The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 07/19/1994 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON f. PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no cheat is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the bege'rinine.4 o? that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes 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. Business agenda items h In any order MWer Z.,, 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 530-4171, Ext 300 (voice) or 684-2772 (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 notifil the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, EXt 300 (voice) or 884-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 19, 199 3 - PAGE 1 e AGENDA 9:30 P.M. 1. STUDY MEET ING 1.1 Call to Order and Roll Gall 1.2 Council Communications/Ualson Deports 1.3 Call to Council and -Skaff for Non-Agenda Items Y EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under tho prcyrieions of CPS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactlor.a, current and pending litigation issuer. 3:00 p.m. 2. COUNCIL TRAINING SESSION - Property owner notification, oversizing polides, and off-site conditions - Community Development Code 13.32.120 and 130; 13.164.030, .090, .100, .120. 3. NET-AGENDA ITEMS 4. ADJOURNMENT 00719.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 19, 1994 - PACE 2 Elm Council Agenda Item ETING MINUTES ~ JETLY 19, 1994 • Heating was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz. 1 _ Council Present: Mayu.. i- .Yohn Schwartz ; Councilors ifendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, city Adiaxnistratbr, , Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, Tim Ramis; City Attorney; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorders and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY MEETING 2. EXECUTIVE .5E ;5ON: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (a), (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records and current and pending litigation issues. Council meeting recessed: 7:35 p.m. • Reception was held honoring Patrick J. Reilly for his service as City Administrator. Council meeting reconvened 5:15 p.m. 3. COUNCIL TRAINING SESSION • Development Code/Dolan Decision: Legal Counsel Ramis reviewed elements of the Development Code process linking his remarks to ramifications because of the Dolan decision. Mr. Ramis commented that: 1. The City can deny an application without running afoul of the "takings clause" as long as Code criteria are used as a basis for the decision. 2. A "rough proportionality" of impacts in relationship to the conditions required, in order to develop must exist. 2. The burden of proof on the satisfaction of "rough CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ° JULY 19, 1994 PAGE 1 111111111m, 111115101 la, 111~11 !ill ME i-- Firm s~ proportionality" falls to the City. The above comments should not mean a major impact to Oregon cities because the StvD.tals land use provisions are already based on data obtained through required studies. It will be critical, in the future, to be as clear as possible when advising the applicant what studies will be required. If clarity is :sacking as to which studies are required, then the government may have to provide the studies. Staff must clearly outline requirements for the applicant and then consistently enforce adherence to pxoce°lures. In response to a question from Mayor Schwartz, Mr. Ramis advised that the Code draws a distinction be-uween major and minor develapment applications. The requirements (i.e., extensiveness of studies) differ. Determination as to whethv-- the development is considered to be "major" or E'minor" is made by the Planning Director: this decision uan be appealed. Also, the City Engineer can also relieve the applicant from doing a study if it is determined that there will be no major impacts as a result of the development. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. rzanis advised that if the Dolans should wish to proceed with heir project, then the choice would be up to them as to which version of the Code would apply. For example, if the Dolans proceeded as if it was a remand, then the City would operate under the Code in place at the time of the original application. If a new application is filed, then the application would be processed under new code provisions. Mr. Ramis advised the legal staff has identified areas of the Code that need to be clarified with regard to what studies would be required for the development process. He advised these adjustments can be undertaken quickly. Mr. Ramis advised that following the proportionality rules should not be difficult, because the City, for the most part in the past, has done this. The Dolan decision does not change the ability for local government to require dedication for improvements of street construction. There is a built-in mcpecltation that the burden to build streets will be borne by a new development. With regard to requiring work in the floodplains and/or bikepaths to offset traffic impacts, the data should show the direct connection to the development. Engineering principles have been developed so that flooding impacts are easily identified. Principles for requiring bikepaths are a little less developed when trying to determine how many auto trips will be saved when building a bikepath. Mr. Ramis advised CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ° JULY 19, 1994 PAT 2 1, Sol IN Mill Naomi this could be done through development of a formula by qualified engineers. For example, for every person on bike or on foot, it creates an opportunity to put Boxcione in a car to make an auto trip. Again, the correlation between development impact and what is necessary should be sapecified~ The requirement should be to mitigate some Impact excused by a development; however, if another use is needed, fer the property, then the City should buy the property. -he City Attorney advised that Code guidelines exist which require the studies. The City must be consistent in 7requiring applicants to provide those studies. During discussion it was noted that the proceL4s 6hould be documented. For e?canf jn, if an applicant is willing to do something else ILi to of a required study which would better serve the situation, this should be very well documented in order to avoid a misunderstanding or problems later on. The City Engineer has the authority to waive the studies, but the method in which this is done should be precise. Councilor Rohlf advised he agreed it was important to establish and inssrt into the record what has been "traded," so a court can see what was traded. Impact to staff was discussed briefly (i.e., additional time to be spent on documenting procedures) was discussed briefly. Whether this element will significantly impact staff is not known at this time. There was discussion on whether or not the SACS for developme3:;. should be increased. City Attorney advised he did not advoc:cte this action at this time, but rather wait to see what the experience is with regard to the more careful ti documenting of the process. • Oversizing policy - City Engineer reviewed the current oversizing policy (see memorandum contained in the council packet dated July 12, 1994 from Randy Wooley and Dick Bewb7ersdorff to Pat Reilly.) There was discussion on what would be considered to be an oversized improvement for different areas, such as a water line, street improvements, sewer lines, and storm drainage. Different factors are looked at for what would be needed. Listed below are highlights of some of the comments wade during this discussion: - sometimes a fee in lieu of improvements is used to satisfy development criteria. JL1A°s are a tool used for improvements for later development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 19, 1994 - PAGE 3 Challenges to half-street improvements for more than one lane each direction in front of a development may occur more frequently (a development along Greenburg Road is appealing a decision requiring half-street improvements because Greenburg is a five lane road.) some areas are eligible for County Transportation Impact Fee funding (TIF). it is easier to justify oversizinq of "tree-11C. improvements for b:.g projects. For small projects, it 1,3 Important to show "rough proportionality.11 - There are fewer problems with oversizing disputes on sanitary sawers since USA has already built larger lines. Storm drainage oversizing policy has had problems in the past, but have lessened as the City, becomes more "built up." Storm drainage property in 100-year floodplain is required to be dedicated as greenway, or can be dedicated to a homeowner's association to maintain. mother option would be to dedicate an easement to meet drainage requirements. Property for greenway cannot be asked to be dedicated solely for recreational purposes, unless such use can be tied to development to mitigate impacts. In response to a question raised by Councilor Blunt, Mr. Basis advised that the attorney's office will review whether it would be possible to disallow any new septic tanks. • Undergrounding New Utilities Existing policy (established 1-1/2 years ago) was reviewed. The fallowing issues were noted: - Question: For smaller developments, does it make sense to require undergrounG.h'inCj utilities? - Sometimes, for smaller developments, a "fee in lieu" of putting in underground utilities is collected. - Council consensus was that both sides of a street should pay for undergrounding utilities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OTTLY 19, 1994 - PAGE 4 Council discussed collection methods for other infrastructure items and they need for consistency (i.e., Transportation Impact Fees [ TIC" ] , Systems Development Charges [ SDC . Utilities are unde3,rground.ad for safety and aesthetic reasons. A request was made, during summary comments, that staff review concerns expressed in a letter from Mr. Jim Nicol 9. . A request was made, during summary comments, that staff determine what dol.1 ors have been collected ("fee in lieu of"). How has this money been used; or, how can it be used? City Administrator advised policy decisions will come before Council as infill development occurs. Council discussed how to prepare for future decisions on oversizing issues. Mayer Schwartz recommended staff review options so that oversizing requirements would be eliminated. After discussion, staff was directed too » Prepare a proposed ordinance for Council consideration to address problems experienced with oversizingt i.e., procedural clarification, definition clarification, and recommended methodology. City Administrator, in summary, advised that staff will draft a policy to reflect what is now being done for water improvements to apply to other areas (where SDCs are used) as much as possible. Top priority: street improvements. Notice to Property Owners Senior Planner Hewersdorff reviewed the issue. (See memorandum in packet material). Council discussed pros and cons of increased notification area (beyond 250'') for notification of property owners on land use issues. Also discussed was a proposed methodology of issuing notice using the Geographic Information System (GIS). This proposal would notify residents as well as property owners. CITY 'COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ° JULY 19, 1994 PAGE 5 =I mil After discussion, the majority Council consensus was to direct staff to develop a proposal on land use notification to included the following elements: - If a development is large (i.e., over 100,000 square feet), then notification area vou.ld. be larger than the now-required 250 feat. - Develop criteria for a I;otification Policy addressing concerns which also include utilizing the GIS system to - notice property owners and residents. 4. NPN AGENDA a. Award to CITs: City AdmInistrator Reilly distributed a '"Best Overall Public Involvement Award for 199411 to the City of Tigard. This award was presented by Today`s a , a land use newsletter. b. Homeless Iesues: After review by City Administrator, Council agreed to hear a presentation from the Interfaith Outreach Program about the homeless situation in Tigard. It is anticipated it will be suggested that the City form a Task Force to study the issues which include: - a homeless camp on Hain Street - potential variance request to allow overnight sleeping at a work place - use of Lit-le Bull Mountain water facility to assist the homeless program c. Chamber of Commerce - Councilor Hunt noted concerns over whether the Chamber would be able to move to a proposed new location (corner of Bull Mountain Road and 99W, behind the Texaco Station) by the end of the year. City Administrator Reilly said the Chamber could ask for a Conditional Use Permit. Such a permit would be reviewed and approved by the Hearings officer. Council will be apprised of this decision and will have the opportunity to review and call up the decision if deemed necessary by a majority vote of Council. Councilor Hunt emphasized his concerns to assure traffic safety at the new location. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 19, 1994 - PAGE 6 d. Farewell - Mayor Schwartz and councilors noted their appreciation of Patrick J. Reilly during his tenure as City Administrator. 'Good Luck Pat!'l 4. ADJOURNMENT: 10:25 p.m, ~ Catherine Wheatley, City Rec der Attest Mayor ty of Tiga d Date: =0719.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINED -ES JULY 19, 1994 ~ PAGE 7 r, COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC . P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 7 9 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 199, Legal Notice Advert"Isng t .7 CI "Y Or PIGARO ®City of Tigard a 0 Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW gall Blvd. eTigard,Oregon 97223 13 Duplicate Affidavit r• 77 - , - falP~,fl kit >t~ zi~~ nt~~h €o:, 4 wraFa z~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, 9 a S: L , B ~~[3 VARb I tai %s, f as f t~ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as ~t udy IvY~36tt~ til Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising G 30 M . Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi gird-mttalatin m~ a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ° xe~u~~erc z a~> rA~~ a« ~ ("JEvf Fnctk .idt esftt xecutive and 193.020; published at Tigard In the! ~SZC~ ~ deg kite mv 3 .is eFORS *192 w (1`t `gtide ~ti)~ aforesaid county and state; that the (i~)~Y~~ ascu ~ ~~f ?~`s~1 t s;rte4 r ai Peop~Irty ?r t nano I,, City Council 5t sdy Mtq - ptlmc t~~ s aid c rn "s;t ~ iii z~ .r~ iitgaff .bu€Fpr~ issns' a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the A "raudcvidtiv ~3~~ entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and.. consecutive in the following issues: July 1 ,19 9 4 e . li iicyl ~raanlsi >Ses - rrt~ ~€y Q,; n4u 1~0t1 fic 79ufJP1s!t.juiy X4,1'94.' Subscribed and sworn to f re me this rod • -I i y,19 ~ OFF!CiAL SEAL RvE!N A. BURGESS 5... NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON Notary P lic for Oregon t l C"!Ihi;,; 10) N N0. 024552 I:;Y OO`:.i' 'F%.11 EXPIRES MAY16, 7997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT { NEK ORANDUX CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly FROM: Dick Bewersdorff DATE: March 9, 1994 SUBJECT: Property owner Notice Larry Westerman asked the Csty Corm ail to consider: (1) a 'Larger notification area for property owners for decisions and hearings and (2) ensuring notification of a more cur ent listing of property owners. )resent Notice Procedures The City presently notifies property owners of record within 250 feet of the boundary of a development project. This list of property owners is obtained from the most current tax lot list from the Washington County Assessor's Office. The list is usually updated every three or four months by the County but the period has baen longer. Section 18.32.150. C. of the Community Development Code states that a person whove name and address is not on file at the time the notice mailing list is prepared is'not entitled to notice. Other Cities Notice distances vary from city to city. Distances include 200 feet, 250 feet, 300 feet, etc. to as low as 100 feet for limited land use decisions and as high as 500 feet in rural areas. Increasing notice distances increases the cost of notification. We estimate that for public hearing notices, the cost increases about 50!~ for an increase of 50 feet and about 100% for an increase of 100 feet. For one example considered, the cost of notification for a public hearing at 250 feet was $21.54, at 300 feet $30.14 and at 350 feet it was $40.55. For Director°s decisions the cost of postage alone increases about 3 times. This is due to the cost of mailing the multiple wage decision. The notification distance is basically a policy decision. Increased distance would require a code amendment to be reviewed at hearings by both the Planning Commission and council. xr__ eCOf Notit cAtion We have no way to get Washington County to provide more current information. The County as well as other growth cities are h struggling with the came issue. ' The City Attorney's office indicates that the City should not notice property owners beyond the distannco established in the code without amendment to the code criteria. Arbitrary notice to anyone other than indicated by code could create grounds for legal challenge. Tigard could, however, increase the likelihood of reaching new home owners within 256 feet by establishing a linkage through the City GIS system. The attached &,-,no from :reels - Michaelson indicates haTv we rdoul d. propose to notify residents. Pleadd note that "residents" in the proposal applies only to single family lots not the "residents" of apartment complexes. Since this is an attempt to reach property owners currren -ly V.1thin 250 feet we believe a code amendment would not be required to Amglemennt the proposal. e commendastioxn . Staff suggests leaving the notification distance as is while implementing the procedure cutlined in the Michaelson memo. a - ,r MEMORANDUM CITY OF TI RD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff FROM: Nels Mickaelson DATE: March 10, 1994 SUBJECT: Memo To Council On Landusa Notification Process here is my part of the memo to o~juncil regarding changes in notification procedures. CURRE • 612THODOLO Y FOR NOTIFICA n 1®N • Manners use coRjnty assessor sups to determine parcels that are within 250 feet of proposed land use action. • Maps are given to the department secretary who selects given parcels using wrnputer permit tracking software that produces a list of rna?ling labels for selected property owners. • Labels are affixed to envelopes and notifications are mailed out. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT SYSTEM • Updates from county are received every three to for;r months so property owner information is of often out of date when kaWs ara created. Currently, there is no mechanism by which we can get more timely updates from the county. • Software used to produce mailing labels does not allow the production of labels for the "RESIDENT", only for the property owners. • Method for determining parcels which are within 250 ft. is time consuming. i ,r PROPOSED METHODOLOGY ` ® Planners give the department secretary parcel(s) on which land use action is taking place. 4 City Geographic information System (C IS) software is used to select parcels within 250 ft. of s ified parcel. Program is run through GiS which compares the site address of the parcel aglinst the listed property owner address. If the addresses match, then mailing hofti(s) are producaod for property owner(s). If the addresses don't match, then rnallhc g label(s) are produced for property owner(s) if listed and also for the "RES!DENT" at the site address of the parcel. ADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED METHODOLOGY w System --AL generate information. more accurately than the old method since it will not rely on property owner inform ation for addresses (which may be as much as three mariths out of date.) Mailing notices to t he "RESIDENT" will allow us to notify owners in new subdivisions where no property owner information is available for the parcel. System will be more efficient than the current manual method of selecting parcels since parcel selection YAII be performed by computer selection of parcels. COST TO IMPLEMENT SYSTEM • Implementing this systern Will require 30 to 40 hours of staff time to program sof*► and train support staff in the use of the software. r MIi'ti10RANDrUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: MFA Reilly FROM: Dandy Wooley and Dick. Bewersdorl'f DATE` Sulk; 12, 1:t`994 SUBJECT: Oversizing/Off a Policies summary WATE:R: Developers pay for the full cost of service up to and including 12 inch lines. For lines over 12 inches (transmission line) developers are reimbursed for the difference between the costs of installing a 12 inch line and the transmission line (normally 16 inches). Reimbursement comes from the Systems Development Charge (SDC) fund. STREETS: Developers pay for constructing all streets within the development and for improving abutting streets to City standards. (CDC 18.164.030). Half-street improvements are typical on abutting streets; however, additional improvements may be required if warranted by impacts of the development. On some projects, a waiver of remonstrance is accepted in lieu of improvements to abutting streets. Some improvements to collector and arterial streets are eligible for TIF credits; TIF credits are governed by County ordinance. The City does not collect a streets SDC. SANITARY SEWER: Develcopers build all sewer lines within the development and any sewer extensions necessary to connect the development to existing systems. (18-164.090). In addition, the developer is typically required to extend sewer lines to the uphill boundary of the development, so that lines can be extended in the future without disturbing the improvements in the development. The developer is required to build the lines to the size That will be needed when the basin is fully developed. The minimum line size is 8 inches. In Tigard, an 8" line is usualiy adequate to serve the fully-developed basin. Larger sewer lines are seldom needed. Formation of a reimbursement district is the only method currently available for a developer to receive a direct credit for surer line construction. USA rules allow a credit against future SDC in some cases for off site improvements shown in the USA master plan. E. i r Septic tanks are allowed In lieu of sawars when the development is more than 300 feet from an existing sewer and the lots are large ehough to meet County Health requirements. TORM DRAINGAGE: Developers Wild all stoma drainage facilities within the development. Developers must demonsinde that the development YAR not create any substantial increase in downstream faciiitles to accommodate the increased flows. (13.164.100). Like sanitary sewers, the developer is typically required to extend the storm drainage lines to the uphill boundary of the levelopment. The developer is required to build the lines to the size that will be ne<dc d when the basin is f•~ally developed. The minimum line size is 12 inches. Larger lines are sometimes re Ored. Formation of a reimbursement district is the only method currently available for a developer to rec viva a direct credit for storRn €fral aage ;rnprovemonts. USA rules allow a c dii a ge► St 'DC in sor°au uses for a il°a 3r era-fit c a ~:ff-:p ie :mprovernaaat3 that meet Certain a.^ritsiaa. In audition, the developer is required to construct a water quality treatment facility or pay a fee in lieu (USA requirement). 1.lRrfil3ERGROl. LADING: All new utilities are required to be underground. Existing overhead utilities (phone, power, cable TV) within a development or abutting the development dust be placed underground, except for certain high-voltage lines. (CDC 181.164.120). In some cases, a. fee is accepted in lieu of the actual undergrounding. dktA)V-OFF.POL III Ilk c.'-1 s a 6 ZA4 0--k i (4I~y e 1 e' ~ e InvOlveme'nt r. Awarded to 'el _ b Uffy -1-1 of gard ' For evaluating and re-organizing the land-use involvement program ;r which resulted in earlier and broader participation i. rnr~?unity decisions ` > r Presented by 8 ® aY s Facts, the land mse newsletter July 19, 1994 Michael Dolan, editor t • ,x J ~ e . n ~ ~ n IS ~ • r l' „t~ G ~ y~ S t t t s IRS! 1.12 Will Ill I OEM "MMIMIF III''! 'am, - t 112 NMI! 1 TODA YS rACTS Land-we arafra n for Me Clackagnay, M aptaa mA, Waski ngta n and Carle comamn ty ~ Best Public 1994 City of Tigard Tigard. city government, particularly the community development department, honestly examined its public involvement program and had the courage to revamp the way land-nose planning decisions are made. Public invelveamegnt has become a Wore imrortant part of each decision, not a cosmetic after thought. Developers now meet with Citizen Involvement 'rearms before applying for pen iM Consequently, various factions begin working on a decision with an oppottunity to reach early agreement rather than being forced to tale a yes-or-no position on are already designed project. The new process also includes broad and early notification, particularly the requirement for a sign at the site of a proposed development and a public mailing before a project is designed rather than after.0 THE ANNUAL PVBLIC 1NYOLVEMENT AWARDS FOR 1994 y 110111 "r 1Viewsfro Doles Com is °o, s Contact: Michael Dolan, 287-4876 Interview opportunity: Yep RELEASE: July 2Q, 1954 21 rd Earns Public Involvement Award Vgard's new Citizen Involvement T earns have helped the city earn an award for Best Public Involvement Pn gr um. The award mass announced Wednesday by Today -s Facts, a newsietter that covers lane'-use planning. The indvp radmt newsletter fellows public involvement activities of approximately 50 gone mnents and public agencies in Ma:ltnomah, Clackamas, Washington and Clam counties for planners, lawyers, public administrators, neighborhood associations and community leaders. Southeast Uplik a Portland neighborhood coalition, won the award for Most Effective Community Organization. The City of Beaverton. earned the award for Best Innovation for its recorded phone messages for Planning Commission meetings and Board of Design review meetings. Many government agencies, professional organizations, and community leaders are struggling with how to do public involvement right now, according to Michael Dolan, editor of the newsletter. "Today's Facts decided to celebrate its second full year of publication by honoring people who are doing a good job," he said. "They are examples of what can be accomplished." The Advisory Committee for the Annual Public Involvement Awards for 1334 was Karen Bjorklund, management consultant; Fred Stewart, realtor and neighborhood association president; Peter Fry, private land-use consultant; and Judith Woodward, an independent consultant who is executive director of the International Association of Public Participation Practitioners. - more - 510 SW 3rd Ave Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 287-a76 fax: 284-5015 Public Involvwwrit Awards Pages 2 Advisory committee members emphasized the need for public agencies to establish management methods that truly involve people in decisions rather than "jest having a public information programs' and to make snare involvement is "an important pant of their mission and not just a feel good political icing on an uninclusive cake." Today y-s Facts, which arrives by fax twice a month, includes insider reports and notices of all laced-usA plarming reetings in *ie Oregon tri-county area and key meetings in Clark County. The newsletter is published by Dolan Communications, a public affairs company that does public involvement work. Tlic team includes Kathleen Culligan and a Fran Caldwell, editors, Irene Ritter, designer, and Bill T gr, cempWter consultant. The following citations accompanied the awaxds: Best Pubic Involvement Program: Tigard. Tigard city government, particularly !he conanztmity development department, honestly examined its public involvement program and had the ce-arage to revamp the way land.-use planning decisions are, nude. Public involvement has become a. more important part of each decision, not. a cos8-netis after thought. Developers now meet with Citizen Involvement Teams before applying fair pennits. Consequently, various factions begirt working on a decision with ah oppomtmaitr to reach early ag ement rather than being forced to take a yes-or-no position on an already designed project. The new process also includes broa ; and early no#if ation, particalssly the requirement for a sign at the s ite of? lsrowp sed do volopment and a public: mailing before a project is d; sigacd -athe. amll after. Most Effective, ComyAunitty Organization: Southeast Uplift. The major recent accomplishment for this Portland neighborhood coalition has been broadening involvement in the area's comprehensive plan review. By advocating for more workshops and district forums, SE Uplift has consistently taken ley decisions from city hall and moved therm into the neighborhoods. The coalition stays on top of issues for its constiti-ats, frequently keeping residents and business owners werking together. The coalitiic:.. m the city's sometimes confusing system, has at times advocated for a particular position, but it has also put much effort into ensuring many points of view are in(Aude-d in land-awe planning decisions, whether the coalition supports with them or not. Best Innovation: Beaverton's recorded messages. A city with much land-use planning, Beaverton now allows people to call a telephone number to hear a recorded message on the agendas for the Planning Commission and the Design ReAew Board. While a recorded phone message does not guarantee involvement, this technique is a useful gateway to involvement. By calling the recorded messages, people can stay in touch with land-use planning issues and decide when to become involved. The customer service staff and the management staff are also consistently responsive to the wide range of people who contact the city, which invites broad public involvement. 510 SW 3rd Ave Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 287-4876 farm: 284-•5015 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator DATE: July 8, 1994 r SUBJE Preliminary Deport on Washington County/TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. Franchise Negotiations x Ths attached irttamiation will be discussed during ExscuWe Session at the July 19, 1994 Council ,besting. /jb attachment h:\4:rg1n\I®\pjr0708.1 Jog MAuL; 2 RA4NLrJ% U M DATE: June 28, 1994. JUN 2 a 1994 '10: hft. Pat Reilly, Tli Mr. Rob Drake, Beaverton Mayor FROM- Bruce Crest, Ada trator 7E: i'RE WINAR`I REPORT ON WASHNGTON COUNTY/TCI CAELEVISION OF OREGON, INC. FRA,haCFHSE NEGOTIATIONS We are happy to report that a. tentative cable TV franchise agreement (Agreement) has been reached between a.sIdngton County (County) and TCI CAblevision of Oregon, Inc. Gore co only known as TCI). This potent ally ends w7,.at has been one of the longest negotiation processes with which our office has ever been involved (the first negotiations meeting was held in February 1990). In these negotiations, MACC has. served as a technical advisor following the County's decision to hire their own cable consultant to lead thefr'team. In addition, MACC was also "at ffie table" representing the interests of the cities of Tigard and Beaverton, who have TCI subscribers within their corporate boundaries. What follows is soave historical background. on these negotiations, an over iewv of the County's apFtoval process, and a brief discussion of the issues facing Tigard and Beaverton. Once we have received a final draft of the orgRgsed~Franchise, we will -rovide each ci with a ftffi revort on this Drocess to share -with your Col-moil. BACKGROUND s TCI has provided cable service (previously as Liberty Cable) to areas of the unincorporated. Cosmty since the 1970s. In. 1979, prior ao the fo iation of MACC, a dispute arose b-aween the County and Liberty regarding the County's attempt to establish uniform franchising standards and the application of the standards to the area served by Liberty.* This dispute eventually went before the Federal District Court, Which issued a 15-year Consent Decree (Decree) allowing Liberty to operate within a court prescribed "service area" (see neap enclosed as Attachment 1) and enjoined the County from interfering with Liberty's operations, except for some rights spelled out in the Decree (the Decree contains language similar to a cable franchise). TCI continues to operate under that Decree, now serving approximately 15,000 subscribers. In 1988, the MACC. administrator, at the County's request, )pened preliminary discussions with the manager of M, about negotiating an actual modern cable franchise to replace the Decree. The intent was to use the franchising process as a method to MACC / Metropolitan Area Communications Commission 1815 NW 169th Place, Suite 6020 - Beaverton, Oregon 97006-4886 - (503) 629-8534 - FAX: 645-8561 - T DD: 645-4299 Emil= Preliminary Report COON a Y/TC1 Franchise Negotiations June 28, 1994 Page 2 bring Tr'I i service levels in parity with those of Columbia Cable (i.e., 35 charmels to 60, access programming services, etc.) and to provide the County and TO wik-h a viable franchise document to replace the court -controlled Decree- V7K expressed mtwr u t i.-, developing such an agreement. About that same tune, MACC learned from TO that they were providing service to several hundred residents of Tigard who had been annr.,xed into the city during than Metzger Annexation (we later learned they also had a few subscribers in Beaverton). In discussing thfg problem with Bcb Jean, Tigard. Administator at that time, we decided to walt mnd see whether the County l irmchise with TCi might also provide a vehicle for Tigard to franchise TC1 Laser discussions wc'h leave.-ton :Mayor LArry Cole producer the sarne conclusion. T*? ear9., 1990, after several delays, tl'ie first negotiation sessions began between tide County's team (Washington County staff, their consultant, and 1ACC staff) and TCI representatives.. We first agreed to use the MACC/Columbia Cable Franchise Agreement as the basis for the talks. Negotiations began and continued for several months with much progress made in developing a franchise document. However, in July 1990, negotiations stopped for a period of six months at TCFs request, since they were unsure whether their parent company would be able to financially support the provisions of the new .Agreement. In January 1991, negotiations resurned- with new assurances from TCI that they would be able to fulfM their commitments. In April 1991, I ACC provided Tigard and Beaverton with a negotiation "status report" and recommended that the two cities consider using any finalized County/TCI Franchise as the basis for their franchise agreements with TCI. Both cities, through their respective legal coups. ls, met with the County Council to discuss options in this area. They agreed that it made sense to possibly join a County agreement and they discussed various legal vehicles to accomplish this. however, all parties realized that the actual decision to grant £randiises in these cities rests with their respective Councils. In the fall of 1993, whale negotiations continued, TO, on their own, completed an upgrade of their current cable system in the County from 35 to 60 channels of service. Fiber optic capacity* was added and other improvements were made, which followed the general requirements of the franchise under negotiations with the County (see Municom information sheet, enclosed as Attachment 2). Following review and comment by TCYs corporate office in the Spring of 1994, final issues were negotiated and a tentative Agreement was reached with TO on June 6,1994. The County's consultant is now in the process of what we expect will be the final rewrite of the franchise. lrelin dreary Report COQ /TCI Franchise Negotiation Jurte 28, 1994 Page 3 THE Coif AP'RovAL PRocEss The C:a=ty vrll soon be presenting a status report to their board of Commissioners on these neiodations and are expected to reeve direction from them to proceed ord three issues: I. Amending dre C'crmf-y Cie to allow the grant of a franddse io M without Ring throug i a formal lP proc,--,s (the C-.,. mty feels this cI aige Cali be completed. by the call of 1994) ' 2. Reopening dismsssons vatln Tigard and Beaverton as to whether they went to use the County Agreement with TO as a basis for similax agreements for the two cities. 11&s has been MACC's recxminien ation, but obviously the cities could decide to negotiate their own franchises with. TC. We would assume theme discussions would probably happen this sununer with recommendations . and actions by the restive City Councils this fall. 3. Once 1. and 2 above are completed, the County Board of Commissioners would then review and consider the °TCI Fraandaise Agreement (wine Tigard and. Beaverton as possible partners). The County feels this can be accouaplishe!d by NTovember/December 1994. If aH goes according to plan, the new Agreement would be in place by January 1, 1995. Please note the above represents MACC°s understanding of the County's plans at this writing. Those plans could change and, of course, Tigard and Beaverton would need to consider their own directions in this matter. TiGAR D TO IssLms As mentioned above, Tigard, aside from Washington County, has the largest concentration of TCI subscribers. Current TCI estimates are that 678 subscribers are in the City. Consequently, the new County/TCI Agreement may provide Tigard with a vehicle to give franchise protection to its citizens, as well as to provide the City with additional franchise fee revenue. In. addition, since the Metzger Annexation in 1937 TCI has been paying a 2% franchise fees (Deese calls there Administrative Tees) to Washington County for those subscribers in Tigard. We are working to get a current estimate of that amount. Tigard and the County exchanged letters on this subject in July 1991 in order to resolve payment of these fees to the City. We would expect this issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction with the adoption of this Agreement-- Preliminary Report C®I Y/= Franchise Negotiations June 23, 1934 Page 4 BF.AvERToN TC1 IssuES Although the number of TCI- subscribers within Beaverton renmaim small at this time (less than 100), the potential for Beaverton to annex more TCI subs fibers in future gears is great. 'Much of the TCI sen,ace area in the unincorporated County lies adjacent to Beaverton in areas that would seem natural for future annexations (Ce- ar Mill, Cedar Hills, West Haven, West 'dope, RaleiRh Hills, WLI & the Progress areas). The County/TC.f Awe .gent may provide E~ ave._r:on, subscribers, as wa as wore mv-S. .rs of future aimexed subscibers; the bments of franchised: cable setvice. Hx'C. uLIGHTS OF CouMI TC1 AI@T gSE .FAG SFAM r A List of highlights of the County/ Ta Franchise Agreement is enclosed for your information (see Attachment 3). Once a final approved draft of the actual Agree me at is available, we will provide you a copy with additoonai analysis. IN CONCLUSION Although the County/TCI Franchising process lasted over four years, we feel that a modern franchise document is the result. The Agreement, provides subscribers and the County with a modem service level of franchi--* protection, as well as enhanced communications services. It also provides more revenue to the County and to the Cities in the form of additional franchise fee revenue. cc: Tim Itarnis, Tigard Legal Counsel Bill Scheiderich, Acting Beaverton City Attorney Bob Davis, Deputy Administrator, Washington County Bill Tierney, TCI CC Commissioners Intexested Parties enc. 1. TCI-Columbia Cable Service Area, Asap. 2.. Municorn Information Sheet. 3. Highlights of Washington County/TCI Franchise Agreement with attached County/l-ACC Letter of Agreement. D TaRmyr1bI avi o°: WIWI 5010 1 t kc- Mai 1 ~ r ie~ 18 C4 j ~ su. 1 lid w 1V 03 ' 0.x• p / • M s ~ 4 1 ~ n aus \ ant®ni us Ir ~ ¢ts~~1 rY~~ c.t a g J w F 1 is U111 as ' X861. a ~ w ~ xn+s.•w:+e ~ -'xG"" t a yg ° A A .uxw,a ` ♦to• F , ~ ~ OVSt 9 ~ ~ e.N1~1` e+ ~ ""~y, ~,(JJ ~L..'~•, 1~ ~ ~ E. g 4.. 01 4 d E 1~ If \ ~ ~ ► ~ vrsnarlvixt ( •e~'vr . C 4C NOTE" Hands ~ Pl9lz4 J c c v~ y s s9 f ftA ib.6 CAB i ' m StE7pd1a"P7.9a Fh,l3. 4a20 6W S6r`bUr_M . fPMUM4 0R G7201 fal E M3 a 227 a FLAX 503 a?27 0 3104 April 8, 1993 T CI e pry s~ g SUBURBAN ddLS+.~B~$s~yf~p~.d~',b/~w' gd VITA S MM UPGRADE PROJdiC R'1gRSIM PORTLAND LaJli'4TIO 875 W_51-approximately 300 m les in Washington Cowy. $3°5 uffi lon ($11,000 per male, $3per sub for 43,000 sa bs ,--$3.3 Miuion vtould be Wa.sliagton County pordom Ainung at eventual 500 channel capacity mcludmg signal. comprespion° However, them .1 initially be something less than 60 acsdvated chs nuols. Using iabor optic trm ; to nodes serving no more than.2,500 homes. Washington County.- pls ug 28 nodes for 14,000 vabs-500 homes per nod, average. Coaxial arable will be used from uo&-s to home6a No more than 4 amplifiers on coa xW cable from each fiber code to a sul<vcribees home. ' Pig bundle of 122 fibers - cog out of headend-6 fibers. to each node. 4 fibers to be used for forward and reverse system operation, 2 fibers for spares. Fiber trunk will be Al. aerK no. undeound. Return capability will be activ rY throughout the system. Status mon#or will be in effect Return capacity activated at: eaoh pow -supply on the cotes. cabld. as well as on the hiller. Taps, -splitters, and other passive devices on the system will be. capable of pass 750 :l z, and the amplifiers on the coax will. be spaced for 7501 o "ou. However, initially the amplifiers will be capable of 550 (75-channel) opemtion° Additional capacity will be used for co eessed Mgaals for video-on- demand, etc. Pla ing to start in Washington County, work southeast into West Linn and Clackamas Cotwty. Presently worldng on the coaxial cable upgrade in Washington County, then will do fiber installation last; Will be finished by. late July. llndre regional project is scheduled to be finished by the end of the year. d Metropolitan Area MACCICommunications Commission Cable N Franchise Regulation ® Tualatin Valley Community Access (NCA) ® Pubk'ht i~nigaiotf~c~twortc (PCN) i+3+ ~t Xfraruh 12, 19901 14A R . Vill Charlie Cameron Administrator 'A'ashington County 155 N. First Avenue . Hillsboro, OR. 97124 RE: LEf TER OF AGREE T BETWEEN WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE ME I-ROPOLI T AN AREA CON."IMUNICA TION COMMISSION - TCIO FRANCHISE 'l ViOTIV,.'110 S Oewr Charlie: At the February 211, 1990 MACC Board Meeting the membr:s authorized my participation in the TCIO Franchise Negedations carerently being conducted by Washington County. what follows is a "Utter of Agreement" formalizing thi commitments :rude to MACC by the County staff regarding this process. Please sign the ',vo copies enclosed and return to me for my signature by Bch 2 1M. A complete signed copy will be returned to you for your fil€s. Please contact me if you have my questions. T.ET`17R OF AGREEAIE i'T BETWEEN WASBINGTON COUNTY, OREGON AND THE IMTROPOIITAN AREA CO1 CAITONS CON SSION FOR TCTO FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS Wlmshington County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (County herein) wild the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC herein) have entered into this Letter of Agreement regarding the negotiations of a cable television franchise with Tele- Communications of Oregon (TCIO herein), Therefore, the undersigned, on behalf of MACC and County staff, agree to the following: 1. The County recognizes the need. for a TCIO Franchise that is consistent with the other cable TV franchise currently serving the remainder of the County and its cities. As a result, the County will work toward a goal of consistency in cable franchising. 2. The County will hire their own consultant to represent theme and to lead any negotiations with TCIO. 1815 NW 169th 'lace, Suite 6020 a Beaverton, Oregon 97005-4886 a •629-8534 or 220-0689 a FAX: (503) 645-8561 Representing the communities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, King City, Lake Oswego, North Plains, Rivergrove, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Washington County. and Wilsonville. Charles Cameron Match 12, 1990 Page - 2 3. MACC will be represented at the negotiations and will serve as a technical adviser to the County's cable consultant. 1d!CC's technical services will' be provided to the County Without cost in lieu of a future division of any franchise tees that the County may receive from such a franchise with TCIO. 4. The County will cover the costs for any outside consultants they choose to use with this process including any time needed frem CC's legal counsel. 5. If a fkwchise is negotiated and approved for TOO, the County Agrees that MACC will regulate the franchise in a manner similar to the other cable Tip franchise currently administered by ACC. 6. In light of #5 above, the County agrees to divide any franchise revenue received from this new franchise with MACC so that the County and TOO bear a proportionate share of the total cost of Access and regulation. This Letter of Agreement becomes effective immediately upon execution by the parties here Charles Cameron Date Co Fidst rninistrat Date .CC Administrator r HIGI°IIm4GHTS OF WASHIIdGTO CO@a€'. WrC8 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT In addition to the highlights below', the CsountZ1 (as well as Taard & Beaverton) would rive a 50/6 franchise free (up from cur real 21/a", RESIDEMAL CABLE SYSTEM J A 12-15 year Franchise (15 yr. term dependant ov a ~uccesr61 841.1h year _ peraormance/technalcal review). ® State-of-the-art 60 charnel capacity system utilizing fiber ®ptic bac bone (TCI system upgraded in 1393 to this level - 57 channels currently programmed). @ System built to meet or exceed current FCC technil standards. . Q Construction standards/timelines for new build areas. Modem customer services standards and enforcement procedures. At the beginning of the negotladons, the County agreed that MACC would regulate the TCl Franchise on • the County's behalf "in a manner similar to the other Cable TV franchise currently administered by MAC:C" (see attached Letter of Agreement). This Wil a erasure that TCl subscribers will receive the same level of regulation/protection as current Columbia Cable subscribers. PUaa,rC/EDUcA-,IONALI O%"EPNFjEh-r fpE=G A s ® An up-front grant of $1.67 million dollars to be spent on PEG access capital expenses for the life of the agreement.' O Initial use of five channels for PEG programming with an additional 4 channels avallabie upon meeting specified criteria (channels interconnected with Columbia system). Two-way cablecast ability from 10 remote points within the system (allows for live cablecast). The County has agreed that PEG mess sewic ea will be handled by Tualatin Valley Community Access (TVCA). over........ Highlights of COt. NTYITCI Franchise Agreement - rage 2 June 28, 1994 OWER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES New inteF nnect to Portland area cable systems for use by Public Communications Network (PCII) and others. 10%.discount for government usem cl TCl fiber systems. enclosure. County/MACC Letter of Agreement G:'rcl~iiGH.~c MINIMUM