Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 04/18/1995
i` i 1 ~ i r ~ Id7-'r ~ 1, I PUBLIC NOTICE. 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 i, at the beginning of that agenda item. J F- Times noted are estimated., it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be k 9 4, present by 6:30 p.m. E 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, Ext. 309 (voice) or 634-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: i • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and f Qualified bilingual interpreters. 1 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 meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the r' Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 7 r i 7 j COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL i8, 1995 - PAGE I a F l TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY MEETING AGENDA _ i APRIL 1€I, 1995 F 6:30 p.m. 1. STUDY MEETING (Town Hall) i 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board E 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 i 1 6:40 p.m. 2. JOINT MEE71NG: PLANNING COMMISSION AND METRO STAFF - 2040 GROWTH CONCEPT • Senior Planner Landsman k i f - 1 7.40 p.m. C j 3. WORKSHOP: SOLID WASTE 3.1 Solid Waste "101" • Risk Manager Loreen Mills 3.2 Solid Waste Annual Report Review • Finance Director Wayne Lowry F _ 6:30 p.m. . 4. UPDATE: YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM i • Risk Manager Loreen Mills S 9:00 p.m. 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:10 P.M. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session } under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). As you are aware, all 9 discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. i 9:30 p.m. 1 7. ADJOURNMENT =0418.95 i COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 18, 1995 - PAGE 2 i. 3 1 L Council Agenda Item , j TIGARD CITY CtUNCIL E. MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1955 Meeting was called to order at 6:43 p.m. by Mayor Nicoll. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll; Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff` Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Nels ickaelson, Assistant Planner; Management Analyst Loreen Mills; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; and Catherine Wheatley, City { Recorder. .i STUDY SES~QI N ` 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports Councilor Hunt said he has noticed when Council is at the bench and before a T0! audience that Council refers to Agenda Item Numbers without specifying the topic. Mayor Nicoll agreed with Councilor bunt that it would be a good idea to be more aware of this in the future and identify topics. 2. JOINT MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND METRO STAFF - 204C j GROWTH CONCEPT F Planning Commission present included Chairperson Milton Eyre; Commissioners Carolyn DeErang, Michael Coilson, Brian Moore, James Griffith, Shel Scholar, and t Nick Wilson. Senior Planner Landsman introduced this agenda topic. She referred to a letter from City Administrator Monahan to Mike Burton, Executive Director of Metro. This letter commented on the 2040 Growth Concept and is included as part of the Council packet material. In addition to strongly supporting that the Washington i Square area be a regional growth center, the letter advised that the City Council members have unresolved questions about the impact on the proposed increased density in certain areas. The purpose of the meeting of the joint Council and Planning Commission at this *ime is to examine the issues and prepare a list of { ' concerns and comments to present to Metro. + CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 15, 1995 - PAGE 1 - 3 1 3 G E j Assistant Planner Nels Mickaelson reviewed a map entitled "Adopted Growth Map." This map identified how the 2040 plan envisions the Tigard area to develop by the year 2040. Mr. Mickaelson then presented an analysis of Region 2040 growth concepts (on file with the Council packet material.) Information reviewed by Mr. Mickaelson included an analysis which focused on six different design types proposed for Tigard: inner neighborhoods, regional centers, town centers, corridors, mixed use employment areas, and greenspaces. For each design type, the comparison was made between population and employment estimates for Tigard under the 2040 Plan and for Tigard under the existing Comprehensive Plan. Projections under the existing Comprehensive Plan were generated by City staff c using existing buildable and redevelopable land inventory. Projections under the 2040 Dian were generated by Metro staff. The projections under the existing j Comprehensive Plan assume full buildout of the remaining 708 acres of buildable land and a redevelopment of 423 acres. f Assistant Planner Mickaelson then presented a series of slides taken in Tigard 4 showing the inner neighborhood with new development, older development, and multi-family. Also shown were the regional center area, the industrial area containing older and newer development, and a technical park for the mixed use employment area. Mr. Mickaelson reviewed his analysis of the Region 2040 I Growth Concept, and responded to several questions from the Commission and City Council. k i Senior Planner Landsman advised that the 2040 planning process to date has cost approximately $1 million. Cities which have shown support of the 2040 Plan so far include Lake Oswego, Gresham, Sherwood, and Portland. Impacts to ~ infrastructure have not been analyzed. Metro planners have not done a cost:beneM analysis of the 2040 growth plan. When built at full density, it appears that the density would be ten to fifteen units per acre. Senior Planner Landsman advised that Metro staff has discovered that 90,000 people are living in the area E at this time which they did not have included in their numbers. Lake Oswego and Tigard compare similarly except that Lake Oswego does not have a regional growth center. In respobzse to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Legal Counsel Coleman advised if 'Tigard should choose not to participate or abide by the framework plan presented by Metro, there could be some risk of losing state-shared revenues. i There was discussion on Metro's powers and their Charter. One way it could be possible for the State Legislature to limit the Metro powers would be to redefine the significance of the responsibilities for regional planning. There was discussion on ways to determine how to get cities together to present information to Metro. It f was noted that two organized efforts are currently available to cities: Metro Policy 1 Advisory Committee and the FOCUS group. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 1S, 1095 PAGE 2 1 6 -y It was also suggested that State Senator Phillips and State Representative Brian be asked to talk to the cities. In addition it was noted that a representative to ' MPAC will be needed soon. Council members and Commission members then listed their concerns which were noted as follows: Councilor Rohlf: Metro is insulated from the cities; Metro should be responsive to Its constituents. • Metro appears to be looking for more power. f • Metro does not appear to feel responsible to cities. i • The City Council needs to decide how they will work with Metro. • The relationship between Metro and the cities at this time is not a partnership. Mayor Nicoli: E • Tigard does not avant to be forced into a higher density situation. • Coordination is needed between the cities and Metro with regard to regional issues. . Those portions of the plan that are too 'Tine tuning" and encroach in the areas of responsibility of the cities should be opposed. Commissioner Fyre: • The plan is based upon faulty assumptions. l l > Rapid transit will not be built up enough to carry the load. > All traffic has not been addressed; bikes and walking are unlikely to t carry a significant burden of traffic much of the time because of the rainy season. > Automobiles are getting cleaner; less polluting. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - PAGE 3 L ~ t Nigher densities will increase property prices if the Urban Growth Boundary - is contained and will make it so that a number of people will not be able to afford to buy property. i 3 • Duch of the land that is preserved as "farm land" is really 20- to 80-acre E ranchettes and are not contributing to farm production. E- Concerned about Metro's control, which includes broad-sweeping authority. • Concerned about "socializing" the planning process. i Communities will be unable to preserve their identity. k • marketplace will drive the type of development for the future. • Metro should be a stewardship, not dictatorial. Commissioner Collson: t • Concerned that the 2040 growth concept plan implemented through a regional framework plan would simply transfer the problem to Yamhill and F perhaps Clark County, as people would look to move outside the Metro area. Commissioner Wilson: ' This is an attempt to control too much. • Concerned about the level of coercion that would be necessary to carry out this plan; already telling property owners a great deal as to what they can and cannot do with their property. This could lead to a series of takings issues. j r • Concerned about the level of control that belongs in the marketplace and the freedom of individuals. Commissioner Poore: i ® The 2040 growth concept plan has some merits, but is concerned about the loss of control and the need to limit Metro's powers. CITY COUNCIL MEET NG MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - PAGE 4 i } 1 Commissioner Griffith: • Believes there is inadequate infrastructure to support the plan. A "reality check" is needed to determine availability of sewer, water, and other r services. C: Commissioner Scholar: • Concerned with "micro-management" by Metro which would be forced upon local government. F Councilor Hunt: E f' a • Agreed that car traffic was the biggest problem to resolve. Bicycling and E` walking would not address the problems brought on by higher densities. • Suggested that the letter previously approved by Council and signed by the City Administrator says the City endorses the plan be followed by a more strongly worded letter objecting to those the areas the City did not like. j a r: • Suggested that Representative Brian visit with City Council to listen to their j concerns and discuss what, if anything, could be done. Councilor Scheckla: : • Questioned why the plan does not utilize what is already in place; or example, rail lines between communities. Commissioner DeFrang: I Suggested that Metro's Charter was approved because of voter apathy; people did not realize the loss of control that would occur if the Charter was put into place. Commissioner Fyre • Noted the plan appears to contain a number of unfunded mandates for which Metro sets regulations, but is not accountable. Metro is not included in any appeal process. Senior Planner Landsman requested that any additional comments be submitted to her in writing within the next week. The City needs to develop a response to Metro by .tune. f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - PAGE 5 :i i { Council meeting recessed at 7:58 p.m. ~ - Council meeting reconvened at 8:09 p.m. 3. SOLID WASTE "101" 7 Management Analyst Mills referred to a letter distributed to City Council at the meeting from Carolyn DeFrang. This letter noted a discrepancy in the relative F amount pain for trash pick-up by someone who has on-call service versus the usual weekly pick-up. (This letter is on file with the Council packet material). 3.1 Management Analyst Loreen Mills reviewed the historical perspective and rate change history. She also referred to proposed legislation which could impact the franchise process; especially for recyclables. Ms. Mills reviewed guiding principles for developing a rate structure. The f State Legislature, DEQ, Metro, and City of Tigard all have authority to make rules for solid waste. 'i Plastic recyclable pick-up at curbside will probably be another service added in the near future. 3.2 SOLID WASTE HAULERS' ANNUAL DEPORT REVIEW I : 1 (Representatives from Miller's, Pride, and Schmidt solid waste franchises were present) ,f Finance Director Lowry reviewed the Council packet information with regard r to the haulers' annual report review, The reports from 'die haulers indicate a significant decrease in their profit percentage which is now at 7.62%. Past I Council policy sets out that if the profit rate falls below 8%, the rates charged by the haulers should be adjusted to provide a 10% margin. i Finance Director Lowry presented different scenarios for implementation of the rate setting policy. Past Council policy was reviewed (a copy of the i elements of this policy were distributed to Council and are on file with the Council packet material). Finance Director Lowry also distributed to Council information on the solid waste review for 1994, which included the rate setting procedure, the profit percentage history, financial trends, implementation of rate setting policies, and a review of alternatives. Aftematives included: 1) implement the policy; 2) delay implementation; 3) change the policy. 4 Lengthy Council discussion followed. There was discussion on the fact that the yard debris information was only available for five months of the 1 reporting piueiod under review. Councilor Hunt noted that when the option i ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - PACE 6 i i i was given to persons to reduce the size of their cans because of added programs for recyclables and yard debris, a good job of analyzing the rates was not done. He noted he would like to look at reducing the amount of franchise fees going to the general fund to offset some of the profit percentage shortfall to the haulers. T'here was a suggestion that if rates were increased now, then the new rates should be increased enough to include future curbside pickup of plastics. Mr. Miller, representing one of the haulers, said that if the profit range was adjusted to 10%, plastics would be added for curbside pickup by July 1. Councilor Hunt noted that utility rates are going up all the time. He said he ' would like further analysis to determine if any increase could be offset by i using part of franchise fees collected by the City. Finance Director Lowry a advised that $180,000 to $190,000 was received for solid waste franchise fees. Council reviewed a chart, prepared by staff, comparing rates and services for other cities in the area. Tigard's rates for service are the lowest in the area. There was discussion on process to consider any changes to rates. 3 Any consideration of ' rate changes would be done after a public hearing before the City Council. - ` Councilor Hohif expressed concerns about a fixed rate of return to the a haulers, as it does not encourage economies on the part of the providers. He questioned whether the 8116 to 12% rate of return guarantee made much t sense today. i Mayor Nicoli advised he thought it would be unfair to the haulers to change the policy, noting this is the first time a rate review to increase rates has "kicked in." He said he would prefer to go ahead and follow the past policy at this time and then review the policy later. i City Administrator Monahan noted the City could argue that the ordinance passed in 1992 replaced all agreements and policies that went before. a Legal Counsel Coleman advised that the policy was not binding. Councilor Hunt agreed with Mayor Nicoli that the haulers have operated under the assumptions of the policy. He also agreed this may be a time for I review for a change in policy. He noted concerns with the figures presented for yard debris some of the yard debris expenditures were one- time start-up costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - PAGE 7 l s fr_. I Councilor Rohif advised he would like better detail on cost information. Mayor Nicoli acknowiedged that with the fluctuation in the value of recyclables, the old policy may cause some problems in trying to determine how to set the rate of return. 1 Pinang Director Lowry advised that recyclables represent about 5% to 6-0/6 of the hauler's revenue. a, j Councilor Scheckla agreed that the yard debris recycling has been in place for only a short time and noted he was having difficulty in sorting out the true financial picture. Fie advised he would only want to go up to 8% or 396 E { and to wait for six months to a year to obtain additional financial data. E Mr. Miller of the haulers advised their labor prices have increased. To date, r there has been a higher participation in the yard debris program. Mr. Miller noted the haulers have used the policy and have not been back to Council -'j to ask for an increase because they were within the guidelines of the policy. After discussion, Council decided to set this item over to April 25 to continue their review. This review would include: • Past Council policy - make changes? Whether to consider conducting a public hearing on rates. s What additional data is needed; i.e., I 1 t - Should commercial continue to subsidize residential rates? - Should franchise fees collected be used to offset some of the hauler's loss in the percentage profit? i E. - Should any rate change include the assumption that recyclable plastic pick-up at curb side will be added? 4. UPDATE OIL YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM 1 1 Management Analyst Mills referred to the packet material provided to Council. The effectiveness of the program is being tested by Metro this week. If Tigard's program is found to be effective, the City will be able to keep the 60-gallon can, bi-weekly service. ( CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -/APRIL 18, 1995 PAGE 8 f= --1 Since October 1, 1994, the City has not received a complaint about the yard debris i program other than some requests, for additional service. 1 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:06 p.m. under the provisions of CRS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). 7. ADJOURNMENT: 10:34 p.m. 1 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ~ f l May o Tigar Date: i ccmQ418.95 r { f I f a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1995 - RAGE 9 J y` I j ' a 1 u ® k A Y NEWSPAPERS, INC. 9 P.O. BOX 370 PRONE (563) 854-0360 Notice TT 8 15 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 f Legal Notice Advertising oCity of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ' eTigard,Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidsvit j I J AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) k COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Kathv_,ny l r I a 1 basing first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal cleric, of theT~a*-d-Tual a~s~mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ± and 183.020; published at_ Tigard in the afo[esaid county and state; that the i _ CitS~ Co~anci 1 Meet, na k C I V I^. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE' successive and 7 consecutive in the following issues: € 3_)F 'fIGARO April 13,1995 i I l I r y: ti Subscribed and sworn to b re me thisl 'A t-A a1r n_ f A n r i 1 ,19 95 I j~J h' ~ 4'IE Notary Pub for Oregon J t ; My Commission Expires: - AFFIDAVIT k 1 i E i i 1 f s s i c A 4 1 the City, R: Fx3 a, ,a 7 ,a.F'v1. j 3 > `ea rd, Tig r I. sr~Zon 9722 or by llia¢ 63>-4a't R. CrrY'COUNCIL. STUDY MEETING k APRIL 18, 1935 c TIGARD CITY FALL - TOWN HALL 131:25.5 `ail. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON t.:jy RR ting'(x.30 PM.) . Joint Meeting with.-Planning Conirnission and Metica S _ Ite~in~ Ivletto Zak A'Itannin~ . a : StafffRoAcw with council --Solid taste lhfomiation w Yard brSs U ate C kX Coo mcil may Zo ?rro r c, rcd a~~ su mn unu r tic, gzovisions of ORS loks a (i) (J; l e~ ~ L,!'6-curs laborrela-dons real i I I 1 r i f r E- ' F Agenda Item No. ~ MEMORANDUM Meeting of L/ I Q 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i> E: s- TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Carol A. Landsman DATE: April 6, 1995 4 SUBJECT: 2040 Presentation The council is scheduled to meet with the planning commission to discuss the Metro 2040 growth concept at its April 18th meeting. At that time, staff planner and GIS analyst Nels Michaelson will report on the effects the proposed changes would have in Tigard. He recently met with the planning commission to discuss this. Attached are memos regarding 2040 1 have given the council and the letter you recently sent to Metro Executive Officer, Mike Burton. r i- i i i MEMORANDUM ' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i TO: Dill Monahan FROM. Carol A. Landsman ~ DATE: September 12, 1994 SUBJECT: 2040 Preferred Alternative Recommendations ~ i -e In December the Metro Council will make a decision about how and where the region should grow. The Council will adopt a Region 2040 growth management policy which will guide future regional decisions about the urban growth boundary, land-use patterns and transportation systems. These decisions will affect not only how Tigard grows, but how it regulates that growth. It is very important that Tigard comment j to Metro on this plan before October 10th so that these comments may be considered _ by all Metro advisory bodies. The Yjetro Council will consider the Metro staff preferred alternative in making its decision. The preferred alternative consists of a map and a summary of proposed land uses, transportation facilities and an expanded urban growth boundary. This alternative is based on citizen comment and technical studies. Metro staff attempted E to develop a regional model that protects agricultural and natural resources, uses infrastructure efficiently and responds to public comment. The preferred alternative, however, has not been evaluated or approved by any Metro policy board yet, it is still a staff proposal, i The preferred alternative contains elements that are particularly relevant to Tigard. i 1.) The preferred alternative will increase residential density of presently undeveloped land. This will be accomplished through the use of apartments as well as smaller lots for single detached housing. The recommended average lot size for Tigard would be about 5,800 sf. (Tigard's average lot size for houses built in the last ten years is about 7,000 sf). i ~2.) Washington Square area is designated as one of six regional centers. As a regional center it would be the :focus of compact development, redevelopment and transit and highway improvements. Density would increase to up to 50 units per acre or about 100 employees per acre for commercial development. Light rail would serve Washington Square. a f ;I - k t 3.) Downtown Tigard would be designated as a town center. Densities in ' this area would increase to those comparable with Hawthorne Street in s - SE Portland or those in downtown Millsboro. One of the important factors in the 2040 process is the potential shift in how the i " region conducts planning and zoning. To make this regional plan work, Metro would have more control over how we zone Tigard. Metro might require mandatory minimum densities throughout the city or specify certain types of land use in certain areas. Therefore, city policy makers would have less control over hove the city grows. 3 The 2040 preferred alternative contains many other features. Both John Pregonese, from Metro staff and Jon Xvistad, Metro Councillor, will be at the September 20th meeting to answer questions and provide more details so that the Council, with the F assistance of the Planning Commission, can craft comments to Metro on this very important plan and process. k j k f- ~ V ti F 1 l ~ I 1 r I 1 f k h I'. 1 V I I j _I ME. IORANDU>\l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a TO: Bill Monahan F FROM: Carol A. Landsman DATE: October 17, 1994 SUBJECT: Region 2040 Update f: The Metro Council will act on the Region 2040 Recommended Growth Alternative on December 8, 1994. _ Metro staff has submitted a set of RUGGO (Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives) amendments outlining a growth management plan for the region and a concept map that embodies general principles. This plan delineates proposed urban growth boundary area expansion and outlines urban form within the boundary. While the decision made in December will not directly affect Tigard, it will set into motion a process that will ultimately lead to mandated changes in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. It is important that the Tigard City Council review this plan and comment. ' The Plan The recommended alternative would add a modest amount of land outside the urban growth boundary and accommodate growth inside the present urban growth boundary by using land more efficiently and ' utilizing smaller average lot sizes. This plan would accommodate 720,000 additional residents and 350,000 additional jobs. Metro staff highlights the following plan concepts in the Recommended E r Alternative Decision_ Kit. f ® The urban growth boundary (UGB) would be expanded by 14,500 acres during the 50-year period. Lands subject to future UGB expansion would be designated as urban reserves until the UGB expansion is warranted. ® The average lot size for new single-family homes regionNvide would be 6,650 square feet, or 6.5 units per net acre. f ® The ratio of single-family and multi-family in new devel?pment would be 62 percent to 38 percent (The current ratio is 70 percent single-family, 30 ! percent multi-family. 20 percent of the single-family market would be accommodated by rowhouses, duplexes or small-lot development. This housing type would f mostly occur along transit corridors. • The majority of housing would be in neighborhoods (52 percent), followed I by corridors and station communities (33 percent), and city, regional and town centers (8 percent). d ® About 19,300 acres of currently developed land in the urban area would redevelop for more intensive uses. e i j - a Open space would represent 34,000 of the 248,500 acres in the expanded UGB, or 14 percent of the urban land area. 1 One-third of the buildable acres would allow mixed uses and two-thirds j would remain in single-use categories such as residential or industrial. The majority of new jobs (two-thirds) would be accommodated in centers or along corridors and main streets, which would be well served by transit. The industrial areas would provide land for about 10 percent of new jobs and employment areas would provide space for 14 percent of new jobs. ' Significantly, residential neighborhoods account for 15 percent of total jobs ` (this includes people working at home, child care, schools and small-scale commercial within neighborhoods), up from 11 percent currently. Land extensive and heavily auto-dependent commercial or industrial uses would be limited to employment areas and industrial areas rather that on corridors, centers or neighborhoods. F How Mould This Plan Affect Tigard? f Two elements of the plan are particularly relevant to Tigard. The City Council will want to let Metro Council know if it disagrees with them. 1.) Washington Square area is designated as one of six regional centers. As j a regional center it would be the focus of compact development, redevelopment and transit and highway improvements. Light rail would serve the Washington Square area. Density would increase to up to 50 units per acre or about 100 employees per acre for commercial development. Y The Metro report notes "Eventually these centers would grow to the density of downtown Washington, about one-third of downtown Portland's density, j but three times denser than areas today." i' 2.) Downtown Tigard would receive a town center designation. Densities in ~ this area would increase to those comparable with Hawthorn Street in SE Portland or those in downtown Hillsboro. "Town centers would provide local shopping and employment opportunities within a local market area." (Recommended Alternative Decision Kit). j p_. Under this plan Tigard's population and employment would increase significantly. t I . YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1992 31,350 29,440 F 2040 49,750 40,930 While not specific only to Tigard, this plan will increase the residential density of presently # undeveloped land. This will be accomplished through the use of apartments and townhouses, as well i as smaller lots for single detached housing. The recommended average lot size for Tigard would be about 5,300 s£ (Tigard's average lot size for houses built in the last 10 years is about 7,000 sf.) In their analysis, Metro staff have determined the region has a surplus of industrial land. While part t of this surplus may rest in the definition of industrial, this plan may call for use changes in vacant land presently zoned industrial This might affect Tigard's present inventory of 190 acres of vacant j industrial land. Will This Plan Mandate Changes in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan? r. G Tigard will not have to change its comprehensive plan in response to the Metro Council decision in h _ December. Ti fact, it is not yet clear how final this decision will be since there is pressure for a j preliminary decision. There may be rcom for modification as study continues. This decision, however, will be the first step in a process that will require changes to the comprehensive plan. Over the next E two years, working cooperatively with the jurisdictions in the region, Metro will adopt functional plans with which Tigard must conform. At that time, Tigard will be required to change its plan and then its development code to conform with the comprehensive plan. Issues A 50 year growth plan for the entire region must, by definition, be a complex process based on a lot E , of assumptions that may or may not prove true. Metro has conducted extensive analysis in the areas oflanduse, transportation, open space and infrastructure. At the October 19th Public Officials caucus a Washington County staff presented the comments of Washington County planning directors regarding this plan. While the directors' recommendations generally supported the plan, they did identify - concerns with the plan itself (see attached). The directors also identified concerns with the process. These included the recommendation that the Region 2040 Plan not be too specific to prevent further analysis and that it be flexible to acknowledge diversity across the region. f One of the important factors in the 2040 process is the potential shift in how the region conducts i. planning and zoning. To make this regional plan work, l~letro would have more control over how we zone Tigard. Metro might require mandatory minimum densities throughout the City or specify certain types of land use in certain areas. Metro staff promises a cooperative effort between itself and the affected jurisdictions. This cooperative effort seems essential if this plan will work. Another closely related issue is implementation; that is, how do we get from here to there? Region 2040 is, after all, a 50 year plan. We must consider interim stages in the process, how successful they are and how the array of decisions affects individual jurisdictions as well as the entire region. For example, if growth is focused in one jurisdiction, but not another, how do we ensure equitable - distribution of resources? Cost and efficiency certainly must be considered. Metro has yet to evaluate the Recommended Alternative in light of its social costs. In this era of limited resources it is important to choose a cost efficient and effective model of growth. For example, we must consider the trade-offs between types of transportation improvements to determine net benefits generated. i Conclusion E t Region 2040 is a complex process and plan based on extensive technical research. The decisions made in the process will have a. major impact on Tigard. Therefore, we must stay informed and involved. The City Council will want to review and comment on the decision to designate Washington Square a regional center and downtown a town center. t hAlogf n\palty\ CC2040.Mem October 19, 1994 i PRELIMINARY DRAFT REGION 2040 -RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REVIEW COMMENTS 'V JI OCTOBER 13,1994 WF.. HINGTON COUNTY DEPT. O. "AND USE & TRANSPORTA, JN ~ , f RIEG"ION2040 - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Y SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS 4 r i agreement s t general Growth f Concept as described the Executive lto Recommend We support the distinction urban rr i lands and t emphasis placed on continued protection of rural natural resource lands We agree it strengthening Centers and recognize the { important rol! in the Growth Concept D support t i of housing and employment in areas compact that r accessible to transit o October if3ir `Jonc©mO REGION 2040 - DD ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS o Adopt the Growth Concept Map by Resolution Order e Generalize the amount of land needed as Urban Reserves , Add Additional Areas as Urban Reserve Study Areas (Evergreen Vest Reef Bend/Elsner Road areas) Develop in Central/Eastern Washington County a transportation system and/or revised land use pattern that assures future mobility and jobs/housing balance Develop or Programs with realistic time frames for - Urban Deserves - Regional Transportation Plan Update y - Regional Framework Plan Future Vision Local Government Compliance Philosophy, process timing Descriptive Indicators & Monitoring Program a - Infrastructure Cost/Efficiency Analysis October 10 .jOncom { m REGION 2040 - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE i SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS Modify r Reserves to the r targeted/ strategic greenbelt/green corridor concept { Insist upon r Draft 2015 or 2020 Household & Forecasts Employment { r. Seek r: Commitment revisit the Edge industrial ana requirements for employment opportunities k Seek i i Commitment t establish Monitoring t and t Review 4 i October 3* doncom2 REGION 2040 - RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS Amend RU 's for Regional Centers indicating they will be diverse places each exhibiting their ! 3 own characteristics and responding to varying t markets and local needs Amend RUG 's for Town Centers indicating that each will have different characteristics and that ' the Regional Framework Plan should reflect I this in establishment of Town Center guidelines Amend RUGG 's for Corridors indicating that each j will have different characteristics and that the ~ Regional Framework Plan should reflect this in establishment of Corridor guidelines e mend UGGO's to indicate that Industrial Areas be vet aside for industrial uses and supportive 4 non-residential activities versus that they be set aside exclusively for Industrial activities t` r. } October 9 g8,. 7neom3 - REGION 2040 -'RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ® Remove selected Corridors from the Concept a - Garden Home - Scholls Ferry between Washington Sq. and Beaverton Hillsdale Highway Bethany Boulevard between Sunset Hwy & West Union - cones Ferry Road south o Sagert Road a - Murray Boulevard south of Alen Blvd. Modify selected Corridors on the Concept Map - Cornell oa : shift to new facility alignment - Springville cad: shift to existing road alignment - Barnes oa : shift to new facility alignment i Remove selected Main Streets from the Concept Map - Cornell Road between 143rd and Barnes Road between Cornelius ass cad and Stucki Avenue - Farmington Road west of Murray Boulevard a Add new Corridors Main Streets based on additional analysis October 198 -'jntom4 i March is, 1995 Mike Burton 1 aecutive Officer Metro. Regional Center F-1 N ` 600 INE Grant Ave. L t Portland, OR 9M2 Dear 1 . Baru n. Thank you for giving the City of Tigard the chance to comment on the Metro 2040 growth concept. Ile Tigard City Council strongly supports desi the W s n Square area a regional growth water. 'flith over 1 won square feet of retail, 700,000 feet of clam A office spy ; and 100 acres of surface pparking, this area has the tential to be the faature downtown of eastern Washington County. For this to happen in a manner that supports regional goals, however, Will r ° e a significant investment in ' cture. Therefore, we support Metro's commitment to ensure these areas receive adequate resources. Because each growth center will have a unique cter, it will be important to aglow flem`bdity development, density, and ' ctnare. chara i Redevelopment and i ll are effective ways toensure efficient use of land and cture. In your analysis of their potential ben6fits, it will be very important however, to ensure that existing residential neigliborhoods are protected. The region 2040 adopted gaowath concept map designates the Tigard triangle area jum ° , zdgbh9Ihngd. We believe this should be changed to Mh&dnaa&nWJgXm= to reflect emating conditions. Cite council members have unresolved questions about the impact of proposed increased density in cermin areas. The council plans to eoxamine this issue more closely and submit comments at a later date. Further, the council would like to invite you, or a member oi, , .iur st and Jon Kvistad ° to come discuss ' 2W issues. Finally, the Tigard City Council believes the proem must be a joint effort between Metro and the jurisdictions, Therefore, we look forward to working with Metro over the next months to ensure a plain that works for the region and the City of Tigard. t ~e~y t ill Monahan City Administrator i 1312.5 SW fiat! 8W, Tigard, CR 97223 (W3) 639-4171 TDD (W3) 684-2772_ ANALYSIS F THE REGION 2040 RGROWTH CONCEPT i k The following Is a summary of the Region 2040 Growth Concept (7040 plan) and types its effect on Tigard. The analysis focuses on the six different design € proposed for Tigard: Inner Neighborhoods, Regional Centers, Town Centers, Corridors, Mixed Use Employment Areas, and Greenspaces, For each design type f a comparison Is made between population and employment estimates for Tigard under the 2040 pion and for Tigard under the, existing comprehensive plan, i Projections under the existing comprehensive plan were generated by city staff using the existing buildabale and redevelopable land inventory. Projections under E the 2040 plan were generated by Metro staff. The projections under the existing 4 comer®hensive plan assume full buildout of the remaining 708 acres of buildable land and the redevelopment of 423 acres (see attached assumptions for growth). The following table indicates, Tiigard's existing comprehensive plan would E accommodate approximately 5088 .fewer households and 3,575 fewer jobs than r. it would under the 20,40 plan. Under existing Diff. between 1992 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 _ Number of households 12,045 22,349 17,261 -5088 f Employment 29,438 40,920 37,349 -3575 "approximately 2.3 persons per household Inner Neighborhoods According to the 2040 plan Inner Neighborhoods are primarily residential areas, with slightly smaller lot sixes and higher population densities than exist today. Over € 60°x, of Tigard would fall under this cresign type. For the most part, areas currently zoned residential would be designated Inner Neighborhood. Under this design type density would increase regionwide from 11 people per acre to 14 people f pe; ;dre. lhLs density is approximately equivalent to a 5700 sq ft average lot size. This compares to are average lot size of 6500 sq ft for development occurring over i the last five years in Tigard. r 3 i i e i i April 18,1995, Page 1 j i "a s Under existing Diff. between F . 1952 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 Inner Neighborhoods I (HH) 8853 13,294 11,945 --1349 (Emp) 7957 10235 10,142 - 93 4 As the table above Indicates, Tigard's existing comprehensive pion for Inner Neighborhood areas would accommodate approximately 1349 fewer households and 93 fewer jobs than it would under the 2040 plan. The higher employment projected under the existing comprehensive plan is due i to the fact that some of the area designated by METRO as inner neighborhood is currently zoned commercial. Regional Centers The Washington ware area has been designated as one of nine potential Regional Centers. According to the plan, regional Centers are the focus of compact redevelopment and high quality transit service. Regionally these areas I` currently have a residential density of approximately 24 people per acre. The 2040 plan would allow up to 60 people per acre. Under existing Diff. between 1992 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 t Regional Center (HH) 382 2006 430 -1576 (Emp) 5454 10,578 5466 -4612 As the table above indicates, Tigard's existing comprehensive plan for Regional Centers would accommodate approximately 1576 fewer households and 4,612 fewer jobs than it would under the 2040 plan. The difference between population under the current comprehensive plan and under 2040 is due to the fact that 80°/,) j of the area has a comprehensive plan designation of commercial and does not allow residential uses whereas under the 2040 plan it would. The differences in employment are due to the high employment densities of 60 to 80 employees per acre assumed by 2040. Apii 16, 1495, Page 2 r Town Centers Town Centers provide local shopping, employment and housing opportunities f within a local market area. Throughout the region these centers currently have approximately 23 people per acre. The new growth plan would allow up to 40 people per acre. According to the 2040 plan, three town centers are proposed within or partially within Tigard's city limits: 1) The Main Street area 2) King City 3) The Murray/Scholls area. Under existing Diff. between r 1992 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 Town Center (HH) 285 1202 661 -541 (Emp) 5026 6517 5423 -1094 p. As the above table indicates, Tigard's existing comprehensive plan for areas that would be designated as Town Centers would accommodate approximately 541 ,f fewer households and 1,094 fewer jobs than would it would under the 2040 plan. - The significant difference in the number of households under the 2040 plan and under the existing comprehensive plan can be attributed to the dominance of commercial and industrial comprehensive plan designations for the area and the higher residential (up to 40 per acre) and employment (up to 60 per acre) densities assumed by 2040. 1 I Corridors According to the 2040 plan, Corridors are intended to provide for higher densities than are allowed for today and feature a high duality pedestrian environment E and convenient access to transit. Regionally these areas would average 25 persons per acre. Corridors within Tigard include 99W, Hunziker, Scholls Ferry (toad, and Hall Blvd. Under existing Diff. between i 1992 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & E (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 Corridors (1-11-1) 2128 4972 3828 - 1144 C i (Ernp) 6370 7843 8142 +299 April 18. 1995, page 3 t i. j • t E As the table shows, Tigard's existing comprehensive plan for areas that would be designated Corridors would accommodate approximately 1144 fewer households ii and 299 more jobs than it would under the 2040 plan. The significant differences i between employment and population are due to the fact 70% of Corridor areas F ' are currently zoned commercial. The 2040 plan assumes a higher amount of f residential density along corridors. Mixed Use Employment Areas k These areas combine a mix of different types of employment and some residential uses. Densities in these areas would increase from a regionwide average of 11 people per acre to 20 people per acre. Areas of Tigard currently zoned Industrial would fall under this design type. r Under existing Diff. between j 1992 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 k ~tluhti-Use Employment a (HH) 5 544 5 -539 e F (I=mp) 3422 4748 6467 +1719 As the table above indicates, Tiigard's existing comprehensive plan for areas designated as Mixed Use Employment Areas would accommodate approximately 539 fewer households and 1719 more jobs than would the 2040 plan. Differences between employment and population growth under 2040 compared to those C j under the existing comprehensive plan are due to the fact that the majority of this area is currently zoned Industrial and does not allow residential uses. The 2040 t plan would increase residential densities in these areas. Green Spaces F a l Areas under this design type include parks, stream and trail corridors, wetlands and floodplains, largely undeveloped upland areas, and areas of compatible very low density residential development. As the table indicates these areas will + not experience growth. i E-. j April 15, 1995. Page 4 1 r r Under existing miff. between 1592 Under 2040 comp plan comp plan & (actual) (projected) (projected) 2040 Greenspaces (HH) 392 331 392 i (Emp) 1209 999 1209 i i CONCLUSION The most significant differences between the 2040 plan and the existing comprehensive plan are where employment and residential growth are located. The 2040 plan allocates higher residential and employment growth along Corridors, within existing industrial areas, Town Centers and Regional Centers. In general the 2040 Plan encourages higher residential growth the current comprehensive plan discourages or does not allow it. t i -i 2041 ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS FOR GROWTH Several assumptions have been made for growth under the existing Comprehensive Plan they are as follows: All buildable and redevelopable land will be built to allowed density. , ® Land with a building to land ratio of .75 or less will redevelop over the next 40 years. i Employees were allocated to vacant and redevelopable land based on j historical data collected by the city of Tigard and supported by surveys completed by Metro. Employees were allocated as follows on a per acre basis by zoning type: ! Commercial Land - 25 employees per acre + Industrial Land - 24 employees per acre April 18, 1995. Page 5 E,. i 1 SSA CITY OF TIGARD OREGON f ROLL CALL i ~-cc_ m+5 HF SATE: 41 l f3tlqa ST TING TIME: P.M. t COMMISSIONERS: MILTON F. PYRE (CHAIRPERSON) _ CAROLYi3 DEFRANG 10 MICHAEL COLLSON i_ ® RON HOLLAND BRIAN MOORE J HIES GRIFFITH DOUG SAXTON SI-LEL SCHOLAR NICK WILSON r i STAFF PRESENT: RICHARD BEWERSDORFF CAROL LANDSMAN j WILL VANDREA RAY VALONE G MEARK ROBERTS NELS MICKAELSON F JOIN ACKER DUANE ROBERTS hAlo&in\p®ttytpc-rvU.mat i i March 3, 1995 Mike Burton ION `7 TIGMrd Executive Officer Metro Regional Center OREGON 600 1 Grant Ave. Portland, OR 97232 Dear Mr. Burton: E Thank you for giving the City of Tigard the chance to comment on the Metro 2040 growth concept. r` The Tigard City Council strongly supports designating the Washington Square area a regional growth center. With over 1 million square feet of retail, 700,000 square feet of class A office space, and 100 acres of surface parking, this area has the potential to be the future downtown of eastern Washington County. For this to happen in a manner that supports regional goals, however, will require a significant investment in infrastructure. Wherefore, we support Metro's commitment to ensure iF these areas receive adequate resources. Because each growth center will have a unique character, it will be important to allow flexibility in development, density, and infrastructure. Redevelopment and infll are effective ways to ensure efficient use of land and infrastructure. In your analysis of their potential benefits, it will be very important, however, to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are protected. The region 2040 adopted growth concept map designates the Tigard triangle area inner neighborhood. We believe this should be changed to mixed use employment to reflect existing conditions. Finally, the Tigard City Council believes the 2040 process must be a joint effort between Metro and the jurisdictions. Therefore, we look forward to working with Metro over the next months to ensure a plan that works for the region and the City of Tigard. Sincerely, s Bill Monahan City Administrator iIghnet:o i j r 1 j 13125 31N hail Blvd., Tic4rd, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ° i t_ • MEMORANDUM Agenda hem NO_ 3.1 i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Meeting of L.t(( !g lef,5 t a TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator F; FROM: Loreen Mills, Management Analyst DATE: April 6,1995 SUBJECT: Solid Waste *101' ' I The City Council will be dealing with a number of solid waste issues over tfre next few months. Since more than half of our Councilors have not dealt F with rate increases, annual review, or the solid waste franchise agreement in the past, I thought it viould be helpful to give them some background information. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: A brief historical review will shown that Tigard has franchised solid waste collection for 34+ years. However, our involvement in franchise review has increased dramatically in the last 5 years. t. Early 1960's - First Tigard franchise ordinances 1986 Started residential curbside recycling & commercial recycling (2 truck trips/week) E 1987 Annual financial reporting required from haulers (8-12% aggregate rate of return) 1991 Franchise ordinance revision - major rewrite addressing recycling, franchisee records confidentiality, stationary compactors, ownership of waste/recycling materials, further defining general and contractor self-hauling rules, addressing fair market value for recycling, updating liability insurance requirements for haulers, franchise amendment process, addressed Measure 5 taxing issues, { and set violations of ordinance as Class 1 civil infraction 1992 Franchise ordinance revision - automatic renewal terms change from 10 to 7 years t 1992 Coopers & Lybrand financial review of Tigard haulers • Annual finance report form revised - (owner's compensation expense amounts limited) • Red bin recycling at curbside - added milk jugs & magazines in residential i 1992 Mini can (20 gallon size) offered as base service to encourage residential recycling 1993 Service Standards implemented administratively 7 1993 Residential cart/automation service provided by haulers at curbside (City allowed phase-in of carts over a 2 year period for mixed J waste - garbage service) 1994 Residential yard debris & scrap paper recycling provided by haulers at curbside (yard debris automated collection every other week i _ scrap pater manual collection week 1995 Annual Household Hazardous Waste collection day held in Tigard and paid for with Metro funds 1995 Aerosol cans added to curbside residential recycling program RATE CHARGE HISTORY - Rates for i residential 32-gallon . n/cart per week Year Item Changed Rate ! 1979 Garbage pickup (1 trip/week) $ 5.00 1986 METRO Tip fee ($17.38Aon) & Recycling (2 tripsbveek) $ 8.10 1992 METRO Tip fee ($75/ton) & milk jugs/magazines added $13.10 1994 Yard debris/scrap paper recycling at curbside (2.5 tripsAwek) $16.50 f GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR TIGARD'S SOLID WASTE RATE STRUCTURE - confirmed by Council on 9/28/93 • Uniform rates for all geographic areas; • Base rates on the Level of service rendered or required by law; • Comply with State, Metro, and local laws (including Federal ADA); Encourage recycling and waste reduction; • Maintain a financially stable disposal system in the aggregate; . Maintain the current rate subsidy of residential by commercial service line; ? Generators may collect and transport their own waste; and ' • Mixed waste rates will include cost for recycling services. r 3 PAGE 2 OF 4 SOLID WASTE 101 MEMO APRIL S. 1995 = CURREINIT RATE STRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS - confirmed by Council on 9/28/93 • Automated weekly collection of garbage wig be mandatory for all service lines no later than 1/1/95 and encouraged at curbs; • Automated every-other-week collection of yard debris will be mandatory for residential & multi-family services no later than 7/1/94 and `t encouraged at curbside; r, • A mini can (20 gallon) available to residential customers; j: • Rates will be developed based on the following service types: - , • Residential (carts) - • Multi-Family (carts or coniah-hers) • Commercial (containers) • Drop Box I • Medical Waste • Residential rates should be based on a curb and yard rate according to the length of distance from the curb: j • Curb rate applies between 0' - 5' of curb - Yard rata applies between 5' - 50' of curb i • Over 50' from curb is charged on a per foot basis • Annual rate modifications shag be set to protect the 8% to 12% aggregate net profit margin for haulers; • Metro tip fee adjustments will include franchise fees assessed on assumed weights: t Futare service enhancements should be reviewed prior to implementation after the haulers demonstrate what affect the increased service i will have on iha business; • Solid waste enforcement should not require more City staff; Provide mixed waste and recycling services (including yard debris) '?or all City facilities, parks, and City activity areas at no cost to the City 1 on a regular schedule. SOLID WASTE ISSUES DISCUSSED/ADDRESSED BY PAST COUNCILS THAT MAY BE ISSUES AGAIN NOW OR IN THE FUTURE - This list J includes those items that have been raised by Council, Staff, Haulers, and Customers over the last four years. I General Shcd Waste issuos i • What role should Tigard play in regional solid waste issues (before Metro & Legislature?) • What solid waste emphasis is important to Tigard (recycling, financial reporting, service provision, low rates, etc.)? • How actively does the City wish to enforce solid waste rules (construction debris, illegal dumping, etc.?) Franchia • Does the City wish to continue to franchise solid waste service delivery or return to a free-market process? • When does a County-wide ordinance become more efficient for the City? • Create administrative rules for: - Financial information exemption from public inspection - Fair market value - how Tigard interprets the law When Is Solid Waste the property of the Hauler? i Compactors -'trane system" for multi-family Rate Structure & Services Questions • Should each service type matte a profit or should there to some subsidy, or true cost of service concept? • Should disparity in custorner mix within each franchise area be resolved? Options may include redefining areas, or changing number of haulers, or Answering this question could negate the necessity to address rate disparity que tions. - What do we want to encourage through the rate structure? (i.e., recycling, haulers' business efficiencies„ etc.) • Should each (hauler offer the same type of service within each service line? (i.e., same type of recycled curbside pickup for all residential customers? -or- does Tigard wish to mandate automated curbside pickup or allow as haulers san supply?) • Should haulers have different rates based on demographics of hauler areas? Does the City 'rmgotiate' separate rates with different franchisees based on hauling distance, concentration of various customer mixes when variations in rates may ou%wielgh the benefits of having a single rate structure? • Is it Important to Tigard to have a rate structure or level of service the same as other surrounding jurisdictions? When can a weight-eased rate be established? i' i PAGE 3 OF 4 F _ SOLID WASTE 101 MEMO APRIL 5, 1995 L • At what level should the City participate in business decisions with the haulers r (i.e., parameters for expenditure decisions, capital i replacement decisions, services to be provided, etc.) • Should rate impacts of future service enhancements to reviewed prior to implementation or after hauler can demonstrate what effect the Increased service will have on his business? . What services should the haulers provide as a condition of the franchise? • Should ire be an annual In-depth audit performed? Is 3% an appropriate franchise fee amount? • Should we utter define elements for City review prior rate adjustments (i.e., not just whether rate of return is between 8% & 12%.) • Should rate of return (99/6-12%) be adjusted in light of today's occinomy? j Rate of return should be computed on what element of the business? • Should disposal fees/franchise fees be pulled out of calculation of rate of return? With increase in compactors within the City, should we have fees set same as drop box? (i.e., rate + demurrage + dump fee? f should we also add 30% franchise fee here?) • Distance charges - look at different way to compute rather than "per toot' - how will we define curb/yard service and how will the j rafts structure respond to the service delivery? • Are roll carts 'required" by the City (1/1/95 - 7/1/95 • Disabled rates - !s Tigard going to create special rates for disabled? • Personal property tax on yard debris roll carts - How are Haulers handling this? • What should be the rate for 60 gal. & 90 gal. carts? (Residential & Commercial are different - Pride actual study shows $19.25 & $22.00 reasonable.) WHAT IS SOLID WASTE? The ORS and our own franchise ordinance defines Solid Waste as garbage, rubbish, ashes, wastepaper, cardboard, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes, dead animals and infectious wastes. These wastes are generated by residential, commercial, industrial, i demolition and construction customers. ' WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES FOR SOLID WASTE? • Sta~ture - enacts iegislation that requires solid waste collection (including mixed vdaste and recycling). Special goals and level of compliance are set for the metropolitan region. • DEQ - State level department that develops rules on how to achieve a clean environment. They create rules for land fills, transporting solid i waste, what type of materials have to be recycled and what level of service is sufficient to meet state solid waste/recycling goals. p METRO - State recognized authority for the metropolitan region to set goals and program requirements to meet state solid waste goals. • Washingtcj-r County Wasteshed Cooperative RecvclN Proaram - Washington County and the cities within the county have joined together l (adopted IGA) to achieve the waste reduction goals set out by all of the above jurisdictions. • City of Tigard - Tigard is responsible for; • solid waste collection aid recycling programs that meet the mandated standards/goals; developing, maintaining, and enfording its franchise agreements; and developing its solid waste rate schedule. 1995 ISSUES WHICH COUNCIL WILL BE REVIEWING (Known at this time) k S F j 1995 Scull) WASTE HAULERS' GOALS - Following are the top four issms identified by the haulers as their agenda for review and action by the City of Tigard during the 1995 calendar year. The haulers are developing suggested options for resolution of these issues and will y present those to City staff during April, 1995. These issues Council will review sometime during 1995. • TOP PRIORITY j Cost of service-based rates (eliminate the commercial subsidy for residential customers) OTHER PRIORITIES (tentative list) - Disclosure of individual company annual reports (due to recent Willamette Week attempt to receive individual business ' financial information) { Roll carts mandated for residential garbage & off -airb rate adjustment -ta~IC,tif s 1 ~ PAGE 4 OF 4 - : ; SOLID WASTE 101 MEMO APRIL 5,1995 { i 1 • RATE ADJUSTMENT - According to existing Council policy and die franchise ordinance, haulers submit an annual financial review. This ' Is reviewed by staff between 3,11 and 3131 each year. If the aggregate financial summary for the three haulers indicates that the profit t' percentage is betew 8% for W year or over 12% for the year, a rate adjustment is considered by Council. Following is an excerpt from TMC a 11.04.090(C) A (E) which sets out the conditions for sold waste rate changes: "...The council shall give due consideration to the purposes of this chapter and the annual report filed by the franchisees in evaluating the proposed rate changes." "...rate adjustments shall be made annually on the following schedule: 1. 'On or before March 1 st, the franchisee shall file an annual report, in a form required by administrative rule, with the city recorder for the year ending the previous December 31st. 2. "The city administrator shall report to the council by April 1 st on the franchisee reports and propane rate adjustments if any. The administrator may make such recommendations as appropriate to the rate determination. A copy shall be delivered to each franchisee. 1J 3. "The council may set a hearing on any proposed rate adjustment J 4. "Unless there is good cause shown and recorded in the minutes of the council, the council shall act upon any rate adjustment by May 31st, and the adjustment shall take effect June 1st Rate adjustments shall be by resolution of the council." Please see Wayne Lown/s rate memo included in the Council packet with this information. • PLASTIC RECYCLING AT CURBSIDE - As of 3/29/95, the Cities of Tualatin and Wilsonville began collecting all #1 through #7 plastic bottles with necks rather than just 02 plastic milk jugs. City of Portland plans to start this program no later than 7/1/95. With surrounding jurisdictions offering this service and the continued requests by Tigard citizens for this service, I believe Tigard will need to review this issue and be i prepared to offer the service no later than 7/1/05. We have found in the past that if Portland offers collection of a recyclable at curbside, 1 our citizens assume they also have that seMce in Tigard due to the local media coverage. I will begin working with our haulers abut this p. issue on 41117/95 (our next monthly meeting). • CURBSIDE AUTOMATION OF GARBAGE COLLECTION - The haulers were given 2 years to phase-in automated containers for garbage collection to their residential customers. That target date for this was 1/1195 for completion of the placement Does City Council wish to mandate automated carts now as the only option for garbage service for residents, or does Council wish to allow some cans too. • METRO'$ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - Review and comment on the develop of the next 10 year regional plan. • YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM REVIEW - DEQ is now saying that by 12196 all jurisdictions have to provide w ek1I collection of yard debris reoyclables if the jurisdiction can't prove thteir'every-other-week" program meets the program intent of weekly collection. While our 60-gallon cart currently meets this "test" by DEQ, it is being challenged. Staff will be working to support the City's position that every-other-week will continue to meet the standard. I I will be discussing this memo with Council at their study session of 4/18/95 and will be available to answer their questions. _ i im7aroc/.18 i 1 I I i I 1 i I i ~ I i i i -F i April 18, 1995- Carolyn De Frang 11650 B.W. 't'errace Trails Dr. igard, OR 1. Dear Councilors, This letter is to bring to your attention the discrepancy in f 1 the relative amount paid for trash pick-up by. someone who has on-call service versus the usual weekly pick-up. The current charge for disposal of one 33 gallon can, on-call, is $8.50. Someone who puts out a 33 gallon can 4-5 times a 3 month pays only $16.50. j Such rates penalize the family who recycles, composts, mulches, and purchases food and other commodities in recyclable or more 1 environmentally friendly containers. It is suggested that those who generate the trash pay accordingly a for its disposal relative to the amount generated. Sewer payments in Tigard recently went to a fairer payment schedule wherein usage dictates the rate charged. Rates for trash pick-up should also reflect usage, and if someone doesn't need yard debris pick-up because they compost and mulch, they should not be required to subsidize those that do. r Your attention to this as you review the current trash rates and franchise arrangements is appreciated. Sincerely, Carolyn M. De Frang f - i I SOLID WASTE RATEfSERVICE COMPARISON (in effect In April p 5) an raies include bin & yard debris recycling services (yard debris rates computed on service offered that is closest to Tgard's) t ` l f li I i l SERVICE TYPE BEAVERTON DURHAM GRESHAM, HILLSSORO LAKE PORTLAND SHERWOOD TIGARD TUALATIN WILSON. WASH. CLACK. AVERAGE OSWEGO VILLE CN Y' CNTY`s i 20 gallon - curb $14.50 $16.18 $15.95 $15.30 $17.00 $20.60 $17.50 $1425 $15.60 $16.60 $17.76 $1550 $16.40 :l ~ f 20 gallon - yard same same same same same $23.60 $21.00 same same same $18.76 $17.00 $20.09 32 gallon-cueb $16.50 $18.50 $18.05 N/A $19.55 $23.60 $19.28 $16.50 WA $18.60 $19.15 $17.70 $18.1d 1 j 32 gallon • yard same same same same same $26.60 $22.78 same same same $20.15 $1920 $22.18 35 gallon rc WA $18.50 $19.05 $17.45 ? $25.30 $19.28 $16.50 $18.60 $18.60 WA $18.70 $17.05 E j Recycling only WA $4.50 bin WA WA ? $ 450 bin $ 5.60 tin $ 7.40 bin & WA $ 9.25 bin & $653 bin & NIA III only only only yard debris yard debris yard debris Yard debris EOW-60-RC EOW-60•RC W-32-C EOW-60-RC W-60-RC EOW-60-RC EOW-60-RC EOW-60-RC W-90-RC W-90-RC EOW-60-RC W-32•C ' Milk jugs yes yea yes ? no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Scrap paper yes yes yes ? no yes rW yes yes yes yes yes tRa,'te,'of cs 41 07 no no 9/1/95 ? no no 7/1195 7 no no 4195 4195 9/1/95 ? 9/1/95 ? 1 1 { return WA W A ? ? WA 9.5% y cedi0ed to 10% informal informal informal informal ~ - - I County Urban Service Rates (not rural service rates) t A2 Charges with Weekly, 60 gallon roll cart yard debris service I R.C. = FOR cart service rather than can service EOW - every other week service W =weekly service 60 a 60 gallon container SERVICE TYPE GRESHAM , CLACK. CUTY. s 1 32 -32 gallon container rc = roll can container (mechanical assisted dumping) 20 gallon - curb $18.10 $18.90 can = can container (manual dumping) 20 gaCon -yard €ame $20.40 ? Unknown 32 gallon - curb $20.20 $21.10 32 gallon - yard same $22.60 i 35 gallon rc" X21.25 $22.10 i i 1 i 1 Q April 18, 1995 Carolyn De Frang i ' 11650 S.W. Terrace Trails Dr. Tigard, OR Dear Councilors, This letter is to bring to your attention the discrepancy in the relative amount paid for trash pick-up by someone who has on-call service versus the usual weekly pick-up. The current charge for disposal of one 33 gallon can, on-call, is $8.50. Someone who puts out a 33 gallon can 4-5 times a month pays only $16.50. Such rates penalize the family who recycles, composts, mulches, and purchases food and other commodities in recyclable or more environmentally friendly containers. f j It is suggested that those who generate the trash pay accordingly for its disposal relative to the amount generated. Sewer payments in Tigard recently went to a fairer payment schedule wherein usage dictates the rate charged. Rates for trash pick-up should also reflect usage, and if someone doesn't need yard debris pick-up because they compost and mulch, they should not be required to subsidize those that do. Your attention to this as you review the current trash rates and franchise arrangements is appreciated. i t Sincerely, Carolyn M. De Frang ~ t Y 1 { 7 F 1 04/18/95 City of Tigard, Oregon Solid Waste Rate Review for 1994 { 1 j Rate Setting Procedure " Established by Council motion Sept 14, 1987 f; a. Annual Financial Reports C b. Profit Rate - Net Income/Cross Revenues ` C. 8% - 12% Profit Range d. Council consideration * Never been invoked. 2) Profit % History 3) Solid Waste Rate History Resid Comm t 1987 7.42% 8.25 49.20 1988 9.88% 10.30 60.91 ' 1989 10.77% 10.30 60.91 1990 9.78% 11.05 65.35 1991 9.16% 12.05 70.98 i 1992 11.65% 13.10 74.10 1993 10.50% 13.10 74.10 1994 7.62% 16.50 74.10 3 t j F i f t ;I j i. i 4) Financial Trends _i Revenues 1993 1994 % change Drop Box 1,314,365 1,596,481 2110 Residential 1,536,881 1,775,074 15/0 Multifamily 706,993 725,997 3% Commercial 1,924,205 2,117,836 10% Other 53,407 45,186 -15% Total 5,535,851 6,260,574 13% s Costs Drop Box 1,347,092 1,650,065 22% Residential 1,653,222 2,021,859 22% Multifamily 460,907 536,612 16% Commercial 1,391,654 1,460,453 5% Other 101,975 114,562 12% Total 4,954,850 5,783,551 17% I Net Income 1 Drop Box (32,727) (53,584) 64% Residential (116,341) (246,785) 112% Multifamily 246,086 189,385 -23% Commercial 532,551 657,383 23% Other (48,568) (69,376) 43% Total 581,001 477,023 -18% i 5) Implementation of Rate Setting Policy i Raise Gross Revenue by $170,000 or 2.7% A) All Rates Current New Increase_ 32 Gal can 16.50 16.95 0.45 Minican 14.25 14.65 0.40 Comm 1 yd 74.10 76.10 2.00 B) Residential Only Current New Increase 32 Gal can 16.50 18.10 1.60 Minican 14.25 15.60 1.35 ! Comm 1 yd 74.10 74.10 0.00 6) Alternatives ' A) Implement Policy S 4 t D) Defy Implementation i I C) Change Policy ;z f. I i j ~ 1 i l k I I f ti I s ~ t CTiY or i1CnRD e: 501-10 WASIti Rnit_ WILNG PROCLUNE a Annual'report% will be submitted to the finance Director no later than i March 31 of each yejAr. The finance Director will review the reports and gather any clarifications he deems necessary from the solid waste haulers or Chair designated representatives. o The Finance Director after being satisfied that the reports are complete and properly filled out in accordance with the instructions provided will determine the "profit rate" by the aggregate net income of the haulers as 9 a percentage of aggregate gross revenues. f o The Finance Director- will then report the results to the Utility and Franchise Committee. If the "profit rate" falls below 8%, the rates 1 charged by the haulers should be ad usted to 6-+ j provide a lOX margin. If the rates exceed 12%. the rates should be adjusted downward to 10%. 9 n After consideration of all information provided in the annual reports and ~ 4 d input from the Finance Director, the Utility and Franchise Committee will i submit to the City Council the results of the rate setting pracpdur. and recommendations for rate Adj"stments if necessary. 1 i cn10649D i i f 'I l r _ € ] f i I MEN L y - .Washington County Haulers Association PO Boy: 1622 4800 SW Griffith Drive $uite 260 r Beaverton. Oregon 97075-1622 503.641-4337 FAX 503-641-5937 ~ 1111 April 18, 1995 F ;Honorable Mayor of the City of Tigard :Honorable Members of the City Council of Tigard j _ •..:.;.,~w•~s~..:, Subject: Solid Waste Programs in Tigard i 4 1 o;~-,ygp ,a As members of the Washington County Haulers Association,. V we, your solid waste haulers', appreciate the opportunity to I Iexpress our concerns about the Solid Waste rate review. :c~::mt ngr!s, (The citizens of Tigard have enjoyed continually improving _ i revprograms-with s'eemsj'important service that levels. we Based wos3 first it to. preserve ;these programs in a way that fairly covers-their costs. We have made the investments and provided the services n:~r;~ i requested by the City. (to meet State and Metro mandates)'. 'There is an understanding with the City that an annual 3 !review,, based upon guidelines previously set, would be. - .fused to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs, and to jadjust the rates as needed. This policy-understanding has L., }been used successfully since 1987. { :s In order to maintain a complete solid-waste program for.' iTigard's citizens, including recycling and yard debris-, we must meet the financial obligations of, those programs, f fLet's work together,_u.sing these guidelines, to make the changes'needed to preserve and improve our programs. . j j Another concern is the continued dependence on a commercial ;subsidy to maintain residential rates well below the actual Y,µ cost of service. The costs of the coming commercial 1 recycling programs will add pressure to the commercial rate, making the subsidy more difficult to maintain. ;Since 1987, the haulers have contained 'costs successfully. ;Rate increases have come from either new services or 'increases in the Metro disposal fee. There has been no 'Metro disposal fee increase since 1992. Each of Tigard's new programs has been added to the rate at a conservative estimate.of its cost. j Associated Members Providing Solid Waste Recycling Collection Service to: _ the c :4es o; Sinks. c9avgrTcn. Comei;us. Dufham. Forest Grove. Gas, on: H:iishgro. K7ng City, loci, ?lams. Sherwood: Ticard. Tualatin. `•V4sonvi!le and V~,ashingtcn County Tigard Mayor & City Counci;., page i i Fin,%Ily, the r. _.:_d?r'tlai ''rat:, Si`- ~ ~ l-. ~ is an ever..l increase of 2.8%, wF th._ current cost of liviny• at 2.9%. It rema: nc> Ue:l cw t ho actual cost of residential service, but would move toward _ i ret:ucinq the cr.)mmercial subsidy. We appreciate your consideration of this inzos•mat:ion, and would be pleased to work with you to r e-.^nlve: h,-se matters. c: c, Your& truly, Michael Laichner Thomas Miller j Larry Schmidt 3 1 i - ~ b Agenda Item MEMORANDUM Meeting of L) it 1 -(Q w r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i i TO: Bill Monahan, city Administrator 1 J FROM: 'Mayne Lowry, Finance Director DATE: April 10, 1995 UBOTECT: Solid Waste Annual Report Review All three franchised garbage haulers have submitted annual reports for their Tigard activities for the calendar year 1994. I have reviewed the reports and have had the opportunity to discuss various issues and questions with the haulers to further clarify the financial results presented in their reports. i In their aggregated form, the reports indicate a significant decrease in the profit percentage from last year. The profit percentage is the aggregate net income divided by gross revenues. The 1993 rate was 10.5% compared to the 1994 rate of 7.62%. -'..i In reviewing the reports, it appears that several factors contributed to the decrease in the profit percentage. All three t haulers made significant investments in equipment in 1994 to gear up for the implementation of the residential curb side yard debris program. In the aggregate, investment in capital equipment including carts and additional trucks increased from about $750,000 in 1993 to nearly $1,400,000 in 1994. As a result, depreciation costs increased 22b over 1993. i 1 Another factor contributing to the change in the profit percentage j was the increase in other costs related to recycling. At least one hauler reported that certain recycling laborers unionized in 1994 thus increasing wage and benefit costs substantially over the I previous year. During the late 1980's and early 19900s, Pietro dump fees increased 1 from $17 per ton to $75 per ton over a period of several years. Tigard°s garbage rate was increased each year to compensate for the increase in the dump fee. This almost annual increase also had the effect of offsetting the costs of inflation during that period. There have been no Metro dump fee increases since 1992 and f therefore no related increases in the rate. As a result, since 1992, there have been no adjustments to the haulers revenues for the effect of inflation and rising costs. This appears to be one of the factors contributing to the decrease in the profit percentage over the last two years. i i a ~a r~ In 1986, the City Council asked the Utility and Franchise Committee a to develop a rate setting process to assist them in evaluating rate increase requests from the haulers. In 1987, the Committee 1 presented a process to the Council that included an annual t financial report submitted by each hauler and a method by which to determine whether rata adjustments were necessary based on the f financial results. i i a The Council approved this process at their September 14, 1987 meeting by motion on the consent agenda including the following procedure: E If the profit rate falls below 8%, the rates charged by the haulers should be adjusted to provide a lot margin. If the rate exceeds 12%, the rates should be adjusted downward to 10%.19 S The procedure seems to be a guideline in that it uses the word "should" not "shall". it would appear that the Council has the i ability to set the rates however they see fit. Since the inception of this procedure, the City has never needed to _ invoke it because since 1987, the aggregate profit percentage has remained between the eight and twelve percent limits. This is the f A first time that the aggregate rate has dropped below the 8%. The council needs to decide how it will deal with this procedure k - set back in 1987 especially since it has never been invoked. Does this council feel comfortable with this procedure? is the eight to i. twelve percent range appropriate for the 1990's? i The haulers are under the impression that the current procedure is in effect and will most likely expect a rate adjustment in line with it. { If the procedure were invoked as it was designed, the rates would need to be increased to yield an additional estimated $179,000 which amounts to a 2.8% increase across all service lines or about lot of residential gross revenues. Such an increase in the aggregate revenue from residential rates only would require the following rate increase rounded to the nearest five cents: if Procedure { Current Invoked` Rate sate 32 gal Can/Cart 16.50 18.15 Minican 14.25 15.65 ,i f The Council has several options in dealing with this situation: F- 1) The Council could determine that in spite of the previously adopted procedure it is too early to increase rates e-Ifffective i i MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGAARD, OREGON( TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council k FROM: Willia; Monahan, City Administrator .r DATE: March 31, 1995 i SUBJECT: Franchised Garbage Mauler's Financial summary Attached is the financial summary for our franchised garbage haulers for the year ending December 31, 1994. Section 11.04.090 E.2. of the Municipal Code requires that I report to the Council by April 1, 1995 on the franchisee reports and proposed rate adjustments, if any. The attached aggregate financial summary for the three haulers indicates that the profit percentage for 1994 was 7.62%. This is the first time since 1987 that the profit - percentage has fallen below 8%. Our understanding with the haulers is that they are entitled to an 8% to 12% profit. As a result, based ors preliminary information, a rate adjustment will be proposed. j i Staff is presently reviewing the individual information provided -,y the three haulers. Purt~ter information will be forthcoming prior to the April 18 Council meeting. W /j h attachment i i 3 1 h:\togin\14\w331.3 _l I i i I . f I Hauler city Of Tigard 03123/95 2 Flnanela! Summary - Franchised Garbage Haulers 3 For The Yaws Ended December 31. 1934 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 k - Drop Boxes Operating Revenue 327,776 595,856 804,668 1,023,720 1.070,859 1.230.542 1,309,249 1,548,569 - Operating Costs 420,596 _ 592.825 879.112 1.031.655 1.104.912 1.244.675 1.333.596 1.602.452 t Not Income (92,820) _ 3,031 {74.4441 7 935) (34 053) X14133} (24 3471 (53.883) -28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3.71% 3.181% -1.15% -1.86% -3.48% ~ s` - DMP Box Recycling Operating Revenue O 0 0 0 0 3.946 51116 47,912 Operating costs 0 0 0 0 0 6.470 13,496 47,613 f Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 t2,52b~_~~ 380) 299 0.00% 0.00°10 0.00*/* O.d19% 0.00'/0 63.96°!0 94.19°/6 0.62°10 Total Drop Box Net Income (92.8201 3,0311 (74A44) (37.935) (34.053) (16,857, (32,727) (53,584) -28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3.71% 3.18% -1.35% -2.49% 3.36% r Residential Cans Operating Revenue 679,257 830,141 1,066,829 1,092,545 1,247,835 1,364,323 1,486,082 1,623,219 Operating costs 634.650 818,184 931,536 1,063.139 1,080,970 1,035,424 1,196,556 1,285.570 Net Income 44,607 11 957 135,293 29,406 166,865 328,899 289,526 _337,649 6.570/6 1.449/6 12.68% 2.69%6 13.373'0 24.11% 19.48% 20.80% Residential Recycling Operating Revenue 21,472 34.588 27,259 20,063 33,594 29,155 46,854 113,101 Operating Costs 43,444 90,086 153,781 214,165 234,857 377,101 447,920 542,501 l Not Income (21,972) (55,498) (126,5 (194.102) (201,263) (347,345) (401,066) (429,400) t_ -102.331%. -160.45% -464.15% -967.461/6 -599.10%6 -1193.399/6 -855.99% 379.661/. Yard Debris t Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 1,878 2,613 3,945 38,754 Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 4,105 6,035 8,746 193,788 Not Income 0 _0 0 0 (2.227) (3.222) (4.801) --(155.034) - -118.58% 3.959% 12.40% -4.00 j Total Residential Not Income 22,635 (43,541) - 8,771 (164,696L_36,525) (22 269) (116,341) (246.785) 3.23% -5.04%6 0.80% -14.20% -2.85% -1.59% -7.57% -13.90% a Multifamily Cans Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 602,231 696,049 692,996 s Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 342,421 381,871 454,890 Not Income 0 0_ O 0 0 269,810 314,178 238 10S 34.36%6 j 0 0.04%6 - --0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 43.141/6 45.141/. 1 Multifamily Recycling Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 O 6,702 10,944 33,001 Operating costs 0 0 0 0 0 73,395 79,036 81,722 Net income, 0 0 0 0 0 (66,693) (68.092) (48.721) 0.001/6 0.006/6 0.(10%6 0.009!, 0.00% -995.129/6 -622.19% -147.63% j Total Multifamily Not Income 0 0 0 0 0 193,117 246,086 189,385 0.000/6 0.000/6 0.00% 0.080ib 0.00%6 31.71% 34.81% 26.09% i 4 I t r 1 i Page 1 i 3 1 1 I - 1 f r 1 Hauler tatty of 1lgard 0312,'+.196 2 Financtai summary - Franchised Garbaga Hau!srs 3 For The Years Ended December 31,1904 i 1987 1088 1989 19930 1991 19992 1993 1994 v) 1 Haulm - - t I 2 0 3 0' Commercial Containers Offing Revenue 1,060,043 1,307,602 1,699,500 1,944189 2,147.476 1,821,4+0-9 1,851,488 1,951,453 i, Operating costs 749,846 880,4113 1.154,262 1,153,583 1,385,438 1.146.363 1.168.407 1.203.299 , 1 Net Income 310.197 42913s _ 9 645,238 788,626 762,038 675.136 W5,081 745.169 : i 29.26% 3167% 32.08% 40.61% 35.49Y0 37.06% 37.006/0 38.18ii. i Commercial Recycling Operating Revenue 0 0 0 52,468 72,479 70,072 72,717 166,378 f Operating Casts 0 O 0 135,104 232.607 204,379 225,2?47 254,1154 Net Income 0 0 0 182.636} (160.128) (133.407) 1152 _5,90) t87.776~ -1 -157.50% -220.93% •187.97% -209.76% -52.76% i, Total commercial Net Income 310,197 427,139 545,238 705.990 601.910 541,729- 532.551 6_57,383 29.26% 3267% 3208°/9 35.39'!0 27.11 % 28 63°10 27.ti8°f0 31.04% Medical Waste i Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 47 938 17,491 24,951 Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 2,374 1,668 18,323 22,662 Net Income 0 0 0 0 (2.327) (670) (832) 2 289 t -4951.060/0 -67.13% 4.76% 9.17°10 i j- Consolidated Net income 240,012 386,629 479,565 543,359 528,905 695,251 628,737 548,688 Other Revenue 1,052 6,121 8,519 8,869 9,419 6,191 35,916 20,235 Other Cosh 85,983 118,581 99,738 107,304 118,611 102,474 83,652 91.900 G" Grand Total Net income 155,081 274.169 3W,346 404,924 419,713 598 968 581,001 477,023 Total Revenues 2,089,600 2,774.308 3,606.775 4,139,854 4,583,587 5,139,373 5,535.851 6,260.574 Profit Percentage 7.420/0 9.88% 10.770% 9.781/. 9.16°0 11.65010 10.500/0 7.62% i I i J , { Page 2 i 1 i 04/18/95 .a i City of Tigard, Oregon Solid Waste Rate Review for 1994 E; 1) Rate Setting Procedure Established by Council motion Sept 14, 1987 a. Annual Financial Reports b. Profit Rate - Net Income/Gross Revenues - C. 8% - 12% Profit Range t d. Council consideration r ; ` Never been invoked. 2) Profit % History 3) Solid Waste Rate History Resid Comm 1987 7.42% 8.25 49.20 1988 9.88% 10.30 60.91 I - 1989 10.77% 10.30 60.91 1990 9.78% 11.05 65.35 ' 1991 9.16% 12.05 70.98 j 1992 11.65% 13.10 74.10 1993 10.50% 13.10 74.10 1994 7.62% 16.50 74.10 i L 1 f 1 i } j i l , a 4) Financial Trends Revenues f 1993 1994 % change t Drop Box 1,314,365 1,596,481 21% Residential 1,535,881 1,775,074 15% i Multifamily 706,993 725,997 3% Commercial 1,924,205 2,117,836 10% Other 53,407 45,186 -15°!0 , Total 5,535,851 6,260,574 13% Costs t Drop Box 1,347,092 1,650,065 22% t Residential 1,653,222 2,021,859 22% Multifamily 460,907 536,612 16% Commercial 1,391,654 1,460,453 5°!0 ' Other 101,975 114,562 12% Total 4,954,850 5,783,551 17% l Net Income j Drop Box (32,727) (53,584) 64% - Residential (116,341) (246,785) 112% Multifamily 246,086 189,385 -23% - Commercial 532,551 657,383 23% Other (48,568) (69,376) 43% Total 581,001 477,023 -18% 5) Implementation of Rate Setting Policy Raise Gross Revenue by $170,000 or 2.7% { A) All Rates j Current New Increase 32 Gal can 16.50 16.95 0.45 j Minivan 14.25 14.65 0.40 Comm 1 yd 74.10 76.10 2.00 B) Residential Only i Current New Increase 32 Gal can 16.50 18.10 1.60 Minivan 14.25 15.60 1.35 Comm 1 yd 74.10 74.10 0.00 1 a i 1 C) Alternatives A) Implement Policy l B) Delay Implementation I C) Change Policy i 9 E k.:. z_J i j` i j I r k { I I i i 7 i I c- 3 f ' 10 C ti - 1 a i E CITY or TIGARD SOLID WAVE Rr11 E 5t. i t LNG PROU1.11URE i o Annual reports will be submitted Lo the Finance Director no Wer than March 31 of each year. The Financo OLroctor will review the reports arid i n gather any clarifications he deems necessary from the.solid waste haulers or their designated representatives. o The Finance Director after being saLisfiad that the r•eporLs are complete and properly filled out in accordance with the instructions provided will f determine Lhe "profit rate" by the aggregate net income of the haulers as a percentage of aggregate gross revenues. t 3 i o The r.,nance Director- will them report Lhe results to the Utility rand f ! Franchise Committee. If the "profit rate" falls below 6%, the races .f chargad by this haular4 should be adjusted r .,,..,,u to provide a lOX margin. If the 13 rates exceed 12%, the rates should be adjusted downward to 10%. C o After consideration of all information provided in the annual reports and input from the Finance Director, the Utility and Franchise Committee will E submit to the City Council the results of the rate setting proceriuro and - recommendations for rate adjnstments if necessary. cn/0648D i i 4 } t k j ' ~ j i , j r 1 a~ I 1 Hauler City Of Tigard 03123195 } 2 Financial Summary - FrancNeed Garbage Haulers 3 For The Years Ended December 31, 1987 1988 1989 196'0 1991 1992 1993 1994 _ Drop Boxes Operating Revenue 327,776 595,856 804,668 1,023,720 1,0.0,859 1,230,542 1,309,249 1,548,669 Operating Costs _ 420,596 592,825 879,112 1,061,655 1,104,912 1,244,675 1,333,596 1,602,452 Not Income ___A92 820} 3,031 174,44437, 3 3( 4,0531 (14,133) (24.347}^ 53 883 -28.321/6 0.51% -9.25% •3.71% -3.18% -1.15% -1.86% .3.48% Drop Box Recycling Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 3,946 5,116 47,912 § Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 - 0 6,470 13,496 47,613 Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (2,524) (8.380) _299_ 0.00% 0.000/a 0.00% 01001a 0.00% 53.96% -94.189/. 0.62% Total Drop Box Net Income (92 820) 3.031 (74.444) (37935) (34.053) (10 657) (32.727) (53,58 I -28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3,71% -3.18% -1.35% -2.49% -3.36% _ Residentiai Cans Operating Revenue 679,257 830,141 1,056,829 1,092,545 1,247,835 1,364,323 1,486,082 1,623,219 Operating Costs 634,650 818,184 931,536 1,063,139 1,080,970 1,035,424 1,196,556 9,285,570 ~ Net Income 44.607 11,957 135,293 29,406 166,865 328.899 289,526 337.649 ' 6.571/6 1.449/6 12.63% 2.699/. 13.371/6 24.11% 19.481% 20.809/6 Residential Recycling Operating Revenue 21,472 34,588 27,259 20,063 33,594 29,156 46,854 113,101 Operating Costs 43,444 90,086 153,781 214,165 234,857 377,101 447,920 542,501 Not J', o701 15~5 dnx1 1129_5221 04.1= 1201_2s3i 1347.9453 (401,G661_(429-000) -102.33% -160.459/6 -464.151/6 -967.46% -599.101/. -1193,391/. -855.99% .379.66% i Yard Debris Operating Revenue 0 0 0 O 1,878 2,813 3,945 38,754; Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 4,105 6,035 8,746 193,788 Net Income 0 0 0. 0 (2,227) (3222) (4 8011 (156.034) -118.58% 3.959/. 12.409/6 -4.00 Total Residential Not Income 22,635 (43,541).. 8779 (164,69_6) (36,625 22,268) (116341) (246,785) 3.23% -5.0401 0.9-o 14.80010 -2.85% -1.59% -7.57 % -13.90% Multifamily Cans Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 602,231 696,049 692,996 Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 342,421 381,871 454,890 Net Income 0 0 0_ 0 _ 0 259 810 314,178 23,8106 0 0.001% 0.000/ 0.001% 0.001/6 0.00% 43.14% 45.149/a 34.369/6 i ; Multifamily Recyc!:ng Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 6,702 10,944 33,001 Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 73,395 79,036 81,722 c Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (66_693) (68.092) (48,729) 0.00% 0.000/ 0.001/6 0.001% 0.009/6 -995.129/6 -622.191/. -147.63% i Total Multifamily Net Income 0 0 0 O 0 193,117 246 086 189,385 0.00% 0.00% 0.001% 0.00'/0 0.000/ 31.71% 34.81% 26.099/6 r Page 1 i r 4 ~ d t- 1 Hauler City Of Tlgard 03123195 j 2 Financial Summary - Franchised Garbage Haulers t 3 For The Years Ended December 31, 1994 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 F 1 Hauler - - 2 0. 2 3 0 i Commercial Contalners Operating Revenue 1,060,043 1,307,602 1,699,500 1,942,189 2,147,476 1,821,499 1,851,488 1,951,458 Operating Costs 749,846 880,463 1,154,262, 1,153,563 1,385,438 1,146,363 1,168,407 1,206 299 E Net Income 310,197 427,139 _545,238 78 626 762.038 675,136 685,081 Be 745129.26% 32.67°/0 32.08% 40.61% 35.49'/0 37.06% 37.00'./0 38.18% Gommerc(al Recycling j Operating Revenue 0 0 0 52,468 72,479 70,972 72,717 166,378 Operating Casts 0 0 0 135,104 232,607 204,379 225,247 254,154 (133 407) (152.530) (87.7761 Net Income 0 0 0 (82 636) (160 128) j -157.50% -220.93% -187.979'0 -209.769/6 -52.7W. Total Commercial Net Income _ 910197 427 139 545 238 705,990 601 ,9i 0 54 ,729 532,551 657,383 F 29.26% 32.67% 32.08% 35.3996 27.11% 28.63% 27.689/ 31.04% Medical Waste Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 47 998 17,491 24,951 Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 2,374 1,668 18,323 22,662 Net Income 0 0 0 0 (2,327 (670) (832) 2,289 -495i.vo-7o -67.13% -4.76% U.1 /7. Consolidated Not Income 240,012 386,629 479,555 503,359 528,905 695,251 628,737 548,688 Other Revenus 1,052 6,121 8,519 8,869 9,419 6,191 35,916 20,235 Otter Costs 85,983 118,581 99,738 107,304 118,611 102,474 83,652 91,9m f Grand Total Net Income 155,081 274,169 388.346 404,924 419,713 598 968 581.001 _ 477,023 J - Total Revenues 2,089,600 2,774,308 3,606,775 4,139,854 4,583,587 5,139,373 5,535,851 6,260,574 Profit Percentage 7.42% 9.88% 10.771/6 9.78% 9.16% 11.651/6 10.50% 7.62/0 i L,. ~ i Page 2 i t. k Agenda Item No. ~I s y rt Meeting of MEMORANDUM - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i` 1 f TO: Sill Monahan, City Administrator y FROM: Loreen Mills, Management Anal DATE: April 13,1995 f SUBJECT: Yard Debris Program Update The Tigard City Council implemented a yard debris recycling component of the solid waste program in July, 1994. This i program was put on line 6/1/94. Last September, Council reviewed the program again and requested staff return in April, 1995 for a review of the Tigard program and its effectiveness. Council also expressed interest in reviewing the seasonal changes in use of the yard debris program and information regarding the customer complaints received by the City. First it is important to review what the STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING IN TIGARD are. - i. The state administrative rules (OARS) are very clear about what items must be recycled at curbside in the tri-county area. r` However, OAR 340-90.040(3)(9) is rather ambiguous about how to determine if the residential yard debris program is "effective% While subsection (f3) states that the program must be "at least monthly on-route collection", there is nothing in t -the OARs that define what standard DEQ and Metro will use to determine whether a program meets the "effective" standard. From an historical perspective, Washington County cities chose back in 1990 to use yard debris depots throughout the County (as allowed under OAR 340-90-060(5)(d)) as a lower cost alternative for yard debris recycling rather than curbside collection. i 1 In 1993, Metro determined that the depot system was not "effective" in keeping yard debris out of the garbage can. A 1992 Regionei Yard Debris Recovery Study was conducted by Metro which found the following: 22 pounds of yard debris per household per month was collected in drop off jurisdictions 57 pounds of yard debris per household per month was collected in curbside jurisdictions This is what triggered DEQ to give notice 9/93 that curbside collection was now mandated in Washington County. ~ ! have recently visited at some length with DEQ, Metro, and Washington County about the following questions: • Is Tigard's current yard debris program considered "effective"? • Can Tigard make changes to the current program which was filed with DEQ and approved by them last May? • What happens if Tigard is not found to be "effective" in the future? Is Tigard's current yard debris program considered "effective"? Tigard's plan has not been tested for effectiveness yet because it is too early. Metro's Regional Yard Debris Recyc!ing Plan had set a goal of allowing 33% of the garbage can waste to be yard debris in 1993 and only 7% will be allowed by 1996. This will be the official "test" to determine whether Tiigard's collection method is effective. During the week of April 17th, Metro is conducting their second annual yard debris "test" to see how much yard debris ends up in Tigard's trash cans. If we are found "effective" we will be allowed to keep our 60 gallon cart, biweekly service. If we are not found "effective" DEQ will require us to become effective no later than 12196. i 4+ , r PAGE 2OF3 ` YARD DEBRIS UPDATE MEMO APRIL 13, 1965 ' Metro and DEC have been talking with various jurisdictions about the "effectiveness" of their yard debris programs ` (collection every other week in 32-gallon cans). The position that DEC and Metro have taken is that the program is not meeting the effectiveness test based on Metro's newly completed waste composition analysis. Metro's analysis has shown that when yard debris is collected weekly, only 5'I% of the garbage can contents are yard debris. This is compared with 11% in the garbage can if yard debris is collected every other week. DEC has advised me that they will be taking a harder line with all cities and counties in the Metro area in making sure that programs are effective. I believe that Tigard can defend a yard debris program collected every other week in l the 60-gallon cart. While collection is every other week, we can still meet the volume component of a weekly collection of a 32-gallon can. D6 has agreed with our rationale at this time. DEC is also in the process of developing a clearer method of quantifying the effectiveness of yard debris programs. i6ea. _e... f`~s.. Yf..u•rd .w.aLawl.ariwwn iwi a 6IN.. a.v IIMnW w..WIVVa 16W IM9 WWIIG..{ V~Cg110 i U lii3u(1Sill d0C85 action t0 Change the current p(Qg(a{Tl, r1utIG® -1 of the change would need to be filed with Washington County and DEC. This change would then be reviewed for ~ effectiveness. What Izappens If Tigard is not found to to "effective" In the future? Tigard would be notified that we were not r in compliance. We would be given a period of time to either prove that our program was effective or change our program to weekly collection. If Tigard then chose to not comply, DEC has the authority to charge a penalty for each day Tigard is out of compliance. Six months of non-compliance would cost $91,000. 1 COUNCIL'S DECISION ON YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM DESIGN r Next, the reason for Council's decision on yard debris program design is important to build a better understanding of our E program. Council stated their reasons for this decision were as follows: no additional City sta'rf would he needed to implement the program changes; the program would keep Tigard in compliance with state law longer with a 60-gallon size of cart ! collected every other week; citizens would be able to reduce the size of their garbage can and thereby offset the cost of the new programs; individual exemptions were not approved but a class exemption for homeowner associations was approved. CURRENT REVIEW OF THE YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM Following are highlights of the current yard debris program. Also attached is information about the scrap paper program and i use of mini cans for garbage since all of these programs were enacted at the same time. a • Attachment #t Statistics from the yard debris program show 45% of the customers participate each time yard debris is collected in Tigard. • Scrap paper program was started at the same time as yard debris. 63% of the customers participate when red bins are collected in Tigard on a weekly basis. • The use of the mini can for garbage was anticipated to increase with scrap paper being removed from the garbage can. Currently, a total of 7.6% of the garbage customers are taking advantage of the cost savings by using a mini can. - F- 1- ` e PAGE 3OF3 ~ YARD DEBRIS UPDATE MEMO 'APRIL 13, 1995 r • Attachment #2 • Collection of yard debris year round is shown to be very effective for Tigard residents. During the first 6 months of the program, February was the lowest collection month, but still we saw 146 TONS of yard debris recycled. • Customer Complaints k; • The City received a total of 67 complaints about the yard debris program. Most calls were from people on fixed incomes. Since the mini can was also offered, we have seen a number of people that expressed concern about the program go to the mini can for garbage service. Since 1011/94, the City has not received a complaint about the yard debris program other than some requests for additional service (i.e., multiple 60- F i gallon carts being available for heavy yard debris seasons.) Staff will meet with Council, at the 4/16/95 study session, to share information about the effectiveness of our current program I and answer further Council questions. ~ Attachments: Attachment #1 - Solid Waste Residential Recycling Program State Attachment #2 - Yard Debris (tons collected by month) trtJy~tats.395 j f f I i i I i I ATTACHMENT #1 SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM STATS 81 i rlROUGH 3/95.8 MONT. "S TOTAL REVIEW F j - ~ YARN DEBRIS PROGRAM STATS i MEASUREMENT PROGRAM TOTALS ~ TOTAL NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS' 8,108 TOTAL NUMBER OF RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES IN 8 MONTHS (bi-wreekly collection) 17 TOTAL NUMBER OF YARD DEBRIS SETOUTS 61,727 A % OF CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATING EVERY OTHER WEEK 45% J TONS COLLECTED " 1,553 i customer count is 263 less in the yard debris program due to the "class exemption" element 3,106,000 pounds in 8 months r i SCRAP PAPER PROGRAM STATS t i MEASUREMENT (PROGRAM TOTALS a TOTAL NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS 8,371 TOTAL NUMBER OF RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES IN 8 MONTHS (weekly collection) 34 s TOTAL NUMBER OF SCRAP PAPER SETOUTS 178,334 F % OF CUSTOMERS PARTICIPATING EVERY WEEK 63% TONS COLLECTED 309.1 l " 618,200 pounds in 8 months! COMPARISON OF MINI CAN USE MEASUREMENT OF MINI-CAN CUSTOMERS % OF TOTAL CUSTOMERS ! USING MINI-CANS MINI-CAN USE - (6/30/94) 343 3.7% M1NI-CAN USE - (3/31/95) 637 7.6% - h M5 i i ~ F C E City of Tigard. Yard Debris Tons collected by month Tons 300 254 263 k 250 i it 4 202 189 200 ~179 162 y 158 146 a-. 150 100 I i { I~ a 50 i 'k n Aug 94 Sept 94 Oct 94 Nov 94 Dec 94 Jan 95 Feb 95 Mar 95 Month N i Total Tons Collected - 8 month period 1,553 i i - , - 77Fir t_ s