to 100 pounds of yard debris per drive-by per month. Cost of Yard Debris Processing Most yard debris collected in the Tigard area is currently.takcn to.Grimm's Fuel Company (on Highway 99 five miles west of the junction with Highway 217) and the Lakeside Reclamation Landfill composting operation (five miles west of the Progress Exist of Route 217 on Vandermost Road). These composting operations charge tipping fees; Grimm's tipping fee is volume-based; Lakeside's tipping fee is weight- based. All alternatives assume a tipping fee of $15 per ton of yard debris or volume equivalent. Diversion of Yard Debris from Garbage The haulers' proposal (Alternative A) assumes that 10% of the yard debris collected in the new system will come out of the existing garbage. The remaining 90% will be yard debris which is currently stockpiled, self-hauled, burned, composted at home, or illegally dumped. Unfortunately, little data is available from other jurisdictions to accurately assess the impact of yard debris collection upon garbage collection. Implementing yard debris collection does increase the total quantity of materials handled, however. With curbside collection in place, residents have a convenient and clean way of disposing of yard debris which might otherwise be kept on site or self-hauled. Therefore, alternatives A', B, C, and D assume that betty;:en 20% and 50% of the yard debris collected will come out of the existing garbage; the remaining 80% to 50% will be yard debris which is currently managed through some other means. 'technical Memo #3 Page 5 HLA - 2/94 W-V Avoided Cost of Yard Debris Dislsosal All alternatives (A, A', fi, C, and D) assume that yard debris no longer placed in the garbage will save the haulers $75 per ton, which is the current tipping fee at Metro's transfer stations. For the purpose of these cost estimates, no analysis has been conducted regarding changes in other cost,, such as waste collection, due to reduced waste set out at the curb. This effect is expected to be relatively minor. Number of Drivers and Trucks The haulers' proposal (alternative A) assumes that an incremental increase of 2.5 drivers and 2.5 trucks are required to collect yard debris at the curb. At bi-weekly collection, this equates to 344 drive-bys per day. The other alternatives assume that the number of drive-bys will be higher. If every household set out a yard debris container, then the collection efficiency for yard debris would 1'e close to that of garbage. For the City of Portland, the performance standard for garbage collection is 350 set-outs per day. However, not every ec-tea.... to ant out vary? debris every time. Thus; while the time 11vubCAWMA iD cYv~rca. J-- required to drive the route is constant, fewer stops will be required, thus reducing the time-consuming tasks of stopping and braking the truck, exiting the truck, emptying the container and returning it to the curb, and returning. to the truck. For Alternatives A', fi, and C, where collection is bi-weekly, the assumed collection efficiency is 500 drive-bys per day. This assumes that there is little difference in collection time between purely mechanized collection Wand C) and mixed manual and mechanical collection. At weekly participation rates of 60% or less, these 500 drive-bys would include 300 or fewer actual stops. Alternative D includes weekly collection. Under this alternative, a smaller number of households are expected to set out yard debris in any given week, leading to an assumption is 600 drive-bys per day. Assuming a five day work week, alternatives A', b, and C therefore require an incremental increase of 1.72 trucks and drivers; alternative D requires 2.87 trucks and drivers. As noted above, this incremental increase assumes that vehicles and drivers can be productively utilized in other functions and franchise areas when not occupied with Tigard's yard debris program. These assumptions also treat the program as though there were a single service provider. Cost of Drivers The haulers' proposal provided a monthly cost of $3,901.98 per FTE driver, which includes wage, healthcare, pension, social security, workmans compensation (at 10.1% of the wage), and other benefits and taxes. Technical Memo 43 Page 6 HLA - 2/94 i The other alternatives which rely exclusively on mechanical collection use the same assumption. For alternative B, which relies partially on manual collection of yard debris, the workmans comp rate was raised from 10.1% of wages to 12.0% of wages; all other costs remained the same. Cost of Trucks All alternatives assume that the capital cost of one new, semi-automated truck is $12<5,000, not including debt service. The haulers' proposal assumes that trucks will be amortized at 9.5% interest over 5 years. One municipality which was surveyed, however, reported that its automated collection vehicles, also purchased at $125,000, are expected to last 10 years. Thus, the other alternatives assume truck amortization at 9.5% interest over 5 years (high cost) or 10 years (low cost). All alternatives, including the haulers', assume that operations and maintenance costs for one truck is $816.42 per month. Number of Support Staff The haulers' proposal provided an estimate of 1.5 administrative.and clerical staff to support this program. Expressed differently, for each one driver, an additional 0.6 administrative/clerical staff are required. Implementation of the yard debris collection program will require up-front planning, purchasing, promotion, and customer relations. However, once the program is in place, none of the alternatives require major additions to customer service and billing. Therefore, it is assumed that for each driver, an additional 0.2 administrative/clerical staff will be required. For comparison, the City of Portland's yard debris collection rate model allows for between 0.14 and 0.2 administrative staff for each driver. Cost of Support Staff All alternatives assume that the monthly expense of support labor is $2,682 per FTE, including wage, healthcare, pension, social security, and other benefits and taxes. Carts The haulers' proposal includes the purchase of 8,600 60-gallon ventilated roll-carts at $46 per cart, amortized at 9.5% interest over 5 years. This results in a monthly per- cart cost of $0.97. Alternatives A', C, and 0, where collection is exclusively mechanized, use the same assumptions. Under the exemption scenarios (Tables 3-11 through 3-18), it is Technical Memo #3 Page 7 HLA - 2/94 ® assumed that only 8,100 carts have to be purchased. However, for Alternative B, households requesting a cart will have to lease it at adu~ expense fJL%-JM their franchised hauler. Fewer carts will be purchased, resulting in higher per-cart costs. In this alternative, it is assumed that carts will be purchased at $55 per cart. Amortized at 9.5%d interest over 5 years, this results in a monthly per-cart cost of $1.16. in reality, 1CitE; a:ai' w as gay a ew v c "a ws-e...1 ...o-- , _ S, although a longer amortization period has been used in any of the assumptions. Avoided Recycling Cost Alternative C includes a change in recycling service from weekly collection to every other week, alternating with yard debris collection. According to the haulers' most recent financial reports to the City, averaged together, the cost to provide recycling service is $3.95 per month. 7,345 households use this service. Halving the frequency of collection, however, will not cut the costs in half, due to fixed costs such as capital and promotion. It is assumed that reducing service by 50% will result in cost savings of 30%. Education The haulers' proposal did not include a line item cost for education and promotion. The other alternatives assume production and distribution costs of $1.20 per household per year. This may be sufficient not only to promote the collection program, but also some beneficial waste prevention promotion as well, such as a grasscycling campaign, as discussed in Technical Memo #2. Rebates Technical Memo #2 also presented the opportunity of providing residents with an alternative to collection service, without necessitating an exemptions procedure. All residents would pay a monthly fee; households not desiring curbside collection could be provided with backyard composting bins, or a rebate on a mulching mower and/or brush chipper. Implementation of such a program would need some careful planning. Costs of this program are not included in the cost models, as it is seen as an alternative, not a supplement to, curbside collection. Supplemental Program; ®ther'supplemental programs included in the list of alternatives in Technical Memo #2 have also not been included in the cost models. Costs for these programs could vary but are not expected to have differing impacts on different collection scenarios. Technical Memo #3 Page 8 HLA - 2/94 a> b rrancmase ree All alternatives include a 3% franchise fee on the total monthly cost. Rate of Return T--ha Tivarri C'n»neil'G noliev direction for solid waste rate development allows for a 8% to 12% aggregate net profit margin for haulers. Because this is a new program, and not without risk, all alternatives assume a 12% net profit. r Technical Merno #3 Page 9 HLA - 2/94 . i M, Z /2,i - STUDY SESSION OBJECTIVES Review Background for Yard Debris Program ® Coals ® Requirements Options Summarize Key Collection Alternatives ® Customer Service ® Yard Debris Diversion ® Relative Cost Review Supplemental (Non-Collection) Alternatives Receive Council Direction/Input on Alternatives & Options o -Pub- lic Information/Input (CI'Ts) ® Refine Cost Assumptions. ® Consultant Recommendation rmm~erwar ~ 2Z Council Study Session - February IS,, 1994 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon s k MEN=. 1 0 rm 1~~ Aft Y DIVERSION AL Metro's Regional Yard Debris Recycling Plan & Washington County Yard Debris Recycling Plan - Devised (11 /93): Yard Debris Goals: 67% by 1993 93% by 1996 1992 Regional Yard Debris Recovery Result: 45% 76,000 tons 1992 Metro Recycling Survey 22 lbs/hh/mo - drop-off jurisdictions 57 lbs/hh/mo - curbside jurisdictions 1992 Yard Debris Recovery for Washington County its Cities: 20% Metro Wasteshed Yard Debris Collection 11,000 tons System Evaluation (July 1993) Regional Overall Recovery Rate Requirement (OAR 340-90-050): 40% by 1995 Regional Overall Recovery Results: Recycling - 39% in 1992 Recovery - 43% in 1992 .1992 Metro Recycling Survey Counel Study Session - February 2,1994 Review anti Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program for the City of Tigard, Oregon - - - PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS CaeVe- 6r Promotion of Home Composting and rc,-Nos~ ®ak-~- Scheduled Collection Services - a Directed at Residential Generator ,a . On-Route Collection of Yard Debris from. ^ I b~ Residents - Minimum Frequency of Monthly CARS 495A July '92 Program Elements Menu for Metro Cities & UGE or Cities with > 10,000 pop. FIRST e residential recycling container (1 /93) ® weekly (same day) collection of recyclables ® expanded education. & promotion ® 1 of City's Choice (see bellow) Malta-Family or SECOND OPTION ® 5 of City's Choice CITY'S CHOICE ELEMENT'S ® residential container a yard debris collect. * weekly collection 9 commercial collection a expanded ed/promo ® expanded depots ® multi-family a rate incentives Council Study Session, February ,19994 ® review and Design of a Yard Debris collection Program ° for the city of Mgard, Oregon 3 17F REJECTED OPTIONS Seasonal Collection Monthly Collection On-Call or Alternative Day Collection Plastic Bags or No Containers Service Provided by Contactor Subscription Service Individual Service Exemptions Lin- ited Volume Basic Service Extra Material Without Charge Council Study= Session - February►,1994 o Review and Design of a Yard Debtis Collection Program 4 ®~„,e® for the City of Tigard, Oregon IN I s MEW L ALTERNATIVES. I~. am - COMMON ELEMENTS Year Round, Same Day as 'rash Collection' Uniform Service - No Individual Exemptions Encourage. Mini-Can/Reduced 'rash Service Promote Source Reduction Alternatives & C! /YA ■ ■ASA~~!\ ~eA«~v9.%U; a.®CLCULAD Extra Charge for Extra Set-Outs ALTERNATIVES A° Ei-Weekly, 60 gallon roll-cart iii-Weekly, 32 gallon can s+-~ 4-c> with 60 gallon r®11-cart option C Ei-Weekly, 60 gallon r®11-cart with decreased (bi-weekly) -recyclables collection Weekly, 60 gallon r®11-cart Council study session - February 1994 hm" W a Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program .for the City of Tigard, Oregon a COMLPA" DIVERSION CONVENIENCE RELATIVE © COST Bi-weekly 60 gal g- weekly 31160gal opt. C Bi-weekly 60gal,.w/. reduced 0 recycling Weekly . 60 gal t Council Study Session a February Irv 1994 M z Review and Design of a Ward Debris Collection Program 6 ZEN .1m for dm City of Tigard, Oregon y RELATIVE MONTHT-.Vr,..,OSqr $5.00 Haulers laroppsal $4.00 $3.00 ~n a~ll~n Oation • ~ $2.00 32 gallon L' ~C }<;vr< O ton $1.00 Bi--Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Weekly 60 gal. 32/60 gal 60 gal wl 60 gal Reduced Recycling - Council Study Session - lFebruu 1994 ~ a Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program 7 WEIM for the City of Tigard, Oregon SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVES Uniform Service - Class Exemptions Charge for Extra Material */or Volume Eased Service Level Options Alternative Service Options ® Hauler provides compost bins ® Mauler, chipper rebates Mauler mower rebates bate Damping Contingent on Tinning Collection Depots Ban on lard Debris Touchers for Depot Use Self Haul Assistance Xeriscaping/Crasscycling Promotion City/County Dole Aggressive Promotion Christmas Tree Recycling COQ Council Study Session - Vebruary 1994 ® L-0 Review and Design of a Yard Debris Collection Program 8 for the City of Tigard, Oregon !I I !all! 1 12 1 i!! i2:111! 1:; 1: lit CIA iii: ~;~ccrc~ ~s x COUNCIL POLICY DIREa^ea FOR SOLID WASTE RATE DEVELOPMENT • Maintain the- current rate subsidy of residential by commercial service line; • Maintain mini can (20 gallon) for residential mixed waste; • Rate modification shall be set to maintain the 8% -12% aggregate net profit margin for haulers; • Disposal fee adjustments will include franchise fees assessed on assumed weights; • New and existing solid waste programs should not require more City staff for enforcement; • Solid Waste Rates are currently based on the following service types: * Residential (cans and red bid recycling) * Mufti-Family (carts or containers and limited recycling items) * Commercial (carts or containers and limited recycling items) * Drop Box * Medical Waste t Es Pill NNNNMMM_ 111 E, M O R A N D. U All METRO . Date: November 29, 1993 To: TPACT/MPAC From: Andrew C. Cotugno, Planning Director Re: FY 94-95 Planning Department Budget Priorities For the past•several years; funding for the Metro Planning Department has been provided from the Metro General Fund (using an excise tax on Metro's enterprise functions), and a local goyerrment dues assessment (inclvd i nu Tri -t+ a A" 4-t:^ 10-rt Cf J Portland levied @ 434 per capita). However, a temporary increase of the excise tax from 6 percent to 7 percent is scheduled to sunset in July, 1994 and. there is considerable interest on the part of-Metro and local governments to eliminate the local dues assessment. In addition, there are increased costs associated with implementation of the Metro Charter, particularly to com- plete the work of-the Future Vision commission and initiate work' on the Regional Framework Plan. In August, 1993, the Metro Council formed a- Tax Study Committee to recommend a-funding source to meet the new charter-mandated functions. They reported their recommendations to the Metro Council on November 23 which included, among other things, a recommendation to continue. providing funds to Planning from the current Metro excise tax up to a maximum of 6-percent and to impose a constructiori excise tax and real estate-transfer tax to both pay for the increased costs and offset a 'eduction of the excise tax and elimination-of the local government dues. The Metro Council will.consider these recommendations through-the FY . 94-95 budget process. To initiate the budget process, the Metro Cauncil has required ^ that a base* level budget be submitted that is predicated on no new taxes, elimination. of the local government dues and reduction of the Metro excise tax from 7 percent to 6 percent. In the Growth Management section of the planning Department, this fund- ing reduction is further compounded by the loss of one-tine-only transporization grant funding of approximately $1 millio~,to - supplement the Region 2044 budget: This overall level o~ funding is significantly less than.currently budgeted in the Planning be-• partment and is insufficient to fund both current functions and a NINE November 29, 1993 Rage 2 new charter mandates. As such, input is needed on priorities for inclusion in 71,11is base b- udget. Attachment A provides a listing of FY 93•-94 and potential. FY 94- -95 programs and a summary of the-use of the dues and excise tax by section in.the Planning Department.. An analysis of the issues is as-follows: A. Regional Transportation Planning Section %'he dues and excise tax provide only 10--.2O.per cent of the budget for this section due to the availability of funding from federal grants, MOT and Tri-Viet. However, this is used' as local match and is therefore leveraged better than 4:1. ongoing programs relate to meeting new ISTEA and Rule 12 requirements. Increased emphasis has been recently recom- mended relating to development,of bike and pedestrian pro- grams and increased public involvement. B. High--Capacity Transit Planning Section This section is generally funded with federal and state grants and therefore the need for dues in--the General Fund is negligible. C. Growth Plana ement This is the section where the dues and excise tax makes up the most significant share of the budget due to the general lack of potential grant funding sources (with the exception of the Westside Station Area Planning and Earthquake Hazards mapping projects). It.i.s also the area where most of the impact of the new charter requirements occurs. The work program anticipates selecting an overall Region-2040 concept and completing the Future Vision. to serve as the foundation for the Regional-Framework Plan: The Framework Plan is required to include at least the following elements: _ 1. Transportation 2.. UGB 3. Urban Reserves 4. Housing 5. Urban Design 6. Open Space and Parks 7. Water Supply 8. Coordination-with Clark County mown= 3PACTjMPAC November 29, 1993 Page 3 The transportation 'element will be done through the RTP Revision (for ISTEA and Rule 12). The UGB, Urban Reserves, ''_'caaa Design a n, en. Space elements c~3nll,l.e3 Housing, Housing, Uiuand r....~.. be done on an integrated basis because they affect one another and need to be coordinated with the RTP Revision: The Water Supply element will be.done by coordinating with the Regional' Water Study being carried out by the providers. D. Travel Forecasting Like the Transportation Planning section, this area is largely grant funded with 5-10 percent local match from the dues and excise tax. A portion of this budget is used to provide services- to local governments to meet their needs for travel forecasts. E. Data Resource Center The aspects of this section dealing with RILIS, database main- tenance and forecasts are funded 25 percent each from dues, excise tax, transportation grants and solid waste funds because these are the major users of the data. The exception is in the area of technical assistance where each user gays its own full cost for services received. Local dues are used to provide services to local governments; Metro excise tax to provide services to other Metro planning projects; transpor- tation grants to provide services on transportation projects; etc. ACC:Imk Attachment v ATTACHMENT A Metro Planning Department Wortc Progr am FY- 93-94 Programs- Possible'FY 94-95 Programs Regional Transportation Planning RTP Update Major RTP Revision; Mew Transp. System Plan per Rule 12 TDM Study Air Quality Air_ Quality Willamette River Crossings Willamette River Crossings Transportation Imp. Program.: Transportation Imp. Program " Urban Arterial Fund Urban Arterial Fund ISTEA Management Systems ISTEA Management Systems Bike/Pedestrian Program Public Involvement Dues: $110,666 General Fund: $148,842 Used as local match on federal funds 10-209. ..HCT Planning Regional HCT Regional HCT Hillsboro FEIS SIN Pre-AA SIN AA SIN AA Westside Westside Dues: $4,065 General .Fund: $37,665 Used as part of local match pool for pre-AA studies. Growth Management Region 2040 Future Vision Future Vision Urban Reserves Station Area-Planning Station Area Planning UGB Administration -UGB Administration ;.vocal Gov't. Coordination NPAC/Local Govt. Coordination Growth Conference Growth Conference Earthquake Hazard Mapping Earthquake Hazard Mapping Emergency Mgmt. Committee Emergency Mgmt. CoThmitte_e Water Quality Planning Water Quality Planning -2- Metro Planning Department Work Program FY 93-94 Programs Possible FY 94-95,Programs iFn Reyiviici FtdnicevoriZ Plan: UGB Urban Reserves Housing Density. Urban Design Water Supply Open Space/Parks Clark County Coordination Transit-Oriented Development Program Dues: $160,000 General Fund: $961,548 These are the most important funding sources for this purpose; very little grant funding available with the exception of Earthquake Hazard mapping and station Area planning. Travel Forecastinc, Travel Behavior Survey Travel Monitoring Travel Monitoring Minor Model Refinement Major Model Building Technical Assistance Technical Assistance Dues: $42,607 General Fund: $43,282 Used as local match on federal funds @ 5-10.%-.- Data Resource Center RLIS RLIS Database Maintenance Database Maintenance Forecasts Forecasts Technical Assistance Technical Assistance Dues: $280,225 General Fund: $233,125 Dyepartxent Total: Dues: $597,563 General Fund: $1,424,462 Provides 50% of budget for RLIS, Database Maintenance V and Forecasts; dues provide 100$ of budget for technical assistance to local govern- ments. PLPKSROO.OL 3I-29 4MAOGlak H t MET- , . ® 'O, a s•A Mvw e a ems- AO% & A A A I -N- 1.V/I 1!/I i 1 4. M E:-.;. AND OEDAION RE C " T.-OTH E-! Q~ NOVFMBER 1.5,,:1993.'. , Metro Executive Officer ® Rena Cusma Metro Councilors by District: Metro Tax Study Committee members: District 1 Susan McLain Wayne Atteberry, Chair ie$rirf 2 `!n.. -tad EIM"acca III loll 1i11cIC7, Vice Chair District 3 Jim Gardner Mike Glanville District 4 Richard Devlin Charlie Hales District 5 Mike Gates Darlene Hooley District 6 George Van Bergen Philip Kalberer District 7 Ruth McFarland Wally Mehrens District B Judy Wyers Ray Phelps District 9 Rod Monroe George Scott District 10 Roger Buchanan Gene Seibel District 11 Ed Washington Amoy Williamson District 12 Sandi Hansen District 13 Terry Moore Metro staff: Jennifer Sims, Director of Finance and Management Information Craig Prosser, Financial Planning Manager Robert S. Ricks, Senior Administrative Services Analyst Rooney Strom, Administrative Secretary Metro Financial Advisor: Public Financial Management, Inc. Metro is the directly elected regional government that serves Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties and the 24 cities that make up the Portland metropolitan area. Metro is responsible for solid waste management, operation of the Metro Washington Park Zoo, regional transportation and land-use planning, urban growth boundary man- agement, technical services to local governments and, through the Metropolitan Exposi- tion-Recreation Commission., management of the Oregon Convention Center, Civic Stadium and Portland Center for the Performing Arts. t Eli; iliginumBougumm 900 NORTN9 AST GRAND AVENUE I PORTLAND. OR:GOH 97:57 2719 TSL SO) 797 1100 fAR SOS 797 1791 A` 0" NnyomFtar 15% 1 9 93 METRO The Honorable Rena Cusma, The Honorable Judy Wyers, and the Metro Council Metro 500 N.E. Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 Dear Executive Officer Cusma, Presiding Officer Wyers, and the Metro Council: Enclosed with this letter is the final report of the Metro `r ax Study Committee. The Committee held its first meeting on June 30, 1993, and is presenting this report by November 15, 1993, as requested in the Resolution which formed the Committee. During this time, we have held 19 public meetings and have reviewed extensive materials presented by Metro staff. We involved eight individuals representing significant interests in the Metro community in the work of our subcommittees, and held three public hearings as required by your charge to us. As you will note, our recommendations address Metros needs in both long-term and short-term time frames. We feel that in the long-term it is important for Metro to go to the voters to ask for broad based funding support. This is necessary because of the general benefit to all members of the Metro community from the work of Metro and because of the opportunity this will present to better educate voters about the good work and benefits of Metro. We recognized, however, that it takes time to build support for a broad based solution, and that Metro does not have the time needed to do so if it is going to comply with its Charter-mandated responsibilities. Because of this, we recommend that Metro look to a combination of a Construction Excise Tax and a Real Estate Transfer Tax to fund these needs over the short-term. We also recommend that these short-term solutions sunset after four years to ensure that Metro considers a long-term solution to its funding needs. iR.7l.r 1RCf` The Honorable Rena Cusrna, The Honorable Judy Wyers, and the Metro Council November 1-S; 1993 During our three public hearings we heard considerable testimony opposing these short-term tax sources. Despite this, we still feel that they present the most realistic option for Metro to pursue in the short-term. As the Metro Council proceeds with its consideration of this report, we encourage you to work with affected groups and local governments to craft a solution which deals with their concerns while still generating the necessary funds for Metro. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this important project. We found this to be a most interesting assignment, and we wish you the best as you proceed through the next phase of consideration. Sincerely, V V ayr , Pltietu MUe-erry, Chair Tax Study Committee ii Metro Tax Study Committee Report November 15, 1993 BACKGROUND In Ncvember 1992, voters approved a Charter for Metro. Prior to this time, Metro's authority had been granted by state legislation. For the first time, Metro was granted authority and responsibility directly by the voters for programs. These programs include Metro's traditional regional functions: solid waste disposal, convention and spectator facilities, the zoo, and regional planning, but most importantly, also include significantly expanded responsibilities in the area of regional planning. The Charter also provides a mechanism for Metro to assume responsibilities for other functions in the future. The Charter mandated Metro to prepare a Future Vision for the metropolitan region. The Future Vision will identify a 50-year vision of the region's population levels and settlement patterns which can be accommodated within the physical, educational and economic resources of the region. The Future Vision must be completed by July 1, 1995. The Charter also mandates Metro to prepare a Regional Framework Plan by December 31, 1997. The Regional Framework Plan shall address 1) regional transportation and mass transit, 2) management and amendment of the urban growth boundary, 3) protection of lands outside the urban growth boundary, 4) housing densities, 5) urban design and settlement patterns, 6) parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, 7) water resources and storage, 8) coordination of growth management and land use with Clark County Washington, and 9) planning responsibilities mandated by state law. The Charter granted Metro expanded authority and responsibility, but it did not grant Metro a source of funding to pay for these responsibilities. Instead, the Charter provided a mechanism for the Council to use in adopting new funding sources. The Charter grants Metro broad taxing powers, but requires that any taxes of general applicability be approved by the voters prior to implementation. In addition to general taxes, Metro has authority +lo impose taxes of a more limited nature, applying only to limited classes of payers. These taxes do not require prior voter approval; however, they must be reviewed by a Tax Study Committee prior to implementation. 1` . SEE Metro Tax Study Committee. ' Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 The Metro Council designated certain key areas for study by the Metro Tax Study Committee. As stated in Resolution 93-1813A (included in Appendix A) the key areas are: Planning. Functions Transportation • Growth Management Greenspaces Emergency Management Data Services Other Special Projects and/or Studies ® Regional Parks and Greenspaces Operations ® general Government Operations - Executive Management - Council - government Relations Audit or In preparing for the work of the Tar, Study Committee; Metro projected its needs over the ensuing five years, and worked with its financial advisor to research various funding options. COMMITTEE PROCESS Metro staff presented the results of the needs projections and funding options research to the Committee. The staff also briefed the Tax Study Committee on the organization and structure of Metro. A list of the revenue options that staff presented to the Committee is included in Appendix S. The Committee then broke into three subcommittees to examine specific aspects of the funding requirements and to develop draft recommendations for the full Committee. The three subcommittees were Fiscal Policy and Philosophy, Functions, and Revenue Sources. Each of the subcommittees supplemented their membership with interested individuals representing significant interests in the community. A complete list of all Tax Study Committee members and subcommittee members is included in Appendix C. Subcommittee #1 (Fiscal Policy and Philosophy) Subcommittee #1 was directed to recommend key philosophical/policy choices in the selection and adoption of new funding sources. The subcommittee discussed the approach that Metro should take in the search for new revenue sources and also identified key policy approaches that Metro should adopt to govern-the management of any new resource. The subcommittee expressed a strong preference for Metro to go to the voters for approval of a new broad-based source of revenue as a long-term solution to Metro°s funding needs, but recognized that a broad-based revenue probably could Adam& 2 Metro Tax Study Committee Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 not be put in place in times to comply with the Charter-mandated deadlines for the preparation of the Future Vision or the 2040 Plan. The subcommittee therefore identified a short-term approach for Metro based on the use of the existing Excise Tax for General Government and a new niche tax or taxes for Planning. The subcommittee prepared a chart placing the niche tax revenue sources presented by staff on a continuum from Narrow to Broad with a recommendation that the new tax be as broad- based as possible. That chart is included in Appendix D. Subcommittee #1's recommendations formed the basis of the Committee's Funding Philosophy recommendations. Subcommittee #2 (Functions) Subcommittee #2 was charged with the review of Metro's needs projections to determine: ® Were needs adequately presented (over or under projected)? ® Of the needs presented, which should be funded? ® How should start-up costs for emerging issues be treated? ® What are the priorities for funding? The resolution which created the Tax Study Committee specifically directed the, Committee not to conduct an in-depth review of Metro's budget, because the Council reserved this responsibility for itself. Subcommittee #2, therefore, did not attempt to conduct an examination of the budget. Rather, the subcommittee focused its attention on the needs projections and the assumptions used in making those projections.. The subcommittee also discussed Metro's categorization of its needs into "Current Programs & Charter Requirements," "Additional Charter Requirements," and "Additional Requirements and Enhancements." The subcommittee reorganized this categorization into "Mandated," "Not Mandated but Authorized," and "Optional." The subcommittee recommended that Metro fund only the needs in the first two categories, "Mandated" and "Not Mandated but Authorized," which total $7.9 million in FY 94-95. In conjunction with this re-categorization, the subcommittee removed all contingencies which were imbedded within the original needs projections and replaced them with a 5% Forecast Contingency. In addition, the subcommittee added a $300,000 Seed Money category to provide start-up funding for new projects. The subcommittee was also concerned that a major, element of any governmental funding requirement is for salaries and benefits for employees, and recommended that Metro should bargain toward an incentive-based salary system. Salary surveys should be conducted to ensure that Metro salaries are competitive. Subcommittee #2 also recommended that Metro closely examine its activities to ensure that functions that can be done by the private sector are done by the private sector. mom Will I Metro Tax Study Committee Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 Finally, subcommittee #2 discussed the relationship between Metro's regional planning efforts and planning programs at the local level. The subcommittee developed a recommendation to emphasize the importance of communication between all levels of government. The recommendations of subcommittee #2 provided the basis for the Committee's recommendations on Functions and Needs. Subcommittee #3 (Revenue Sources) Subcommittee #3 was charged with identifying new revenue sources, based on the work of the first two subcommittees. Specifically, subcommittee #3 was requested to: Identify likely revenue sources, o Identify linkages to functions, ® Identify political acceptability and related issues, ® Receive public testimony and cornim, ant, Identify impacted parties, and ® identify legislative outcomes and preliminary Committee recommendations. The subcommittee's work was directed by the results of the other two subcommittees. The policy directions recommended by the first subcommittee and the size requirements recommended by the second subcommittee were used in evaluating the tax options. Subcommittee #3 narrowed the list of niche tax options presented in the staff s original Strategic Funding Report to four: ® Construction Excise Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax ® Utility Account Tax © Off-Street Parking Tax. The subcommittee then met with interested parties and developed a list of pros and cons for each of the four sources (included in Appendix E). The subcommittee's preferred option was to use a combination of the Construction Excise Tax and the Real Estate Transfer Tax to even out the impact on new construction versus existing construction. If for any reason these taxes are subjected to a vote, they should ba "linked" on the ballot. Otherwise, if one passes, the amount will not be sufficient and the impact will be skewed. The following chart presents a preliminary analysis of the potential rates needed for these two sources to generate $3 or $5 million to fund Metro's needs. Descriptions of the Construction Excise Tax and the Real Estate Transfer Tax are included in Appendix F. 4 SIEMENS= I Preliminary Revenue Potential (D O O X aCO Additional ;0 " C Revenue Target ($3 minion) (Revenue Target ($5 million) Information 0 C Rate 11 `Impact Rate Impact 3 0 % of Revenue, of (S per on property value of % of Revenues of Per on 3 O Target , Property value of Start-up & Admin Costs (MID vofue) thousand $150,000 $ I m11 target MO 1 value) mousanC) $15U,OW $ 1 mil Negligible 7 3 a - ; 03 Construction 100% $3.0 ; 0.275% $2.75 $413 $2,750 100% $5,1 i 0.165% $4.65 . $698 $4.650 Implementation Timeline: (D Excise Tax 75% $2.3 ; 0.205% $2.05 i • $308 $2,050 75% S18 0.345% $3.45 i $518 S3A50 Within 1 year 3 (D 50'x, $1.6 .0.140% $1.40 ; $210 $1,400 50% $2,5 ; 0.230% $2.30 ; $345 $2,300 rn d f , r implementation Action: ' Inter-govt A reement , r , Start-Up: $250,000 Annual Admin: S 100,000 Real Estate 100% S3.0 :0.085% $0.85 i $128 $850 100% $5.0 :0.141% $1.41 . $212 $1,410 01 transfer Tax 50% $1.6 110.045% $0.45 S68 $450 50% S25 0.071% $0.71 5107 $710 Implementation Timeline: 25% $0.8 ; 0.022% $0.22 ; $33 $220 25% S1.3 , 10.036% $0.36 $54 $360 Within 1 year Implementation Action: Inter- ovt A reement Note: 1. Figures are approximate and for prellminary study only. 2. The above figures do not account for delinquency or admrnlstratlve costs I z O (D 3 Cr (D CY) is ` (Q W PmpomdDyA)bkfhandar&*wxv menthe. Metro Tax Study Committee Report and Recommendations November 15, 4 11979131 The subcommittee was concerned about the costs of implementing these two revenue sourcas if they are only viewed as a short-term solution. If these taxes are implemented on a short-term basis only, the implementation costs may not represent a reasonable investment. Specific findings of the subcommittee concerning these two preferred funding options include: Construction Excise Tax (A tax imposed on new construction or additions) The total revenue potential of the Construction Excise Tax could cover all of Metro's projected need. • The subcommittee recommended that Metro adopt some limitations such as exempting small projects or certain types of projects (such as public projects, low income nrajacfs; etc.). Some subcommittee members expressed concern that residential real estate should not be exempted from the Construction Excise Tax because residential property creates greatest planning demands. The subcommittee noted that differentiated tax rates could be applied to help implement growth management goals or other planning purposes. The subcommittee identified two possible bases of applying the tax: a. rate expressed as a per of valuation (preferred), or flat rate per square foot (not preferred). ® The subcommittee found that the Construction Excise Tax is not subject to Measure 5 although it relates to property. ® The subcommittee expressed concern that the data base available to Metro and the subcommittee was limited. Work needs to be done to refine accuracy of the analyses on the Construction Excise Tax. Real Estate Transfer Tax (unposed on the buyer when real property changes ownership) . he subcommittee noted that during negotiations for the Metro (Excise Tax authorization, the Governor of Oregon was told that the meal Estate Transfer Tax would be seriously reviewed as a revenue source. 6 Metro Tax Study Committee FReport and Recommendations Novembe. 15, 1993 ® The subcommittee cautioned that if the Beal Estate Transfer Tax is adopted and the Legislature overrides the Governor's veto of HB 2883, which extended the state-wide moratorium on use of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, Metro could lose any money collected to date of override. Subcommittee #3 also reviewed the Off-Street Parking Tax (a flat tax levied against parking spaces) and the Utility Account Tax (imposed on customers of utilities), but the subcommittee felt that their disadvantages outweigh their advantages. The primary reasons these taxes were not. recommended included: legal concerns, the difficulties in imposing and collecting the taxes and the difficulties in managing them. The chart of pros and cons (in Appendix D) provides a more complete listing of the aspects considered. The subcommittee also noted that both of these taxes may involve taxing other governments. The iegal. authority is uncertain and would need further research if the sources are to be considered. Subcommittee #3 also presented findings on additional revenue sources, though they ,were not included in the sl!hcnmmittee recommendations: • Gas tax and rotor Vehicle registration both are currently authorized by the state Constitution only for highway use and planning for highways. They are not authorized for any other planning or non-highway function. Metro cannot put a Constitutional Amendment to broaden the use of these directly onto the ballot; that can only be done by the Legislature or the initiative process. Metro could adopt a gas tax under its Charter authority without prior approval by the voters, but proceeds would still be subject to the constitutional use restriction. The Oregon Transportation Plan recommended amending the Constitution to permit use of the Vehicle Registration Fee for broader purposes but that has not been approved by the voters. Local jurisdictions also currently have authority to.adopt a local motor vehicle registration fee in addition to the state registration fee. This fee would require approval by Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties and the City of Portland. This fee must also first be approved by the voters. ® Voluntary Local Government Dues are still appropriate to support functions of Metro. The subcommittee recommended continuing the dues, but noted that- local government dues cannot be made mandatory by Metro. In FY 93-94, local government dues generate approximately $600,000. ® Fees for Services are of interest to the subcommittee, though it was not sure how to obtain market information, cost of services and revenue estimates. 7 dailmi -o . Metro Tax Study Committee Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 Finally, subcommittee #3 recommended that Metro adopt a moratorium on any future use of new property taxes (except for taxes for voter-approved General Obligation bonds). • Intergovernmental cooperation regarding Measure 5 is an important bond rating factor.., Since Metro has outstanding General Obligation bonds and may wish to issue new General Obligation bonds for the Greenspaces program, it also needs to be concerned about its rating and the importance of this cooperation. Therefore, the subcommittee recommended that Metro take a pro-active stance by imposing a moratorium upon using property taxes as a long-term revenue source until either compression ceases to be a problem or the affected governments agree jointly to that use.' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REVIEW The work of the Committee was conducted over a five-month period, from late June to mid November 1993. During that period, the Committee held 19'public meetings and 3 public hearings in each of the three counties within the Metro region. The Committee distrib:: ed over 800 copies of its draft report to local governments, affected groups, and interested individuals prior to the public h ea, ings. The Committee received written and oral testimony from individuals and groups at its public hearings. A complete list of individuals and groups *submitting written and.oral testimony to the Committee is included in Appendix G. The issues most often raised in this testimony included: Too many fees and taxes on property. ® The impact of taxes on affordable housing. ® The need for a broad base of payers. ® The need for more time for the education and involvement of local governments and affected interest groups. ® The need for Metro to prove its case for additional funding. After the public hearings, the Committee reconvened to discuss the testimony presented and, as a result, modified several of its recommendations. The Committee's final recommendations are shown in the following section. ' i 8 Metro `fax Study Committee Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 FUTURE ACTIONS Once the Council receives the report of the Tax Study Committee, it will hold additional hearings and deliberations and may take action to adopt a new funding source. The Council is not bound to follow the recommendations of the Tax Study Committee, though it cannot adopt a non-voter approved fund source which has not been reviewed by a Tax Study Committee. G 9 :.Yhy.:' a'~'/'y~a{'~',''}lty .:`I`':;'S F:+ y ~ti' rty,. - ^'~r 'll•r - :I.- `Ypti^ ,i•fl v ^sek. i.i •I,i' -•1=". J rf, t i,+r' } 7.,, f }7t5 .t .n rk'}r r\ 9t s > i t € a yYSl1l,{ r i~.ry 5f~,~ Se h t 1 L1 ; MA X. L' V' "I".'~~.""."~,~;""..,~,~'~,;,i.;-t~~;i,,,~~",-"!"~-,'~~,,,~~~~~,~ ~,;~~""Ii""~ll'~'ll"~-"~-~'I'l""I~,"~,,~""I"-.,i~.', , ~ j", :'I.t. ! ~ : ,rl t TbY i, 7 ~.f, f { I f J c .1,n Yr -n'>'til } it ( i t j' l f I' ~y r, .V.6Yro i•Y ax iV Iru dommi, ee RecomrnendationS Fv > 7., i' v,ri, r A ru5 1~`4 . t ; .t 1y Novemce~ 15, 19g ^}.Y t ! J r P t 1 J J t, 1. + - H „ r, +4 S'i G R t' r f R A` ry f a r, F 1, F? t7 ti9. t t~un~ing p?EIOlt~soahy 4~t A ,r '4~,,, it t 11.111- } 1 th 1 '..J d '}Q t' } ) `s hP t a~ t r J 7. i a J' S l 4* I~F.lrpos®' t 1 -x , a '~<1P t- 5 i r: V T T I P + 7 r yrr X t Iln d r k Jt ,t,,Thes e~iailc~saph serves a referen 'point fbf thg Metro Tax Study ,r i'F'°„i„ ` r,. S,Cd~rirnltt+ee lt;eddras;;ea°idenfifiednevvfti~:dicig.rieeda"for^~lannin g, t;s x' y ~;ira eisp ces,an ' Parks, grid General Goererniment: 1=t r{t6 y '1 Z t, ~ " " . , . x:'A1 3',st . 1e'_AM1 >is-,^ Y,l f t ^ r ` 4rl'' r.4,nA Yl'r 1 1 4 Y { JK t f t 8: G6-.- . ~tafdmenta i. x a . ' f s' ` 1 r ` Ivla$co sho"Id;'use prudent 1,fl-Piricia! management, effectiv6 operating ` . y~ r , r + , prectpceS, arid arid'.'St efFeptiV@ process management to enjl ! effeCtlVe „ y ease csf'`e~iis in® .v resburca-' t " 't f " f , `larlning should be tli first pridnty for the recommended Cenral Fund a t <,.;; 3 IVIe€io s61p:aid ci'eat@: a Gansral Fund tee acca~unt f®r the costs of:Generel 7a` r anrripg, stac~t-up'cgses for new. pr®,®cts (prior to ~f ~ $u „ ; I ;fever."ni i~nt PB a~3 s r t u ; = ideritiffy' ing fund sources);, end CreehO,'i es`operati©r~s and maintenance Theeneral,l=find revenue soi.irce:; •should c~me.,from'a braad based riven suchiasA ndome,or property,tax (sG Jed to the rnoratoriLim cn fhe'u~e of pr®perty.tax s recomrriended in item tll. ® ~ in .1111, „r, 7 ; th6:lon terr~i, but In;tl'ie short term. should c®ms from Excise Tat or a I f broad based niche tax L{ pY` „1! a r - j - V"-.,-_.a 4 . And tax source should be leviec9 to match revenues to needs arid. to ,'k i prevent over cr-untl®r callections: " 11Z , ¢}t 1 4 C - J, r _ ) _ - nctioiis of general b@nefi#'to the citizens of Metrc►:should tie:;. lfic bane t r;- supported by a; enerel revenue:sour~; fuoctioni of spep , F TY'47' ah~~li~ lae,supported by s reletecl:(ni' 4tiiyenue source. + ~ r } `i t , )Kt S Meitro ighbuld not d6dlcate gen' ' - or Hari sp~ci c revenues to a _ 11 ~i3rtkUl'O,functidh 'phis will allbw'tlh'e Ccuricil,t6 d:rapt general ;.;s« = t , revenues to functions a needed to riieet current prlorities'for service d ) E' Y i i X t> 4 'p t r rl s 7 ~rt i y,L [ V~~~`, % . 1. , - - - - ~ , - ` ~ - , z , . , - - ; , ~ I - , ~ i . , ~ - " , I t-,",'~, .0 """.1, ,~%4~~i":~Q-.i~:'i'_~'~ 1 Y'~.%-' 4~'r'l 1~ - , , " . , ~ , . : , " I I , , , I I ~ r , _ . , x " ,'..J k-- v^ 1.1f1r (y') r~..i' Ai i` t l Y 44. _ I s 3>,- u +xr< N= i~ x rtcP' ,d k t- rtu`~e••i riF A~??r"idz+ 7`S' i5't Y.e= i cl ) I h'- r. rv• l,,n".: S.J xe a~A ;'~~.r.: 7. I.'}~ t, i'+^'~: x, 1 _'.r• ! r .^^yn rv~ S- i t Pr^.,nl I,v ur<' `}r.,~l o-.fd.NC ♦u .tr ,;c ,7. l,. J $ 'w,;` :yC. r'{ 'G'''%''3...>di{,.5.s,:,14.•i..yy,.,?s,..,^r: :ti-, ,t{:;.;yq:. .;'.7rr-r.r.'; ,~,.a.,:-_at; .•r. ~'i-; ! -,4 ;,ts~~v;„1 .k,.3r»,. •rr_ +`1>t` ..?t. ,S)-~",..:,~,` '~n1:S'^ ':i' ...5 :r:;~ °:7:^^b.h r.,rili}},,•trY. :'S"~ K~a.t.r ;-t. ,rlf ,ti T''i2 C: >r i. 4,~;~r.`:r; iir',:"'" 't t :5_.. ::S ,'-7t:; 'df ~w; `~4", :-;;%,y;o-,.„,ffr w i.i.'*Y<r~1,^~• ~t.,7,_ ;r,r„r ..,7:k J' w )S .r. t: .;'~,t^ 6'1 rpr,-~~I, ,b::h:pe7+-v ~a#.~-.wl :":7 ,;y>;, ;.tT ;:.}.~'~,S.n^y.-. Yi;'a`r~u'•:.>L,.., v..'!! 't t..+ 'r S S, r I ';s ~::1S:d:rii`'sr'rm~• .;.r`,£~2"..'tuts<NtxSli'.+r"5'i~l`:-.r rnr,.~?.,vi.; xv,w,rt;:ia5%7a.~`n;.~ ctrl; ~,'irr•r..sa :~.u,:; 1.ir,c,..,s.,.,...,.' v'`°.°~'ti'.tiF!'7. V: .~4±+cv~ ;1.'r+• F~ ~Y."°.i%" wV..,. .1.,.. - ~i1~• 'd ;i: f - :.;r,l "u iN{=,{.rzv..~:r'vs.:? :,>,:n.7,`;•;»u,,~.,1.;9~.Mi`;'i:;;ai~u 5✓, ;Ar;,.>'~ y;, r+ z 'tk " c..: 21x ^ y v M a r> y rp y x., o- :..at;}, y, rr.r9 `T•^"1 h Y~D~ °"w'',r' s;+wt,. ";G'Md.Ak~r:~79~.'Seal~;4_ti•+e'" 7,. 'N..• _r.,~r s on I ,...a . , . r: 'mot:' e a _ a S , :k n f.>,Y>Jn44. %•fi•'r : G : t11Y µ 1 b. r ^tt 5°,'c* 6 + u' r;..' . c1I r WEEIMS j^i•~'-^,t?°` Dyr t f4~'t dr S"^.:^;y?~'4=y '~M'' fW x r k'y,w:,'w.'r r6 r. m ' 3 r J { ~ ~ ,~1 IVleteo, ! Stioady ~i mittee 15 1993 November , ti , RIP'' . -`-d R'-N!`~rnw3ndatio s fl x fi„i r<: idt ! ,.x` 2 y I7 ! c , Y aaTt,irSa >r r r, r 4, Llr Itr wk 1,i Y At t 1' } , v,V`lfiJ ,.if{',,iv" .JSr r { i ~ ! r, ,.•+:iY k t } .F r y„ ,ar U r Mt °f , f i>i e rY 7t ~Istr~ sftioi3f dvta; ire r~roeirtaI~i divarefied'ravi~ri~aa s$resms f®r al l :L- li,.~ ,irk y fir, {r4 irL Yf t Ps, + •„+i , i r y - r~. X funds tea ~r?x eP-:fr®m short . fiUduations.'in ary one sc uroa an to d ~vpRd mvar burdenrr9g any Afte Class of payers. ,an' s e t ti J v.' ~;';:',t° ~ f B`~'; API fur~pt'ons assued;by I~t#etrd shoauPd pay their fair:shara &f general ;`a , A t, , 7 Tx ~ u ~ t ' , s ri~ ~x~ rv0rh+sad'rots aid ~xcisa Tax, ~f i®viad. - I- 14 z.: ,f4 .,d r J tf x is -,3 t, t 2 1 7 e 't4 C ! nF J u J - ^I "'I.t,:"' .,up ing for ~iandated f~anetid ni should be sarelred prior to any funding n : :=.r^ :4 rr'a -I I ~.b 63Jn=r a, - ed item^~:. ; ll~ 5:.1. _ _ fit. C"~`Srl .t er ",`acl t ,,lt,'x;> L_, _ _ , I'll r, r k 10 effro hpu~d g® tg the votear,'s`$o axpand:the base of ,support for its ,~i 4, fl {i pragras irr $he region This cart bq done in conjunction with asking S it 1, v, t / ? 4 l S r ' . - - voters for authority faa a br®ed base $ex r, '4i Z. l R L 1 J r" 'r 1T _ ° 3 r"tr! s 11 larjda$es innpesed 6y,the pe3uple3 should be supported by voter T o r r r approved fund sources t ! I s a f r r _ ~'x 12 In ~thes veri$ that M6i'ro fails tc~ secure permanent, broad, besed„furit~irig X4 r M- -l I " r, ' < , 1aftei°°.e"' ` o ion``" ff' ears, "MOr®should refar.a~ measure -to $he pepple "x _ > } ° M. `arter're uiaari®ritfar ra coeiaP €rarerro'k` j;: a eithsrr t®ti arttc v $ha Ch ;q g e!,'' A iV b„ learnn~in(J ""®Pto rt~V4 ~I ~tPi°tra~ltl$.seUrG`~TTtinding .r = 1 - .s, x o- r l S r, y C+ 1 Prior i6 adopting a niche tax (td fund i•te~ds in the shart Left) Me tro _ 7 } >b4F' t,z g r ' r shou~e3 adopt-findings to adoress the following; ~t¢r:, J~7 '4r x - t \ -j*r,r'~1'llyU t s " - `"t 'f a c, }3 e 4at; arevve uii ~a$ e~c s ru~sive~ et i:s°4;F$[ o ~t ed IeJ P gdve i inient p'ianne rs to - identify co`t savings arriir atian of Wtro's budget tcs identify cost savings which can. „t be eonvertdd to covsr'thp cost of un unded planning ne6ds - , y f>} , c ,Metro snaring'revenues with.tcc! govarn►ments for local planning ''d u l < rfa ty ;a n evTftartS z r~. .5 l - ve- Gcvemmsn$ u P°s~r~ding,tpr Ger3eraPove3rniinant (Exiacti, D , "RePa$ions, Aesdi$oi°, start i p cost , c®nti!~gency;.and fund balance) ,/k '1 r 'i } a t f t Iran ;'Terrri ~rrior4l ~:years) d, ,.a.a•, c, _ 1 _ 'f't - T 'S r k 1 t t ir. i,~y,. :,J 1.1".1111il F ) 1 6, ~,r x t ' t 1 t iUla's Seriarai Gevrnrnent function is of broad binetit tee eitizens `A r ; Js fRx?.>, the""r gi6'h-, `~hdri3 brd,,fuMing sh' U be broad based:`fri rn.eoi$har an s t 1 a Incci ei r .i ,drty t6k (tu0ject ta;th6 rrtoratori~ m dni tP"ii `ease of property 4 y 1 ` * dr, r {ta aszrec+carnrt~e nde d in item Iii 'i3 ) ti Y r 3~ t r y of ~k .r r j fcr z'r r ii l1 d i,v - 7 4~ r r 'a , r, i' ' 1, ,,da t' d{ '3 .:x;,.: •lre IY, r f ,r "fir e:l},.~ . >*',,..i-'`..:.'., sz, + z„ r.F..r s 1- J't E5 it:2:~^,^,'i«r:'~;rri1 L~.4 'r, S !t i. 1, r,i"-~' .`ii,`t,.k 1+,4'l r', ."L-'•• S.1 Ji, ✓ 1 t ! f J Mis. 5 l~ .i -C; 4,t^ .d? S •U•• .,;'S""°' .{r 't, "+M+y i'y;, SLt \'S •F.f , r M>S.~' :et--, rte z,,.sa. S m `.s r r fi - Y:k. - yu 3 LyY GT " f°.t 4rv _ .:1'i ^ .'•c-•. i' ..:a- ¢,..,•r r.x di:«:5•-„ „Yi 3 .,.•r4.: ^f r•m .,w}lw':r ,.W-, .,)1.,~'t... .Y,^i t -r' 'r - , t h.,.a?k~,~ti;:••SS: ^sa`.'^ :.i": '.az• ; i , S.t:.alL^~:. a 121e M; `1s11-' .`l.:', _3rs; :5.,, t•Wf r,y F - >l.tr. s. 4'i' y "^-:v;a, ,s r.'Jt'r x . ~="r-d• .„j'!S',s n k'' yy:..,ar 3t . 1 r ~•3,~.l ,.4+ Skr- a'i 'e'S,.... ~s,:.,. , t , i. (vro,7if % c . •-r ~'~r` - w , i ..3~<rr- S fi: y . - " k ^ : •l .1 is s.', Vt ,,...x,,, t J•av "nee 3 'aa ep. ~ Y' 2 n^' % ~'„s». :~s-",'J~t ,ra. ,r ~7~•{ 'i'. •sa yw: ,v,, . te . ' -t~"r"•.:j 11 ^.t of"• .SYr, F r*:`~• r k. 'r`.fr .+t,. ,r,!:'„• n e 'r^:~r ~ u J.; y.: . `r{, , •.ts Sr1.ir. .N , d. ~t4.°'..`f ° }'o "'•r. t t , n :5-: . 7 M ~1: l`w `i `•r• S t .•i•.• M1 #.`A :Sea ` S~.v :i4d "a^f , . r.,3,: ~~dx t;. i a •rYL1nT a ^ ,.t'. 4` : ~rhK . "q "il , .51 + •r3i . ~,'c. t ,•r`p % r »'r R' •-`i; 2„yr1 . £s A : N ir2.;:4~ ,1r„ - 7'^"' ' Y{•!'- eat:"` ' A H: F :A . Law k. R d of . *"Si: ',ev"'.'i-'. sr;, i , 'r..>» r... ,7 'ii`. •rJ ~,,.r r,a, ,~~r .@ M'"~ "o'+ , M ..9,.,y ,":".`f. .t3 iro-N. .,•~rtz , ,t: .J "1;:'"4 ry~ Y 3• } . I 7 y ""fit!. 1.r.: , . •Y `,h „ [ t 'k+' :S;i-,'W"`,4~ y!Lr t.' x~•4a u .'4' ts.rvJN„e,,..5>`:',''...><, .d::4 d . of d f."p,',a'eq.. s , _.z h 4d1 ^,Yr' n i t'4 t 1+^ r7.11 1-01-11-1-1 ><":>},4.r.~ va. .Y).r. 1. ~ N r^xn'rv•^J'r, l C!:`„ : ~:'It. •,•S rn o'''s~,- : J.ov.; r~"•S.' - a b'<^ 4' ~.J'.rAvt,.. ^f' :r' r .'~;'+;h' .7, : r`~a siLv P: ! .:Y ,hv,- yp' a r'' d f ,c, y, ;S; ^ r4; r } :.fir^~.ti,O:; „%t,.xw:i,.:, ,*~,.}Y'4~~~4.*t'!<'v~, '"t' ! it ✓ ' P' ,+i•h , 1 kJ• t , c r,' : ,r, - .'{ti•..L'i~ :Y9~S,wA++.i y,6':>'tir. e.'Oa.,, d rt`X~ r!cJ•i'r'i-lj:'1, v«}" 11,.+ l'S r r, .s 1 ,papr>p'py, ~^y~y w 'n v'" °'fic*y9~q " r i .c1;r, S:, F r ; 1 , 'L ;d'• r.t4 - •f ^ 'ttw!'3c r+ ~Sf srt 67$l 3oF "r`66kS d J r, ei ~Pi~!<60rie a J 1~11111 I'll ~jl .YjT k 4rt1#'r' w i "f `r y r '.7~p 1YRy~~~ikp_IgM~?1Y'y~T,,'~q? M, i1~i pt p~r~ - S ! ,.~QVVO O YiY~r 1 A,d 1 ~ 93 rri i~ - f'";T°gf~'A41Edi pl„GF,d,R$'Wlf~ ~f 1 - A:'?y, ~,f " '~7~'"•t. 4; x "^t}p2`ru a'i i , *`''aaf1~,' s'r r. f G3 ,t. ~u.rc1,' r ♦ 1' .1,, `,:'f,." t - `a ri < .r t t y r,X -lyr.q,,,, Ft ,.~f ~Ti -J4,ac r , f y Y i " 1, '''1 = 3 , , .y' a, s =`=J uJ 2 ,K }~~prr toQ pry fUnd t h6Uld be €nede e~re~l~ble on 4h~ Ca~rieral F d $®r rd'a.,sc7.:kf ,p'+. rrr ,y; •„2• ..s'y,; -+,.r,. _ _ - - ?f i F.t'v °',r,. r . ;ti:";:rr° , , _l rQ ~d- i" ad .$Q.~ddr¢~ss- emer In iss~~s' seeid mo Th~ f t~, _ ,x :yn,.s, :st its ;'R._,.,~, 9.._.43 " Uzi„ Y$ Y J t / f ;r r - ` , , f , ~iicsaslcl b used Vrhen fuhdartgare~f/or. 1etrQ s- rQie has nct; been law t~ a~F J~ '`-S lc~ M1 {xr r~'- 1 !y try F, n od ; a t i +L 4t 5 "F r v, a jd,\76'grr~5/1~ t -l 1~ i r,_ ' xd?? r y hto`t,p'" v rr 't t.+1 ! i .1 , _ 1 y,L dJF *-,&J~7l c: 1+' 3fi`ai5'Y hr, y7,~•p~Yp , ~'i yg44 q „~'g 1 1 Y,i r >>Y "4f j.>x{ T ° iCy!! "r 9f /6J/ 6 6s~11! 4l $Q a'P V~iar§d yAU ."IL J FF U`4TP lv a ~,S f}f f.'•; '~:1, j" f' d ~q, V.1.'- Y" G'r ./r P ...S..c=;i %,;F:Sl1. ~i.tlrt: y. r..5 YJtj q U t, 1. !M i r ,:t.}r } } 'C` 3~,i~so T'lhold b~:usede ser{pbrt ~~r~era4®VFnmenl as fa i- r! (a c u s z ry C F~+'t,Arf 1litpd , ~t ..,.p d tda3briberi`Ic~~.~35 26t3:5®g. c, $r F4v,f fi-1,H. ' L Jy V p,1 t7 - t$ 7. ~ i : - ' ~cC 4Js f T ;xq,(.~'51 n ~brr .y$ r ~~'hos scam $®n7'i, $a~c6iouidi>inet'in four ears ` };jtty., 'C 5 ~ r ° N r f f t.1 } 5 - r '1 + ~e r, 1. sk ? Y IT i te`a ` c `1^ - N } < r r - i6n ?i r 21}, t ; l w C1„ ~ Kundeng for JE ionnin~ (fir nsprart0t, . , i arzd l9se, recnspaces). nir.yi;.•,'rs. ^r r;.;:s"•, ..i~.. .`~i':..3,n.s .3;' _ c ~~t`dn(.,':S i 1' Jt l Y .ti•.Y `~C-".i'~:LgSyFF rtp.~j (,~h•,`, gy~r~~g4~+,, ~~ry±'y'~ //~I~ ':<V i, ~'.1Fi 4 4 - h 1~~7 f V1r ~Sif { 11 t/ 1 SVrr® $KCln V GQr~7~ r T 1 G,•, ;,x.,, .?fit S.co- Sr. ~wv r, 4 ~t : a '9.YEvvl~ .M.s' .a'..-.. u y..7 .r...S,t?"L ®i' wra.rcM ®~\s\I 1iP'~ PLlf►C9CL/~ h}yt3 $IPCt•'!PoT/APIA\I.~AP- ew+ / Sf'F:; r: ,z, I 5 -•s k• .rv ,•1 9-'IQI v /un'g s o vow 5 --1'! 7J`~ve v.c 1}rr W61 -G - QI ~,',%Al P6ra~af 'r 'T , J ! Y { f r Vq iF, fundrng ',i C' e i r't 2t" T 'C x a ij~,al 9d'C rtd' _ KT•Y~. :f,i s'~ rni im " , ~ t ryk / agionai' lannm is of broad bene $ $Q citizens Qf $t~a reglQn s ^ '%x , h r~fpr®pfunc~~ g ' h ' to be broad based fromib6$her a~ ince~rna or 0 , t - -1 I ~ : I I . r 1~ I- ;a7 : .J raOOV.'tax (subjeotto the rnoratonum ®rtthe'usa of property t'es. ;j t f t x z) +,r 1 x ,G t ' npn~' /'trot.'::..~.7~q ,-r ~•'~•9 4 J - J S- f r i 1 {rJ rr r r 2ii' ~t oomrnended-3n i¢~n't lll:r~~: 4 1 ! C - 4 y t ,,..L x. ~r'i s. - x 4horP ~'er~< 1 t4 4 ~reara) '4, a, M5 t' j t t _ -,Y ~7ri r „ - ~ w } 3 t3s® s~bona pan ofi broad based nacho tax®s ~ > , - , - j t t &; ➢ k tizI ; j,n~fsi t 4 hip short $e bFta si~o+ald s hset:en flour years Y V+,?r M. 7r r - s, i f t(•',F'4,.r " 5'"_ 6,.11 V^, r 4 4 N i M 1, h f ti t i 1 _ 3' ` r ufi r s k Aurading. for Creenspace and 'arks (nan mandated st lf'hl'. y'7 t; 'rtj.`d';v,4:'..}~..: Liw'r'GN`L:..4:~;: f .k _ }t51,5!'ati 14 x'3"'Cs Q'i f5 v'1 r, + 1'_ - 1 r'. ` - , If c _ ,;`f `x~F v'l. i Acquisit~Qn #unalne itroc~uld oom® from a dadeoG~ted bond esseae Y~t'!,''~~•"'~ } f la.d, trey -,-xrtc.,, ! v +,1 y- 't t f i .:4' -r 3.c ''.f,%, '~:Jr-.YY~`r- _ rk.Y. .:1`f. f•, „r' ?'t'7*-' w"{"<+'i• ;°f'u '4. ;i'~"`t'C,t'y hr n"bJ .r- r 'te s r:• 'fir=~ f i, '.,w, - t =`i r, . +r neral pond Qr-broad .based sour ei.`r,r„S~o-: r:r' ;A:-".'i~~'i ;a: *nv,',,;!- ,•r•, 'T r .t 5':. - J. - i",~;~~i r t of. ®n.th e use: ,~r',' :'ss>x pp~~sprigl~ p p~ jg~~kC$ $O the dratOrB .11 G,+X" ,,ri?J ;r `,-Fr `,if O~tVlli{3, b1 rQ,$gj+G.:`LG4A lire h l r i _P~,.'{.PL!':J ~ct, r 9~+s', _ '4yy~ ?r"2 N11' • , 4:. L - t : PT@- '.l ! :3 '~r ; x} x' +krr 1~ ta" X` r_ecQmended+jra'e$em llf)f it ; 'z: .,:''•_r'`31 ~'i .n+ . clt.m~'Y'.'.4:;t`` ~7 r9 -SUrt d, i, , S r ya , t 'i'•~^:'S„M6,'S' i-_ it, c ,.4f ,j :'",4.7 Pa a a 1 t x' {,s < i we'-r.34 y2 Fiz i o ti s` , trrr' it - 5 f, ; .'.4k rd r ~]I j F }Fi I~ tC t r r r t 3 { a - 11 11 Y S~i ~ 6kS', , \{'S-' Y X 1 -U' 45i. ,,-.',4 S r_ 1 Y 5 5 1 1 'i ''f,1, ,:Far ,.i''iy. "°Y.. u. Tr. r r r, a i r - 1 3 .34." bia~f ~i.``IRi.}% 'P 'W',F,; J',',,'P~:r'7','' T r r -r.. r 'k, t'a";_, . .,e r , s. j ' ,gvpf:f't•`",,I"' p~ ~i~d" `.3 rt`, t"5 't s. ka 1 wxJi t' 'M1/, r.','}~•`~'y~ _ .'.rte;, .'J tS, ':{5?:; ,,;u.5~~ _.~3 ^N,,1. v&-, •.tfr v,r a t,,f,,,,rv2, ~.fl,~• ',y 1 f, 2 1 qty: ~'u., ~,'~'•xv.,l.,r,. . ,,,hy^::ai'M1i i ffv,`:;•,.•~; sr l _ V1, _c ".:,T _i,~4t. t,^',': 't"i'`~>Z u✓i: ,rr _ ':t'.:>::•` 1 + It I•S~rM Yc y v.i.,z:[,k ~Pj>°r~ '~'Y"e .r l" G =Y`•-..':'V 's'W x . F"i: ~r.{~r.i,`-' 4lif. . Y i •Y ~:5.,'si:.re.r,. -.c.,S ua,M .,y,F,,'y- r' .`v.•~:~'c{(.. .1~, - F, .1 r 4. .i,,, mku .r'"L >1r ,..h , i%La".1.. 4.:4 , i..f ;'1" .,';r~: Jy° 'f, t ,.m.,, °.2.t5r•~.,ii`+sr....vz.....a..,. a3tac...,f,. J , i -r, ''•1 A t , i' _ .,5 . • `:r'. c.. ,oc,.. : -n a.{.., - - +i s .s ; r, .-..y,.tryrF`."fi ~G. , .1. 4; 'Z:'..<:'nk u'.. c.,.;.'r.r. r.,,rr..1. e... :..>u, :c t M l'' rj= .^!.rar. F, + Y r ~ x 'cf~{ ` d'•n , - tk7 ..Jai, 1,? 5 " 2. F_ , , ,re.- e. q -ri F• .tom S,' . w°: N"o~ ,„1 i3.i. ~F,-•, a,tr-'. - `Yi`p M1tr,:>•;;~'~~: r?' yp,F i_ Xt'' Yn'. r :L n ,v Jza , ' 11 L"jv 1 lCti•n: - G ry~•1 11 nS . rh k ~+6I~y 1d .r%:r nj.;.•:t'!~'It".~.p jj}},.,~~ 'JNif.'1,'ivfsf !C•T•T"C t il~r Z "!paw+'^ 'R" . n ' ^,1 . .r ^ : t" , s w fati'•"y~.~-,5r, h'4". ;y.•v, ~Y. "'C„ ~ F . ,M1 < y'rr, qv. _ '.'FT 5 •r' a• vS•" r,•a 'u'Y~'C._ ckt7 :r:, 4r.. f :MS'• n~a„ s:. .<V"~,iY•«~~:.:?'r,. IV ,r...v ' PP^", 'e'4. 4T'1' f. ''.l .y :~'V :'I~ti,i:'f:F•~s✓~ i - r,G'' { ':1,1. ~ alf . Jrs.o i illtlh•. : 1 , ',Q' F ..f , il,.. :"V:::; , t v'"• Fn ' c x•'. ' 7"r; ..h,::': {SM, . pr+. ,t.; S .'+'-"e,~r~' Fyn" r,mnc ~d¢- 1t, ,c,i .._f.^ -,~'i:~{ fl- _ ^.u~.,.f :~5'v'pd rr.. it+,•'" •ri.',-,;~K°«. du:-!,,.{,y.:-~"1.::t:,,r., ; .:.4; c:r,;~t :.:-rx•:._v,n'r ;.rr.. aro±r' c ~5;4:u 3.i I~ 1.~•.`f rr m' s• iw:..s. rN .h3;wu." .,f "5u,~.1~,`.is1~ »t~. ."~..,>f,., <f'~''" _ # _ 'yb'~ ( ~ y ~ ~ SNr1:A~y x.•cx rn~+~rrr~' T Lo-y.•,u,._ ..:S,r~~ i . 11 .70'.~.y ~.irt ;f ,rl,sF. - a,,l;• <4r 6*'A ,.4 ;_Y: :.4'r a ;'A:.:1't 'G f., iy- :•y_• ! -.16;4r+•,-:,<I`v'y `{A ^L'^,`ni ,.u t ti't'. s., (nkf.Dr~r,~ riX 'F 6yir.,~^, f",I S t' „t L r < ` F y f 1 i pr i l' a I , ' mbtr6 TQk Study Icrtnrr~itt a aportFand Rerp;vl i ~d tlOns lVoverrfbaP S;..'l.. t J. h r t I 1 Y. `'4s'f y rr t+y,} S a afi,s,r, r r~ 1 -1- F + ~:d rYf'o;, a r , a M`7z f - L 1 e lj of "1YY,'..k 'C rl 5 t > : ~,''a r = ~ N ;as ®rnpaan Pits of Ex~f a 'i'ce Strategy; (smolt le., on 'r3 •r i,1hL n+„t.. . 1.' y ,:SJ'~~~ `"ray 'r'.+s . 'f:, n: ,;f i •Y .C' '1., t r.1. S,1s, , ~r~.srL`a''rt„r .tyn;: ; frn"'t 1;.. + c r-''--' srv}s'i''R SM,15 Y~ .:7+rv~r','`"f.f'.w rt 7sa»:+..e, '~i• 'as ~i 7;. 5; ~.ih,..a~.rt"f' K.,J;. JS.u.,~r; .rnu•; t, t'+ ' i'L ,f5 2'r- _ e .i :,.t, < _,;a``1 cia'^ , ;r•'; t•;'f w Y~t '•.t t` 'i `;.t:4,?:'ter,,"` r :"fia'.~zie lQn€#td bapps~ Ofed to all l6fletfo entePprl~e actEd'tias '':G $,;,tt''{ ib.;;r'"4 ~d ' )C rt`!,"~°, ? ~:~.:X {,1:ri ? .•li; ',t;= "P,p :t..' ° r ."1;. wr, .r, r 'Ont Of jhe,Eaeclsa.,.,. , "ent .;y'~1`3 .`..vt{'• 9,^n a+"i y1.~•~a,•Y,::: Y®O''On " rq 6vlty 'shotal¢ bear tho' ma d, y deb`, 7!1'; ;~_qi'2' S'~ {I h: ~'i t, nl f.~~a' :";4y, t i, q ,•a. r; 29 j,: f M 5, z M 2J1 4? , h { a a +i+ 4 Y 'ti'k x"n~ J o , . , -l ! rr 111 I s 'W hi +';w?r7 a""' z'" t 5z' ~,t 'rrt °;r 9 ~ar4 7,," 1 r tT rl ` r M x7. , e f 3 ; :;:_Eseeise '-,fl told ;applied try opera#io' I P! W6hU~ Only,:s®tha 't T "ta , t,_. * ` rI . C3enera! pond fides not Incr®ase'barause of mandated capital ;s i i r + + a cOn$tl'9lctlOP1 4 C4l' y l1,iT P' _ E' rrza ' ` tier .r,r at S $;r 4 _YS s~ ' rr' 54.1 s;{t.'k,S:rr 4`Fr1i ~r._ ~',~y i~a '~...Yi"t+C`.. r„'•• 7';iw +_;'~;"4."''5 Sir, '~'5 '3 ' =C~:,'R "fit " er onsfd f°atfbri~:.''Wife' Uld " its ta'-i-' .~uthb.tit ,'Only fOr abtivities }t,y'a3 1 jll '1~; .s' `5~n I.iaw;l'f"-1, 4`J; '1t,i E ,v W. Onsfbllltfe = t~ its'L'h~lr#eP !6S ' p~ Y.. s„rir~ Li' 4.f,. wy' t. t~`:. t' t,u~v S•r.~_':ti's:„;af:.. .:a;'-, "r'h.. ,a:Y` 'ay.,~1r. H ,,•~i-. l°=. r y 'resik t 1 ^s "n J ,7 r a L,:w :17 y 7,~5 r ! '1 t r5 , ;y t ,r OQ r f~'e aroma 'A,g u+ D'I;fixsd y' t' a' ti ` jy' ,yw.i.G,, as yy: ';~.w 4 - ':eF_ 'nd eta c1. ne :cis as ~lCli,, fit,.,. on:~.tt..ctied big ir< ,i 9aio tad) ~O',.,!. n ; ..:.••t,,.,..:'., r; '',,q,c zr,.~ :rte ed ;;,rr, _ u":t ,.:~~~:'.r.,,,.,:r: a,:, I ed1• and % > " , fll, :f, tegor9r, 2; altd 3: nes (i~lcrn-Mandated but:iathor z ya 4 r 4 g 'Optidh } ate, 4, i' -!.'i -'~'T"'~I""i~"~.."~'~. %'~~'P' ~ 'M i~'!~_ rz~.;%~' ~ ,i~ , - , " P ~ q ~ ~ ' I x,511 ti? x y A"~ s. 1 I S' - S ; ',ti - - r the` uture tf I IptIN s~rjula'cbtaln seep i oney funding,f®r star •Uta p elects, t fy t e,, thaf~ll~tPe~'st~ould c~a~velOp a polocy putting a time limit on;the use Of shed n> Mfr Y~~;x t' ,n irsca Oe foal- eaclq prpj =1f AAet o i~ finable to develop an.ongoing handing F r soi.iroe far the project within that time parfosi, the'pro~ect siiouid be is ' = y.. r , ° $er("I'lifl~t~d j ° .c •'l,, .i .~,'i , N i r Iy F, 1 I apar~,~ ~drrtfnistPatiOn' a~ niajor element pf any gavarnfriental fUndfng' .`.tr - - t , ; Pequfr®ment i ;fr~r;saiacias ana "b-1 I f : or ploy®e~.`_ fetrO ihould bargain , ;tt~aPt9 ~n fncentfv® based salary.systerh. a;alalry srveys'should be - cond~aofed to e`fittir®that5 atr®,tai d - as are ebmpet~~ive 1 - i JL 2- r J r ~ r _ t i7 ° ~68etri~ shbuldre~eamfi'ie contrctfng potefitfat s~ thatCillOtfOPe tha4 can be ' r ai wi ti £ dbrge prfatai a~a:,~or~e prfi~ataly, ifs4=efiocttve af?~ c°onslteht vvlth legal "',a -r i is -r^ r as„ :4S' Fi'-;'! P:. f ,~'"i'` .~31' -t a ii`; sk, t _L,, t y 'n k i Y J Il f r < i " f 5 "r d r,' ) r " . ` ° ` g, ,t btrd3 shOUld be PeIBnbUrsed fOP aervlcog pPOertded$O Otl?e~ erftltieS ay'r 1 r'< r j t'_S.. 'C' tS .y z _ ,n. t, r l - i it ~-rj' 1F 7% i 6 {r4C D, a ! I ' ri r 1 ) r " L4, s qy{`t M , '~.?I -'I 'y J j e- t r' T7 tt JiD x 'S 7 1` x d s 'r x r . c`' yF~ X rx FV 1 }I ' yi°i;'^s'' i 'T7`:Y?s• h ll. `R` r ''IS?': ;^.y~4a * s`V.:~F%+^{ ~ j; - 1 ~ f . • a p 'r , ~s, ,s :Y;>,Tis@~: t.y t;, t' a.'~,?Ai6:. +kfz.''-'- y.'d'+~.:« :'3: .'.s:•~':ir':, _ - }r 9 _ r. 'a ' - '10 r"' .'-S'w .,9-~,, .e. f'. ~ :'^.r'+i'C,w ''x;aiia ',:L: ;s ",',r}ir. `f iziM.#, • •"'t"'` :'5~'i++ ,,,c y , 7' _ n 'v,',,..si,'r`,r,Y.a. S~Y;t,r wrx T k ik..r,,y1 'r';'R7j;i".:'f,.t.e•: f, :;,5,- i;w" r t J •:F a X"- ,~rt 'S,". f. f3.c' xr, ,:~r~'+t' Y,Xv,'"o- ,'fSr ih+Fitc` ''M 1 ? 'v'J' 'a - fxr, w u. ,;i5: 4'.4 y;,:$, `-j" ,t.r,, ,•at "1~f k~d;+f-,..:e ''t tc ':X',`r~"•t;,$'-~u. :l, r, ~t, :;.L.,;,A,.r.`% 4;.r. ;~..y. h, c. ,...c::a;' 8, r :'1 e - r i,}° :C i : l r 5:. S 1 , f _ , , e ? 'Y., : .~ri, r ~.y .+%f,,, , . h'1.°..: . r rl..f. o ! se. -C °xr. .@,•'o :ri,'. s, erg X i'JCAeU`.i.1i~~7.l~..l':;,Ft;:~:1a`fi.e ' fti:iX`ar ':.V:. ~F:~• a:i1T<':~ta.Ga`,~,..v.s`Si,f';iYu ~s"Y:'i.f~i:, u..:a._..U,.•c^r..9i`..,..,,Giv - _ - _ rr" l . ice" r~ •:.d . .,:d' r s~'["~ 'ci.i'+.:'',,..,, _ r r'. S J~:~ ' Tt1! :':I , ~r:. 'i, ~y;;4'+~.;,-~::~..,1... ":L"n ,ta d r .»,•prLi'i ,JXu. M•t :.t ti-{~':y ~;+:1 :aiiYn 'cii:jl)':~! rji. 1 n.r .,j.:'sr,.. m ?iii " Y J 2^' t~',i+{',: l: " k +%i ^n6 S . '4r ~di~1?' .4 > i."IK-'. i'L:"~":~';: /y,,,ual+i~' { , 'vr!. ..M,: .^t+;" .1-u;' 3^. ?d" .'.i''% .6 ~..r: Viii %:'%7'.! i:,-.p::,+", Y., r f v +7 ..11K': +,nti'4 1.~ N !ev d r:~,4: hD; e. r.:1::'?-.(..v ;%1't . 7,L,J . e ; Y: v e1,. .;:„C L;a.Lr-v:.y; wlY'.y!;, 'r,",;,'-:+".s9, .x . r ti u: 't'e.a7"t f:y, ext . ; ,^I l,. l }?,t'":x„," ~,'a:...•7,{'r. ,,hT OTS4,s:t: - ,.+ur.<Y. ' :;1''; cr vi". .,t.f. t 1. Y ~.1Y. l; ~w a. Y.c.,ay '4t t„!~ w _ f A . Y. qIIIIIIIIIII. .:Y,Y;ny,,p i'rc 1• r~ p'~ _ t r i . ""+-~"T'rr~4s i+t {-r,t FI r - T YG ~f'I!•l F~St Yt ley fif ` . 1 T[„ T h,y?~ a di yS c Fr i ~¢v ~I r t~ers~;`Ix..Stirdy Cdrzinnittea R OVavembar 15, .1983 I - ; ,-,L~~,--,, R, l' lep~rtndr ecdrximandations ~`i~, l4 del r,r -Ga Ft 1 +r r [ gi" f , i" < ,z tar#nership3 l.ol Cdv~rnrraents Impr®v~d cornmur~!cation ®n planrnng x R~ v'„ `w r Y .issues,.` etween i Vitro a f 11 uh~t of local governirlent (up and dawrri) is 2T `'s~ `-n--,,_,,,,---,-9, scant rid:~equlre Win. tent vlgllan3 Tt1e tul~® ®f local goverrii-ent to , tt" r ° F , " n; rO s ommeanety based a etafand represent constitilent attitu ®s ~s ovenirnents'. r'r' ~ r +f „e ociu~r`ai~ a#ro siiouBd p rt oipate trti:~ Joont effort with l®del g .fit 1 4 l2S r ,t t (,.Y..hrtlasy p,.~ II; , `'u", Y ~ t 1 R6 ,Jdk6fh'lne~functeons ad identify opports~rfitie +to save,'m®ney at'-~all'levels - - ' , ?t hough elimonatlon of dupllCation $ind C)vt3rtap z t ! M 4 Fx a J t ,,g rw ,G f "„,",°L Gtr. f$1' rt h 'e' rehl iN, , State 7GoVdthMdht In ord ` for Metro'to d® Its;Charter . ~2` z `v rri66datad functions,sSoMdL,things.rur~ently clone by the State of ®regol f` =F IUlefiro area air quallty;man~gemerat arod 6Nllatra-area`grovt4i rririagemant: . "y f °r coordination) nt~yt_obe dolls by~tro ' Adtions liken and regulations 11 Mfr w7J 4 ll developed by state gencles that mpact Issues of metropolitan concern must _ 1-1 ""1y ``r ` w y be: Coor~+inated.e~:th tFi® elected, rgl®n.E' bo~i y F is x r a x n ki`4 x "~i''y~ - a t K Af r r' ';y 4 -Y F tl , ll! Reveneae S®urcea j, i t; r r t ! s i a ; ty a,t ; rYi . , Comnnlttee recorrimonds thatthe:short term nidhe tax be a combil anon F , s ` o the Cot7strt~tlan Eclsa Tax baked an: vaiuation);elid $h® Real. Sstafe v\ l on 'sans er,-,',T : -'The B;taxeS ShQaaId be Ifnkad.S®.that-neBta~eP nAw crwst ~4lr.~ F , Te w-..... _ share`,of the furidin busdert, ~n, t { ~~,Y , °:~tr i°;existlrZg ..pnstruction bear a drsp~ropoifionate, g; ` , ~ See Appt=r.dix F fcr a;dascriptlon of the 1,0©nstcuctibn Excise Tax and the , r Real Estate Tranafcr: Tax' 1 x ' r , rT Tha?Mi6tr6Council should consider ~nrhe~ther it wishes to proceed further with 1. y; th '"W* mMeh'datidn to .adopt a - briatrud tion Ekcise':Tax and aLRaa9 estate l`r nsfe lax Tht~ Committee heard cOrisiderable.testimony andreceived ' ,vritten cc=mu~icat~ons {tl,irough November, 5;:1 Jg3) frorn the pubilc an d A ,,,,ii, ddtad groups which indicated that many.' issues'requare,'further research .u before irriple~cd i tatidir~ ®f these isutes , dd itional.questioris and issues: which wrteed to; be adtlressed include the following: { - - 9 what should the split be between the tw•o taxes? should the tax be : wQ" ' d tow;~rd, gi-awtf i (C bristr~:ction Ekcite Tax) and, if so, how 4 i h F f r ! rnu'ch? ,l w y J l 'F .Y'r ~~WYI F ` t r " i N , s. r , ':,7 t h' - . f 7 7 } 5+ a F r r °,t 5 {r F S t, i 7 s, v~ y s, M r t r i k.{3 j 4 1,1 IA C 1 ij t x r 3 F r} t z r I;a° „t - 1 x5Wi4 '"Y{<.i1•;"4 ,1 ail4, ~S T'• t ' r,~ ? ,y i ly .l t sia.T't t_ =h : hlp'rY. vti>:z.4~ u~_ x tit 7r x is y: t+ ` c t4 ~y lry~a`;.' .~^'.c'FN4 "X- ~f.~- J ,:,,,y v.".j, _ 'h^ , 4b ' _ ~ll :<i-'^7^'-.= 0 r~s^"'ia t+ ,xn~° ~r'..ta, _ ;e='.~,,^,, Fi e i ~t r ,i,7 'ti y arr+rt~yr+y,-';! a';r!^..%L;,± s..rr; ,,'~3ir~ ' kr ~.';s.S'Y+ 3„-..r', q^' r ,i i •r^I , i . - li Y`:Vt:.. .q11^;' ~rro. n[➢..~ r.(>' .6. k„-~ .,~1#..S 5 ,y 4~y 'Tt,Hf;~s .f.'5A fl, 42:; 91.'"'^ ,x J.1 ::"."y ~ •'r rt; "I 3rnrstr " is 3 r x~ '~t 1.. x?a':" ,u' z 'I .ri:: li " ; 7`. . 1 3 s ?sP s `~..,.c< _x &ir~ 4C is i r ter.., _ _ r 1 : / .":.;F. Yny •er;.'„.. k "r'a,r:,,P••..-Fr. 7 .G'.'` _ f:~~ii .:la:,'Y?h.'u -r ,,.•"v,~> . +^ia tii37, des 7s, rM5,r 7{'" 3e{x'£d; .t.:y w 1 r t' <,t Pi^'ys"-• I.•r"FL ,a..,L:. ~~~sZZZZZ~'` rr' 'tv I- -1 ~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! ~ ~ i I 10M NKMEWMM 'd!`e?w'h .,c7 tiG;.:wa ul~kp";f'.~`tiG,¢'~ir 'i i.;i;°:~- b' as 't i-i3i! Y : 1 t; 'St h n' { c, „ .va r >'7 `14 r f i f+ t l U J t q- ~a~ x tt,'' ° x 1 y,r „r, 1, -k l~~tso T Study 6n►rnat4e..,.: a J " . 9~e~ioit and `ftdbM 6 ,'d " ti®ri~ ' ' November :I 5, i 993 a{ , i?,"X'J c w 31F L j k„Fy, MFG ! ~J;t aq f t „ ; ,r rx 5 , '1'h® C6mill dtt®e heard oott :daratil to ttmt ny axpr®ssing concern alb' . ti ~,.'4', ° t' `~'-r.~ 'ffi";~ r r=".i~t~ej pac~,r~f 1, "I this , aifcrd la h®ias~ng ih tha~ --11 regiari: , es ~ K 't'he !ComMitte6 recommends ghat`. ppro~r~~te exe ptioris tc th a taxes r f r y w s=`:<rr;;..b►;i~icl~rec~' ,tri~hs~isld ado ccahs:cfeer~tic~ns;:f®r nct-,gor prbfiit T d r r ' z h ®r®/~~ep~tt yps~bl~~ /~J@pgpr~~}ag ots, ea guy{ ~ tpi~ r i ~ca~acc$ ; anci d~an~t~~ction prI r' i ~S'.i<,'•v:'+ f~ 1'35S ~t YC't5, n, k i!t f£x i l dPd~~:Y' tV governlYA67A> al require,'S~rSe 7ti x 1 "~:i,','t,': ,:yi± r;.4 , r x , f;' t£ti: S Vin,. r7: 'fly: s r i s,, r _ ,L` x t F t~. "s'` , r use^' st r~~` v 6d4leflts POm l~etra's.p9arinEng and how should taxation be relate d }tiZ.'• ..i's. ; ?r,r,,.cuyr.,-„'.5 .~k,' r ~i7rk~ '.9,. i' t' - i %'a;s<<i'• w%':: t/. ~ r 3 y .;ar' Ct t 7b 6"l~ t'~' r . k7 i t 4 Should a dafferant!ai tax ba applied to 'reflect, planrl~ng g®a!s and vvhat~' 't`4h'~5"`?', ' s Lk vvc~ id, wimpaeton.coilections be? sax„ t, " tj ti'x7 f `r t ~7 ..~r'tS i .:tt' , i _ . F 5; what arelthe cots ~slementat~on end ecal9ection, and should 'L its ° L=} ' 4yi admihistratovo cots be relm ursed~ ti ''F r r~ • 6 h {~~®v~n p9~nning functscin at~d °teandc~g re~~rem6nta best be ' ° c®rdonated vv9th 9odal gc~v~rrar~artt? •M1Z7, t4f t 5' Yfr .S 1 - - 1 Yf - 'Th+~=s ubcorr~6tfiee ti-was cQr~cerned that the time re~€ ~9red €eer this . e ,e®rch , , W' • va~a- M'aKr At ditiiculfi tb s€nplerhont the'.taxi§s,in time to ram:ve?full FY `1994/95 r~enuee but the uestions above need to be rolvec! ' r r'- , t i, q v -~,L~~.~~:~~,,-~,~,~ , 0( v 11k 1 1 4 ?1 1 ar r3 .i _ ti r„ x 4l e jet 1'r. s yJ _ t C t °fhe Cc3mrittee recesved"~nrretten and eire9 testimgriy Pram Ondividuals and : r r grdUO6. °~r~®_C®m ~ttee;recorri°rnends the-Counci9;addreas the issues most ' _ ' , often raased - 1 - : F - - s k` Y f '9 , T9~era,are currently Yeo gni,,, fees anei taxes on pr~ip~arty -z i , 7 a - - - r ~ Thai ompact ®f these 7tax®s Qn affordable h®iising 3 The net®r a bread base df, ers Py 4 ~l*a need der, torn tuna fer the educetian and involvement of toca9 s~ gow . menu ar~d at~a~t~c~ snterest grcaops ti. y . - x I x ' 5 Tha`nead fs~r llPltrc td prcvs its he+sd fear additi®na9 €~sndong S J t E'; .YJ 5 i( fi t C ` ~Vlett shoui continue tai aggres_, . pursue any grants, matching fU ' ' • .1" possible; "'t", s66u9d tip; dubs' .fa+ag•f®raerv€ :irrutting`c~xoeh6es, of w to°cd iv'- if~,4 ~id7.. ;.d- ' mies. tca . &6t;ffor sec The ~xpise ~'ox should 0"~-'.`~' "L' 1 _ 'S U: •i r'1 tY , ,x 1'~•%y•,,. ry'. I I-- at of"'•L,=~`'PP' ; ] , e;Usc~d t®:lta` :F the.a.o1.7ts.n~eded.fc r ~'lannon 041:m he hort-term. ~k b_ . r "'k' 1 ,r t $a :cJ'xf < :i:n•: ''q;:i: i-+1'• " t `,s,, , 'f ^t`•+` ^ i: ~r .~a^C r; r.: ,r... I JJ 1 r S ^z t. l t r, . ;`N'I,t]Y"yf'.` . ~ sp. .,-r.. i „4 F`*,. x.. c~ ? 3:. xi : F,^. r',;xti'N V F . ,o ':r,,.5 •:i4:• _ r, t N 2 : wK'' .1r,.u,,.;r,.'z' ~,av,l L ,rod:;- ,';~ti" -xR•"__,6,;•'~',r's`.i '''o. ..Te.., r. rs,.. .('.cn,r -r x•-:-.:Y - ;r, x: .gP.,,,.Er, ia.`~ ,LT.°,.,.i.h1, d" :Ara..` }'.i' t -.7. I t `•I"r:; pi ^k!g -,-fir . : t. n~•.• , y .',5•,, w S.(,:.4 ` - ,e7;; _ +~i 1 , ,f'` ' t . 1.., . r~, , a Fri' , , J7 ( . S # J4, - yC}.""'= ~..r''yk ltt, /ll'3.- ,fi.,,p:: ii. "~ka a'4" "r 4b nlh.7 ~t~ .P"t •l .p'd<, ~ ,..I;~t, •.Y: 'V?'"< a~ev n-,, `f "Ji iY' q..iiF f "S~r, rs'. `~"Z.y:,± rw... a+,. 7 ,.I:f,''f' :.i ';F w a!J" ,"t Ml' r`„a.='v _l',k r`': .u a.•a," t'i 5, :'l',I s 'P• ems .o, -a.r ,G.- `2:;? ''f,' -'M. } 'r F,.,1 SS 4. ry,,,J r - 1 h e. x~ .fir -t i :r! Y']dx3n ,•'•7b`,.•u,° c.,3,,,, .a,e`iyn; ar." ,'y- r'•t T C :3 b .•f.':"x,':•n)5.. ,ti t!.F:. ~L?' f,,,.7-.I+' . 't..;;:os.p.,.a3:. ,:i;rY ~2.,:%_ ` _ ,f , .~,r r'r 1'^'-~T. el.'m.~ ri°'Y+';'rr 3' - .'t. J r^}bz .S.. Y 1 ir4 ,r =~T Iv % '"1+.'-7 .,jc7.=,~. .Z L^'b . .l`.;... fY. ir4 ::+,...P~ (i ' :.W ~ r . M J I, li. A". „G ^v7 . :°,ti':•v' 1 , Vii' € • :4,J" 9iM ] n.f!°." , L' t, i. o i. 1 L X11 .t ,:...tr. "f" a^xi 4fN ; N r~..w . x ..,u. , y .,:Jt~ . 4 F„< . l a":', ' F .yu~ s7G• '%,t; `ii'i.. S '*-';F'!' ^'i3• '.u,.:xii;e•. ~`t;~k, li: !i ,ra^' j ar ""w"- ,.a : e a•y4• rx+1='S^.u:;. ...fk`^ . ,ry:: n~ . 9.: T.... ,na- 'r"2 'F't;"' ^=;Y :^L ,r r ~ .p, - y5' - -.Yz .yr ;j.:i*,i'7 , r ,.,fsr, s ..W „!M <tAr~R~.»..Yf., 'fCl,n+."C. -,a~7.. :r .r.' ";`3:.' `,v. ~.ar. .,r+-;.i.7.:.. 11`~i.~;r,.,.,+fe".r I.,~r;~.r<_.f::;".,', - e- ' S{'~' Nn s`l,, yzn ur-d,.<L•}l~' G,n~. ,v,~:c,. .r.kr' _ i F q , :T - . r,x~., ,m 111- S;. . I1-: . iu{," ,,y,r ,t„ lL.. F :I.Y,.I 4 ra ~ ;;~Yj:~ .t ' 4;%'A '~}cti'h;.~t' t y, , t' 1 ~"7 , } / t\`\ 1 r "r a i~dymriiit#ee` sy~k'ti E_pL~rtAarid erroe~d~t9ona >w Novembar'5, 1~~~ ll N t r 1 - J, 1 ~,l~ z'- IaSr X, 't~ rw, r,, AI >p w 1 r6, ,t O i.: ~1s1ya 5 a' dl;'`r 2 a { L +l r _r Y k metro sho~i6d adopt hior3ran im on the rase o, ,any, property tic ~othi r than AT ,L '1 - v> , 5 ^ or voter approved GenbOdl, Obligation'.bonds;, nd the exi6ting`Zoo lcv aj, a~ti6 =5 1-1 , r R x R% , s 5 > rdithdr' 11 t ~:rt c; r E. \ J y I' at 7 .r x y ' r G t y+F< +}i y r1: `'{:;:f° kr o l i°.:',., he; 4 f3(~io is h ion er .~1~i3(`ect ttJ: r.Ompi•~asifyl i u! Eder {lea' i ' 59a o~ w", , -i , 2 The case is coordineted with grid suppo~ted by'the ®ther jurisdictions ;1 Zt ~w/yq~ "id i are experiencing Willpretildh z( 11 ti,1174`4, r] , tw- 1 d r r'"b s.~ c' C _ isr ,~s a L,~; [ a re hlbtro shsau6u i p a t i~iiti year eve rage rec#iaireinerit for tiZ'ese taxes combir4ed tl~> ~mit~t.e i°® erbsr te~ffsst the' cgiaiical nature of these taxes; 'This reserve r r " Y -1) k ~houid not be tdUdhed for anything except suppiarhenting poiDec#ions'dUring t r` r . I the downtums [snd areveriting an over-reiiarr~e on the Excise`Tax d4ong °`'S g x those,penods ?4 ,..,..r ,„r-r.,-3 T?°c~,-,--.~„ln= `,a'rr:"- :'i Vi'if i~a-"_ -ii: •,.n - - ',J , T 1 j " s " t - c r en v - . x i. j:q f \ Fr ( r 'v f1 t •`y PN.J" 1 T t I r 1Yf , ~f l P. 1 IS - I i 1 fL, t- 71F5 f SY J ! f, .s t'E P •Y'. t J,. rw~~,r` a 4,s x i - - o., i lF.3, o r r J 1 r' 1e. r r f \ t x - Y t I Y c t, , 9r r 1 X- y S f- ';F 'a n g' is 7Y t 5 , ulz I,K 11 a v 1 ul c 1 r} + o x)t [;sjj t La' d r r tJ dt 5t•Iq J~ ; I 1 M1 1 w " {t r3 Xy'f 9'-,r~` 4S F ~a i r P 1 1 ~.S?,~;`~`4 ni e:r t~ 2y' r~, 1f G z is a i, i px t' J` jr J t„{ `l iF 1, 4 4 .2 L ,'F yFr ' t, r 4' 1 s7;'~ 1 ' ' +r h . 11 4 f f hf '4. t ,,te. ,ad„`4'' it 1 ti -S ,N ` tv k "Ik r~,~ ri a~ 's y F + ° t - v,"y',01. 1 IX,: G,ii"-•:~,'Y~X' pa F )"1- •j. ::.,N.ri j, U:I:, 'yo- ,;P~.g r 5 , .t.~ t t qa,-'rr~,,CN`N,~cJ i f;n•7':n: a* f.rt- ! ; 1 «c-- -t ,:L'^ t _ _ y -,r - , '',.'Y.r~: ~"I S ~i 1F ~t rr u N.,11 y 'L.t \ . l :`drr+t'r''~ r4x Pti~iC,._ .`b, o i „clr.T 2 o f,, r r r- ` a ..t t s j~`.CN <L., ~y, 'S'b,1 [r, 4.2 kt Ht" y` i 5 1- , Y 1, eAi;k)id Ii r} l >wb iR tN <e r 13 tf{ ~_y art r {t s •``»<:^ita.Y-,.''+Y',v":y'h,~+v"'•,P%.}tv v~.?,S..yl.y,~Vr~.,. .qn;t rt: ,t E~p~~ ~V',.{.,,'• ,~.':'F"°' n'r:r; ~rN '+b.N;. 1' p,g .4;r':y^+;i, t,~4~ i w ` :',~;~y ,NS \ S'~ r 1 q if r ( - 9 .~`:m, ,u~."+.~'''o-"Y".m°y„rit^,-.ca4~yi. -;zr^r • uq-r„"y-,3'iS"r'•.~t' (7N'."'4_'i~ '?,''i ` ~'ti;. -i)5"" -iF rr ~',e:i: ` ; 5 ! nr.sa, "7L `'"v,d`~',^lnN:+.+n• 4'ri.jw.awrca. J'.I [v- •~•LICr1". `t ,7i1 Fx a,h i"^ t-g• " >Iz'Q= ~ .,;y; ttt~' Eye.t, 's r",k' F~ h ;•1t' S~' , ✓ t ' v 4 z „ J.Y r:.?.. - s•; a: . ° , ~r,-y,: z.a._.., q•,.-Jd,Y^ r ° y c , "~x~~~t:, ,~x ~ 'Ch>3 ' ~s'%'2+: ~.cr,:: + ~5 1 ;S:c.r.. ,.s "~L t 'S•'.~ `S p.ps. >n,%~ Ill,............... - I E ` $ „r t , f',$fl~'~"~,, lB:tCSj/,-iOlifi Y)f$a- 15, 13'33 } Ri§obr gri~iR4tT~edafi'o r~ 4 i~0+etYAbeC 7 t~ 9;A *t j ,r (F a! 'lax' h, ( + 'h>,; ~A'; f r 1,~, JM1 'wet t' i t a flr, r} r t ."~Ut s } Jt t 7 n~, i v1 } r *Sr rt 47 r t r ; ~i6tPtY T854`tiDdy ~+i>S'9VRittHi 4 r •;p i 4 adz r5 j { r t _ Zi N637Qinbi! 19,v1993 x a z k f r u a- n ia'' }Ti 1 ~I -wd t ti y c G , f:"71 r' t f::3 i, 9' iryt r y, 7, } Y 1 y;, % ry r x i- G : yr, `}KF 1 f ;yty?p.~,=I•j t t'C CS j L 7' ' t ~~,,l~R~"ROSTRATEGiCFUi4?iNGSTUDY „ ~,t ar a _ NE's FUNDING ~i~e'1!!rW`cEFAEl~i7 S iNLLODINf3 FOidICAeSTlNC3 Ct7NTINGEP)CY of )t "~rSaE } y { rt 4sv w r r s - Ix . r> Nt (ALA DOLWRS IN Th10US{~NDSj r; LQ,U s . GPI enaumption 496 pert year in fMturo- Contingenci"` removed from within the Progre{ms .w 1 i t Ca to bs Furaaiafd' ' x' _ For®BBit 11 y i ~.Reerdgt0d ` " 1993-96', i 995-98 ' 1986-97' 1997-98 1998.99 's , PteRnsng, TraRepoet~atiiri 3a Qraw4f Rrlane®smont -2 682 2 918 ' 3:283 3'263 3,384 4alarantiip; Ggobnspaoe® 4Relat®d to Regsonei' icramework islen) 322 s 330 ' 339 '.r 348 . .1 ~ 370 ' federal t3overn, 2,864 ; 2,789 ' 3;020 '3;1 1 8 : 3,251 ;I Genera! 0ovemment, BRuditor 187 ; ; 220 236 246 ` 269 -F 167 r-, 4 d,~iw inidn iRg. Fi~,.'o lfta~eon i i < " r a 1~--'nl')l - , Regeono9 rri6 ~,aR) _ ' - 529 563 PianniAp, Q 64' Flag lie `79 336 353 ~ ;,ti neRg,RegioneYFrernavsorkPianimplementation 334 -'43t ae$ e26 612 "G+; yr` ;.'s't~` Ooreoetttil~g Co(►UnenBy , 357 379 388 380 `388 N't' ,.e, ,F.L, - _ j6 ! l1! - - •``_-.:a a A i , f _ 4'~t'- y{a'.i.~}?7'x'.°+' ptZ¢lOQ®tlp9pt,Ir~ IOV'!i®4NllViotV'Y1L0 S t L' `c•Rl~"3,~. L:~Je!`J~%` "tl:744~' -~.9n'ot'' 'o.:°°. N a :ac. W:, , 1994-95 .1996-96 1996-97..:1997-98 1998-99 W p :;a ,2: ',Non rrgondated 1:41 b9thon2ad , F 'fi i PisPtrtirc@j, Tranaportetiare a'u aarvwc'' •2 Aram®Rt ."'91 97 . 106 , 113 921 ti ~~T a,r s Flanninw Federal'IU6bbyist S , , 12 : 50 75 ' " 80 90 ;h R _ : Seca Mo,i f Currently used for Greenspece® Planning 1 313 i, 'aaed n®yt New ~ro,act~ 300 1 300 ' 300 ' 300 r ~ c FdiJ v- eLnJ Caritin~ancy i r ' , " 23 ' 22 24 " 26 ' ' ' 26 k_ ,fl i,,Subtotal kwmaee ate but.Ainhonzed,R.equirbmants 417 470 5@4 617 537 r E w r y. f2 r Y .,f - 1 Y ~ w , L~.,.~y~~ ,,f t~Y Mi, u pmv1 , pk!"ft C~lt5i~9Py J. 'n,Y j 4 - .s mv9 a C}p onal w" s x994-s6 .99 5-56 `1996-97 `1997 98 '1998-9s 0eoo`nspa~a" Qperationa tinciudae ?mrke'Diineion) '81E 1;676 ,738 9;630 1:680 - . Pienr:inQ, Rcpaorsd yoipP'edeet _ ri : ari'Peagrem 74 79 83 • 90 "`96 ' Pienning,_.TreY.Onerzted 65e ilopmont Se.lend Usi; Planning 181 1 077 ' 1 128 1 "1€31 1 236 Firasining Re~ttoraaf Eriierger•cy [lpnegerrioeit Commttteo Support 81 86 ;!2 99 105 Rlir. ,g, Right of V9fejt Fratectiors:Fund r" 558 686 616 , ontingency '58 167 180: 175 181 Forecsetsng d Subtotal dpt!onai RequEremente 1 212 3 515 3 790 3,671 3 794 ` i1 ry `GRANDJOTAt-',;, 8;981 11,944 r 12;438 ' :12.173 .'12;4 12,496 1 { a ~Sxclee Tart Cteeouroo' v4 aC hie at.6 G46 9EE 5;218 ° 5 A00 6j608 6 813 ' ,•`t3aroarai.Gove~ru ent anrj'Auditor a96 Contsnpenciae ry F 1%1731 - 3 169 -;3 418 3 533 .3 686 Excua °iex )$et+~ Re hell fmr l,r resi Dovt Auditor @+ 696 Contingonoy f 3 846 3 646 3 8% 3 846 3 896 -11 T,OT I:;R~. ,,l,-l,-,.'lL' : .REQiIiRI:~tAENi)S (~°ATEt3~3RY_7 ONLY) 7'493 7 969 8 14 3 7 986 8 18€ i $.e'E cise Test at 69b " ? %4,988 6.218 ' • 6400 " ,"5 608 5 813 r diet 5upportod by C.oi 4metion Esicsea ik Meal Es state Trans Sf'T~X 12;506 2 741 = 2 `T43 2,378 2.362 x Y,i'- 1 + { ~IC.i : S~: ,.S, r% :s. 'fr. .j^y:,'i rY,. .r~x'~ r' a i ` r~ s E1 II ;1 3t ; t 1 ,s LTz 1 u i,' P t ';7 "q' t r , r i( tas` 4 7 r C S •t f ' 1t i s F a ix .J fy c., t{ t j J y sr s i?t { r a t - r 24 J rG 9 ~Jt1 !r f' S 7 T :1; I, 11 G s - g` j-! f,'f!7 :r• q ,*,l I ?F^ .ee.:Pv ,w-+ y,.El; a .a': i; a „t~. } r n'.'rC ' , it s; :c, ~+s" P;,P t; i=r,Sa'Yi?;' r F~~ ,.,.e'r }'r y'~ at kS; Zit 1 ~ i J°` r : t ',ti I n. 'f! „aC ,^,L a1. I vsyh. J v,.~;: _ y,,. ..1;',,-y;; m•,G+r r~ ~.3.1s; S { _ ` ti. z . 1 _ .x.. F,, ' r:., L > 2 *9 ' a a :i.z- 9 a :Fv k Y? 7r r 'u,`,1y 4A i V.. 1', .J l+ N .k S 5 •Y `.fly: aN;- yy~~i Y 1F~ .~i rt k e!,'Lf`.; "+t, "+=-'7J `9 r, ,•',:i+r .:'~=L~'~'r'jl`,:.id+.• ~:r nnu~ ~ ~ ~ r e, +t'N-^ :,f d,y^•1 F.r l-t :'LAP,. „f.r;' .1r*" tar, .i i.,:,,`: + •S., vpJ._ `"ti?+.•.a<,r,. ~I` ;~s"r';;.j~l ~ei,3.r'' .<r <i'('.•r.:#; >"•c ,irtl`r ,to"'.:,'.i r'. t ~t 1. k I `mar , ,rr'vf:: , .r;?3 ~:srr..,.., F 'F , .,t . i , . n;: a =,§,"t,+:; r. • :r . r t' q'i.MS, a `'t` ?'~i' i~ . •ae v Y,' . ,:{r;':':-~,a;5;' 'x.~,.ro..c'+a 'a.}:r . ^`{;;:,,x, r ~.w 'yry14• - t 3+ k..} •d },','i~,r, af.. .A, .,x~{ ..l v"_'~:. _ .i''• 4'~:,T' r<.e•.._ a- i , 'a.,. d., tri. ..a « > `t•s-e-F ` •ai' vt r rti • +'i' n'i.Y,`: ' *,'ia:r' i„i., , r. ,,.d. }t'4•. .it".,c ,a- 'f;';- ;`l. "h%r .-r., „ia*::'Y ``3.' `.s e .rir ,s, ~ • y~e i." .`Y'om ...r. KAXY` / ,r,,. •'.n.. ~a',^+R•l J~.~~,'>w''. ~ ''`~`~i • 1'-.. „I .E'.i.~ @. {:Sra•.o- ~'c.r, •,tl.. . J ,ol:'< :;ib.., ` APPen6l% e~,etu+ion No 93 1$1~A r r,~etr0 BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL MIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A ) RESOLUTION NO. 93-1813A TAX STUDY COMMITTEE, ) ESTABLISHING A SCOPE OF WORK, ) Introduced by Rena Cusma, AND CONFIRMING APPOINTMENTS ) Executive Officer WHEREAS, The 1992 Metro Charter grants significant additional responsibilities to Metro, particularly in the area of planning; and WHEREAS, Pursuit of these additional responsibilities are a high priority for Metro; and WHEREAS, Metro does not have the financial resources to implement the Charter-mandated responsibilities without identifying additional sources of funding; and d WHEREAS, Other functional areas of i;etro will experience the need for additional financial resources within the next five. years; and WHEREAS, Metro needs to begin a process to identify its Q future financial needs and to identify alternate sources of funding to support those needs-; and WHEREAS, Metro Charter Chapter 3, Section 13, requires the Metro Council and Executive officer to establish and seek advice from a tax study committee prior to the adoption of any tax which does not require prior approval of the voters of Metro; and _ WHEREAS, Metro Code Chapter 2.13 establishes procedures for the creation, appointment, and final report of a tax study committee formed to comply with the provisions of Metro Charter Chapter 3, Section 13; now, therefore, A-1 BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That a Tax Study Committee is hereby created with a AWL scope of work, time deadline and staffing arrangement as shown on Exhibit A attached. 2. That the appointments to the Committee made by Executive Officer Rena Cusma as shown on Exhibit B attached are hereby confirmed. ADOPTED by the Metro Council this. 24th day of June, 1993. Ju Wyers Presi ing Officer A-2 r_uU101'.. ~ hi cnt nu TAX STUDY COMMITTEE SCOPE OF WORK -Furpase of Qom i ee The purpose of the Tax Study Committee is to consult with and provide advice to the Council on the adoption of any proposed new tax or taxes necessary to fund the functions, programs or activities identified below in this Scope of Work. Funding Needs The Tax Study Committee shall study the following Metro functions, programs or activities to determine operational funding neads: 1 Planning Functions - Transportation - Growth Management -Greenspaces - Emergency Management - Data Services - Other Special Projects and/or Studies a Regional Parks and Greenspaces Operations x General Government Operations - Executive Management - Council - Governmental Relations - Performance Auditor In conducting the Study, the Committee shall in general terms identify levels. of need considering Charter mandates, presently Council approved activities and/or plans and likely and possible future requirements. The needs identified in this phase shall be compared to projections of currently existing, authorized, and reasonably anticipated revenues to identify where any additional or different funding will be required. The Committee shall not attempt to conduct an in-depth review or determination of all data and assumptions related to the projections of needs; rather, the Committee shall attempt to generally validate the information presented and shall use this data to inform itself as to the functions and requirements of Metro. The results of this review shall be A-3 t used as a basis for the Committee to identify and consider various revenue alternatives .7 available to Metro. Tax Revenue Possibilitles The Committee shall identify, analyze and make recommendations on tax sources which are appropriate .to fund the functions, programs and activities listed above. The Committee shall consider as many potential tax sources as are reasonably possible. In the course of its study the Committee shall consider the following factors and shall report to the Council on the weight that these considerations were given in it's final recommendations: 36 The dedication of revenue to specific activities vs. the acquisition of discretionary tax sources. a The cost or difficulty in administration of the tax source. Th, identification of tax sources which can be used to implement policy goals (other than just raising revenue) vs. identification of policy neutral tax sources. The relationship of this effort to other funding studies currently u^derway. ublia Process The Committee shall function primarily as a study committee and as advisors to the Metro Council. All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittees that may be established shall be open to the public. The Committee shall conduct at least three public hearings during the course of its deliberations one in each of the three counties within the Metro region. The Committee may hold additional hearings as deemed necessary by the Chair of the Committee. The Committee may use subcommittees from time to time as necessary and as structured by the Committee Chair. The Committee Chair shall provide an oral progress report at the 2nd Council meeting each month beginning in July 1993. Final-Product/Report The Committee shall submit a final written report to the Council no later than !November 95, 1993. The report shall contain a summary of the process followed by the Committee; identify assumptions and criteria used; identify alternative tax -sources studied; include significant findings and issues discussed; and contain _the Committee's recommendations on tax source(s) to implement. The report may also include other matters and information as deemed appropriate by the Committee. A-4 1 Committee Staff The Department of Finance and Management information shall have primary responsibility to provide staff support to the Committee. ciwp5l Ucarenljs-memos193-1813.mem A-5 RE,S LLM-ON NO. 93-1813A EXHIBIT B TAX STUDY COMMTTEE MEMBERSHIP Mille Ragsdale,. Chair Wayne Atteberry, Vice Chair Charlie Hales Darlene Hooley Phil Kalberer [.0?~4 e-:1}J lOGt~ a savarGeorge Scott Amoy Williamson Rena Cusma, Ex Officio Judy Wyers, Ex Officio AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 93-1834 (see Exhibit A, p. A-7) August 12, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93-1834 (EXHIBIT B) TAX STUDY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP REVISIONS Wayne Atteberry, Chair Rebecca Marshall Chao, Vice Chair D. Michael Glanville r A-6 r~rslr~ os: 'PraO.C BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIRMING RESOLUTION No. 93-1834 ) AN APPOINTMENT TO THE TAX ) STUDY COMMITTEE AND ) Introduced by Rena Cusma, CONFIRMING DESIGNATION OF THE Executive Officer CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR ) WHEREAS, Resolution 93-1813A created the Tax Study Committee as required by the 1992 Metro Charter and confirmed members, chair, and vice-chair of the comnttee; and WHEREAS, The chair has resigned from the from the Tax Study Committee; and WHEREAS, Metro Code Chapter 2.13.030 provides, "If a vacancy occurs during the time a study committee is functioning, the position shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment and confirmation"; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the appointment to the Tax Study Committee, made by Executive Officer Rena Cusma, of Michael Glanville. is hereby con ~I nied.. 2. That the designation, made by the Executive Officer Rena Cusma, of Committee vice- chair Wayne Atteberry, as chairman of the Tax Study Committee is hereby confirmed. 3. That the designation, made by the Executive Officer Rena Cusma, of Committee member Rebecca Marshall Chao as vice-chair of the Tax Study Committee is hereby confirmed. ADOPTED by the Metro Council this 12th day of August 1993. J y Wye o, Pres' ing Officer RSR:1W7NW0R1XM15C %R931831.D0C A-7 jy~ p pendix s Considered by MVenue 0ptioStudY C®rnrnittee the metro -fax Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix B 71 Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 Likely Options ® Auto Rental Tax Construction Excise Tax ® Off-Street Parking Tax • Real Estate Transfer Tax • Utility Account Tax Less Likely Options • Airport Ground Transportation Fee • Land Corner Preservation Fee Motor Fuel Tax Motor Vehicle Registration Fee • Occupational Privilege Tax Transient Lodging Tax (Hotel/Motel Tax) S-1 t Appendix C Metro Tax Study Committee Members and Subcommittee Members ivieiro Tax Study Committee Appendix C Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 METRO TAY. STUDY-COMMITTEE 1. WAYNE ATTEBERRY, Chair Standard Insurance Company Portland, OR 97229 2. REBECCA MARSHALL CHAO, Vice-Chair, President, Regional Financial Advisors, Inc. Portland, OR 97205 3. MIKE GLANVILLE - National Mortgage Co. Portland, OR 97205 4. CHARLIE HALES City Commissioner City of Portland 1220 SW Fifth Ave., #404 Portland, OR 97204 5. DARLENE HOOL.EY Chair, Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners 906 Main Street Oregon City, OR 97045-1819 6. PHILIP KALBERER President, Kalberer Hotel Supply Co. Portland, OR 97209 7. WILLIAM "WALLY" MEHRENS Exec. Sec., Columbia Pacific Bldg. & Construction Trades Council Portland, OR 97266 8. RAYMOND A. PHELPS Vice President, Pacific/West Communications Group, Inc. Portland, OR 97204 9. GEORGE C. SCOTT (retired CPA) Portland, OR 97229 10. GENE SEIBEL Administrator, Tualatin Valley Water District Beaverton, OR 97006 11. AMOY D. WILLIAMSON Senior Management Auditor Office of the City Auditor, City of Portland Portland, OR 97204 C-1 Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix C Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 METRO TAX STUDY COMMITTEE Resigned: C-2 v ffm . Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix C Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 METRO TAX STUDY COMMITTEE Subcommittee #1, - Fiscal Policy and Philosophy 1. PHILIP KALBERER, Chair Tax Study Committee 2. CHARLIE HALES Tax Study Committee 3. DARLENE HOOLEY Tax Study Committee 4. RAYMOND A. PHELPS Tax Study Committee 5 A MOY D. %A111 !AMSON Tax Study Committee 6. ROBIN WHITE BOMA Portland, OR 97204 7. SUSAN KIEL City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services Portland, OR 97204 8. :JOHN D. REES Rees & Associates Beaverton, OR 97005 (Sunset Corridor Assn.) C-3 Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix C Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 METRO TAX STUDY COMMITTEE Subcommittee #2 - Functions 1, GENE SEISEL, Chair Tax Study Committee 2. MIKE GLANVILLE Tax Study Committee 3. GEORGE C. SCOTT Tax Study Committee 4. WALT HITCHCOCK Mayor, City of Sherwood Sherwood, OR 97140 5. NOEL KLEIN Westem Advocates Lake Oswego, OR 97035 C-4 ism ~ru f Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix C Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 METRO TAX STUDY COMMITTEE Subcommittee 03 - Revenue Sources 9. REBECCA MARSHAL CHAO, Chair Tax Study Committee 2.. AMOY D. WILLIAMSON Tax Study Committee 3. WILLIAM "WALLY"MEHRENS Tax Study Committee 4. FRED MILLER Vice President, Public Affairs Portland General Electric Portland, OR 97204 5. BOB DAWSON PacifiCorp - Portland, OR 97204 6. MIKE RAGSDALE Beaverton, OR 97006 C-5 Appendix D Revenue Source Base Continuum I r~ Revenue Source Base Contlnuum Revised 0-27-93 0 Narrow Medium Broad CL _ Auto Rental Tax Tronsiont (Property) Land Excise Tax Gas Tax Income Tax (D Lodging Tax Corner Preservation (Existing) 0 Fee O Airport Ground Food & Beverage Construction Local Government Property Tax j 3 Transportation Tax Excise Tax Dues C Fee " (D 0 (G Taxi Tax Real Estate Off-Street Parking General Soles Tax U7 s Transfer Tax Tax Utility Taut f Motor Ve;iicle Registration Fee Occupational Privilege Tax Excise Tax Narrow Medium Broad M Parking Fees Zoo Solid Waste -3 N > Sublease Income Planning Fees .tea tr (D .73 Convention Center X CID CP:rs cAlcili llpl.dot lg, Bali-gum Mim ji, Appendix E Pros and Cons Construction Excise Tax Real Estate Transfer Tax Of.-Street Parking Tax Utility Account Tax r . Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix E Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 PROS AND CONS OF REVENUE OPTIONS CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX PRO CON Could generate significant revenues Cyclical nature of building activity at relatively low rates Low set-up and administrative costs Increases construction costs in region possible impact on competition with non-Metro areas Existing "collection point" for Impact on low-income housing application of the tax (depending on how the tax is applied) Strong connection to Growth May encourage builders or Management (Planning) homeowners to avoid getting building ermits Minimal problem with delinquencies if Possible competition/confusion with collected at time of building permit System Development Charges _r . Wei ca Issuance Ability to tailor tax to help meet Would raise the cost of new housing tannin goals May have problem taxing construction projects of other governments E-1 i Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix E Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 PROS AND CONS OF REVENUE OPTIONS REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX PRO CON Could,generate significant revenues Cyclical nature of real estate activity at relatively low-rates Strong connection to Growth Legislative moratorium could be re- Management (Planning) . imposed Generally progressive (based on High set-up costs collection system value) would have to be created in Multnomah and Clackamas Counties Would spread burden over broader Difficulty in tracking property transfers base of payers than the Construction that do not go through a title company Excise Tax May be less cyclical in nature than the Limited ability to collect delinquent Construction Excise Tax accounts As yet unused resource in Oregon Possible competition with other (except for Washington Count jurisdic ions 5 E-2 Balm W 11 111,01 ii !I !,I MISS MEM r7 Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix E Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 PROS AND CONS OF REVENUE OPTIONS UTILITY ACCOUNT TAX PRO CON Broad tax base Likely strong opposition from utilities and low income groups Existing collection and billing system Regressive (tax on essential service) Could generate significant revenues Impact on low income, citizens at relative) low rates Potential competition with other jurisdictions May create bias towards certain energy sources if not applied to all fuel sources (electricity, natural gas, oil May not be able to apply to other governmental units (i.e., water or sewer utilities, PUDs Economic impact on energy intensive industries Least tie to Planning E-3 i . Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix E . Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 PROS AND CONS OF REVENUE OPTIONS OFF-STREET PARKING TAX PRO CON Strong tie to transportation and transit Lack of reliable inventory of spaces planning Encourages transit ridership High.start yap and administrative costs need to create collectionsystem) Stable revenue flow Impact on auto-dependent businesses Possible competition with Tri-/let Impact on Park & Ride lots Time needed to set up inventory and ,L1 VVIIWVl11J11 QYOtClll Impact on employers.with large em loyee parking requirements E4 a 0 p piiendix F oescnptions Construction Excise Tax feat estate Transfer Tax CONSTRUCTION (EXCISE TAX DEFINITION A Construction Excise Tax is.imposed on new construction or additions that increase the square footage of currently existing buildings. It could be levied on any or all classes of real estate including, but not limited to, single residence, multi-family housing, industrial facility, office building, and nonprofit facility. MODELS Howard County, Maryland In 1992, Howard County, Maryland began imposing a Construction Excise Tax. The rate is $0.60 per square foot for residences, offices and retail spaces; and $30 per square foot for distribution, manufacturing and institutional facilities. Because Howasd County collects the tax when the permit is issued and does not allow for postponement, there are no problems with tax delinquency. This means that all the County needs to administer the tax are computers which can perform simple calculations. Both the set-up and ongoing administrative costs- are minimal. Mr. George Martin of the Building Permits office indicated that there has not been much opposition to Montgomery County, Maryland In 1991, Montgomery County, Maryland approved a Construction Excise Tax which was to go into effect beginning January 1, 1993. However, implementation has been postponed until July 1, 1994 because of the weak economy. The tax is calculated as a dollar amount per "gross square footage" of construction that adds square footage to the building. The first 1,200 square feet are exempt. Other exemptions are provided for: 1. Buildings used primarily for religious activities. 2. Certain subsidized moderate dwelling units . 3. Certain subsidized productivity housing units. 4. Rent controlled housinla. The Construction Excise Tax rates are as follows: Per Gross Square Footage Single-family residential $3.75 Multi-family residential $3.00 Warehouse, manufacturing R & D, $2.40 Other nonresidential (office, retail) $4.00 Nonprofit case-giving facilities S1.00 Public Financial Management, Inc. Montgomery County structured the collection of the tax such that taxpayers who were purchasing property to develop are able to postpone payment of the tax until the time of closing (as opposed to paying the tax when a building permit is issued). This means that the County will have to keep track of these people from the time the permit is issued until the tax is paid at closing. The County needs some way to track each transaction to ensure payment of the tax. County officials said this will be a very onerous and costly system. In particular, the County needs to be able to track real estate transactions and tie the transaction to a tax account ID number for each taxpayer. Montgomery County officials estimate that their computer set-up costs will be approximately $275,000 to $300,000 because of this complexity. State of Oregon. Municipalities in Oregon currently collect fees for plan review and permit issuance on construction activities pursuant to ORS 455.020. The State of Oregon establishes a schedule printed in the "Uniform Building Code" which states the maximum fee level that a municipality may charge for these services. The system for gathering information and determining the value of construction is generally well-established since municipalities currently collect a myriad of charges associated with taking out a construction permit. T0_'Ir A T REVENUE POTENTLAL The following charts represent potential revenues based on Howard County and Montgomery County's tax rates applied to. construction activity within Metro's boundaries. The construction square footage and value reflect calendar year 1992 figures which were obtained from jurisdictions inside Metro's areas by Metro Data Resource Center. This data was collected for purposes other than revenue planning, therefore should be used for preliminary study only. The individual jurisdictions will need to be contacted to get more updated and accurate data. The following analysis assumes that the amount of square footage under construction would remain at the level recorded during calendar year 1992. Future revenues generated will vary depending on' future construction patterns and the impact this tax may have on building activities. Howard County Model Using Howard County's Model and excluding the first 1,200 square feet, Metro could collect $27.3 million in gross revenues from the Construction Excise Tax: With this tax structure, a new 2;000 square foot house would be assessed $480. Set up and ongoing administrative costs would be negligible. F-2 Public Financial Management, Inc. RATE SQUARE (S/sgtl) FOOTAGE 'REVENUE Single•FcMily S060 4,910.815 S2.946A89 Multi-Fomily $060 4.551.268 52.730.761 Commercial, Office. Other $060 32.774.003 S19.664A02 Industrial . S030 2.763.101 $828.930 Public, Medical, Education 50.30 3.771.671 S1,131.561 Gross Annual Collection t' 21.392.143 Montgoniety County Model Using the same tax rates as used in Montgomer}, Count; and excluding the first 1,200 square feet, the tax would generate as much as S 17i.6 million dollars to A•letro. With this rate structure, a new 2,000 square foot house would be assessed 53,000. Set-up and ongoing administrative costs are unknown. RATE SQUARE (SAa tt) FOOTAGE REVENUE Single Family S3 75 4.910.815 518 415556 Multi-Family S3.00 4.551.268 S13.653.804 Commercial, office, Other 5400 32,774.003 S131.096D)2 Industrial $240 2,763,101 56.631442 Public, Medical, Education sl O0 3.771.871 53.771.871 Gross Annual Collection S 173,568,686 F-3 Public Financial.Aforragemenr, Inc. REVENUE POTENTIAL FOR METRO • '1°ne following chart identifies one possible rate schedule which would result in gross annual revenues of $5.46 million. Assuming that local jurisdictions who collect the tax for Metro keep 5% of gross revenues to offset administrative costs, and assurriing that the tax is not applied to the first 1.200'square feet, net revenues to Metro would be approximately $5.19 million. A 2,000 square foot house would be assessed $96. REVENUE POTENTIAL PATE SQUARE (S/sq It) FOOTAGE REVENUE Single-Family S012 4.910.815 $589.298 Multi-Family S012 4.551.268 S546.152 Commercial., Office, Other S0.12 32.774.003 53.932.880 Industrial 5006 2.763.101 5165.786 Public, Medical, Education S006 3.771.871 5226.312 Gross Annual Collection S5,460.429 FUNCTIONAL CONNECTION Because real estate development increases demands for solid waste facilities, transportation and general planning, tax proceeds could be directed to Planning or Solid Waste. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION REQUIRED 1. Determine the rate and the collection method. 2. Determine the governmental. entities which will collect this tax, and enter into governmental agreements with Cities and Counties to collect the tax. 3. Evaluate staffing and computer systems at the three counties. 4. Purchase and install any additional computer systems. 5. Train staff. F-4 Publir Financial Management. Inc. TIMELINE FOR INMPLE11ENTATION This will depend on the complexity for the rates and the collection method chosen. However, Preliminary conversations with county officials suggest that the necessary systems to calculate and collect this tax may be substantially in place at this time. Officials for the City of Portland, who issue the majority of the building permits for Multnomah County, believe it would be relatively simple to calculate a tax based on additional gross square footage. The existing computer system already has a field for square footage and a field for valuation. Clackamas County also already does a similar calculation for a tax they impose on building permits. This could result in a short implementation period. OTHER IN'T'ERESTED GOVERNMENTS / COMPETITION Local governments inside with Metro's boundaries may find that a Construction Excise Tax may compete with their ability to impose or raise System Development Charges. These charges are often used for transportation or utility infrastructure development, and are assessed at the time of issuance of a development or building permit. Clackamas County began imposing a Transportation System Development Charge as recently as May 3, 1993. OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES / WHO PAYS 7be construction and development industry is the.primary group that would be affected by this tax. The tax could create a bias toward existing real estate since these would not be subject to the tax. Builders and buyers of new real estate will face higher costs while sellers of existing real j estate may see the value of their real estate raised. A low tax rate may, however, minimize this factor. Coupling this tax with the Real Estate Transfer tax could also mitigate this bias. Homeowners who may want to add more than 1,200 square feet to their existing houses would be affected by the tax. In Montgomery County, there was opposition from low income housing groups because they believe that the tax will increase the cost of housing for the poor. . w The imposition of the tax was postponed in Montgomery County not only because of the strong lobby of the construction industry, but also because of the weak economy. This tax would increase the cost of construction and could depress building activity, depending on the rate applied. ADVANTAGES The Construction Excise Tax could generate significant revenues. If the tax is collected at time of permit issuance, sec-up and administrative costs would be low. In addition, there is a strong relationship between the type of tax and what the revenues would be used for. DISADVANTAGES Opposition to the tax is likely to be strong and well organized. Depending on how the tax is implemented, set-up costs and administrative costs may range from.negiigible to high. The cyclical nature of construction activities is a major concern since construction could fluctuate widely from month to mcnth and from y;gar to y= The following graph plots the number of single family building permits issued in Multnomah County between 1975 and 1991 and demonstrates the fluctuations in construction from year to yeas:. F -5 Public Financial Management, Inc. logglip Duoding Ye►miis in Mulinv~?iu 3.000 ® sogle FamiN 2.500 2= ~ ,soo i,fT00 - 500 0 X, ;2 m m g P O P O O P O O O P P P O O P This potential revenue volatility may be midgated by the establishment of a Tax Stabilization Account (TSA). Iri conjunction with an expenditure limitation, Metro could impose the tax at a rate slightly higher than its anticipated needs. The surplus revenue would be deposited into the TSA to be used during periods when tax collection falls below anticipated levels. i F-6 Public Financial Management. Inc. ~ T Construction Excise Tax Revenue Potential Ash, Commercial/ Industrial Multi-Family Single F./ Other Educational/ Total Office Mobile Home Public/Med. Rate Rate Value) Value) Value) Value) Value) Value) Value) per 292,799.748 54.641.986 62.668.294 543,357.039 48.914,437 103,634,980 1,106.016,484 thousand) 0.15%® $1.50 $439,200 $81,963 $94.002 $815,036 $73,372 $155,452 $1,659.025 0.20% $2.00 $585,599 $109,284 $125.337 $1,086,714 $97,829 $207,270 $2,212.033 0.25% $2.50 $731,999 $136,605 $156,671 $1,358,393 $122,286 $259,087 $2,765,041 0.30%® $3.00 $878,399 $163,926 $188.005 $1,630,071 $146,743 $310,905 $3,318,049 0.35% $3.50 $1,024,799 $191,247 $219.339 $1,901,750 $171,201 $362,722 $3,871,058 0.40%® $4.00 $1,171,199 $218,568 $250.673 $2.173,428 $195.658 $414,540 $4,424,066 0.45% $4.50 $1,317,599 $245,889 $282,007 $2,445,107 $220,115 $466,357 $4,977,074 0.50% $5.00 $1,463,999 $273,210 $313,341 $2,716,785 $244,572 $518,175 $5,530,082 0.55% $5.50 $1,610,399 $300,531 $344,676 $2,988,464 $269,029 $569,992 $6,083,091 0.60% $6.00 $1,756,798 $327,852 $376.010 $3,260,142 $293.487 $62i,810 $6.636.0-99 0.65% $6.50 $1,903,198 $355,173 112,407.344 $3,531,821 $317,944 $673,627 $7,189,107 0.70% $7.00 $2,049,598 $382,494 $438.678 $3,803,499 $342,401 $725,445 $7,742,115 0.75% $7.50 $2,195;998 $409,815 $470,012 54,075,178 $366,858 $777,262 $8,295,124 0.60% $8.00 $2,342,398 $43',136 $501.346 $4,346,856 $391,315 $829,080 $8,848,132 0.85% $8.50 $2,488,798 $464.457 $532.680 $4,618,535 $415,773 $880,897 $9,401,140 90.90% $9.00 $2.635.198 $491,778 $564.015. $4.890.213 $440.230 $932,715 $9,954,148 Data provided by Metro Data Resource Center Notes: (1) Commercialloffice category also includes restaurants (2) The data reflects construction value indicated on permits issued by various jurisdictions during calendar year 1992. These numbers were collected for purposes other than revenue planning and are intended for preliminary study only. Prepored by Public F,nc.ncicf Mcncgemenr. Inc F-7' REAL ESTATE TR_A. SFER TAX DEF'LNITION A Real Estate Transfer Tax is imposed on the buyer when real property changes ownership and is calculated as a percentage of the purchase price of the property It is similar to a Sales Tax, only the object of the tax is property transactions instead of goods MODELS Washington County Washington County began to levy a Real Estate Transfer Tax in 1977 The County can collect the talc from the transfer of any property that can be transferred through grant; sale, exchange, assignment, quit claim or other conveyance of ownership in or title to real property. The follovAng transfers are exempted. 1. Transfers made by or to governmental agencies or its instrumentalities. 2. Transfers made by or to any state or territory of the United States of America. 3. Transfers made by or to foreign countries 4. Transfers made by or to special districts formed pursuant to Oregon taw, any municipality or any public corporation S. Transfers for which the property's selling price is 513.999 or less 6. Transfers by gift, devise or inheritance 7, • Transfers of a grave or cemetery 8. Transfers between spouses effected by order of any court of competent jurisdiction in a marriage dissolution or separation proceeding The County's tax rate is 0.1 % (S 1.00 per S 1,000) of the property's selling price. During fiscal year ending 1992, the tax produced $1.443,072 in revenue. The tax is collected through the Recording Office which has approximately 1.5-1.75 full-time equivalents (FTE) working on the administration of the. program. The County estimates that program administration will cost $73,000 next year. The County is assisted by title companies in the collection of the tax. If a transfer occurs through a title company, the title company collects the tax and passes it on to the County. The system gets bogged down when a transfer occurs but does not go through a title company. This requires the County to do more research and tracking, to determine if a transfer has occurred The County does not keep track of the rate of delinquency, and the County's ability to handle delinquencies is Limited At the present time, the County Counsel advises the Assessor's office to rake the delinquent party to small claims court That is the only recourse at this time Because the Transfer Tax is a County Ordinance, the County cannot foreclose on the property as if it were a property tax The Recording- Section of the Assessor's office is exploring ways to amend the ordinance to make collection efdelinquencies simpler Real Estate Transtrr Tax Public Financial llcnogement. Inc. P-•8 ' TOTAL PEVENUE POTENTIAL The following chart represents potential revenues for Metro based on the same tax rate as used in vo%asi ingiorr County (0.1% or S1 per S1000 of property's selling price) The level of future transfers is assumed to remain the same as in FY 91-92 Further analysis on elasticity of demand is necessary to determine the impact this tax may have on future volume of transfers R.EVEINUE POTS. TIAL CUclamaa dlwltnomah MluA~ggn Caunry Counry Caunry Total $ Tronalars 8791,010.595 11.719.86!.158 81.143072.000 93.052780.053 IT Qndin0'92 c4ture Rates 97.2% 97.6% 07% $ Transfers 9531,559.120 $1,677.438.000 $1.255.472.000 03.484,489.120 Matra Aran Tax Rate 0.10% $531.559 $1.877.178 $1.255.472 $3.464.489 WirpuancT Rate 5.00% $26.578 $63.972 $62.774 $173.224 Brow Annual Collection (551.981 s 1.593.56 81.192.688 $3.201,245 Collo ionlAdministrationCoats $100.000 9fn Advu1~ RE~ut $3,101,245 1Caltwa Acts roprosonis the pereemspoof osch eowntt't po;w4t.on 9olanpmp n Mina's t C. %.'I IS FUNCTIONAL CONNECTION Because transfers of real property increase demands for transportation and general planning, tax proceeds could be directed to Planning REVENUE POTENTIAL FOR METRO A 0.215% tax rate (S215 on a S 100,000 property) on the property's selling pri ce is projected to generate approximately S7.1 million in gross annual revenue. Ater accounting for set-up and administrative costs, net revenue is forecast to-be $6 7 million the first year, and approximately S7 million per year thereafter. Real Estate Transfer Tcz public Finonctal.lfanagement.'lne. F-9 MEN= 1QV PLEMUNTATIO:d ACTION REQUIRED 1. Existing state law prohibits.the imposition of new real estate transfer taxes until Jan 1. 1994' Metro may not impose this tax if a current proposal (HB 2883) to extend the prohibition to Jule 1, 1996 passes. 2. The computer systems in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties must be purchased. installed and staff must be trained 'IINELITIE FOR MIP'LEMENTATION Implementation maybe accomplished within one year However, implementation may not be possible until 1996 if the Legislature extends the current prohibition OTHER INTIERESTEID GOVERNMENTS Metro's competition in implementing a Real Estate-Transfer Tax will come from any of the other local jurisdictions with which Metro overlaps: Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. the City of Portland and numerous other cities in the area The State of Oregon is also considering Real Estate Transfer Tax this legislative session OTHER INTERESTED. PARTIES / `x SO PAYS Homeowners and u and peo-le entering the real estate market could be considered interested parties ~1~di7CJ, because they will pay the tax ADVANTAGES The Real Estate Transfer Tax has the potential to raise significant revenues for Metro. The rate necessary to produce substantial revenues would be relatively low. It is generally progressive since it is based on the value of the property DISADVANTAGES There are significant legislative questions about the Real Estate Transfer Tax Several proposals related to the Real Estate Transfer Tax are before the Legislature. HB 3122 would impose a state excise tax on real estate sales HB 2883 would extend the prohibition of local imposition of the tax to July 1, 1996. There is a good chance this proposal will be adopted, in which case Metro would not be able to impose this type of tax. Finally, with the exception of Washington County, the system is not in place to collect the tax and would require a substantial up-front investment of Metro's time and money Real Estate Tranffer Tas public F,nonciof .lfanagtmenr, Inc F-10 im 1! • C Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue Potential Total value of transfers in Metro's Boundaries during fiscal year 1991-92 is $3,557,492,148 Tax Rate Rate Revenue per thousand) 0.02% $0.20 $711,498 0.03% $0.30 $1,067,248 0.04% $0.40 $1,422,997 0.05% $0.50 $1,778,746 0.06% $0.60 $2.134,495 0.07% 50.70 $2,490,245 0.08% $0.80 $2.845,994 0.09% $0.90 $3,20.743 0.10% $1.00 $3.55 ,492 0.11% $1.10 $3,913,241 0.12% 51.20 $4,268,991 0.13% S1.30 $4.624,740 0.14% 51.40 $4,980,489 Aft, 0.15% $1.50 $5,336,238 0.16% $1.60 $5.691.987 Data obtained from Clackamas. Multnomah and Washington County Recording Offf ices Notes: 1. Assume that 906/6 of these recordings fall inside Metros jurisdictions. 2. The above figures do not account for delinquent accounts or tax evasion. Prepared b}• Public i• financial Management, Inc. F-11 r C Appendix G Oral and Written Testimony Presentations and Summary of Major Issues lillogill'i Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix G Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 Aft Oral Testimony: Bob Baker, owner Skyline Realty Jack Nelson Associated General Contractors Greg Specht Specht Dev. and NAIOF Pam Zielinski Lutz Snyder Co: Realtors Bob Stutte Portland Board of Realtors Joan Snyder Dennis Snyder Contractors Bob Stacey and Coldwell Banker Prof. Group Portland, OR Bruce Griswoid Willis Rader City of Lake Oswego Portland, OR Dorothy Cofield Fred Young Oregonians In Action Portland Board of Realtors Katie Mueller Chris Harrison Washington Co. Assn. of Realtors Chair, Portland Branch of Realtors Legislative Committee and Stan *Genoa Ingram Wiley Realtors Aft r Oregon Institute of Realtors Jean Ridings *Robert C. Alexander Troutdale, OR Forest Grove/Cornelius Economic Development Council Jerry Johnson Hobson & Associates Drake Butsch Home Builders of Metro Portland Bill Cross Building Owners and Managers *Jon A. Chandler, Staff Attorney Association Common Ground: The Urban Land Council of Oregon E. John Rumpakis COMPA Dante R. Marrocco Building Assn.; Ore. Assn. of Judy Wyers Realtors Metro Presiding Officer Sandee Wilson Stan Wiley, Inc., Realtors * Also written testimony G-1 REM Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix G Report and Recommendations November 15, 1993 Written Testimony (received by November 5, 1993): Frank VanDeventer Pres., Baugh Construction Oregon, Robin O. White, Exec. VP Inc., and Portland BOMA Director, Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corp. Yvonne Katz, Superintendent Beaverton Schools, Dist. 48 Chris Beck, Project Manager The Trust for Public Land Charles D. Cameron County Administrator James C. Homolka Washington County Beaverton, OR 'Mayne Lowry, Finance Director David R. Lintz, Chairman City of Tigard Suburban Planning Council BOMA, on behalf of: Sharon Murphy Portland, OR Hillman Properties Northwest Yrammel'Crow Company Pat G. Kaplan Chicago Title Insurance Portland, OR Norris, Beggs, Simpson Cushman & Wakefield Tim Schauermann Melvin Mark Companies Schauermann Insurance Associates Forum Properties Norris & Stevens Richard G. Kidd, Mayor Birtcher Properties City of Forest Grove P. L. "Penny" Douglas Michael N. Wells, SIOR Beaverton, OR Lake Oswego, OR Robert R. LaDu Melvin Mark, Jr., President Portland, OR Melvin Mark Companies Mary Anderson, Assoc, Broker Ted Aadland, President Stan Wiley, Inc., Realtors Oregon-Columbia Chapter Associated General Contractors Sean R. Kimsey, Sales Assoc. Professionals 100 Realtors Bill Supak, Exec. Director Oregon-Columbia Chanter Frank Rawlins, Sales Assoc. Associated General Contractors Professionals 100 Realtors Sidney Bluestone Pat West, GRI, Assoc, Broker Bluestone & Hockiey Realty, Inc. The Equity Group, Inc. G-2 Metro Tax Study Committee Appendix G 19930 Ror-wnr6 and Re C_datiorm itlwvesrnc~t~e r '1~', Sys o......_.rnmen Written Testimony (continued): Magnus Johannesson Professionals 100 Realtors Patrick M. Whitty Professionals 100 Realtors Al Peniche, Sales Assoc. Professionals 100 Realtors Shannon Mahan Stan Wiley, Inc.' Kathy Rader, Sales Assoc. Stan Wiley, Inc. .Cindy King, Realtor W. J. "Bill" Easton, Sales Assoc. Professionals 100 Realtors Carolyn Marone Professionals 100 Realtors G-3 111 6', MUNI= ~S ( j Tax Study Committee O _ Public Hearings Testimony and Written Tastimony (received through Nov. 5, 1993) N R) Summary Q, October 27.28.29, 1993 1W M C O CL O `G ~ O Verbal Testimony = 24 tD 0 Written Testimony 16 (D More :ime, How wifunds O (D Tao many Not Equitable be used? ~ education; Delay til In Economic lees;hiph (Cl. Co. Of out Impact? Cause Need -costafdouble of region/ Need Locale Provo needs. New Affordable Dicin. Exemp taxino taxes) impinging on Shd. go Broad not in Show savings. Planning Locals) to Voters . Base Process Value/Return Du licetion Council Housin centivas tionc doubt sunset t 15 15 15 5 q 22 7 9 18 8 ~ Metro Try Utility, made to plan; Locals 2040 Metro Need Motor V., can't afford. i - Shb. Give Like to User Gov't. Planners g Planning Supports U Und nd Would Neod Use Local Garbe a Include er Local ' - fear Dues Or an. Tax M1 hs z Nncerrar fle 'l. Gov't. funded Grants Hot 1 O 1 1 1 3 M 6 . 4 1 1 q 3 fD D .s C;1. 60 X W l7 Aft Iwo . ...,5'~ r.. a ,4. 1,,1,1,Wiw t, t. , Ar.s,fi 7F^ b,._,;,:.s.a. U.~,.~.v.,~:.~,_,I,e °.t v tt 7,'=rr~r•.=W f 1:~ "'w 4 ~~r`t~„k2 p,~ xtF ~kc.r's~, 3 x ...~LUa+' '1' ..nn R iJ^•2..p°~'4.r.a 5 ,^r .f'" _ { r - i. ',~°°'"s'SFt~"`;."'1ms "P1 fF n,uf ! 4 'N '1 4t:'r k a ;,2 ky/' - P "ar a'C' r,kv, x i. 1 1 s Y :na'r, 1'S d"' Yv^F'~~'t rr iJ jr e r};L+=s?iii,; \ r~,-!r t F y"t ',f, F 'yI q rE f i t a v , j ' j T rw, o- ,yi a~.a,w c. f FS { y i' ' v y Qp'i dtrt -x F ,,,eV, 1r r. { s' i a,~~' x,r Fau a;' ti< es r r 5 ti CV ~Yy.,r~Jx `fit{ y! l t , L, 1 } ''1 r 4 4 Y{ (i i4 2 r l L -t v ti 1. }!',a r '1 j5.cf 3 + t, ~d 1,1 r $,:7 { ! t s F, S~p~, yrvcl'~r Cr..4 4 a ,~J r'r v! a a i 4 i + '1 t 4 \Sf+w- y~i~ to Gt AxrQV S 1v q7 rs '+t,, ,}+S a 1 ^t ~3 6 ~.r y r t f.n; z r 7~Y X141+ r5 s t 5 f' 5. I m s a " t i i r ' , E t «t~~? r r t t rll cps .'tv. aS 1 r 'S + ~ i 'ti z I f er`~,r e 4~ s -i I - ; A ` s a .r'N'r"'Sra - 5 rC rr l r.. , + y r ' ! f rte v+i r I 4r s lv y. _t S , E 3;isL\n ,a.$c(-'N _ y r .r .fir 1~ T 1 } d et. r E a J ~ - 'd in }i 47k ,n I } F 1,' " r=1xq, +5r - i i 'q°Y11 ~,f y i/!dt iV6ti & - , . ~ ~ "I" ~'~,',C,.. _ ~ ! - , I - i x Y JF, Y 2.. 5 5'-, Y k. r s k t s . F1 i.~?.{S:a"YS:t~,<h d y14 r t r t f, - Y st v r s 4 - f y. f,• a,, j' r , f; y li; o 'i t' d + 1 d 1, - KIPr{ xY, C++ t r y ~c IC fV f 1 k 1' YI a c y ,l t { r' trr< a y; +.yYr },i Y JP1 t ' 'iJ 7. t 7 1' ~t R {;t , r ~ c F y ;a $~3~ I 11 ,Cfil, A # ~ ~ 10 D ace~f ~ ± ~ :f,:a,,r ~i~pt~a~►A~ .r ~a►a d'ex~a~t` vesaq®~ 126eis9 C ~°'r ("c~"F yx tFr{ b v.' rti 7' v~ i , r y i :~+sF' 'y+> a r`F bt F h 4 r e ) 7 : a a ~~"r t„m fi'fi +h , Sf ,rv ~ h rt av, i; 3 r t _ Y '1 p t t r - 7' iCa i'„Y.x "4^`y11 , ~}rr,., r'' M1;;-t , t t a + 3 I t 4 Lnc«iS'i?,=n.1.7•e4.+, W: ~u. S41 k+ '~y t y s r Y r t r - 1 4, * M I~ tr ru., h;S, , ,~'"r~ ;jr s'iv ' s K 1 { x F r I j" r a y~:.S2~75dyta^Ak *y - {rh r ~y-a_+' ,Y{3! lf,>n k [ Y n F' -r ,~.`>s ~4i. • r- 5 ; r to t -9,r ~2 a + r' $ - "r I t i l~5n v? 'F ti5':,k ais°r v. p2< 5nµw;,~'-'f:.;«1J,`J~.s•z. t ti c , r r 'd z, s ,r':` ^i?.~ 'i{ y )7.~ ; C k 6 f 44_ 7 fi 5 '1' i : F. iy F I rr~%k,G1,,rril~~ fMf^ „~JS' :.kMR iC7i4 Itfro *l75~+t~3^ 9'~v ~yn 'ids ~.i .'YY:'S' -..+.R f'{ i~ : 7 ~J i. ~r>ry;~• .,i,n "+~i- at t{ ^":n~rs.':,eu~,uz, ;~~;,...~.;,•rrr S '•la s GK ' 'R^'hi'., 'jYyn n~Y iii>ft1: M. "ti ~%~•A ~''+'a 1 S}i „r" (•.f 1 _:1.~, }~4 1 ..4 .1. •~..1 . Rx~.i .~1`,~p .a~i s:T:,y;-•SCv , `a.."`',,. :.Vf, s. r,>n dL:.1 `wnw•~'J~Fad~."'w~i~r:.'r; :r.~r., acs:}i,Vi; eso; , r. r Q111 III PIIEAMMLE We, the people of the Portland area metropolitan service district, in order to establish an elected, visible and accountable regional government that is responsive to the citizens of the region and works cooperatively with our local governments; that undertakes, as its most important service, planning and policy making to preserve and enhance the quality of life and the environment for ourselves and fixture generations; and that provides regional services needed and desired by the citizens in an efficient and effective manner, do ordain this charter for the Portland area metropolitan service district, to be known as Metro. CHAPTER I NAMES AND BOUNDARIES Section 1. Title of Charter. The title of this charter is the 1992 Metro Charter. Section 2. Same of Bseional GoverngugGad. T h e soailand area my vy ,lit.: ^n service district, referred to in this charter as the "Metropolitan Service District", continues under this charter as a metropolitan service district with the name "Metro." Section 3. Boundaries. The Metro area of governance includes all territory within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Service District on the effective date of this charter and any territory later annexed or subjected to Metro governance under state law. This charter refers to. that area as the "Metro area".. Changes of Metro boundaries are not effective unless approved by ordinance. No change of Metro boundaries requires approval by a local government boundary commission or any other state agency unless required by law. The custodian of Metro records shall keep an accurate description of Metro boundaries and make it available for public inspection. CHAPI'ER 11 FUNCTIONS AND POWERS Section 4. Jurisdiction of Metro. Metro has jurisdiction over matters of metropolitan concern. Matters of metropolitan concern include the powers granted to and duties imposed on Metro by current and, future state law and those matters the council by ordinance determines to be of me`wopolitan concern. The council shall specify by ordinance the extent to which Metro exercises jurisdiction over matters of metropolitan concern. 1992 Metro Charter Page 1 s. . Section 5.@®nal Ftanning unctions. (11 Future Vision: (a) Adgpton. The council shall adopt a. Future Vision for the region between January 15, 1995 acrd July 1, 1995. The Future Vision is a conceptual statement that indicates population levels and settlement patterns that the region can accommodate within the carrying capacity of the land, water and air resources of the region, and its educational and economic resources, and that achieves a desired quality of life. The Future Vision is a long- term, visionary outlook for at least a 50-year period. As used in this section, "region" means the Metro area and adjacent areas. (8) Matters addressed. The matters addressed by the Future Vision include but are not limited te: (1) use, restoration and preservation of regional land and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, (2) how and where to accommodate the population growth for the region while maintaining a desired quality of life for its residents, and (3) how to develop new communities and additions to the existing urban areas in well-planned ways. (c) Deveftment. The council shall appoint a commission to develop and recommend a proposed Future Vision by a date the council sets. The commission shall be broadly representative of both public and private sectors, including the academic community, in the region. At least one member must reside outside the Metro area. The commission has authority to seek any necessary information and siy.ll consider all relevant information and public comment in developing the proposed Future Vision. The commission serves without compensation. (d) ,review acid amendment. The Future Vision may be reviewed and amended as provided by ordinance. The Future Vision shall be completely reviewed and revised at least every fifteen years in the manner specified in subsection (1)(c) of this section. (e) . ert. The Future Vision is not a regulatory document. It is the intent of this charter that the Future Vision have no effect that would allow court or agency review of it. (2) Regional _Framew r Platt. (a) "d _ ion. The council shall adopt a regional framework plan by December 31, 1997 with the consultation and advice of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) created under section 27 of this charter. The council may adopt the regional framework plan in components. (b) Ma-rivers-saddressed. The regional framework plan shall address: (1) regional transportation and mass transit systems, (2) management and amendment of the urban growth boundary, (3) protection of lands outside the urban growth boundary for natural resource, future urban or other uses, (4) housing densities, (5) urban design and settlement patterns, (6) parks, open spaces and recreational facilities, (7) water sources and storage, (8) coordination, to the extent feasible, of Metro growth management and land use planning policies with those of Clark County, Washington, and (9) planning responsibilities mandated by state law. Tlie regional framework plan shall also address other growth management and land use planning matters which the council, with the consultation and advice of the. MPAC, determines are of metropolitan concern and will benefit from regional planning. To encourage re gional uniformity, the regional framework plan shall also contain model terminology, standards and 1992 Metro Charter Page 2 Iii, 61 Ili Aiiii:31111111011121i MINE l procedures for local land use decision making that may be adopted by local governments. As used in this section, "local" refers only to the cities and counties within the jurisdiction of Metro. (c) Fem. The regional framework plan shall: (1) describe its relationship to the Future Vision, (2) comply with applicable statewide planning goals, (3) be subject to compliance acknowledgement by the Land Conservation and Development Commission or its successor, and (4) be the basis for coordination of local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations. (d) Amendment. The council may amend the regional framework plan after seeking the consultation and advice of the MPAC. (e) Lo kmentcatian. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the council shall adopt ordinances: (1), requiring .local comprehensive plans and implementing regulations to comply with the regional framework plan within three years after adoption of the entire regional framework plan. If the regional framework plan is subject to compliance acknowledgement, local plane and implementing regulations shall be required to comply with the regional framework plan within two years of compliance acknowledgement; (2) requiring the council to adjudicate and determine the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the regional framework plan; (3) requiring each city and county within the jurisdiction of Metro to make local laird use decisions consistent with the regional framework plan until its comprehensive piawn has been determined to be consistent with the regional framework plan. The obligation to apply the regional framework plan to local land use decisions shall not begin until one year after adoption and compliance acknowledgement of the regional framework plan; and (4) allowing the council to require changes in local land use standards and prvicedures if the council determines changes are necessary to remedy a patters, or practice of decision making inconsistent with the regional framework plan. (3) Nosity and funding of regional planning act•via ties. The regional planning functions under this section are the primary functions of Metro. The council shall appropriate funds sufficient to assure timely completion of those functions. Section 6. Other Assigngl Rinctiow:. Metro is also authorized to exercise the following functions: (1) Acquisition, development, maintenance and operation of. (a) a metropolitan zoo, (b) public cultural, trade, convention, exhibition, sports, entertainment, and spectator facilities, (c) facilities for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes, and (d) a system of parks, open spaces and recreational facilities of metropolitan concern; (2) Disposal of solid and liquid wastes; (3) Metropolitan aspects of natural disaster planning and response coordination; (4) Development and marketing of data; and (S) Any other function required by state law or assigned to the Metropolitan Service District or Metro by the voters. 1992 Metro Charter Pare 3 i Elm Section 7. Amumplion of Additio?aal EyACHons. . (1) Assu ption ordinance. The council shall approve by ordinance the undertaking by Metro of any function not authorized by sections 5 and 6 of this charter. The ordinance shall contain a finding that the function is of metropolitan concern and the reasons it is appropriate for Metro to undertake it. (2) , rmplion of local goverment service function. (a) An ordinance authorizing provision 'or regulation by Metro of a local government service is not effective unless the ordinance is approved by the voters of Metro or a majority of the members of the MPAC. Voter approval may occur by approval of a referred measure (1) authorizing the function or (2) _ relating to finances and authorizing financing or identifying funds to be used for exercise of the function.. As used in this section, "local government service" is a service provided to constituents by one or more cities, counties or special districts within the jurisdiction of Metro at the time a Metro ordinance on assumption of the service is first introduced. (b) An ordinance submitted to the'MPAC for approval is deemed approved unless disapproved within 60-days after submission. (c) No approval under this subsection is required for the compensated provision t, ...car uassc of services by Metro to or of, behalf of a 100.4 goner m-ent under agreement with. *U government. (3) Assumption of other service functions. The council shall seek the advice of the MPAC before adopting an ordinance authorizing provision or regulation by Metro of a service which is not a local government service. (4) Assumption of functions and =rations of mass transit district. Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, Metro may at any time assume the duties, functions, powers and operations of a mass transit district by ordinance. Before adoption of this ordinance the council shall seek the advice of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation or its successor. After assuming the functions and operations of a mass transit district, the council shall establish a mass transit commission of not fewer than seven members and determine its duties in administering mass transit functions for Metro. The members of the governing body of the mass transit district at the time of its assumption by Metro are members of the initial Metro mass transit commission for the remainder of their respective terms of office. (5) Rundarx commission funclipg,%. The council shall undertake and complete a study of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Gove_-nment Boundary Commission, with advice of the MPAC, by September 1, 1995. The council shall implement the results of the study and shall seek any legislative action needed for implementation. 1992 Metro Charter Page 4 Section S. rwation of uthod to C . All Metro officers shall preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the ability of Metro to contract for all services with persons or entities who are not Metro employees. Section 9. mineral grant of Powers to Carrv rn: CartAr s io SpecWged Powers. When carrying out the functions authorized or assumed under this charter: (1) Metro has all powers that the laws of the United States and this state now or in the future could allow Metro just as if this charter specifically set out each of those powers, (2) the powers specified in this charter are not exclusive, (3) any specification of power in this charter is not intended to limit authority, and (4) the powers specified in this charter shall be construed liberally. CHAPTER III MANCE Section 10. neral Authority. Except as prohibited by law or restricted by this charter, Metro may impose, levy and collect taxes and may issue revenue bonds, general and special obligation bonds,. certificates of participation and other obligations. The authority provided under this section supplements any authority otherwise granted by law. Section 11. Y'ogLARproval of Certain Taxes. Any ordinance of the council imposing broadly based taxes of general applicability on the personal income, business income, payroll, property, or sales of goods or services of all, or a number of classes of, persons or entities in the region requires approval of the voters of Metro before taking effect. This approval is not required (1) to continue property taxes imposed by the Metropolitan Service District, (2) for the rate or amount of any payroll tax imposed by a mass transit district as of June 1, 1992, of the functions of that district are assumed by Metro, or (3) for additional payroll tax revenues for mass transit imposed to replace revenues lost by withdrawal of any locality from the service area of the -nass transit district after June 1, 1992. For purposes of sections 11, 13 and 14 of this charter, "taxes" do not include any user charge, service fee, franchise fee, charge for the issuance of any franchise, license, permit or approval, or any benefit assessment against property. Sion 12. Voter A.,purov$1 of gun ra Obligatiqu Ikuds. Issuance of general obligation bonds payable from ad valorem property tastes requires the approval of the voter.) of Metro. 1992 Metro Charter Page 5 17 Section 13. T for Qggaultation for Tax ImDosition. Before imposing any new tax for which voter approval is not required, the council shall establish and seek the advice of a tax study committee that includes members appointed from the general. population, and from among businesses and the governments of cities, counties, special districts and school districts, of the Metro area. Section 14. Linnitations on Expenditures of Certain Tax Revenues. (1) en . Except as provided in this section, for the first fiscal year after this charier takes effect Metro may make no more than $12,500;000 in expenditures on a cash basis from taxes imposed and received by Metro and interest and other earnings on those taxes. This expenditure limitation increases in each subsequent fiscal year by a percentage equal to (a) the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items, for Portland-Vancouver (All Urban Consumers) as determined by the appropriate federal agency or (b) the most nearly equivalent index as determined by the council if the index described in (a) is discontinued. (2) Exclusions from limitation. This section does not apply to (a) taxes approved by the voters of Metro or the Metropolitan Service District and interest and other earnings on those taxes, (b) payroll taxes specified in section 11 of this charter, and (c) tax increment financing charges on property. Section 15. Limitations on Amount of User Charges. Except to the extent receipts in excess of costs from food and beverage sales, parking and other concessions are dedicated to reducing charges for the provision of good, or services to which the concession directly relates, charge's for the provision of goods or services by Metro may not exceed the costs of providing the goods or services. 'T'hese costs include, but are not limited to, costs of personal services, materials, capital outlay, debt service, operating expenses, overhead expenses, and capital and operational reserves attributable to the good or service. CEL4FTER IV FORM OF GOVERNNIENT Section 16. Metro Council. (1) Creation and Powers. Ile Metro council is created as the governing body of Metro. Except as this charter provides otherwise, and except for initiative and referendum powers reserved to the voters of Metro, all Metro powers are vested in the council. 1992 Metro Charter Page 6 • Irlm=sRumn' BeginrninQ January 2; 1995, the council consists of seven councilors, x..,........ o v each nominated and elected from a single district within the Metro area. Until that date the council consists of the 13 members of the governing body of the Metropolitan Service District whose terms begin or continue in January 1993 and whose districts continue until'. replaced as provided in this section. The terms of those members expire January 2, 1995. (3) A rtioi meat of council dialdcls (a) Creation and appointment af(apeorntonmeru commission. A Metro apportionment commission of seven commissioners is created. To, appoint the commission the council shall divide itself into five pairs of councilors and one group of three councilors. Each pair and group of councilors shall be from contiguous districts and appoints one commissioner. The presiding officer appoints one commissioner and the commission chair. At least two commissioners must be appointed from each of the three counties within the Metro area, and each commissioner appointed by a pair or group of councilors shall reside in one of the districts from which the councilors malting the appointment are elected or appointed. All appointments to the commission shall be made by February 1, 1993. (b) ,dpRointmem by executive officer. If all appointments to the commission are not made by February 1, 1993, the executive officer shall appoint all commissioners and designate its chair by March 1, 1993. The executive officer shall appoint at least two commissioners from each of the three counties within the Metro area and may not appoint more than one commissioner from a single council district.- (c) Lguaddficatdons from commission membership. No commissioner, or his or her spouse, children, or stepchildren may (1) be a Metro councilor, executive officer or employee, (2) be an elected officer or employee of any city, county or special district, (3) have an economic interest which is distinct from that of the general public in any policy or legislation adopted by Metro or the Metropolitan Service District within the previous two years or which is being considered for adoption, or (4) be engaged, directly or indirectly, in any business with Metro which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of the duties of commissioner. No commissioner may be a candidate for the office of councilor or executive officer in the first primary and general elections after adoption of this charter. Any challenge of the qualifications of a commissioner shah be made by May 1, 1993. (d) Commdssdon vacancies. A vacancy on the commission is filled by action of the authority that appointed the commissioner whose position is vacant. (e) Fidd ofapportion»tent pion.. Not later than July 1, 1993, the commission shall adopt and file with the council an apportionment plan dividing the Metro area into seven council districts. Councilors from those districts are first elected in the first statewide primary and general elections after adoption of this charter for a teran of office beginning January 2, 1995. The affirmative vote of four commissioners is required to adopt the apportionment plan. (r) 4ppoiniment of agDortdonment referee. If the commission fails to file an apportionment plan by July 1, 1993, the council shall appoint an apportionment referee by July 15, 1993. The provisions of subsection (3)(c) of this section apply to appointment of the 1992 Metro Charter Page 7 a refPrm. The ro e_ree shall prepare and file with the council an apportionment plan within 60 clays after his or her appointment. (g) c vp dare Qfgppgajd91tlilel 21M. An apportionment plan filed under this subsection becomes effective on the 30th day after filing unless a voter of Metro petitions for judicial review of the plan as provided by law. (h) 'reria for clisices. As nearly as practicable, all council districts shall be of equal population and each shall be contiguous and geographically compact. The council may by ordinance prescribe additional criteria for districts that are consistent with the requirements of this subsection. prgprcaticrn c ,,fi u&. The council shall appropriate sufficient funds to enable (i)4p the commission and referee to perform their duties under this section. (j) &gHtion of commission. The commission is abolished upon filing the apportionment plan required by this section or on July 2, 1993, whichever is earlier. (k) ftpml 2f subsection. Subsection (3) of this section is repealed January 1, 1994. Upon repeal its provisions shall be stricken from this charter and the other subsections of this section renumbered. (4) Initial terms of office. The terms of office of the four councilors receiving the highest number of votes among the seven councilors elected in 1994 end January 4, 1999. The terms of office of the other three councilors end January 6, 1997. Thereafter the term of office of councilor is four years. (S) Council nresiding~officer. At its first meeting each year the council shall elect a presiding officer from its councilors. (6) Council meetings. The council shall meet regularly in the Metro area at times and places it designates. The council shall prescribe by ordinance the rules to govern conduct of its meetings. Except as this charter provides otherwise, the agreement of a majority of councilors present and constituting a quorum is necessary to decide affirmatively a question before the council. (7) a im.. A majority of councilors in office is a quorum for council business, but fewer councilors may compel absent councilors to attend. (8) Record of proceedmm . The council shall keep and authenticate a record of council proceedings. Section 17. Es~ecut°ve fJfficer°. (1) C hi. The office of Metro executive officer is created. The executive officer is elected from the Metro area at large for a term of four years. The executive officer serves 1992 Metro Charter Page 8 moo= f17,full time and may not be employed by any other person or entity while serving as executive officer. (2) Puties. 'The primary duty of the executive officer is to enforce Metro ordinances and otherwise to execute the policies of the council. The executive officer shall also: (a) administer Metro except for the council and the auditor, (b) make appointments to Metro offices, boards, commissions and committees when required to do -so by this charter or by ordiraance, (c) propose for council adoption measures deemed necessary to enforce or carry out powers and duties of Metro, (d) prepare and submit a recommended annual Metro budget to the co ancil for approval, and (e) keep the council hilly advised about Metro operations. (3) Transition from Metro}zolitan Service Dis The Metropolitan Service District executive officer 'in office when this charter takes effect is the Metro executive officer until January 2, 1995 when his or her term expires. The Metro executive officer is elected in the first statewide primary or general election after adoption of this charter for a term beginning January 2, 1995. (4) V-to. (a) Except as provided in this subsection, the executive officer may veto the following legislative acts of the council within five business days after enactment:. (1) any annual or supplemental Metro budget, (2) any ordinance imposing, or providing an exception from, a taut, and (3) any ordinance imposing a charge for provision of goods, services or property by Metro, franchise fees or any assessment. (b) The council, not later than 30 days after a veto, may override a veto by the affirmative vote of (1) nine councilors while the council consists of 13 positions and (2) five councilors after the council consists of seven positions as provided by section 16(2) of this charter. (c) A legislative act referred to the voters of Metro by the council is not subject to veto. Section 18. Mdro Auditor. (1) ~=i n. The office of Metro auditor is created. The auditor is elected from the Metro area at large for a term of four years. The auditor serves full time and may not be employed by any other person or entity while serving as auditor. (2) piarst eiaction: disaugfflcatio?? for other Meta elected offices. The. auditor is first elected in the' first statewide primary or general election after adoption of this charter for a term beginning January 2; 1995. During the terra for which elected, and for four years thereafter, the auditor is ineligible to hold the offices of Metro executive officer or Metro councilor. (3) Duties. The auditor shall: (a) make continuous investigations of the operations of Metro including financial and performance auditing and review of financial transactions, personnel, equipment, facilities, and all other aspects of those operations, and (b) make reports to the Metro council and executive officer of the results of any investigation with any 1992 Metro Charter page 9 21 recurISr en'aUO71s for remedial action. Exc`.ept as provided in iris section, the auditor may not be given responsibility to perform any executive function. Section 19. Term of Office. The term of office of an officer elected at a primary or general election begins the first Monday of the year following election and continues until a successor assumes the office. CHAPTER V OFFICERS, COMMISSIONS AND EMPLOYEES Section 20. Qualifications of Eluted Officers. (1) until r. A councilor shall be a qualified elector under the constitution of this state when his or her term of office begins and shall have resided during the preceding 12 months in the district from which elected or appointed. When the boundaries of that district have been apportioned or reapportioned during that period, residency in that district for purposes of this subsection includes residency in any former district with area in the district from which the councilor is elected or appointed if residency is established in the apportioned or reapportioned district within 60 days after the apportionment or reapportionment is effective. (2) Bx utive officer and auditor. The executive officer and auditor shall each be a qualified elector under the constitution of this state when his or her term of office begins and shall have resided during the preceding 12 months withnl-i the boundaries of Metro as they exist when the term of office begins. At the time of election or appointment the auditor shall also A hold the designation of certified public accountant or certified internal auditor. (3) Multiple elected offices. A Metro elected officer may not be an elected officer of the state, or a city, county or special district during his or her term of office. As used in this charter, special district does not include school districts. (4) Judging elections and qualifications. The council is the judge of the election and qualification of its members. Section 21. Compensation of EIected Officers. (1) nc' . The salary of the council presiding officer is two-thirds the salary of a district court judge of this state. The salary,of every other councilor is one-third the salary of a district court judge of this state. A councilor may waive a salary. 1992 Metro Charter Page 10 diem Lam axsc salary Of uac cxccu'sivC OratCei is the salary of a district court judge of this state. (3) editor. The salary of the auditor is eighty percent of the salary of a district court judge of this state. (4) Reimbursenn¢s. The council may authorize reimbursement of Metro elected and other officers for necessary meals, travel and other expenses incur-ed in serving Metro. Section 22. QgLh. Before assuming office a Metro effected officer shall take an oath or affirm that he or she will faithfully perform the duties of the office and support the constitutions and laws of the United States and this state and the charter and flaws of Metro. Section 23. `Vacancies in Office. (1) -Qgma-cLd r. The office of councilor becomes vacant upon the incumbent's: (a) death, (,b) adjudicated incompetency, (c) recall from office, (d) failure following election or appointment to qualify for the office within 10 days after the time for his or her term of office to begin, (e) absence from all meetings of the counci within a 60 day period without the council's consent, (f) ceasing to reside in the district from which elected or appointed, except when district boundaries are reapportioned and a councilor is assigned to a district where the councilor does not reside and the councilor becomes a resident of the reapportioned district within 60 days after the reapportionment is effective, (g) ceasing to be a qualified elector under state law, (h) conviction of a felony or conviction of a federal or state offense punishable by loss of liberty and pertaining to his or her office, (i) resignation from office, or 0) becoming an elected officer of the state or a city, county or special district. (2) &ecutive officer and auditor. The offices of executive officer or auditor become vacant in the circumstances described in subsection (I•)(a)-(d) and (g)-O) of this section, or if the executive officer or auditor creases to reside in the Metro area. The office of auditor also becomes vacant if the incumbent ceases to hold the designation of certified public accountant or certified internal auditor. (3) VacanU afier m=2rtionmont. If a councilor vacancy occurs after the councilor has been assigned to a reapportioned district under sectio. 32 of this charter, the vacancy is in tte district to which that councilor was assigned. (4) Determination of vacancy. The council is the final judge of the existence of a vacancy. 1992 Mum Charter Page - 11 Section 24. Rl~l~ng . VacandN. A majority of councilors holding office shall fill a vacancy by appointment within 90 days after it occurs. The term of office of the appointee runs from the time he or she qualifies for the office after appointment until a successor is duly elected and qualifies for the office.- If the vacancy occurs more than 20 days before the first general election after the beginning of the term for that office, the term of office of the appointee runs only until the first council meeting in the year immetliately after that election. A person shall be elected for the remainder of the term at the first primary or general election after the beginning of the term. Section 25. 1Liaaitations of Terms of Office. No person may be elected councilor for more than three consecutive full terms. No person may be elected executive officer for more than two consecutive full terms. The limitations of this section apply only to terms of office beginning on or after January 2, 1995. Section 26. Appointive Offices and Commissions. (1) Appointments and confirmafi n. The executive. officer appoints all employees in the office of the executive officer, all department directors, and all other positions this charter or ordinance requires the executive off icer to appoint. Appointments of department directors are subject to council confirmation. The council by ordinance may require confirmation of other positions. (2) Removal. Employees in the office of the executive officer and department directors serve at the pleasure of the executive officer. -Staff employed by the council serve at the pleasure of the council. The executive officer may remove his or her other appointees as provided by ordinance. Section 27. Metro Policy Advisory Cornwifti (1) Creation and composition: The Metro Policy Advisory Committee WAC) is created. The initial members of the MPAC are: (a) One member of each of the governing bodies of Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties appointed by the body from which the member is chosen; (b) Two members of the governing body of the City of Portland appointed by that governing body; (c) One member of the governing body of the second largest city in population in Multnomah County appointed by that governing body; (d) One member of the governing body of the largest city in population in Washington County appointed by that governing body; 1992 Metro Charter Page 12 INS OEM (e) One member of the governing body of the largest city in population in Clackamas County appointed by that governing body; (f) One member of a governing body of a city with territory in the Metro area in Multnomah County other than either the City of Portland or the second largest city in population in Multnomah County, appointed jointly by the governing bodies of cities with territory in the Metro area in Multnomah County other than the City of Portland or the second largest city in populations in Multnomah County; (g) One member of •a governing body of a city with territory in the Metro area in Washington County other than the city in Washington County with the largest population, appointed jointly by the governing bodies of cities with territory in the Metro area in Washington County other than the city in Washington County with the largest population; (h) One member of a governing body of a city with territory in the Metro area in Clackamas County other than the city in Clackamas County with the largest population, appointed jointly by the governing bodies of cities with territory in the Metro area in Clackamas County other than the city in Clackamas County with the largest population; (i) One member from the governing body of a special district with territory in the Metro area in Multnomah County appointed jointly by the governing bodies of special districts with territory in the Metro area in Multnomah County; (j) One member from the governing body of a special district with territory in the Metro area in Washington County appointed jointly by the governing bodies of special districts with territory in the Metro area in Washington County; (k) One member from the governing body of a special district with territory in the Metro area in Clackamas County appointed jointly by the governing bodies of special districts with territory in the Metro area in Clackamas County; (1) One member of the governing body of Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon appointed by the governing body of that district; and, (m) Three persons appointed by the executive officer and confirmed by the council. No person appointed under this part of subsection (1) may be an elected officer of or employed by Metro, the state, or a city, county or special district.. Each person appointed render this part of subsection (1) shall reside in the Metro area during the person's tenure on the MPAC. (2) -Change of commsition. A vote of both a majority of the MPAC members and a majority of all councilors may change the composition of the MPAC at any time. (3) ]ties. The MPAC shall perform the duties assigned to it by this charter and any other duties the council prescribes. (4) Bylaws. The MPAC shall adopt bylaws governing the conduct and record of its meetings and the terms of its members. 1192 Metro Charter Page 13 • Y Section 28. fffiVS of Citizen Tnviolvement. (1) Creation and ill MM. The Metro office of citizen involvement is created to develop and maintain programs and procedures to,aid communication between citizens and the council and executive officer. (2) Citizens'_cornanittee in office of citizen iaavolveanent. The council shall establish by ordinance (a) a citizens' committee in the office of citizen involvement and (b) a citizen t involvement process. The council shall appropriate sufficient funds to operate the office and committee. CHAPTER '%JI ELECTIONS AND REAPPORTIONMENT Section 29. State Law. Except as this charter or a Metro ordinance provides otherwise, a Metro election shall conform to state law applicable to the election. Section 39. Elections of Metro ®f icers. (1) enemll . Except for certain elections to fill a vacancy in office, the first vote for councilor, executive officer or auditor occurs at an election held at the same time and places in the Metro area as the statewide primary election that year. If one candidate for a Metro office receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary election for all candidates for that office, that candidate is elected. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary election, the candidates receiving the two largest numbers of votes cast for the office are the only names to appear on the general election ballot that year as candidates for that office. The candidate who receives the largest number of votes cast at the general election for that office is elected. (2) N1 nRartisan ffices. All elections of Metro officers are nonpartisan. Election ballots shall list the manes of candidates for Metro offices without political party designations. . r Section 31. ulti le Candidacies. No person may be a candidate at a single election for more than one Metro elected office. 1992 Metro Charter page s4 Section 32. RraD of Council Dli ricis After Cmus. (1) General requirements. Within three months after an official census indicates that the boundaries of council districts deny equal protection of the law, the council shall change the boundaries to accord equal protection of the law and shall assign councilors to the reapportioned districts. As nearly as practicable, all council districts shall bs of equal population and each shall be contiguous and geographically compact. The council may by ordinance specify additional criteria for districts that are consistent with this section. (2) Failure to E rtion. If the council fails to establish council district boundaries as provided by this section, the executive officer shall establish the boundaries within 60 days. Section 33. Lt.~gg. (1) ene y. An elected officer of Metro may be recalled in the manner and with the effect described by the constitution and laws of this state. (2) Effect of reapportionment. Upon the effective date of a council reapportionment under section 32 of this charter, a councilor is subject to recall by the voters of the district to which the councilor is assigned and not by the voters of the district of that councilor existing before the reapportionment. Section 341. Initiative and Itefereridunr. The voters of Metro -reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum. The council may provide for the exercise of those powers in a manner consistent with law. section 35. Amendment and Revision-Qf Ch r- U. The council may refer, and voters of Metro may initiate, amendments to this charter. A proposed charter amendment may embrace only one subject and matters properly connected with it. The council shall provide by ordinance for a procedure to revise this charter. C ORDINANCES Section 36. GrslaWng Clause. The ordaining clause of an ordinance adopted by the i council is: "The Metro Council ordains as follows:". The ordaining clause of an initiated or referred ordinance is: "The People of Metro ordain as follows:". 1992 Metro Charter Page 15 i Section 37.E .io b ®ncil. (1) General requirements. 716 council shall adopt all legislation of Metro by ordinance. Except as this eharter otherwise provides, the council may not adopt any ordinance at a meeting unless: (a) the ordinance is introduced at a previous meeting of the council, (b) the title of the ordinance is included in a written agenda of the meeting at which the ordinance is adopted, (c) the agenda of that meeting is publicized not less than_three business days nor more than ten days before the meeting, and (d) copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection at least three business days before that meeting. The text of an ordinance may be amended, but not substantially revised, at the meeting at which it is adopted. (2) Immediate adontion. The provisions of this section do not apply to an ordinance adopted by unanimous consent of the council and containing findings on the need for immediate adoption. (3) Vote required. Adoption of an ordinance requires the affirmative votes of (a) seven councilors while the council consists of 13 positions, and (b) four councilors after the council consists of seven positions as provided by section 16(2) of this charter. Section 33. Endorsement. The person presiding over the council when an ordinance is adopted shall endorse the ordinance unless the council prescribes a different pure by general ordinance. Section 39. Effective Date of Ordinances. (1) enerall . An ordinance takes effect 90 days after its adoption unless the ordinance states a different effective date. An ordinance may state an earlier effective date if (a) an earlier date is necessary for the health, safety or welfare of the Metro area, (b) the reasons why this is so are stated in an emergency clause of the ordinance, and (c) the ordinance is approved by the affirmative vote of two-thirsts of all councilors;. An ordinance imposing or changing a tax or charge, changing the boundaries of Metro, or assuming a function may not contain an emergency clause. (2) Vetoed and refel ordinances. If the executive officer vetoes an ordinance and the council overrides the veto, the date of adociion is the date on which the veto is overridden. If the council refers an ordinance to the voters of Metro, the ordinance effective date is the 30th day after its approval by a majority of the voters voting on the measure unless the ordinance specifies a later date. If a referendum petition is filed with the filing officer not later than the 90th day after adoption of an ordinance, the ordinance effective date is suspended. An ordinance is not subject to the referendum after it is effective. An ordinance referred by a referendum petition (a) does not take effect if a majority of the voters voting on the measure reject it and 1992 Metro Charter Page 16 I'm 1- All i (b) takes effect, unless the ordinance specifies a later date, on the date the results of the election are certified if a majority of the voters voting on the measure approve it. Section 40. Content of 0Drdinancs. Each ordinance may embrace only one subject and all matters properly connected with it. The council shall plainly word each ordinance and avoid technical terms as far as practicable. Section 41. Eeblic 1mg oveanenbs anal SlMial Assemeaffi. General ordinances govern the procedures for making, altering, vacating or abandoning a public improvement and for fixing, levying and collecting special assessments against real property for public improvements or services. State law governs these procedures to the extent not gove..ened by general ordinances. CHAPTER VIII NUSCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 42, Transition P ovisions. All legislation, orders, rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Service District'in force when this charter takes effect remain in force after that time to the extent consistent with this charter and until amended or revealed by the council. All rights, claims, causes of action, duties, contracts, and legal and administrative proceedings of the Metropolitan Service District that exist when this charter takes effect continue and are unimpaired by the charter. Each is in the charge of the officer or agency designated by this charter or by its authority to have charge of it. The unexpired terms of elected officers of the Metropolitan Service District continue as provided by this charter. Upon the effective date of this charter, the assets and liabilities of the Metropolitan Service District are the assets and liabilities of Metro. Section 43. ECEPAive Date. This charter takes effect January 1, 1993. Section 44. everability. The terms of this charter are severable. If a part of this charter is held invalid, that invalidity does not affect any other part of this charter unless required by the logical relation between the parts. . 1992 Metro Charter Page 17 r. pig a k., Section 45. ,te cation. By adepting this charter the voters of Metro direct the council to seek, and request the Legislative Assembly of this state to enact, any aegislation needed to make all parts of this charter operative. 1992 ?Metro Charter Page 18 AGENDA ITEM . For Agenda of 2-722 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE ARRointjA!g%,nt.t he Planning Co ' s ' PREPARED BY: E. Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE IBEFQTHE COUNCIL Appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created with the resignation of Harold Boone. STAFF RECOI+~NiENDATION Adopt the attached resolution appointing Michael Collson to fill the vacant position on the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY Harold Boone resigned from the Planning Commission. His current term expires July 1, 1994. On February 8, 1994, the Mayor"s Appointment Advisory Committee met and recommends the full Council consider appointing Michael Collson to the vacant position. A resolution is attached along with Michael Collson°s application. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay action on the appointment. FISCAL NOTES 12 I TIGAR OREGON CITIZEN comMiTrEE INTERES'T' APPLICATION Name: M iAoA L. CO /1S0.1 Date: x91 Address (Res.): 13215' SW G e "tS I s L01012 Res. Phone: 6'20 -N016 Address (Bus.): as a6mje Bus. Phone: &BY-7953 Length of Residence in Tigard: ~ -years Suggested by: gr,A- ("/acre Where did you live previously: ~.xc-, (~~p,-rt 0~. - era cs~s /n Savrct Gr+~ 9 A Qre an S'~..~Q Vn,~t~st lies" Educational Background: E !t~! I.rt @«r+o.K <r~►o< )A tt11 c~Io~s. Occupational Status and Background: g.as <t+S eMQ a to My `~o~ ~J'nieh -PPI -tb a PcrSefie" 1N%$~a 01a"/+^%^4t ( 491/ -b tra.PG wd~I'w /Od ~Cat/o. G4~.t~ ~sr~ti?SS ow long.have you been employed with this firm: b ars Is this Company located within your NPO area (NPO applicants only): Previous Community Activity: je..t AMU, e( ",-1, (ate fl-L4 _ 1sVojj as o{ r~ Organisations and Offices: lsvr,e-fl.ce. ~r~cs, Apr rr,,.e e« c~ac~,. (t.,r~`d dma~le r h4a"~!~I~^~S Other Information (Oei~eral Remarks): 4 Ora*4s' ~~A ~.s~aP a¢ c 'AJe v<,•c.~` Drd~'(r(r S N~f`~a~~/ -1 ftjW ar 41 'l iei fIR -d. Cr~11 ~Cr. V^ yy.Y~014s 4f44 J AJ BMdAF{ ospj~% or 31 -/earS. Boards, Committees or NP® Interested in:' City 7 ~as+s:%+4 'aw a.sssea ` Y>ace Inteevicaod J Date Received at City Han Dale Appointed ..Board, co m~ttee, or I Outside City a (Acomin „ 13125 Steil Malt Bhp P.0I Sm 23397.T1garcL Oregon 97223 (503) 639-417"1 AGENDA ITEM # 3. For Agenda of a as CITY OF,TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Willamette River Basin Municipal Water Reservatiorv PREPARED BY: J. Acker DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should The City authorize a $2,500 contribution from the water fund to the League of Oregon Cities for the purpose of hiring a consultant to develop a joint application for a municipal water reservation on the Willamette River? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Contribute $2,500 toward the Willamette River Municipal Reservation. INFORMATION SUMMARY The municipal reservation would hold a priority date of June 1992 for all 0 municipal users in the Willamette basin. At some point in the future a city could apply for a water right on the Willamette River that would, if awarded, have a priority date of 1992. The reservation can be thought of as an inexpensive insurance policy that holds some amount of water for future municipal use. The Intergover:-unental Water Board endorsed this contribution unanimously at their February 9, 1994 meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not contribute FISCAL NOTES The $2,500 contribution amount is suggested by the League of Oregon Cities based on population and an estimate of $80,000 total need. -milli NMI =WM0M=WZM P MEMORANDUM CITY OF TICARD, OREGON f TO: Intergovernmental Water Board FROM: John Acker DATE: January, 28, 1994 SUBJECT: Willamette River Basin Municipal Water Reservation ISSUE Oregon water law dictates that the priority date of a water right determines ability to withdraw water from any source. When users compete for water, date of water right will determine who gets first use. There is a method for establishing a reservation on a particular water source for a group of users for projected needs. When an individual entity from this group later applies for a permanent water right as need is identified, the permanent right has the reservation priority date. The League of Oregon Cities and the Special Districts Association are jointly seeking voluntary contributions for the purpose of hiring a consultant to complete an application for municipal reservation on the Willamette River. The cost is estimated to be $80,000. At this time, 39 cities have agreed to make contributions totaling $50,900. Neither Tigard nor the Tigard Water District have pledged to participate in this basin-wide approach. The suggested contribution amount for the Tigard area is $2,500. If successful, the municipal reservation will put Willamette basin municipalities on even footing with agricultural and in-stream uses. in addition to municipal contributions, the LOC and SDA has requested $25,000 in lottery funds from the Governor's Strategic Reserve Fund. The LOC and SDA want municipalities to send letters supporting their funding request to the governor. REC2MMP ATIOn Recommend that the City Council authorize a contribution of $2,500 from the water fund to the League of Oregon Cities for this area's share of the cost to apply for a municipal water reservation on the Willamette River. Recommend that staff draft a letter for the Mayor's signature to Governor Roberts supporting the League of Oregon Cities and Special District Association request for funding assistance from the Governor's Strategic Reserve Fund. The funds would be used to pay for a portion of the cost of applying for the Willamette reservation. attachments H:\1ogin\John A\Muni.res JR! Lea 0 f maregun I IU Local Government Center, 1201 Court St. N.E., PQ Box 928, Salem 97308@Telephone: (503) 588-6550; 1-800-452-0338 toll tree; FAX: 378-5859 January 5, 1994 TO: Willamette Basin City Managers JAN 0 7 1994 ~t FROM: Joni T. Low,'-&. Staff Associate ~Iya SUBJECT: Municipal Relservation On November 19, the Water Resources Commission approved the League's petition to amend the administrative rules governing reservations of water for future economic development pursuant. The purpose of the petition was to reinstate the June 5, 1992 priority date for the Willamette Basin municipal reservation. The letters that your cities sent to the Commissioners played a key role in our receiving unanimous approval. Thank you. WaterWatch was the only non-municipal organization that supported us on this petition. As you know, the League and Special Districts Association are seeking voluntary contributions from Willamette Basin municipalities for purposes of hiring a consultant. The consultant will assist us in preparing the application, which needs to be submitted to the Water Resources Department by the end of 1994. So far, we are approximately $30,000 short of our goal. It is critical that we hire this consultant as soon as possible so that we can move forward with this process. To assist us in this effort, Roger Jordan and I contacted the Economic Development Department and requested lottery funds for this effort. They recommend that we reek lottery funding from the Governor's Strategic Reserve Fund, which is used to assist with economic development projects. Once again, your assistance Is needed to send letters to the Governor, with copies as noted, to advise the Governor of the importance of the municipal reservation for the future economic development in your communities. Attached is a model lefter. I suggest that you try and person dlize it to address the particular needs of your city relating to the need for water for future economic development. The letters should be sent as soon as possible so that we take the critical next step in this process. To date, 39 cities have agreed to make a contribution for the municipal reservation. We have delayed requesting the funds until we are assured that we have the $80,000 to move forward in this process. If your city has agreed to assist in funding this effort, please continue to set the monev aside for the duration of this fiscal year. If we are able to obtain $25,000 from the Governor's. Strategic Reserve Fund, we will have the necessary funds to hire a consultant. So your letters to the Governor are derv important. Thanks for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call. Agh Enclosure OFFICERS: Mika Lindoerg, Commissioner, Portland, Preeldant DIRECTORS: Larry Griffith, Councilor, Baker Caty - Roger Jordan, City Manager, Dallas • DI Lyn Larsen-Nil, Maya. La Grande Charles Vars. Mayor, Corvallis, Vice-Prealdent • Marion riessi, Maya, - Randy MacDonald, Councilor, Eugene - Joe McLaughlin, Immediate Past Pnasident • Bill Peterson, City Manager, Grants Indapenclawt, Treaaumr • Richard'I mensand, Executive Diredor. Pass • Susan Raid, Councilor, Ashland • Bill Riegel, Councilor, Salem. • Steve SlWZ8, Mayor, Tualatin. n I III!! LOO/SDAO MUNICIPAL RESERVATION Aft CONTRIBUTION SCHEDULE 2p_L latIan Amount Due* Under 500 $ 25.00 500 - 999 50.00 1,000 - 2,499 150.00 2,500 - 4,999 300.00 5,000- 9,599 600.00 10,000 - 24,999, 1,200.00 25,000 - 99,999 2,500.00 100,000 - 399,999 5,000.00 Over 400,000 7,000.00 * This amount will charge, if all municipalities do not contribute towards this effort. n t 'h MODEL LETTER Note: It would be extremely helpful for each municipality to add a paragraph to Identify Its particular need for the reservation. (date) t ' The Honorable Barbara Roberts State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 Dear Governor Roberts: The purpose of this letter is to seek funding from the Governor's Strategic Reserve Fund for a municipal reservation in the Willamette Basin. The League of Oregon Cities (League) and the Special Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO) are engaged in a cooperative effort to establish a municipal reservation for future use of water in the Willamette Basin. In 1987, legislation (SB 140) was enacted to provide more protection for instream uses of water. In addition, SB 140 allows state agencies to request the Water Resources Commission (WRC) to reservo unappropriated water for future economic development. Through the reservation process, an early priority date can be established for- an entire class of users as water quantity and needs issues- are addressed for an entire basin or system of basins. Water purveyors. are spared the need to file individually for water rights to preserve their priority relative to other in- stream rights and agricultural users. A reservation for municipal use establishes a holding place that allows Individual municipalities, ::s its needs become more clearly identified, to apply for a permanent water right from the reserved water. The primary benefit of the reservation process for municipalities, in addition to these identified above, is that access to water can be assured to communities throughout the basin on a lon Lane basis, possibly 50 to 100 years. (The reservation rule provides for 20-year reservations with the possibility of extensions.) The availability of an early priority date allows greater certainty, sound planning, a cost-effective plan implementation, and better public service. However, because of the many purveyors affected and,the level of evidenoa required in the contested case process, it is essential that a well-documented, well written submittal be prepared if the effort is to be effective. Afth (OVER) ti Cities and water districts throughout the Willamette Basin have a strong interest in the reservation process. The number of purveyors in the basin is estimated to be 150 to 200. (This reflects the number with budgets large enough to be likely to support this effort.) Of this figure, 85 are cities. A cooperative effort between the League of Oregon Cities and the Special Districts Association to fund and administer a contract for preparation of a reservation request is the best means to protect the Interests of the pu;:ayors. The estimated cost for preparing this municipal application Is $80,000. A major obstacle in completing this application is funding. The League and SDAO are seeking voluntary contributions from municipalities in the Willarnette Basin at this time. However, we do not expect ail municipalities to participate and contribute to this effort due to financial constraints. The League and SDAO respectfully request that you consider appropriating $25,000 from the Goner .aft- Strategic Reserve Fund to assist Willamette Basin municipalities in this effort. Without an adequate supply of water to meat future needs, municipalities are unable to plan for future economic growth and cannot accommodate the expansion or location of industries that are needed in our communities to grow and prosper. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Joni Low at the League of Oregon Cities, 588-6550. Sincerely, Mayor or City Manager co: Anne Squier same address as Governor Diane Walton bcc: Joni Low, LOC AGENDA ITEM # ~.3 For Agenda of Feb. 22 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Easement Extinguishment for Landau Woods Subdivis' n PREPARED BY: GNB DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the sewer easements be extinguished? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the resolution authorizing that the easement be extinguished. INFORMATION SUMMARY The owner of the Landau Subdivision has requested that an easement for a recently abandoned line within the subdivision be extinguished. This sewer line has been replaced by a line constructed as part of the subdivision. The owner further requests that an easement intended, but no longer required for future extensions, also be extinguished. City Council has previously authorized extinguishing other easements within the subdivision not required for the now abandoned line. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES dj/GH:Extinguishment.ss INN AGENDA ITEM # 3A For. Agenda of Feb. 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Cancellation of a water right within S.W. Lad Marion Drive. PREPARED BY: GNB DEPT HEAD OK tl~l CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City cancel its interest in a water right appurtenant to a portion of the right-of=way of S.W. Lady Marion Drive? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution canceling all interest in the water right. INFORMATION SUMMARY Jerry Rodgers, Water Master District 8, has requested the City to cancel its unused interest in a water right conveyed to the Cit-y'as a result of a right- of-way dedication for the Marion Estates Subdivision (SUB 92-07). The permitted withdrawal of water was at a now abandoned well that remains on private land inaccessible to the City. Moreover, the City permitted use of the water would be limited to irrigation of approximately 300 feet of S.W. Lady Marion Drive. The City does not maintain landscaping or other facilities in need of irrigation in this area. Therefore, it appears that the City is without need of the water right.. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTE dj/Abandon.ss a FEEMEEMEW IRC AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision 1_7 Y, 7- PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT'HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a proposed reimbursement district for sanitary sewer to Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the.Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February 10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). OThe engineer's report has been amended. Exhibit A has been revised to reflec- the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised by adding Note 4., Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district., Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of the option of requesting a hearing.. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED If the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the attached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions,, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 s. LIN= THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL DEAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 February 9, 1994 Q 1994 TO: Randy Wooley OF TIGARD City Engineer CITY Tigard Oregon FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I am requesting that for tax lots :300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development. of those sites that the hook up fee be S 4,192.64. So in other words if an office buildingtor development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be S 4,192.64 even if there is only one hook up. On the other hand if an existing structure is hooked up and there is stall land which is developable the current hook up fee should be S 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of S 2,096.32 would be paid. This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full development of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. 't'oday I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your time, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, Craig A. Petrie 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503)"244-0123 Exhibit A li1Ly L,lltj111eCi 5 iCCpVt L SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council'as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the-sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of'this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. I'll 11 IM I IN: I Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue; the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square 'feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies. Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots -should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development -would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this' amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1999. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW.Pac-Ridge.SS ~X REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NQ. S.y~. SR STREET a ' 2 0 T 360 w TL 3501\ a` r a vi v T 3 0~ ~ n 00 AYS ~ NEW S I 00 NEW NARY SEWER N TL 3300 L 400 `L 32 0 T 3302 44 CHERRY STREET L 00 NEW SAKIlARY SEWER ROLUNG HILLS NO 2 EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot,:49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 461 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96-feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 0001 F along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way or SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S Ole 07' 5311 W, along said west f, right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 8810 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to Amu the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 881 48' 0011 E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd- -.venue; thence N 01° 071 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line.of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 020 021 44" E, w along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890,511 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 281 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. johnrh\pac.ben me~aarw~ - m ~ Sim ON= Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** ChargLft * 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192..64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 !DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall T:;n assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written -La tructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structure, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any x tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. 1111116, 1111111"id iii 11 gnu AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Water System System Development Charge Methodol PREPARED BY: J. Acker DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City continue to impose System Development Charges (SDC) for the water system by adopting the proposed methodology. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution which establishes a water system SDC. INFORMATION SUMMARY On December 21, 1993, the City Council adopted ordinance 93-33 which authorized imposition of SDCs for the recently withdrawn water system only after adoption of methodology. The proposed methodology and SDC amounts are the same as those established by the Tigard Water District. The result of adopting this methodology is a continuation of existing ;eater system SDCs which are used for growth related system improvements. The Cities of King City and Durham have been sent the methodology and the attached resolution for their use. All have agreed to adopt the needed material to allow imposition of SDCs for the water system. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED none FISCAL NOTES MMA 1!111g~llllj~ . 1 l~~l~!~iii~~l !,MP~i 11 I I O Iii I ~;-f 0 - ~ - , , . . " 14 y ~ , g ~ , 'i'~q:,i~,,~ . I i4 - - ~ , " ,,'~T 1,~,,,,. - " ~i.! ~.4~' , ~ - "m -f-~,~~~,41,~~~~~--,,~",~~;~,,~~c'~l""~, . , - ~ , 0-. ---.-,i~ , ~ ~f ~ , - , " - . . ~ , 7-7,,! ;?lA,,-- , - , @ mg,~- ~1' M i*p , " ;"":,R",~r,~~,~,~~l,,,"~A~~",,'~~,C":~,,r.~,~: ,-'.,;--`l,i?§~ q'~~,g , , WIN- "'N", xg~ , , I IN M 4 .,,g . , I A , , - , I : ;1?1111 - f ~--~.~,:g - I Ill- , , , ~ ,"I'M". , ~ I-- ~ t . -xi, " . pg--t;~ 4~*~ Uz" - . ~ I - - I " 13'i ~ , , `~,,W ."I'll -~-.1-4 tl 11-11- 4,#"-78~2, !T~4~ t~,7illlii~t ~ . , ~;;~~i,~;A,~.&11~', ,'~,~i ~l - - , - , ~,..!',~~.~i,~-,,- ,I ~ ; ,,,,,,'I~~~~";~-,~,,~:,.~~,,~.,~~~;:-.,-',~4 1, p I . 4 , '114 "l- " ,%~Wi~,i,,O~,~~'I'l~~,1-,.~~,~'~g', ---'~~j " k R,',!;.-~,;,-~,~",,~-i " ,.','~,i.v,~,,- - "~,'2,,'I~~ - ~y t, -4 j, ~-',~~~'--,~,~i'~.,'~~,-~'~~,~", . I 1'~ ~ . . I 1 11 ~ . "'ZI-, - 11. I - I I ~~4~,~,% ,~6."",~~:,~,-.-,~,,~-',~'~i~.~*~~~'-'~, , , ,il, " ,.:i I 'ed,~?,-)."*iC~-l,,;i Q11., ~ % - ~ . " ~ . - . Jf~-y ,,~.,~T'M~,.,,5-,, 'k-l!-Qj,T,~1,1,1 L,,~~,~- "g~~, ~ lj,ir;,~~ , -11 -1111IN11", i wi , ~ ~ v~-:,jl-~"'7 "ll'-", . , , - , ya,,:,4- 14 , " -X, *~;,,~ii --*,'i"L- -11-..~x, `~!~,;~,.O'P , ~i, ~,~j,!,~,i!,,,,,;l ~~71,-17,-' , .1 ~ , . ~i, . k-,",- , I li~ , , - 'j , ,.~,,,,-,i,,~:,:k7-,'U -'i~~',;'~i"'-`, -.-~?""'i - . !,~'-'i , . ~R- " ..""'i" ii ~3'NK#y `-'i -1-1-11- -~l ,?~-t:~~,~!",.~- , %~A " , , , , , ,5 i~ ~ i', . I ~j , 7, ~ , -1 " , ,~z ,~',i~ ,-',~~-,---4 ~ - ~ . . .1 ~?f,~ 'n,,,~,, -,,~I,~~-, 1'~,, ,i: . ~ , R;,* " 2,0, - - " 4,,i~,--,?~ i ~ , , " , . , ~ `,;!*'~'~l ~ ~'i " q;~~ , ~ - -~'t ~,~:t~', " ,1111'~, , , , " - C r 'A' ,-~IN` ~ .1, - ~1, 1,~,_';, - -'-'~'z ~l ~ N~t-.-~,,,`~,,~,,~_,~~,~.l ~,i,,:-,',,~~;;.~ ~i n"ER " ,1,,~~ ii., - ,4~,-~ , ~ "`l"~, , ~ - veiv r."! , , , ~ " , "I ~,t W,~,T~..- -,v ,;~i,?11,p,~,~~pl"!~;,~~"'~i~,,,-,,~','i, '..'j'R - - ~l 414~,-~~ L'1%'~-, ~-,'~,:"Yj"~`Oj';- ii, ~~r,i~. -i~, -l-,,--,, c ZU , ~ ,~~g,; - 4y , ,~'4~ -v,.~.W",.~..~~.,,,, , ;6i, -e. - '-,vp-,~yi~)ry ~ - .!.,,t~~:-,,,, , ~ , Y, , , , ~ - 'i , . ;T 'k z. , ; , , P-..'~-~4. 44-4iii "~,,',A-~,! 1 ,,J,np&" ~ "i - , -k,!"-~,,~,"~f;,."~~,~,",$'I',"","~~,~.~'l~,~"7, .1-1-Al 11"P-, ."~",~,h~~.~"";,~-.'~~,,,,,~,"~;~~f~,~,~,','~~,,~~:,T-'~ , if ~,~""-.,~-.,I",g,-,~~,.--..~-,~,~4,-:~~~,,- ,-,Agv , , ; , 'I', '-------.-0 " , 1~ ~ - ~ -1;w i . . . . . . . . , ~ . i~-'--., - -Vla .,M~----,~~~,~r,A,~~l~":.~,.,'~,,L,~, , ; 'L 1',Y~,V~ -~hj`,,-~,~,,,`Ka`; - . ~4 I , - =2 - .,~X ~ ---L-1~-_-_-,~,A' ?il~ L'i, ;'a -.i 11 . z, T; - - - 7 - - - - '4~umu-l-= - Mf2,~l -!!~-l 1,7- 7 -17 7ll.-.;T;-lF;-~,,,,- r.., , -,r" O Nl R--%~ 1'~ , " ~ ~ - ~,A ~ ~ . 1,~ - - ' ' ~ _ ~r '~~,Tl , " , ~ - Z . , -gr , - . ~'ll I ~r ~ T - - r - . , . i, -,~Y, 1- . ; ' - . , , i, V,-- 4~, - V. li. _0 , - , ; - ~ L ~.,-L~1",~ , , , ,ii ,111~,l R~~, 'j " " ljg ~ ,.,,--',An~,~,~.,, 11,7 I Z, ,.i _A~ " , ~ ~ g , , , ~ , e,~~ I", - . 11 - Z - I I - I ~l , - , " - ll~, " i~,~,,. ,,I--- 4 ~ ll~ ~ y , - - , - . . - Z; 'A ,r ~ - A~ IV, - I " ~ 1-11'1'111~-- ~ ~~-&,T,A: , , _'-~,~,.,Z,14~'~,,! " I jl~;~*~;,: ~~v ~ . - . - ~~,t,, ,7 . " I'M, ,p~~- , ~',:,~-,N .""7 '~ij~ '~.jl.i.-',~,:-rl ~ - - ~~7;lffi~q, e,,,~i~ ~N~";", , ~ - , , , I , ~ ~ 11 I , 6 ~ ~0 ~Yt ~"iv I il.1-v . ~1'2 -,~,A~, '1~,&,~ MAJ,M,~i ~ - t. -~lqll, ~ , 6, ~ " : ~ i ~ ve- , , , , , ~ V41,1 , Vl- 1, ~ .4~,,_,i I - " ~ L,!-v . - I'll , X - `~'lll 414", T~, ~ ~ v x 6,1,7e, R "j" ,-w-,~iw"111~11 ,,j,-F', , " , "I " 1~. r1l 1~ ~ &.1, ~ ~~"4',! I ,i q,~ V, I ;l'l',Py-q'T'l:- , ii~,i A~~l ;,:Ci~ -R,w', i, "'I", -1- c, I ; ~J,'~ t`gni-~,~wl~54-ffl -M x , , $40, - ',,~'.,~~~.~,,~l.t~,',,~~,',~,".~~.,~.,i,,*,~~~l,',,", I ~i ~,l .,',jl,~~-lfl.,-, - .1 . . . , ~ im , , ~ , , - I , , I M'iii .,Q , . ~~!'~~-~'-'Il~'~~i~~,,"~,i~,,"~f",~- ig~~".- , ~ ~ :~e -N,~,, 4'-.~ vi, ,,~'t ,~f,-, ~i~ - " t " e i , , , , ".i - , - P~Trum f :?.~PS 7 ~ " ~ p,',:~,.,~r ,,K*~~V-'~~,~"'.%",;~ ~ ~j, I~; - A 11 J - 4-,--,~,-454, , , ~ I `1~1 , I ~l ~l R ~ I-L . , j-i,',4,'.','i I 1 11,11WEIMI, ' I ,Ml- 6 - , I , I Illyly 11 , I ,~R'-; 1, ~ _ 1, r -~;r , I 4 r' ~ ~~'j'., ~ , , I " ' " I ~ ~ I I ~ 1-1. , 1-~' " ~ " -,.~,'i~,~ -,~--,,j~,i ~ ,e,~,,,~ ~ 4 , i , , ` " , , P~'~'I,leflll - - ~,:;~F . . -VFA,~.,v ~ivla , 'L - -:_~p *1 *1~ , , , , , 'i, , , , , * , - ~ ~ L" 1". , ~,.~r ,~,~ii~ - - , 'M,~!~~-,-~-',,.~,-,;~",~,~~",~~~,--,~- . ~ gi~ , . ~~',X,,",~ m , "'t,j~ r,w,q'i - ~ ------l--. , , , , " ~ z4%c.r pl,'q& "T'- f, ..'r ,~,,~f~i,,~~.,,,'~,,~',~,,~,,,,,-'~~~:~~, ~ , , , , . , , ~ , * gv! ,q , .7 MA~~ ~ " -11,;ASI.19111 L, - g- 'Of, ~ ;-,;~,~-q,~~-`~,,'~i',,,` ~ 1; X , . 4e lg.,."~ .11 lli,-.~, - , "I"MAM,~8" -F.,"Ne: ~ - ~;,-,-,-,-~-,-Z~',. ~S-' - a - - ""'i,, ilii:i~ , ~ . , ~ ~ .,..fl . , , .U ~ g- 'R I ,,q IM ,~,gg ,~grz w, f '1-d--111- ~ - I'll ~,,j-k ---,,rr,---- : , , 'iv,~-m,~A, , "-"W~~' , ,l ,p `~-1--lJ-,-.'--- 'Nv-,1.`,,~A- ~l - i~, `,~-,~Fi ~Lll-l- , " , . r ~.,~v , , I lna,;,,,;lit,~,.;- , , . " - ,I .N , -1~gj-.'~-,~,~,',~ F~~ F ~r,i I I I 11 I - I ~ I ~,r- "ll,"'M . -V-4 " i~l 1'g OR, ~ , -i~~,~,',~ - ~ 's 5 A I pil - ~ - . ~ S,'~ lrlz "REP, --4'i I 11 ~4'-, ~~l , ~jl*r . -~~L,~V,,,i~,~, ~ , m "',I~~"L'r"~~i".,,,~,,,,~",~'r, ~ , , ]IM ftk~ " I , B:,~,I;llwi ~ , -A.~ .1j,~~,r'.,;]~',"'~'~'~",,~L';,~~~l-;~,,i'f,-,,',.'~* - ! I I I V, ii~~,I~,Q~g """,P"~', " ~ L" - ~j , , ~ ~;,,~IJKI, ii,~~'. 1.~,j:,'~,~; e,~,,.~. , - 'j,*~',~~T~:~ 11 ,~t~,v "i * ~,"~M . , I , . - 4, Cf..' - ; - ~ 7 ~ , -.11", -~n-',',-~ i~'~~-~',~ 1,,,~ ',A~ 'i~!-l.v-,'~s,,,--,,. - -V~Z~, i ,,~i~'. ,,k~ . " 11 "i ,r~, ~~`i ',1~1~rjl, , , ~ ~ ,Z~ - I ~N i All ~tz~w~~&-.,`V,lff ; - ~ ,.,jK~"M')~l - , ,,I~, '~.L,,-'-*~ f~'u . , il ~ . ~ ~ .-r; * 87M."k ,,i,z ,!".P~~,~~!",~~~~,.u,w,~,-~,~.,, V~,~~',~,~,U - " , . ir r"-",,,,. I'll ~ ON ~ M ij%~il ;.,~,--ii ir , , . . W I . -~,-;4~ ;,,~~-,~~j.~ - , . ~',~,~~.-;L.,i"~',A?.,,~~,---,,,~'~,.'--~~-'-~ . .1 I I ~,,.-,;~v-p~r::~"` " 3011,5 I-, 0 ~ ~ "'It, - 10 1. , . , , ~~C. 4W,P~1~1 " - if x , ~ " 09 , x -ff,-----~~7.1' , - - p"., ~ 7 . I . - " , ` , ~ 4 * , , - - , , , I ` I - I'll I - ~ 11 ` -11 I. - " , , - , I , 11 . _ I - " , ~ -,j ll--- , 'l 1 , 'It, ,4 ~'i -~'i,~-~: i. ~ , , $U"i` `~'-"L,~Jp" ~ , ' , ~~l -L 1~~ I 1~.,- -I -6 p" - - . ,j! - - - ,-lil 1;'llt~ I- 'lay YR;"~k~~ '6,'~~ - -,-j , ,-.r,, -~,W -~l - i-- .4t, ~ , il ,rlp - 'I" , 44r t, ~ _ _ ! -111. - M, , 'm - ~ -j. " '~,V~' , 'p- '--~?o ~ ii~. ~,p MK', -17 -t !~ii,', ~,t s I'll. 1~11 I I 1. - 11 - I , " I I I I ~ , - ~ ~ 11 ;1' . ~ 21. 1'~~",, ~?ilk, ~.ltx. ~W;'p, , . -,.~~,.,;"~,,~,~',,,~-,.~,,'~,~:c,~,7,~ N~,~;!U,: . - ---i- . -1 1. -1 - ~ ~ -`i"r~ ~ . ~ ~ `~'44,-~ I - -,,~~;4~~,vI;~i~~.i ~'114 , ~v - ,-.z .t, 11 , , ~ - .1 -,,,'~,-~Y ~Xli~ " " , ~ , WP~~, I I ir~l ~ lil','91~`,:!,; " ,2~ , I ~ t , , Z, 'Tt -11111 - ,.-'%.t--,,,~~ k6l Iii- 1 `-.AW,~, 1. I I 111-;,g#i ~~m.,R~t~jiojg- `llln~i ~l ~ .-,--j-, il,,-~ . . ~ ,il- 11 , ul,,~ii~,,F,~,--,~.--,~,,'i - - , I ~t 11 I - ~l t, ~~.;-,il~ . ~ , , , , ~ , , ` - . ~ I - ~ A , 11'11~;, , 1~;~,A.--'~~L,~~ I 'q~:'i ~f ~ -Fil, ,iii '2" Ek.; - ~-M,,,-,,,z, t 1. -01 - ~ ~~il ~^,~,,,,,r~x , , I xl`,~- , . mgq ,wl , ~-,,A,~;~,,,--~~,^,~, ""'i ~ 'g, - r", " , - IiW; , 0 . 'It", , t~ " -&""l - 11-1 .."I'l A - S~ :1~~,,~ ,~~~~,,~-i,,~,-,,-~',,',',-~,,,-~,~,,~,,,,~~ ~~,,~,~,4~~!,,,, . , R . n - 'T '-q,~W ,,III I . -1-11, ~ I 6'~'.~,F ~-,',,!,.-~~',~,-,~,','~~4',"'.'~.',~,'~'",~ """kle, ~ NiM- ~ " 1~1 li la RR"Nli - - t - , ~ ~'j~i, Z,'~ ~ " W~m- , rMA" ~5,6,4, I , , ~ V. - , ~ ~ I, ~;T, I ~ g.. , " mgw.,~,, - I ~ P, 'f X- t ~ : , . 11 11 .-iill'7 -,,.~~,;:r.'-,l.l,l,,., - ,,,,~:,.,-;V"~-~,~nir~y,, , , Ft" I 1,,~',!,~ ~ , - g , ~ , . . - - ~ ~ - - -~,,,t?" - -,q'~ - ~ i V ; i~`;"-A,4,';~AM ',~~1,1.~~l.'~-~;,i",:",,~.",;,4:"~ - . ,~~`,`W'~,,~.- ` -111, - - , . ~~-~O~~y r - - 11 , - , , ~ , " dl~~ g "I'll . r, , - -W - - , r , - - ,,r - " ml, " ~ r~ , , " , , wl,rl I ~ - 4 c 1~1` , - -l", 1*~ - "i -,.~,n , , I " _ 'L ~f-l 1=1 L W RN-5 ~Ei,,-'~~-';i;,`, P - --l.l. , . - - I , 1~~.,-",t ~ " i:,, _,.'~,;i g " -,I,. - ~~-'11~1 ~ ~ ~ " R ~ - W, - I .',~~,~i,'j",",", , W"" I 'a! A, I " i, , , " , , , _ 111111 '~Ol . "j;,~l.", ~ , , - 11 .g 'L _ 'A~ 6- `,,'..~~,N n , - - , , . . --1 , " ; ~ - ~ , - Nig S* ,~,4 - ,~,~.k~~-U- -'--~;,o 7'11,~,,-,~.~, .1, - , ,,,il, ;""";~~,.;"""~~,~.",~,.'~~.'-,~',~'~~,,,~~~,~,f,.""I", , 4 -1~-'-'-~~C,~rl',~,~~~,','~~7~'~','~~.1-~.~~,~ - 1, -f ~ , ,~I~~~ i7 ~ig 0--t"'p, ,,~4pq ,%g , I-- .~f,5,,,~,-~,,~,,Z,,:~~,,j~"7",:~-~ ~~i~'?",~.~,,..',~.,~~~~,~,.,);ii I - , ~ ~,'-`,~l ~ 1~ "i W g, , ~,",6~ 9, . . %E, .,,-e~,j,~"b',ii ~,::,:,~~1,9~~:j~V-Yl , IN - , Y~l - . lLXR$,q,z0-,'.,' ~,,415`!Alr~. 'i",.','zl,,,~,,,~,~~~,~".i,z;lf.,~3',-,,.~l.t~,t,,Zl,~,.I --lill.". ,VR2.'t'~,`,--`,: ,(4,twsR 4". -"'Wnllt ~ -t--'~;,",~~,ii" -,,,W' 1, I `,,"'~i ~~-";~',"~r~'~"4..~~'i','~.~~.'.~~*~'~'.' 'III, . , ~l -A`~ ~~!,l , I ~'4, ~,,-,,jl,~~.; ,1~ 1~~,: t"'., , . 1-1; r~.I.l , I" , - , , -~-,',,~3 1~-, il',~, 3'Al~~,' - " k"ti., I I I" ~:X~ . , -n " , , . " " ~ , " ,,,~);,~i ,j~ . r ~'i'~,~~ .~i,-,,~-';';..~'~,r~','-~*,~~?,,~',,,t.'~IL"-,~~,,~-",."3~~,'~~,,~',~-,',;,,,~I~~', -,~~-.,-.~~~,~,~~;-7,.%--~t~-~~,,~'.~~".::"",""~-~,,~'-",,;---,,,-~'ll"~'~,:"I ~ P - a - " - - ~,~,l,~,~"~'-* --~,f,7r "ii,~,, ;~~'~,:~-,,~~,;j",~., , , , ,~~-7-1,~, .s ~ -,gg . 7. , , m - c~,.- .'i , ~ - ; , ~ , -4 - ~g~~ 3~;~,,,~~' - , - , - , - , g , , , . I I I ~ , A,,~-5.,,~- S,,;~~ ; " -1; -1~4 ,~v-- , -T.t, , ~A ~ti`-,'--, ~ 1,-x. -t, W.~ i.ll~i~," - Pw . " - g , ~f " ~f ~l ,r,,, `i,41.1~~.""~'; ~ ii - - - l,',--l -,,b ~~,r f ~ I . zl*m 0. , ,-.-",-lii~~ -,--;~/.i,,~~-, . -,~'~,~,,!'r,~~V; ~?~t,~.~ ,',~,',",z ~Z~*,~~:-,~~ , " a , '-'~,0-,,-.v ~,,,?,f 11 -.1 " , , y I I , - -~l 4" ~ , " ~ , " . I ~ I - I -111,~,lk` " ~ ,q-k" r , i;~,,~-,,'~:?,~:: ; 11 - RINP, t 1~~ .n":': r', ,~,~j,~ ,`,2"" -~~,,'~Al.~~,~,"~;~,~~,~4,~~-,-;,,,e~~', 1. . I-rl ~-'Q .,:.,.~,,~~",-,;.~,~,,~,.v-..~., , - , - ,,j~;;,,-,,,'~ r.-~l-,~.,~'.,'~,,.,,~~.;,~'~,,, " . , ~ - ;:"0,',,- -;1",",", . -1 '&,','*~~-~~--,~,4,Ail ~ - ~4, ,~;M ~ _ 'I . . _ " I -'T~l - , ,~i~!~,,~,,,""~,,~.r""I~,'"~~. ,~i 1111~1.'1~1~ , - " , ~ 'JIN - ~ 'T ,.."T,-~ i - - ~ , . "-v,;J'~,rC-l, - ~ 11- iw,1~6~~v _ , , ~ , - -4 . .,-"~,t~,~_""f'~,'~'I'~l'.4r,ri~ . ~ -1-111- "I" . - , ~ . -.0.1.,- .~,,,~~~,'.',,,~~~!,~.,~,',~~.~,r,1,1.,,,",,"-'.,',~ , -~~',~,jl', :',~-~L-.'.7' --i ~ 10, ;.z-r 1.1m, --':~~2',i,6j~~I,W,,,,~,~,.~ i~,i ~ , , _ _ -,~~,-M ~T , . . t~`, 1,1, ~ ~ I,J--~F,lfl, v ~ , - - - I - 4~ lMV:.-ME,` 9. WN~~-N-V---, i, , ~ ~ 'i ; ST ,~~t~.'X , . 4; , , .la,,~ , v - - I -1 . il~~ ~ - 11 ~ ~t ~ ~ I.- -11.1'. - ;Z,~~ - - ;4,~ 1,il-,- l'-V ;-~,:~~~ii.~`~,::" -`-,`.S~~i,- ~,-r.,-, ii -i~v~%~f",',`~ 'T,7,:~ ~~;i n., 1 1, . , ,i,v'T"f4-5~'. , ~M I.--... lll.':;,~-,~~,~,,,- ,;-4--',;~;'-~~~'-~"' -`;'iii~` L A` J ~ - ~ . . n'!,"~;,-',"',iia-i'; " - ''I'~,,.~*-,!,--,,'.'4,,."F",~;'.-',~~::~,,",~~~i,"~~;,~:'-~,-',, 'm > ~1-~l ~ r , , f , - ' , , - , , ~ , a ~ T 'R~ ; ,,~~'.,,Iv~-4,,,,i.4"%~,,~~;"."r~', , ,J11.- ~7 - 11 ,L~",,,..-'~11, . - -0 i 1, ii~, , , . , -`,~,~`:~~-,~i,'z . .o. IT, Y.,~,,-ljo r ,.L, -r,""~~,`~`,;~~ ,-,~4~ " ~ - - - " i, ---n ~;,j3~,~-'A~", . ~,it i'~5~"~-'~,':!,'~~"~~~~:,r~'i'~~-~~ -4~` " - , ,i~'-,',,4,,~N,-:~1~1,~ , ~q,,,,,, I . I- v~ , , , ~,~N " - ~~I~, ,,~,`,14~,`~,.~ ~ ~ ,q~~ -.~-,NF,rp",,~',,,~ , - , , , M,111~~'---47~- - - rl ~ -11 , - ii~i-" . - `,~~,J?;-~ 41,~t~,'~`,4%~.,~ I -,f ','~~;4'- " '~.i;,::j:~,!,~,'~4~,~ , . , , 6 ~,.,L,~i--,', ;af "'o . , " ~ A, , - ----?,~l il~',-f,~,~ ~,',!,",,I'jii~ ,,,~'~"i',-~~,,;,.~t(~~,~~,.~:., ~ . ,~,,~,~.~;-~-,~i,~,'~~~z~~,',~.";..;~ --:Q~r'~,-~~,-', , ftl.i i " - ,,~'~,~~,,,l I I I - O 1!~, " . , ,`~71,p,";,- . 'N r ~ ~ - 1, ;;V, 0- - f'~ , .-.,-"-,7~,~i~,,~".,-..~~~~,,~~~,,'.,~4~~^~~': 11 A - - ,,,-,,-,,~~,~~4'kP'-'---,,""-"-'~- , ~-ii ,~,-,,-l . -w ;wN~- ~ 1- - Z~~-:Z,',.%~ ~1' ~'-,~.~~-,,,`e~~,~,~' , - N --l- - --i~~- , , .r ~~-,z,!.~,"!,.~',,~,,,~-~,,~-~.~:",-,~~.I.,~~~, ii ,A ~.,',,~~~i--,,".',,,'~,-,,,r,,.,.~,~,-'~,~--~,',~',, B 1 - ~ , 4Tt*~PT, ~ ~ , - , ~ ~ - . " , Z~,',,', 7 i'.4~;,:~~ - , , ~,h~;.- - ( g 'o. , _rlP , r ~ - iy& t - ~ " ON - Txi- U."W, ~ ~ 4 " , - ~ , ;Z~Z--_'---~ ~ , L'~-,',~~ ~~~~~.,-"4,-~'-'-.,-~,~-.-~,~,,,',~,~, ~ ~ . - ii :p - . N Mli , "I 'p ~ - -0 N- , , , , - :N`~,.--I,--- - ~ - - ~ , t!r,' " - "'ll i '1,1~ . -7 -:~iW~,' . . - .rr I~K- . V ..C~ " m ~m . Rt .i . , , , , , , , ' ~,.~.~.`~'l ~ - 'k.~.~A t. N-~~.. - . , i ",.i , " -,,i~; ii~',",~-','~f".t~',l " , - , , , A,Vn'; ~l -,j,-,',,,,'~~,,~,'.- `~N~j-z.7---", i'3~1~ -"~.,~7~, ~ - , ; , ~ x, V, NROR~ , ,~~l -,,z,~. ;5 1~t:z -5~'-',i ",`~~j,; . - I-1.11A , -1 .Is, "I .1p , I ~ - , " , - I li X, Akt ~ -~T~ , . I N ~211.,i,, , ,p' ~~,l `~"'-,~"~,-~j-'~"': ;"'.r - ~ r'-~,,-";~~,,~:?"~~,~,i,,~~z,~, I - I " , 4 ~111~,,,',,?;-'.,,~, -,'~~iiL ~ " , Ov , ~~,.~,s~~~,,,.F~~~li'.,",',"i,$- . - " ~,,~-.'i~I'~~"-~~,"-.,'~~,,~', , , - a , , 1~ li~ ii ,,',i',.~yA~~'~' , i4i ~ , . ~ , ~ "I ~Q . ~ 1--j , , " -.-",lrrj,-,--,-; -,r- --:~,~!.Hl"f,~~.,,,',:!, - , , ~ " ,-~51",~,i~,~~,,,,,-~~"!;.~,-;,,:~,'~l,"~I ~,~'l -1` -~~,`,i--, k P, - 11 .i,l, - ii'~~"--`~;,!,i"'.'~,,, , , . r I .1 L~ ,`e,~,, , ':41.'-!,~ "',~l!j, _ _i~L;i~.:'L,~',~. "I " _ , ~ _ _ , i , , 11 , ~ ~~-,',-'t, ~j~-~,,',o~, A~ ~.,,5~:, ~~,,,'~,*~-,.-',,!,~r,~!-.'~,~i-~l,-'~,~,',~.~,~.-",~,~,~,,-~,;', _~,.,,~,~",I~,~,,.~-'~",~~~:'~_' - , , , , , " . ~ ! ~---~j:, it, Ai I ` 1""'k" ' --'~"j -21"'.'~'. __l. , " i v~'-',~., L - - -i~~,,,=~ ~,~,`i -~7~'~ _ ~~,,~~-a ~,,i,,i,,,~,,,.,~t~, . - . . , , , In ~~,,~~ll,~,~z,-..,~,-,t~-~~-.7~~",~,-4~ - " , K7 ~ . - ~1,,~~. - ~ - , . - ~ , ;~.~,',,:~.1,~~;~',~.7~-~~"I'll:~-~~,f..-,-~-~~."It., - ~ . , 1,~,~~-,~,~',~~,~~~,~~~,.,,,.~,,~- , , ,1,4.~,,, -a~i~:, e, . " . - ~ -,-v;i~,,.o~--.:,, - 7;-'i , ~~,','f.',1`1- ~4,'~,-,~-L.~'~,~~.l~'~,~~Z);,4~~,"~!~ ~ - I, ; , ,I--,' - 11 ~-.-,".`ji--~~!,- .3.-- , ii,,~,L I . . "-",.;~,-.'~!~~~,~,-'.,~~,,,~"K.', -nr " ,,~,,~~.4,-r~,~,~~-11~ll.~,.~-','j 'k , , , , , , . ~ , -t:- , , --..~~-'xi.~~, I - ~11 1`1.1 , I.", -~11-11-, .~-.,.~,,~~"",.l:",.,"f,~,,,~'i~.-~',~,'~".;,',:.-",.:. ------'Z--'~~'~P--' I V~~'.-~,;j-:;'~' L . 1-11, p:"'- , , , , - , , " . , , ~,-.'---~,~,`IpAl~~ lNrl- - "',~~'.~",,;~,~,,'.~l,,;"L"~,,:,.,;,~~,",~'r,,,-:.,,~.,~ ~"i'~~""-.-r-"~;~-""i:,...,i,,~,.~,~,~~, ll,*lLJl--1 . : I ii,-~"'i'~'~-2,1,1,, ,~14, , ~'Y, . ~ - , , I I I ~ I ~ , I . , ,-;:,'--"i.~~L,k~',,,:.~~~~,~~,'~~~.:,~, , I ,~,,4~,,~,, . i6llll ~ -,Jlzli;,~', - :,"A .11, ~ , - 'e~ "..,,ti ,-l.l,-,, ~ I 5-il ,if ~ I Ir , `j~ ll,,:"!~~,l 7~1~!,Ti~ ~ !,~1'7v-!=~:,, F" -1 "i ~ zi f ',~~f~ -~Y A:'Nt`~U P, -I , ,,,,'.r 7 1, --l-, .."~~7,~,~,..s7---,,.~-.1~~.'~.i'~-,,,I , 'j~-` " "~~:~"~,',,;~~;,:i~'~l,'.I~,Z;"", Y~:,ZiIll*tlnl".~ " ,Pl~,*C' ~P~ - -W, , -!,.~~,-.~~;-,I~i , - 7 "T., z , , ,,~,~;-"'3,1,,-,,~:, -~-~,~~v~,,; 7 ii ~ 1~~,~. ~,,t~~O,~~ i, ~-,--llll , - - "i-l"'ll I ~vl, " , ~ - , -1- i~ fi,~,`,`~4-,',~z-,i.,.~.,,~, ,r*. , --,,T-,d,,--, = `v", i , . .e'' - ;a 4~71;~ - Z,I;vs '-~Z"-~'-~: I," - I - i.:l'-~,-`7.A ,,.,,.'~k~~.j:; -,,',',-,l - ~ , ~ , " , - ' I - -'~p -lit7;i~,~:"".t~,,:~'~,",~?"- I 1, >,ii~~-';~i,,~.i 2 ~ _ ',~.'~~v;~,'i,.ii ~'.~,'.i , - - Pz , ~ I " - - - `~"!l~,,~, 2 . - . , ~ "Y' " ~,.~I`,~' , , , - ",-~".,~,~~i,.";.~",~,',~,'~",;:~,',,,i,,,-~i,,,...~,',,,,~~~~':~~~,'~-L.~, e~ I . -'~i-,~""";f""~~l~~t'~.~,~~-~~~,-,~, . 11 ip-~Yv~-,, . ~ ~ z - 2 2 " , ~,4~`V~-A ~~,'~Ft)'-I~i;~ 1~11--,~ - '--l- --A-",~ , - L , 1~ , ,~~l-',.~~"-:f~','-,',,'~7~,;',~,",~,'~'~,~,'-'.-ii,~:,~'.,~*'~,;~~~,~z,, " ii - " , I . - - ,I-"-- , , - ~ - ~ ~'i - . - , ~ , . , - ~ , t ~ L ~ -J,`~-,--, , - , , 1~ I " ll-,~,j~,,%/,-, ~ ~ - I - " - -Z,~'.f , - A --l " , - --.,;~'W,T-1111~1.-,L 6.- ,~-~V' 1- - ,~~;;,,,~,:"-',~~'L~-'~~~",,,~.~r~'.~,.~:,~,'~."-;..,!-",,!~,.,,,---~,~; , J~~z~) '91, 19-M K ~"illl , -,,-~5z, ~wo 17, ~~"'NN .1 ~ ~ - , 1, 11 , t, , , - i~- ".1" ~ ~ A ~ " - "-~r-.,~,ij::,tl ,,~,~41'~,-~~',,!'.' , -7-ii'l' ~l---~~-,-"~~~~~,',*,~,,,,-~~,,,,'~~,',. ft -J,',,i,, -,,;,i;r, " ~ , ~Ql~'111~,l , 0 e --e ~~,,,,~~,~-J,P,,~~','~l ~ -i~j'jf"lv-`-ci -vf~".-','~4~,~."~~l~~-,"~'t~-".,I~ ,'-i~gv.',~', ~ . 1, q - , ,4," - '~,"li~ , - i. _,,l:,;,,',_:jr~;7,,l,,',j, ';--r, ~ ? k ,~'4'.,~-~ , ,,,~g" -'-,,&i, 4,4,1'F~~,'.~,~,-~ '~:i,~~~,~".'~~',~",~,~,i~'.",~-*,-~'~,2;14,~V~~,-,., ~4't~-,~j ]n~,',-,,-~ ~ ,-16~.V-r I-- - , t ~,L ~ , 'A'. "I I. I " " --ii- ~ ~ , , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A', ~`,~j?.'i;'~'~-W,A~, , , ,~~t,4" " ll%~~, ~ ~ , 11 , , ; z--,,,p7~X,S:",, ~~S~- I... , ~ " - ~1,~",~ "I "'l',-",,-, - `W,111-r,`.~-, , ~~i I ~ 1..t~~-ll , , ll,' `4'r~ t - - , . , ,;"141",~~'~"!,~,~,,,,--,-.,-,,,r,-i,~~,i",~.'~l"~'r""~,':, , , ~o P~l~ , l'-l- I , -A A,-,e " , ~"I~fl-lw`li`_:~j I - ~ - - . r, , 'T , ",~."'i~P-wi-', zr'IfO~~K~~,~--"-fre, ,ii .1 , -7~1-,-',-,'~,',~,rzti I . , PiT "~lii , --l-1- -i ~~,-,~~,',,_';~4~~," ~ ie-~ , I .1 , ii 11111, - ,11 I ~ ~ 1;1 -111.11111--, - ~Vig , , ,,",-.N I 'i, -1~,~"k;~"~,~.',-'!-'~,~.,",,~~'i-,~'i "Q!;.~.,7;'eI, ~ I , L, 1. h -%-v 4, - ~ i'v, ~,f,,,-.- - - , ~l ,_Z,~ L z~~-.. . ,,,,~....'~''..,,.~~~;,."~,~'-~,,~~,4'~ " ,~!~"',,p!~lp- 11 '-j~~?;ir:44) , ' I- 1, . 'A"'.1 , , , ~i`,,, j~'i ,,,,.'I, ~~r~'~f~-'~,,:, 'Q1j, g"o, N~AI~~~Aift'~:,~,~,:~. , I., 4 1~ "I "I ~ ,~,,,.-":,~-,~.~~.,~"-~.~~:z~~4~,lr,.%-"~,~~~'.1~ - ~ ~ 11 j~ ' ~,",,-lj ~ , ~ , . ~ ,~~iii , ~ . , - ~-:,,~~,,~!~'Ll.`,', ,'~,,M I - I ~ ~ 1-1 I I" '-~-Yml~--'%,,YM Z-- , 1.~, - , ,.~li ~ ,ol I 11.1, ',,N,;~ i,~~ Z '11';:R%~, 1~ . , , 11 "'~"'~V,~V.','~~;~~'~,'i,l~-,'r,'~.V,~,~,'~l~~"",- - - - -111~111;,,;-, - ~ -`~-9.Pv ~ - , ~ - .;i~ , - . , ,~A - . . " -1 . , ~ - , '~,t. i~_,~.~I~,,. -;~,n ~r ,,-,--l~o.4i ..r'-.i,`-l , , I - ~-~i~ .'.'~,"',.~',~~,'-,.'r;~'~',~~7~,"i~:, , ,;~F A .-W i 4. . " .A"r~_,-, - i .W,~, ,!:"U"ll~."A~.l.. I ~ M-,-VYffllM.l`i ,~--~-_,-~,~'-,,-~"P,-,~r~, ~,~-c',',~~.~,,~,,~-,~,,,~"..-4~,'~~'~".~,'-,,,',,~~,~,'~~ ,i , 1-v . - 1;1--~~;,~ ,il-, ~ f, , , ---l"' , , , , vi.~l; ~ , - , M, , - , ~,~f_",. 1, ~ .11 I I 1. ~ 'I'l - . r , , , I- ~-~,,q,-~,~',`~' llll~ , ~ i:~ltl'~;~ ~ I "i"'I'll , ~l 1; I - a- " ~,wn-ii p-----.~ i - - - N. -",,'~.,',',,,-~~-',!'.",,~.-"i~":,4~.~~.!"i~ - - I, , ,~,~.'~12y~-'- ,~R. "I lill. 1. "UM Nl,~:, 11 -11'-'114 ~ ~ I . - , " -i~ -~~;;l 't . N . .ri ---1&1~11 ~ 'i' r~f," , ' ~"5 "i -4 ~ R~ ~ ( . ..."ll"ll. , ~ "ev-- -.11-C -11 ,-.~,'~~'~,.,5"vl~,i~e~e;~',~'~- ."T, .1 ; -~l ~ ~ . , ll~ ,~%J, - j- -1-1, I'~~i~t~l'.11,~?,~~,~ii~,,-.~,~,;";; - , _ , _,r , ,a. ''C-.- ~ _ .I I lll,~, , - I.- , - - , - ~ - , ~ ~ !fL.!--;;,','-,~J~:`ri ~ I ,'~~,,,,,~',",;.";i,.~.~,~,~,~l-'~.~,i'.i,~-'ei"-,, ---,t,'~!~- --;s,--0Jt;,,--, , - r '17~;~ 1~,~,;I'i ~ ~ ...;I . _ ~ i -1, -'.4~1"' " ~ '~~,."..~4.",~~i"'~~',,.'~"- ~viizl':,~.,, . , - , ~ ,-,-~,-t',~Z. 1-1-1,11 I 'C_ , g , , , ~ ,f '4~ - , ~ - "'l- I - , - ` 1. - . ~ . ~ . , - r ',yl_~ ~ .3 ~z - , - .;,7 ~ , ~ , .1 . , -i ~ ~ ~ , ~101 - ~0 'lp,i- ~ , ~ , . ; - ,~,'-i~ - 4. 0 , ~'4;- , - ( - ~ I " " ~ ~ , _ili;,,,~- ~ , "'i , ~ r , , ~ 4 i. ~ ) , , , . , -1- - r ' - ly' ' ` ~ ~ t',i0- _":lL'~'.--i-- - - fQ~- ,.*R'Uz~`,L:lll'l ~ e , , ~ ~,i ;,7 ~ i.7. - . , 21, lij., ~ 4i , ,2~1 j,~- " , - ,,~M,~, - I-R,-~ ~g4i~~'~?~ ,~;i~A~ vt"""! *Z4 " M'?, k-, Cy - , , ~p~;l ~ , ~,,F ~~,V~ - ~r - -4-,T~-.Q_,.o,-; 2~~, -,,,~,,~.,,~~,,~r,,~.~,',,,-,r".I"~ _i, ~ ,~,`~,~N~, I . 11 i",,~zy".,~;~,'~"i'l~.~'~,'~,"~~ -i _ , , ~ - ~ -1 -.-c,.Tl, " - ~ " , - `,-V'~`X, "i: i,~,~ --i", Z~- ~ - - , , , , - , , . `,,A,-~,~,;,i , - v; 1~ , , I I , , , ,-,~lj ~ . , ,,~~",'j,,,I.i~ -i,'~',', I," "I, - ` 11, I. - ~t ~ZF' -;l,~ll~'~'tim,4;..lk4l'.N , , , Y,~-,,,~.,,~;;"!,~~~i"",~,~,.;", ~,'~.'-,~l ',~~7,',,~,-~7-,~;"",", , 'I . ~ ,a , 't~,~",L?l~~:,'t'~'~"'~-"~:,~gv-.:" - , _ - ~jl'll'~.~l ~11 I ~ - . - --Xw, , i~"F~-! 7", tt,~, -n Q 5 ,~Z'jl;. " ~ , . " i",', ;f,~'Jl',';~,7,`~, ~ ~ ~,L; -_"-'t, -'t,~ -.'i i~.', , r li"I'l-l- ""i 4 ~ ~--,;,~'~z ~ - --~R ~ i,~~'r;~~, - -l ~L~_:,~,~L',IZW~~.',~3 . - , , , " ~-;1~11~111-~,V, 7---~ , . ---"4~,l ~ - -1 - 1- - . , ~ - .,I ,j' ~l ,1`1`~ " , , ,~~V,i "i" ~Woltl, ,.t-, " , , , i, ,~~"i 17-;j~,-,,--.-,~ - r , rr" - ~ ~ %',~~'.l , ~ -7 :11 I C-11:-"~' -1--;:51 1 - " " j . ,~t:~!.,vi,~,'.Z~c, _',`R"- ` -,,v.',-,--2 rl,'~-,,~. r'. ~ " .!'l'!,7,'., 'LWI, . ~ . ~ , ' r -,At,~,- ~j, , .,i ll-.flW-,,, .1 " i I ~ 1, IN 1-1.~l , ,,,,~~",:~-,,,,~;,,,;,,~,,r.,.,, ~-"~,,.,r-,7,.-,~.,~,,,,,'-,,,,,',~~,.',,~.,~~~,-,~---~-"~~-,, - - - - - ~ - 1, ~ ~ ~ !i"~,-a!'.": - ~ , , -rl' , - . . 1. I ~ .1. I " ~ ,.-,;,7. , , , - . ~ v ~,.,.,I,,~~"i~~,~,,~,~~~,:j~~'C"~~,,~ . ,_,~,~,,-,T- , " ,L,- i~ , ~~'~~,~A'a-,,4,-"" ~iml~.,,'L i- 111. I -v , 11 I t,--,,,%,jl,~. ~ -J~*~,~',~ ,w"- , i ;~,-j~~ . - I I I - ~ - " " - " .4 ~ ,~",'i'. ~~t~IiYil`,~~.-:"-. , .h- 7, , - ~ , C", 07 , , t . 1. 1. , - 1, - ~4: , - ~ '7 ml C-,,'~:~~,- , - , PIEERING , 1.1.1'. "r ~ik,j5i~i , -~---AIIND'~~-2,~,E-m , -W ~ ~ I ~~:-~'~~'r, 'P,,~- -q,.~~'-, I. - IWI"~";~'-'~' 'j. , A , 11 R, 41 , . , ~ M'A'.'~g'r, 't, , Ill . , rZ,74 ~ " I , ~i J ~ I , I , ~ " - 1; I.t- -,,'i~ ~ I . , 1~ - , - ~ P. ~ ~ . - i WE . 11 " ~ 11, ~o r, . m , - , . ~ 1-1 ~ 1". ~ :~1~1, .v I 1, , - ,_1 p ~ I . I - - , . - . - , -~,~:""ii;~,,,~I'l , ~ ~ , ~ , rp~ ; , ~ . .W , - ~ t'i2 ! ~ ~ - I , ,i, , ~ ;7 - -~I, ,Z,-, F-j- ~1'-~,~~ '~,~~.~,-,~,T~,,,~~',-Il~.,f!j,~ `j~',,,,~- I,.` - , . --0~11'-!1111--r .,w~ ,,j~,f.'- ,5,.. - . , ~ ` ~`~~O - '~ri,~~ - - , , S - ~r , , _ _ V, ;-1 " ;~~:~~;t,,~ V , , ~1'17- ""I-5 ~-v~rf;"il.~, i, 1, I - gr ~ -~i ,~d' 1;,;~-,',!i~ , C ",`4 , , , - ~,,,7,-4, . . , I , _ - , , , , , ~ , ~liel lN ~,~,,,-,~~-~-",Ifk-"?~~,i~-,,,, , Ai _~ii!,",~, ',~z",,,i,;,,-,,, .,"I'-.:,",rj~,~.','.~~.~ - " - ~ - ,'VA;t " -j"4 , - - :~~4"".r..".,,~-,~~','~;,*,:2--"--";; . ;.1-1 ~ - .',',-i,l,-,~~, 1,15, , -r.; " .~z-:~,'~,'~,'.,~",'~-,.,,~-.~~~~'.',.~'.~~~',,.'~~~~ - ' , , ,,Vj,~,~~ - t~ . ~,~J~itl. - 1, - - -1 ~11~Z~11~'. , -.""I ,",%"r, ,~,i -~f - , 4 . ~ -7--c' - , I " 'SERVIC,-ES"~`3~d , ,;w,,,,,,-,,,~ I r I ---i!". " -.1- , , ~ 11-11-~l - ~ I -A.MZ~TZM.- .Y--ll -~141- lll~--- i'1,1,~,j~,',, ,,.o,,-~ -~,-~,-,~*".",~';~.~"e.,~~~,~'~~-~ 1. ~11,~,~,-, - I j,- .1"! 51 ~ I "t"I'- ~ "I'll, I . -'~;,'Z~":';- `~,'iii~ . . , , ~ , , .9 , ~ 'r~'i'~ , ~_~F,, ~lilll; . ~ - ;r7i~-' "i ~ , , f,~,,~4'~ -"~','..'~,,C~~~;,,,~7,~-,~~,~li".~~,~:"- " o, , ,-~~r.?4, 1~~'-;'~L ,~~',~i~~,,~.~~'-,,,,,,"~,i",', " . , -,7~ ~,~t~,,~, _~~?41,5' ~ _ I'll r , ~ 4~, - ~ ~ 1, -,~:l , , - - 4~--','~- 7",7-~,.~~,,i , Z, - . ,,,.~:,.~,~;:.::"~.,'-~',:.,,:,~~,,.,It~,~-,,'."",,,", I . . ,4g , -.-I ~ " "ll ,`.,~~4, *%~.%~~F~.'q',`:I.,- , 7 , , , 1, . t~,;~ - , ,1,1~ - - - ~7-. L' ~ , I - " w , -'p ',',g4`,,, - ~ ,'07%'~ '~I- , , p ,-"A -1 , _ I rl-,.-,,~ ii--,~- --i I il 1. -.1- ~17 , - , ,`P~, I 11.11 .1, - , - - ~,y ' - r. 11 1~i,1~111 !~-4.vvl'%--.;~ . `2~'~, ~ , 1--it, I ,~~1--~'ll~ll,~~~li"~,,~;~~;,.,,,~, - ~ 1:-7-1,111 , ~ 4~ . ,,~'~.F-.~ " r~ , , , , - - , q - ~ -,Zjv-,, jI, ; k , ~,-oi , , , , . . - . . , .A"f"',~', -,,,~~~l~",',~'tl,*,!~~",,'.",-~,,~-~,-.~~~-,, -~-i,.~~,N~ ""i", ~ , , - r I , I i',~~,-~",!;',.'~t,~~Z li " " ,~~'r",,~";.""~~,~~,.".~~~~,~","~-~.,..',,,,, , ii,,~ ;',;,~r,'~-,zi~,"p " , vj ~ ~ " , `~4;"`~.', 't -.~;,%;r.~,'~` ~ ~ .,t I ! 1~'- ,~,~;i - , . ,T-4"&- - `5S " it~~," 1, - - - - t."'i ,q, ~~,F~,*"r,o~,!~,,,,,,~,,q-,,,,,4~,',.~~~..'~",-,-A";~:,P~::,,"~~,=i , , U ~ I - , rmUv,--,~- ,'O,i-,v - . , 'i 'it - ;~,,'i~O,',,-', ,..~,;~~-,,,.t,~,~.~~,,,,,~',.,. - ~j ~ ~~,~~,~7.' , 4,-, ,(.,li ",,~':'-,'~~L~.,'_',~~.~,',~'~Fr:~l, ;~,:'j~!~~I'.' ."'p , . , I ~l , , , - '~",'r~ ,,~!~,~~F- - I -X-lqw~-O,~M,~~N~, ;z,, _ 4' ~~~:-~f.,,~"!~~~-,',t~-,-,~'Z,~','~,.i "'~~Z,.q ,-,17~;-., ,'.q!) - ~l "~,"Ir',~,",~"r'~~l','~',~,,,~~i !n-'~~ , . ~ :::l'i. ,-,~~V..-,'.-,,,~,-t --l-111 -1.1, ' 4" ".~i ~ -1, , , " j - ,~,j, '~~'i~,~,,'~l~,~~,~,,,',.~,l~~!!:'.'.'N ;e,.,-.~~,,,:.l ~ , ~ j~ ,"~~,~;.,W.r".,~F,".,~,~~,~,~ .~"t~~if"~.".',',"~,"~'~',f~:~ii-~-,~~,,"?'~,'~,~.~~,-,-~~~'.",',-,,~,':~-".L~~'~',~~., , 11 "I'll . , ~ - - -1- " 11 , .1'-Wcp:n~ -7," , , , ~ -;,w~-- " "-:1~'~,P,~~'al-,"";,.-~,*~'~N",~~~,~~~~.~,;~iI -4 1 ,.~~"fr~--'I;~,.~-"-~'ll~-'~l-.-"~,~,~,'~,.-14,. - - - ~ ..-",.,.-;..T " , ~ 1. lll,ie~~ 4 ; 1~ , f". , 11-11-11-,-'-~4, .1, , " C, . , - , r - " . ~ , ~,,~~,?,,;,V~ j'~', n~,~ flt", " - . t , " ~ . - . ~ ~ .,7j~~T~ii . , 1 `2"i, " `--"!.'P~ -r"-,;~~ly ~ "I' ` *j,~~jjj~'~ L iq,!-,~ ~ , ;W- -~li i -.-,v~ll,, i;s - ~-,;-,~4,.,~,~,~~;.2"1"1~~~i-,'~ - ,~',~!.ie:, -_'rj.- - 7 - ~ , . ~ . . f&,~ " 1~~ " ""~~j'~`-""K~~ - -~i, , -,~6~~,, 'i %",,i~, ~ ,;-"!'*',.l`.4A- -Ir '~"-'i , 'k, ~z, !~12~~%."~ ""I - "I ~ ";i -K ~-1'4.,, I' - . ~ , , " . ~ " ~a - Z.,~:;,, ~ _ ,,~7;, - - ~ , ,7, . - jl. ~ . ~ - . ,,,ii,,~~, ~ , -~Zl~-l 1-. 1, , - ~ - ~ ~ ii~. 11W 11 ,~lk I". ~11-- ~ . " . _4 , , . , N, , ,?.."I'tl' '-P -~,~,Ai- :-~,;,~.,i",",~~~~v..;,~,,~~,,~N~,;.";:,~,,~~,,,~~',,..,-~z',, , . , . . I I I", - r , .1 if , , 2 - ~ , - , el,'oW` ""A, A,~,lv~, - , , -'t i~ il ~""`;i " ii~ 111~11-11-11*5~ , , " , : 5-'..',,~,,'!~.~',',i-~,~',~`, . , - -,~'l ~ I `6f~~,~ , ; , %A,~ , "I'l, - iiiA ,i,t"~!`,7,`,7:: " " , I ; i"R . 44ii;*,~~--~,-; , - ~ 11 - It", ~ . - - ~ f -Q, - - ~ aN ',,k2i',~~!-*~Zi~ .-.,~~-*-'~~~',~:..~,,"!,"",C,~L~r.: .~~;,`i -1, i -~,-A*l, ,90 -'a' P,,~li`,~,,, . . . . , , , 4 - - , # J I I , . , y , "I . _ 'l- - , .1-111 . - , , ~.,,i--,.'~-,~-'e',~,-,'t'~,,~l,~,~',, ~%:.f,~~,~,.,tL, , f Ri'~-q'~.- -,'.-'~~',,~i',~-~~,4~~-.~A~~"'Er.,-.~~,~~'~,.,~ " , - I'll e . v- yll., ff,i~~".;4 , " , g . ,,r-,f_ "ll, j ~ .i~ , ""~~M,7""",-",~l.*,~~,:~ll,~-,-,~.i,,-:.I - ,.i~t~li ~ - fqj', - , , iii~l - , f . -,~,~7~,~ --,1111- .1~-'Z--:~~'E',~~, ,~-R~ r4, --',~,",-j~ - . - o lly. ~ - . ~ , - _~~ii',~ ~.'~4 .i ~ ','4. " --~,~'4?,,?,M. "-"",,~,~~i~l~7,7~i;~~-~~~,,~,-~, A 11 , wl':~',.----~lz M.1- I ~-~Y I - " 1, . . , , , 11, ',L:~, '~',.~~V~!,' ",7;,7"i ,~.,L~~ "!~,,,i,P~ ~ i,aT4 , - _ le ,I,~i, . I i - - ''i - iij`.~.fi' ~ 4., ~ - t, .,;A , -,;-.,I.,7,;~ll,"fl--~,~"i;~'~ "~W-1~~~'~~~l~~'.?'I~c.~,~,~~-,~, Oln%~i - - 1-k 1~111-1-,T---1,2,lo`~ , It, :-111;~~'.11-i ~li,l,~'~~'2~ri~ P-"~"t-,~),,- . i ~ g", ~'z - i.,",-, ~,,,,,.,~,,,~,r~~,,,~~,,,~~,,~,,e _--,,~~k~-Z~~, _'~~-'i -~,O.",;-.r- -1 ~'Q ~~15:,'-,4~',~4"'--~~,",";',~",- ~.:~,r,,'~"-:~";~lg-,-).-,i,."~,'-'-.~-it,",-,~~",:~~t~.,-";~~ $',"S~'~"~"'~',--,;.;.,,,~"'~~ V ~".';~'j~,,.., . . , ~l V I'll - i ~ , ~--,t&ii. ~ ,-,~t~', , , , i~ ~ 111-111 , . . , ,-j'A" -,A --4 -~ti~ , . ~ ~,,A iir, -,,,,~,i ,,,,-...~..,",r~~,,. -~4117,,'j~-'~-~'~~-`* . ,.J,~~:~ 'u, , ~ ,-4--, . ,~~,iR,,,~V,3,i~Mi 1-- , , _ _ ; ii: i~: - , - - , 1 , - ,r, 1'~;; --111111 -.1 1~i . ,1-1-1 i,~ ~ 4--- .~j,,,,~,',,4.-,'~l.~~,,~~T~~.;~,..;,.,"-, ~:~-.~~,,~,~~-~,~,,~-~~~~~e~~'~";"~',~.'~,'F~"', , ,',`.l'-" fii , O ~ RO 7A " iu~ k , z7nr, -'4, ~ )'-i I , . 4~ ~ - , . ,-I, nz~~,N~~,, ,~?,V~,a,; , , , ~ VT - 11 4 I - , LMR ~ ~7,3 ,kp - :11"'MrA 1.~.I.-I'l~,~ll.~,~~~,~~.'r~~7.~,...~,~,,,'.~~*~"-'~"";"~', I, p~, 1,-r-, -L11 - . - `3 - , ~-.,IL 7F,~-~,~,,~~~I.",~--~~~.-i~-~.;,.--~~4.":.,~~,~~z~~-~"-~,;.I~~?,'!i,',,,~,,,,-,,~~17-~,.-I 1.11.11-'.."', -~;4~-S~,f~,`~ ;1.1-2 I - ,TAl , r , ~9, ,i .r . - - 1_,~,` I I K.- I . - , ~ - ~ , ~IOMR;- f)iff , ~ it , . . " - 41~ :",z ; ~ , ~ i * . . , , - ~ I 1r; " i, " - , . " .1', ; -.4.- M~ r, `,,,,,M';~~,~..~ " ,;F r;,~, -i' , ,,~~l ; -Nl, . ~ .11 -1 4.`,7 ~0 . - - ~ ~ , , , ~ - .1 'R, ~ ` . , 11 ~ , ~ - ~ T- - - ' ' '4 - - '1~ 'Al', tl 4~ 'l-' li~e~:'%"' ' ~L I - ~ I ' : ~ .t , , 'r " , , ~ ~ 't ~-,v - ~x;`~ , .'r,", "Ill . 'tg, I 21 - 11 , I *q -Il'i ~L 'I , I OA I fA, - ,-~~,'V,zs~~ll 5 ~%O ,-,--,lg',:, ,.3., -R~uii,!~ ~ 2 , , , ~ _:;~J:~ I 1.1r" i, I 1, , i% . - - ~ ~ ,4 - :L , , -1 ~ '~'~'~,'~~;'r",~,;~":'~~'~'.""',,.;~.- ~',ivl,, - I .1 ~ ~ , ,!~L ij~,,T~',,!~~ r ~l , ~Y- , . `i~vl, eX;~,i'. liii-~,`," , ~ , .4 , . t I - - . " . ;g, .Q;l'in;~1AWMR -~-~~~-D'-' _ -~'7, " . , , p~r , ~'4" ~ 0,~,W "o ~ i -1~il-lcpll'--'~~," - ---~i--~ 7g~'-'~,gj- , IF ..'t""s; , , Y- ",:~illl, g. - "I ,j , ii, - 1~ , ~~T , - ~ g*7 . , " , - - -i W-~%~ , -i'l V, ~.-'i",','!." , ~'r ~ I , , "I ~ ' - . , L'I~g~~%,;ag, , _ , lit, - .,~,i ig,~~ , fv~:,- t 4 , , . - .~~,.11'1, -.1 ,,).-.l, V-.,.,";~ &,I ~ r;7".F 'I - - if , , ; a ~ r " iV --.i!"~~,~"?'..""', -i%~, -~'4~i, ~;~.ej- 4i,4~M ~ I- . j- ` `-A fa- , ~ , ~ '~p,~~RI~4r , ,~e~ . V"' 's; ~r~,,,4,~iii , -r.. , ~ . ;w- (l.'jR.-~,,,-,l g', , , , j.~', ";",-l',jl,,,~"- -"T . ~"4~ " ~ _ , ,,,ji~-WZITI~~,-,:, 11 ~ 1, ; 4~1 L " p g g ~vr)7,-~~a~ -;w--.-,z, ~ A.-I-,"', 11.17~,O ~ iii, pl o, ' ~ k", ,-l' - -(v " , 'Z,~;~. i ~:'~7' "'i , ~ 11 "-f, '-f i,-~.'~,I~§?~'.~i . 6 ii~ rr ~ W.Ll~~- - - , I - . ,r±,Nf~-~, *~.'~V ~ o 'r ~ i, ~ , -.,?-Qy J ~'~'r ' , ~ , , `,,~~t Z ~ " . . Z, ,j, .1 'PRI ~ - - , ~Xl. . ~ -,-~i ~ , 1 7- ,~~~t~-"',j - ~ , , ;'ll ,"t:." "7,, I . , L I 1:, ~ ~ I 1,7;i,t~.K-, r -111, 1-1 ?gq rpg- 7,111 ; , 1. ~ . ~ . ~w 1, , ~ , " " , ~ ,~-,,~~lk,r"im,..,~l;,,,,,_~~~t*~E. - - All ~l ~o ffin~ .?fik,50~ - - , ~ ~ I I WX'Q4I?-V-'li',,'T~l - ? ? .1.1 R I - v I -~i~~~-~~~hq"~,~,---.q~"-,~-"r~ffit~~-,~,~~'~WU , 4 , '~l , - mt= " ~,g :74'm 1~~";g~m . .miw ggg,,~~ -nm-i,-zg ~ 7,~, .5, . ; , % W, i" n I 19~ , , NW , , - I m 11 - , -;V - 4 'A " '5101, , , ` I . 4 , at - ~ - S--. "HO, %`lM-,y=,R45,,M a - -~A wn-l- m ~ t, . ii! 1 'A , , I , 1, - U, ~R-k,., ~ . i . go 0 . . - 1 ~'i - I ~ ~ , i I 11 ii !11~ I 1 ! 1 i ! i 11 I 111 I - . - " I i 11 , ~ , "'i 'i , 11 I i 11 li 1 , -10111, I 11 I'M I I I 1 , I ; I "'Ill, - WMER I , i , I ~ I I I i 11 11 ,11~i ; ~ la,vom Kill M--- TIGARD WATER DISTRICT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CR4,RGES. FOR THE WATER SYSTEM J T-T iii0 FINAL REPORT Prepared By: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.' Bellevue, WA * Olympia, WA * Portland OR Vancouver, B.C. * Washington D.C. I I ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. l 4380 S.W. Macadam Avenue. Suite 365 Panand.OR 97201 (503) 2233033 • FAX (503) 274.6248 ll File 9:5009 `l June 29, 1990 Mr. John Miller Administrator Tigard Water District 8777S .W. Burnham Load Tigard, Oregon 97223 Rea System Development Charges- Water System Dear Mr. Miller: Attached is Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) final report on system development charges for the 'Tigard Water District's (District) water system. 1P The conclusion and recommendations contained within this report should enable the District to implement system development charges which comply with Oregon law. EES appreciates the opportunity to assist the District in this matter. We would also like to thank you and you: staff for your assistance in this project. Jf you have any questions, phase call. Very truly yours, ECONOM?C AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. ♦ e andall P. Goff Project Manager 1 cc. Gilbert Meigs 8 C WaE- - CC c, _ M1:11 I WAR 1 11 11 ill 1 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE WATER SYSTEM 1 I Table of Contents s Section Description Page Transmittal Letter Table of Contents i List of Exhibits I Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Scope of Services 1 Organization of Report 2 r II Executive Summary and Recommendations 3 Introduction 3 Current Charges 4 Deters and Service Installation 4 System Development Charges 5 Recommendations 7 Sample Resolution g III System Development Charges in Oregon 9 Introduction 9 Requiremcnts Under Oregon Law 10 Economic Theory 11 IV System Development Charge Methodology 12 Introduction 12 Overview of Methodologies 13 Equivalent Units 14 Existing and Future Capacity 15 System Buy-in 19 Compliance Costs 20 Credits 21 Net System Development Charges 24 i i SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE WATER SYSTEM Fable of Cantents Section (Description Page `I System Development Charge Calculations 25 Introduction 25 Equivalent Units 25 Transmission Mains 26 Distribution System 27 Distribution Storage 27 Bull Mountain 28 Compliance Costs 28 Credits 29 Net System Development Charges 30 Conclusion 31 e. ii MKIMEREEMIN MEN= SIMON ti SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR THE WATER SYSTEM List of Exhibits Exhibit Description Page 1 Sample Resolution - General 33 2 Sample Resolution - Calculations 40 3 Equivalent Residential Units 43 4 Transmission Mains 46 5 Distribution Storage 49 6 Bull Mountain 52 iii mill= SECTION I Y1VTROIDUG'!'ION A. Intmduction The increasing customer growth of many water systems has. caused an increasing burden on the utilities' ability to fiance this growth. The cost of developing new sources of supply, storage, transmission facilities and treatment requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act can be quite large. To mitigate the cost of financing these new facilities and ultimately the cost of rates to d.3stomers, many u` ties have implemented sytemns development charges (SDCs) or impact fees for new development. SDCs provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new utility infrastructure to meet customer growth between existing customers and new customers. New hook ups, under SDCz, are required to "buy in" to the system in terms of both existing capacity and future capacity addition requirements in order to mitigate the effect of growth on existing customers. While the Tigard Water District (District) currently has SDCs in place for new development, recent Oregon legislation requires that the SDCs be reviewed and updated to assure compliance with the law. The 1959 Oregon legislative session passed Douse Bill 3224 Chapter 449 Oregon Laws codified as ORS 223.297 through 223.314 (Oregon law) which sets forth requirements for the calculation and accounting of SDCs. In order for the District to impose SDCs after July 1, 1991 the District must pass a resolution or ordinance which complies with Oregon law. B. aDe of Serviges Economic Engineering, Inc. (EES) has been retained by the District to review and calculate SDCs for the water system. As part of the process, EES has determined SDCs, for the District which are fair and equitable for both existing and new customers, and which comply with Oregon law. EES has also provided recommendations for accounting of funds and administrative procedures which the. District needs to follow in order to comply with Oregon law. i. 1 , C. 0 nization of Reg This report is divided into five sections. The first section is this introduction and discussion of the scope of services. The second section provides an executive summary of our findings and conclusions. Also included in this section are recommendations for accounting of funds and administrative procedures, as well as a discussion of a resolution or ordinance to be enacted by the District for compliance with Oregon law. The third section of this report provides an overview of the requirements under the newly enacted Oregon law for determination for SDCs and provides a discussion of economic theory. The fourth section provides an overview and general discussion of the methodology used in the calculation of SDC's. The fifth section of this report provides the detailed calculations determining SDCs for the District's water system. A draft sample resolution/ordinance and the financial calculations utilized in determining SDCs are provided as exhibits. lll~ s 2 I I ' SECTION II EXEC SU ARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 A. Introduction The District supplies water service to a portion of the incorporated area of the City of Tigard, City of Durham, City of King City, and some unincorporated areas of Washington County. Approximately 9,500 customers were served by the District in 1989, consisting mainly of residential customers. The. District currently obtains the majority of its water supply requirements from the City of Lake Oswego. Additional water supply is provided by the City of Portland and two District owned wells. The District's system is mainly gravity fed from reservoirs supplied by pumps from the City of Lake Oswego's'system. However, a portion of the District's system (Bull Mountain) is supplied by pumps which feed the distribution system and High Tor reservoir on Bull Mountain. e Current growth projections for the District show an increase in new customers of 4.5 percent through the year 1995. After 1995, growth is assumed to slow to a rate of approximately 1S percent per year leveling off in approximately 2012 as the City of Tigard expands to its urban growth boundary. Presented an this section are the meter charges and SDCs to be enacted by the District for 1990. Recommendations for accounting for funds from SDCs, updates of the SDCs charges and administrative review procedures to be followed are provided. A draft sample resolution or ordinance for the implementation of SDCs is also discussed. L r 3 3: 11:1 B. CuMnI ChM W The District currently has meter installation charges for copper service, meter, connection fee and service off pump station where applicable. These charges are shown in Table II-1. Fable H-1 ~rrent Deter Instal. latio~C:h~ age, Meter Size 5/8"x3/4" Cropper Service $150 $250 Dieter 250 450 Connection Fee 375 650 Service off pump Station 225 225 Total. $1000 $1575 Deter Size Cost 1-1/2" inch 3,000 2" inch 4,800 3" inch 10,800 4" inch 16,900 6" inch 33,800 8" inch 54,000 Based on our review of the District's costs, system characteristics and Oregon law, EES has developed two sets of charges for new meter connections. The first is a charge for the installation of a meter and service by the District. The second is a system development charge. C. N gi.er and Service Iinstaalation The District has reviewed the time and materials required to install a meter and service based on previous job experience by the District's staff. Based on these time requirements and the current cost of labor and materials, the District determined the cost for installation of a meter and service. These proposed charges are presented in Table II-2. 4 Table II-2 ftnosed Lyleter and Service Charges Meter Size Cost 5/8"x 3/4" inch $250 V inch 350 - 1-1/2"- inch 715 2"inch 945 For meter and services larger than 2 inches, the customer shall be charged based on the actual time and material cost plus 10 percent incurred by the District D. System Develonment Charges EES has calculated SDCs for the District's water system for 1990 based on x generally accepted rate making principals. Details of the calculations used in determining the SDCs are provided in Section V of this report. The cost and timing for future capital improvements used in the m1ci lation of SDCs were based on the ® report entitled "Water Supply and Distribution for Tigard Water District", prepared by EES and dated May 8, 1990. Other financial and accounting information has beefl-n nvifiIII by the DIC4rim The SDCs for the District's water system presented in this report are calculated based on an equivalent residential unit (ERU). A weighting factor of 1 is assigned to a meter size of 5/8 x 3/4 inch meter. Other meter sizes are weighted based on American Water Works Association capacity ratings. Two sets of SDCs have been determined for the District. The first set of SDCs is for new connections not served by the Bull Mountain system. The second set of SDC's is for new connections on the Bull Mountain system. As explained in Section V, special facilities are required to provide service to the Bull Mountain area and hence a separate SDC has been calculated. Presented in Table H-3 and II- 4 are SDCs for the District's water system for the year 1990. These are the maximum charges allowed under Oregon law and are presented by meter size. Also as required and defined under Oregon law, the portions of the SDC which are considered a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee are provided on an equivalent residential unit basis. 5 gill Table II-3 System Development Charges (Excluding Bull Mountain. For Calendar Year 1990 Meter Size Cost 5/8" x 3/4" inch $845 1" inch 1,690. 1-1j2" inch 4,225 2" inch 6,760 3" inch 13,500 4" inch 21,125 6" inch 42,250 8" inch 67,600 10" inch 97,175 Reimbursement Fee $210/ERU t Improvement Fee $635/ERU Table II-4 System Development Charges Bull Mountain Service For Calendar Year 1990 Meter Size Cost 5/8"x 3/4" inch $1,000 1" inch 2,000 1-1/2" inch 5,000 2" inch 8,000 3" inch 16,000 4" inch 25+000 6`° inch 50,000 8" inch 80,000 10" inch 115,000 Reimbursement Fee $365/ERU Improvement Fee $635/ERU 6 ..Based on its review and analysis in the deterrninatiun of SDCs for the District, EES makes the following recommendations: 1. Ghat the District establish by resolution or ordinance that any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part e.:th SDC revenues shall be included in an approved capital improvements plan, public facilities plan, master plan or comparable plan which lists the capital improvements which may be funded with improvement fee revenues and the estimated cost and timing for each improvement. 2. That the District establish SDCs and meter connection charges for new hookups in 1990 which are no greater than the SDCs and meter connection charges set forth in this report. 3. That the District update the actual calculations for SDCs based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for SDCs on an annual basis or at such time when a ='W a:aPA" i LLUFA V V VMcut plan, Yuvac: facilities plan, master plan or a comparable plan is approved or updated by the District. A That :.he D:strtet set up an a~^ vUniTiug ~~iem that provides an annual accounting, cf SDC revenue collected from improvement fees and the projects that were funded with the revenue. 5. That the District establish in the resolution or ordinance enacting the methodology usfd in the determination of SDCs a provision for administrative procedures for protests with 60 days following the adoption or modification of the SDC methodology. 6. That the District provide for an administrative review procedure by which any citizen or other interested party may challenge the expenditure of SDC funds. Such procedure shall provide that a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure of SDC funds. 7. That the District adopt by resolution or ordinance that "reimbursement fees" as such term is defined in ORS 223.299 shall be spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees were assessed, including expenditures related to the repayment of indebtedness. 7 8. That the District establish by resolution or ordinance that "improvement fees" as such term is defined in ORS 223299 shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvemenM including expenditures related to the repayment of the debt for such improvements. 1PB 6'~mnla Res2lutEngn or OrdinsanC Eased on EES's review of Oregon law establishing the requirements for enactment of SDCs, EES has provided two sample resolutions or ordinances for enactment of SDCs. Two resolutions or ordinances are provided to ease the administrative burden associated with the update of SDCs based on annual calculations anal/or changes in the capital improvements plan. The first sample resolution or ordinance is provided as Exhibit 1 attached to this report. This resolution sets forth definitions, the methodology used in determination of SDCs, the administrative procedures for review of the methodology used for the determination SDCs and the review of expenditures of ~`Tf~ L A. AUMS -A- eTC4~ll~lich- 4ihe onnni»finn uctorn ft%r r.VP.1?uec and expenditures. VA...✓ , VyF8aV11J VJ WM YVVVYLiaAThis ordinance does not specify actual SDCs: This resolution was taken in part from a sample provided by the League of Oregon Cities. Provided as Exhibit 2 is the second resolution or ordinance for the actual calculation of SDCs. A second ordinance delineating the calculations of the SDC based on the methodology as established in the first ordinance is provided to ease the administrative burden associated with updating SDCs on an annual basis. Oregon law allows legal challenges to adoption or modification of SDC and to adoption of the methodology for calculation of SDCs. Therefore, it is recommended that a separate ordinance be provided delineating the actual ralculations of the SDC_-s, it this `Lay, once the methodology is established, no legal challenge can be taken after 60 days. This allows the District to update the actual SDCs without recourse to legal action challenging the methodology. 8 r SECTION III SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN OREGON A. IIntr2duction The 1959 Oregon Legislative session passed House Bill 3224 (Oregon law) which sets forth the requirements for calculation of System development charges (SDC's) and the use of funds collected through SDCs. Oregon law also requires establishment of administrative review procedures for the adoption of the methodology used in the calculation of SDCs and the collection and expenditures of funds. The law applies to SDCs collected after July 1, 1991. The imposition of regulations on SDCs' in Oregon is not a new concept. A similar version of House Bill 3224 was first introduced , in the 64th Oregon Legislative Assembly at the request of the Oregon Home Builders Association. While the bill was approved by the legislature, it was ultimately vetoed by the Governor. In vetoing the bill, the Governor requested that the League of Oregon Cities and the Oregon State Home Builders Association attempt to reach a settlement agreement as, to the form and content of appropriate law. As a consequence of the settlement negotiations, House Bill 3224 was introduced in the 65th Oregon Legislative Assembly by the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon State Home Builders Association and the Oregon Builders Association of Metro Portland, and it was passed and approved. A summary of the legal requirements under Oregon law as defined in House Bill 3224 are provided in this section. It is meant to be a summary recap of the Oregon law. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Oregon Law by EES. Additionally, a. general overview of the economic theory associated with the enactment of SDCs is provided. 9 201MMUFAM All Y RIMMIN! Y., B. Ments under to on T._.a The purpose of the recently passed Oregon law for the enactment of SDCs is to provide a uniform framework for the imposition of SDCs by local governments for specified purposes and to establiLrh that such fees be used only for capital improvements. Capital improvements as defined under the law are as follows: o water supply, treatment and distribution o waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal o drainage and flood control o transportation o parks and recreation The particular parts of a water system which are allowed to be included in the calculation of SDCs are water mains, water pump stations, water reservoirs, water treatment plant and the water distribution system except meters and services. A SDC means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof. As defined under Oregon law, improvement fee means a fee for the costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed. Reimbursement fee means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction. - As defined in Oregon-law, the methodology setting forth the calculations for reimbursement fees and improvement fees shall make the following considerations: "Reimbursement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution, setting forth a methodology that considers the cost of existing facility or facilities, prior contributions by existing users, the value of unused capacity, rate making principals employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements and other relevant factors identi ftwd by the local governantent iaposing the fee. The methodology shall promote the objective of j,uture system users contributing no more than a equitable share to the cost of existing facilities The methodology for establishing such fees shall be reduced to writing and be available for public inspection." "Improvement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution setting forth the methodology that considers the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is relater. • The methodology for establishing such fees shall be reduced to writing and be available for public inspection. " 10 In addition to the definitive requirements for the establishment of a SDC..as ' an improvement fee and/or replacement fee, other requirements under the Oregon law are as follows: o The SDC must be based on an approved capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan, or comparable plan which lists the capital improvements that may be funded with the improvement fee revenues and the estimate d.costs and timing for each improvement. ' o Proper administrative review procedures must be followed in the enactment of a SDC resolution or ordinance. o System development charge funds must only be spent on facilities for which they were collected. o A proper accounting system must be established which provides for an annual accounting. for SDCs showing the total amount. of revenue collected and the projects that were funded. A more definitive list of the requirements under Oregon law is provided in the recommendations. C. Economic Theory System development charges are generally imposed as a condition to development. The objective of a SDC is not merely to generate money for the District, but to ensure fair and equitable financing is available to support needed capital additions. Imposing SDC's on new development will reimburse current customers for their payments for existing excess capacity and contribute to the cost of constructing new capacity. Through the implementation of fair and equitable SDC's, existing and future customers will not be unduly burdened with the cost of new development. 11 I---- MENEM SECTION IV SYSTEM IDl%MLOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY ;f A. tetra c~ teoa~ This section provides a generic discussion of the methodology. used in the determination of SDCs. A general theoretical franiework is presented.' The calculation presented in this section are examples of a hypothetical system for illustrative purposes. Section V of this report provided the specific calculations applicalble to the District's water system. The methodology used to calculate SDCs under Oregon law is not specific, except as it pertains to th+e facfflides that can be included in the charge. nerefore, in defining the methodology, a number of factors must be considered. These factors are as follows: o The method must be easy to understand. IP o The method must be easy to administer. o The method should recognize the system planning criteria. o The method must strike an equitable balance between existing customers and new customers. o The method should conform to accepted utility ratemaking principles. o The method must conform to the requirements under Oregon law. The methodology presented in this section is based on these criteria. s 12 B. Oarv w of 1R et,rodoloAes A number of methods, for determining SDC;s have been used in the water industry. The particular method used is dependent on the characteristics of the system. 'T'he three main methods used can be summarized as follows: o System Buy-in A r r4ach J J o Replacement Cost approach. o Exissling and Future Capacity Approach. The system buy-in approach calculates the SDC based on the average investment per customer. The system buy-in approach is lased on the premise that new customers are entitled to water service at the same cost as existing customers. The downside of this approach is that it does not recognize the time value of money associated with the investment in excess capacity by existing customers, nor does it take into consideration the cost of constructing additional rapacity to serve new customers. The replacement cost approach determines the SDC by calculating the average investment per customer based on a reconstructed system in current dollars. That is, the cost of the system is recalculated assuming the prices in effect today. The advantage of this method is that it provides existing customers compensation greater that the average investment. This helps to reflect the time value of money associated with investment in excess capacity and the cost of additional capacity. However, the method suffers from the fact that the calculation of the average system investment based on replacement cost does not reflect an accurate cost of excess existing and future capacity based on the particulars of the system. The data necessary to reprice the system based on replacement cost may also be difficult or impossible to obtain. The existing and future capacity approach charges the new customer for excess and future capacity based on the quantifiable costs of excess and future capacity. The method also recognizes the time value of money for existing customers' investment in excess capacity and new customers' investment in future capacity additions. The method provides an equitable balance between new and existing customers, since new customers are given the benefit of any excess capacity of the system and existing customers are not burdened with the cost of new capacity k additions. The only disadvantage to this method is the collection of data. To calculate the S1Dr under this method it is necessary to determine the amount of excess capacity on the system and the cost. The use of this method is also n 0 RIM recognized in Oregon law by the definition of SDCs as a reimbursement fee and/or improvement fee as discussed in Section III. Given the foregoing disyttssion on the various methods to calculate SDCs and the advantages and disadvantages of each, the method used in this report is the existing and future capacity approach. The system buy-in approach will be used when data on the amount and price of excess capacity cannot be determined. Given the general nature of a water system source of supply, treatment, trans-omission mains, and storage will be calculated under the exisaing and future capacity approach. Distribution feeders will be calculated under the systems buy-in approach. The system buy-in approach is used for distribution feeders due to the difficulty in determining excess capacity on specific feeders and the additional capacity portion of new distribution feeders. i For ease in understanding and clarity, the calculation of the SDC can be separated into six main steps. These are as follows: o Determination of equivalent units t o Calculation of average and future capacity costs o Calculation of buy-in cost o Compliance costs o Calculation of credits o Determination of net SDC Presented in the rest of this section is a discussion of each step and an example calculation for a hypothetical system. C. Equivalent Units In order to put the calculation of the SDC on an equal basis, it it necessary to determine an equivalent residential unit (ERU). Once this is done, all quantities such as existing capacity, capacity additions, credits and compliance costs can be defined in terms of equivalent residential units. Since all the component parts will be calculated on the same basis, they can then be linearly added in calculating the 'h net SDC. Equivalent residential units for the water system are determined based on the number of meters, meter sixes and weighting factors per AWWA maximum flow 14 requirements per meter size. Fable IV-1 provides a detailed determination of equivalent residential units for an example system. Once the total system equivalent residential units are determined, peak flow requirements, average flow and other quantities can then be determined based on total system usage and total number of equivalent residential units. Table IV-1 t; Equivalent Residential Units Meter Weighting Size Meters Factor ERU's 5!8 x 3/4 51000 1 5,000 1 500 2 1,000 1-1/2 300 5 1,500 2 20 8 160 3 40 16 640 4 60 25 1,500 6 5 50 250 8 20 80 1,600 10 3 115 345 Total 5,948 11,995 System Usage: Peak Day 11.3 MGD Average Day 6.52 MGD ERU Conversions: Peak Day 942.06 GalsIERU Average Day 543.56 Gals/ERU D. Existing and Future Capacity The capacity addition method is utilized for source of supply, treatment plants, transmission pipelines, and other components of the system which can be readily identified as to the amount of existing capacity and planned future capacity additions to the system. Each system component, such as source of supply, is then converted into ERU's. This is done for excess capacity on the system and for future capacity additions. The conversion factor is based on the components design criteria ( e.g. peak day flow). To determine the amount and price of excess capacity on the system, the last installed component is used as the starting point. To determine the ERUs of excess capacity, the number of ERUs of the, component is first calculated based on the 15 original design criteria. Text„ the number of ERU's associated with load growth are determined based on the actual system load growth in ERU's. This quantity is then subtracted from the original design ERU's to determine the remaining excess capacity. Future capacity in ERU's is determined based on the design criteria and ERU conversion factor. 'T'able IV-2 provides an example of ERU's of excess opacity and future capacity for source of supply and transmission main. 'T'able IV-2 Excess and Future Capacity in F=Qllivalent JR identiani Source of SUDDiy Transmission Plant F,"Ah River Plant: 42nd street Transmission: Year Built 1984 Year Built 1982 t3~ lion ~oacity 5.00 MGD Design Capacity 10.00 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Design Criteria Peak Day Equivalent Units 5,308 ERU's Equivalent units 10,615 ERU's Peak Day 1989 11.30 MGR Peak Day 1989 11.30 MGD Peak Day'1984 8.46 MGD Peak Day 1982 6.65 MGD Increase 2.84 MUD increase 4.65 MGD Remaining Capacity 2.16 MGD Remaining Capacity 5.35 MGD Remaining Capacity 2.293 ERU's Remaining Capacity 5,679 ERU's South River Plant 11: Year to be Built 1994 De,,-t:gn Capacity 8.00 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Equ'nvaleM Units 8,492 ERU's Once the E RU's of excess and planned future capacity are calculated, the average cost of capacity can be determined. In determining the average cost per ERU of capacity two components are utilized. The first component is the average cost of existing opacity on the system, and the second component is the average cost of future capacity additions to the system. These two costs are then weighed based on capacity available to serve new growth to ascertain the average cost of capacity. The use' of an average investment in excess existing and planned future capacity is common in the utility industry. Charges for water service are generally based on the meter size and not the location of the customer. The use of an average investment method for determination of SDCs provides for an equitable sharing of 16 costs and minimizes the administrative burden of tracking SDC charges based on the number of customers connected to the system. The price per ERU for excess capacity is determined in current dollars based on the cost of borrowing. The use of the present value factor assures that existing customers are compensated for the carrying cost of investment in excess capacity. The avers ,e investment price is then calculated based on the present value cost per ERU and the remaining number of ERUs available to meet new development. Future capacity additions are determined for a five to ten year projection period. '?be cost and equivalent residential units are determined based on the approved master plan. The average price per ERU is then discounted to current dollars using the assumed cost of borrowing for the utility. The use of a discount rate assures that the new customers are fairly compensated for the upfront payment for future capacity additions. The average investment is then calculated by multiplying the cost per ERU times the number of ERU's. Once the average investment has been calculated for each source of supply, a total average investment and number of ERU's is calculated. Dividing the average investment by the total number of ERU's provides the amount of the gross SDC per ERU for each component. Presented in Table IV-3 and Table IV-4 are example calculations of gross SDCs for source of supply and transmission mains, respectively. 17 Table yV-3 Gross System Development Charge ~4L~~'ce of Supvly RriCerERU ERU's Average Year InvMment ERU's PricerERU (1990$) 1990 Investment Historical 1984 $1,899,250 5,308 3357.81 $567.80 2,293 $1,301,961 1985 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1986 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1987 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1988 0 0 0.00 0.0'0 0 0 1989 0 0 0.00 0.®0 0 0 1990 0 0 0.000 0.00 0 0 1991 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 10,256,254 8,492 1,207.75 887.74 8,492 7,538,653 1995 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Total 10,785 38,840,613 Grass System Development Charge $819.71 18 Table IV-4 Gross System Development. Charge 'Transmission IVlains PrICeIEIRU Emu's !Average Year kroW menu EMU's Pr3cGMRU (Ism Q 1990 Investment ! Historical 9962 $2,544,055 10,615 3239.67 $443.61 5,679 $2,519,233 1953 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 i 1964 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1965 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1986 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 -0 1987 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1988 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1989 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Projected 1990 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 19'91 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1995 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Total 5,679 $2,519,233 Gross Syslem Development Charge 3443.61 E. Jystem B -f n To calculate the cost of distribution feeders, the buy-in methodology will be used. The buy-in method is used for distribution feeders since it is virtually impossible to calculate the amount of existing capacity remaining in the system and the amount of additional capacity which will be provided in the system by additions to the system. In calculating the SDC for distribution feeders the gross' investment in distribution plant is determined. From this quantity, the amount of accumulated depreciation associated with the distribution system is subtracted to obtain net distribution plant in service. Net distribution plant is then divided by the number of ERU's to obtain a gross SDC for the distribution system. No attempt is made at this point to determine the amount of contributed capital included in the distribution plant investment. This is provided for in the credits calculation. Table IV-5 is an example showing the calculation of the gross SDC for the distribution system. 19 Mill ll:; IRSF i Table IV-5 Cross System Development. Charge Distribution-Sys ern Original Accumulated Net Account Cost Depreciation Cost Reservoirs and Standpipes $450,666 ($125,665) $325,001 Distribution Mains 655,000 (204,586) 450,414 Services 504,552 (100,256) 404,296 Meters and Meter install: 365,220 (65,004) 300,216 Hydrants 254,450 (103,569) 150,881 Miscellaneous Plant 15,200 (3,669) 11,531 Total $2,245,088 ($602,749) $1,642,339 ubvalent Residential Units 11,995 Gross System Development Charge :$136.92 F. pliance Costs As allowed under Oregon law, the SDC can include the cost of compliance. Compliance costs include the cost of determining SDCs; including engineering, legal and administrative costs; the cost of review procedures; and the cost of accounting for revenues and expenditures. To provide for equity among new customers and recognize the greater expenses associated with first time compliance, an average of compliance costs over a five to ten year period is used. The compliance cost portion of the SDC is calculated as the net present value of compliance costs over the period divided by the projected number of ERU's. Table IV-6 gives an example calculation of the compliance cost portion of the charge. s 20 s Table IV-6 r - System Development Charge pli~nc~rt Cost Addtional Year Cost (1990s) ERU's 1990 15,000 15,0''30 100 1991 51000 4,630 102 1992 61000 5,144 90 1993 61500 51160 65 1994 6,750 4,961 65 1995 7,000 4,764 60 Total 46,250 39,659 502 Compliance Cost SDC :$79.00 G. Credits To assure that the new development is not charged twice for investment in L existing capacity, a determination of any credits must be made. Credits generally come from three sources. These are as follows: o Debt service included in rates. o Property tax payments o Contributed capital The credit for debt service in rates reflects the amount of revenue included in rates used for payment of debt service. The credit is calculated by determining the present value of debt service • payments included in rates. The analogy to this method would be a mortgage payment. The monthly payment would represent the amount of debt service included in rates. The total credit would be the amount of money borrowed. Table IV-7 provides an example of the credit for debt service. 21 Table IV-7 Sion, System Development Charge 12rbt Service Credit Debt Service in Rates^ $95,520 Equivalent Residential units 11,995 Debt Service per ERU $8.05 Debt Serviced (20 years at 8%) $79.00 SDC Debt Service. Credit $79.00 The credit for property tax payments comes into play in two ways. The first is the amount of property tax that will be assessed in the future for payment of general obligation bonds. The second credit associated with property taxes is for taxes assessed on raw land for construction of existing capacity. The method of calculating the credit of property taxes is much like the calculation of a credit for debt service. That is, the present value of property tax payments is divided by the ERUs to determine the property tax credit per ERU. While the ideal method would be to determine a credit by tax lot, the amount of data required and the administrative burden precludes this method. Therefore, the use of an average credit per ERU for property tax provides an equitable method of reflecting property tax payments for payment of utility infrastracture. Table IV-8 provides an example of the credit for property taxes. 22 MENEM Table rV-S System Development Charges ~roD edit Property Tax Payments $152,720 Equivalent Residential Units 11,995 Paoperty Tax per ERU $12.78 Debt Serviced (20 gears at 8%) $125.00 SDC Property Tax Credit " $125.00 The final credit is that associated with contributed capital. Customers generally contribute capital for the cost of water hook-ups and distribution facilities to service new accounts. The credit is calculated by dividing the total amount of contributed capital, less accumulated depreciation, by the total number of ERU's currently on the system. The use of ERU's currently on the system is proper since it is consistent with the method used in the calculation of the gross SDl,:,' for the distribution system. Table IV-9 is an example of the credit for contributed capital. Table IV-9 System Development Charge Credit for Contributed Capital Net Contributions in Aid $850,665 Equivalent Residential Units 11,995 SDC Contribution Credit $70.92 The total credit is then the sum of the credits for debt service, property taxes and contributed capital. 23 IBM ml=;~ 11 11 .0 ~i~~immumon H. NCt &stem IBevele~amerat ~h~r~es Once all the components have been calculated for the SIC, the net SIC can be determined. The net SIC is merely the sum of the average and future cost of capacity, the buy-in costs, compliance costs less any credits. This charge is expressed as an equivalent residential unit. Ile cosi for varying meter sizes is calculated based on the equivalent weighting factor for these meter sizes. Fable IV-10 provides a summary of the calculation of the net SD C for the example presented in this Section. Fable IV-10 ldet System Development Charge Description Charge Source of Supply $819.71 Transmbi--ion Mains 443.61 Distribution Plant 136.92 Compliance Costs 79.00 Debt Seivice Credit (79.00) .Wahl Property Tax Credit (125.00) Contribution Credits (70.92) Total $1,204.32 Net System Development Charge $1,204 Meter Size Weighting Charge 518 x 314" 1 $1,204 1 p 2 2,408 1 1/20 5 6,020 2" 8 9,632 3" 16 19,264 4" 25 30,100 6" 50 60,200 8" 80 96,320 10" 115 138,460 24 S1EC'1' ON V SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCUIATIONS A. Introduction Presented in this section are the detailed calculations for the determination of SDCs for the District's water system. Ile calculations are based on the methodology as discussed in Section IV of this report. The calculation of SDCs presented in this section assume that the District will purchase water from the City of Portland. To the extent that the District invests in, or constructs its own water supply source, then the SDCs presented in this section would need to be updated to reflect the cost of this investment. B. Eguivalent Units The number of equivalent residential units was determined based on an P°, amination of the District's billing records for the average number of meter connections for 1989. The ERU conversion factor for peak day usage was determined based on average daily flow for 1989 adjusted for the peak day factor utilized in °Lbe engineering report. The ERU conversion factor for storage requirements was based on three days average flow for storage requirements consistent with the engineering report. The number of ERUs added during each year of the study period was made based on the estimate of peak day flow requirements from the engineering study divided by the ERU conversion factor for peak day flow. Additionally, ERUs have been determined for the Bull Mountain area based on the estimated growth as set forth in the engineering study. The Bull Mountain area was separated due to the additional facilities costs associated with providing service to Bull Mountain. A summary of the ERU for 1989 and the ERU conversion factors are presented in Table V-1. Details of the calculations are provided as Exhibit 3. 25 all Table V-1 Tigard Water District uivalent Residential Units Equivalent Residential Units 13,549 Peale Day Flow 712.14 Gals/Day/ERU Average Day Flow 313.68 Gals/Day/ERU Storage Requirements • 941.03 Gals/ERU C. n mission Mains The District currently purchases the majority of its water supply requirements L om the City of Lake Oswego with additional water supplied by the City of Portland and District owned -wells. However, the District is currently evaluating a new long term source of water supply. Two options appear reasonable. The first is to purchase a portion of the City of Lake Oswego's treatment plant. The second is to increase interconnection capacity with the City of Portland and purchase water. For the purpose of the SDCs presented in this report, we have assumed that the District will purchase water from the City of Portland. While the District is still in the process of evaluating the best alternative for a long term water supply source, the City of Portland option is the least capital intensive option. Hence, for the purpose of determining SDCs, we have used this option. If. the District determines that another source of water supply is in its best interest, the SDCs would be greater than those presented in this report. The District interconnects with the City of Portland at Bradley Corner where it purchases a portion of its water supply requirements. In order for the District to purchase its water supply requirements from the City of Portland, two improvements to the transmission system are required. The first consists of a strengthening of the connection at Bradley Corner and a connection at Haines Road that will provid:~~ the District with 11 mgd at a cost of $728,364 in 1991. The second is a 30 inch main and internal improvements in 1995 which will increase capacity by 6 mgd at a cost of $6,636,664. This results in a SDC for transmission mains of $471.93 per ERU in 1990. Details of the calculation are provided as Exhibit 4 to this report. 26 r yp ~byy~im Syste lie calculation of SDC for distribution plant was determined using the buy- in methodology. The net book value of a distribution; plant for the District as of June 30, 1989 was $11,672,903. Based on 13,549 ERUs, the SDC for distribution plant is $86153 per ERR. Details of the calculation are provided in Table V-2. Table V-2 Tigard Water District SC Distribution Plant Original Accumulated Net Account Cost Depreciation Cost Reservoirs and Standpipes $1,564,589 ($607,328) $957,261 Distribution Mains 12,426,196 (2,54 ',585) 9,878,611 . Land Improvements 692,558. 0 692,558 Miscellaneous Plant 660,535 (516,062) 144,473 Total $15,343,878 ($3,570,975) $11,672,903 Equivalent Residential Units 13,549 Gross System Development Charge $861.53 11P E. j3istributioai toraPe The design criteria utilized by the District for determination of storage requirements is equal to 3-days average demand. Current storage for the District is as follows: Station 1, 2, 3, 4 and Baylor 8.6 mg Elevation 470 10.0 mg High Tor -11"m Total 19.9 mg Additional construction of storage as identified in the May 1990 engineering report is a 1.0 mg reservoir on Bull Mountain in 1990 at a cost of $ 650,000 and 2.5 mg reservoir on Bull Mountain in 1995 at a cost of $1.2 million in 1991 dollars. No other storage is required to be constructed by the District within the study period. While the reservoir construction at High Tor is required to meet flow requirements 27 111111111121 on Bull Mountain, it also serves a reliability purpose for the entire system since: water from the Ifigh Tor reservoir can be back feed into the 410 zone. Therefore, the construction costs of new reservoirs on high Tor have been included. Based on our analysis the SDC for distribution storage for 1990 is $337.52 per ERU. Details of the calculation are provided as Exhibit 5 to this report. F. ~ulllbdo~a~t Supply to Bull Mountain is provided through two pumping station, with rated capacity of 2.86 mgd. Peak usage water supply is also provided through the High Tor Reservoir located on the top of Bull ;Mountain. Given the nature of the special facilities requirements to provide service to the Bull Mountain area, a separate SDC has been calculated for new connections in the Bull Mountain service area. The facilities included in the calculation of the SDC for the Bull Mountain area include the pumping stations and related transmission mains for service. Distribution storage and associated distribution feeder network costs for the Bull Mountain area have been determined on a total system basis and are included in those component SDC costs. No additional facilities are required for service to the summit of Bull Mountain within the planning period. The results of our analysis show an additional SDC surcharge for the Bull Mountain area of $153.32 per ERU. Details of this calculation are provided in Exhibit 6 to this report. G. Compliance Costs The cost to the District for compliance with Oregon law fo* the determination of SDCs include the cost of engineering, legal and administrative costs. Also included in the cost of compliance are the costs of establishment and conducting review procedures and the cost of accounting for revenues and expenditures. The cost for each of these items has been estimated by the District for a six year period from 1990 through 1995. The ERU added during this period are discussed in the sub section of "Equivalent Units". A surrrnary of the SDC for compliance costs are provided in Table V-3. 28 i Table V-3 Ti and ~VaYer District Cost AdcWonal Year Cost (1990s) ERA's 1990 $10,000 $10,000 457 1991 5.000 4,651 656 1992 5,250 4,543 687 1993 5,513 4,437 720 1994 5,788 4.334 753 1995 _ 6,078 4,233 789 Total $37,628 $32,199 4,062 Compliance Cost 6DC : :$7.93 H. it Two types of credits are applicable to the-calculation of SDC's for the District. These are property tax payments for retirement of General Obligation Bonds and contributed capital. The credit for property tax payments is associated with the payment of property taxes for retirement of General Obligation Bonds. The District has issued a number of General Obligation Bonds over-the years. The tax assessment for payment of bonds was provided by the District. The payment in prior years for new connections was assumed to be one-third the payment of customers with developed property. Based on the amount paid in prior bears by new connections and the amount which will be paid in future years, the resulting credit for property tax payments is $46.28 per ERU. The second credit is associated with contributed capital. Based on the District's audited financial statements as of June 30, 1989 the District had received $10 million dollars of net contributed capital. This results in a credit for contributed capital of $787.7 per ERU in 1990. Details of this calculation are provided in Table V-4. 29 'S IBM WMEMI 1-- Table X1-4 Ti and Mater District ~ ijal Contn'butions Net Contributions in Aid $10,672,612 Equivalent Residential Units 13,549 SDC Contribution Credit .:$787.70 1. Net ftstem velo mgt eng aa°gee Based on the sum of the components costs calculated for the SDC as detailed in this secticn of the report, the net SDC is determined. Details of the net SDC for the District are provided in Table V-5. 'These figures are provided on a equivalent residential unit basis. To determine the cost of the net SDC based on meter size, AWwVA weighting factors for capacity are utilized. The details of the system development charge for the Tigard Water District and the surcharge for Bull Mountain,by meter size are provided in Table V-6. Table V-5 Tigard Water District S,ystem Development Charge Description Charge Transmission Mains $471.93 Distribution Plant 861.53 Distribution Storage 337.52 Compliance Costs 7.93 Property Tax Contributions (46.28) Contribution Credits (787.70) Total $844.93 Net System Development Charge $845 Meter Size Weighting ~ Charge 5/8 x 314" 1 $845 1 " 2 1,690 1 1 /2" 5 4,225 2" 8 6,760 3" 16 13,520. Nib 4" 25 21,125 6" 50 42,250 8" 80 67,600 IRE l off 115 97,175 30 111 111111011 11 111 Table V-6 Tigard Water District System Development Charge ~3 l zlain Area Description Chart Transmission stains $471.93 Distribution Plant 861.53 Distribution Storage 337.52 Bull Mountain Facilities 153.32 Compliance Costs 7.93 Property Tax Contributions (46.28) Contribution Credits (787.70) Total $998.25 Net System Development Charge 'S1 ;Q00 Meter Size Weighting Charge 518 x 314" 1 $1,000 1 " 2 2,000 1 112" 5 5,000 2" 8 8,000 3" 16 16,000 4" 25 25,000 6" 50 50,000 8" 80 80,000 10" 115 115,000 J. LW&lusions The system development charges presented in this section are based on the engineering design criteria of the District's system and generally accepted rate making principles. Furthermore, the SDC presented in this section have been calculated in accordance with the requirements of Oregon law. 31 131 r EXHIBITS r r m i B 1 1 e e b 32 EXHIBIT I Sample SDC ResolutiOu es21~~ 33 III "I I III IS, LV . T Y c SYSTEMS Dri'. SiiAlClY EN i CHARGE RESOUITION Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of the systems development charge is to impose a portion of the cost of capital improvements for water, waste water drainage, streets, flood control, and parks upon those developments that create the need for or increase the demands on capital improvements. Section 2. Scope. The systems development charge imposed by this ordinance is separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, or fee otherwise provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. Section 3. Definitions. As used in this resolution, the following terms shall mean: Capital imp wwnents. Facilities or assets wed for: (1) Water supply, treatment and distribution; (2) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal; (3) Drainage and flood control; (4) Transportation; or (S) Parks and recreation. Development. Conducting a building or miring operation, making a physical change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, dividing land into two or more parcels (mcluding partitions and subdivisions), and creating or terminating a right of access. IP Fmprovement fee. A fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the date the fee is adapted pursuant to section 4 of this ordinance. Land aria. The area of a parcel of land as measured by projection of the parcel boundaries upon a horizontal plane with the exception of a portion of the parcel within a recorded right-of-way or easement subject to a servitude for a public street or scenic or preservation purpose. Owner. The owner or owners of record title or the purchaser or purchasers under a recorded sales agreement, and other persons having an interest of record in the described real property. Parcel of land A tot, parcel, block or other use, and that includes the yards and other open spaces required under the zoning, subdivision, or otltcr development ordinances. Qualified public improvements. A capital improvement that is: (1) Required as a condition of residential development approval; (2) Identified in the plan adopted pursuant to section 8 of this ordinance; and (3) Not located on or contiguous to a parcel of land that is the subject of the residential development approval. Reimbursement fee. A fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or under construction on the date the fee is adopted pursuant to section 4 of this ordinance. Systems development charge. A reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement, at the time of issuance of a development permit or building permit, or at the time of connection to the capital improvement. "Systems development charge" includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that 34 is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities. 'systems development charge" does aot include fees assessed or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the costs of complying with requirements or conditions imposed by a land use decision. Section 4. Systems Development Change Established. (1) Systems development charges shall be established and may be revised by resolution of the council. (2) Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of this ordinance or other local or state law, a systems development charge is hereby imposed upon all parcels of land within the City, and upon all lands outside the boundary of the City that connect to or otherwise use the sewer facilities, stores sewers, or water facilities of the City. ' B=tlon S. 'Melhodology. (1) The methodology used to establkh the reimbursement fee shall consider the cost of then-existing facilities, prior contributions by then-existing users, the value of unused capacity, rate-malting principals employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements, and other relevant factors identified by the council. The methodology shall promote the objective that future systems users shall contribute no more than an equitable share of the cost of then-existing facilities. (2) The methodology used to establish the improvement fee shall consider the cost of projected capital. improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the frc is related. AMA (3) Based on the principals for the establishment of reimbursement fees and improvement fees, the methodology for the determination of system development charges shall consist of the following: (a) The calculations shall consider the costs and capacity of the system on a equivalent residential unit basis. Other users costs and capacity shall be weighted according to accepted engineering and rate making practices. (b) The determination of existing excess capacity and future capacity in the system shall be determined on a equivalent residential unit basis considering the engineering design criteria used in the sizing and timing of the facilities for which the system development charge is being determined (c) To the extent that data is available, the system development charge shall consider the cost of existing excess capacity on the system and future capacity additions on a facility by facility basis. The cost for facilities shall be determined over the planning period and an average investment in excess capacity and future capacity shall be used for the system development charge. (d) The cost for existing excess capacity shall be adjusted to reflect the carrying cost borne by existing customers at the cost of borrowing at the time the facility was constructed. The cost of future capacity addition.., shall be adjusted to reflect interest earning from the time of « collection until the time of construction at a rate which reflects the District's current cost of borrowing. - (e) To the extent that existing excess capacity and future capacity additions can not be determined for a facility, the system development charge for that facility shall be determined based on the current asset value, reflecting accumulated depreciation, of the facility. 35 (f) roe syst-,w development charge shall be reduced by the amount of property tax payments made and expected to be made by new customers, by the amount of debt service expected to be made by new customers through charges for service and by the amount of capital contributed by users. In the determination of credits for property tax payments and debt service, the calculation shall consider the principal value paid and to be paid. (g) The cost for compliance with Oregon law for the determination of system development charges shall be determined based on the number of annual new connections projected and the cost of compliance. The cost for compliance can also be averaged over a number of years to reflect increased efficiency in complying with Oregon law. Section h. Authorized Expendltures. (1) Reimb'umement fees shall be applied only to capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed, including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness. (2)(a) Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of future debt for the improvements. An increase in system capacity occurs if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or senice provided by existing facilities or provided new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to demands created by development. (2)(b) A capital improvement being funded wholly or in part from revenues derived from the improvement (ee shall be included in the plan adopted by the City pursuant to section 8 of this ordinance. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, systems development charge revenues may be expended on the direct costs of complying with the provisions of this ordinance, including the costs of developing systems development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of systems development charge expenditures. Section 7. Expenditure Restrictions (1) Systems development charges shall not be expended for costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements. (2) Systems development charges shall not be expended for -costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements. Section 8. Improvement Plan. The council shall adopt a plan that: (1) Lists the capital improvements that may be funded with improvement fee revenues; (2) Lists the estimated cost and time of construction of each improvement; and (3) Described the process for modifying the plan. E ` e ' 36 a4ir , a Mks S76Y:6don 9. Collection OT Charge. (i) The systems development charge is payable upon issuance of. (a) A building permit, a development permit; (b) A development permit for development not requiring the issuance of a building permit; (c) A permit to connect to the water system; or (d) A permit to connect to the sewer system. (2) If development is commenced or connection is made ro the water or sewer systems without an appropriate permit, the systems development charge is immediately payable upon the earliest date that a permit was required. (3) The. (appropriate City official) shall colleet the applicable systems development charge from the owner of the parcel when a permit that allows building or development of a parcel is issued or when a connection to the water or sewer system of the City is made. (4) The (appropriate City official) shall not issue such permit or allow such connection until the charge has been paid in full, until provision for installment payments has been made pursuant to section 11 of this ordinance, or unless an exemption is granted pursuant to section 12 of this ordinance. i Section 10. Delinquent Charges; Hearing. (1) When, for any reason, the systems development charge has not been paid, the (appropriate City official) shall report to the council the amount of the uncollected charge, the description of the real property to which the charge is attributable, the date upon which the charge was due, and the name of the owner. (2) The City council shall, by motion, schedule a public hearing on the matter and direct that notice of the hearing be given to each owner with a copy of the (appropriate City official's) report concerning the unpaid charge. Notice of the hearing shall be given either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by both personal and mailed notice, and by posting notice on the parcel at least 10 days before the date set for the hearing. (3) At the hearing, the council may accept, reject, or modify the determinations of the (appropriate City official) as set forth in the report. If the council finds that a systems development charge is unpaid and uncollected, it shall, by motion, direct the (appropriate City official) to docket the unpaid and uncollected systems development charge in the lien docket. Upon completion of the docketing, the Cut; III have a lien against the described land for the fill amount of the unpaid charge, together with interest at the legal rate of 10 percent and with the Cityts actual costs of serving notice of the hearing on the owners. The lien shall be enforceable in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223. Section 11. Installment Payment. (1) When a systems development charge of $25 or more is due and collectable, the owner of the parcel of land subject to the development charge may apply for payment in 20 semi-annual installments, to include interest on the unpaid balance, in accordance with ORS 223.208. ' (2) The (appropriate City official) shall provide application forms for installment payments, which shall include a waiver of all rights to contest the validity of the lien, except for the correction of computational errors. 37 (3) An applicant for installment payments shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicant's authority to assent to the imposition of alien on the pare--l and that the interest of the applicant is adequate to secure payment of the lien. (4) The (appropriate City official) shall report to the (appropriate City official) the amount of the systems development charge, the dates on which the payments are due, the name of the owner, and the description of the parcel. (5) 7be (appropriate City official) shall docket the lien in the Tien docket. From that time and the City shall hava a lieu upon acne described parcel for the amount of the systems development charge, together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate establish°.d by the council. The lien shall be enforceable in the manner provided in ORS Chapter 223. Section 22. Exemptions t (1) Structures and uses established and existing on or before (effective date of crdinance) are exempt from a systems development charge, except water and sewer charges, to the extent of the structure or use then existing and to the extent of the parcel of land as it is constituted on that date. Structures and uses affected by this subsection shall pay the water or sewer charges pursuant to the terms of this ordinance upon the receipt of a permit to connect to the water or sewer system. (2) Additions to single-family dwellings that do not constitute the addition of a dwelling unit, as defined by the State Uniform Building Code, are exempt from ail portions of the system development charge. (3) An alteration, addition, replacement or change in use that does not increase the parcel's or structure's use of the public improvement facility. (4) A project financed by City revenues is exempt from all portions of the systems development charge. Section 13. Credits (1) A systems development charge shall be imposed when a change of use of a parcel or structure occurs, but credit shall be given for the computed systems development charge to the extent that prior structures existed and services were established on or after (effective date of ordinance). The credit so computed shall not exceed the calculated systems development charge. No refund shall be made on account of such credit. (2) A credit shall be given for the cost of a qualified public improvement associated with a residential development. I a qualified public improvement is located partially on and partially off the parcel that is the subject of the residential deveiopment approval, the credit shall be given onlN for the cost of the portion of the improvement not located on or wholly contiguous to the property. The credit provided for by this subsection shall be oriy for the improvement fee charged for the 'ype of improvement being constructed and shalt not exceed the improvement fee even if the cost of the capital improvement exceeds the applicable improvement fee. (3) Credit shall not be transferable from one development to another except in compliance with standards adopted by the City council. (4) Credit shall not be transferable from one type of capital improvement to another. 38 Section 14. Segregation and Use of Revenue (1) All funds derived from a particular type of systems development charge are to be segregated by accounting practices from all other funds of the City. That portion of the systems development charge calculated and collected on account of a specific faciility,system shall be used for no purpose other than those set- forth in section 6 of this ordinance. (2) The appropriate City official shall provi& the City council with an annual accounting, based on the City's fiscal year, for systems development charges showing the total amount of systems development charge revenues collected for each type of facility and the projects funded from each account. Swoon 13 Appeal Procedure (1) A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the appropriate City official under this ordinance or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of systems development charge revenues may appeal the decision or the expenditure to the City council by filing a written request with the appropriate City official describing with particularitythe decision of the appropriate City official or the expenditure from which the r. erson appeals. (2) An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two years of the date of the alleged improper expenditure. Appeals of any other decision must be filed within 10 days of the date of the decision. (3) The council shall determine whether the appropriate City official's decision or the expenditure is in accordance with this ordinance and the provisions of ORS to and may affirm, modify, or overrule the decisions. If the council determines that there has been an improper expenditure of systems development charge revenues, the council shall direct that a sum equal to the av spend amount shall be deposited within one year to the credit of the.account or fund from which it was spent. (4) A legal action challenging the methodology adopted by the council pursuant to section 5 shall not be filed later than 60 days after the adoption. Section 16. Prohibited Connection. No person may connect to the water or sewer systems of the City unless the appropriate systems development charge has been paid or the lien or installment payment method has been applied for and approved. Section 17. Penalty. Violation of section 16 of this ordinance is punishable by a fine not to exceed S~ Section 18. Construction. The rules of statutory construction contained in ORS Chapter 174 are adopted and by this reference made a pa.-t of this ordinance. Section 19. Severability. The invalidity. The invalidity of a section or subsection of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or subsections. n 39 Elm= EXHIBm 2 Sourple SDC' ResmlutIon t, 1 ~l~ul 1t4D 40 zi Iii, E SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT C MRGE RESOLUTION Whereas, the District has determined system development char es (SDCs) for the water system in accordance with resoluon passed by the District on Whereas, the District finds that the SDC& have increased from the SDCs enacted by the District by resolution passed Whereas, the District finds that the SDC improvement fee for transmission mains is $471.93 per ERU. Whereas, the District finds that the SDC reimbursement fee for distribution plant is $861.53 per ERU. Whereas, the District finds that the SDC reimbursement fee for distribution storage is 182.68 per ERU and the SDC improvement fee for distribution storage is $154.84 per ERU. 2 Whereas, the District finds that the SDC reimbursement fee for Buh Mountain Facilities is $153.32 per ERU. Whereas, the District finds that the SIC impro-vement fee for compliance costs is $7.93 per ERU. Whereas, the District finds that the SDC reimbursement fee for credits associated with property tax payments and contributions is $833.98 per ERU. Whereas, the District will charge a SDC for new connections not on Bull Mountain by meter size based on a 5/8" x 3/4" meter having a weighting factor of one ERU as fill v Meter Size Weighting Charge 5/8 x 3/4° 1 $845 1 ° 2 1,690 1 1/211 5 4,225 2" 8 6,760 3" 16 13,520 4" 25 21,125 60 5o 42,250 8" 80 67,600 1o" 115 97,175 41 MOW_ Whereas, the District will charge a SDC for new connections on Bull Mountain by meter size based on a 5/8" x 314" meter having a weighting factor of one ERU as follows: Meter Size Weighting Charge 5/8 x 3/4° 1 01,000 1 s 2 2,000 1 1/2" 5 5,000 21, 8 8,000 3" 16 16,000 4'T 25 25,000 6" 50 50,000 8" 80 80,000 101, 115 115,000 42 Old now -F )ajII3IT 3 U ie 6 cid ntW-U2xt r 43 mom, i Tigard Water (District Page 1 of 2 Determination of ERU's As of Denember 31, 1989 Exhibit 3 Meter Weighting Size Meters Factot ERU's 5/8 x 314 8,532 1 8,532 1 562 2 1,124 1-1/2 249 5 1,245 2 219 8 1,752 3 11 16 176 4 6 25 150 6 5 50 250 8 4 80 320 10 0 115 0 Total 9,688 13,549 Peak Usage 9.77 MGD r Average Usage 4.25 MGD ,k ERU Peak Day Capacity 721.14 Gallons/Day/ERU ERU Aveage Day Capacity 313.68 Galions/Day/ERU ERU Storage Capacity 941.03 Gallons/ERU AA r 'ri > Tigard Water District Page 2 of 2 Determination of ERU's As of December 31,1989 Exhibit 3 Total system Bull Mountain Total Additional Total Additional Year Peak Day ERUs ERUs Peak Day ERUs ERUs 1989 9.77 13,549 1.18 1,171 1990 10.10 14,006 457 1.24 1,230 59 1991 10.57 14,662 6S6 1.30 1,291 62 1992 11.07 15,349 687 1.37 1,355 64 1993 11.59 16,069 720 1.43 1,423 68 1994 12.13 16,822 753 1.50 1,494 71 1995 12.70 17,611 789 1.58 1,568 74 1996 12.89 17,880 269 1.61 1,598 29 1997 13.09 18,153 273 1.64 1,628 30 1998 13.29 18,430 277 1.67 1,658 31 1999 13.49 18,712 282 1.70 1,690 31 2000 13.70 18,998 286 1.73 1,721 31 s 45 I EXHIBI'T' 4 I 3)Cansmissi®n Mains 1 i , l ~ - JN 46 Tigard Water District Page 1 of 2 Transrnission Main Capacity EXhibl: 4 Transmission Main - Bradley Comer Year to be Built 1991 Design Capacity 11.00 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Peak Day Flow / ERU 712.14- Peak Day 1990 10.10 MGD Excess Capacity 0.90 MGD Equivalent Units _ <<'~m264 ERU's Transmission Main - 30° Main Year to be Built ' Fo35 Design Capacity 6.00 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Peak Day Flow / ERU 712.14 Equivalent Units 6,425 ERU's r 47 e i IG din Tigard Water District Page 2 of 2 Transmission Mains Exhibit 4 Price ERU ERU's Average Year tnertrnent ERU's Price/ERU (1990 6) 1990 investment Histoftai 1987 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1988 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1989 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Projected 1990 0 0 .0.00 0.00 0 0 1991 728,364 15,446 47.16 44.07 1,264 55,705 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1995 6,636,664 8,425 787.73 536.12 8,425 4,516,802 Total 9,689 4,572,507 h:... .4-.: - . Gross System Development Charge $471.93 ~~r Eft MOM EXHIBIT 5 , 3Istribufjp-p ~ e 49 l Tigard Wator District Page 1 of 2 Distribution Storage Capacity Exhibit 5 DistrIWdon Stor, j Elevation 470 r Year Built 1977 Design Capacity 10.00 MG , Design Criteria 3 Day Average Storage / ERU 941.03 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 1C,627 ERU's Remaining Capacity 7.15' MG Remaining Capacity 7,593 ERU's High Tor Addition I Year to be Built 1991 Design Capacity 1.00 MG Design Criteria 3 Day Average Storage / ERU 941.03 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 1,063 ERU's High Tor Addition II Year to be Built 1995 Design Capacity 2.50 MGD Design Criteria 3 Day Average Storage / ERU 941.03 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 2,657 ERU's 50 ' h Y T{gard Water District Pages 2 of 2 LNstributlon Storage Exhibit 5 Price✓ERU ERU's Average Year tnve Ament ERU's P6ce0r3U (1990 s) 1990 Investment Historical 1977 1,200,000 10,627 112.92 772.12 7,598 2,067,564 1978 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1979 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1980 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1981 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1982 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1983 0 0 0.00 0.01 0 0 19PA 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1985 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1986 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1987 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1988 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1989 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Protected 1990 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1991 650,000 1,063 611.48 571.47 1,063 607,477 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1995 1,605.871. 2,657 604.39 430.92 2,657 1,144,964 - Total 11,318 3,820,004 Gross System Development Charge $337.52 ti z~ . g 51 SSW, M N try i MM MM 4EM -M No mg)m I'm 41,16AIRM MEN HIM MIEN= =I Tigard Water District Page 1 of 3 Bull Mountain Facilities Exhibit 6 Pismo Stations Station No. 2 Year Built 1988 Design Capacity 2.00 MGD , Design Criteria Peak Day Peak Day / ERU 991.17 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 2,018 ERU's 132nd Street Pump Station Year Built 1988 Design Capacity 0.86 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Peak Day / ERU 991.17 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 868 ERU's Remaining Capacity 1.68 MGD Remaining Capacity 1,695 ERU's Bull Mountain Transmission Year Built 1988 Design Capacity 2.09 MGD Design Criteria Peak Day Peak Day / ERU 991.17 Gals/ERU Equivalent Units 2,109 ERU's Remaining Capacity 0.91 MGD Remaining Capacity 918 ERU's s 53 MEMNON= x Tigard Water District Page 2 of 3 Bull Mountain Pump Stations ts~ahl" 6 PrlcefERU ERU's Average Year Investment ERU's Price/ERU (19605) 1ST Investment blESCtodcat 1866 90.903 2,886 31.50 36.06 1,695 61,125 1989 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Projected 1990 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1991 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1995 0 0 0.00 0.09 0 0 Thal 1,695 61,125 Grow System Development Charge 456.06 54 VERIEW 1 11 11111 3Wd Water District Page 3 of 3 Bull Mountain Transmission Exhibit 6 Pdc&#ERU ERU's Average i Year I ment ERU's PrIWERU (19,3041 10100 'investment HL-torical 3 IM 216,000 2.109 102.42 117.26 918 107,643 1989 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Projected 1990 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1991 0 0 O.W .0.00 0 0 1992 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1993 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1994 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1995 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 Total 918 107,643 Grow System Development Marge $117.26 a I 55 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Directo DATE: February 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Annexation Attached, please find information designed to stimulate discussion among the Council about the City of Tigard's approach to that area outside of the current city limits but within the City's "Area of Interest". The report discusses the City's past and current practices; outlines some of the various goals or principals that the Council may wish to follow; and reviews the various methods available. It is hoped that the City Council will continue with their previous discussions about growth management and provision of urban level services to those areas that are developing or have developed to an urban level. Staff recommendation to the Council at this time is as follows: 1. Continue on the current course with regard to the Walnut Island and the area around 135th and Walnut, which is to require an agreement to annex as a condition of connecting to city sewer service, with the ability to annex these properties by double majority method in the future. 2. Generally, annex other areas within the City's "Area of Interest" as requests are made. 3. Initiate changes to the City's Urban Area Planning Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County that would more clearly spell out the responsibilities for long term urban level services in the City's Area of Interest. (Staff has drafted amendments to the UPAA and are ready to take the proposals to the Planning Commission.) Ultimately, the matter would be placed before the City Council, who would ask the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the amendments. Annexation pebruaq 7, 1994 Page Two 4. Over the next year or two, review the service needs of that unincorporated area with the City's Area of Interest in partnership with Washington County, and develop an urban services, plan. Based upon that plan, an annexation plan can be drafted for Boundary Commission approval. (Staff is drafting a grant application to help provide funding for such wri analysis.) No formal action by the ~'ity Council is needed at this time. Attachment h:\login\ed\annexwht r a:. i GROWTH KMAGEMEN7L' increasing our influence in Unincorporated Area There is general agreement that Tigard has an interest in what happen: in the unincorporated areas rear its boundary. Tigard°s interest is formalized in an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County. What occurs in this area is important because nearby growth and development in the County affects the' City. The City does have the means to influence the unincorporated area. This paper is intended to help discussion on how the City can influence adjacent unincorporated areas and, equally important, what it is that we hope to accomplish. NRBAS It is important to remember that not all unincorporated areas are the same. Different areas may present different. opportunities or problems that require different approaches. The Metzger area is long developed, whereas the Bull Mt. area is mostly undeveloped. The Walnut Island presents a different set of circumstances than the area south of Durham Road and east of 99W. In reality, the City°s approach to annexation is likely to encompass a number of different strategies. HISTORY City practice, until recently, has been to process annexation requests as they were received from property owners. At best, staff asked those wanting annexation to contact their neighbors in order to assemble a larger or more logical annexation area. About a year ago, There was a shift in annexation practice in the Walnut Island area. The City attempted to annex the Island using the double majority method. As part of the double majority process, the City arranged two community forums for area residents and property owners at which there was an exchange of information. Following the forums, the area was canvassed by City representatives to solicit signatures on petitions approving annexation. Through this process, the City made contact with island, residents and property owners,, many for the first time. It was evident through the canvassing that most Island residents were aware of the annexation project. The level of understanding varied, but the fact that people were aware of the issue indicates that the City did a good job getting the word out. page 1 Growth Management Feb5:u,, i 7, 1994 Many of the residents contacted by canvassers understand that they eventually will be part of the city; most already feel a part of the community. A majority of comments, however, indicate that the citizens feel that annexation provides no benefit to them at this time. There was, of course, a number of emphatic NO's from people who really won't want to be bothered by any government. The City presently is considering requests for annexation on a case by case basis. Staff considers whether there is potential for a double majority annexation at some point in the future as in the Island. In areas where double majority is a possibility and the City controls. sewer connections, staff will have property owners sign a contract that gives the City the right to annex in the future in exchange for City permission to connect to sanitary sewer. GOALS The,.goal will determine what set of tools should be used and how they will he used. Following are some examples of goal statements followed by possible actions that could be initiated to achieve the goals. ® The City should control development within the UPAA to assure that our standards are met and that there are no facility deficiencies in the county because the area will eventually be in Tigard anyway. Focus should be on undeveloped areas. We would need to work with Washington County to amend the UPAA and USA agreement to give the City more control by expandrFg the Active Planning Area, establishing similar development standards, or strengthening annexation requirements. Alternatively or in addition to the above actions the City cold begin to develop a long-term urban service and annexation plan. ® The City should assure that those areas that have a direct impact on Tigard and its citizens pay their _fair share. Focus on those areas that, impact Tigard the most by locking at such things as transportation links, park users, or library users. We could then target activities for non-resident user fees, impose system development charges for parks in the unincorporated area, or look at annexing certain areas by the quickest and most certain annexation method available such aggressively creating and annexing islands. page 2 lip ~ I is its IRS Growth Management Ask February 7, 1994 * The City should act based on the financial impact of unincorporated areas on the city, Focus on areas that are either costing the City or where there is a gain available to the City. We could look at user fees to recoup some costs, annex developed areas selectively to increase the tax base, or require that all potential development sign a contract then annex the property after development to increase the tax base. ® The City should maintain a good relationship with residents in the unincorporated area so that when the time is right, they will want to annex. - Focus on responding to annexation requests and developing good relationships unincorporated residents. The City should increase its'size as a way to gain a louder voice and greater influence in the metropolitan region. Focus on annexing any way possible to make the greatest population gain in the shortest period of time. As you can see, there are a number of ways to look at the issues and the issues are complex. The key to developing an overall growth management strategy is to clearly identify the goal or goals. Once the goal is identified, we can then view all of our actions against its affect on reaching the goal. TOOLS The following are the four main tools available to the City that can be used to influence adjacent unincorporated area. These tools can be used in many different ways and in different combinations in order to achieve a particular goal. 1. URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT The UPAA is an intergovernmental agreement between the City and Washington County which addresses development in'the area adjacent to the city where there is agreement; that, while the area is unincorporated, Tigard has an interest in comprehensive planning and development. With Washington County's agreement, the•UPAA can be expanded, contracted, or amended either to change geographic areas or to change the distribution of services or tasks. page 3 SEEN= Growth Management February 7, 1994 There, are two, areas described in the UPAA; the Active Planning Area and the Area of Interest. Active Planning Area The Active Planning Area is adjacent to the City and includes the Walnut Island. Within tha Active Planning Area the City is responsible for comprehensive planning and the public facilities plan. The County will not oppose annexation within this area nor will they approve land divisions which create lots less than 10 acres without services or a redevelopment plan. There is not much land remaining in the Active Planning Area. Area of Interest The Area of Interest stretches from the Active Planing Area to the Urban Growth Boundary or to the boundary for another city. Within the Area of Interest the county is responsible for comprehensive planning and public facilities plan. The City cannot require annexation as a condition: of urban service provision within this area. The City cannot create islands in this area unless it declares its intent to complete the island annexation. The amount of influence and the objective of that influence established in the UPAA can be focused in a number of ways. If land use is the concern, expanding the Active Planning Area may be a solution. If standards of development is the concern, adopting similar standards or allowing Tigard to review/approve developments may be a solution. If allowing urban type development in the county is the concern,,, no development without annexation may be a solution. 2. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY AGREEMENT The City has an intergovernmental agreement with USA which establishes policy and procedures regarding sewer connection, maintenance, and billing. The agreement states that USA will not extend sewer service to areas outside the City and within the City's Area of Interest without prior approval of the city. According to the USA agreement, growth within Tigard's UPAA cannot occu without City approval. According to the UPAA however, the City cannot require annexation as a condition of supplying an urban service within the Area of Interest. This apparent contradiction should be rectified and the USA agreement should be considered a tool for influence. page 4 Growth Management February 7, 1994 3. ILMNE;XRTIOIN A way to gain maximum influence is by incorporating an area into Tigard. There are a number of annexation methods available to the city. If annexation is determined to be appropriate, the method to use is determined by the City's goal in annexing and the circumstances surrounding the property to be annexed. Double Majority Requires the consent of over half of the registered voters and owners of over half of the property area in Vie area to be annexed. This method is typically used for areas that are at least partially developed and where there is substantial support for annexation. Since this type of annexation typically is used in developed areas, this results in an in an increase in the City tax base as well as an instant increase in service demand. Council Initiated Annexation can be initiated by resolution of the City Council. The City has used this method to annex where a property owner or a few property owners request annexation of their property. It is usually used for smaller areas either for development or where a septic system has failed. This method is subject to an election but works well in small areas where there is no opposition. Island When an unincorporated area is completely surrounded by a city the city can annex by resolution. This method can be used to clean up boundaries after favorable annexations, or cities can aggressively annex using such things as rights-or-7way to create islands. The island method is not subject to election and is probably the most certain way to annex. Senate gill 122 The Oregon Legislature recently adopted Senate Bill 122 which created a new method of annexation. Altbough it is too soon to know details of this annexation method, it can be classified as a long-term plan that establishes where City boundaries will eventually be and when, if ever, they should be extended. Agreements with all urban service providers regarding future service provider, service territory, and transition plan must be in place prior to development of an annexation plan. The long-term annexation plan is subject to a vote by city and unincorporated residents. page 5 Grow~h Management February 7, 1994 The law requires that the City establish agreements with all urban service providers by next periodic review. we have the option to use the information in the agreements to develop an annexation plan provided the City declares so prior to establishing the agreements. This method appears to be a way to discuss and determine who will deliver urban services and based on that what the boundaries will eventually be. The advantage of this method may be that it will lay out a path for us to follow that is clearly defined and understood by all service providers. Disadvantages may be what to do in the event of an election defeat plus it will likely take a long time to develop and may not provide flexibility for us to act quickly. 4. OIIeY CREATED MOTIVATIONS The City has enormous influence within its corporate boundary. What is done within the City will influence the adjacent unincorporated residents and how they view Tigard. The City has numerous opportunities to create incentives or disincentives that may influence peoples desire to be in the City or County. An incentive may take the form of a capital improvement plan, additional services or better services. A disincentive may be establishing out of city rates for City services such as park users fees or room rental fees for public building use. ja/white.ppr 1 1 u page 6 ~Q -TIGARD Ce-ry C p~.AW~~9a ARE A UnSAW v ACTV4 , 07. CTTV AREA p ISO OUTSIDE ~ ~l VaI014 us AN ,hjjj4mG AREA of AGRSc'ARRT y gt TA u T s cl~ us ,a t aAAR~ ST G pAe Vv b 461YA ~e a d azl3-8/9} r,. EXHIBIT C MAP 1 2S 12 BC SW V4 NWV4 SECTION 2 T2S R IW W.M. - _ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON u 107 SCALE I:100' ~I'. iyr 1 SEE MAP Y 6 _ 251 3AA ti _ $EE MAP •t,Y. t 48. \ - 251288 b• ~ FIOtl' .t ~ . ~ 78 _ I0 6 I ii.4, t' S o ~ 17 WA _ •~°i0 yT' Im n _ ° GNUT d~ 9 1::'el 'I~'a ~jjs.' 7. 4~.'rn .i 9 u:aum =Ar ton - . b~ xy~~e'pQe: 1109 + v Fx105 Q 6 eu• ~ b INRIAe POINF ' . A :3par , I ~ ~ ' d wtoimo,ia0. k. ~,r ~ ^..x"104 y "J3Y(~ ttU~ ~ ,.a°' 201 ° Y5: r ` 4, ' 5300 5200 in 2 ~,l r r 2 . 24 'r.b 1 J 5400 a / SY.~ ~ 102'`' ~Oge I I ~ ~ C `f,// Z ~ 3 6 /1807 F~ I ~ I ' d'~: d113 x'".u~ J -0 , 5500 •.4 Q` / 1/4 t~ el ten t1 gwd~~,,,,p,,~,,.~ 67aD 4 ~J A' leoD `i , '1~' • I I / rf~ .tl`49y e.3lAG. 5600 bG ~ ,z5at. i °o.t°°a o~ C"~It4~'x'' ~ 1 e N .~.4' 4'J t// "n" 400 ' =nur"A• 5 1z45 '+r 13 1 4'"j sear IF. 5700 / " nb' II5 ~0. \,n F. ~ 6 '~•~ed" IBO6 .`IB04i ~ 6.+ti=.. 0'9'4 14 " i0y ~?L/` ~ ° J~pt\. .z9A. Ad ,I9AC \7 /ISO .,.~~9 I U j 500 - 3c°, r Q r 3180 .224. , aJd 35.e. r..' a• G13`' IBDI J-1r1 r", ~ ~ ~ ~ Q.,;. ;"r,`q~ $EE M0.p 2513A0 5800 o A5 '6zar' / .1803 .fear ~ o•.y d^', 1990 d'~600 5 3 , .30AC. j4'~~i• v ryj r r" 7 d 5900 0° 2200 / ''e''r' i•b /1600 en 1300 • 'OO9 .3GA~ / •~4; J ! r 6000 B .69Ac. i'b. ,X<n ISAC AIAt. - '~j~ l / 0 701 •p' g 1200 4,i o/ 700 t b / , .TSAt. • ,°~'S i'L .194. iiir 2300 ,0 6100 • .SZAC. Y 1702 4 800 " ,Po _ r7ar 10 ~ / uoob ~ - r-~ :.v I ~3° a ~ 0 ,62004" a•`\ bl ~b 4 .r9Ar. 251,.: I r 240o n Y~g '[I7o~ ''',~<~7 :i z°ra / uol..bi....~i.'~..°$. ~ ~ J J 1 1 ~ ND2 902 , 63oD ~ :•`r n +;~44 na0'~ \ , ^x~'tr. r.zrat. ..zaxr a:.~ %S~. k 250 - - - / ~Jt✓+o 13 p'~ 4100 ""28 ` ~ol 6500 t'- i ~ ' 14 1 Y is ` , 2600 3",,"903 y~4000 i /.nar. ~ ~ 23 74 mgt 9DD";y'i'• Y ' 3900 zrac ~ LLl p 4600 _ „ ' Q• 4700•-~ q~µ.' 3800 V' it Lie 2800• ;!t_ ' ASar. 4 A 3 a' ~ '0'? 1AA•LO7TED ON ' MAP 2: 1 2CB / i~~c ,~x+,p+ , xro •y 2J ,W,o~ iq1 ~ FOR ASSESSMENT PUgPOSES ONLY 4800 ~ 3700 . Y / 00 NOT RELY ON FOR 0.NY DTHER USE i! - 4s9e a " 4Y. 37oz%;. ^a,. ,L. D, z z 4400 31 ~ / _ 'I 3600 I / r ,S', 17`l;.i vN 3 3701 h303 / / • a9oo4 wATKINS PLACE s - ~ a JPar. ~ 3t4 / ~ . 9~I 4300 ` / SEE MAP 3500 \ ems' xrt'++° • .M4, 4 4306 / 2S 12C5 6 nrn 3200nx _ r r°r 3\ + ,e34. li`;Silltii,. Urr,. ~ qi-' ^r1 J J ~I 2 ~ 4305 .4 / N v / I:;S'FS;dIC' . .1.1Yi4,; OI~O / X194. /\~~l' 8 min 5"" a>t 9 / 4302 "4 QI'IZ! • IS.~ ~~5000 'IVto' T (/j ~ 4304 \ ,t:4 by^^0" , . "8 7 g 3300 as 3400x ' ,aar. dii " 4y' fOndL7R'IG'... , d 5100 ^ • \ " ~ a rye J`4301 / r}~..r..h .,5;; B % ~ T' :I .rea:. f -.+9w; .,fin. ~ ~ TIGARU " L nom'' 2S 12 BC 7R791•AgeMalllm8 ~ lrV~ / WBNA Intend Annmalkn V ' 1M19 08/21/96 , in,!Ill 111 411111I1L1 ~ I II ~~I i llili I~IUP i rli ti l~l~ l~~h i tIU11~I1.~ "I!~!h ~ ~ +~~l~l~ I ICI i ~~(F~IIIII~~'I t_' - doooidiiuiuihulul~iu iliiiilmimWuiiuhiiiiuilniiuuliuiiiuliuimi~iillulhiamMiailiil~iiiidiii~li~dmlmVimluilifumiGiiiioului.ululmi Il~lm~im _w, hTa~i~ lulls _ - ',~i' I ~ I _ ~ 2 :-::r Ir-: ~a.......~.:-.r---~---- WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 6EE MAP IXHI9ITCMAP2 SEE MAP - 16134DC ee V: SLALE ~~•100• 16134DD ~ ' 6~-- ,.,.~Ie.ele e, ee..e, a ;41'H'EYr~E ST e, a .ee e,e ee ° e .e 1 - 101 I .100 d4 ~ 35 22.lOAt. I „ I~.. - 1 IL I• I ''2' ~ ~ . I I'~i;i ..i i~;/ ~ i ~ r - _ a _ l`IJr~ rrl I I Gr1(~~~V1Li ~ rJG~U~n\/1LL~ r1~~J rl~! I ~ I ? loo - c = ~ \ I ,te.oe 4° r~J!~l rJr)~\I. ^ O r~l/I~!~1~~~ eeN tl[ Is. I Ile' N I I e e }°ff 500 tl 501 C' ~ al ! f 7, I ¢e~am PoINT.+J Yd' 2000 2100 .220D •'2300 2600° a 2700 r 260D N2900 '~trfl " ~ I E " 2 ~i• _ a TflACT - .ele .23 14 oe 3 4 0. 7 9 9 A 4A~ °6 qp'a a 5 b J 9 3000 9~ < :I: - _ f. S.W~~ !°B 0 •r° 410 a `'.250 G 4ee¢ r x••°3100 .I~ a° ,~4aa 6th 4 ~ 6 r d a°'~ - ; X9400 •:a ° ~ II a, w- 24 ~ WmDO ~ v a, ~ = C ^,fN•.Ie 16 CLYDESDALE PL. w .r " O "SW a>,e a, , 3z6D F I I• - - . _ _ . _ _ _ o H 9300e° R ~ ~ V w 8.'3900°~e : 600. 53500 v, n 12 2 V ~ i v' 0..19 it1 7 I6 IS eb.>e I 23 •°J L• ~ • _ a - • 't°'g2pp: 4100 d= Ieese ? 8.,''3900 330D p'14 8: °a "-8 +1`4 3700 aka 14 13 ~I , 22 2I ° 17 ' eee I e ° I 300 30 .a:.ty - ee•vi ~ - - 1912e#+t~.~.;c/r r Ie _ 3 - =11 I° - '9 10 - '.k~° a 1S ~ e9~# 3e h ~ 7~. ~ 19 ..u IB. ':6h eeN rues x A ..I n ° .o ~e NUR °tl ee••I'e :.e.t e' ° - 'e ~ 4 - •1 ~S.W. JOHNSON'.~STREE7A'' e ~a ~ - 119130. L ° O -F _ _ _ _ _ - ae ,mom 8 a R ~ s @ e~,.,eeue 13 , e>a 14 •I I I C - 6 4 11900 d ; , °p.o,1 5 ~ .26Ar. _ _ 23 7 i~ 4 ..e w,,. a 1~ s. ' Ie1~ ~ - 4mun° eRe' .214. • p\ b + k \~V . EC \ w -m ea aJ . , ;,«„aaee'°~"`"I~"~S ' - """'.,'e,~"",.,: ;;,;3 TIGAR . 2S 15AA ~•Apentle llem8 SEE MAP 25 130.0 /pi 2°I18AYn3 Mm2°Ibn ~ , - _ `M 08!21!96 gIJ!PUI!I Ilflll11111 I I i p r r~i III Ip~1~(I,p I •~~fp ~ rill I rlilllglll r 4 ~Iq! ! 1 1 1 1 I t I I I(I I~ - 111111 Itlllllli IIIIuI I~h( dl dlldll III~II Illdlll I~I~III IlUlllll IIIIItlII IIIIV~II W IYI Itllblll Illlbin IIIIIII IIIIbIII~tlllllnl II~II~IIINIIIitl IIIIIW IIII~I IIII Ip I~Po I I I la wl In u$b - r r _r... EXHIBIT C MAP 3 NW I/4 NEl/4. SECTION 3 T2S R I W W .M. 2S 13AB - _ _ WA5HINGTON COUNTY OflEGON ~ ~ - - SCALE I"=100' SEE Y4P ~ ' - IS 13000 N O c ; W xv cyx, t` TflAGf ~ a txux~x~° t n xx t ewa „NU t xux DWAY . xMe;«c 3200 - 4200 ~ I $ +.orac. / p1 100 ~ 3300 n.BBac. ux,~ ✓ai,m` 4 2 scNOPE B/srAKT zN . w° x.. r°x. / m rc fi y pse. xxa !vU rawaee +,Y. xlsx ',ix`~;max~ao,noo, v,.~ ,o '3400 ~ . IA ~ j ~ s ~v1390D$ I 1 B e TBACY 'E' ' ~ 3500 3fi00 (GBEExwnYl ln`i 7 3700 I ° r ~ 4 ° vihdxB. 7' \ 6 5 ~ 1^ ~ Ll °xre4,xu u^ 2200 rsx. l.lCe,- ? v ar ~ _ n~rx ..111. ..~1 ~ i 1 ~ h _ 11. l iat I I .s ll _ _ Ir; L - s ° 23 74 - ' I Z~ _ ~ I ISA s, I e~x SEE MAP 21x0 23-74 - ' l.lO<r. ' ~ `1411 I 2 s 11 1 I. ~ 1 I D33 ~ r 11 , SEE M0.P IggD- y ,25138 r~' ~<23~i 8 ~ % ~ . ~ .,e ~ s ~ 11 1 FI a£E~ c , L . 1 1 :I zooo 7DO ~ 1 ' '1 ^ :liz,tar 1 ~ "I I .1 r I I - -I • ~,~•1', Ix FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY ~ ~ i ° ; y~; 00 NOT RELY ON fOR ANY oTHEA USE - , ~,x ' ` \ ~a' ly I iy 23-78 " , - \••+I"~Ilwi I runs ' u " . I x A ~ toll. , r. ^""9" ~ K R*,•,2800 ~ ,;.Nlk g ~f,l~.~ ,.9 Q .I ,r~,_. A L;:id'. il8 , 1 ^ilooll-'-. W ILLS >qt ° 1~/~ 1~/~ ~ ~;'I / ` ~ h _I„' h!04 ~ (G.. F.. 2900Q j • y'~1 i°~ e A LV ~_l, . . i , 3000' v ZM3 .~xB ~.z~ ,•.s H.~..~.~~.r- ~I ,r: J~;~ Ltl _ " . ` y y,,. N ° °N ~ " ~ 3 tLl 5 \ SEE MAP TIGARD ~ 25 134C . 1~1 _ 2S 13AB WeIM H4M Anna°elhn `'1 ~ ~ , JxI IB _ 0.812.1196 ; ~ hf!I!Ill~lll !Il~lll~~dl! 'I L :p t l l II~I~I!f! I~ I I I I (I~IP~I flll Iglu I l l glll~ I I I I l I I I I~~II,~(C) ' ?i 1 ~ Illldlliidlin liill~i 1"iil~ nillun I liul it Dili inillfil ~Idiiil I~II~I I>I~in m "fin uai~l liiilifn li~llin I~dliu I(i1V~ ailflin nillml ~ I I ~ I fan n~ m ~n ~h . " r., . . ~l ' ; 4 NE /4 SECTION 3 T2S R f W W.M. 25 13AC SW i/ I - WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SCALE I "3100' 10 EXHIBIT C MAP 4 r x rA.~xls ,Sn _ tee r,~a 1 GG~°Ga w0. O1 l~ilC l~d1CHr\~L - 23-74 1~ - 9. W~ Y Jr~ ' CIJ 46A $ 4 ~ 73°. 'Z I A611.a ~ exem.~U U x300 K., 'p.l~ ~p 48003 : Q C 3 ar me ~'.i , ' 1 ..%A~~, . 8 17 Qa - 4.` r'r r 1 ll r3..S F I W q 350D 6 ' . y e n.e $ 4700 F" ~ aLLI u ~ . 00 ^ 36001 _ S ~ 41 46D0/e 5~ 5 4 U 15 ~ - tLl 3700,u k 6Lti ' q °A B •'..~{q t nsl leis q0 5 asoo = IS w fY ~o "`~RRflCa" .,.STREET: I4 7 38000 - ~ a L 4 PARE OF LOT 10 . ~ °,ssD1 7 ~ 502` r 1~ ECxO HEIGxT6 4400 ~ ~ loc - iq 3900 ~ 1 , !.a; , ' r3r s 4 OJV ea °a100 9 d ~uro 900 Sn rS mt Y7YM 3 x200 ~ ID A° '17Pd' by ~ °e. - - - 4300r II ~ i4 - ° ~ SEEMgP .w " 12 ` q. - SEE h'.:~ . I` .I r,:..---- 2S 13B SIC ^I I yx°° I.27Ar. 3 1 k- 0 n 3' :I ~ 23-1 V a~ r e «li 1• I 6.a1 FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY 66 I DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY DINER USE se o6'x 6~ .834 'e 16d _ _ _ ~ 2 - O.61dr. .22Ae non es 0.d6at '61dE133 > ~..Y - :34AC .34AC .?4Ar. ~ 'R N S ~ " - ' b IBAr s 6r6a'6 nr ~ 00~ - r' 'ikc,Rrss' ~ x~ Y~vF 4. - ST' o Set> SN5 , •FON,N ER xe,~r r le~ a eE ~ I x •eh Pn raLPI 131.3 ,~F~." ° I ~ ~L~:A~, 3 s4 a of . o. r osobr :.uAr. o46ar anA< I . zaodr lesdr. 1 N I P - ' _ _ ' R I n{ ~ _ I. h 9• n L ~a. - ' -xl : I a . 6 ' d a .~.e ~ I k 2600E o1 ~ . I. ~ S I ~ ,_I ~ ~ LssAa. ~ I I p~ 1700 - 1 23-~~ e~.. 1244. 16 ~ 6 : 23-74 y~.ag~nanlemR r ~ ' T I G A R D WeVlul lel6nd Annentbn ' 3~ I ~ b .,..Pem 33.1, , , Ilroe 2S 1.3AC 10118 . n ~s#~'. EINr , 08121/96 I'Il~l~l~l~lp~ hl~g~llp I I I I! I lh I'(I I~I~I I II~~~I(I 1111 ~Illll l Illll~p i tll~l~lll f 1 I'IIh ~ lII 111 UI~ I~l I I Illl n I I l l(lll~fn ~ r~ 11ho uoVollodiiii od~ui w 1 udipl iolududiniiiuhoiindmlonli~lmihoim oo iulmiunlni imViiliWhmliVimiuih7uuuda4 iil6ul mdno dn'p ..ui In 1111 1 1 11>` . r wli J I-,I i. ~ .4 a FuMP uJJv.»: 1..-~Lk~u4li.l..._.. ~ ~ A.(U1eJ; J e.'~.i.r,. 1 t 5 ...V~Mr, I. P.:~,. ~I I E I/4 NE I/4 SEC' , 3 T~' ~ I W W:L.. _ ` : L aAD ,I WASHINGi. i.UNTY OflCi L.. - EXHIBR C MAP 5 " sc...1: ! "-1otl l SEE MAP ' I 25 I 344 '0~' 23 7 8 t a:.: _ b ,..,.5. W.:' ``TERROR ~ :...x.:.=,STREET f ,I I e 10 «s,9u~n ~ - ..en r..e : ~ mn . w - . ws Iwo - ' ~ 1 a q I ~ ,!,Jr. ~ ~ 81Yi1 ~ ~Yr O.f1AC Ar. 35F, a -1 ~ ` TAe. - - - 4i Aq '.4)AC Ji4 qA c 1 nl I ~ R 1 I ~ 4 r CI I r41r® _ a 11~ a ~ I. ~ ~ ~ 3~A 1. f43<"° m ° 62dU 6100 w~a 6000 5900 ~ I ' ~ 32gr. 15 .f ~ 7 6 ~ ~r r si _ 8 v~ L f~ SE 'r r r~ ~ ^ 5 SSA a .3Bk, r 1q ~P .6300 ~ ~ ~ . ~ \ ~ $ .I ; o mx[A'/'~3q1.~ 't W rTRACT°C"I . , u Ar: I 'f 96f 10 f`+. .6^ n B I Ar _ A 1000 a4 , 23 74 =6500 5700 c - - s. ~ ~ x 5lJ I ~ .I qg5._ ~ ~L "x ~ ~-I - 6600 e3 `5600 i e ,e rS~O _'°izoo 05 7~ .m.«a ;~T+D,. 2 - ' ; , SEE MAP 12 ~ '1300+'~ 3 ~ l~ 14ry SEE MAP .E I Sac I ,:~0 i4oo s, 4 I 6700 ~ .4 550. !~_..y`t, d+' ya A' a 25 129C .i 13 1 - F.r ~1 Y'::; t. 1600 5+ 5 jOP+ hr° b 4 a. a' ~.w ~~TRACT S I . R° . w 4 ~,na ~0I600 .J 6 ° ,°n es.. ,emm~r..•se. .1700 7 R 7 ~ 5100 s a s '00 ` ~ 4 j 's`t _ 1600`+, B ~'`Q 6600 0 ~ ~l° , 41 r P ~ u.. .s~„ - 6; ac rm43c 2000 1900 ~ 9 4 ' Q `2600 Y°+". jt 5000s . 10 IT s°2600 40 g - ;1s) ° °+,~Il,~s+ ° 2500 'e' ( 18 ? FOR ASSESSMENT 2~ 78 ~ , I) A 4 4.+ PURPOSES ONLY i q' 605 ~ X2900 o I9 'O°°2900q 2 x eve - - unsr+ r- 4900 r OD NOT RELY ON. - 92 `rgpGS 2300; g 15 a.` 19 r i,.P~2 39 FDfl ANY OTHER USE S ° ' \ ='I , °f '2200 °0 14 i .f w°i ~ , n 13 3000 b 4600 906 A.:~ 2100'' ~ ~ OT°A" «s>w,io 36 Iz f zo ' 3100 , 907- w 23- 21 S \ ~ 74 ~ 4700 809 a~ saa° ' o rot :nJi , .3600 - r 3500. 3400 13300 3200 909-Y 1, ~~'+r0° 26 = 0 25 ° ° 22 2 a 4600 r ~ ~ 3700 _ 24 a 23 .w 36 45 e, TMDT"F' ~ ~ c " 21 ~ xan w 5 P° / rv ref °e da r ~ ~ ~ S.W. °4r 4500 ~I 910 ~ ~II 3900•• •4300`1 r , 35 I V ~ ~Ny~ r 4000 4100 4200. gg00' ~ 47 26 0 _ ~ ~ti ~ e • 29 30 ~ 31 32• e'O 33 ~ i4 ,++A enna WASHINGTON COUNTY sr ~ ,o IN Ul;P4NTSIIiNY Do ~ ~ wind ' 101N ~ `t ~✓~a,- d.UL'3Y41pNl' w 1'4FATIDN • i e°.. . „INITI4~~0INT ,aare'a.r,'~~ ~ r . . nf,9 s I~lao ~ ..uusuun runroxs SEE Mt' - 7/J2JgA.Aprndoll4nlB- whir ~ oo Nor MILY ox ~2a~ I~ Welnq /eland PmeNelbn 100. Dt910. USt 2s 13:.:. zc TIGARD Sof 18 ~ - - - 2S 13AD ' 08!21/96 rf!Iq~Uill W!1lILI!lI I p I I c lr r i{!P~ I. i !li I I n. ll i grlgtlgt r qi ili~rlr r r q ill r r g r !rnp ~ f; f~" ulllillililuu liillliu ul Im I iiml mlul uahiu ulna uuhia Ilidil I ii~iul nidlm ur~1 aillii6l~ll011 auluu mduumullfi uilhm mViu ul'd~u m u ua m lul. ! m m u m aalu r:. _ . _ - al ti. - - ~ IVC I/Y IV YYV4 JCVI IVIV J ILJ 1'f IYY "YY.IY. - ' WASHINGTON CDUNTY OFEGON ~ " SCALE 1=100r EXNIBlTCMAP6 SEE MAP ""~.,n'""°'~ ' ISI 34CD ~•^I27 A so 12fi I# ° 41 7 .40' Fs.. - ~ Izova rx W ro.n ~aF m,. mx - 128 Q 125 N ~ 39 ? 42 _ rnu G~J x n 124 s .7 129 s ~ S x1 eRn n.R, 23_74 = ~ - S8 po„~~,~... 140 43 U) 141 _ .ass t '~~.0 123x € ~ 142 143 131 wx. 130 30 ~ _ ;p ~ ~ iL-- ~ - --_p N - r,d37b 1 q s.u 3 32 33 ~i 34 35 sm ~ 1 are S~'lly. > (~l N 122xr I„ ".aR, LYNN STREET ~ ~ n. . 1e Hy a CR 1955 rn.n ^I 149 36 1 nes"loasz 137 136 135 134 133 nv 132 e.u cs xp {wn ~ R 3 121x ~ H ~ _ J x ~ 2 J-J ~ N _ e]~ I' 26 27 26 25 24 23 22 1 • xnvxr ~ IID I°e.°.^-:... r IISO ....(IR° .Y°SR.-... . r xene~y 2111 ,.loon.°..°.....~....1u.. ao oe. v:va 50° Ixv.er ~ SEE MAP ~ III 112 Iii 114 115 II6 117 IIB 119 2513AB SEE MAP 25 1388 e - ° ' _ a b I ~ it b" 2: i n 20 a.ee°.e 0o I~ 0 12 a 13 - R eS.w. a.ewo. 14 15 16 f°° _ 120 ' N I us,n ANN ~ ° i7 I f 10110 102 2 1 3. IIRR 4 CR1955 STREET i 03 ~yaaa., _ 5 ,lao.°. 6 1°a.o T , 8 u.u arr x xwxn _ ' I r . W sia~ . . ° - rJ ~ 1 r -~'-1 - > e= : P5 S-~ q Q t=: ICStbJIi021 B~4e ~ w~ ~~j' -.aooa ~ ~ I "vgf~,y;~~a a erJ2 a 8 ~ ~ F1°~ s.n so I.. .n IOD2 _ _ 3°45 - I - a .B:h. I - _ ~ I s ° ~ . v n o. .r., 1 1°e.P , ICS.HR IZ5R1 •I n w w• eal - ,e, ~ y ~ 000 ,I, ~ 1 s"((lE S xI" IeR° „ - I A~ _ ~ S: ay.- ~p `1 . S w' sew ~ . C.1 4 s sEE MAP TIGARD zsl3eo 2S ~ 36A _ ~ maxi-ApeRa°lierne `b wm~luaMRaaaneallRn ~V \ 6m5e 08/21/96 _ rn.!PUUI rlllilll111 r l p r ilr pill r illy Ilrli~ II ill r I r. .li ~ lq!Ir~ lilt r q llli~rlr i r p rll r t r I rile I rli ~I(r~ ' j~ ~ t, 11` . l .a ..~..I. ~ law ~ 1w l~r a~. ~ C~~ ~ , i. ' dloi liii6io oiiliili liilNl II~II 1111111 I~I III IIU~III ~IIIIIII IQIIII IIIIbI~ ItlIIIIII IIII IRI 101181 llll~llu llllhlp ~llltlll lllllllllllllllllllllflllllll tllllllll lllllCl lm fll ~ RI~W ,11 ~ I I I Y~W III ' ' - - . _ ,l r,. J-' "-NWI/4`N.W.~fT~SECTION`3`T'25 RIW~V.M-~ sEE MAP _ . ' 33 39 191 39CC ~ 2S I 368 WASHINGTON' CWNTY OREGON 1 i :2'i i o,....:...,.,e a ,N wnt^ llp 9800 y. I 4200 0 4300 440D 4500 0 SCA:E I e 100 9200 9300' % , 19 F '•4 3 600 910D ~ 4800 w t ^ 4100 a 42 / g 9700°' Y _ ' 41 44 8 45 8 96 47 B ~ 9B $ 7 II 41 ~ 9900 t 8 .(J 2U ^°^9aoon ,ao ,N 6 z S.W. KATHERINE a 696000 4 g4DDa ea , „er ~ ^r 1 p IDDDO ,r°, .ew.e:a° 40 a ~ ' o Rr / L U ewo a y4:o n.v .ay .o IR 21 ° 2700 i , , 2600 SIOD 5000 ° 9900 0 10900 IOB00~+0 9500 rr ~ ° IIO~ ~ ~ e ,r u ~ 27 8 26 51 50 8.• 99 $ ' 29 _ 29 P '(Olra 9 ! IOIOD m - 3900 W I B e~ o '0ty b, 39 ~ T . } .A 22 h Z ,ao x " . ue TRACT "2' " 10700 L,° 2800 2500 520D ° • ~ ~ G7RC 10 ^•iR INIiIRL POmT' , W x° GREENWAY PRBN 100 ~ r STRE. ^ ' 1 3800 ~ • 28 25 52 q 6900 / , 30 ' 27 ~ a, ~r 4[s4 IxIYwLm. Q o ~ - ^~N ~ / IDeoo° y ~ ! 10500. 10900 103 ,r + ' SW. LYNN $T 2900 2400 :5300 TRACT C J / l 26 - Oq' lao W °1120D 9 0' ° 0' ° 25 9 d2 p200 ? = 3700 29 $ 24 ~ 53 A 31 f 24 Z V r,' J .y ~„ev yn - 23 TR. ~ 37 w° .y ..8, 8. o n.xo +eer ^ ' 3000 ~ 2300 W I eY xd R • 1130D !Y~`' y1 xv12500 „ Z 0 1 5400 - x ...m..... n,e ° .Ill • w ° 30 p ° 23 Q , w,o:oe`° I r ° 32w° ,n° ~ 49 6. I,te• 3600 ~ S4 , xeri; lie 4 0 ~ ~ 12800 12900 _ +•.a; 2 Q 9 N 36 d7 12600 12700 ~\ol` r22 11400 °12900 -i,---_ -f 3100 2200 .tC 19 20 21 `1111 ~~/J I I 43 _ 6500 3500 31 22 ~ Qa 33 II500 "°',fL n 8rN' 34 ~ ~ B • S.W. ANN •al3ooo 3zao zlooex „ y Iz3a0 : e' ° 340Y 3 32 21 :°3P INITI>LaPf a Ip " ~ COURT $ 42 00 ° ~ B ° +'x y 9zo1 p y z3 ~ u6oo ' 8 34 + " ' 82_0 8 ID p a 13200 'd 35 - r.°t~°A ny+'ar ~ 82C0 25 x13100 ~s 'SW. ANN ST. S.W. NAREt~3 STREET d 3300 g ° Ix1nn P1. - r~24 ~ 11700 .•y e212200 12100 a^ eL°.. ~ b• _ 9 ~°'d'y1, l~l J, J , N 36 .e4 41 40 b'~ a 9 3301 y MIO 8100 /R.. 1 PoOjP rv^, ~+•II BOOf .V °0 aS° ` 20 9 ne +bi ~ yo,°.T a 37 LACE ' a SEE MAP ° ~ 8 0 eRfyR d 11900 Y"• o i ~y 29 13BA \ ~ R S_E M0.P 1'V^ `•Igpp 1.36<a 12400 M• 25 I 9Aa 33 e•ne t 7901 7 ~ 940D • 39 39 : w, ' 4,°' ~ x1900 - Q 2 2-14; re•aBa 1700 N - B _ / ~ u s n r, - 19 rl l1 r ,„R91,.....,.. .u 4 R 17 79 sr. $S TRACT 'q' BSOOx' I6o0 ,°~'N. 6ROOKBCT. _ _ - 7900 269) 4r. 12 -1 i~ 16 x~~4 ~ ~I ~ a x1300 •I: /c4xE/ •6700 ~ 8600 y° 2 •rj 0.r, (G9. Na 128161 J r 1500 woo 13 ; , N, 8 _ x.r°..r., 6300 4 ,7800' 1 L', f{ f1 r``r r 13 W /i 7~ I 1 $ p ~ I I' TRACT 6 15 s l 6 J Z vw+• I W ~ / ° " 1200 Yy 8700 ~ > $ ' 6900 ed C `6800 iR. (q: IIOD w 1r 1~O1e 14 FB ~ .,Ta. [ 2 e^ evv,t,: • I I g 1• 9 r vn+y J~09'1 FOfl ASSESSILENT e x ~ IOOOo 8 11 E I 5 N xe'_n° • y9;. yL-=.. _ ~j PURP06E5 DNLY 1 2 ° 8801 ~0 NOT flELY ON gpp s - Y,iv ~ ,T, 2,. ~1 a _ 1., ~ .YF4c . + FOfl ANY OTHER USE C8 9 w 8 ua emu, nu l' B 1 q ,xr•'a1. q, rJ , a°'4 ~ $ 55 I , er:Yne 'yja 8900 e.r IS 3 N° W911:' - ~ Too • • sfioo B R^ a - y 3 :,1ES ~~1p 7 , 5700 56 a"~ i Y •J•r` P 8800 x P".r p.R.al:..,,1. 'S1R ov W ! R" a 9001 ~ E.BN 5800 S 57 Z 'x 4. s` ~ b / , x.a .°a 38 > reNw ° 6Gn i B~nr.-.~y i 1 x600nor M1 ` Q v7400 + BLx 9100 ..b'+u• ,o ``U' I~ A 6 5'~59D0 xuIDO ' g1 2 CW '.B '~ni• ~p~'` 9EE M0.P 59 ~o ~y ,,n 291 3BC "~f .x ' w'aE IDx 'Yyw' M'L `OY 1. ~.ll{„i ~~lll~`~I1 ~~'r A a e' } 5 + GOOD •c [xd • ^ 7300 ~ i+ TCP ~ ' - L I Ca5 900 ,e .e vi 5,/ 9 ee e.. 'I• " •9EE MAP - ' _ ~ .TIGARD yp2g6. Apen9n 8am8 r +r 25 I 3BC $ WdmltlnkM Annnxelkn L x 11 •r - - 2S 701,8 a z.l I 388 08!21!96 7'~'1 ~I~:~J~~I liI il~lllllil r i I r r ip r,{I ~ !I!, I~I!h~ i ;I I qq{ r ICI{~{i i plt~~Jr{I i i i I gIJIU 1 I {I I II l llgi I Ip i Ilp~i i(II `~f/•~~r - ahm mihlo im4in dill I i Ipllllp 1111011 Illlnll InlVlll 1101111 Illlb~ 1011111110191 0161011111110 $111101 Illliill111111111111111~11010111111911111IIII~N ~ I~tll , a !Till!! I mldi ° - _ FI !t r::_ _ _ - _ EJ(NIBR C MAP 8 , SWI/4 NWI/4 SECTION 3 T2S RIW W.M. ~ 2S f 3BC WASHINGTON COUNTY " WASHINGTON. COUNTY OREGON , DFPARTIIFNE OF SCALE. 1'100' - ASSTS6ME5T A TA%ATIOII _ e U SEP 1J iS~d > a FOR ASSESSµEM ^UAPOSEfi I r~ J 6 i. OkLY:70THE:lUSE OlI 1 N ~ : [ox SEE MAP 6!~. , SEE MAP 26 1 B68 ' ~;GG,~ yagmgeaoauaxa. 25 I 39B ? •,~T/; ~a~+ _ k~ 9lCS W 90X91 t noo,awr, . 2 ~ .dp a 1 ; 9 ~S - s yl , ~ \ ~ ~ ([5. =9691 .m° 5004 N ~ •y. \ ' I [ ° n•>d x: x+,' 5003 4 r' - ^3 H/ . W J w xNR• 7 3 ~ , sa raa slid ~ • .u W'. • Z cool ^ sooz ~ °r>, aR~ _ ! . a°s 1° W Sl S s ttsx _soeel- - 4900 ti~ ~ r C -,9` ' - 23 r Z SEE M0.P SEE MAP ~~4500 N ^\~I T ~ : 7 .-rfi~- rj I /1. ~2 ~ p ~ ~ . 1 r V ° r s~Ns,~ 26 1 4A0 e. 2 ` 4 c' MCR~ ~ 4600 .3 *Rez b B . _ -Ifi 5 ~ E _ s+ c ~.6 ~x `P - G r ap ` ~Jj 4e i °an"• 4500 b PNM' Nrgi a~x T n VP S'. 4700 °t~M1+° ~ ~ ' r x~, ~ A np °d~'a 4300 I 2 5 wyraiN 9 ° rxmS°,W~"~,~'TIPPI/Tr rP ? to e...r S rsxm P[ wN I 4200 7600 116 fi'sx q IIDI v .N - / Y 2 3 15 - 1200 ,w n ~ 1300x [ „tg µ Z a%'~I ~ .,.Tsar.' IN - 6 ~ _ I - r` r rS ~ J a nOCO e ~ .%ac. I ~ •M [ f ~ ~'Y. i. x•,,o:+~~r{b a R~ - ~ _ J 6300 1 . ax SW. CARMEN S . 7500 R - ;I p . I Fq .I 1102 ~~°o°Ci xa u.9em` NCUxa FPNf - 14 E . r ~ ml .!/qG I;~VS rh6R91) .r,. ------~n, ;ICS xa x,755) I u lt6 xi:lxwof ~ nr _ - 6400 x4.4 x 7q DO / Tb 3 yl„ FDR 4SSESSMENT ' `(rIN.3 14 • PURPOSES ONLY _ ~ ~ Tl.k Jf rl ~ 'J6 N~t DO NOT RELY ON 7 ~ ee~ X77000 76000 x7900 or Y uN6500 FOfl 0.NY OTHERVSE ICS W 17,9W1 ~ x 41'~4~'a ~ lC5 x0:84911 s _ ~;:i aTx I ~ 4r'Ifi\ ra r I7~ - - filer W t 66 Ics N.A,AAI' i .734051 .'Y 1 r~ r:~ 1 I ``2,• a, % - Py10~ 12 ~ °~V ~.~..}+x~Y/ C~ '[aMw„+r ~'i-::. 1 - [ ;o ;r ~S.W. ~ R4 LAN. gOroj~ ~;fifiao s. ' ~ ,1 ' ~ .44.X4 Lt ea ~°a .jp°. - 9EE MAP " - 7200 a'0 ~ 70000°u 5 ItS xe ttwl'~ ~ "Q 2S I 3B0 - 1 / ° 7100 xW00x16 6600 6700 v ° SEE MAP , ~ II 10 9 g 7 6 , zs I aao ~ RavRrN _ `z /xri„ f0 IOC 100' •0 •M»t'+M I ^ IOf a' b i • N[ - m ,Nr wn... r .ILL • ~ ;~I ' y , - . '~5~~'; 10~ ' 9 6- E 7. i.. 6 5. 4 '3 2 - I l~ -A . A~. 23.:78 ~ r \ r , ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - A 1. ~ C. R NO 1951 ~ , , o. ° +sa B.W. ALBERTA 'STREET. - R na-rv . i:' !194.:: o n n ~n rR R•N ' _ , - t _ ®-.,I , " 10 ~,9 `8 7 ..'R; 6 s g 2 .4 3 2 .$I h ~n aP _ ~ ~,.N•[ ._._._.~°x• ,.v L~>°S:W, FO NER S7 Vx CORNER. Ix11rAl 401X1 CAN004 PoRr: 9EE MAP 29 I 3C8 55 1 TIGARD ~4.A6axAalxm6- L~' 2S 1,,:360 WAIRM k4nd AnnARNtkR ' . 80110 _ ~ 08/21/96 ~ in~!I~~LI UILiI I'~Ili i ~ i i I i I qil' ql~1 I~ ~ II,ti uql gqi i i Ililip III i I I i I i I i ~~;^r~ - ~ ~iluuiiiihiuiaiGriailii ~iiibiiiuu~iimaiiioTaliiid~iiiuluii~~iiitlliliinniiViuifiihiuui(liinai~i~aViiiiolilua~lrai~ip Ni ~mi i iiialmiiki I:., [l SE I/4NW1/45ECTION 3 i'LS RfW W.i~. ca + ~~su _ WASHINGTON COUNtt OREGON ~EXHIBITCMAP9 SCALE I"- 100' ei;, - ~ ~ SEE MAP 25 13EA E.~ ,::BYRE _ - ~ - ~ p.15 . ~ r _ e N NO ~ _ LLr Lotf .r'. la UY, .G 1ir•- t ,aN „a 'oa. °O, b'fW.la[0. , 2pPAa~ - . Tp ; I o ~ ,uo , s"T'~r~ I. , I. ~ n +.cv"r. ~ I aI s,.cs a I ° , , . . , 4ear :i ` ~i ° ° y- a m .trf°c I 8 I ~~'F ~ nl _ I . II. ~ 1 . 13 I . - ..54Ar. .I' af. ~ ~ I11~ ~ I u , I . ~a it R . I ppar. III ~Yf tY aov°fa - a7 I al ~W •6 I ftt'fo'° ~u } ~~.,~~pf~ _ ,r,,o 9 ~Ar. . ~ 5' '10 b ~ 8 ITTa II e , PLACE 1~ E lo';on •,*+~•'0df - . ~ SEE MAP SEE MAP 14. ~ 13 g x Y T°i1p l~.~ Q _ 251 3AC zs I sec ~ k. Is ~ _ . IT a. E 12. 9:._._ s - - ~ ~ ~ r ~ r1 r~ tvl ~ I " ~ .I.n.>o cn.wass M°xm - - e 'f" S W ~ CARMEN STREET f°NRr 5~ L~j ) r ~g r ).-r~ `tp - _ .6a I ,8 2 3 e° 4 5 A 6; „T 8: S •aY ° x ~ ~ xa/fl[ e f - ~ INITML PgNT ~ ~ 8 ; xen.if, .SA:. .SPAr. ' ~ J,69Ar ~ 85 _ ~ ~ - LIpAC. - - Iu+ + FOfl ASSESSMENT ~ _ _ PURPOSES ONLY • 8 n OO NOT RELY DN 3 Aro ar. e ~ B a. FDR ANY OTHER UEE N - - soar w `i A e e s ~ - - ~ - 1b 8 y ~ _•~1' ° ' u•IM eli, _ _ L 5 F ash I I.. '.,l ~ ~ IN 8. ~ 5 . u ~ _ i 8 I$ u~. ti ''a ~ brt I CFMEN IPSERIpN 1a • II, ff f fa , loo r f1 axLW L ° •°r° i 9 - ? .l: S W f fl• fl•. FONNER STREETS S BD m ~ . 2 I 3 y17I8a•ANa~tle llam e- 1. ~ SEE MAP 25 13C W°NNI lekntl Anufdlon II N 1 Bd1P ~IID l 08/21/96 iCiiitlii+illrll~t! +i I r +rr rltil+iti +iltiii ctrl pi Ugini iiltilii+til~rlli~riitlt iitniml ~,I r- II.' s a' f. ra r rr. a ~~e t'Uy iv Iililoon6oiul16u m ul~o IuCuuiaihlllnuho Iluhui m(ouiniGlunl IuI I11uII imn7oi miluulullimlii1lmmiiihmmVlla Iu6nlo~lln Inn I ~di lu 1i ! NE I/4 SW I/4 SECTION 3 T2S RIW WM ~2S i 3CA - WASHINGTON CWNTY OREGON - _ ~ SCALE I"°loG' ' EXHIBITCMAPtO $EE MAP [ ~wJ° . 2S 136D _s, FOt~NER''=*._..ROAQ~ r - - - - r[x[PtAr[>~ T t ox, lo°P, ' ~ I~ ppl~yy ~x r ~ ~ ° R xIM. ~ .924: Z 9 ~ _ 28' A w _ ~ '27 r1 ; ~ [ ~ P`>rx'°~s I. ~~i f ~f 9 °°x.x o"~qy. ,t : .ns~. ie~,N SEE MAP ~ ~ ~ ~"~Ir~ b. W l n. ° / . 25 I 3C9 Q' + E ~ ~ . U ° , ~ r i~ j{ ~ 20 a xe ?s ~ SW. JAMES ST. ~ ~ °,b x Q " ' e' x~ x K NIIIGL ¢'°°t. ~ ~ 11~ Po 4 vm ; 9~ - POINt'' o O b'= Y 6 .soar. ' Z.-~ '9y 9A. by `Q 24 8 >t. P 3100 t x~ x ~ TR z 8 a ~ ! a Loa1e ~ : I7 ~ 3200 ~ W. _23 - 78 - ~ 4 eQ m • °~a " }f~ / ry '3300 i' ° ~ Ics o 65,1 I6 ' a~`,y°,. v p9 p w g _ ,2 9A 5 d~ 5100 RON ST a - 2E . ,b Q• a ~ S.W MA I pV 1619 _ ~ rylb _ + b y. ~ 3900°' ~ a .m 2 I A 4900 v a " ~ ~ ~!.I9 ~~4 6 P - u u.a . 8 C~ 3 rJl xs '°°e.r' y~ zl tk ,q 3soo~ ~ ~ ~ ; loz " SEE MAP ~ ey /y ~ ~ I ~V p 7 y ~ .l9Ar, zs 1 3CC •,.sJa w I a s \ ~ 4\ ~ s` 9 / ~9 I 47oD°~ ioexx a° y !3 ' ~ d' t.J 3 CS f ~ .z5a a JSA ;uhf°. p6~ ~3 ` /b ~ r~ _ Q0 ICE.IJIII S~ .~°.•b F~ ~y { ~ iw• e , b y ° C~ ~ 460D'~ „ I cs. xx lJNe lsav p y _kry!'-,,,.,..... 3900 C1 6 2 a 109 r ~ ~ V r o .aJae aay ,y us.lossm- ~ i g to t Q 4soD x°se` .ua ~.SJx r°xy,'°; r~ ~,p' ',1ZI' t'1U Q~ rtrx v _ a 39DOl~ 1v2- 7 x~.». 3 ([aW.1094s1 7' > 4400 Ff i 105 x:~k ~ 6 A azk 23 74 S'h, > sae ' ~ CJe p S 2.,' '.b ~°b:°°a '~J°.. ~ Q . ',p5 '[b 4300 .~q 'b'".- bN C 410D 9 i $.W. GENE` b , % QR x a 4200 loft ° , L a\I~ ~ ~ . . Y ID .BiAe A , .x+i°sxp w by i x 1700 L ~ .w " !aa r=UPit - s4~, .r Oy 3 - 1600 - - - - u , xNiq LINE Ix xx x• '''I:`.`:,1 i'i~' 4 1J ph ,y_ IY s~ ~ ~ ar 6 " SEE MAP x ' 25 13CD 8 ss'~ ~r..rrv ~cc Y TIGARD 2k2A)x•Apxxax nxn,s yh1 CA 00~";9 xMANNYnIhn 5w l 2S 13 _ 08/21!96 , qi I gilgi II!Illggpr i l l r r r l r r r l Ilgr I rlr II Ir Ip ► I~ n l pig/ III I I glUll Uqi I II N UII I I Ili i I i Iln I ~ ~ , ly,; oli I Dill iii iilifiii i IPi(il wdx'I ilui ou (ii uidiui iulini luli' Ifiiliii iul uu mlul Ilu io nillim liiihm oidlualiiillTliirTi~`ill lupin iilrl i~ifi it idm _ u nib'1` I II I I I tlilx ' FV ~ ,J) I: ~ _ , _ i wrr ii=F v... tivcvTfOn 3~ TZS N o f.iff. zs r Sec c5 F ~ C O iN r« ~ it f ''a D x 1 • ` ^A Y{ toe llf/I ' , , , ` . , ec . . ' i,• p aaa0.ir.Lw-- g+ ear,...^ ~s`i k 8 1 ' . ; _ - ~ieircMaP u~ =S ~ J . _ • - i• •S oi.. eue ~ C.. ri f•Inr f •I 2 .fl, I Iio fo ° rvw. . o 1 ....'v, :ae 'YJ . 'Y9+r, 'SfALH.. ~ i jtJ 4 i we J~ - I e r.`wa s'•a S ST T ~ tf • f fr. pME ~ - REE `I 2 { , ~ ~ _ ff.e r~ ~ . , J ~ - ~ 44 , ~ Y' ~ 5, SEE MAP r ro 15 8 N 39 ~ 40~ = 41 x'02 ~ 43" S I+' S (F - - . 4 Q . Ip'rwxW YMf •f•la 1a IW IW ~D° 1°r • le I.I. iW 0 - °a fff •eo. iod iw i0o fo0' M.fi eU1Ypi ~ - ii id V1 ~®o • YeY 38 37 36. ~ ~ ~ r1.3a a )/.:-33 ~ ~ 32 ~~31 ~~.30,. r 29 •.i i°... Z b I6 - 'b- 9 ' i ~6~ d fd... ,iiN I I{ i ~g W.` w MARION STREET - ' It M S r 1 7 rh, ~ 3 ' ~rl ' = 6 21.°f 22 X23 ~ 24 25 26 rl8' SEE MAP =.ter.if: • ~ _ . 25 14D a' ~ "„ii ,t ~ t - . ~ - 2AU' .I1. of xi . +y'. if• - r - e, 23-78 a x ' ~ ~ ~ f ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ u SEE MAP - ~ 2513CD ' ~ ~ - ~ FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER USE - Y ~2 4W? wo i. t. e~:'fL. -Jell --..1.4"~V32L '_RS_- ~ ~ :9 o € ~ ~:;..Y - _ sae tl ~ ) 480, 3 ~ ~1~ WASHINGTON COUNiY OREGON .:'tINT'l - i 4 e~ .arar. loan SCALE I"+100' ~ _ ~ f•0.ff e ~ ~ SEC MAP i 4900 , if.nn' 2S 13CC it i`i t~:r 5 ~ ; 23 74 'ICSSyeaal ~ I nLlf I i 9902 u, k Y •I .IJAr, t 1~ d I p !4 2127184.ABeMolleme' •I -,2~ I 3C$ W4wl le4nd Mneypon'.'.' +I ~ ` %innn~' H 0178 I. _ ~ i J ` c ~_t:___.~.___• ~ :•h:. 08121!96 - ip~Ip~lll !IhI!U IIII i [ i I~IiFI I )iii qii iplllgll I I I II 1111 ~ li l I~ ~ ~ - l- „ ;i.l, ~ e ~ Ems. ~ Mao uhm uuloo iiuhm i i i miliui uu i dmi imVm imldi iin~ iu~n im i u hm u i du uuliiii udmi mi~imV~i ollu`u ulhni n n l i u m u~i . . h ,dl SWI/4SWI/4 SECTION 3 T2S RLW W.M. ~2S 13CC - WASHINGTON COUNTY OgEGON scw.E I"•loo' EXHIBIT C MAP i2 SEE MAP 25 13C6 - _ - - _ ,i nrr.e_ - _ _ - _ _ _ 1 . . , yi _ ~ I r~Q~ I^::;' Aur~~„ /w ti - ~~'.'I , I 'I I . - - - - - - - - ,~»a . Q a'. . I y^ jd ;_rh f - I A' qa 23_-7~ 'pyiQ ~1 SEE MAP ~ Z• ~ g,.., vxea -~4s...a ~ - 6 a II R ~ 2 3 4 e SEE MAP , erool•°Ae .ai•r eae nw na S 401 400 500 5 1184 I'n`r•06Xf~ /.J6AC. - 7~,1~. , ly ° ~ 17 _ MI6 IS rn9 a ° fS 1.6 aea•air I. I: 1° S. __-__W _ -'S S I6 ~~13 o i ~ Q~ - e .ease - a.n ':~p { _ >u ~ >•e v. _ • x ea[ a • ~ J P°-®;' _ t~ Oyu 23-74 ~ ` 19. 12~ °s r A': ~ z 3 , r uaM.. ' 6 W pare - , ,~,11 ~ 6 FOR ASSESSMENT Icsxonoerly, ;I- ter',! ~I ~ PURPOSES CNLY. ' 20 II'~'- ~ g:' _ ~ OO NOT RELY ON A ~ k PoR ANY OTHER UEi ur.r ..r a4' rr I -------------------aaaj-e---------------------„ 'I0- s, W.- ~GAARDE -:SSTRE~T°wmes 5 ~a.e.ex R , g to ;aF;:~'"'~t~'a.~a SEE MAP ~ SEE MAP 25 I IOBA 25 11066 TIGARD 242184 • Aanae Ikm e _ =e~,xiewwaAwweavw4' ~ 2S 13CC '4 L~ , 08121!96 , , Ih 19!lq III(IIIIIIII L I I t p I I I III I I IIIIIUI p(f II Iq(p i (I(Inj!(!I! I nlUll.llll I I tl~llllpllll I I U(l ~ III I I ~I II t III(III nll , C ' L- alhi uilVlllliillflill Id"~i I INllil I~(I(~ BI~IIIOIIIItlI ItlIIIIIIIIIIIIII III~I ~IInllitlltlllllpfipllllllhlll ItlIIIIIIIilhi7111i'II~IIItlIIIllllll IIIIIIIIIIIII~ Ilq tl i II„pt Illhltl 4uuu0al~lhfio • -11 I SE I/4 SWI/4 SECTION 3 T2S RIW W,M. _ - i ~Cu WAGHINGTON COUNIY OREGON ENMBITCMAP 13 SCALE I"r 100' , ^ ' ' : van'om°9too;`tooox0s° ' SEE MAP F . 25 1300. '::t:,: .~+'x•'a1 ,HIV ' .~liir ~ 4m~ V SEE MAP m s 25 I 3[8 ro SEE MAP Aw ~ 19 4 ~Q~ 5600 "a,° ~~da 25 I 3CA a+- - ' II - - 1141q uxEN ~'Yi ~iP~.p-- vs . ~'~y . ~ 4700 " J el a5oo : 3 I 4 4 0,. q 4 • s3oo +6°°°~e .9o0dr - .eJAr. 4 e 5500 a 'uasW 62001 ~ V~ 4 12 + Txt. aisu 4 s, 23 24 6 e W=P, 'a4oo a~ Sip` saDO b` ' ~ ~ m ~°'~r .FJAr. r~• r ".M,s 1 4 ~r 5700 .9 ~ ; 13 2 _ a 300 'i + 44DI .lack „eAIF!'... \\t~ % ,r°~ 4 .)4AC , ° 52o0~ 4 swo [C aW ~ a e a S.N( N 8, a r ..5'795 ~ 7 + s r r r k zl .4 ~Q x.M [t t° ~ 9 FAIRHAVEN 4300 ~ r n, 23 1 ~ W IS + ~ r., f 1 r1 r ~ F ,.J Iss s I 00 ~ y~ v°+ v a 660D t oete I :~s~ ct Na79311 t 4 ~npi F 0 sp TRACT Y' rR 6000 t p 28 I 400 ' pa ax a 5° v OPEN SPYE I ~ 3FAr " . v0~0a 3' ni ~ `67002+ ~ RR 5100 ~ 4 s s k 6 I " ~ E 5 5900 ' d' °,y, 27 ~ ~OMSS•» e ' - ~ 2 19 2 68C0 ~aa _ 1.02 dt ° ' p~. (Ea xa 56(01 ve ~ a ~mn & t SOP" . a 0 28 ~ _st ~o_' - - 4900 ss V x.so 85000 ~ g R SB00 Y3 Fe 6900 .164 . t se x en • 5 17..,. ~ ~ F/ Ica N°5a91 'y.. 115E R'A• 41R9 n,a,%, -"•161. 'it~ INIfM1 PT ° i. irav. t X I" p < a76DO ~»t>: ~ , r no- 9 h n' •t 4^( I ~ es 2 3 - 7 `J . -13DD_.--• ~ ~y~' X • 1D00 °900 800 ,00 ° 60p • .g...,.. _ 7700 6 8 1000 t 19 A sf6 4 ° 3~O 2 ae I Ap, 4 7 TRnGT •P B R ~ f~ ,°..tt [ m Two ° le 9 FAIRVIEW ""LANE° p 4,9 9 s.ovtW"x. ar°su rxs i 48000 1~ °~'C• '~,r " ~ I SEE MAP 6 / 17 b x.2300 ~yJ m2900 y 3000 3100 25 130C 10 ~ $100' r r 1 :i = ,4 y~ z2oD ya • r 1 "t%r ri w 9 a'x " a 3 - r t r - 7500 1600 m' ? , ~ ~ 5' m10 m 5 16 5 ~ Q' • y°j'Dn. `t0 2 . % I u •'I ~ zaoo m axe k ! x•Nt 9~ Q' y°2100 r - 200 ' n n. 17 s ~ m II R v,a+"" " 2 q S A r srv' A200n d d; ~ ° Bi °°totSi ~ xmp~s• V) •*a•y, xs [ no " J~ ° zaoo t ~...s t t.,m:~ x3zoo 1 voo i = .a5 ac SEE MAP 8 12 x ;U a 7200 ~ `y0~^00 •1900 2E00 e1 25 I 3CC 1y 7300 ° "'6 12 p. 7 y, 5 6 . _ - 14 ' 13 ~S 6• a ~ ' 6 $ x+, : (ca Na 63011 8300 ° $ yWRIAL ~ =.{Ci Ib. 135941 a i ° 3 '"TPACT 4'f' s•sfnax ssY.t. "f • % 13 3 xs s sra~.~ xsn a"vlo tool J 3500 3000 3700 C ~,-GRFEIIWAY//OPEN SPAEE 1 21J~ I,SI ac JJB d< ~ yTC y ~t~(tc.v 7 Icaxc,ss44) ~ ~ 23 4 ~ 7100 & 5500 - z - e a A aRUV9acESE ar oReeox u7r "a ks dmnsnri catu15ty1 _a% ? 14 "7000 p0 105 N° 5539) " 109' 162 IxRI PT 3600 "al $,M! " 1 ~ '~M (O9.Nn91631 IC9N°.1319N SI VIEWMOUNI FOR ASSESSMENT PUpPOSES ONLY x DO NOT RELY ON FOR ANY OTHER USE 3809 - 6 .,"E JOA C ICS. NO 13~19B1 (05, No. 5540) = 3701 ' t3 =g @~ Ns xo9s9T1 7 I" N I » Ft•4't 45T t4 9A4 t°5[ I/4 COR. " R ' ~ j/q 1 1 °~Wd• 'L6 RaN°.411 GA1ARDE -Z J"STREET[r,tx ° a • R 4 SEE MAP 251 IOBA ~ TIGARD We~nWMYM MneIKMbn '1 2S 13CD 13 or 1e ~ lti ti - 08121/96 - 11!,~!Ill~ii IIUII~~d~! I I ~ I II ~ ! q!I) !I~?I11~~1J ~I U„II~Ih I atl p r r glD~lp I r IpUllplgl q ~ ~ III i iU~l I I III(tl ~ ,ti? ~1~~ oholmiluooilliiilm IliVlliuill"nlllu"uuilhuilinliioiililiioiulllaHUdliilinllnlilllmuudiiilililliiildidouuiiliiluilllfiilllilfn"uuidu"noill~lmllaa m. n~luliTim il~lli L•.1~~. , } I:.. iu'~rv l/4 SEi/4 SECTION 3 T2S RIW W.M. 2S IJ~ 3D6 si,-,,, EXHIBITCMAPI4 ' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON r,;.,;°~:;;•. SCALE I"= 100' :;..r,i,n.ny:.v'•i bb.;..,. t JI~~, is~~,. CENIEP 8 GECiiGN SEE MAP ~ °se 5 T"<5 RiW 2$ I 34C w(Gi[PLY GW CGPNER k~ 41Nr1 Alx Y°°N' xo.u E. xiGxux SEE Ma{~' S.Y1G FONNER ROAD - oa. xP.m zs I Sao f..~ A 9500e' ~~eo.e 890D BB00'Ne ••8700; 8600 _ BSODnw / 23 - 78 I ~ 090D BD 81 90 '~I xe. fi423 A "6' , 8r r§6 87 - 88 69 ,,4 Y ' b9600 y 9300_ r ex v n,e ,rr. A 'd u,e 7700 °KKaw,x+ox xro,a+u°R,.°y ~ ~ 79 ~ i1 , ez q ~'m ,s pRGEN CT; ~ rRPCr~ ( j/ 7 ° k n f- 85 ' e ° Y,R x 92 „m e~,a ~~S ~1o1ao'' Sa ~ ex N ~='r ~ s1oD ezao R' , br 970D ~ 0= ? , 92~ Ye'D 408000 3 SEE MAP C) 74 R ,N ae•° Iwo 83 9100 ~ 94 93 •~~p a~x 25 I 30A ~n 95 S . _ C b ' `9800 76 94 ~ , , 7201 8. r ~i. ° b 7900'6 ,+e ~ . N 77 ` N n rae ,,.x 9s 7300 a ray s7 . -1 lozao a~,°,wp a 4,,P µB -1 „r .~a ~ _ ~ 23-74 ~ LL, b 2 rJ~S 4 v~•N „ ~4°WACeRG ePA 5 , T" " ENE ax ' m~ a 7eoo a ~ i\1 r : q ~ G , uooo % ^ 7100" L R 1030D2 sap ~ R'w , 10900 B6 ~ ~ J 7400 ry ~ 1 56 e ' v, v"i4" °I B00 " 67 ~ ~0 s 59 ^ V x ° 0 NI00 4 ti' e4 n, ~ a „,a.++ w roroo's BB 1RM:T^.r' `w°3~A .eR , a,~ ~ r ''7000 ' I „ x4 r,. W. :7 P ABBAe p•^9 L^ y S , R° ; ~YOs m °0 7600 55.esnxty q„ n°. e; 10800 < , es wrw. „ a, ~ t~ ,{~x4 a •"b °•s~t. ; 61 7500 6900 ran 10500 g 63 o'p0 's 11200 i ~ ,,,e i('0(rj~J 54 ....500 LLI % ,d d?'y63pp 5~ ~°u V °e 0 S. b': ixinax L~ •g10400 70 'Pr ~ 65 RB~+ a e+ m'on S s 6800°+ IP~g LI pp ~ , sr * 23 6210 " , PGA w ~ p ae `1°~• n ar. 71 d}4 ' ~ ~ S• ',d m 53 600 86 g9 SW, TERRACE °e{"` ,,+°y~°4•~ 0 ° e 2a ''•.u3DO t 11500 ,a 55DO yam, - - - - TRAILSDRNE E2 4, m w 62 ,s:esmYR Pa ~'u q 2 rwt ' 44 9 ea ;14m a ;4 rxnn's - .'xs°" • .i , PARK qST , 6 fig0 d- " 63 ~ - ac 6sa y."Sono - s4eo 3 roo s, r lP ° wo°N'i~ q8 'Aa 3 - .e,4+~' I 1600, 21 °i (y p 25 •&,r MY., ~ b L, 51 SEE MAP ~ °L.- 4 .d 9 i 6000 m,,o• ~ 5A0 - 5300 0 ~NVw~a x. oi00 r ~ 4''1900 c. a><o y a , eo soo ° 1\/~ ~ r u 13[A - "y 5500 - s \ ~ ~ f, r~ - G6 12 F 1700 ~ 26 '0. 0 29 Q \`C f 4900 4 8 `.y' \ r •11 s t ` 922° R:44 za r o ~~ae ~ Ass AC w r , r 1 G~ 1~~1 I V b ~ n ~ }r ~ JP~ v s xee. ~.e ~ ~r~ f~ f1 e+ / 0'+6700 l~ P'P 49 900x ° Z i' C> e n c 1600 27r ~l r A ~ 6 5 W _ l4 n'~ s ~ (J ~ ,°A 4100 q rRa:r F' O• > b I6 C' ~ y 39 ~6 .5100 00 Q °~'0 r/. c ° 15004e8 4 ~d ~tr us° , ZO q- ~ orcx vacs 1000 MIRA q COU~Y~, 2100 55 ,~e2 •`x BS ,N•r x ES1S ~ ~ L n<w 6 9 GEN ~ 4°" ,4000 " 42ao ° v . g` IS y,a - j4 x Gs,^ °o T0."r,~ iD ~ ~ q ~ m `A00 ° ILS nR. 129101 2200 0~, ~ ~ 33~ q >0 9 Iloo ' 'x F 97 8 7 i0R ASSESSMENT q +rY' '26C0 IB F a xxx 4cc 3200 ;0." 31 A S 39W 8 ~ ~ PUrrU5F5 ONLY 4 2400 c $ l1~T° 6 R R n i ~ '0 37 q 41 a D B 'G 'rc • « 00 NOT flELY ON t '7 r xxo, ~{y ac y34pp r m~,xk e1i~ ~ 1200 p FOR 4NY OTHER USE 1 - ' 16 V ' A y b c 3100 aA 9^ 32 ym " ° °'p 44Nn a e, 46 B € - 3 E 5 z7oo e' C~ L•, F 7 ° v 3600 ~ m - vi . 9 q F„ 4z 4• 1300 a 3 'bn 35W .a~ 36 ey r a ~ 3000 ~ m ,a,• " exn mm y E d .~7` 2800 2900 r, 2600 x33 0 b,e 40„ ryi 4670 r 45 2500 e k S b C C 3600 3700 8 R s9 xer 9 5 6 ,p 43 44 1400 xr.e • 13 _ I 2 30 35 IO S' Ujxe.. n` h " ~nre_ w~rcr xxrer o•x. Re M ~ wlrlaLa .b'erx _M.. a° . .W .Rl.er a R'w ~F \ len•n Re ♦ mu 6 r, l \ r ~ / I \ r ,Pe\ / _r~.., X J J J v 1/ r' r> 1 n>a~ r. ~ 1 f~ J 1~ J 1 rl ~ 1 f~ r 1 i I 1 r~ ISEE MAP / Yf'-\1 r11'~rr1\~r ~ 2S I 3DC ,'-\Cf~r ~ r RCS rJUrZT ~ ~1 _r 1\~ , TIGARD ,r:z,9,.aoendelhm6 _ _ 2S I__3D8 Walnut hhNd Mnaxalbn ~\l. _ _ 14 °178 08/21196 ; rll I~pp~p~l tIINI1Va1V I l i f i ~I°~p I !~I i I I t p i I ilt(t~mj¶lt I tVlpll~~ I t i I~ ql I i I q~l J I Ili . 1 1 1 1 1 4 I(Ipllh ~ ~ _ 1, ~ rox- .r.. _ a~+s'~ twAkd+r~ -wxE % r~ CG l 'L uliiiiuidiiuuhlioi1liiVi ~uumile`mdiuiuiViuiulauiihlimdiul~iuumluuuu~Ilidi'alildllilifiliaaiuiVT~iiuiliiululiiu dfu n '~pl. nollnfiu uVl f`' • _ ~ r} JtCIIU~ 4 T"Lti RIW W.M. ~ 14 WASHINTON CGUNTY OREGON 91NDEX . SCALE I'a4oo' EXHIBITCMAPI5 SEE MAP SEE MAP 32 33 SEE MAP SEE MAP IS 133DC IS i 33D 33 34 xoa, I,I , / I6 133C 19 133CD . ~ / a I sw. Siaf 5 4 0 `k 3 SEE MAP - e wQ a _ y 25 1 48A r.~ 3 `gyp H`l WLL,S PL c3 SxREE1 ~ _ SEE MAP SEE MAP '"a„xy r. a; 29 14AB 251 4AA /v SEE MdP - 251 4B6 _ ~ F SEE MAP ` • ~ ~ a 251 56 ~e"i ~ SEE MAP M B~ / I E x s. 291 30 ~ 3 3 s" FNN033~/ sl ~ ~ yl ai SEE M0.P Rv~ -.1 29 I OAC / p RvN E ~ SEE MAP FERN SEE MAP 26 14BD 25 1480 ~ SEE M4P 25 I SEE MAP I SEE MAP I 25 I 5 ~ a 291 3Cd ~ _ ~ _ 6J0 ~ - 700 .v.. . I 600 i ie.. a«. I I I I II I I~ 1 23-78 - ~ - 500 502 501, 23 78 _ ai SDiv. . ~iTM--, ~ P, axa Ir .'Y" S:. I 90C 11000 IIDO hc~' IomO. a0. j ..we. ewe. •`~,NVIEMf tGp0. I BE I ~ G,i nC;;^_~ I z~' SEE MAP ~ 29 14DC 1ie~' / SEE MAP 2374 Ir 374 _ ~2 i 2S! 3CC o u / FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY, 00 NOT RELY ON 5 4 3 FOR ANY OTHER USE, F B , ~ ~ I .I SEE MAP SEE MAP SEE MAP I TIGARD 25 I 9 25 19A 2S 19AA ~ IN DEX 2127181 ~ Apanda IMm 6 WaInW IWntl AnnaxelMn -1d\\ r~ c 15a11B 'j ~JI 2 S I 1 I 08/21196 l ; ~ , fp4lpUpf q~l~igi{ I I I I i 111i~t I~~I I I ihl(~~~ ~ Ip, Iip a IUpII)mp i gq~l~~lllll I IplU~fll~ll I ~IIUII! ~Iqi I I III II fl I III(if ~I1nl 1 f tn~ x xw,,q..! A~aa,Aav .AJ~r~ ~ Cj Illolliuluulioliill$ihm ~i~luuliiilldiluuuudi6iiiiliuiGulpoiudi~luluilmifnllmiVmmidiuiunhiirfiiluuou6omuihuaiiiilimlllllilloidrilFi n ~i$Imi nu ~I~iInIm101io11f ENNIBIT C MAP 16 r 5t I/4 Nt i/4 Jtl. i IUIV 4' I Lv n l'r7 n.nl. ' WASHINGTON COONTY OREGON SCALEI"~100~ - 3~'x`".m SEE MAP - b 2300 25 I 4aA b S0 Im.» >•e~4 zaol ^zzoo . A~ SW 1271hAVE. .<e Rr 2egD0 49 ~-I~ 2 ICSN9tt}001 •YaY~ 9 U ^2100 A Q tl / 4 2500" C9 2200 .534. ^ea m.^ ^ I ~ x. o. ttm. t)9 dr 2000; ~g v5x:4 t° 1\ 97 a ^100 m m . a„yya..... xe [ r s. [ e300 y900 ut 9r 2 IQ 1900p0 = 12 ^~i II J Gs07 ~8 8200°m ,'SN ~ 9501 !na a6 ~ ~ ~ aaa~. 2601 N 13 B9r. 10 ~ ~»'W IO 1800 m b 9s Wis. SIM MARIE CT. ~ 7~ b ~ as 2600 1700m ° 900 m r~ ° <PA< 9C 18 G BOOr 5 ~ ' i 1'101 y~ ~ TI °ae5 I600m 9 gI000o 7 :I 6 / i~[9[ei LL~ 5 I ..a xr 43 ti 2900 2700 ISOO t`° - .1100° 1207" '1700 c•A 1900 SEE M4P 92 ~1° N 9 a~ 3 2 p'4 I 25 14AC 1°. I >r 'r x~a~aa a~ta+~Cl•YWf r(xJia aaY S: W r 6° x<'x°, 9,9 ayal~All-N U7 _ _ p T our ~lu"9:x9 - ~ y ~ 3000 ~m I 3400 '35001 I I y r,',. .1TRr. 13901 ,FTRr ~ I P9R[. ~T<r JPRC. I I.PSRr h I ~ -,.A ~T „l<.' - ~ I I B ~Or3 I I ~ 3E MAa I I I • I° I I ,,96 ~ n 3504 I ' 3505 .sP9r. I ' 8 . I ~ Psar - I °1`---~ ~ ~ 23 ~7~ z=7Rr 3101 ~ I e I 3502 ~Y90~ "I Ili ^ 1 3501 1 lc 19.6791 ~ I t5/ er. \ _ wa 3100' I I ~ _ . x.PBRr. I + _ FOfi A66ESSA!EI:~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~i PJFP06E5 01: L1, I 'I DO NOT RELY OI; ~ FOF AtiT OTHEF U6E. L L • a ~ _ ~L 4 I ° Ic, ei51 - _ . . . _ sxx rx SEE IA4P \ 29 I 4 pygltle llem 6-',. _ T I G AR D WoInN IebM Anne9elb9 ~ U°~ 189110 xo 2S I 4A 08/21/96 91!!Illflll IIU!Ilpp 1 1 1 y~i t IpII I I I I I Il ll I 'IIII I~tp I I I I ql I I I I I I lu I I Ill~~x ~ CE'? MION ~ xWe . 7~4D~,~ ~ ~~1, , 'L~~ uliuluihinuidiuilliln d 111u iWlilunlufiiilihiiiai~i~lmilallioi O'luta`idu 1~iliuliid1u11iidli 1liduhlidlil iilViu~11 tl~ 1u1 II 1161 ~-rte' ~r , ,i 2S I IOAB NW I/4 NE I/4 SECTION 10 T2S R I W W.M. WASHINGTON COUNTY OflEGON EXHIBRCMAPI7 SCALE I"=100' W SEE MAP ~ 251300 1 Nn> I 1~ a x ' ; STREET 9 .;,ZS;y,I: ...~.....6A,4RBE.•• fro t.6 2225 ,..~a ,~uw ~ 1500 1400 n ro 100 ;n• 39AFr~ ~ PSA^ -.`JK';:, Z ..~At. i l.97Ar. it I 333AF W •7, / R > s _ ~I i 2 Ifi' ~ ~ p I .RI j: 8FL' ~ R I 1 i ~tl »x z3-~a~ R R9 ~,r R • 3 RI \ IKIiIAL POM1 Ixo M...." I ~p ° R # ' 1300 ' x •g q00 200 IT00 .IBA.. f32 AG• ft. Ar. ~ R.g7 ac 3s a. ~ W SEE MAP 17 1200 - Z / 4•'l C~ ./B At W • ' ♦T ~e.a] Wyk. 36N 0 _ _ _ 1600 1100 ~ b~'a ' \a gar AC. 3500 &q - _ _ R.fs ac. .2J ac R, °A^ .zBa: A 5 SEE MAP R f' fi 3Jg0DZ~ - laoo - / / 25 I IOfiA $ t .Y3 ar. 23-74 3200 .„x 1900 900 \ _r ) ) / Q' R.93AF R 3100 R.f6 A.^, i, .23 A:. ~ !`1 1 ~ r1 J I~ J•1 `1 1~ b~~ B ~ JBa. 6 C ~ / 15 ~ '9 600 ~ " 2 ~ A R .z3 at ~~iPW ~,°ao a I zsao sooo 200o Too _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ / ~ it A: ~ .4i AC R.46 A.^ .zJ At. p I S 9 14 T l e 8 ~ ~ / . 9 .r t 2600 2100 ~ a~. 2202 waH / r ~ I ` r^ \ / 'P} R .reae. _ I,cx.~ 3 1327x[ u S R 6: 22001e R 'J .rear. ~ ~ I s / 00~ S ob w on _ _ er zzal =3 4 2600 ~ - - - I»' ' ~ g ~ .33AC. ,'fn ~ FOR ASSESSMENT „.9r At A 2300 % I :R' ,p+y PUAP05E5 ONLY R 12 y..i3Ae, '~„I 8$ ~ b - _ _k. a-y 7 00 NOT RELY ON 9 SI xq„ PbW' / FOR ANY OTHER USE ~'-xei en.v yp.., ~ „nt a/era'a'r fr,M• /ax'xh.Y ~ W n, ~ 2500 I ~ a•+Ir # a R.Brat. 5 ``E,y~ A Nl x veal S /Ve N I b f~ is a ~ i 7, / 7~ r x „fix, a i SEE MAP ~ zs I wac TIGARD 2RT1B4•Apende llem8 w4mmolaldAB~4mn4o ` X61 - 2S I IOAB 770176 08/21/96 - rlllq}I 1!i ILIIIlIlR 1 r r p I I r 11 qpr r~ipp ~ yrp r I~r~ll t ~I p~t,It rr i iI! r;lppp r ~p IUpU I r r~ilhl~ i I~~~r~~l '7 ~ ` ` Ilan nnlinl liiiliul 11i1 n ilho until inhi~i mtlinl ~liiu du'lul uu~i /all m in ilEl miluu nidiin iidlm afdiomiolT luilliil minil n~i9'm nn nl I ndlinr I i~il~ Iln a ml nNdihl . _ NEI/4 NW I/4 SECTION 10T2S RIW W.M: awsdcMaP~a 2S I IOBA WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON SEE MAP $CALE I°=100 SEE MAP ' 25 13C0 25 13CD ° ! W mnxu s' _ T T T, -.1GAARDE T r,«, ~ T T STREET e4..a.~ T` S.W. GR 411 ~ _ +Ie I ,>.ea 2Y9AC. ~ ~ = .31AC. /.94AL. n.3JAG .IJAG n .J3AG ~ 9.91AC ' _ I - I _ I r ' v r ° _ ..n I - ~ ~P " ~ i _:,9LAG _ .3lAL. _ ~ ~.ILAL' _ I• _ I le etn J SEE MAP I I . - - - - ~ n: ' S 3: 2S I IOBB I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~~^J~ R:'.,PIAL ° i" e ; P6AL a s. r 1°0 i 2YSAG - ~ 238 1.6PAG I +d r ~ ~,$.33AC. _ n .JSAL I .9LAG ~ .SSAC. _ _ - ip® 700 I _ .33AC. _ .35AC. ul.n ! ~ d ° ~ 'ran nn SEE MAF i.if. -RIN lio' IIO. Ile Ile - .....Ilf...• n Iw lie INRWL 401M1`T n'di c+ ~ 29 I 10l. e 6200 rc x. 6100 6000 5900 4301 4200 4100 4000 3900'6 3700 3600 3500 3900 TRACE ~C~ 45 99 %P nax 22 23 29 - 25 - 26 26 29 30 43 - G2 gg03 ` h ° 3600 w 6300 ° 4 ~j Ti ~1 J J 1111 •+•'3300 ~ sk nn „u „ ~ sr , 24 ~1.OUD - as s00G y~-„.m. a Tnncr'n+ •V0 31 '~j. ~iF,, S.W. 's !'AcFARL"AND + CpG.,+ ° ep Y: r + v 5' o - 2900+° '4h 6400 a~ y~J 7400 7500 C\I ~ 4401 4500 4600 9700 4~ ~ { d. • 1"3200 6EE MAP 25 I IOBB ~ 4800 y° 2800 '1 _ ~ ^ 4900 36 59 60 _ 21 20 19 - IB + w 2. 35 1+'+ ° 32 ° ~ " I 17 °y ssoD 1 rl J I_ ~ ° 48 °An 9E ~ `7300 n.~ 4500 2700 Iv,le n+.n R R 7200uv 71001772, Ire 5500 + Q1 37 ; 3000 3100 _ SBDI 5700 _ _l. _ I6 c 6600 ^ 59 8 -t~~' S 5600 'J 10 "rr5400 m 10'1i 34 _ 33 € 57 56 _ T B ~ n 2600 49 _ j 4402 II ze D • 'L'n } {r 9 38 5000 O 6 d - ~ n u 6700'° S.W. ~ n W~l~ w A + 5300 - 15 k'p n~ ° 25000E SEE MAP 6800 6900 ue 7000 OQ A"n ~0 251 IOBD B A J 5200 _ 39 so ' Iz WA$NINCTON CDUN47 51000+ DEPAATMfNTOF 51 52 ~ _ FQESfSB~iSdSNxA7A0flPOSE:~ ONLY. j ^+5 13 - 10i DO N(~ y I~ FOP ANt 0 e>• Ot>•'!1zn t - 19 2400 C ER USE. ~oqp x°.01 d, ea ° ° FOA ASSESSMENT PUAPOSEB n)A+.- Ove: g, A'4n a i+ ~ ° 40 = ON'Y•OONOT AELY OM FOA OTHEA V6E 9EE MAP STREET A r 2 25110BC 9EE MAP TI++GARD 2l2291•AgeiWa pa°m8 2511080 I , 2J I IDB/ - Walnul le4n4Mmz 9nn `l~' 19 °119 ~ 08/21/96 IUIIIII~1!I IIII Illllgl . I. I t r tIItII~ I ~~rtle~i~~ t rll ly!II pl~lll t tlll!JI>I~II~t t gllpp I glpp gtlt ~I gtpiul t I tp -p~ ~ ~~1 - - - ulmluullnlliuliiiiilil`~ul~mmlauiuouli~lililolhinVulliiiln(h111~Iliillnluaml~llilllillnllfiuuilluiliulliuulilVulnililliulilliiuuul~uluillnul~~llnlm dlpl lfn lu El~illill •~~3 I(' _ ai I, , - - -r I ~ 2S I IOBB NWl/4 NW I/4 JtC'I IUN IU 'f'25 RIW W. M. - _ ~ WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON scALE I"= 1GO' r EXHIBIT C MAP 19 4 3 SEE MAP w°, „ ss 25 13CC - - - a S. W. GAARDE~ ` `.''°STRE6T''YT e - - - ro vw~ra m >r visa - o.o ouivi - - - - .~-ssru'v-no ° I no.n I 81 , 600 .I nsenc. :I of .I so.w x t C 3 78 2 A ~ • -74 - 23 - mq ass ,dn - SCE M0.P WTinL isi °ur _ sins w r- ass m 2D 19A vBwT BW B00 700 500 8 B 1000 eoa ~ € ~ ~c Ifi 17 IS 5~ MAP \ 25 I IOBA IS r1 J~/~ TR~0. ws soo 2300 y ~a w < w DUCHILLY xCOURT - z3 R' x S.W :4 ~ 1200 1300 1900 K 2 2200 3S II 19 - 13 12 ~ r >:I i\\ ~ J - z2 U' r~ rl rl f~ 1500 J ew.w ~s~10 J 2100 x Ip w .q IBDO 1700 1600 ~ X Q - 21 d: 9 1900 T B 2000 Ly A~' B 20 7. fi °,d +p~ ,,1 a` S.W< CURYLUSxCOURT S•Y,~ FDR ASSESSMEM PURPOSES ONLY. 1„ DO NOT PELY ON ~ y~w FOR AM' OTHEfl USE. K W JW 6 N ~ Q W = F SEE MAP 3 TIGARQ xs 1 aec u, ' 2S I IOBB 2naiBa-ABnaa Ilam e WeInW IdIrA Mne~Mbn 1B aI1B .,1 08121/96 Ip 1, ll~l1 llll!IlNlll ! I I I I I I ~ l l l IIIU I!I II II ~ III p I rIgIU Ipl l 1111111 IU I IU I I I I I. I III , I(In 41~ Cfr; - ' ' ohm uiiVio iiiliil iuifi'G ~'6ul "Ghil mIGIM Ilufilli o iliio mlilil ilal~i ludill im Ilil lihio II VIA I ~liiil d dllii li1hu IuIV'~ piVi"I fidf li md~il ni~tn lfm Illu l 1, I Th n 11 l l III iV~ G:, >.~r. &-`7 MEMOR Dum CITY OF TIGAR®, OREGON TO: Patrick J. Reilly, City .Administrater FROK: Catherine ,D. Wheatley, City Recorsce~ J BATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT:- Interim mayor Fetters of Interest Attached are two letters of interest for the Council-appointed position of Interim mayor: Mr. Jack Schwab Mr. Michael Brewin Both candidates were sent letters of acknowledgement and were advised of the tentative plans by Council to select an appointee during the week of February 28. Attachments X14.94 w 1/31/94 helping people make educated financial decisions" Kathy Wheatley City Recorder City of Tigard 13125.S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard; OR 97223 - Dear Kathy: Please consider me a candidate for appointment as interim Mayor of the City of Tigard. I have prior Council experience having served as interim Council member from October, 1991 through March, 1992. T- then served 18 months as a member of the Planning Commission. I believe I have a good layman's knowledge of the issues confronting the City. I also know and have worked with most all the City staff members that would be reporting to the Council. Finally, I know each member of the. existing Council and would welcome the opportunity to work with them. As Director of Community Relations for Pearson Financial Group my goal is to help make Tigard a better and more self sufficient place to live and work. I would like to be a catalyst for betterment. I believe I can further those goals by serving as Mayor during this period of transition. While two members of the Council are campaigning for Mayor and two positions are open, it is important to have a non-partisan Council leader with no agenda to promote except the smooth processing of City business. Therefore, please accept this application for appointment as interim Mayor with the following understanding: 1. I would be available for only the short term appointment up through the May election; 2 . Ihave no intention of running to f i l l the remaining term to the end of 1994 or for the full term starting in 1995; 3. I have no intention of running for either of the open Council positions. 4. I will not endorse any candidate for any position. I am not sure of the schedule for selection of an interim Mayor but I would encourage you to act quickly. If appointed I would need some lead time to rearrange my schedule and do some homework on current city issues. S' ely, a n Schwab The Lincoln Building in Lincoln Center C _Rf 10250 SW Greenburg Road, Suite 120 • Portland, OR 97223 503.245.5220 Z I2 securities offered through Royal Alliance Associates. Inc. Member NASD 8 Sill ` r MICHAEL BR IN 9955 SST Kable St., Tigard, OR 97224 Tel/Fax (503) 639-5016 Feb. 8,1994 Bear Tigard City Councilors: I am writing to apply to serve as interim mayor in order to facilitate the transitional period (beginning with the effective date of Mayor Edwards' resignation and before the newly- elected mayor's term commences). There are a number of factors entailed in my decision to offer you my assistance during this period. Smooth and effective governance needs to proceed without any glitches during the weeks involved. My background and professional training incorporate government policy-making, the direction of meetings (using established procedures), mediation techniques, and high- level budgeting. I am also well familiar with the exisiting concerns and issues affecting our city. Furthermore, I have a working knowledge of the various municipal departments, their functions, and most of the city's personnel who work with the councilors. In the past, I have also studied the city's annual budgets and minutes of council meetings, a number of which I have personally attended. . Presently, I am volunteering as a CIT facilitator, serving on other area boards, and teaching Oregon history and US history at local community colleges. [My resume is enclosed for your review.] I believe that it is imperative and highly symbolic that you appoint someone who is jiQt from the usual circle of acquaintances who seem to regularly -rotate in and out of various appointed committee and council positions. Historically, this has naturally created the impression among our citizenry that they are being shut out from civic participation and that our appointed L city officials do not necessarily reflect the corresponding broad spectrum of views, experiences, or skills which would be expected of a city government ostensibly representing tens of thousands of residents and property owners. This concern is legitimate and well-founded in recent and past civic history. OM ANN& ago& Accordingly, I think it would behoove the city council to appoint someone in this brief period who represents our citizens' concerns about ethics, selfless public service, efficiency, and the kind of public policy-making which is inclusive (rather than exclusive) of broad-based citizen and neighborhood concerns. As a descendant of Patrick Henry and of George Washington's family, I am a firm believer in participatory democracy. Therefore, I personally do not care if that person chosen happens to be me; however, I strongly urge you to take this opportunity to make this temporary appointment reflective of the council's goodwill toward our citizens, and thereby help to heal the damaged trust and covenant between our city government and the citizens it serves. Thank you for your kind consideration. Best Wishes, Michael Brewin ,r i' FMM MICHAEL K. REWIN 9955 SW ICable, Tigard, OR 97224 * Tele/p«x: (503) 639-5016 PROFESSIONAL SKILLS * DIRECTING * BUDGETING * PUBLIC SPEAIGNG * NETWORKING * TEACHING/TRAINING * PRODUCING * RESEARCHING * COMPOSING * EDITING * ANALYZING * COMPUTING * MEDIATING * COUNSELLING * MOTIVATING * ADVISING * - * MULTI-MEDIA AND TECHNICAL CONSULTING EDUCATION M.A., Portland State University, (3.9 cum. G.P.A.). President's Award. Post-Graduate Oregon Teaching Certificate, Secondary Education, Social Studies, Portland State University. Scored in top 1°i on required CBEST exam. B.S., Portland State University. Senior G.P.A. Academic Award. Attended Wesleyan University, Connecticut. Professional Certificate, Snyder Business College, California. Graduated from SL Stephen's School, Rome, Italy: National Merit Scholar Commendation. dub Attended Ecole Internationale de Bruxelles, Belgium. zC MICHAEL. K. REWIN EXPERIENCE INSTRUCTOR - Portland Community College and Clackamas Community College. Taught U.S. History and Oregon History (including fee economy, govt. policies/issues, urbanization, sociology, natural resource mgt, public utilities history, etc.) to classes of college students, including lectures, audio•visuai programming, term projects, exams/grades, and student counseling. FACILITATOR - City of Tigard. Appointed eo program, conduct, and mediate monthly citizen meetings of area residents and businesses, assisting groups to reach consensus and make recommendations on such issues as growth management, public services, transportation, business climate, etc.; cooperated effectively with city agencies and staff. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JAZZ SOCIETY OF OREGON. Elected to serve Oregon's large jazz and blues community by planning and budgeting, live music events, developing new cultu_9al pragrams, offering music scholarships, and otherwise promoting Ameeces music and virtuoso musicians. COMMISSIONER ELE47 T - Tigard Water District. ELECTED . overwhelmingly (in a contested election) by the CITIZENS of Tigard, Ki Cit_„y. Durham, and unincor orated Washington County to direct the area°s water district (with a $6 million annual budget) . (prevented from serving area residents by local Tigard politics before tal ing office in 1443.1 PUBLIC RELATIONS, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, EVENTS PRODUCER - Portland. R Designed the overall plan for six major 1993 food drives for the Portland tri-county area, including promotional campaign and materials, logistical strategies, volunteer procedures and recruitii-cernt, educational presentations in schools, media and community relations, multiple timelines, special events, staff training for implementation, records and communications restructuring for efficiency, fine tuning, ebc. (Food Drive #1 involved 300 volunteers and over 50 businesses.) STATE SENATE CANDIDATE - Tigard, Durhacm, IGng City, Washington County, Beaverton, Raleigh Hills. Personally organized a grass-roots political campaign, raised funds, designed promotional materials, wrote press releases, coordinated) volunteers, and made public and televised speeches/presentations on major current issues facing Oregon. Received agyore than 20 -r votes it, one of Oregods closest senate races, and more votes per actual dollar spent than any other senate candidate in Oregon. "The Honest Onee efficiency ,ethics; govt reform; balanced environment/prosperity; comprehensive resource planning in conjunction with county and local govta. '%rewin has much to offer. Though he has never held an elective office, he has a keen knowledge of )sow government works and scholarly notions of how the democratic process could work better." - . re onian Editorial "This is just about" close, I guess, as an Oregon legislative candidate might ever get to being God:' - Jonathan Nicholas, Orenian e MICHAEL K. BRE IN TEACHER - Summer Session, Lincoln High School, Portland. Taught Economics and Government, featuring in-depth studies correlating Oregon's economy with state, county, and municipal government policies. Taught an accelerated U.S. History course to a diverse class of students. Created and taught Global Studies. and generated all course materials. Counseled students. VISITING LECTURER - American Cultural History, Portland State University. Organized and presented a study of innovations within a cultural, historical context. Portland State Summer Session - Formulated and presented an encapsulated multicultural survey of American culture, from colonial era to present, for international college students. - STUDENT TEACHER - Lincoln High School, Portland Public Schools. Daily taught four sections of Economics and one section of I1snors US History. Provided academic and personal counseling. PRESIDENT and TREASURER - Board of Directors, Portland Student Services, Inc.. Recommended, approved, audited, and supervised the $4,100,000 annual budget for the non-profit corporation which administers housing in 15 buildings for 1,600 students attending Portland State University and the Oregon Health Sciences University. Responsible for corporate policies and planning, including construction r_f 190-unit apartment structure and parking facility, staffed referral and information center, rehabilitation of downtown apartment buildings, personnel matters (150 employees), food services, special events, and future development. live-wrote corporate bylaws. Worked on the housing aspect of Portland State University's 25- year urban development plan. [PSS, Inc. dealings with other agencies included the Housing Authority of Portland, Portland Development Commission, and the State System of Higher Education.] INSTRUCTOR - Portland State University, Music Department. Designed three new upper-division courses, including complete curriculum and materials. Taught History of American Mutsnc, History of jazz, and History of Blues and Rock. Appeared as commentator on NBC television affiliate KGW. TEACHING ASSISTANT - Portland State University, History Department. Multicultural course presentations, examinations, and audio-visual programming. Graded tests, exams, essays, and term papers, and compiled final grades. Provided academic counseling. Conducted research for publication. [Courses included 20th Century U.S, the 1920s, the 190s, the 1960s, and the Vietnam War.] JOURNALIST- Wrote weekly editorial columns and articles on economic, historical, cultural, social, and public policy topics for tEie y_ang0atd, Portland, OR. Researched and contributed articles about history, economics, and international relations for regional publications, including the Oregoajan. Worked as the News Editor of the Clackamas Caun News. Selected weekly topics for articles, wrote articles and editorials, took photographs, and edited news articles. MICHAEL K. BRE IN SPECIAL. EVENTS PRODUCERICONSUI.TANT - Portland State University. Produced more than 100 weekly concerts and special events with top regional and international musical artists (e.g. Chick Corea, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Kronos Quartet, Windham Hill artists, Bochinche, Obo Addy and Kukrudu, Mel Brown, David Friesen, Dan Reed Network, Nu Shooz, etc.). Trained and directed staff in all areas of marketing, programming, and concert production. Administered budget. Designed promotional and media materials. Developed and coordinated other special events and fund drives. Professionally advised PSU alumni affairs office, student organizations, and other university and community groups regarding events. Created Portland State Summer Program of outdoor concerts. U. S. CONGRESSIONAL. AIDE/INTERN - Third Congressional District, f°ortland. Researched scientific, educational, medical, and humanities grants, composed official correspondence, handled public inquiries, provided reports for Congressional committees, generated bulk mailings, assisted constituents and local organizations in dealing with federal agencies. MUSIC CONTRACTOR, LEADER, COMPOSER, TE kCHER - New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland. Performed on recordings, radio, television, or in concert with past/present musicians from these ensembles: Miles Davis Group, Harry Connick Jr. Trio, Wynton Marsalis, Heart, Quarterflash, Torn Grant Band, Mose Allison, Diana Ross Band, Steeiy Dan, John Lennon, Dave Brubeck Quintet, Jim Messina Band. Produced commercial spots and cable television videos. Conducted musicians and arranged music. Handled business transactions and public selation& Directed studio personnel and recording engineers. Performed at leading universities (e.g. Harvard, Wellesley, Smith, Conn. College, NYU, UCSB, Mt. Holyoke). Taught privately and at music schools. " Choirmaster. Proprietor, ROCK-N-ROSE Productions. "Brewin is a highly regarded jazz musician" Willamette Week "The best jazz around:.-the Michael Brewin Trio" Seattle Post-Intelligvencer BUSINESS PROGRAMMER- Santa Barbara. Designed and :maintained corporate accounting computer programs (a.r., a.p., g.l., cost control (by cost centers), inventory, etc.) for a high-tech company involved in high-security government laser research. HONORS/C fC' AC rWMES (regionally) United Nations Famine Relief Commendation; Master of Ceremonies, 4th of July, Waterfront Park, Portland; Northwest Folklife Festival Commendation; Portland State 40th Anniversary Committee; PSU Student Affairs Advisory Board; Smith Memorial Center Advisory Board; Conductor, PSU Alumni All-Star Orchestra; Bumbershoot Festival, Seattle; Phi Alpha Theta Honorary Society; PSS, Inc. Service Award; Alumni class secretary, St. Stephen's School (Rome, Italy); Certificate of Appreciation, Tigard Chamber of Commerce; Delegate, First Congressional District.