Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/16/1996 WORKSHOP MEETING ~ f ITY Of TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 1 aANUARY 16, 1996 8:30 PM I TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD i f i PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should j f be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices 1 for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: t ' Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and 1 • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 , p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for s the Deao. _ f SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 'I ' J COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 1 - j j ~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY 16, 1996 - 6:30 PM i AGENDA b:IO PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR N1COL1 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 1 35 PM CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) COMMUNICATIONS j e CIT Members 6:50 PM J 3. DISCUSSION WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM FACILITATORS AND j RESOURCE TEAMS llI • Assistant to the City Administrator i ~ 7:20 PM 4. UPDATE ON FARMERS' MARKET • Maintenance Services Director and Chamber of Commerce Representative 7:40 PM 5. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: AUTHORIZATION TO GO OUT FOR BID - CITY HALL ROOF REPAIRS e Maintenance Services Director I 8:00 PM 6. UPDATE ON METRO 2040 PROCESS s Community Development Director j 8:20 PM 7. DISCUSSION ON PURCHASING RULES ORDINANCE • Finance Director ; 8:40 PM 8. DISCUSSION ON APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR COUNCIL POSITION NO. 2 • City Administrator 9:15 PM 9. NON-AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 2 a 9:25 PM 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f), (h) at (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current expending litigation issues, and the performance evaluation of a public employee. As you are aware, all 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. 9:45 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT =01 16.96 II I i 1 1 c j t. I~ - I COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 3 t i4l t Agenda Item No. y~_ ► " Meeting of a l3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 16, 1996 1. CALL TO ORDER • Workshop meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli 1.1 Roll Call j Council Present; Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Kea Scheckla. Staff present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Liz Newton, Asst to City Administrator; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; and Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director. 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports - None 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Bill Monahan, City Administrator, asked for discussion on the homeless shelter. Mayor Nicoli said that the goal setting session agenda would be disussed. _ 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) COMMUNICATIONS ` Liz Newton, Asst to City Administrator, introduced the CIT facilitators. Martha Bishop, Central CIT, reviewed the minutes of their January 4 meeting, She noted that a Central CIT member has met with staff to compose a letter to Washington County regarding concerns and suggested improvements to the intersection at 121st and Walnut. She said that they thought that the Council should proceed with accepting the trailways and pathway recommendations made by the Planning Commission. 41, Mark Mahon, East CIT, reviewed the two primary topics of discussion at their last meeting. He said that the general feeling regarding the Greenspaces Task Force was that the CIT made its recommendation early in the process and that the final decision was up to the Council and the Planning Commission. He said that they understood that they might not get all their requests as the Council should do what was best for the whole city, not simply their area. He also mentioned the various ideas suggested to increase participation in the CIT program, including taping the meetings and revising the mailing list. Dan Gott, South CIT, reported on their January 2 meeting. He said that they were somewhat confused regarding the Greenspaces Task Force, as they thought that they had made their recommendations. Wayne Lowry made a presentation on Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and what monies were available for neighborhood projects. Sterling Marsh reported on the I-5/217 interchange. They discussed the railroad crossing at Bonita Road and contacting the school board officials regarding j where the school board was on the 79th and Durham road crossing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 1 r Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Gott if the South CIT disagreed or agreed with what E Council was doing. Mr. Gott said that question was difficult to answer. He said that ! they had to be careful about alienating people once a Council decision was made, lest people feel that the discussion at the CIT had been for nothing. He said that they appreciated getting the synopsis sheet on what came from issues discussed at their r meetings. Councilor Scheckla commented that the Council needed to get feedback from the CITs on Council actions to help them make decisions in the future. 3. DISCUSSION WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM FACILITATORS AND RESOURCE TEAMS Those present included Staff Resource Team members Randy Volk, Maintenance Services; Diane Jelderks, Engineering; Michael Mills, Engineering; Karl Kaufman, i Police; Doug Greisen, Police; and Rich Rhodes, Police. CIT Facilitators present ( included Sterling Marsh, South CIT; Mark Mahon, East CIT; Sue Carver, South CIT; ' and Dan Gott, South CIT. Ms. Newton reviewed the list of recommendations made by the facilitators at their annual training session last November and staff's response to those recommendations. She said that there was money available for the CITs to send out flyers on specific issues. She read the mission statement for CITs developed by the facilitators; it would be on all CIT agendas at every meeting. She has requested the staff to send her a week in advance any handouts they intended to use at a CIT meeting so that she could send them out with the agendas prior to the meeting; this was to address the request for more time to think about issues on which the City wanted their input. Staff would also indicate what kind of specific input they wanted on issues. Ms. Newton stated that the audio tapes made of the Central CIT meetings were at the library; they would attach an agenda for use as an index of the tapes. They would also attach an agenda to the flip charts from CIT meetings to provide context for those notes. She said that staff would track CIT recommendations through the process and use a status report to track those recommendations as well as provide a brief explanation for why a decision was made on a particular recommendation. Ms. Newton said that staff was compiling a three-ring notebook of all four CIT agendas to help track the history of an issue; it would be available at all meetings and at the library. She reviewed staff efforts to publicize the CITs and increase participation. She noted that staff was inviting the neighborhood associations and watch groups to send a representative to the CIT meetings. Ms. Newton reviewed that the NPOs had had an opportunity to address the City Council at the beginning of public hearings to present their comments. She said that the CITs were asking for the same privilege; individual CIT members for or against a project would speak as individuals. Mayor Nicoli referred to past concerns when the NPOs acted as though they were a planning organization which had the authority to approve or disapprove development projects prior to those projects coming to the Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 2 Sue Carver, South CIT, said that she thought their request (from the CIT) had been simply for an opportunity to speak on any issue before the Council, not necessarily development. r Ms. Newton clarified that the CITs were not talking about land use but about general issues such as greenspaces funding. She said that they would not be lobbying for or against a particular project, although they might have a list of priorities or recommendations on a broader issue. She stated that the CITs felt awkward in presenting input at public hearings because, not being for or against a project, they did not know when to speak. Sterling Marsh, South CIT, commented that it was important that the discussion of an issue by 30 to 50 people in the CITs be reported to the Council. He explained that it was information rather testimony that the CITs wanted to present. Mark Mahon, East CIT, commented that the East CIT had given feedback to a j developer on his plans only once and that was at the developer's request. Mayor Nicoli said that he had misunderstood the request and that he did not see a problem with recognizing CIT members as the first speakers after the staff report at a public hearing. Mr. Marsh cited an example of the facilitators getting other volunteers involved in attending meetings so that the facilitators were not the only ones attending City meetings, as recommended by the City Council. Councilor Scheckla commented that while all the proposals on the greenspaces were worthwhile, they only had so much money available to spend on them. Councilor Scheckla said some CIT members might be disappointed if their recommendations were not funded. Mr. Marsh said that while the CITs did make recommendations for their specific areas, they understood that the money should be spent as best as possible to acquire as much land as possible. He stated that the CITs held lively discussions that came to consensus with the recommendations forwarded to Council. Ms. Newton said that a large laminated sheet would be posted at each meeting which listed the ground rules for the CIT process at each meeting to make sure that people t understood how the process worked. She said that she would incorporate suggestions from the CITs on improving the agendas and focusing them more on the topics to be discussed. Mike Mills, Engineering, commented that he had understood from the meetings he I attended that the CITs would feel more comfortable with a list of things to consider as opposed to a blank sheet (e.g., a list of 10 proposed CIT projects versus "please propose CIT projects") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 3 ii 1 Dan Gott, South CIT, asked how he should respond as a facilitator to citizen questions regarding development. He said that he has told people that it was the developer's responsibility to set up meetings with interested parties. He asked that facilitators be kept informed of what was going on. Mayor Nicoli said that Mr. Gott's response was correct but that any citizen could also come in and speak to the staff person responsible for drafting the staff report on that development or attend the Planning Commission or Council meetings or speak to the Hearings Officer. He said that they also had the right to appeal. Ms. Newton said that she would include neighborhood meetings on the summary list of planning department activities sent to the CIT members every month. Ms. Carver commented that the facilitators' training seminar had been one of the most productive workshops she had ever attended. Ms. Newton raised the issue of the role of the CITs on Council issues and input, using the Greenspaces Task Force as an example. She said that there has been confusion among the CITs on that Task Force. The CITs felt that they had spent time on the issue and made recommendations and they did not understand why Council wanted them to I spend more time on it. She said that there was a need to clarify exactly what input the Council wanted from the CITs on issues the CITs discussed and to develop a process to determine what kind of feedback the Council wanted from the CITs. She reported that the CITs felt that Council was the decision maker, not the CITs. She suggested starting 1 this process with the capital improvement program slated for this spring and thinking about how the CITs would be involved and what process could be used to facilitate their input. Councilor Hunt reviewed the changing opinions of the different Councils through the years on how the CITs should be involved in the greenspaces and parks, with the latest Council thinking that CITs should be more involved with the parks than the Planning Commission was. He suggested that the Council revisit the issue of what areas they wanted the CITs and the Planning Commission involved in. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council wanted to keep the CIT process as strong as it could and was looking for ways to give decision-making authority to the CITs. He said that they wanted the CITs to know that they did have an important role in the City. He explained that the Council had thought letting the CITs compile the five lists of 1 recommended greenspaces into a final list of recommendations was a good idea since it was the type of decision that could be made at the grassroots level. He cited placement of speed bumps in the City as another example of a decision the Council delegated to the CITs, a decision which the Council had followed without any changes. Councilor Hunt stated that he concurred with the Mayor's comments. He asked that the statement in the x/10 recommendation where the CITs said they were not a decision- making group be deleted because Council wanted them to make decisions. V CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 4 ii Mr. Marsh said that Council needed to inform the CITs of Council's way of thinking on particular issues so that they would know exactly where they stood. He reiterated that they wanted a clear explanation of Council's expectations. He explained that the Council action on the greenspaces appeared to the CITs to delay the process. Ms. Newton said that she thought the CITs were asking Council for very clear and specific parameters on what input they were to give, if Council wanted them involved at a that level. She suggested committing to the CITs that Council would set up a process 1 ahead of time to specify the parameters of an issue so that CITs would know what they were dealing with. Mr.:Aahon said that they needed to know what Council's expectations were up front. He commented that with the greenspaces, the East CIT saw its role as making recommendations and watching what happened to those recommendations rather than seeing themselves as having input again further on down the road. Councilor Scheckla requested a followup on how well the CITs were working. Ms. i Newton said that staff would be doing that in the next couple of months. Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 7:33 p.m. for a five minute break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 7:39 p.m. 4. UPDATE ON FARMERS' MARKET Stan Baumhoffer introduced Tom and Juanita Dodds, the new market masters for next year, and S. Carolyn Long, the Chamber representative. He reported that they had had a successful year and intended to operate for the same number of months this year. He expressed appreciation for the City staff's recommendation to use the Water Building parking lot, saying that it was "an ideal use of space." Mr. Monahan mentioned his plan to develop a capital fund to replace the carpet in the auditorium on an ongoing basis since the wear and tear on it had required its r replacement last October. He said that he had mentioned this to the Farmers' Market, Interfaith Outreach Services and the Chamber (who used the auditorium for craft vendors during the Farmers' Market). He said that the Chamber has decided to discontinue use of the auditorium and put the vendors outside to blend with the Farmers' Market. He said that this changed his plan as the Market would not be asking for use of the interior of the building other than the restrooms. Councilor Scheckla asked what fees were charged to vendors at the Market and what the ' money was used for. Mr. Baumhoffer said that they charged $20 a week for the spaces. Uses of that money included publicity, advertising, market management, general upkeep of equipment, provision of canopies for nonprofits, the liability insurance policy, payment to Tigard for administrative services, electrical improvements and sweeping the parking lot. Councilor Hunt said that he thought it was inconsistent to charge a fee to the homeless shelter and not charge a fee to the Farmers' Market. He paid that he wasn't in favor of j charging a fee to the Market but that he thought they should treat both parties consistently. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 5 Councilor Rohlf said that he saw a substantial difference between the Farmers' Market f which was a retail operation providing small businesses an opportunity to sell their goods and the homeless shelter which was an humanitarian outreach. Councilor Hunt said that he didn not see any difference in charging one over the other. Mr. Monahan said that his idea for a carpet replacement fund had been based on charging the users for the amount of their use. Mayor Nicoli said that he was not opposed to the charge but that he would not want to make it mandatory. He said that he would like to let the homeless shelter use the facility for free. Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, commented that, in terms of the staff time required, the Farmers' Market became self-sufficient after a couple of weeks; the homeless shelter required maintenance of a facility used every night, including the restrooms. Councilor Scheckla asked who took care of the garbage. Mr. Baumhoffer stated that the Market provided garbage cans and paid for garbage pick up. 5. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: AUTHORIZATION TO GO OUT FOR BID - CITY HALL ROOF REPAIRS Mr. Wegner reviewed the staff work done on getting a roofing proposal ready. He stated that the roof stopped leaking after his December 6 report. He explained a method that the Mayor had described for him to test for leaks in a roof. Mayor Nicoli asked how much the architectural firm specializing in metal roofs had listed in the bid package. Mr. Wegner said that he thought McBride had listed $10,000. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Wegner reviewed the history of water leakage in City Hall. He noted that this last year was the worst in four or five years. After discussio, Mayor Nicoli suggested that they plan to replace the roof during July, August and September, no matter what testing revealed. Councilor Hunt supported replacing the roof without any testing. Councilor Scheckla noted that they might get a E lower bid by doing the work during the summer since that was a slow time for roofers. f Mayor Nicoli said that he would not agree to the clause in the fee proposal that limited the roofer's risk to what the City paid him ($10,500). Staff was asked to bring this back to a study session in a month for further discussion, and to get a couple more proposals for other roofers with a recommendation on which to select. In addition, staff needed to make sure that McBride understood that the City would not accept the condition limiting the roofer's risk. After further discussion, the Council agreed by consensus to proceed directly with the design work. Mayor Nicoli noted that they did not need an investigation of the problem; { they have already decided that they want a new metal roof. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 6 r 6. UPDATE ON METRO 2040 PROCESS ® ;J Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented the staff report on the update of the Metro 2040 process. He said that a lot of meetings were cancelled when the schedule was delayed, including the Washington County Planning Directors meeting and the Public Officials Caucus meeting. He said that he sent a list of questions to the County on the issues that did not get discussed because the Planning Directors' meeting was cancelled. Mr. Hendryx stated that Council's comments from the last Council meeting have been forwarded to Metro. He noted that the RUGGO amendments for the big-box (a type of building structure) limitation have been appealed to LUBA but that no date has been set. Mr. Hendryx said that, though the population and employment figures used in all land use assumptions were not finalized yet, he thought they would be finalized soon. He applauded Washington County's coordination of the local jurisdictions' review of the population and employment figures requested by Metro. Though Washington County sent back a consistent response, the response was not equal throughout the region and Metro was sending those figures out again for reevaluation. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Morrisette report, noting Mr. Morrisette's concerns that Metro assumed too high a density for the region and ignored environmental and other local regulations. He said that Mr. Morrisette recommended a modest expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and expressed concern about the regulations he believed local jurisdictions placed on housing. Public education about 2040 was also a major concern. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the location of the two areas near Tigard that Councilor Kvistad recommended be included in the urban reserve study area. He noted that Council has chosen not to take a position on that issue, though there was still time to do so if they so chose. Mr. Monahan commented that Cornelius had an 85 acre reserve area that they very much wanted included in the urban reserve study area. He noted the efforts of Jeanine Murrell from Cornelius on Tigard's behalf at the meetings and recommended showing support of her efforts. Mayor Nicoli reported that he has had a similar request from Mayor Schlenker of Lake Oswego who has asked for Tigard's support of Lake Oswego's request that they not be forced to take in the 2000 acres in the Stafford area. He said that he explained to her Tigard's position that there should be a 50150 equation between increasing densities and taking in more land. He suggested supporting the other jurisdictions in their requests. He noted that Tigard has offered two areas in their community to Metro but that whatever Metro's decision on the inclusion of those two areas was was fine. Mr. Hendryx commented that deadlines were coming up on items for 2040. He suggested that the Council get their support on record of the areas that made sense for the expansion of the UGB. He said that he would draft a letter to send to Metro. Mayor Nicoli said that if a stronger statement of Tigard's position was needed, the letter was fine. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 7 I L-L i I . . Councilor Rohlf said that he concurred with the prior statements except Lake Oswego's request. Ile stated that he did not support Lake Oswego's unwillingness to take on additional growth and that he found it selfish; everyone would have to help take in the increased population. Councilors Hunt and Scheckla concurred. Mr. Hendryx said that he would keep the Council informed on the status of the interim I regulations Council reviewed previously. He stated that they were looking for a June adoption date for those regulations which left the jurisdictions 18 months to come up j with new parking standards. He said that staff still intended to start the community outreach program in February with the CITs, even though the final population and employment figures were not set. A dramatic change in those figures could upset people but staff intended to keep people informed up front on how those might change. He said that next week staff would brief the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Hendryx said that the Public Official Caucus would be rescheduled, though finding a date when everyone could attend was very difficult. I, 7. DISCUSSION ON PURCHASING RULES ORDINANCE Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, presented the staff report on the purchasing rules ordinance (see attached handouts). He reviewed the statewide purchasing rules and the City ordinances on the Local Contract Review Board, the purchasing rules and the purchasing manual. He explained the changes to the Local Contract Review Board and to the Purchasing Rules recommended by staff, including increasing the $15,000 limits l for City Administrator authority and competitive bidding to $25,000 (a number suggested 11 by the state). The Council had no objection to the staff proposal as outlined. Councilor Scheckla commented that he thought that allowing change orders for extra work to go as high as 33% was questionable and stated that he would not support that change. Mr. Lowry said that he would review this issue. 8. DISCUSSION ON APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR COUNCIL POSITION NO. 2 j f Mr. Monahan reported that they have 10 applicants. Staff developed some questions } f which Council reviewed that were sent to those applicants last week with a return deadline by Thursday at 5 p.m. He said that they would assemble those responses and +I get them to the Council by next Tuesday. Councilor Hunt suggested that the four Councilors rank the 10 applicants in order to eliminate all but three or four; they would interview those four and vote again. Mr. Monahan said that staff would include a rating sheet in the packet sent to the Councilors that contained the applicants' responses. He suggested that the Council return the rating sheets by noon Tuesday (January 23) so that staff could have them compiled for the meeting that night. He reviewed that on January 23 the Council would decide which three or four to interview, and that the interview date was set for January 30. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 8 Lam.-. s_ % 9. NON-AGENDA 9.1 Homeless Shelter Mr. Monahan introduced Kim Brown from Interfaith Outreach Services and Steve Feldman, Chairman of the Interfaith Outreach Services Board. He reported that during staff negotiations of a formal contract with Interfaith Outreach for use of the Water District building, Interfaith informed staff that they would be charging ` a $2 fee to the facility users. He said that he suggested that the City get $1 of I I that fee in order to recover costs for replacing the carpet in that building. He explained that that was not a specific requirement in the contract. Councilor Rohlf stated that the $2 fee caught him by surprise, as it had not been discussed during the original vote on a homeless shelter. He commented that $2 was a lot of money to most of these people and asked for Interfaith's reasons for assessing the fee. Mr. Feldman addressed the newspaper article in the Tigard Times and the Board's policy on this issue. He stated that the Times article was inaccurate in stating that the City had imposed the charge. He said that the reporter had been told that the charge was in place long before discussions took place with the City. Though he wrote a letter to the editor to correct the story, he and Mr. Monahan agreed that it was best not to get into a battle with the newspaper. Mr. Feldman stated that the reason the Board imposed the $2 fee was that they believed that people needed a helping hand, not a hand out. Assessing the fee enabled the facility users to retain a sense of worth and integrity. Mr. Feldman said that they thought it was degrading to homeless people to let them stay in a shelter without giving them the opportunity to pay their way. He explained that the money was not part of their budget but rather the Board was committed to helping people without denigrating the integrity of those who needed temporary help. Councilor Rohlf asked if anyone has been turned away for lack of the $2 fee or was reluctant to come for a bed. Ms. Brown explained the waiver process that was available to anyone. She commented that those who needed the fee waived one night often voluntarily paid extra the next time they came in when they had the money. She said that the fee has been a good experience for the staff and for the facility users. Councilor Rohlf asked if the fee was $2 a head so that a family paid more. Ms. Brown said that the fee was $2 a head but that families usually had their fees waived. Councilor Rohlf asked how many people on the average used the shelter. Ms. Brown said that they averaged around 12 people a night. i Mayor Nicoli asked how many people had their fees waived on an average night. j s Ms. Brown said that approximately one-third of the people did so, though there were nights when everyone there had their fee waived. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 9 _ yam. i Councilor Scheckla asked how people found out about the shelter on the weekends. Ms. Brown said that the answering machine gave the address, phone " number and directions to get to the shelter as well as the pager number of the r staff person on duty. Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council wanted to change their policy with respect to assessing a fee. Mr. Monahan stated that they have not asked Interfaith for any money. At Councilor Rohlf's request, Mr. Monahan reviewed how he had arrived at amortizing what the usage of the carpet would be. He explained that without the Chamber use of the auditorium, the carpet might last several years longer than anticipated, leaving his amortization up in the air. He noted that they didn't know exactly what the problem was causing the deterioration of the carpet; they knew that it had deteriorated more quickly in the summer with the Chamber use than in the winter with the homeless shelter use. Mr. Wegner noted the effects of coffee or pop spills on the carpet and that they did rent the building frequently for parties and meetings. In response to questions from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan stated that the staff did not do any maintenance of the youth services building on Ash Street. Councilor Rohlf stated that he did not want to micromanage the shelter and that the Interfaith personnel were the experts on the issue of the homeless. He said that he was not surprised at the reasons why Interfaith charged a fee but he was distressed that it had not been discussed with Council up front. He said that he had had no response to an individual who mentioned this to him because he had thought the service was free. Mr. Monahan said that the omission was his responsibility since Interfaith had i given him a copy of their policies at the time they negotiated the contract. He said that he thought he had given Council a copy of those policies and that the fee was mentioned within the agreement. Ms. Brown commented that they had a more stable population this year since the shelter was now open every night. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the shelter did have rules on how many nights a person could stay before they went into one of the programs sponsored by Interfaith, although there was a waiver provision for that also. Councilor Scheckla asked if more families were using the shelter. Ms. Brown said that they mostly had single men and childless couples. She explained that families could usually find other facilities quickly. Mayor Nicoli proposed an alternate policy of setting an annual dollar amount not to exceed 50% of whatever Interfaith collected. He said that the City could contribute the money to the carpet fund or drop the fee all together. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 10 WTI Councilor Rohlf suggested not dropping the fee for the same reasons that Interfaith charged it. He agreed with not collecting more than 50% of what they ' made. i Mr. Feldman invited the Council to talk to the Board, noting that there were differing views. He said that he strongly supported the user fee. He stated that Interfaith did not want to renege on an agreement and if the Council decided to j leave things the way they were, that was fine. He reiterated that the intent of the fee was not to make money for either Interfaith or the City. Mayor Nicoli clarified that he was referring to the fee the City charged Interfaith and expressed support for the $2 user fee. Mr. Feldman said that they would like to keep as much money as they could but that he understood that the City already provided a great deal and needed to recover some of those costs because of their responsibility to the taxpayer. i Mr. Monahan expressed a concern that if the word got out that the City was { subsidizing a homeless shelter that charged $2 a night, the City would be criticized for doing so. He said that staff did need to be able to respond to those in the community who thought the City should not be involved in assisting this agency. Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council wanted to keep the charge. Councilor Scheckla said that he did not care one way or the other since no one was turned away from the shelter. Mayor Nicoli said that he would prefer to waive the fee i 4✓ but understood the reasons for keeping it. He said that he appreciated what Interfaith did for Tigard. Councilor Rohlf said that he would like to waive it also. 9.2 Goal Setting Mayor Nicoli suggested that prior to the goal setting session, each Councilor f prepare a list of 10 or more goals and give them to Mr. Monahan who would compile them and give the total list back to the Councilors prior to the meeting. He said that he thought this would help better prepare the Councilors for the meeting and allow them to spend more time actually discussing the goals rather than presenting them. Councilor ROW asked if staff would do a review of Council's performance on last year's goals. Mr. Monahan said that he would present an update on the status of last year's goals. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff compile a list of goals talked about in prior years for Council's information. r, Councilor Hunt suggested that they write a three or four sentence description for + each goal they listed in order to clarify their intent. Councilor Rohlf noted that there was a difference between policy type goals and objectives that could be accomplished in a year. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 11 F7 Mr. Monahan said that he intended to have the department heads participate in the discussion. Councilor Hurt expressed concern over the limited time available for this session. Mr. Monahan said that he would limit staff participation to the " update on the status of the goals. f Mayor Nicoli asked to see the goals proposed by the department heads. He stated that he found those useful in determining goals. Mr. Monahan said that he would ask the department heads also to list 10 or more goals, each with a brief description. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said that the goal setting session was open to the public. The Council agreed by consensus to hold the meeting in the Council Chamber from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Councilor Hunt asked that the goal setting session be advertised as open to the public. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (a) (d), (e), (f), (h) & (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues, and the performance evaluation of a public employee. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Reco er k i Ma City of Tigard Date: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1996 - PAGE 12 t P. s , ® ~ I COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8 37 8 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 i tr Legal Notice Advertising JAN 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvc}t tit 11GAN-l: °Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ; 'Accounts Payable-Terry ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION f STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. l Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertisingg Director, or his principal clerk, of theTi Bard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and stste that the City Council 47or7 shop Meeting t a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 11 1996 i' I Subscribed and sworn to b f re me thisl 1 th Tav of .Tan„ary,1996"" ' - -n Notary P_61; hie for Oregon -;0N NO. G to52 } } I,!Y CG4!1.!~<_, ,,~H E.(~IRES h1A:' +9g7r My Commission Expires: 9-- AFFIDAVIT - r I , L NEON j. " The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639.4171. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JANUARY. 16, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Meeting topics > Citizen Involvement Team Communications (CIT members) > Discussion with Citizen Involvement Team Facilitators and Resource Teams > Discussion on Purchasing Rules Update Ordinance > Update on Farmers' Market: This year and plans for next year. > Discussion on Appointment Process for Council Position No. 2 M378 -Publish January 11 19%. f i G L_ 1 CTT ~Y~,e.~~ n ys l f=~a.~,o {c~ VOLK 0-"7 of 77c,i/ s ' l I col ~t CJ R L,~GCee/'N~~ T! G A-ep-D Po So cl.C_. -Fil- P 0. C97- /C~~, ►c Cry Ge7~ So t/7 7( C/7 , i' - 6 _ I t 1 i, T^,. kJn~...„....v.r.. . 3 i Agenda item No. MEMORANDUM Meeting of Q5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - t TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with CIT Facilitators and Resource Team Members Our next meeting with the CIT Facilitators and Resource Team Members is scheduled for Tuesday, January 16 from 6:30 PM - 7:30 PM in the Town Hall. Items for discussion will include the ideas to increase attendance and the CIT Facilitator recommendations developed at the training in October. For your review, I have I attached a copy of the list of recommendations. There will also be an opportunity to discuss other issues of interest to the group. F t;+ . r I Y _ . ~ .,.-...Y... Y 1. .yw' r CIT Facilitator Recommendations 1) Money is available for CIT's to do flyers and do printing. Mission statement (first draft): 2) Role of CIT is to educate about issues and then get opinions about how groups feel about those issues and transmit those views to planning commission and City I council and sometimes advocate for those views. 3) Information about a topic be sent out with an agenda. (Liz) 4) Copies of the agenda with the tape of meeting. (for library) i 5) Staple agenda recommendations to flip chart. 6) Status report be maintained with follow-up on all recommendations. 7) Three ring notebook with all past agendas and attachments. g) Have members invite someone to attend - put on agenda. I g) Liz will follow up with Tigard Times and wants feedback on City Scape articles. 10) Mission of the CITs: (draft 2) 'Role of the CIT is to identify and discuss issues important to citizens. This is not a planning or decision making group. The CIT develops and follows-up on recommendations to be considered by government. / 11) Article in City Scape about having neighborhood groups send representatives to CIT, eg. homeowners associations, etc. - Letter will go to all neighborhood watch coordinators from Kelly. 12) Ask CITs if they are interested in recording meetings. 13) Announcements of pre-planning meetings be given at CIT meetings. Pre-planning meetings be held after CIT announcements. - Liz checking. 14) CIT speaks prior to taking a public testimony at council meetings. - Liz checking. f i 15) Hang up ground rules at meetings. 16) Written material will be sent out with the agendas. L= r of! S MCBRI DE n k if i i i , t , r I January 8, 1996 +j f j Mr. John Acker Maintenance Service Property Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: TIGARD CITY HALL REROOFING PROJECT r, Dear Mr. Acker: Thank you for considering McBride Architects, P.C. for the subject project. The following is our understanding of the project and a proposal for services. SCOPE OF WORK ' The project involves reroofing and related construction of one roof area (approx. 8000 SF) of the Tigard City Hall Building. SERVICES PROVIDED 1. Provide a detailed field survey of the roof area and roof related details. The survey would include review of as-built drawings, core sampling and other field investigations, photography, measurements and field sketches of details. F 2. Evaluate the conditions found, identify optimum solutions and prepare budgetary cost estimates. 3. Review options and other information with the City of Tigard. A short written report combined with a meeting with you and others at the City of Tigard who are involved in the project is anticipated. 4. Assist in selecting optimum solutions. 5. Prepare and print detailed Construction Documents suitable for competitive bidding. Documents will be prepared using AutoCAD Release 12 and j WordPerfect software as required by the City of Tigard. 6. Assist the City of Tigard in advertising for the project as required. 7. Assist the City of Tigard during the bidding phase including conducting a pre- bid conference at the site. 8. Review bids and assist with the selection of a contractor. 9. Prepare contract sets of construction documents. 10. Conduct a Pre-Construction Conference at the site. 11. Assist the City of Tigard with construction administration, including review of submittals and site observation a (5) site observations are anticipated and will be scheduled at key stag project. f L_ F7 i j Mr. John Acker City of Tigard I January 8, 1996 k Page 2 1 V 12. Provide a punch list after receipt of a contractor's punch list. 13. Provide final site observation of the project and close out the project. 14. Provide as-built documentation based on contractor's records on electronic media including drawings, specifications, meeting minutes, observation reports, etc. Engineering services (structural, energy) have not been included in this proposal. The i City of Tigard will be made aware if these services are recommended or required. SCHEDULE I t I r To be determined i FEE PROPOSAL We propose to provide our specialized services on a fixed fee plus reimbursable expense basis with compensation in the amount of $10,500.00 plus expenses estimated at $700.00 maximum. Services performed prior to the final invoice will be invoiced on a monthly basis in P proportion to the work completed. Payments are due and payable within (10) days K following the invoice date. Any portion of an invoice not paid within 30 days of the invoice date is considered delinquent and is subject to a rebilling charge of 1-1/2% per month of the unpaid balance. I I RISK ALLOCATION i The Owner and McBride Architects have discussed their risks, rewards and benefits for the project and the total fee for services. Risks have been allocated such that the Owner agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, MA's total liability to the Owner for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, damages, or claim expenses arising out of this Agreement from any cause or causes shall not exceed the amount of compensation for the services rendered on this project. Such causes include but are not limited to MA's negligence, strict liability and breach of contract. r FAM58.99Wroposal - -i L a Mr. John Acker ® City of Tigard January 8, 1996 Page 3 ® DISPUTE RESOLUTION I All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to the interpretation, application or enforcement of this Agreement shall be decided through mediation. The parties further agree that the Owner will require, as a condition for participation in the project and their agreement to perform labor or services, that all Contractor's Subcontractors, Subsubcontractors and Material Persons, whose portion of the work amounts to five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more, and their insurers and sureties, shall agree to this procedure. r Your signature and return of one signed copy of this letter Form of Agreement will serve as our notice to proceed. We look forward to the successful completion of this project. Please do not hesitate ! to call me if you have any questions about our proposal. E Sincerely, Richard L. McBride, R.A. McBRIDE ARCHITECTS, P.C. r: APPROVED BY OWNER: Signature Date i I Printed Name and Title i RLM/ss :j c: Bookkeeping - F:\9 5058.9 9Tro p o s al f R' y. AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of Jan 16. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 4 ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Purchasing Rules Update (I PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OL&11- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council Update the purchasing rules to conform to the State Attorney General model rules and make other changes to the purchasing rules? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends updating the purchasing rules. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City's purchasing rules are authorized by three council actions as follows: 1) Ordinance 85-05 Establishes the Local Contract Review Board and governs its activities. 2) Ordinance 87-59 Adopts the purchasing rules conforming to the Attorney General Model Rules. 3) Resolution 85.08 Adopting the Purchasing Manual or set of procedures. e-Ve are proposing to replace Ordinance 85-05 with an updated ordinance that amends some of the provisions related to the ~--activity of the Local Contract Review Board. The most important change being proposed is to raise the limit of the City Administrators authority from $15,000 to $25,000. This would reduce the number of items presented to the LCRB for approval. We are proposing to replace Ordinance 87-59 with a resolution which updates the purchasing rules to substantially conform to the 1995 State Attorney General model rules. These rules relate mostly to the competitive bidding process and exemptions for special circumstances. One significant change proposes to raise the limit for competitive bidding from $15,000 to $25,000. We are proposing to repeal resolution 85-08 and make the actual purchasi Administrator. ng procedures manual established by the City A summary of these changes will be discussed with the Council at a study session on January 16. We then anticipate bringing the issue to a council meeting in February for final action. A summary of the changes is included for your review. If you would like the full set of the purchasing rules changes prior to the study session, please contact Cathy Wheatley. Otherwise, they will be presented with the proposed Ordinances at the February meeting for final action. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED WA FISCAL NOTES Changes as proposed increase the limit on the authority of the City Administrator to approve purchases and the threshold for competitive bidding from $15,000 to $25,000. M1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Council/Department Heads ~ FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director Sherrie Burbank, Analyst Terry Tourney, Purchasing Specialist i I DATE: January4, 1996 SUBJECT: Summary of Recommended Purchasing Rules Revisions Ordinance 85-05 - LCRB • Staff is proposing the following changes to this ordinance: The City Administrator's authority to obligate funds will increase from $15,000 to $25,000. - Spending limits will apply to a single item or contract - not a part or component of a project. ' - The Finance Director will be authorized to approve all routine, ongoing expenditures. The City Administrator or designee will be authorized to approve advertising for capital improvement projects. I The petty cash limit will be set by the City Administrator. Section AR 80.000 of the Purchasing Rules governing LCRB procedures will be covered by this ordinance rather than being addressed in the Purchasing Rules document. ` j Ordinance 87-59 - Awarding Public Contracts i, • Many of the modifications were a result of an extensive review by the City Attorney's office. • The following modifications to the Purchasing Rules are being proposed: Formatting and grammatical changes were made to the document to assure consistency in responsibilities and terminology. Subsections were reviewed for duplication and ` eliminated where feasible. Some subsections were moved to sections which more ! j appropriately related to the topic or process. U - Section 10.010 (Exemptions and Definitions - Adds some new exemptions to the list as identified by Oregon Administrative Rules. - Section 10 015 (Exemption of Contracts Under Certain Dollar Amounts) The dollar limits for public and trade contracts have been raised from $1,000 to $2,500 (minimum) and $15,000 to $25,000 (maximum). The criteria for purchasing goods, materials, supplies, and services are as follows: $ 0 - $ 2,500 Quotes (where feasible) $2,501 - $25,000 3 Competitive Quotes Over $25,000 Competitive Bid Section 10.045. (Purchases of Used Personal Property) - The City can purchase used personal property from other governmental jurisdictions without competitive quotes provided written findings indicate the purchase will be the least cost to the City. Section 10.082 I omm ni ation Services) - The City will seek competitive bids for services if it determines such competition exists based on the factors outlined in this section. - Section 10,00 (Contract Amendments) - The amount of aggregate cost increases ! resulting from contract amendments has changed from 10% to 20% of the initial contract ! before additional competitive bids are needed. Section 10, 10Q(Affirmative Action Contracts) - The City may limit competitive bidding on , a public contract for goods or services at a cost of $50,000 or less to contracting entities owned or controlled by disadvantaged persons as described in 10.100 (1). i4 J Section 10, (Responsibility of Public Agencies) - The City will pursue a policy which i will provide opportunities to emerging small businesses. Section 10.115 (Purchase Off Contract By Other Public Agencies) - Contracts previously awarded to vendors by another jurisdiction using the competitive bid process are exempt f from the City's competitive bidding process as long as the successful bidder is willing to provide the same item(s) or service(s) to the City at the same price. - Section 10.12Q (Oil or Hazardous Material Removal) - Allows the City to enter into a contract without competitive bidding when emergency conditions exist as determined by DEQ. ! - Section 10.125 (Real Property Acquisition) - The City may purchase real property in accordance with applicable state law. Any purchase price over $25,000 requires City Council approval. Section 20.03Q (,Single Manufacturer or Compatible Products) - If a purchase does not exceed $25,000, advertising is not required; an informal notice or invitation to vendors to submit a competing proposal is all that is required. - Section 30.002 (Definitions) - Adds some new definitions of words that are commonly used i.e., "Bidder", "Proposer", "Proposal", "Contract", "Contract Price", "Contractor", "Facsimile", "Solicitation Document", and "Specification". a f: L~ j - Section 30,005 (Competitive Biddino) - Encourages public contracting competition that supports openness and impartiality to the maximum extent possible. i Section 30.008 (Eligibility to Bid on Construction Contracts) - Contractors must be l registered with the Construction Contractors Board or licensed by the State Landscape Contractor's Board. Section 30.010 (Bid Documents) - Adds use of recovered resources and recycled materials i.e., paper, oil, tires to the Terms and Conditions Applicable to Public Contracts. Also adds other requirements regarding certification by contractor. - Section 30.012 (Bids Are Offers) - Defines the purpose of a bid. Section 30.013 (Facsimile Bids and Pro op sals) - The City may choose to accept ! submission of bids or proposals by facsimile. i - Section 30.015 (Public Notice) Additional items that all advertisements for bids shall ! include i.e. not complying with all prescribed public bidding procedures and requirements, contractor must be licensed to work with asbestos, that any or all bids may be rejected for good cause upon a finding that is in the public interest to do so. - Section 30.026 (Eligibility to Bid on Construction Contracts) - Stipulates the requirements to be considered a "contractor." - Section 30.055 (Addenda to Bid Documents) - The City may extend the bid closing date and time to allow prospective bidders to analyze and adjust to Addenda changes. The City will notify prospective bidders of these date/time changes. I - Section 30.075 (Mistakes in Bids) - Broader definition on "mistakes" in bids. . Section 30.090 (Bid Evaluation and Award) - Takes into consideration the State of Oregon's "Reciprocal Preference Law (ORS 279.029). Section 30.091 (Life Cycle Cost Analysis) - Moved from Section 10.105. - Section 30.092 (Responsible Bidders: Responsibility Investigation) - Defines the criteria for a responsible bidder and outlines the process the City should use in investigating perspective contractors prior to award of a contract. - Section 30.093 (Responsive and Nonresponsive Bids) - Clarifies these issues and sets forth the general rule of acceptance of questionable bids. - Section 30.100 (Rejection of Individual Bids or Proposals) - Additional language has been incorporated to further identify the criteria for rejecting a bid. - j - Section 30.102 (Rejection of All Bids or Proposals) - Criteria for rejecting all submitted bids. fi Section 30.104 (Protest of Award) - Outlines the process of notification which includes " informing the bidders of their right to protest an award. - Section 30,110 (Bidder Disqualification) - Definition language was added for "disqualification" and "persons". Also, additional language was added in "Grounds for bidder disqualification concerning contractor using disadvantaged, minority, women or emerging small business without the consent of the City. Section 30.135 (Availability of Award Decisions - Contract Retention) - All original bid r files will be retained in central Records. All purchase-related documents will be retained according to City retention schedules. { i - Section 30.145 (Right to Audit Records) - Additional language was added requiring contractors and subcontractors maintain adequate records relating to public contracts. - Section 30.155 (Contract Cancellation Procedures) - Outlines the process of contract cancellation procedures. - Section 40.005 (Competitive Biddinal - When asbestos abatement work is necessary, the City is required to advertise accordingly. Section 40.015 (Bid Evaluation and Award) - Additional language has been added describing the evaluation format for competitive bid pricing. ; Section 40.020 (Contract Cancellation Procedures) - Additional wording on termination of contract for default (ORS 279.333) - Section 50.030 (Subcontracting to Emerging Small Businesses) - Allows the City to ? encourage or require contractors to subcontract with a business that is certified as an emerging small business. - Section 60.005 (Surplus Proped4 - All personal property owned by the City must be declared as surplus prior to disposal. Personal property may be declared as surplus if it is scheduled for replacement or is no longer necessary to provide City services. The method of disposal will be determined by condition, value, and/or use. i Section 60.030 (Trade of Personal Pro eedy) - The City may trade personal property with other government agencies. In these cases, traded property is exempt from public bidding. Trades can also be made with other parties as long as the market value of the traded items are documented and a proposal to trade an item for another item is available to other potential vendors to encourage competition. All trades must be approved by the City Administrator. Section 70.010 (Personal Services Contracts) - Better defines "personal service contracts" and the role the City plays in implementation of these contracts. - Section 70.020 (Screening and Selection Policy for Personal Services Contract) - Sets forth the policy to select a qualified consultant. - AR 80.000 (Procedures) This section has been incorporated into the Ordinance relating g to LCRB procedures. It has been replaced by a section on the purchase of real property F+, ~m L~ which stipulates that State law must be followed when making such an acquisition. Council approval is required for any expenditure over $25,000. Pre-existing AR 90.000 has been renumbered to AR 80.000 and the new section on i recycling has been assigned to AR 90.000. Section 80.010 and 80,012 (Emerg ncy Contracts) - Stipulates what constitutes an emergency and the procedures for entering into a contract given these emergency circumstances. - Section 80.015 (Specific Exemptions) - Clarifies the criteria for exempting public f contracts from competitive bidding. - Section 90.020 (Brand Name or Mark xem pA140_LRRation ~„Q - Moved to Section 20.050. - AR 90,000 (Recyclable/Recycling Purchasing Guidelines) - This new section outlines the City's effort to purchase and use recyclable items and materials within the organization, including a 5% price preference on certain recycled products and a 7% preference on recycled paper. Areas covered include purchase of. paper products, composted waste materials, retread tires, re-refined petroleum products, building insulation products, and recyclable plastic products. In addition, the City will make an effort to recycle or reuse: paper, cardboard, scrap metal, tires, lubricants and solvents, lead acid batteries, roadside brush and chipped wood waste, plastic materials, and surplus property on a routine basis. Resolution 85-03 - Purchasing Manual • The Purchasing Manual included in this resolution is proposed to be deleted in its entirety. Instead, the City Administrator will have the obligation to produce an administrative manual for purchasing procedures. • The purpose of the Purchasing Manual is to provide an internal resource for staff in relation to ongoing routine office supply purchases and spending authority limitations. i tllldoalpurchgs ti a j~20-95 11:40AM FROM INTL STUDENTS LC PO1 { ~lQiYl C,2 - 0SNRG X10 rQgon Int ~u61kTn4onst Rosman ou M..yor S;sr Nicot; Wer,J.; (-onovtr t~O~w~t~ r { ' Cob ~o~F ~o kt~ 5c►~u.kla do if Ll - -7 ;L ~o•r~e5 ir.~lv.a~r"rY cover 1 ~OrY~ rp i I a t i 77 -~i-20-95 11:40V FP,ohi tNTL STUDENTS LC Pi AdEk 001 00050h USFIMG rogon oM P" Interest Rosser ou 1 Dear Colleagues, We are writing to encourage municipal and county governments, as well as universities and colleges, to establish "Buy Recycled" policies based on Oregon Law Chapter 279 (ORS 279.545 et seq.) and the Federal Executive Order on recycled product procurement adopted in October 1993. As you know, recycling keeps waste out of our landfills and conserves natural resources. Each ton of paper made from recycled paper, instead of trees, saves: r ✓ approximately 17 trees ✓ 4,100 kilowatt hours of energy (an average household's consumption for - four months) ✓ 7,000 gallons of water (enough drinking water for approximately 30 people for one year) ✓ three cubic yards of landfill space (equal to a standard pickup truck load of tightly stacked paper) `J ✓ 60 pounds of pollutants Source: Metro, 1994 a Buying recycled works by using purchasing power to support the manufacture of goods made from post-consumer waste. This stimulates the market for collected recyclable materials, thus enhancing the economic viability of local recycling programs. Taken together, federal, state and local governments comprise roughly 1/3 of the total domestic paper market. Local government expenditures comprise about 12% of the GNP. Local governments and universities can dramatically increase the amount of j recycled goods purchased throughout our state. We urge each city, county, university and public entity to help make recycling work by adopting a Buy Recycled policy with provisions for purchasing paper with at least 25% post-consumer content. If you would like to receive information about sources for recycled products, please call Metro at 234-3000. Ask for the "Buying Guide to Recycled Paper and Office Products". If you have any other questions about recycled products or would like assistance in establishing a Buy Recycled program, please feel free to contact Nicole Swanson, 231- 4181 x. 311. Sincerely, i j 1536 SE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 (503)231.1905 - fax (503)231.4007 printed on recycled paper @ I 11-20-95 11:40AM FROM INTL STUDENTS LC 1 SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT TO BUY RBCYCI,ED: We, the of hereby declare our commitment (III to complete the recycling loop by purchasing products made from post-consumer recycled materials. We acknowledge that by using our purchasing power to support the manufacture of goods made from post-consumer waste, we stimulate { the market for collected recyclable materials, thus enhancing the economic viability of local and national recycling programs. f" Furthermore the use of post-consumer waste in manufacturing new products provides concrete environmental benefits. These benefits include reducing the burden on landfills and incinerators, reducing our consumption of natural resources, and reducing energy use and pollution associated with the extraction of virgin materials. In recognition of these facts, the State of Oregon has directed (under ORS 279,545 et seq.) state and local agencies to pur-hase recycled products, if such products are available, of sufficient quality for their intended use, and within % (12% for state agencies and 5% for other public entities) of the price of their virgin equivalents. In recognition of this, we commit to purchase recycled products as outlined below: BY (Jan, 1, 1996) all printing, writing, photocopy, and computer paper purchased by (institution) must contain at least 25 % post-consumer content. All bidding 4 documents and contracts relating to paper purchases shall be amended by (Jan. 1, 1996) to reflect this new policy. Signature(s): Name(s): Title(s): I Date: i _ I a • " i 1 „ ~Y~Yl-H-95 11:44AM FROM INTL STUDENTS LC PO1 f r Vendors and contractors shall provide written certification of the recycled content of their products, including post-consumer and secondary/manufacturing waste. i' This section also states that Metro will participate in joint purchases with other organizations to increase orders and reduce costs. 530: Recycled Content Paper Products The provisions of Section 520 also apply to paper products. In addition, this section states that all Metro documents shall be printed on recycled paper and shall include the recycled content paper symbol with the amount of post-consumer content listed below the symbol. Unbleached paper or paper produced without chlorine bleach shall be given priority over chlorine-bleached paper. The Solid Waste Department will only specify recycled paper products and will select the lowest bid for recycled paper products. 560: Recycled Oil States that specifications for lubricating and industrial oils shall not exclude recycled oil. The price preference and standards from Section 520 apply. This section also states that Metro will establish an affirmative procurement program for oil, as required In state statute (ORS Chapter 279). This program will include notices of preference for recycled oil in solicitations, at bidders conferences and through trade associations. Metro will also investigate lease agreements for its fleet vehicles and transport services to insure they do not prohibit the use of recycled oil. 550: Compost Products Metro will specify and give preference to organic waste composts. The price preference and standards from Section 520 apply. 560: Retread T•iras The price preference and standards from section 520 apply for retread tires. Metro shall specify retreads in Its bids and solicitations for fleet and transport services, and shall procure retreading services for used area if performance and safety standarila are met. 570: Recycled Paint and Building Materials Metro shall utilize recycled paint and other recycled content construction and building i materials, such as carpet, insulation, tiles and lumber when these products meet performance and availability standards. The 10% price preference will also be applied to these materials. 580: Promotion and Evaluation of Recycled Content Procurement Plan Establishes a technical assistance and education program for Metro staff and 1 contractors. The Procurement Officer and the Waste Reduction Division will provide assistance in the following areas: research on recycled products, product content certification, bid and contract language, notices and information for bidders conferences, workshops and seminars. As part of this program, the Waste Reduction Division will attempt to promote the testing and use of products that are new or experimental in order to develop new markets for recyclable materials, such as plastics, green glass and mixed waste paper. An evaluation of procurement levels and the dollars expended -for recycled products will . ' be prepared annually. For more details, call Metro's Waste Reduction Division, 797-1650 1.1-20-95 12:04PM FROM INTL STUDENTS LC P02 - eon YOerY1 •tl 4..Yli tvr MYl I r0•rl.M n. Oe{GOY l/r lr lrrt ( - '~\j rr~ {nr r•r Oren r.. sal rer firer METRO November 30, 1993 + Ms. Carolyn West t !I Purchasing Department Washington County 155 N 1st Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97215 Dear Ms. West: As the regional government responsible for solid waste management, Metro has been working with local governments to implement recycling programs. Sonic of the projects we have implemented jointly include y recycling containers and recycling education programs in schools. An curbside recycling bins, mold-famil important part of recycling which is sometimes overlooked, is the need for stable markets for the materials collected through recycling programs. Ono strategy to increase demand for recycled products is government procurement. Policies and programs that pay spceial attention to procuring recycled products not only increase demand, but can also be a catalyst for business investment and a model for private companies. Metro promotes "buying recycled" by preparing Recycled Product Guides and assisting governments and businesses to set up effective procurement programs. We also try to lead by example and procure as many recycled products as possible when we purchase supplies and issue bids and proposals for contractual services. ; I Each near Metro prepares a report summarizing its progress in buying recycled products. I have enclosed a copy of this report for 1992-93, as v,ell as Metro's recently-adopted recycled product procurement ordinance for your ` information. Hopefully, it will be helpful to you and can serve as a model for similar activities in your 1- jurisdiction ~ If you have an u would like assistance i I any questions about recycled products or would establishing a buy recycled program, please feel free to contact me. Metro is also intcreslcd to learn about your in-house recycling and procurement programs so that we can share information and utilize Vic most effective strategies to promote markets for recycled materials. Sincerely, i r Leigh Zrnunennan Market Development Manager Waste Reduction Division LZ:a}:clk 1 Enclosures . ea+wrzaorumae'rxae>,aari - . •~l.~rr_.erurt{rataue {r l ~ - ro~ I1.' 11-20-95 12:06PM FROM 1NTL STUDENTS 1C POl HIGHLIGHTS OF METRO'S RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT PLAN (Ordinance No. 93-513) Mcrrto . Adopted October 14, 1993 • i Purpose To consolidate and strengthen existing procurement policies. To bring Metro into compliance with state law on recycled product procurement. To establish a technical assistance and education program for Metro staff and contractors. Section-by-Section Summary 1 Section 1: Repeals earlier ordinances and replaces with new section in Metro Code. Section 2: 500: Policy statement - To increase procurement of recycled products by Metro and by ' contractors In performance of their work for Metro. To improve markets for locally generated and recovered materials. . f 510: Definitions - This section includes definitions for a n6mber of recycled materials y and for other provisions of the ordinance. Of special note are the definitions for recycled products, recycled paper, post-consumer waste and secondary waste. The definitions are taken from sure law. Recycled products are those which have at least 50% recycled content by weight. 10% of this content must be post-consumer waste. Recycled products also include those that could have been disposed, but are refurbished for reuse without substantial alterative to the product's form. Recycled paper refers to paper products which have at least 50% recycled content by weight. This may be manufacturing or secondary waste, but it cannot include trimmings, mlll broke, or wood residues. A paper product may also be considered recycled if at least 25% of its weight is from post-consumer waste. Post-consumer waste means material that would normally be disposed of as solid waste. It does not include manufacturing waste. 520: Recycled Products (Generally) j 'Requires Metro to investigate the availability of recycled products as alternatives to non- } recycled products in its solicitations of quotas, bids and proposals for contracts greater than $5,000. Contracts for services only are exempt from the requirement, except j those for printing. Allows Metro to specify recycled products and to give preference to recycled products over non-recycled. It requires Metro to purchase recycled products, if their cost is 10% higher than non-recycled products. The ordinance does not restrict Metro from paying a higher preference. Price preferences shall be calculated by Metro and subtracted from the bid or proposal item. It shall be up to Metro to determine if recycled products meet its requirements. I i L s - - F i CITY OF TIGARD Purchasing Rules Update i January 1996 1 g; • th~rit Ru~.e s Au ~ . purchasing State Wide a Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 279 ' trative Rules Chapter Oregon Adm inns 137& 125 Attorney General Model Rules L ut~~rl$y sly-g pules PJTCII 1 and city of act .3 ~~Ca~ Contr . ordinance, Review g5'®5 Board teasing Rules nee °5~ ~nrC al O r dine r chasing Bann 0~ ~n Resolutions., r 1121 Purchasing Flow Chart Under „ nd0t, Cjr.- Limit o 5 qr z ~1(t I'(Iv 0 ~..~F3'iz'kFr s... :v3 Over Limitx ~ CO'A~-pact edLocaI cjg5~05) -Pr s - ( OT oarc- r Amt' lority d ` dmi~istrato City of i,,imit li~at~on clarify App ro""al Of CII~ City owilais"rator App ys • limp Ad~,ertisin Petty gash • str ator set City Admi~l Rules PTO-VOsed Pu hasi g~ -59) _ ~prd 25,000 c1hanges Threshold B~da~ng erty 0 Competitive ersonal prop of us p ed p envy contracts urchase otheC A$ ~ P~ggYba~klng 01, ~ Bid accepted by Fax ert3' s Prop o u of ent m Trade ~f UsedEgp1p dpreferen~es Recycling Guidelines an Oil