The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 11/26/1996 i CITY OF TIGARD OREGON i TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t MEETING f ~ f NOVEMBER 26, 1996 i COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE i " TELEVISED a ~ i I i j 4r t: I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 i Revised 11/21/96 r. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TIGARD BUSINESS MEETING ! NOVEMBER 26, 1`496 6:30 PM TIGARD CI'T'Y HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 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 at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to j be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the follow- mg services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments, and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). v SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 26, 1996 - PAGE 1 1 f AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 26, 1996 6:30 p.m. • STUDY MEETING > Agenda Review { > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into , Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), - (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing I from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. „ . Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, j but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ex Local Contract Review Board ! 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Budget Adjustment to Provide for Improvements to the Senior Center - Resolution No. 96-_ 4 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of Three Police Vehicles from Skyline Ford I in Salem, Oregon i 3.3 Adopt Regional Water Supply Plan atEnter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Membership to the Water Providers Consortium • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. { COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 26, 1996 - PAGE 2 7:50 p.m. - - 1 4. REPORT FROM REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS COMMITTEE • Stan Baumhofer 8:10 p.m. S. UPDATE: BOUNDARY COMMISSION STRUCTURE • Community Development Department 8:30 P.M. 4 6. CONTINUE DISCUSSION/DELIBERATION ON MEASURE 47 EXPENDITURE REVIEW • City Administrator 9:30 p.m. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:40 p.m. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 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. 10:30 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT i:1adm\cathy\cca\961126.doc I_ i i. i t COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 26, 1996 - PAGE 3 s 3 1 • I. G Agenda Item No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of = MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Chief of Police Ron ~ Goodpaster; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Maintenance Services Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. F > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:40 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. I j > Executive Session recessed at 7:35 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA > Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place. King City, commented that the citizens of j King City have voted in the past against annexing into the City of Tigard. He asked the i f Council if they would consider an annexation request from the City of King City. The Council had no comment. > Alec Jensen. Executive Officer for Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF& 20665 SW I Blanton Street. Aloha, mentioned the intent of Washington County to make a decision between the two bidders (Metro West Ambulance and TVF&R) to provide ambulance service for the County. He commented that TVF&R has not asked for support from jurisdictions to avoid politicizing the issue. He reported information TVF&R received that I the other bidder hired a political consulting firm to contact elected officials in Washington County to assess their opinions on the process and selection. Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 1 l ® J Mr. Jensen stated that he was not here to request support for TVF&R but to caution the Council on any information they received regarding the process and issues. He noted that the proposals were hundreds of pages long and addressed a multitude of variables in this very complicated bid process. He presented a letter to the Council identifying some of the issues in the event Councilors were contacted. Councilor Hunt asked about the history of TVF&R's use of ambulances. Mr. Jensen explained that Tualatin Fire District used to provide ambulance service but discontinued it. He said that TVF&R provided emergency medical services with paramedics and state licensed ambulances. However, the ambulances were used primarily as "rescue vehicles" for reasons of cost efficiency and greater mobility. They were used to transport patients only " in a time critical situation. In response to a comment from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Jensen stated that he was aware of no vote of the people to take the fire district out of the ambulance business. The Board of Directors chose to stop providing ambulance service. He said that he did know of a vote to authorize the district to provide ambulance service. However the district held off on doing so in order to participate in the County's competitive bid process. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern at the district taking on this service in light of Measure 47. He commented that if the service were not profitable, it might take funds away from the Washington County cities because public safety was first priority under Measure 47. Mr. Jensen concurred that this bid was bad timing in light of Measure 47. He stated that - . J they carefully costed their proposal to recover all costs from user fees. The Board of Directors clearly indicated that the proposal had to work in such a way that going into the i. ambulance business would have no impact should Measure 47 pass. The Board authorized i the submittal of that proposal with the understanding that Measure 47 was likely to pass. He said that the district looked forward to sharing the proposal with jurisdictions during the five-year business plan presentation. 3. CONSENT AGENDA 3.1 Approve Budget Adjustment to Provide for Improvements to the Senior Center - Resolution No. 96-71 E 3.2 Local Contract Review Board: a. Approve Purchase of 3 Police Vehicles from Skyline Ford in Salem, Oregon 3.3 Adopt Regional Water Supply Plan & Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Membership to the Water Providers Consortium Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the item for the Senior Center. Mr. Wegner said that the new resolution included an appropriation for the door closer held over from last year's budget. He stated that the Council could allocate the money in this year's budget to the Center to let them choose between doing the blinds or the interior paint job. 1 I Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 2 ~ 1 ® J Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4. BALLOON FESTIVAL s Stan Baumhoffer presented an update on the Balloon Festival. He commented that the event provided the opportunity for non-profit organizations to make some money; however, the Festival itself did not. He said that the lack of sponsorship by Washington Square this year contributed to the Festival's financial difficulties. t Mayor Nicoli asked if the City has given the Festival the money allocated for it in this year's budget. Bill Monahan. City Administrator, said no. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Festival charge a small gate fee next year to help cover expenses or charge for certain events or have a per car charge. Stan said that idea of a gate charge has been discussed but pointed out the difficulty of fencing off such a large area. f •w Mayor Nicoli asked if it would help the Festival if the City released at this time some of the City's contribution earmarked for this year. Mr. Baumhoffer said that it would help, and - that he would write a letter to the Finance Director requesting the funds. The Council discussed the issue of charging a gate fee for the Balloon Festival. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that people could arrive via the paths coming in from the river. He suggested phasing the closing of events to avoid the rush of people leaving at the end. i. i Mayor Nicoli said that Tigard provided an outstanding event and that it was fair to charge a small fee. Councilor Rohlf commented that part of the justification of spending money on events like the Balloon Festival, the Fourth of July, and Tigard Days, was to give something back to the community. 1 There was brief discussion on the social service budget and the precedent of requiring events to be self-supporting. 5. UPDATE: BOUNDARY COMMISSION STRUCTURE Jim Hendryx. Community Development Direct, reviewed the process used by Metro to reevaluate the Boundary Commission. He said that the Metro Council would decide in December on MPAC's recommendation to shift the decision-making process down to the local jurisdictions and eliminate the Boundary Commission. He explained that Metro would serve as the arbitrator of "contested cases," either through the full Council or a three member committee with representatives from each county. However the definition of "contested cases" has changed to disputes between jurisdictions and did not include disputes between citizens and jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx referenced Page 2 in the packet outlining the two proposals. He said that the decision would become effective in 1998/99 depending on the State Legislature's direction. i He mentioned that the funding was still to be worked out, although it was likely that Metro J would inherit the Boundary Commission's state funding. Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 3 i Councilor Hunt asked how the new process would work in a forced annexation situation. Mr. Hendryx said that as he understood it now, there was no appeal of a city's decision by individuals. The City would hold the sole hearing on the annexation, and Metro would check to make sure that all legal and jurisdictional requirements were met but there did not appear to be an appeals process for citizens. Mr. Hendryx explained that one of the problems with the Boundary Commission had been that it overturned annexation recommendations from local jurisdictions which were within a city's urban growth boundary. He said that a citizen appeal process might exist through the I court system. He did not think that a government could deprive anyone's Constitutional right to appeal a local government decision. Councilor Hunt reiterated his concern about forced annexations and what defense individuals had against the City forcing them to annex. Mayor Nicoli commented that the land use laws were set up by the state and allowed cities to annex the land within their urban growth boundaries. He expressed doubt that a judge or LUBA would deny an annexation within the urban growth boundary. Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of Measure 47's impact on annexation. He expressed concern that newly annexed property owners would not have to pay taxes to support the services provided; this would put a burden on the current city residents to pay for those services. Tim Ramis. Legal Counsel, commented that the interaction between the Boundary Commission changes and Measure 47 was a question yet to be resolved. ✓ Mayor Nicoli noted the difference in Tigard's handling of annexation requests and other cities. People wanted to come into Tigard, and the City routinely paid the filing fee at the ! Boundary Commission. Other cities, like Tualatin, sent annexation requests directly to the Boundary Commission with the applicant paying all fees. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that three-quarters of all annexations were not contested. The intent was to transfer the process from the Boundary Commission to the local level where it could be better handled. In instances of jurisdictional disputes, Metro would arbitrate. Mr. Hendryx said that the issue of taxing was separate from the issue of annexation. Councilor Hunt commented that the City did not have to accept an annexation request. Mayor Nicoli directed Mr. Polaris to speak with Mr. Hendryx regarding a question about Metro's handling jurisdictional disputes. Mr. Monahan commented that the documents before the Council were various proposals on how to handle this issue, and that the City did not yet know what the latest proposal meant exactly in reference to an appeal process for individuals. > The Mayor recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 8:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192,660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > The Mayor reconvened the business meeting. Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 4 f L~ !E 6. CONTINUE DISCUSSION/DELIBERATION ON MEASURE 47 EXPENDITURE REVIEW Mr. Monahan presented Ms. Newton's recommendation to continue the current process of using Beaverton's Neighborhood Mediation Program as opposed to setting up an separate program for Tigard. The cost was $5500 a year versus $22,000. The Council agreed by consensus with the recommendation. Mr. Monahan recommended finding out as much as they could about the annexation process, noting the issues of the City paying annexation application fees and the City not getting any tax revenue without voter approval. He said that staff has scheduled a meeting with Mrs. 1 . Tibbetts and the Walnut Island residents to inform them that the City was still interested in ¢ their annexation but was postponing processing annexations until Measure 47 settled down. Mr. Monahan noted the interpretation of Measure 47 by John Bond, Annexation Director for ; 4. the City of Portland, that any properties annexed that were not already on the tax roles would not have to pay taxes. The Council discussed the issue of the Walnut Island annexation request. Councilor Hunt suggested providing sewer without annexing by requiring the people to sign a non- remonstrance agreement. Mr. Monahan said that the problem was that these people needed - both to connect to sewer and a funding mechanism to pay for it. He commented on the political difficulty of providing these non-residents with a sewer system through the Neighborhood Extension Program when other residents were already lined up to connect to the sewer system through that program. Councilor Rohlf commented that this was the fallout of Measure 47 and that he was not inclined to make things easier. Mayor Nicoli supported waiting for about 6 - 12 months to see how issues on Measure 47 are resolved. Councilor Rohlf asked if a health problem gave the people any leverage over the City to t I provide them with a sewer program. Mr. Ramis said that he would want to look into that. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the County did have a distribution system through USA and could provide sewer to these residents. Mr. Monahan suggested discussing the issue of whether or not the City should pay the annexation fee when they got to the point of accepting annexations. Councilor Rohlf said that doing so had always been a concern to him. Councilor Hunt pointed out that eliminating the Boundary Commission would also eliminate the large fee. Liz Newton. Assistant to the City -Administrator, presented recommendations for reducing staff time for the CITs. She suggested holding a single joint meeting in April to review the CIP. She noted the sparse attendance of meetings in January and July and recommended not holding meetings during those months. She suggested allowing the CIT members to request the staff that they would like to attend the meetings, rather than assigning four to five staff people to attend meetings. She recommended discussing the issue with the facilitators and CIT members prior to making the changes. { j ~ Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 5 k i 1 Mr. Monahan said that they were not suggesting that they skimp on staff for the CITs; rather, this was an effort for accountability of the use of staff resources. Councilor Scheckla noted that August was vacation time. Ms. Newton said that they could leave it open as to which months a meeting was postponed or not held. Councilor Hunt commented that joint meetings could be held on more issues than just the CIP. Mr. Monahan referenced Mr. Lowry's memo in which he outlined the available budget this year for the social services and arts. He noted the need for Council discussion and direction to staff about social service contributions and how the policy for contributions may be affected with implementation of Measure 47. Mr. Lowry reviewed the process of notifying social service applicants of the available ` ~ funding. 1 Mayor Nicoli said that staff should put everyone on notice that Measure 47 "has struck" and a the City would be reviewing potential budget cuts. The Council briefly discussed the social service funding policy and decided to postpone further consideration until the Budget Committee process. Councilor Hunt raised the issue of the impact of Interfaith Outreach Services (IOS) on the budget. He commented that by allowing IOS to use a building last year in lieu of giving them $10,000, the City had $10,000 more to give to the other applicants. He said that if they gave $10,000 to Interfaith next year instead of the use of the building, they would increase the overall total budget for social services and arts. Mr. Lowry pointed out that the total budget would still be less than the amount allowed by policy. In addition applicants usually requested more funding than they received. Mr. Monahan referenced Paul deBruyn's memo on the reduction in computer purchases for the library. He recommended continuing with computer purchases as budgeted because doing so was part of an overall cycle of replacement of computers for a uniform system. Next year they would adjust computer replacement strategy according to what they could afford. He pointed out that the expense of the last couple of years was due to upgrading an outdated computer system. After discussion, the Council requested staff return to a meeting in the near future to clarify some of the proposed computer purchases. Mr. Monahan presented a request from Greg Berry to purchase a new survey van for $20,000 to replace the 24 year old van currently being used. > Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of the police station addition. Mr. Monahan reported that the contractor was willing to hold the price until December 4 but could not guarantee that the subcontractors would do so. Councilor Hunt expressed support for continuing with the addition. Councilor Moore concurred, commenting that the City has been setting funds aside for two years for this purpose. Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 6 C E i I i Mr. Lowry mentioned the latest issue arising out of Measure 47: Mr. Sizemore stated that he wrote Measure 47 to prohibit jurisdictions from going out for operating levies. He said that, if that held true, then there were serious implications for future general fund programs. He stated that he would not like to see the City spend $500,000 on a project, only to find that they couldn't use taxes to fund the five-year plan I - J Mayor Nicoli concurred that it was good policy not to use general fund revenue dollars for capital projects but supported going ahead with the police addition. Mr. Lowry pointed out that using operating money for a one-time capital expense was foregoing paying someone's salary in the future if revenue became stagnant. He said that the facility fund was made up - primarily of general fund operating money; the other piece was the sale to the Chamber which could be considered capital revenue. He said that given the uncertainty of how the { issue would be interpreted, he recommended holding off until next year to see what 11 happened. Councilor Hunt commented that even if they did not do the project now, costs for this project would increase in the future. Mr. Lowry said that he could earn enough interest with the money to offset inflation. Mayor Nicoli suggested scaling back the expansion and doing the improvements in two phases to reduce the amount they would take out of the general fund yet give the police department needed space. Chief Ron Goodpaster confirmed that the department needed the space but expressed great concern over the impacts of Measure 47. He recommended waiting to do the addition until the impact to revenues was known. ~i Mayor Nicoli commented that even if the City did not hire an additional staff person, two departments still had serious space needs. He said that he considered the cramped working conditions unacceptable for city employees, and that the employees should not have to pay the price of Measure 47. He spoke for providing the best working environment they could for their employees. He said that he was not opposed to holding off or to moving forward. j Mayor Nicoli suggested setting this aside for another three or four months to wait on news I of the probable lawsuits. Mr. Monahan reviewed several ways that staff could alleviate the space crisis. He noted that t the building currently used by Interfaith could be used for storage or possibly some staff, fI once Interfaith moved into their new building. He said that the Water District did not object to the City using more of the Water Building, as long as the Water District was included in the planning. Councilor Hunt asked how this tied into the continuing negotiations on the Schramm building. Mr. Monahan said that at this point the property owner did no appear to want to sell, but Ms. Newton will be finding out more information in the near future. 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 8:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 7 1 ~ is i 15. ADJOURNMENT: 9:37 p.m. i CI.EG ~,2i.n.P CUl CCL _ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or, City of Tigard i Date: R Tigard City Council Minutes - November 26, 1996 - Page 8 . l j --COMMUNITY NEW P.O.BOX370 SPPHONE (503) APERS~ INC. Lee Ce TT 8686 Milli! BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 + Legal Notice Advertising :rail 'City of Tigard • O Tearsheet Notice al pF AN,[i 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° O Duplicate Affidavit 'Accounts Payable • i _ i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say' that I am the Advertisingg Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiQard-Tualatin T,i.mes " a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigartl in the aforesaid county and state; that the amity -o 1 B uai nes Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the t entire issue of said newspaper for QNE successive and i. consecutive in the following issues: h November 21,1996 Subscribed and sworn t afore me this21 cf• Aay of Nnvc+mbe h r r G?` L4L SEAL << } ROT": A. i,!"GESS i t~ r NOTA' OREGON Notary blic for Oregon 4552 My Commission Expires y~5 L;f ti t~ri.19?: AFFIDAVIT ....R M r 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 BUSINESS MEETING November 26,4996 TrGARD CITY HALL:-TOWN HALL r 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council ma go- into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. • Agenda Review ` Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) • Status Report: Boundary Commission • Local Contract Review Board t M686 - Publish November 21, 1996. AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : j (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. J STAFF , i NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED ~rrc~ 994Nf - LIDO S1~ ~ P ~oc[~I c ty, ~Acf~Trv ~iA c~~> ! Ac4 0;&,, 1)"7, f I . I. . f„ t 1 _ 19adm4oW191tshtdoc AGENDA ITEM # 3 , FOR AGENDA OF Nov712,1996r ~ ->E~ v✓~L CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment for Senior Center Improvements PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a budget adjustment to provide for improvements to the Senior Center that were not included in the 1996/97 budget? r, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY r The 1995/96 adopted budget included the replacement of Senior Center blinds for $2,700 and the installation of automatic door opener for $2,500. Both of these projects were anticipated to be completed before the end of 1995/96 and were therefore not included in the 1996/97 adopted budget. Due to other priorities and turnover in staff, these projects have not been completed but are still needed. In order to provide for these projects in the budget, the budget for Property Management must be increased by $5,200. The attached resolution increases appropriations for Property Management by $5,200 and reduces i general fund contingency by the same amount. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Put these projects off until the 1997/98 fiscal year. FISCAL NOTES Approval of the attached resolution will increase appropriations for Property Management and decrease general fund contingency by $5,200. Item3.1 IV 96 d ww" CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1996/97 BUDGET FOR INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC i DOOR OPENER AT THE SENIOR CENTER E WHEREAS, the installation of an automatic door opener has been approved by the City Council and funds for such improvements have not been included in the 1996/97 adopted budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: 1 SECTION 1: The property management appropriations in the general fund are increased by $2,500, and SECTION 2: Contingency in the General Fund is reduced by $2,500. PASSED: This day of 1996. i Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: i City Recorder - City of Tigard f RESOLUTION NO.96-_ Page 1 1 AGENDA ITEM # 3,.% Q FOR AGENDA OF 11 at.l qro CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Purchase of he vehicles PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster 1 DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE FOR TNF COUNCIL Shall City Council approve the purchase of three (3) police vehicles. ! 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION i Staff recommends approval of the purchase of three (3) 1997 Ford Crown Victorias. INFORMATION SUMMARY These vehicles were approved for purchase in the FY 1996/97 budget. These vehicles will replace Patrol i vision vehicles which are due to rotate out of the fleet. s OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I 1. Approve staff recommendation. 2. Not purchase vehicles. ' f FISCAL NOTES I I. TOTAL COST is $60,564, and funds were budgeted for this purchase. dot i >9 PURCHASE FORM . CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Date: 10/24196 Tigard, Oregon 97223 From: Capt. R. Wheeler (503) 639-4171 Fax (503) 639-6795 Dept: Police - 1120 j TO: Skyline Ford PO#: PO Date: J~ 2510 Commercial St SE PO Auth.. by Conf. PO? Salem, OR 97302-4487 PO NUMBER REQUIRED ON ALL PACKAGES 1 Ph: (503) 581-2411 Fax: (503) 371-8146 f DELIVER TO: I © 13125 SW HALL BLVD ❑ 8720 SW BURNHAM STREET i ❑ 12800 SW ASH STREET ❑ 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET Vendor Item Dept/Account Unit Extended Oty No. Description No. Price Price i 3 ea. 1997 Ford Crown Victoria 10-1120-703.000 $18.197 $54,591 4-door sedan Police Inceptor w/1 20 P package I PRDER #P 71 i ~ KM KM - Moonlight Blue Color 157 471 3 ea. Seat Type Cloth Front Buckets/Vinyl Rear Bench 58 174 t s 3 ea. 153 Front License Plate Brackets 0 0 u (CONTINUED ON _ SEPARATE SHEET) S&H TOTAL 20,338 60,564 ~ - APPROPRIATION BALANCE: _5130.300.00 AS OF: 11115196 PURCHASING AGENT: I APPROVALS: (IF UNDER S50) SECTION MANAGER/PROFESSIONAL STAFF: (IF UNDER S2500) DIVISION MANAGER: 7 { (IF UNDER S7500) DEPARTMENT MANAGER: 7 Ii (I' " IDER $25000) CITY ADMINISTRATOR: (IkfVER 525000) LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: k - l /c~lo ~Cf V I L.CZ6 Boord.L4,a o-(~ C. LO by C~ c IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note important additional terms and conditions of this order on the reverse side. All of these terms and conditions area part of e this order and are contractually binding. Vendor Item Dept/Account Unit Extended No. Description No. Price Price 3 ea. 127 Heavy Duty Rubber Floor Mats 23 ss 3 ea. 13V Vinyl Luggage Compartment Trim 0 0 3 ea. 21A 6-Way Power Seat 321 963 3 ea. 589 Electronic AM/FM Stereo Radio 165 495 3 ea. PLN Auxiliary Fuse Panel, 10-gauge wire 38 114 (not to exceed 50 amp) I 3 ea. PLA Lamp, Courtesy, Inoperative 12 36 3 ea. PLP Power Door Lock Linkage and Knobs 12 36 3 ea. PW8 Windows Controlled by Driver & 12 36 Passengers I 3 ea. PRS Roof Reinforcement 56 168 3 ea. PR8 Radio Interference Bonding Tape 60 180 3 ea. PLC Spot Lamps 148 444 PW7 Wiring Package 56 168 Sea. PDD Decklid Release Switch 33 99 Sea. PCD Silicone Hoses 169 507 3 ea. 553 Anti-Lock Braking System 596 1788 i 1 ea Shop maintenance/Repair Instructor 89 89 1 ea Emissions 136 136 S&H TOTAL 20,338 60,564 i i ,i ~J --F7 . ~I6 J MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Man TO: Bill Monahan FROM: Ed Wegner a DATE: November 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Council Summary - RWSP & Water Provider's Consortium Attached is the Council Summary to recommend the City Council adopt the RWSP as well as appoint j membership for the Water Provider's Consortium Membership Board and Technical Committee. Due to the budget preparation for Measure 47 and responding to the 90+ calls in regards to the the inclement weather, we were unable to get this information to Cathy in time for the last agenda. If you have any questions, give me a call. Thanks? ' h`docs~naspagdt - i i AGENDA ITEM # 3 . FOR AGENDA OF I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of Regional Water Supply Plan and enter into an Intergovernmental " • Agreement for membership to the Water Provider's Consortium PREPARED BY:_ Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK yy1C7n, } ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL E - 1 Shall the Tigard City Council adopt the Regional Water Supply Plan and authorize the Mayor to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement for membership to the Water Provider's Consortium and make appointments to the Water Provider's Consortium Membership Board and Technical Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council should approve a Resolution adopting the Regional Water Supply Plan, sign the { Intergovernmental Agreement and appoint the Tigard City Council's IWB Representative to the Consortium's t Membership Board as well as appoint the Director of Public Works to the Consortium Technical Committee. INFORMATION SUMMARY f The City of Tigard has participated in the development of the Regional Water Supply Plan since 1993 and reviewed the preliminary draft in March of 1996 at which time the Intergovernmental Water Board made recommendations for amendment. In October of 1996 in a workshop meeting, the staff reviewed the details of the Plan and then presented the final draft of the Regional Water Supply Plan to the Intergovernmental Water Board at their November 13 meeting. The Board unanimously recommended adoption of the RWSP and I recommended Tigard's participation in the Water Provider's Consortium. The Intergovernmental Agreement provides for one appointment to the Consortium Board as well as one alternate and one appointment to the Consortium's Technical Committee. f OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • Make additional recommendation to the Regional Water Supply Plan • Choose not to participate in the Water Provider's Consortium. i FISCAL NOTES Membership dues to pay for the operating budget are based upon amount of retail water customers and projected incremental growth. Tigard's estimated cost would be $5,500 and the funds would be taken from the Water "und. h:\d.NmV gd l~ i I i f INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT I' OF i REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM .41 I t - i j -i .I . n TABLE OF CONTENTS . Section 1. Definitions 2 Section Purposes ....................................................3 Section 3. Endorsement of Regional Water Supply Plan Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 Section 5. Consortium Authority Section 6. Participants 6 Section 7. Dues .......................................................7 Section 8. Work Plan and Budgeting 9 Section 9. Consortium Board 10 Section 10. Consortium Technical Committee 11 Section 11. Consortium Technical Subcommittee 12 q Section 12. Dispute Resolution -13 Section 13. Duration and Dissolution 13 4r Section 14. Legal Liability 14 Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum . . . . . . . . 14. Section 16. Public Notification 14 REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONS RTF M This Inter-Governmental Agreement is entered into by and among the under- signed municipalities and districts, hereinafter called "Participants," to establish and j operate the Water Providers Consortium for the Portland Metropolitan Region. RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 authorizes units of local government to enter into written agreements with any other unit or units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that any of them has authority to provide; and I u.. WHEREAS, all the Participants of this Agreement are thus authorized to enter into an inter-governmental agreement; and WHEREAS, many of the water providers of the Portland metropolitan area have been meeting together since 1989 through an informal group called the Regional Providers Advisory Group to coordinate water supply planning efforts; and WHEREAS, twenty seven of the area's water providers agreed in May, 1993, through the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Regional Water Supply Plan jointly to fund an integrated Regional Water Supply Plan and have been meeting monthly since then as the Phase Two Participants Committee to manage the development of that Regional Water Supply Plan; and WHEREAS, a draft of the resulting Regional Water Supply Plan has been circulated for public review since September, 1995; and WHEREAS, a final Regional Water Supply Plan has now been completed; and WHEREAS, that Regional Water Supply Plan contains specific recommendations for future cooperation and coordination between the water providers in this region through the formation of a regional water providers consortium; and WHEREAS, as the Regional land use agency under state law and Regional charter, the Metropolitan Service District (";METRO") has responsibilities to plan and - coordinate the provision of public facilities in the region, including responsibilities created by the Metro Charter requiring that Metro's Regional framework plan address water sources and water storage; and WHEREAS, Metro has adopted Regional goals and objectives to encourage coordinated planning and management of water resources to ensure a sufficient water supply for the region; and WHEREAS, Metro's participation in preparation of the Regional Water Supply Plan and this Agreement is consistent with its regional coordination functions and its ' Chatter responsibilities; and WHEREAS, Metro's adoption of the Regional Water Supply Plan and execution 1 of this Agreement are important parts of Metro studies preliminary to adoption of a water supply component of its regional framework plan; and WHEREAS, the Participants desire to enter into an inter-governmental agreement in order to endorse the Regional Water Supply Plan and coordinate and cooperate in its implementation; ✓ NOW, THEREFORE, the Participants agree as follows: Section Definitions For purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall be defined as follows: "Agreement" - This document and any authorized amendments thereto. "Consortium" - Shall mean all Participants to this Agreement acting pursuant to and under the terms of the Agreement. ' "Consortium Board" - Shall-mean the Board of Directors established by Section 9 of this Agreement, consisting of one representative from the governing board, commission or council of each Consortium Participant. 2 a b , "Consortium Funds" - Consortium funds shall consist of all dues, voluntary contributions, grant monies and funding from any other source provided to the n ; Consortium to conduct the activities and business of the Consortium. "Consortium Technical Subcommittee" - Shall mean the Committee established by Section 11 of this Agreement consisting of ten of the Technical Committee member. "Consortium Technical Committee" - Shall mean the Committee established by Section 10 of this Agreement, consisting of one staff representative appointed by the ' governing board, commission, or council of each Participant. "Plan" - That document dated October, 1996, entitled Regional Water Supply Plan for the Portland Metropolitan Area, referred to herein as the "Plan." K Section 2. Purposes The general purposes of the Consortium are as follows: j A. To promote the voluntary coordination of individual and collective actions of Participants implementing the Plan; B. To serve as the central custodian for Plan documents, including computer , models; C. To review and recommend revisions to the Plan, as appropriate; D. To provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest to Participants and to coordinate the responses of Participants to such issues; E. To provide a forum for review and discussion of water resource related issues preliminary to any final actions by individual Participants, regarding issues which could be considered to relate to application of the statewide land use goals, comprehensive plans, regional plans, or land use regulations; ` F. To establish an avenue for public participation in water supply issues in - addition to public participation activities of the individual Participants. • 3 l- ; L j Section 3. Endorsement of Plan 3 A. By entering into this Agrdement, the individuate Participants endorse the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and agree to cooperate among themselves in its implementation. ! B. The Participants have endorsed the Plan in order to provide guidance for individual water supply decisions and to provide an outline for Regional water supply cooperation. Endorsement of the Plan and coordination of its implementation by the Consortium are part of the ongoing commitment of the Participants jointly to study and coordinate means to meet the water supply needs for the region. The Plan does not, ' however, require any mandatory action by any Participant. Each Participant jurisdiction remains responsible for determining and adopting appropriate comprehensive and functional plan provisions, including city and county public facility plans and special 4 . district capital improvement plans. The Plan is not any part of any Participant's comprehensive land use plan or framework plan or implementing regulations unless an individual participant takes such action. No part of the Plan or any coordinated activity of the Consortium constitutes a final land use decision by any Participant applying statewide or regional land use goals, comprehensive plans, functional plans, and/or land use regulations. For any part of the Plan to be applied to a Participant's land use actions, ' direct action to that effect is required by that Participant. `°q'" Section 4, Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers The Participants intend that the Consortium shall act through the processes laid out herein in the spirit of cooperation. Unless specifically provided for herein, by entering into this Agreement, no Participant has assigned or granted to any other or to the Consortium its water rights or the power to plan, construct, and operate its water system or perform any other obligation or duty assigned to it under law. Section 5. Consortium Authority I I 3 In accomplishing its purposes, and utilizing the organizational structure and decision-making processes contained herein, the Consortium is authorized to: A. Adopt by-laws and other operating procedures consistent with the terms of this Agreement to govern Consortium operation and administration, including such things as meeting arrangements, voting procedures, election of officers of Consortium 4 component boards or committees, notice procedures, procedures for execution of legal documents such as contracts, budgeting, and financial operations. B. Adopt and implement an annual work plan and issue annual reports and such supplementary reports as the Consortium may determine appropriate; • a C. Collect regular dues from Participants to support the routine business of the Consortium in amounts established as provided herein. D. Accept voluntary contributions from Participants in amounts higher than the regular dues for the purpose of conducting studies or engaging in other activities consistent with the Consortium purposes; E. Apply for and receive grants and accept other funds from any person or entity to cant' on Consortium activities; F. Expend Consortium funds, however obtained, and establish accounts and accounting processes to manage Consortium funds or utilize the accounts and processes of Participants for such purposes under appropriate agreements; G. Execute contracts to obtain goods and services and to enter into j arrangements whereby Participants may contract on behalf of the Consortium to obtain I goods and services; H. Execute intergovernmental agreements; I. Establish procedures for the hiring and firing of its own staff-, J. Accept assignment of staff from individual Participants to conduct Consortium work and to reimburse the Participants for the salary and other costs associated with the assigned staff; K. Establish procedures and criteria whereby other units of government may enter into this Agreement subsequent to its initial creation by the execution of the Agreement by fifteen or more Participants, subject to the provisions herein enabling any Participant in the Inter-Goverrnnental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan to join as a Participant of the Consortium at any time after the Consortium's creation; i i • U L. Establish a process to coordinate Participant response to water policy issues of mutual concern; N1. Establish procedures to solicit the views of the public on water supply and water resource issues within the Consortium's purview; N. Establish a process whereby water policy and water supply disputes or disazreements among Participants may be resolved; 0. Protect Consortium rights and enforce obligations owed to the Consortium 1 by third parties to the extent permitted by law; 1 P. Take other action within the powers specifically granted the Consortium f herein by the Participants to exercise the authority granted in subsections A. through O. ! k above and to carry out the purposes stated in Section 2 above. I ! Section 6. Participants ! A. Participants in General. Any Participant in the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan, as listed in Exhibit B to this Agreement, may initially join the Consortium at any time. Any Participant which, having once joined, withdraws or is expelled from the Consortium for non-payment of dues, may only re join . J as provided in Section 7F. Participants in Phase Two may join in their own name or in the name of a separate inter-governmental entity, but not both. (For example, the Cities of West Linn and Oregon City may join as two separate Participants or as- one, in the name of the South Fork Water Board.) B. Initial Creation By Fifteen Participants. The Consortium shall be created and this Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by fifteen or more Participants in the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts. 3 C. Additional Participants.. The Consortium Board may accept additional governmental entities as Participants into the Consortium under terms and financial arrangements that the Board determines just and appropriate. The Board may establish ; standards for membership in its by-laws or may allow new members to join on a case by , case basis. Provided, however, that is all cases, no new member may join the Consortium f without the affirmati ve vote of a majority of the Board. 6 D. Withdrawal. Anv Participant may withdraw from the Consortium at any 1 time by giving written notice to the Chair of the Consortium Board. Consortium dues already paid shall not be refunded to the-withdrawing Participant. To the extent it is able to do so, any Participant intending to withdraw from the Consortium shall endeavor to 11 advise the Chair of that fact prior to February I and the approval of the Consortium's next fiscal year's budget. Section 7. Dues A. Each Participant of the Consortium shall pay annual dues no later than September 1 of each year sufficient to fund the approved annual budget of the Consortium, as established by the Board, provided, however, that the Board may establish a different payment amount and/or schedule for a Participant upon request from that Participant or upon the Board's own motion. } 4 B. The dues of each water provider Participant shall be determined annually as follows: 1. Total annual dues for all members shall be set to equal the annual budget for the Consortium, not counting budget items to be funded by fewer than all the Participants as provided in Section 8.C., and taking into account any grants or non-dues monies available to fund the annual budget. 2. The total annual dues of Participants that are not water providers shall then be subtracted from the total annual dues-based budget, described in subsection 7.B.1. above, leaving a budget number to be funded by provider dues. Dues shall be set so that the dues of each water provider reflects its proportional share of that sum based on the following formula: 1 (a) 25% of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the individual provider's proportional share of the total number of all r Participants' retail customer accounts for the prior year; t f (b) 25% of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally i based on the individual provider's proportional share of total average daily retail water I use (in million gallons a day) in the prior year of all Participants; 7 j • " (c) 50°'0 of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the individual provider's share of the projected incremental growth in average daily summer peak season use (in million gallons a day) of all Participants. The projected incremental growth in use shall be based on the total incremental growth of all Participants projected from the first to the last year of the regional water demand forecast contained in the Plan or any more recent regional forecast approved as a Plan Amendment by the Consortium Board or the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils. 1 C. The amount of Metro's dues shall be established each year in the Annual Work Plan and budget. Metro's dues may include in-kind contributions. D. The dues obligation of any additional Participant that is not a water provider shall be established by the Consortium Board at the time it approves an entity's ' membership. i E. A Participant that fails to pay its assigned dues by September 1 or a time otherwise established by the Board pursuant to Section 7A. shall be automatically removed as a Consortium Participant. F. Upon a majority vote of the Board, a defaulting Participant (or a Participant that has previously withdrawn from membership) may be reinstated in the Consortium upon its agreement to pay its dues for the year during which it wishes to rejoin (calculated i. as if the entity had been a Participant at the time the budget was approved). Upon receipt of such dues by a rejoining member, the Board shall re-calculate the dues owed by other ' entities and provide a credit on the next year's dues to Participants who paid more than their total dues as recalculated. l G. If a new entity joins the Consortium as a Participant during an annual dues cycle, its dues and those of the existing Participants shall be calculated as follows: 1. If a new Participant is a water provider, its dues requirement will be calculated pursuant to Section 73. above. 2. If a new member is not a water provider, its dues will be determined as provided in Section 7.D. above. 3. The initial year dues for a new Participant joining part way through a budget cycle will be pro-rated to reflect partial year membership. . r r J L~- ~ -1 _ -l. Upon addition of a new Participant part way through a budget cycle, } the current vear dues for existing Participants will be re-calculated and re-assigned as follows: (a) The new Participant's initial year dues will be deducted from the total current dues-based budget. (b) The remaining budget amount will be allocated to existing members in accordance with the percentage of the budget each Participant was assigned i in the current annual budget. (c) Existing members shall receive a credit on their next year's dues payment for any amounts they paid as dues that are greater than their revised dues obligation as determined herein. 5. New Participants joining at any time after September 1 shall pay E their initial year dues by the following September or at a time otherwise established by j the Board upon admission of the new Participant. Section g• Work Plan and Budgeting A. By February 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt an annual work plan of Consortium activities for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1. , B. At the same time, the Board shall adopt a budget sufficient to conduct the Consortium's Annual Work Plan. The budget shall also include a calculation of the dues owed by each Participant to fund the budget as provided in Section 7, taking into account any grants or non-dues funds available to the Consortium, and a table apportioning the dues to each Participant. C. The budget may include special studies that will be funded by fewer than all of the Participants on a voluntary basis. D. The Board may amend the budget and the work plan at any time during the . year as it deems appropriate except that dues may only be increased annually as provided for in Section 7. Additional expenditures may be permitted so long as there are identified sources of revenue, other than increased dues, -for such expenditure(s). 9 { E. Participants are expected to provide to Consortium staff the data necessary to calculate the annual dues for budgeting and planning. n Section 9. Consortium Board A. The Consortium Board shall be made up of one representative from the governing board, commission, or council of each Participant. Each Participant shall also name an alternate Board representative from its governing board, commission, or council to serve in case the primary representative cannot. Provided, however, that if the Board Chair does not attend a meeting, the Vice-Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than the Chair's alternate. { B. Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties may each also name a I representative (and alternate) to serve on the Board as non-voting ex officio members of L . the Board. j C. The Board is authorized to: (1) approve the Consortium's annual work plan and budget; (2) set Consortium policy; (3) approve new Consortium Participants; (4) i , recommend water supply, water planning, and regional cooperation actions to Participant governing boards, commissions, or councils, especially, but not limited to, actions to implement the Plan; (5) approve minor amendments to the Plan; (6) recommend to the governing boards, commissions, or councils of the Consortium Participants major f ` amendments to the Plan; (7) periodically review the Plan comprehensively, on a schedule ; providing for review at least every five years, commencing with the date upon which the i Consortium is formed, or on a shorter schedule determined by the Board; (8) recommend E to the governing boards, commissions, or councils of the Consortium Participants amendments to this Agreement; (9) adopt by-laws; (10) exercise any other powers and authority granted to the Consortium by this Agreement necessary to accomplish the Consortium's purposes. D. The Board shall have the authority to designate which Plan Amendments are major and which are minor for purposes of determining the process for amendment consideration. Generally, major amendment to the Plan should include revisions to the Plan's policy objectives, resource strategies, or implementation actions which significantly alter Plan direction or would significantly change the implementation strategies. Minor amendments are all other changes to the Plan. a 10 1 Ida- • E. Upon its first meeting, the Board shall elect a temporary Chair and Vice- Chair and shall proceed within three months thereafter to adopt such by-laws as it deems ' advisable, consistent with this Agreement. Consistent with the terms of this Agreement, the by-laws shall, at least, (1) establish the offices of Chair and'Vice-Chair and determine their terms, their general duties, and the method for their election; (2) establish how the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils shall notify the Consortium of their appointment of Board members and alternates; (3) establish a method to allow t, additional entities to join the Consortium; (4) establish a method to determine timing of meetings, provided that the Board must meet at least once a year; (5) establish a process for resolution of disputes among Participants; and (6) establish a method whereby the Board can create subcommittees of itself and other advisory committees or bodies to assist the Board in conducting its business, including a standing "Executive Committee." In creating a Board Executive Committee, the Board shall endeavor to achieve t geographic representation and representation from municipalities, districts, and other r types of entities that form the Participants' group. F. Each year in the annual work plan or its amendments, the Board may assign i such duties or delegate such Board authority as the Board deems advisable to any Board committee or to the Technical Committee, except that the Board may not delegate the authority (1) to execute inter-governmental agreements, (2) to designate Plan j amendments as minor or major, (3) to recommend major Plan Amendments or amendments to this Agreement, (4) to approve the annual work plan and the budget, I I (5) to approve minor Plan amendments, (6) to approve the admission of Participants to the Consortium, or (7) to dissolve the Consortium. G. To be effective, Board actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board at a meeting at which a quorum of two-thirds of the Board is present 7 Section 10. Consortium Technical Committee 1 A. The Consortium Technical Committee shall be made up of one staff representative appointed by the governing board, commission, or council of each- Participant. Each governing board, commission, or council shall also name a Technical Committee representative alternate to serve when the primary representative cannot. Provided, however, that if the Technical Committee Chair does not attend a meeting, the Vice-Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than the Chair's alternate. 1 11 • i l.~ ' G ' B. The Technical Committee shall advise and provide assistance to the Board on any matters falling within the Consortium's purview under this Agreement, shall direct n the work of the Technical Subcommittee, and may act upon Board delegation of authority as provided in Section 9F. C. The Technical Committee shall, upon its first meeting, elect a temporary Chair and Vice-Chair and shall proceed within three months thereafter to adopt such by- laws for its operation as it deems advisable, consistent with this Agreement. The by-laws shall, at least, (a) establish the offices of Chair and Vice-Chair and determine their terms, their general duties, and the method for their election; (b) establish how the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils shall notify the Consortium of their appointment of Technical Committee members and alternates; (c) establish a method to determine timing of meetings, provided that the Technical Committee must meet at least three times a year, and (d) establish a method whereby the Technical Committee can k. create subcommittees of itself and other advisory committees or bodies to assist the Technical Committee in conducting its business. D. The Technical Committee shall, at its discretion, assign duties and tasks to 1 and direct the work of the Technical Subcommittee. E. To be effective, Technical Committee actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Committee at a meeting at which a quorum of two-thirds of the j .J Committee is present. Section 11. Consortium Technical Subcommittee A. The Consortium Technical Subcommittee shall be made up of ten of the i Technical Committee members (or, as required, their alternates) as follows: 1. Three 'of the Technical Subcommittee representatives must come from Participants in Clackamas County, three from Washington County, and three from Multnomah County, and one from Metro. Further, in each County, if possible given the Consortium membership, there must be at least one representative from a city and one ` from a special district. f 2. The Technical Subcommittee representatives for each county shall be selected by the vote of the Technical Committee representatives for each county, provided, however, that in any case the Chair of the Technical Committee shall, without I requiring election, be automatically named to the Technical Subcommittee as one of the 12 i ' County representatives or as the Metro representative, as appropriate, and shall be Chair of the Technical Subcommittee, as well. If the relevant Technical Committee members are unable to select the required three Technical Subcommittee members from a county, w then the Board representatives for the relevant county or counties shall select Technical Subcommittee members. B. The Technical Subcommittee shall operate under the supervision of and advise the Technical Committee on anv matters within the Consortium's purview. It is anticipated that the Technical Subcommittee shall, under the direction of the Technical " Committee, or as provided for in any agreement or contract to provide staffing, supervise 1 Consortium staff (including employees of Participants assigned to the Consortium) and assume the responsibility to draft proposed work plans, budgets, annual and other reports, plan amendments, and implementation proposals for submission to the Technical Committee for review and submission to the Board. e,.. i C. To be effective, actions or recommendations for action by the Technical Subcommittee must be approved by a majority vote of those members present and voting f~ at a meeting at which a quorum of a majority of the Technical Subcommittee is present. f 1 Ij Section 12 . Dispute Resolution The Participants intend to work cooperatively to accomplish the water resource 0 strategies of the Plan and the purposes of this Agreement. It is understood, however, that there may be disagreements among the Participants on issues within the purview of the Consortium. The Consortium will also, therefore, provide a forum whereby such disagreements may be aired and, if possible, resolved. The Board shall establish a mandatory, but non-binding dispute resolution mechanism through its by-laws. Section 13. Duration and Dissolution This Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (1) any Participant may withdraw at any time as provided in this Agreement; (2) should all but one 1 Participant withdraw, the Agreement shall end and the Consortium shall be dissolved; (3) the Agreement may be ended and the Consortium dissolved by a vote of the Board. 13 4 ~ t a F7, " cc ton 4. Leal Liabilitv b Participants agree to share any costs or damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, from third party actions against the Consortium. The obligation shall apply to any entity that was a Participant in the Consortium at the time the liability arose or the cause of action accrued. Payment obligations shall be proportional to the dues of each entity. Participants agree to assist and cooperate in the defense of such an action. Settlement of any action that would impose an obligation to pay upon the Participants under this provision must be approved by a majority of the Board. „ Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum A. This Agreement shall be construed according to the law of the State of Oregon. B. Any litigation between the Participants under this Agreement or arising out of work performed under this Agreement shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Multnomah County Court having jurisdiction thereof, and if in the federal courts, in the ` United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Section 16. Public Notification Meetings of the Consortium Board, the Consortium Technical Committee, and any subcommittees of those bodies shall be considered open meetings as provided by law.. DATED this QL, day of ,iV 0 v~(_; rrt 1996. :layo - C; _=y of Tigard 11 14 PHASE Z of the REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLATY PARTICIPANTS: City of Beaverton Canby Utility Board Clackamas River Water City of Gladstone Damascus Water District is City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Hillsboro Utilities Commission City of Forest Grove E, City of Lake Oswego Metro City of Milwaulde Mt Scott Water District - Oak Lodge Water District City of Portland Raleigh Hills Water District Rockwood Water City of Sandy City of Sherwood South Fork Water Board: City of Oregon City/City of West Linn f City of Tigard Water Department City of Troutdale City of Tualatin Tualatin Valley Water District West Slope Water District City of Wilsonville i City of Wood Village U LLJ AGENDA ITEM # j For Agenda of November 26. 1996 { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Metro's Review of the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission S I i 1 t ` PREPARED BY: Jim Hendrvx DEPT HEAD OK F' ITY ADMIN OK4/Lf ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL I Update on Metro's review of the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 Metro's Charter requires the Council to "undertake and complete a study of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission". The Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) established a working _group in 1995 that conducted the study and has made recommendations to the Council. The Council will be onducting hearings in December on proposing legislation for consideration by the 1997 State Legislature for implementation. MPAC's recommendation would shift the decision making process, now considered by the Boundary Commission, to the local level. Contested cases, where jurisdictional disputes exist, would be decided by a Metro hearings authority. The City has gone on record supporting the proposal being forwarded by MPAC. The j Governmental Affairs Committee, which is a subcommittee of the full Metro Council, is recommending minor changes to the MPAC proposal. A three person commission, representing the three counties, would review contested cases. Other minor changes are recommended by the Government Affairs Committee. I Funding for this is also under consideration. Most likely, support for the existing Boundary Commission would go ` to offset Metro's costs. L.~ i ItlMPAA ION OF GOWR OMT AFFAIRS COKFU779kc FXVrVXIL: ate. _ . p OOVSRNI~IYAL AFFAIRS COMQT7'3LS PROPOSAL ORTGIl7AL I~AC PROPOSAL //)J (I~~ _ _ O • Uniform Local Government Process -Uniform Local Government Process O -Nearing Requirement -Hearing Requirement -Notification of Affected Parties and Governments -Notification of Affected Parties and Governments • Contested Case Process • Contested Case Process - 0 Z -Cases Involving Disputes Between Governments or -Cases Involving Disputes Between Governments or Possible Violation of Regional Plans Possible Violation of Regional Plans _ M -Review'By Three-Member Citizen Commission -Reviewed 8 Metro- By Appointed Hearings Officer U) -Members Nominated.By Counties ti W -No Appeals By Individuals -No Appeals By Individuals -Appeal Commission Decisions to LUBA -Appeal Hearings Officer Decisions To LUBA N ti -Jurisdiction -Jurisdiction o -includes all jurisdicciona wholly or partly -Metro boundary, plus any territory within urban reserve Z within Metro boundary study areas would be added co by legislative action -Expedited Process for Local Governments -Expedited Process for Local Governments Not -Similar to process used by boundary commission -Not Addressed *Decision Making Criteria/Contested Cases • Decision Making Criteria/Contested Cases -Legislative authority for Metro to develop -Legislative authority for Metro to develop criteria in Metro Code prior to effective date criteria in Metro Code prior to effective date -Identified several general criteria to be included in adopted-criteria -Funding -Funding -Legislative authority for Metro to develop -Legislative Authority for Metro to develop funding mechanisms in Metro Code prior to funding mechanism in Metro Code prior to effective date effective date -Address funding inequities -Effective Dace 13/31/98 •Effeccive Date 1/1/99 W 3= • T'~ .6 oil C.J 4 _ s ANNOW s METRO Nov 12.96 15:39 No.011 P.03 j.. f i i FINAL REPORT FROM THE METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE BOUNDARY COMMISSION WORKGROUP 1 Introduction This report summarizes the work and recommendations of the Boundary Commission Workgroup of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). The workgroup was established in June 1995, following a request by the Metro Council that MPAC develop recommendations concerning the future status and operations of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govenment Boundary Commission (the commission). The request was made to implement the provisions of the 1992 Metro Charter y which require that the Council "undertake and complete a study of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission with advice of the MPAC." The charter further authorizes the Council to "implement the results of the study and seek any legislatige action needed for implementation." i The six-member work group was chaired by County Commissioner Judie Hammerstad from Clackamas County. Other workgroup members included. Portland City Commissioner Charlie Hales, Tualatin Valley Water District Board Member Rob Mitchell, Cornelius City Councilor - Jeannine Murrell, Washington County Commissioner Linda Peters, and Lake Oswego Mayor Alice Schlenker. All of the workgroup members j are members of MPAC. Metro Councilor Susan McLain attended the workgroup meetings and served as the liaison with the Metro Council. I, Staff was provided by the Metro Council Office. The staff of the commission provided summaries of the early workgroup meetings and promptly responded to all information requests from the workgroup. The workgroup also was assisted by the McKeever/Morris consulting firm and in the development of funding proposals by Kent Squires, General Manager, Oak Grove Sanitary District. j Commission History As early as the mid 1950s, the Legislative Assembly recognized that local government response to the rapid growth of suburban areas throughout the state was fragmented and resulted in the ineffective provision of urban services in metropolitan areas. Legislation was introduced, but not adopted, in the 1957 Legislative Assembly to create a statewide local government boundary commission. Following the work of the Portland Metropolitan Study Commission, legislation to establish boundary commissions in certain local areas was introduced in the 1967 Legislative Assembly. The legislation passed in the House but died in a Senate committee. Similar legislation was reintroduced and passed in the 1969 Assembly. P METRO Nov 12.96 15:40 No.011 P.04 t'U This legislation created the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission with a jurisdiction of all of Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah and Washington Counties (Columbia County was removed from commission jurisdiction in 1999). By the time the commission was created, the number of local governmental units within its jurisdiction had reached over 300. Many small cities had been created to avoid annexation, to larger cities. These cities had no capacity to provide urban services. Suburban areas were generally served by a patchwork of special districts. Fragmentation and a lack of planning for the provision of urban services were commonplace. One study concluded that the average citizen in the Portland metropolitan area was subject to decisions made by 11 separate units of government. During its 27 years of operation, the number of units of government has declined from 290 to 105. ; current Commission Role 7 The following discussion outlines how the commission defines its purposes and jurisdiction, the types of actions subject to commieion review, its decision-making processes and the criteria used in the decisionmaking process. PUrposes• Though there have been a number of technical and G. procedural changes enacted since 1969, the essential purpose and role of the commission have remained unchanged. The Law defines i these purposes to be: 1) guide the creation and growth of local jurisdictions to prevent illogical boundary extensions and encourage restructuring of overlapping units: 2) assure service quantity and quality and financial integrity of local jurisdictions; f 3) provide impartial forum for resolution of local issues; i 4) provide decisions consistent with local comprehensive plans and statewide planning goals: 5) reduce fragmented service delivery by encouraging single agency service delivery. Jurisdiction. The commission's jurisdiction includes all cities and thirteen of the most common types of special districts. These include water, sanitary, fire, county service and park and recreation districts. Notable exemptions to the commission's jurisdiction include school districts and people's utility districts. a j s NEW- METRO Nov 12,96 15:41 No.011 P.05 U Local 9 Actions Subject to Review, The following types of actions by local jurisdictions are subject to commission review: i 1) incorporation, dissolution, merger or consolidation of a ` city or district; 1 2) initiation of a new function by a district; J 3) annexation to or withdrawal from a city or district; i a t. 4) formation or expansion of privately-owned community water or sewer system with certain exceptions; 5) extraterritorial water or sewer line extensions. Decision-mall ng Process The general commission process for the consideration of actions subject to its review is as follows: 1) submittal of the proposed action to the commission by the initiating local jurisdiction, or by citizens requesting an action; q 2) scheduling a commission hearing; 3) preparation of a commission staff report, including recommendations; 4) holding of a public hearing by the commission; I 5) commission decision, which may include approval, denial or modification of the proposed action; 6) issuance of a commission final order. The commission has up to 12o days to take action on major proposals, such as the initiation, merger or consolidation of a city or district. Commisssion action on all other types of actions, such as annexations, must be completed within 90 days. The law also has established a 25-day expedited process for the consideration of small non-contested actions. f.. The effective date of the commission's final orders depends on the type of action under consideration. All commission decisions are appealable to the state Court of Appeals. Decision-making Criteria The state statute governing the commission does not clearly and separately define the criteria that are to be applied by the commission to the action items that it must review. The policy 3 ` f _JI _ - - - METRO _ Nov 12.96 15:41 No.011 P.06 section of the statute (ORS 199.410) provides that "a single governmental agency, rather than several governmental agencies is in most cases better able to assess the financial resources and therefore is the best mechanism for establishing community services." The commission has interpreted this language to mean that it should give a preference to cities as service providers. Other examples of language in the governing statute include a provision of the policy section which provides that the intent of d the commission is "to create a governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the widest range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well- ordered and efficient development patterns." ORS 199.462 provides that the commission "consider local comprehensive planning for the area, economic, demographic and soliological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change." The commission has utilized the general policy and intent statements throughout its government statute to develop a series of 17 general decision-making criteria. These include: 1) Avoid fragmentation of public services. 2) Orderly development of urban area is in the best interest of the citizens of this state. _ f 01% vrr 3) Effect of the growth of one unit of government on ocher d units of government. I 4) Insure orderly determination of local government di boundaries. :i 5) Determine the local service provider when local j comprehensive plans are unclear. 'i ' 6) Preference for single agency provision of urban services (cities as prefered providers). 7) Promote efficiency and economy in providing urban services. 8) Encourage planned, well-ordered and efficient development f patterns. 9) Guide creation and growth of units of government to prevent illogical boundaries. 10) Encourage reorganization of overlapping units of government. 11) Assure adequate quality and quantity of urban services. 4 ) - - - ale. - - - METRO Nov 12,96 15:42 No.011 P.07 12) Assure financial integrity of units of government affected I by a boundary change. 13. Serve as an impartial forum, 14) Make decisions consistent with local plans and statewide 1 goals. 1 15) Consider timing, phasing and availablity•of services. 16) Reduce fragmentation by encouraging single agency service delivery. 17) Consider economic, demographic, and sociological trends and past, present and future development of the land. Workarouo Review Process Initial workgroup meetings in July and August 1995 focused on the identification of issues and concerns related to the current operation of the commission. The workgroup also extensively discussed the current local and regional land use planning process and how these activities relate to the commission. In September, the workgroup finalized a list of issues that would become the focus of its review. These included: i.,. 1) the purpose of the commission 2) the authority of the commission 3) policy framework for decision-making (including criteria) 4 commission governance 5) funding 6) status of the commission advisory committee 7) commission decision-making process j ! 8) appellate review, and 9) the expedited consideration process. i A discussion paper outlining these issues and identifying related policy questions was sent to local jurisdictions subject to the commission, The workgroup then held a series of three public hearings in October. Written and oral testimony was received from the commission (including current and former commissioners and staff), cities, counties, special districts and the general public. 5 _ . METRO Nov 12,96 15:42 No.011 P.08 E~ J Workgroup meetings during November and December reviewed the information received during the hearing process and refined the, nature of the issues and policy options that would receive further consideration. During a series of worksessions in January, February and March, the workgroup developed its preliminary and final recommendations and approved its final report to MPAC. 3 Workgroup Findings and Recommendations The workgroup has developed recommendations in four principal areas related to the commission. These include: 1) function and t j structure, 2) criteria, 3) geographic boundaries, and 4) funding. Each of these areas are addressed below. j 3 u Function and Structure Discussion. The commission and its supporters contend that j j the existing functions and structure should be retained with only a few minor changes. They argue that, while the commission has reduced fragmentation and inefficient service provision, its continuation in its present form is necessary to maintain the status quo. They note that "the easy recreation of confusion and i inefficiency is only avoided by the presence of the Commission.,, Supporters contend that the commission provides timeliness, # centralized processing efficiency, impartial fairness and a uniformity to the boundary change decision-making process. They argue that returning many boundary change decision-making functions to local jurisdictions would increase costs and result in decisions i based on political considerations. Actions by one jurisdiction could have significant impact on another jurisdiction and it would be more difficult to insure the state and regional interests are addressed. For example, they note 7 that the state shares a variety of revenue sources with local jurisdictions and therefore has a significant interest in the development of efficient and economical local government structures. I i Commission supporters recognize that there are many new mechanisms that may assist local jurisdictions in resolving boundary and 1 service provision issues among themselves. These could include the SB 122 (ORS 195.020-195.080) intergovernmental service agreement process, Metro's 2040 early implementation measures and the development of the Regional Framework Plan. But they contend that the agreement and planning process are still evolving and there is no assurance they will fully address all boundary and service delivery issues. Supporters also contend the existence of comprehensive land use `.J plans and intergovernmental service provision agreements do not address many issues addressed in the commission's decision-making it 'frf•: L_ m METRO Nov 12,96 15:43 No.011 P,09 J 7 4 criteria. For example, while such plans and agreements may set service area boundaries, they often do not address issues related to the timing, availability and financing of service provision. In addition,. they may not address the question of whether an area outside a city boundary is to be annexed. The commission proposed potential statutory changes to address its relationship with the SB 122 process and the implementation of the j." . Regional Framework Plan. These included a commission-administered ` process for setting urban service boundaries based on SB 122 ti agreements and with clear statutory direction that the commission's decisions should be consistent with adopted regional plans. a The workgroup also received extensive testimony from several local jurisdictions which advocated a substantial reduction in the scope of the commission's functions. These suggested changes were based on two principal assumptions: 1) that a large percentage of the I local boundary and service provision decisions subject to commission review are minor and have only a limited local impact, and 2) there are extensive state, regional and local planning processes now in place that reduce the need for the commission. i Some jurisdictions have established local processes for the 1 consideration of annexations, These procedures generally include a local planning commission and city public hearing process. Other 1 jurisdictions file annexation proposals directly with the boundary commission. In addition, property owners may choose to file ` annexation proposals directly with the commission. a A large majority of the commission's work involves the review of proposed city annexations. Such annexations often involve a single parcel or a small number of parcels that are being annexed at the , i request of the landowner. In many cases there is no opposition to ! the proposal. Testimony suggested that commission review of such cases is costly and time consuming. It was noted that most commission hearings on these types of actions are noncontested.. a Some of those offering testimony to the workgroup suggested that only "contested" cases be subject to review at the regional level. a It is generally agreed that at the time the commission was originally established, the governmental landscape in the i metropolitan region was characterized by a proliferation of small units of governments, distrust and competition between governments and an almost total lack of intergovernmental cooperation and planning. However, many of those testifying before the workgroup noted that in recent years new regional and local intergovernmental planning processes have been mandated. They contended that the completion of these processes will significantly reduce the need for aboundary commission. `..J At the regional level, the 1992 Metro Charter requires the development of a regional framework plan by December 1997. The. }}i 7 E, METRO Nov 12 96 15:44 No.011 P.10 6 plan will address transportation and mass transit systems, administration of the urban growth boundary, housing densities, urban design and settlement, open spaces, and water sources and storage. Cities and counties will be required to make land use decisions consistent with the framework plan, and the Metro Council will adjudicate and determine the consistency of local comprehensive plans with the framework. In addition, Metro is completing a review of the urban growth boundary under the 2040 i process that will result in boundary adjustments and the creation F'. of urban reserves outside of the boundary. At the local level, the Legislative Assembly has enacted legislation (SB 122) requiring local governments to develop urban service agreements for areas inside an urban growth boundary, r These SB 122 agreements must address who will provide each urban service, the functional role of each service provider, s determination of service areas, and assign responsibilities for ' planning and administration of urban services. Such agreements would be required for sanitary sewer, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation and street, road and mass transit E j services. A variety of economic, financial, feasibility, cost E } allocation, demographic and sociological factors must be addressed ` in developing the agreements. The agreements will be required to be in place by the time of the city's next comprehensive plan a acknowledgement by the state Land Conservation and Development commission. In the metropolitan region, Metro has been designated 3 as the review, advisory and coordinative agency. Several jurisdictions also contended that there is now a much higher level of intergovernmental cooperation related to service delivery issues. They noted that there are numerous agreements 1 affecting police, fire, emergency and library services. In ) addition, they noted the recent regional study effort on future ) i water source and delivery issues that involved all of the region's ` water providers. In conclusion, those who support reducing the scope of regional boundary adjudicator functions argue that many of the functions now i performed by the current commission will be addressed through other types of regional or local planning processes. In most cases, the commission's role would be reduced to simply reviewing noncontested cases or confirming that a local action is consistent with the regional framework plan or a local 5B 122 agreement. Recommendation. The workgroup makes the following j recommendations concerning the scope of the regional boundary change review and adjudication process and its administrative structure. v 1) The scope of the boundary change review process be E substantially reduced to include only "contested" cases. A contested case would include any action in which there is a dispute E' 7 METRO Nov 12.96 15:44 No.011 P.il ' between two or more jurisdictions or when a staff review of the action concludes that it may violate any regional plans or local urban service agreements. This criteria would apply to any type of { local action that is currently subject to review by the boundary commission. The workgroup concluded that many local annexations involve i small areas that have no regional interest or significance. Under the workgroup's proposal, these types of will be handled at the 1 local level. Local jurisdictions will establish processes for ! j soliciting public input concerning these actions. Local citizens L ' and property owners can participate in this process and attempt to influence their local decisionmakers. There are adequate provisions j in existing law that provide procedures for legal appeal or electoral remonstrance procedures for those who may object to a decision. In addition such decisions in the future will be governed by existing SB 122 urban service agreements and the provisions of the framework plan. Major decisions related to the initiation, merger, consolidation or dissolution of a unit of government occur infrequently. In recent years, these actions have generally involved the merger or consolidation of special districts. In most 3 cases, these mergers and consolidations have proceeded only after extensive economic analysis and a local public hearing process. n Under the workgroup's proposed recommendation, if such actions were { not objected to by another jurisdiction or did not violate regional <1 or local plans or agreements, local approval by the affected } jurisdictions and administrative review at Metro would be all that is necessary to validate the proposed action. x _ 2) The boundary review function be transferred to Metro. This recommendation is based on two factors. First, it is r i anticipated the number of local decisions that will be contested will represent only a small percentage of the cases currently ! considered by the commission. This reduced workload would not be C. j sufficient to support an independent agency with a five-person 1 staff. Second, several mechanisms have been put in place in recent years to facilitate local management of the region's growth management process. Metro now administers many aspects of this process including management of the urban growth boundary, development and administration of the regional framework plan and serving as the coordinator of the local SB 122 urban service agreement process. Transfer of the regional boundary review function would be a logical extension of these regional planning functions. 3) Aoundary Review Process and the structure and Role of a Metro Boundary Review office. The workgroup recommends the y establishment of separate boundary review processes for E "noncontested" and "contested" cases. These processes would apply F 4 METRO Nov 12,96 15:45 No.011 P.12 I a _ tF t ~ ,i i ~ I to all types of local actions that are. currently subject to boundary commission review. I ~ Non-contested cases. The non-contested case process would include the following steps: 1) Proposed actions would be developed by a local a jurisdiction. 2) The jurisdiction would conduct an analysis and public input process based on the nature of the proposal. 3) The jurisdiction would consult with metro boundary review staff to determine the necessary legal requirements for filing the proposal with Metro. 4) The jurisdiction would make a decision to file the proposal. 5) Metro staff would review the proposal to insure it complies with necessary legal requirements Ue. including an accurate metes y and bounds description of lands proposed for annexation). j Legislative change will be necessary to rely on computerized maps for determining metes and bounds. If deficiences are identified, 3 the proposal would be 'returned to the local jurisdiction for } correction. 6) Metro staff would review the proposal to determine if it qualified as a contested case. If it is determined that the proposal is not contested, the staff would notify the jurisdiction that the filing of the proposal had been accepted. The jurisdiction would be authorized to proceed with the proposed' action subject to statutory appellate procedures. 7) Metro staff would provide required information to affected local offices Ue, elections and assessment and taxation departments). The boundary commission currently provides this information. Contested cases. The first five steps of the contested case process would be the same as the non-contested process. If Metro staff determines that a proposed action is a contested case, the following process would be followed. i 1) The proposing jurisdiction would be notified. The jurisdiction would have the opportunity to eliminate those elements of the proposal that caused it to become contested. For example, if another jurisdiction objected, there would be an opportunity to negotiate a solution. If Metro staff determined that the proposal violated a regional plan, the proposing jurisdiction would have an ~j opportunity to address these issues. 10 - i f METRO Nov 12 96 15:45 No.011 P.13 1 1 r 2) If a proposal retains its contested status following step 1, it would be referred for a hearing before a hearings officer. The hearings officer would render a decision on the proposal. I (Note: The workgroup considered used either a hearings officer or a citizen review board to hear contested cases. The workgroup is recommending the use of a hearings officer.for several reasons. These include: 1) a hearings officer would have knowledge of t ;j applicable laws and local and regional plans and agreements, 2) a j hearings officer would provide constant and objective decisions, and 3) a hearings officer would be more cost-effective. It is recommended that the hearings officer serve on a contract basis to preserve objectivity and as a least-cost option. 3) The decision of the hearings officer may be accepted or the i proposal modified to comply with the decision. If not, the r' proposal may be dropped or the decision appealed to the Metro Council. € 4) The decision of the Metro Council may be accepted or the l,. proposal modified to comply with the decision. If not, the proposal may be dropped or the decision appealed to the state Court' of Appeals. - ~ f~ a 5) If at any point during the contested case process, the E, j objecting jurisdiction withdraws its objection or Metro staff _ =a determines the proposal has been modified to comply with applicable regional plans, Metro would accept the filing of the proposal, and.; i the proposing jurisdiction could proceed with the proposed action. Decision-making Criteria Discussion. The commission and its supporters argue the existing statute provides general policy and intent statements that _ } are sufficient for the development of decisionmaking criteria. They note the commission has used this statutory direction to I j develop 17 more specific criteria which are outlined in its administrative rules. They contend that these criteria give the commission flexibility in addressing the often unique aspects of 1 individual proposals. In addition, the criteria give the commission the opportunity to examine important issues that extend beyond compliance with an applicable land use plan. The commission noted that issues related to the adequacy of services or j governmental structure are frequently the most critical to be I examined. i i The workgroup also received testimony from local jurisdictions that expressed concern about the current criteria. This concern focused on three principal issues. First, some special districts objected to the statutory and i v criteria language which gives a preference to cities as service 11 providers. They noted that as some special districts have merged t~ F7. 0 3 METRO Nov 12 96 15.46 No.011 P.14 f in recent years, they have become the most efficient service j providers in many areas of the region. i Second, it was argued that the general language of the current criteria may be subject to multiple interpretations that has resulted in a lack of consistency in commission decisions. For ! example, testimony from one special district questioned how the language "most efficient service provider" could be interpreted. ± Third, some contended that the current criteria work against the development of regional and subregional approaches to service delivery. It was suggested that existing regional efforts to quantify the quality and quantity of public services and identify i service provision areas be utilized to develop sounder boundary j t change decision-making criteria. i` Recommendation. The workgroup recommends that, as part of the 1 transfer of the boundary change review process to Metro, statutory language be enacted to give Metro the authority to establish clear 15 and objective criteria that will be used to examine local ? proposals." Metro would consult with MPAC and local jurisdictions ! in developing these criteria. i The workgroup also adopted four specific recommended criteria. These include: 1) compliance with provisions of the regional framework plan, 2) a presumption that all territory within the urban growth boundary will ultimately be within a city, 3) d9 consideration of the economic and financial effects of the proposed 1 action, and 4) compliance with existing SR 122 agreements. 4 Geoaranhic Boundaries Discussion. Since 1979 the jurisdiction of the commission has f. included all of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties. The workgroup received some testimony that questioned the need to include the rural portions of these counties within the 3 commission's jurisdiction. They noted that the municipalities in y rural Clackamas and Washington Counties are distinct communities. The effect of boundary changes in these areas is generally limited f to the individual city and possibly an adjacent special district. i They noted that the larger communities, such as Sandy and Canby, would be subject to the same SB 122 urban service agreement requirements as more urbanized cities. The commission and its supporters expressed several concerns about removing more rural areas from its jurisdiction. They noted that growth management and boundary change policies within the region's urban growth boundary could impact nearby rural areas. In addition, growth policies in nearby cities, such as Sandy and Canby could have impact inside the urban growth boundary. They also ) 12 1 Mr- METRO Nov 12.96 15:47 No.011 P.15 I i - contended the commission had been effective in addressing service delivery and the proliferation of service providers in the Mt. Hood Corridor. It was also noted that the removal of a large geographic area would reduce the funding base for the commission. 1 Recommendation. The workgroup recommends that, as part of the transfer of the boundary change review process to Metro, the jurisdiction should be limited to units of government that are wholly or partly within Metro's boundaries. Proposed changes outside the Metro boundary would be processed using existing I . statutory procedures that apply in areas of the state that do not II have boundary commissions. Funding Discus ion. The commission's funding is currently provided through the collection of assessments from cities, counties and special districts and from filing fees collected from jurisdictions t submitting proposals for commission review. Cities and counties s pay a per capita assessment and special districts pay an assessment based on the assessed value of property within the district. Large entities such as Metro, the Unified Sewerage Aaencv and several larger special districts pay a flat fee. A total of 42 percent of the commission's funding comes from cities, 31 percent from districts, and 27 percent from filing fees. several special districts testified that the current assessment j system unfairly penalizes those who live in unincorporated urban areas that are served by several special districts. They noted that each special district pays an assessment and the county pays an additional assessment. For example, the Oak Lodge Fire District testified that governments in its area pay a total of 41 cents per { capita in commission -assessments. By comparison, residents of nearby cities paid 10 cents per capita. f _ The commission responded by explaining that its funding is based on the potential for providing services to local units of governments. They noted that in areas served by multiple special districts, each of the districts may receive services and therefore each district should pay its fair share. Recommendation. Adoption of the entire package of workgroup recommendations should reduce the cost of providing necessary boundary review services. The commission currently processes about 125-150 proposals annually. If the boundary review function is i transferred to Metro and the geographic boundaries are reduced, the workgroup assumes the number of proposals received will decline. In additon, if the hearing process is limited to contested cases only, staffing needs will be reduced. ~ i The current commission budget is $349,022 for FY 95-96. The i e commission has a 4+FTE staff and is housed in the State Office 1 ~ 13 SSS METRO Nov 12.96 15:47 No.011 P.16 Building. It is difficult to precisely forecast the funding needs i for a Metro-based boundary review process. This is primarily due to the difficulty in estimating the number of local proposals that will result in contested cases and the associated hearing and appellate costs related to these cases. Workgroup staff developed two potential staffing scenarios. The first scenario assumed the workload reduction would result in a i two-person staff with a total budget of $194,608. The second scenario assumed a three-person staff with an estimated cost of a $287,550. The actual budget will need to be determined by Metro at the time the transfer of the commission's functions actually occurs. The workgroup recommends that funding for Metro's boundary review office be provided from three sources. These would include: 1) a 9 minimal assessment collected from all jurisdictions subject to the revised boundary review process, 2) a system of fees for the filing of proposed actions, and 3) payments for the costs of a contested F. case review by the party initiating the case. A specific funding proposal should be developed by Metro in consultation with MPAC and the affected units of government. The proposal should address the funding equity concern raised by jurisdictions that serve unincorporated areas. In addition, the workgroup recommends that, due to the uncertainty of the office's workload, the methods of j funding should be reviewed after two years of operation. 1 The work rou also recommends that when Metro assumes the boundary review function,. the transfer shall include all current commission contingency and capital reserve fund balances, files and equipment. These fund balances were estimated to be $52,482 in FY 95-96. These funds would provide a necessary cushion should Metro initially underestimate the costs of processing contested cases and implementing the new review procedure. j 14 F. } r. 31 a L~ No V-12-1996 t4:56 COB DEV SERVICES 503 526 3720 P.01/03 F7" Posi4r Fan Note 7671 OW-1-4 0 per' 3 ' T° i M lJ~ht' Ffaln L'zv ColOeyc CO. i Fax! y~724 Fax • • j ' To: Members of the Governmettt Affairs Committee and Interested Parties From: Councilor Patricia McCaig, Committee Chair k Date: October 21 . 1996 y Re: D Proposal Related the Boundary Commission s In a effort to keep the committee's work.related to the MPAC recommendation on the boundary commission moving I am proposing the following draft proposal for consideration at the October 21 meeting. j Adoption of the MPAC recommendations with the following changes: j a 1) Establish a titian commission to initially hear cases brought under the contested case j process. The size of the commission would be subject to discussion. The appointment process would be the same as is currently used for the boundary commission (ie. councilor recommendation of names to the executive officer). The criteria for commission membership also would remain the same. This approach would address a concern raised by several individuals and the existing commission related to the need to retain a citizen-based, impartial body to consider contested cases. Commission decisions would be appealable to the Metro Council. This commission approach would replace the.hearings officer concept recommended by MPAC. 2) Contested cases could be filed by individuals and other interested parties provided that they had established standing during the local hearing and review process concerning the proposed action. Concern has been expressed that the MPAC proposal was overly restrictive in defining who could bring a contested case. Currently no public testimony is offered in about 60-70% of ; the cases that come before the boundary comynisrion. ' This would appear to indicate that a i majority of the cases heard at the local level would not become contested cases. If 30% of the ( actions become co-sted, this would mean about 35-45 contested cases annually. 3) The jurisdiction of the revised boundary review protests would continue to include all of the I tri-county area. Many annexation and service provision decisions will be occurring near Metro's existing boundaries in the next few years. Some of these will tmdoubredly affect development in the urban reserve areas that Metro will be establishing shortly. When such decisions involve disputes between governments or impact urban reserve planning, the need for Metro's involvement is clear. Legal counsel will be exploring options for addressing the extention of Metro's authority outside its existing boundaries for this specific boundary coordination and service provision role. , NOV-12-1996 1456 COB DEV SERVICES 503 526 3720 P.02i03 f 4) The MPAC recommendations imply that there should be a public hearing as part of the initial consideration of annexation and other types of boundary change proposals. The committee has heard testimony that in some cases, no public hearing has been held. The committee should consider recommending that legal staff review existing annexation, merger and consolidadon statutes and draft necessary changes to ensure that within the boundaries of this new boundary review process all local actions must have a public hearing. In addition, this recommendation should include a uniform notification process that would be used by all local jurisdictions. t 5) The effective date for ttaasfcrring to the new process should be set at January 1, 1999. Such a delay will allow many local jurisdictions to complete work on their SB 122 agreements. Completion of such agreements will likely reduce the number of contested cases brought through the new process. 1 ; ELI- NOV-12-1996 14:57 COB DEV SERVICES 503 526 3720 P.03i03 I ~ I ,DATE: OCTOBER 23,1996 TO: BOUNDARY COMMISSION WORK GROUP FROM: JUDIE HAMMERSTAD, WORK GROUP CHAIR RE: GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CobBUTTEE PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION ' At the October 21st meeting of the Boundary Commission, the attached draft proposal was discussed. The overriding concern appears to be a desire for greater access by the public j Revisions to this draft proposal *ere made following testimony. a It appeared to we that the draft proposal of October 21st, left the Boundary Commission in j place, but added a number of other steps. This proposal would have kept hearings at the local jurisdictioriil"leve`l as iti tbtedby cur work group. TWadditional diaSrecommendations under the contested case process would be as follows: 1. The case would go to a citizen commission. While this draft indicates that it would i essentially be the Boundary Commission, subsequent testimony led the committee to 3 consider a 5 member body with one member appointed by the 3 Portland representatives on Metro and each of the other members having one appointment. 2. It would eliminate the Hearings Officer. It would allow interested parties to bring contested cases before this body, '1 4. The appeal to the Metro Council, mentioned In the first paragrapb, has been dropped due to the lengthy process that would be created, so the appeal would go directly to the Court of Appeals, as is currently done On October 22nd, I had the opportunity to talk to Patricia McCaig about these recommendations. She has suggested that the recommendations be revised as follows: 1. The citizens commission would consist of 3 members, probably coming from recommendations by the 3 counties. 2. This 3 person commission would tape the place of the Hearings Officer. 3. Reinstatement of the definition of "contested eases" as recommended by the MPAC Work Group. 4. Appeal directly to LUBA, as this process would become a Metro process appealable to LUBA rather than as a state agency process appealable to the Court of Appeals. Still to be decided would be the scope of jurisdiction. Patricia would like to have the urban reserves included within that scope even though they may currently be outside the Metro boundaries. Cities that are totally outside urban reserve areas, however, such as Sandy, Canby, Molalla, and Estacada in Clackamas County would not come under this process, but would be able to make their own boundary decisions as is done in the rest of the state. The committee's next work session will be at 1:30 on November 4th where they will be reviewing these proposed changes and deciding on the jurisdictional boundaries, the criteria and the funding issue. There will be another work session on the 18th prior to sending their recommendation to the Metro Council Rt l Ac q Mcnrf' MPRL' MiauTEs Io~33~~G ~ G: III r,. TOTAL P.03 Agenda November 19, 1996 I. City of Tigard, Oregon - Response to Measure 47 ♦ Discussion of Five-Year Financial Plan II. Measure 47: Making It Work ♦ Comments on Legal Analysis M. Expenditure Review - Consideration of Postponing or Suspending Expenditures - F F i' City of Tigard, Oregon i _ I f Response to Measure 47 Ell 1\- ~ J L - NMI mmalm-Immolow- r ME ` • smin-Ill h What e Know For Sure 1 t:.a 9 S 5 m. 3 MI , o u s f ° i ~ bb $ Il r,°aSpa?~ ^4s~ H t L f F - . 3 e € What We Expect f~ Loss of property tax revenue Loss of WCCLS Library Funds Legislature will sort out details on k allocation of losses and rioritizations of education and public safety Planning fees and charges may require vote before 6/30/97. Ei Annexation with no tax increase L € F E u x _ d~,E Policy to be Determined ! By City Council mmittment to voters? Maintain Five year co Use of operating funds for Capital (le. Schram and Police Expansion)? Preserve non fee services (Police, Library, Parks)? u Ballot measures for future Police Car I c{ replacement and changes in fees and charges? / p L L _ A F F Policy to be Determined By City Council (cont) ♦ Ending Fund Balance target? P ♦ Non General Fund Expenditures, status of other programs? ♦ Future of Social and Arts Funding? L : TA 1 what we are Planning For Property Tax Reduction of $2,000,000 wCCLS Reduction of $230,000 Adoption of 1997/98 budget with reduced 4 expenditures. ;rye ~ . ; Continuation of Financial Plan through 2001 at a reduced level. E Target General Fund Balance at 2001, ~r $1,500,000. M Y s fi ads, q r s X4,:0 ry SG ` ~t~~te~y ~~aT ~~~nt eral ditureS in Gen . e Current eXpen lCes. ~ R-educ ' .~ninishing sere d without di al Fund Fun current Gener e lAiring °f ~ Freez canc1es• pro' ects. va eral Fund ~ ending Gen fold p travel. aining and . deduce tr in light of olicy . w anneXatlon ents . ~.e-V1e uirem e voting req Measur ~ ,gym ~ Strategy 1997 l98 Fiscal Y Bear uag d etS by e Reuce Materials and Services 10% across the Board. to all new future General Fund i ♦ Elim~na 3 positions in the Plan• ect Budget to $100,000 o Reduce General Prof per year. tune Police car oUse Bond Proceeds for fu replacement. i a r wz7 J i 7 4 f1 3i Strategy . e fs 1 1997/98 Fiscal Year (Cont) E Assume restored WCCLS funding in Year ` 4, 1999/00. I Fill future general fund vacancies only upon justification. c5'ni' t t . 1l f ,y 4 L o0ow swum Impacts of • e level In -Police due to -F alling Servic ositions yet ion of fu~.re p ellminat demands. ► creasing servlc reduced In ~~brary C ervice is the ~ F alhng 5 hours • . neral Fund ~ ~ rvlce level 1n other Ge ~Fallin-Se programs. i ~Cp11t) acts of strategy Imp b at least . In sociallA~s funding y ~Reduction • 100/0. rior to of anneXation 5th ~ ♦Vote for tax in~Tease Pbefore end roach voters ♦Needto app. Vehicles. year for Police ud et process if I Bg lemental ♦Use Sapp icture changes. revenue P VOW . (Colt) Of Strategy Impacts n ns and d contribulo Reduction in facility ce rojects. ~ aintenan ~ t lity eneral . iced abi o faculty . . tenance ling ark T\A Cook Park -p anded ~ ina~ntain e ~ MOOT t l I( t P R E S T O N G A T E S & E L L I S A T T O R N E Y S a J MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK + NOVEMBER 11, 1996 j A SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES St ELLIS The November 5, 1996 General election is over and the votes are counted. Oregon has a new property tax limitation, and a new requirement that the Oregon legislature fund new requirements it places on local governments. Measure 46, which would have treated people who didn't vote as if they had voted "no," was soundly defeated. This special report focuses on Measure 47, Oregon's new property tax limitation (the "Measure"), which is now Sections I Ig, I Ih, I Ii and I lj of Article M of the Oregon Constitution. This report describes matters that require attention immediately, matters that require attention soon, and matters that require attention before the next general election in 1998. In section I, below, we describe two issues which may require immediate attention from local governments to avoid additional financial hardship. The Measure "cuts" ad valorem property taxes which are levied for purposes other than paying bonded indebtedness back to the lesser of (1) 90% of those taxes in fiscal year 1995-1996; or (2) 100% of those taxes in fiscal year 1994-1995. The Measure also "caps" future increases in those taxes at three percent per year. The effective date of the measure is December 5, 1996, the cut I t applies to property taxes levied in fiscal year 1997-1998, and the cap applies to taxes levied in { subsequent fiscal years. The full text of the Measure and the provisions of Article XI, Section I I and Section l lb of the Oregon Constitution (Oregon's other two property tax limits) are attached to this special report as Exhibit A. 1 This special report can be found on the world wide web in "Harvey's Home Page" at _ http://www.europa.com/-harvey/. Harvey's Home Page will be focusing on issues that relate to the Measure; we hope to be updating Harvey's..Home Page regularly, and will try to provide information that is useful to local governments and citizens who are trying to make the Measure work. If you wish to make comments on this special report or Harvey's Home Page using email, please send your comments to Harvey Rogers at hrogers@prestongates.com. j Everyone's understanding of the Measure will be evolving as people grow more familiar with its j provisions. This report identifies many issues, but some things in this report are almost certainly wrong. As we learn more about the Measure we will revise this report. The revisions will be posted on Harvey's Home Page. , i A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL C"RPORATros 4 A\CHo%AC E COEU R U A LF.N F. • LOS A NOF.Lt S • SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • W A SHIYOTON. D.C. I: 3200 U.S. BANCORP TOWER I I I SMW FIFTH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-3688 PHONE. (503) 228-3200 FACSIMILE: (503) 248-9085 i I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ' t L MATTERS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1 I.A. REQUESTING THE VOTERS TO APPROVE FEE INCREASES FOR GOODS OR SERVICES WHICH RECEIVED PROPERTY TAX SUPPORT I.A. I What Subsection O (8)(a) Tries to Do ! I A. (2) When Is a Good or Service Funded with Property Taxes? 2 I.A. (3) When Do "Shifts, " "Transfers, " or "Conversions" Occur? 3 1 I.A. (4) What Kind of Revenue Increases Are Subject to Subsection (8)(a)? 3 I.A. (S) Asking the Voters to Approve Shifts, Transfers and Conversions 4 f L - , I.A. (6) How Bad Can I[ Be? 4 - I.B. DEALING wrrH AUTHORIZED BUT UNISSUED BONDS AND OTHER BORROWINGS 6 1.B.(1) Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds 6 I. B. (2) Limited Tax Bonds 7 I.B. (3) Full Faith and Credit Obligations 7 I.B. (4) Tax Increment Bonds 8 1.B.(5) Certificates ofParticipation 8 I.B. (6) Revenue Bonds 9 I.B. (7) Short Term Financings 9 1.C. IS THE MEASURE CONSITTIT ZONAL, AND MIGHT A COURT OVERTURN ITT 9 2. MATTERS REQUIRING ATTENTION SOON 10 2.A. LEGISLATION DETERMINING THE MEANING OF "BONDED INDEBTEDNESS." 10 I j 2.B. WHEN IS A PROPERTY TAX A "NEW" OR "ADDITIONAL" TAX? 2.C. LEGISLATION DETERMINING WHICH LEVIES ARE OUTSIDE THE MEASURE BECAUSE THEY 'r HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS I 1 2.D. LEGISLATION DETERMINING EFFECT OF VOTER APPROVAL OF NEW LEVIES ON REMAINING TAXES 12 ,p . ' 2.E. LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING LOCAL OPTION INCOME AND SALES TAXES 12 - - 3. MATTERS REQUIRING ATTENTION BEFORE NOVEMBER OF 1998 13 3.A. NEw TAX SYSTEM 3.B. PERMIT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS To ACT LIKE BUSINESSES AND WORK wrrH BUSINESSES 13 i I , i MEASURE 47: MAIQNG IT WORK i 7 MATTERS REQUIRING verted so as to be wholly or partially paid for f 7 IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. by a fee, assessment, or other charge except The Measure retroactively prohibits certain state income taxes, without prior voter ap- j fee and revenue increases. To avoid trouble, proval. If such a shift, transference or con- version of a property tax to a fee, assess- local governments may need to get voter 1 approval of these increases before the begin- meet, or other charge except state income l ning of the next fiscal year. This issue is dis- cussed in Section I.A, below. June 30, 1995 and prior to the effective date { of this Act, for tax year 1997-98 and subse- The Measure prohibits the issuance of cer- quent years, the ad valorem property tax on tain kinds of bonds without voter approval, if each such property, the owner or user of those bonds are issued after the effective which continues to be subject to such a fee, date of the Measure. The Measure takes assessment, or other charge except state in- effect on December 5, 1996 (the "Effective come taxes, shall be decreased by an addi- Date"). Local governments may wish to tional amount equal to the portion of the fee, issue bonds before that date. assessment, or other charge which was for- LA. Requesting the Voters to merly paid through property taxes until such Approve Fee Increases for Goods or time as voters approve the fee, assessment, Services Which Received Property or other charge. Tax Support While the thrust of Subsection (8)(a) may be Subsection (8)(a) of new Article 11g of clear to its authors, Subsection (8)(a) is very Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution retro- difficult to interpret technically. Because actively prohibits fee and revenue increases Subsection (8)(a) is so difficult to interpret, and allows taxpayers to withhold revenue and because the cost of violating Subsection increases made after June 30, 1995 from the (8)(a) may be substantial, local governments t may wish to ask for voter approval for tax next year's property taxes. and fee increases which occurred after June To eliminate this problem, local governments 30, 1995, even if it is not clear that Subset- must get voter approval for the increases. tion (8)(a) applies to those increases. i We strongly recommend that local govern- ments consider asking for voter approval for LA. (1) What Subsection (8) (a) Tries to Do. these revenue increases or "revenue shifts" The Measure attempts to prevent local gov- E before the beginning of the next fiscal year, ernments from raising fees or other revenues to avoid uncertainty about whether citizens to make up the tax losses created by the will withhold payment of property taxes. To Measure. However, its scope may be much do this, local governments should begin broader. crafting ballot measures immediately. Failure The first sentence of Subsection pro- to obtain voter approval could be costly. (8)(a) (See "How Bad Can It Be?" below.) hibits a "shift," "transfer," or a "conversion." This report uses the term "revenue shift" to Subsection (8)(a) of the Measure states: describe any increase in fees, assessments or No government product or service that on or other charges which is prohibited by after June 30, 1995 was wholly or partially Subsection (8)(a). paid for by ad valorem property taxes, shall Subsection (8)(a) applies to "shifts," "trans- 41 be shifted, transferred, or otherwise con- fers," or "conversions" which occur after I k SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 1 1 MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK t June 30, 1995, for goods or services that had any good or service which was paid for from - property tax funding at any time on or after a fund which received a transfer from the June 30, 1995. general fund. i f I.A.(2) "en Is a Good or Service Funded Subsection (8)(a) should not apply to trans- ~ with Property Taxes? fers of property tax dollars which are made i To determine whether a local government in payment for services. For example, if has risk under Subsection (8)(a), the local property tax dollars are transferred to a city government must determine whether it has water bureau to purchase a used vehicle for . provided a good or service that was paid for, use by the police, the transfer of property tax in whole or in part, by property taxes, at any dollars to the water fund should not make time on or after June 30, 1995. water a service which is "wholly or partially paid for by ad valorem property taxes." Subsection (8)(a) has confusing (or mis- taken) dates in it. It clearly says that its pro- Many local governments collect property hibition applies to goods or services which taxes and use those taxes to pay a portion of were funded with property taxes "on or after administrative salaries and other general June 30, 1995" but it only prohibits revenue overhead costs. The portion of these costs shifts which occur "after June 30, 1995." which is not paid from property taxes is often allocated to utility systems, which pay Oregon local governments almost always a "franchise fee" or similar charge from their budget and account for their revenues on a utility revenues. fiscal year basis. The fiscal years end on i - June 30 of each year. Because Subsection It is possible to argue that these sorts of (8)(a) applies to goods or services which franchise fees subject the utility system to were funded with property taxes "on or after Subsection (8)(a). The argument runs like June 30, 1995," which is the last day of fiscal this: the utility system is receiving central administrative services, and those central year 1994-1995, it is difficult to tell when administrative services help the utility system use of property tax dollars creates a problem provide services to its customers. A portion j under Subsection (8)(a). of the costs of those central administrative It is possible that Subsection (8)(a) applies to services are paid from property taxes. any good or service which received property Therefore, the utility service is partly funded tax funding at any time during the fiscal year with property taxes. We believe this argu- which ended on June 30, 1995. That would ment should not be successful, but we mean any use of property taxes for a good or encourage local governments to develop service during fiscal year 1994-1995 would legislation implementing Subsection (8)(a) create a question under Subsection (8)(a). which clearly indicates that franchise fees Most local governments deposit their prop- and similar charges do not cause a utility erty tax operating levies into their general service to be "wholly or partially paid for by funds. General funds often receive other ad valorem property taxes." i revenue. The opinion of the Oregon Attor- Local governments with special levies (such { ney General on the Measure suggests that as serial levies to pay costs of roads) may any good or service which was paid for with deposit those levies into other funds. If the general fund dollars may be subject to the rationale expressed in the Oregon Attorney prohibition of Subsection If this view (8)(a). General's opinion is correct, any good or is correct, the prohibition could extend to i `s SPECIAL REPORT OF TILE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 2 J MEAsuRE 47: MAKING IT WORK i a e service provided by those other funds could to revenue shifts which were motivated by be subject to the prohibition of Subsection the Measure. However, motives are always (8)(a). difficult to determine (particularly in hind- Some local governments use general obliga- sight) and it is certainly possible that Sub- section (8)(a) will be interpreted more ' i lion bonds to finance facilities (such as sewer literally, and that it will apply to any fee or and water utilities systems) which are oper- other revenue increase which funds a good ated with fees (such as sewer and water utilities systems). Since the taxes levied to or service which received property tax i funding on or after July 1, 1994. pay these bonds are exempt from the cut and i cap, fee increases in those systems should Local governments may wish to seek not be subject to Subsection (8)(a), because legislation which specifies when an increase there should not be a shift, transfer or con- is not a "shift," "transfer" or "conversion." + version. However, Subsection (8)(a) is too It may be difficult to develop a statute which awkwardly drafted to allow us to conclude defines revenue shifts in a way which is easy this with certainty. to apply, consistent with the spirit of the We recommend that local governments begin Measure, and does not require a vote for all developing legislative concepts which ensure revenue increases. that Subsection (8)(a) is implemented in a I.A. (4) What Kind of Revenue Increases Are reasonable manner. Subject to Subsection (8)(a)? LA. (3) When Do "Shifts, " "Transfers, " or If a good or service receives property tax "Conversions" Occur? funding on or after June 30, 1995, Subsec- If Subsection (8)(a) is intended to prevent tion (8)(a) prohibits a shift to any "fee, assessment, or other charge except state local governments from increasing fees or income taxes This language apparently 1 other revenues to make up for property tax I. i losses caused by the cut and cap, then the includes any financial charge which a local prohibitions of Subsection (8)(a) should not government imposes, including taxes. apply unless the increase was motivated by If Subsection (8)(a) applies to new taxes, the Measure. However, the text of Subsec- then local governments will not be able to I tion (8)(a) may not be consistent with this impose local sales taxes or local income analysis. taxes or increase existing taxes of other types Subsection (8)(a), by its terms, applies to without voter approval, unless the tax shifts, transfers and conversions that were revenues are used exclusively to fund goods made after June 30, 1995. Since the terms of or services which did not receive property the Measure were not commonly known tax funding on or after June 30, 1995. " - until late in 1996, and since the Measure was In addition, any increases in taxes (other than not approved by the voters until November ad valorem property taxes and state income 5, 1996, most increases in fees that occurred taxes) which occurred after June 30, 1995, after June 30, 1995 and before November 5, may need voter approval to avoid taxpayer 1996, would not have been intended to shift, withholding. transfer or convert funding for a good or We recommend that local governments service to make up for the Measure's losses. immediately inventory all their fees, charges A court or the Oregon legislature could and taxes to determine whether they were determine that Subsection (8)(a) only applies increased after June 30, 1995. If charges r i SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 3 . i li MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK j a were increased after that date, local govern- Since the deadline for the March, 1997 elec- i ments should analyze whether the increase tion is in early January, local governments creates a problem under Subsection (8)(a). may wish to have their governing bodies 1 approve ballot measures this December. In { i LA.(5)Asking the Voters to Approve Shifts, other words, local governments should con- Transfers and Conversions. - Sider adopting resolutions next month which Subsection (8)(a) only requires "voter appro- call elections to approve revenue shifts. i val" it does not require the special voter Z approval which is required by Subsection Although elections to approve revenue shifts 3(a) for new or additional ad valorem prop- are not subject to the new administrative erty tax levies. (See Section 2.C, below.) Provisions of Subsection (3), there are no Elections to authorize revenue shifts are not statutes or administrative rules dealing with such subject to the special administrative provi- elections. We believe that local govern- subject which Subsection (3) imposes on elec- ments could seek broad authority to shift all revenues, or could seek voter approval to tions to raise property taxes. shift particular revenues. This means that a revenue shift can be ap- Drafting a ballot title that complies with proved at any valid election. existing law and the requirements of the i If local governments shin revenues in viola- Measure will be difficult, and we recommend tion of Subsection (8)(a), that subsection that local governments consult with lawyers } authorizes taxpayers to withhold the amount with substantial expertise in local govern- of shifted revenues they have paid from their ment election law before finalizing ballot j - property taxes, beginning in fiscal year 1997- measures which authorize revenue shifts. 1998. We recommend that local governments con- The effect of the withholding provisions is suit with their bond counsel before they unclear (see "How Bad Can It Be?" below). request voter approval of revenue shifts, if Since the effect of the withholding provisions the revenues support outstanding bonds or on local government budgets cannot reliably the local government expects to issue reve- r be predicted, it would appear prudent to nue bonds in the future which are supported - consider asking the voters to approve reve- by those revenues. i nue shifts before fiscal year 1997-1998 begins. I. A. (6) How Bad Can It Be? There are only two elections before the Subsection (8)(a) prohibits revenues shifts j beginning of the next fiscal year. Those two after June 30, 1995, without prior voter occur on the second Tuesday in March approval. This suggests that revenue shifts (March 11, 1997) and the third Tuesday in that were made before the Measure was ' May (May 20, 1997). The deadline for sub- approved are invalid (or subject to taxpayer withholding) unless the local government miffing election notices to the county elec- making the revenue shift received voter tions officer for the March 11, 1997, election approval before the revenue shift was made. is January 9, 1997. The deadline for submit- ting election notices to the county elections Many local governments will have increased officer for the May 20, 1997, election is taxes or revenues after June 30, 1995, as y j March 20, 1997. part of normal business, and without regard for the Measure, and without intending to make up for the Measure losses. If the 1 SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES BG ELLIS, PAGE 4 1 ` J MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK i i s purpose of Subsection (8)(a) is to prevent shift which is subject to Subsection (8)(a). ' local governments from "making up" loses Such a community college would appear to the Measure caused, these "ordinary in- be required to roll back its tuition to the j creases" should not be subject to Subsection levels that were in effect before July 1, 1995, (8)(a). or to risk having taxpayers withhold tuition Unfortunately, the language of Subsection increases from their property tax bills. 3 (8)(a) is broad enough to include any tax or Withholding of taxes under Subsection (8)(a) revenue increase which is related to a good will be an administrative nightmare for or service which received property tax county tax collectors, and the costs of deter- funding after June 30, 1995. mining whether a withholding is valid may Because Subsection (8)(a) is broadly worded often exceed the amount withheld. and vague, there is a significant risk that In addition, it is not clear who will pay the taxpayers will withhold taxes under the last costs of administering withholding claims sentence of Subsection (8)(a). and who will bear the loss of properly with- The last sentence of Subsection (8)(a) says: held taxes. If withholdings are treated like "If such a shift, transference or conversion of delinquencies, their costs would be distrib- uted among all taxing bodies in the county, a property tax to a fee, assessment, or other in proportion to taxes which are levied (or charge except state income taxes, occurred perhaps collected under the Measure's new without voter approval after June 30, 1995 and prior to the effective date of this Act, for limits). However, the legislature could im- tax year 1997-1998 and subsequent years, pose the costs of withholding on the taxing the ad valorem property tax on each such body which is alleged to have made the 1 property, the owner or user of which revenue shift. continues to be subject to such a fee, If the taxing body which is alleged to have l assessment, or other charge except state in- shifted revenues bears the cost of with- come taxes, shall be decreased by an addi- holding, the potential for withholding will tional amount equal to the portion of the fee, create additional uncertainty about the reve- i r assessment, or other charge which was for- nues which local governments can legiti- merly paid through property taxes until such mately expect to receive in fiscal year 1997- time as voters approve the fee, assessment, 1998. If a taxing body which is alleged to or other charge." have shifted revenues is forced to pay the This sentence allows taxpayers to deduct administrative costs of determining whether from their fiscal year 1997-1998 tax bills rev- a revenue shift has occurred, taxing bodies enue shifts which were authorized before the could end up spending more in administra- Measure was approved. Any revenue shifts tive costs than they stand to gain by collect- which were made after June 30, 1995 and ing the withheld taxes. before the Effective Date, may be deducted To make matters worse, the withholding from property tax bills beginning in the next provision seems sure to irritate taxpayers. If fiscal year, and continuing until the revenue they try to withhold and succeed, they will shift is approved by the voters. feel that the local government tried to cheat For example, suppose a community college them by shifting revenues. If they try to i raised tuition effective July 1, 1995. This withhold and fail, they will not be pleased. `i tuition raise could be construed as a revenue And if they do not try to withhold, and t i SPEcIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 5 i MEAsuRE 47: MAK NG IT WORK r others try and succeed, they are likely to feel The Measure does not define "bonded cheated. In short, the withholding provision indebtedness" and it does not explicitly state creates enormous opportunities for taxpayer when property taxes will be considered "new j dissatisfaction at a time when local govern- or additional taxes." The Oregon legislature ; ! ments greatly need taxpayer understanding or the Oregon courts will need to define k and cooperation. these terms. g i It may, therefore, be particularly important Legislative and judicial interpretations of the for local governments to avoid Subsection Measure will not be available for a long time. (8)(a) issues by seeking voter approval soon. In the meantime, Oregon governments need Strangely but fortunately, the withholding to be aware of the effect the Measure will provisions of Subsection (8)(a) are only have on their authority to borrow money: available for revenue shifts which occurred If local governments are relying on their after June 30, 1995, and before December 5, bonding authority to finance commitments j 1996. If a local government increases fees which the governments have already made or revenues after the Effective Date, and the and the bonding authority will be jeopardized increase is found to be a revenue shift which after the effective date of the Measure, those violates Subsection (8)(a), taxpayers are not local governments should consider issuing t entitled to withhold taxes. their bonds before the Effective Date. Please - I.R. Dealing with Authorized but note that the Measure takes effect in three Unissued Bonds and Other weeks, on December 5, 1996. Borrowings. l.B.(1) Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds. ' Some local governments have authority `J f under existing law to issue bonds or engage General obligation bonds which were ap- I in borrowings. Voter approved general proved by the voters before the Effective i obligation bonds may be issued at any time. Date, may be issued at any time. Local gov- In other cases the authority to issue bonds ernments may also issue general obligation may be reduced or lost after the Effective bonds at any time to refund general obli- Date. This section of our special report gation bonds which were approved by the describes the common types of borrowings voters before the Effective Date. (See Sub- which are used by Oregon local governments section 3(b) of Section I lg.) and discusses whether the authority to General obligation bonds may not be ap- engage in those borrowings will change after proved by the voters after the Effective Date, the Effective Date. unless the approving vote takes place at an 1 The Measure exempts taxes levied to pay election at which a majority of registered principal and interest on "bonded indebted- voters cast ballots, or at a general election ness" from both its cut and cap provisions. held in an even numbered year. However, Subsection (3)(a) prohibits levying Since December of 1990, Subsection (3)(b) new or additional taxes" without special of Article XI, Section I I b of the Oregon voter approval. For bond taxes to be exempt Constitution has required issuers to obtain from the cut and cap, the taxes must be levied to pay principal and interest on voter approval for general obligation bonds. f y "bonded indebtedness" so that the taxes do Prior to December of 1990, issuers were t required to obtain voter approval for most, not constitute "new or additional taxes." but not all, general obligation bonds. The I SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 6 q MEASURE 47: MAN3NG IT WORK j 1 1 r--) major types of general obligation bonds able to issue full faith and credit bonds which were issued without voter approval (bonds which are unconditional obligations were "Bancroft" or improvement bonds, and of the government, but not secured by any i emergency bonds for Port districts. additional property taxing authority) to I The Measure does not state whether issuers finance facilities which would have been may issue general obligation bonds to refund financed with limited tax bonds. general obligation bonds which were not The Oregon legislature and the Oregon approved by the voters. The Oregon legis- courts will ultimately determine whether s lature should be able to authorize these taxes which secure limited tax bonds are refundings. exempt from the Measure if the bonds were Local governments desiring to issue general issued before the effective date of the obligation bonds before enabling legislation Measure. If taxes which secure limited tax is adopted to refund general obligation bonds bonds issued before the Effective Date, are which were not originally approved by the exempt from the Measure, then the legis- voters should discuss with their bond counsel lature should be able to authorize local gov- whether these refunding bonds can be issued. ernments to issue refunding limited tax bonds which are also secured by taxes which are I.B. (2) Limited Tar Bonds. exempt from the Measure. Limited tax bonds are bonds which are Local governments desiring to issue limited payable from special, additional bond taxes, tax bonds to refund limited tax bonds which like general obligation bonds. However, the were issued before the effective date of the - tax levied to pay limited tax bonds is subject Measure should discuss with their bond to the limits of Article XI, Section l lb of the counsel whether such a refunding is possible Oregon Constitution ($5/$1,000 for schools before enabling legislation is adopted. and $10/$1,000 for other governments). ~ i 1. B.(3) Full Faith and Credit Obligations. ! Most limited tax bonds have a primary Issuers which are currently authorized to i source of payment , which is not property j taxes. For example, limited tax improvement issue full faith and credit obligations should f bonds are payable primarily from assessment consider doing so before the effective date of !i payments. Issuers only levy a property tax the Measure. It may be possible to exempt E to pay these bonds if assessment payments taxes levied to pay those bonds from the cut are not adequate to pay the bonds. and cap. Limited tax bonds can be issued before the Full faith and credit obligations are often 1 effective date of the Measure. Taxes levied called "limited tax revenue bonds." and are j to pay these bonds should be exempt from usually issued pursuant to the authority of the cut and cap. (Legislation probably will the uniform revenue bond act. They are be required; see Sections 2.A and 2.B, generally secured by a pledge, or commit- ' below.) ment of all available funds of the issuer. Without special voter approval, local Some full faith and credit obligations have governments may not be able to commit any covenants to levy property taxes sufficient to additional taxing power to pay limited tax pay the bonds within existing tax bonds which are issued after the Effective authorizations. If these bonds were issued U Date. However, local governments should be before the effective date of the Measure, these bonds should qualify as "bonded t. i SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 7 E., L~ t MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK t+ indebtedness" for which property taxes may We cannot now guess the fate of tax incre- i be levied outside the limitations of the cut ment revenues which are collected after the and cap. Full faith and credit obligations current fiscal year and are not used to pay without such a covenant which are issued tax increment bonds which were issued before the Effective Date, may also qualify. before the effective date of the Measure. The opinion of the Oregon Attorney General on The legislature should pass laws clarifying the Measure suggests that all tax increment the status of full faith and credit obligations revenues will be subject to the cut and cap under the Measure. (See Sections 2.A and 2.13, below.) except: those used to pay bonds issued before the Effective Date, and those which Local governments may issue or refund full receive special voter approval. faith and credit obligations at any time. How- We also understand that special counsel to ever, if full faith and credit obligations are issued after the Effective Date, it may not be the Association of Oregon Redevelopment i k . possible to argue that taxes levied to pay Agencies has opined that tax increment i those bonds should be exempt from the cut revenues collected after the current fiscal and cap. year will be subject to the cut and cap unless the tax increment revenues are used to pay Local governments desiring to issue full faith bonded indebtedness. Special counsel to and credit obligations after the effective date Association of Oregon Redevelopment of the Measure should consult with their Agencies believes that it may be possible to bond counsel to determine the security which issue tax increment bonds after the effective will be available for those bonds. date of the Measure without voter approval 1.B. (4) Tax Increment Bonds. and that tax increment collections used to pay those bonds should be exempt from the Taxes levied to pay tax increment (or urban cut and cap. renewal) bonds which were issued before the effective date of the Measure should be Once the Measure takes effect, it may be dif- exempt from the cut and cap provisions. ficult to refund tax increment bonds before t Urban renewal agencies should consider the end of the 1997 session of the Oregon f whether they should issue bonds before the legislature because it may be difficult for effective date of the Measure. However, the bond purchasers to evaluate the creditworth- effect of the Measure on tax increment reve- iness of those bonds until the legislature has nues is difficult to determine and urban re- passed laws implementing the Measure. newal agencies may encounter market resis- 1.B. (S) Certificates of Participation. tance. Certificates of participation may be issued While we do not currently believe that the after the effective date of the Measure. Measure will require the legislature to However, since the taxes available to pay change the way tax increment revenues are certificates of participation may be reduced l calculated, the Measure is a substantial by the Measure, purchasers of certificates of j change to the property tax system. Statutes participation may impose more stringent implementing the Measure could affect the requirements on local government borrowers way tax incremen, s calculated, perhaps sub- and may charge higher rates of interest. stantially. Certificates of participation which were a issued before the effective date of the Mea- + i j SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 8 MEAsuRE 47: MAKING IT WORK i s sure may also be refunded after the effective so, if it will be difficult to issue the long term date of the Measure. However, refunding bonds after the Measure takes effect. those certificates may jeopardize the issuer's Local governments which have outstanding 1 ability to claim that taxes levied to pay the short term financings that will not be certificates are exempt from the cut and cap refunded with bonds before the effective date because the taxes constitute "taxes levied to of the Measure will need to determine I pay principal or interest on bonded indebt- whether the Measure allows the refunding i edness." (See Sections 2.A and 2.13, below.) bonds to be issued without voter approval. The opinion of the Oregon Attorney General (See the discussion of Subsection (8)(a) in on the Measure may suggest that certificates Section I.A. of this report.) of participation will not be treated as I. C Is the Measure Constitutional, "bonded indebtedness." However, certifi- and Ifight a Court Overturn It? cates of participation appear to meet the existing statutory definition of bonded in- Most of the recent constitutional amend- debtedness which is found in ORS ments adopted by popular vote have been 310.140(14). (See Section 2.A of this challenged in the courts. It is likely that if report.) Measure 47 is challenged, it will be on at least two bases. j 1.B.(6) Revenue Bonds. Conventional revenue bonds may be issued The first is that it packages too many policies I into one enactment. This violates the consti- i after the effective date of the Measure with- tutional groundrules on initiatives contained _ out voter approval only if the revenues which in Oregon Constitution Article IV, § 1(2)(d) support the bonds have not been "shifted" in that initiatives embrace "one subject only and violation of Subsection (8)(a). matters properly connected therewith." It is If revenue bonds are issued after the effec- not clear if this type of challenge can be tive date of the Measure,.the revenues have brought after enactment of the measure. i been shifted in violation of Subsection (8)(a), A corollary constitutional rule under Article j and the voters have not approved the shift }{VIII, § 2 distinguishes between a "revision" before the bonds are issued, the local gov- to the constitution (requiring legislative ernment may not be able to offer a standard referral to the voters) and an "amendment" i rate covenant. While it may be possible to to that I develop alternatives to the standard rate cov- document (which can be proposed through an initiative petition). If Measure 47 enant, the alternatives are likely to be more were found to affect how a number of other costly to the local government. constitutional provisions work, then it might See Section 1.A, above, for a discussion of be classified as a "revision" and held to be Subsection (8)(a) and its prohibition on reve- improperly adopted. nue shifts. The second concern goes to the heart of the 1.B.(7) Short Term Financings. initiative process itself. The United States Issuers which are able to refund short term Constitution guarantees to each state a "republican form of government." Article financings (such as bond anticipation notes) with long term bonds before the effective IV, § 4. Some argue that this requires that t -.date of the Measure should consider doing general laws be approved, proposed or g subject to revision by an elected governing k body. Laws that are not constitutional in SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 9 i' l~ MEASURE 47: MAILING IT WORK 1 character, or which affect the budgeting mean "bonded indebtedness" as defined in ! authority of the governing body, cannot be ORS 310.140(14). placed into the constitution and immunized On the other hand, the opinion of the Oregon from legislative change. Measure 47 more Attorney General on the Measure suggests j than affects the budgeting discretion of the that term "bonded indebtedness" in the Legislative Assembly. Measure "encompasses only forms of ! Finally, particular applications of Measure 47 indebtedness that are commonly known as i may run afoul of various parts of the United bonds." ORS 310.140(14) includes forms of States Constitution, including the indebtedness which may not commonly be Impairment of Contracts Clause, the known as bonds, including loan agreements, Commerce Clause and the Due Process lease purchase agreements and other Clause. For more information on these contractual borrowings, and similar transac- theories, please feel free to call Tim tions. j a Sercombe at (503) 226 5726 or email him at Different definitions of "bonded indebted- tsercomb@prestongates.com. ness" could have dramatically different im- 2. MATTERS REQUMING pacts on Oregon local governments. For ATTENTION SOON. example, many local governments have 2.A. Legislation Determining the received loans from Oregon state agencies, Meaning of "Bonded such as the Department of Environmental Indebtedness " Quality, the Department of Energy, and the Economic Development Department. Many _ j The Measure exempts taxes levied to pay of these loans are payable from, or secured principal and interest on "bonded indebt- by, property taxes. edness." The Measure does not define bonded indebtedness, and the term could be If the definition of bonded indebtedness construed in markedly different ways. includes loans of this type, and local gov- ernments need to levy property taxes to pay ORS 310.140(14) defines "bonded indebt- the loans, the portion of the property taxi edness" as any formally executed written levy that a local government uses to pay the agreement representing a promise by a unit loans should be exempt from the cut and cap. i of government to pay to another a specified sum of money, at a specified date or dates at We recommend that local governments least one year in the future." prepare and offer to the Oregon legislature a definition of "bonded indebtedness" that is This definition is very broad, and includes clear and reasonable, both from the per- not only conventional bonds, but loan spective of local governments and from the i agreements, lease-purchase agreements, and perspective of the citizens who voted for the contractual forms of borrowing. Measure. The broad definition of that term ORS 310.140(14) was adopted by the in ORS 310.140(14) benefits local govern- 2 Oregon legislature in 1991. Since it was part ments, and should be applied to the Measure of Oregon law when the Measure was unless using that definition violates important drafted and approved, the Oregon legislature public policies. a and Oregon courts may construe the term i "bonded indebtedness" in the Measure to i 1 SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 10 L_ MEAsuRE 47: MAKING IT W ORK a t 1 2.S When Is a Property Tax a At a minimum, we believe local governments 1 "New" or "Additional" Tax? should ask the Oregon legislature to clarify Subsection (3)(a) of Article XI, Section I Ig that a tax levied to pay a bond is not a "new or additional" tax as long as the bond was { prohibits "new or additional" taxes without issued before the effective date of the special voter approval. Subsection (3)(a) will Measure. require legislative implementation, and the way the Oregon legislature chooses to imple- More liberal definitions are possible, and may ment Subsection (3)(a) could have dramati- well benefit local governments. cally different effects on Oregon local gov- 2.C Legislation Deferniining Which ernments. Levies Are Outside The Measure For example, one could question whether the Because They Have Already Been six percent increase which a local gov- Approved by the Voters. ernment is permitted to make each year to its The proponents of the Measure argue that tax bases is an "additional tax." We believe Subsection (3)(a) only allows voters to - that the Measure should be construed so that approve bond taxes. The text of the Mea- the six percent increase in tax base which is sure does not appear to support this argu- ment. by Article XI, Section 11 is not a As we noted in our prior report on the new or additional tax. Measure, Subsection (3)(a) does not even We believe that property taxes which a local use the word "bond." However, since the government was authorized to levy before proponents have made this claim, it is ? the Effective Date should not be treated as especially important for local governments to - "new or additional" taxes. However, the seek legislation which makes it clear that Measure could be construed in a variety of Subsection (3)(a) allows the voters to i different ways, and we acknowledge that the approve all types of property taxes. ' Oregon legislature has the power to define In addition, local governments should seek these terms, and we recommend that local legislation which specifies the earliest date governments propose reasonable legislation clarifying the meaning of the phrase "new or on which a special voter approval of new g p taxes can occur. additional taxes." The definition is important for many bond Subsection (3)(a) authorizes taxes to be levied outside the Measure's limits if the tax transactions. As noted above, the Measure explicitly says that taxes levied to pay voter is approved at an election at which a majority approved general obligation bonds are of voters cast ballots, or at a general election held in an even numbered year. This report exempt as long as the voter approves occurred before the effective date of the refers to voter approval given at either of these kind of elections as "special voter measure. approval." Oregon law, however, currently authorizes a It is clear that this special voter approval will wide variety of other kinds of bonds which exempt taxes when the voter approval occurs are secured by taxes. Examples include lim- after the effective date of the measure. It is ited tax bonds (such as those issued to not clear whether a tax will be outside the finance local improvements), full faith and cut and cap if the tax received special voter credit obligations, and tax increment bonds. approval before the effective date of the Measure. `s I SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PACE 11 1 1. .tee MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK r S In theory, any tax approved at a general year 1997-1998. Both tax bases were election in an even numbered year at any approved many years before the Measure. time in the past could be exempt. For Because of the Measure, in fiscal year example, a tax base approved by the voters 1997-1998 the district expects to collect at the general election in 1964 could be $800,000 and the county expects to collect exempt from the Measure, because it was $2,400,000, for total property tax collections approved by the voters at a general election in the district of $3,200,000 (an amount in an even numbered year. We doubt, equal to 90% of property taxes collected in however, that the Measure will receive so the district in fiscal year 1995-1996). liberal an interpretation. It may, however, be In March of 1997 the district receives special very reasonable to say that a property tax is voter approval for a three year serial levy of exempt if it received special voter approval $1,200,000 each year, beginning in fiscal G after the date on to which taxes are rolled year 1997-1998. back, and revenue shifts are prohibited. The Measure rolls taxes back to 90 percent When the district imposes its specially ap- of their levels in fiscal year 1995-1996, or proved new levy of $1,200,000 in fiscal year one hundred percent of their levels in the 1997-1998, what happens to the county levy. Is the prior fiscal year. The Measure prohibits $1,000,000 levy of the district revenue shifts after June a30, s 19 We altogether removed from the Measure's limit, so that the county can use all the taxing deduce from this that taxes were at an acceptable level on June 30, 1995. capacity within the Measure's limits? In this example, the county would be able to levy If a local government obtained special voter the full amount of its $3,000,000 tax base, ' approval to levy new or additional taxes after because the Measure would permit up to June 30, 1995, then it may be consistent with $3,200,000 of taxes to be levied. the spirit of the Measure to exempt those Since Subsection (3)(a) prohibits new or new or additional taxes from the cut and cap. additional property tax levies without voter The issue is important to many local gov- approval, it appears that all new and . ' emments, including all those which received additional property taxes which the voters voter approval at the November 5, 1996, approve will be outside the Measure's limits. election to levy new property taxes. Z.E Legislation Authorizing Local 2.1). Legislation Determining Effect Option Income and Sales Taxes. ' ojVoter Approval ofNewLevies on The Measure is primarily a property tax Remaining Taxes limitation. Many of the people who favored j The Oregon legislature should adopt legis- the Measure felt that the recent increases in lation describing how the levy and collection Oregon's property taxes are painful and of new and additional taxes will affect the unfair, but do not favor substantial service i levy and collection of existing taxes. cuts. 5 This example illustrates the issue: Oregon local governments may wish to ask A rural fire protection district has a tax base the Oregon legislature to authorize local } which will be $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1997- income taxes and local sales taxes. Home rule entities may be able to impose those 1998. In the district's area, the county would collect $3,000,000 under its tax base in fiscal taxes without implementing legislation, but Subsection (8)(a) may require voter approval j ~I i SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 12 I S 1 i MEASURE 47. MAKING IT WORK a i a if the tax revenues are used to support a approval to future taxes which will be good or service which was supported with devoted to worthy purposes. j property taxes on or after June 30, 1995. On the other hand, in those areas where a } Special districts require legislation to majority of registered voters do not often authorize them to impose local sales and cast ballots the Measure may not allow income taxes. vo"Lers the opportunity to vote new taxes i All local governments may benefit from until November of 1998. New taxes ap- good, uniform state legislation. Legislation proved in November of 1998 could not be may also be required to allow local income levied until fiscal year 1999-2000. j taxes to "piggyback" on state income taxes. So here is what may happen: The Measure 3. MATTERS REQUIRING will create substantial, immediate service i OF 1998. disruptions because it reduces the tax reve- ATTENTION BEFORE NOVEMBER nues that pay for services. Voters will be- - come increasingly angry with local govern- November 3, 1998 is the next time that ments as these services deteriorate. citizens can use the initiative process to place On November 3, 1998, voters will constitutional amendments before the voters. approve The Measure does not appear to be a long many new levies. In fiscal year 1999-2000, term solution to Oregon's tax problems. property taxes will go up dramatically due to Oregon local governments should work on the newly approved taxes. In the Fall of proposals which would be long term solu- 1999, when tax statements are mailed, voters r-1 lions. will be furious with local governments because their property taxes have again Ideally, those solutions should be tendered to escalated dramatically. the 1997 session of the Oregon legislature. There are only two solutions: (1) to allow f However, if the legislature is unable to act government service levels in Oregon to i effectively, local governments should con- deteriorate to the point where we provide Sider submitting a balanced, fair tax reform among the very lowest levels in the entire proposal to the voters on November 3, 1998. 3.A. New Tax System. country, or (2) to create a new, fairer tax system that allows people to keep their The Measure is a time bomb, and it is cur- homes and to obtain reasonable service j rently set to explode in the face of all levels. Oregonians no later than fiscal year 1999- A wise man once said: "It's hard to worry 2000. about draining the swamp when you are up The Measure is a time bomb because it to your eyeballs in alligators." The Measure allows complete voter overrides. It appears creates a lot of alligators, but the only way to that Subsection (3)(a) authorizes the voters banish them from Oregon permanently is to to approve property taxes and eliminate all drain our tax swamp. of the restrictions of the Measure (see 3.S Permit Local Governments to section 2.13 and 2.C, above). Almost all Act Like Businesses and Rork with property taxes levied in this state have been Businesses approved by the Oregon voters, and there is no reason to expect that voters will deny Private businesses often find that the most j efficient way to provide a good or service is £ s f. SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 13 i i MEASURE 47: MAKING IT WORK i y to form a joint venture, partnerships, or If the Measure means that services currently corporation which combines the talents of provided by local governments should be different entities and allows those entities to "privatized" then local governments should I work together efficiently. consider seeking changes in the law that will i permit local governments to behave in more j The Oregon Constitution creates obstacles "businesslike" ways and allow local govern- which make it difficult for Oregon local governments to work with private business. ments to work hand in hand with the private j sector to make Oregon a place in which we all wish to live and do business. { We will be using Harvey's Home Page as a forum for ideas to reform the Oregon tax system, and u, ideas for changing local government law to respond to the pressures of the Measure. This special report was prepared by the bond and municipal lawyers at the Portland Office of I~ Preston Gates & Ellis. Its principal author was Harvey W. Rogers. Copies of this report, f together with revisions and updates, is on the World Wide Web in "Harvey's Home Page" (http: //www. europa. com/--harvey). Preston Gates & Ellis Telephone: (503) 228-3200 Telecopier: (503) 248-9085 i j The bond and municipal finance lawyers practicing in the Portland Office are: - Monica D. Hardy Kenneth E. Iltz Direct: (503) 226-5771 Direct: (503) 226-5713 Y 1 E-Mail: mhardy@prestongates.com E-Mail: kiltz@prestongates.com Daniel H. Kearns John H. Nelson Direct: (503) 226-5707 Direct: (503) 226-5729 E-Mail: dkeams@prestongates.com E-Mail: jnelson@prestongates.com Richard D. Roberts Harvey W. Rogers Direct: (503) 226-5720 Direct: (503) 226-5721 iii E-Mail: rroberts@prestongates.com E-Mail: hrogers@prestongates.com Timothy J. Sercombe Edward J. Sullivan Direct: (503) 226-5726 Direct: (503) 226-5727 E-Mail: tsercomb@prestongates.com E-Mail: esulliva@prestongates.com SPECIAL. REPORT OF THE PORTLAND OFFICE OF PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, PAGE 14 1I ell til. BE F. e. 8 8' ^~i w-• 5aWB $g~~3YL~. oar k~^~v^k srm E Rtg v R C~ ~bg 2. g 5~ v ~ N s v- Y '61 - F~.Q [E...c 06~s$ag ~.9~~ ~T~• 5y' ~g.~'~. 5,2 ~ 5~s'~~~T o• ~ R 5'~1~4 ~ ~ ~y.~ ~ g 8 `~g~g`g B•~•^~ ~ ~.^~Bg.E~• ~ v>i ~T _ SS P. at Ct7 o t~ s ,C.. R gRg~ •o ,4'I a a u N g%L'c G ~H! Est > E F. v c N co < S r yQ ~ ~ 00 7c Q 9 q 4 Y G qp~`< ~g[.2• ° A•_ N N N E R gC g¢ k r Ifs R R "`222 5 d~ A }p7.~' ~~p5¢1 8 0 8 0 8 R 4 K F O M 4 ~g, ~ $ 55 8. ~~•ER~ 8 °0 8 8 8 ~ R~~sP ~ S R58s R8~asa k HIM ~i~-+0 gg4k g, c. 0^ & A w , 41 FYI °5 a- 8 g g- Rik g F y $ S~ i~ A4 5'. 5 5' 118. i t i. H. In D Hi J'o y Qyst ryb Z x~x O E" 8." a g E 5 .ZZZ _ _ wa s ac y 8a g w 2 g; ~~R~ ~ 3 ~8~ ~ ~`5 Pn~ ~~8. ~8~~ ~ 8.~5•(~'~5r~r~96 E'~g~ a ~ 8 ~i ~ $E48~•' ~X ~'S~ g ~LEgB•c• ~S•,o, ~_4a.q$ ~ gg ~y$I RORk i PIN '~q~G ~$gRA 5$gFga Rr 9$~4tla°~ CS~ p~8 _ ag 8. 5 - 2.5' a @$k~ N a .zs aR2sA yC~g 1'~ I.. k o8c 5' a:~•'-~°r.~j,Qgr~~r S°`~' ~r~s '~5$ Q•~+a ~a"~G'S8wAt °zn~r~ds5R3it's"d -°a°5~ 5F~s i ®r NNW 8. '~b• ~'S;b•p'¢g4~'3b'~8'f~ ~ ~ r g~pO~~~~9 bO y~°, 8-8 lit I !s o=ivy a 9g b~ a;& Q• it T& a eEd~O--~ I N --sill -o E'Pi, J. A 11111A HIM > -0 I i. 0 $ y g'7 5$5 ~ ~ ~t^ g a° a ~H ~"5~ x' ~$5 Ill BIN-1 R ~ > 7t o~ i 9 jig "ly.5 a ,fig. e •5 E aa g 9~ ~j ~ ~ o . '~~~j~i?. br .5~> d.5 ~5 ~~~~~;~.9 ~ x~ ~b ~~4.~.5•~~ , -.If K-9 _N , - - G IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT MEASURE 47 MIT D County Administrative Office November 1Z 1996 MEASURE 47 RECAP r { o Amends Oregon Constitution I m Takes effect July 1, 1997; initial reduction will be reflected in property taxes collected in November 1997 m Reduces taxes for each individual pr_opertv t Taxes reduced to one of the following (whichever is less & j excluding the portion for bonded indebtedness): - a) 10% below the tax for FY95-96 b) the FY94-95 tax level m After FY97-98, the tax on each proper cannot increase by more than 3% (excluding the portion for bonded indebtedness) ® Adoption of property tax levy requires majority vote in general election (in even numbered years) or in an election where at least 50% of eligible registered voters participate ® Measure allows legislature to adopt & amend legislation to implement provisions of the measure - must prioritize public safety and public education - must minimize loss of local control to state government ll. 'S r` m No replacement of property tax supported services (on or after 6/30/95) by fees, assessments or charges without voter approval i d IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT MEASURE 47 County Administrative Office November 12, 1996 I MEASURE 47 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT (Assumptions for the next page calculations) n Tax levels for ail Washington County taxing authorities were reduced to b. 90% of FY95-96 levels ■ Growth levels are assumed to be approximately 11% Estimates were made as to the amount of taxing capacity considered as exceptions to the Measure. This amount is estimated to be approximately 4.5% n Urban Renewal is assumed to be outside the Measure o -No compression model used (the method used to implement Measure 5) ■ No special levies excluded from measure (e.g. MSTIP III) N Comparison made to tax levels that would have increased by 6% under current law July 1, 1997 (Start of FY98) i F ^t f ' l r z ntity S By Specific ty Capaci Tax1ng 1 %A oss oiTaxing , , 243,607 EstimntedL, 341,093 S162, 299,110 S36, 5127,943,184 532,348,783 S34,289, 82 527,123,281 1 517,720 526,3331 S30' 525,566,293 ; o n ,a 302 % Ge era Fund .-v d. 528,190, 524821,644 25 aton~C„o~°„ntY'~"""r..J~ Oyg~684 ~ Q .23 urrent Laic 524, 21 /0 achy Under C _19°10 Estimate 538,400,000 Under Measure 47 16°/o Estimate S8 000,000 953,525 achy Estimate 58,000,000 9 $31,__ 678 173,97 Estimate S8,000,000 o S6' .17% e Loss S8,000,000 6,385125 $6,516, 0 1 :entag -'actR 1?D: g6,400,000 6199 $ -15° S6,018,592 ;11 ; I anr~<. - Curt'ent La%v ; 23% aeity Under 6% 512,350,000 achy Under Measure A7 52,470,000 $12126,957 52,470,000 6135250 411,000 ` ventage Loss $2,410,000 S$22' 463139 $2,537,136 52' u p% r, ,;tr $2,410,000 52,391,494 , 0 6l0 ~r enan„cey... 310 n..d-s~S.uaC,."..."• OF Lu~v $2,321, nder .3°!0 031,150 achy U casuce 41 -6% 451,632 557, ,acity Under M 340,941 513, 542,141,142 c 511,321,969 512, 613,495 S8,933,700 ,-26on Los' :entag ~3 n 475 510,387,128 Sg1420,g69 S8' 34% ~,r r 4Rd sl- 59,529, 471 581175,601 o ed, ~.M _30 r ti:"c;L~Eir2, ent vv 51,937' -26°/0 achy Under CurrntL• 500,000 Under Measure 47 .17°l0 700,000 5108, ncity 700,000 521, $491705,185 100,000 521, 5101537,237 e Loss 000 S21, 510,230,327 :entag ent of G 521,100,065 932,357 -54°1O r e 7 , 00 oi8n'' mp oj~etn ,,..ti- 521, 000 $9,643, $9, -51°l0 noc t's~. Y`~n..wpL... 362,199 0 .53°l0 4 r.>.. Curren a" $9, i i .5410 i achy Under .56% Under g,asure 41 _57% acity i , ventage LOSS IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT MEASURE 47 County Administrative Office November 1Z 1996 RECOMMENDED SHORT TERM ACTIONS TO INCREASE FLEXIBILITY New programs: Limit any expansion of existing County programs. 4 _ • Selective hiring freeze: All request for new hires to be reviewed by the County Administrative Office. u • 37.5-hour workweek: Consideration was being given to converting these t largely support positions to 40-hour. Due to budget impacts recommend h suspension of this effort. • Requests for outside funding: Do not fund any new requests. • Bi-lingual pay differential: Continue with planned December 1, 1996 implementation; key to effectively competing in the market place and providing service to minority populations. • SB 122: Due to significantly reduced incentive for cities to annex, revisit the approved ambitious work plan. • Public Safety Coordinating Committee: Revisit decision to hire support staff; reconsider External Committee additional assistance. • Consider postponing the following General Fund expenditures: Juvenile Shelter Expansion Emergency Operations Center Relocation Beaverton Health Clinic Remodel Additional Children & Family Services funding approved in the current budget. • Reestablish the Tax Coordinating Committee to coordinate responses with cities, special districts, Metro, schools, etc. i IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT MEASURE 47 County Administrative Office IMEW November 12, 1996 PRELIMINARY LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE ( ~ - ' • State should assign no new programs and honor existing shared program; commitments., • State should address immediate issues and the move on to the longer is term implementation strategy n + • State assigns an initial allocation between education and local government. • Local governments will define what qualifies as public safety.. • Local governments will establish what it means to prioritize public safety. • Local governments utilize Measure 5 proportionality model to allocate impacts. ~..r • Local governments given flexibility to pool taxing capacity. • Maximize local control. ORGANIZATIONAL POSTURE 7 • Ballot Measure 47 is the law; the organization will implement fully. • Should NOT be viewed as a reflection on staff or the services we provide the community. • No one should expect a quick fix; response is likely to be phased in 6 month - one year increments. HIGH RISK ISSUES • Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District - expiration of levy • Urban Road Maintenance District Levy U Cooperative Library Levy Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program III Levy 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT MEASURE 47 County Administrative Office November 12, 1996 i HIGH RISK ISSUES (cont.) i Jail Beds and Community Corrections Center: Number of beds available on opening day and beyond (currently unfunded). - 5 BUDGET ■ Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget Preparation: Staff is currently beginning to prepare for the FY 1997-98 budget process which will need to incorporate the effects of Ballot Measure 47. There are a huge number of unanswered questions as to how the measure will be applied and what . t the extent of our reductions will be. What we do know is that there will i be reductions. We will be instructing departments to prepare budgets j that maintain the status quo and look for opportunities to further economize. There will be no consideration of new programs unless it is supported by a dedicated funding source. Further, departments will be asked to provide reduction scenarios of 10, 25 and 50% for those j organization units funded by discretionary revenues. Those programs funded directly by property tax levies will need to prepare budgets that T' assume, for lack of a better estimate, a reduction in resources proportional to other levies. Reductions county-wide will be based on the Board's Resource Reduction Strategy. c ■ Resource Reduction Strategy: As an integral element of County 2000, the Commission developed a resource reduction plan. This policy states that to the extent possible, across-the-board reductions in expenditures will be avoided. Reductions will be made on a case-by-case basis, focusing particularly (though not exclusively) on each individual programs or service. In making reductions the policy directs that emphasis should be on retaining the quality of a service, possibly L~ . J requiring a reduction in quantity of service instead. A complete copy of , this policy is attached. ■ Revenue Stabilization Reserve: The Revenue Stabilization Reserve had a balance of $8.5 million as-of June 30, 1996. Pursuant to Board policy these funds have been set aside to extend the life of the tax base. The Five-Year Forecast presented to your Board in March 1996 anticipated that the County would begin to draw on these funds beginning in Fiscal Year 1997-98 to cover operating costs associated with opening the new 7 jail and other expenditures that will outpace our ability to raise revenues. This scenario made a number of key assumptions including that neither the legislature nor the voters will reduce or eliminate the County's state- shared discretionary revenues or place any additional limits on the County's ability to raise revenues. i ■ Based on our current understanding of Ballot Measure 47 it would appear that we will definitely begin drawing down on our reserves in the next fiscal year and that, even with this additional resource, the County ` will be providing a level of service below what was anticipated last I March. Accordingly, the Revenue Stabilization Reserve will serve as a bridge to whatever funding level we receive as a result of BM 47. ■ State Shared Revenues: Since the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990 the future of state share discretionary revenues the County receives has been in jeopardy. In 1995-96 the County received approximately $3 million from cigarette and liquor tax revenues, timber receipts and video lottery dollars. As the State continues to try and stabilize school funding it is likely the vulnerability of these revenues will increase. i y ~ 4 . i IPM i F ton ■ eve a Forest Grove, Gaston, flillsboro■il at King City, North Plains, Shensaxl, FE it Tigard, Tualatin and other -MET S-T. a I ■ Communities in Washington County ROVV hreatening g tax cuts alarm' county leaders ity leaders sharpen their glad calyabout one thing: Last sum. its SI1.6 million budget. ~hc dtrgonian _ and shake their heads as mer, the city held off on filling six ~J KING CITY: Plans to add a aketentaliveguessesal new hires crealedbyanewtaxbase. Hillsboro Councilor Willey fourth police officer might fall, as INSIDE LINE r/ 'It. won't he as traumatle;' he King City kould lose about 139.0.Y! 225-5555 re 47's Impact said. x'hen the time for layoffs or. pulls ahead on absentees of its $232,700 budget. rives. NORTH PLAINS: The nature of Youcan pet updated lowlresulls of V HAMILTON There was frustration with Gov. North Plains cuts aren't yet certain. Tuesday's election by calling The Ore. John Kitzhaber among elected offh HILLSBORO - people who ■Republlcan Eileen Qutub rc The city could lose about $24,000 of gonian'sInside Line at225d555anden. vials. fie promised Wednesday that vote by absentee Doballots take malned narrowly ahead of Demo Its $147'093. feting 8687 (V•0•T•E). Resuls win be a sigh and scythe, Washing U Measure 47 passes, the state more time to study local candl• - trotPat Biggs In the slate Senate SHERWOOD: Sherwood has seen updated when they are repored by coon. only officials started ashing if Me look out for the schools but dates in the Voters' Pamphlet? District 4 contest, the 51.3 s percent to a ~ percent bump In the assessed tyclerksfor Aluttnomah, CTdrJ;amasand prepar Oeild what they expect to be a frus. that county ''and city governments Jerry Willey, HWsboro city 486 percent. Property value. But police and Ib WasAinpton county lepis/alive races as tangle with ,`,!e3sum47. would be on their own.Several lo- councilor, suspects that might be brary services could be lost if the r oryan0 county races anp mea• constitutional amendment, cals leaden privately said they wish the rase. ■T'he contest for House District 5 city loses the anticipated 534),955 of S suorees. s. appeared headed for ndme :t. the governor had held ofr on that Willey. who was the only corm. narrowed to less than a percent. Its $1.32 million budget. approval ay, would cut property taxes proclamation until conferring with ell incumbent behind In Tues age point. with Republican Jun TIGARD: A new tax base to help t 10 percent and limit their county and city associations In the day's balloting, pulled ahead of Hill at 50.4 percent to Victoria hire new pollee could be reduced. Of The near) weeks ahead. his challenger, newcomer Curtiss Johnson's 49.5. the city s nearly all volunteer dts;nn m 3 pc:cer.t a year t,rC'm ••I don't blame the overnor for Vahallene newcomer Curtiss " SG .7 million budget, Tigard pays for the chiefand one firefighter nine in July t. g Thursday's counting. Near! ■Kim Katslon's lead for Rash, could lose $2.6 mlUion, enough for from property taxes. But where the 30 .1 The LegIsla. hills responstation, Is Peters state Ing Ing ballots for fhe tang. 3 si Ington County Commissioner salary and IN: Prfpe yemployees. ruts will come from isn't yet clear. widened over Dick Schouten, to TUALATLN: Property taxes fuel The de p could lase f33 .W of keep I h tore will draw I responsvnnfn and make sure 7.50 had been trilled when Willey 95 D up gulddlnes g g us percent. percent of the city's police serv' its $1280,294 budget. there's schoal funding." got thad bee j lover 5t. 'I uut!! nuid how Ices, 71 percent of park and urecr d et. TRI•CI pe FIRE DEPART) The precise Impact of Measure 47 Although the absentees op. ■lncumbent Republican Charles TtIon hose and ha services half co tcould be Ilbr j hod eeopardized d local govern r mens: emains unclear. The dollars lost geared to be helping him, Willey Starr g MENT: Operations pfund to will ply wasn't about to claim victory maintained his 53 percent ?'ho continue although a fund to buy men; he imnew and what services will be cut proba• until thermal ballot was run. share of the vote over Democrat if city losses match the estimated new equipment might be wiped out, roles lily won't be certain for months. But Other close races in the county Marcus Slmantei in House Dls $394,W0 of its $3.0 million budget. ose S4 s said. The department could here is a look at estimates of its Im trid 3. lose 5ALA of its $2LLE budget O.Tina!s had part on local governments for the saw these developments Thurs. SERVICE DISTRICTS l more s,YCUIa 1997f•8 rascal year. day: -Richard N. Colby CORNELIUS FIRE DEPART. TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE: Nearly a third of the lion than hard meat a The to -volunteer depart- budget for Oregon's second-largest IENT: all facts Theirs WASHINGTON COUNTY meet expects to 512.626 of its fire department could be lost. $99 ,it they worried out loud that WASHINGTON COUNTY GEN. proved the nvo.year street Improve- to Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue $74,560 budget, bringing some sen• million of 530.3 million. Still uncer hale to cut police and Me ERAL FUND: County metals esti. ment plan last year, but more than But the city may make cuts anyway Ice cuts. lain is how Measure 47 affects the ~s, t..".e basic functions of local are losses of about $4.7 mllllon half the money could be lost to Mea to help out the ore district. FOREST GROVE FIRE DE- department's recent absarptlon of men;. And they worried from the county's 5^^-8.8 mutton gen. sure 47, $129 mutton of its ML7 mil- CORNELIUS: The city expects to PARTMENT: The jobs of four the Beaverton Fire Department. roads that won't 6c: built, or e: al fund, about three•CiRhs of lion yearly allocation. Many proJ• lose 5163.723 of In $1.2 mutton buds newly hired firefighters might be WASHINGTON COUNTY FIRE :coed, and about cuts in coed which goes to law enforcement. Dr eds, officials said. probably won't et. bringing cuts In pollee and fire jeopardized. 0(ficials expect to see DISTRICT 2: The mostly rolun:eer :d soda! p:or hors to., the spite the measure's efforts to guard be done. services, which consume a large medical services me could an Increase In response Nee- and district budget. $21 ant of Its 51.2 downgrading against law enforcement cuts. 001• COOPERATIVE LIBRARY part of the general fund budget, The department . million budg. A vacant paid and post- Plla~Mlle e and a two^ grim," Linda of the avashin ~;on evits fear for theeductio attorney. may thin. e sm er ts to county's lose lib S 6 DURHAM: About $7,200 probably from its $382,416 budget lose 569,14) the planned would i Yste Pec would be cut from the city's Board of Commissloners. sheriffandjuvenUe services. million of its s9.5 million budget- '7~ GASTON FIRE DEPARTMENT: clan may be delayed. aren't going to be easy times Since 1986, Washington Count sorbet but officials say they can ab Y Nearly all library services will be sorb the loss. has been squ lrreling away money in considered for cutting. FOREST GROVE: More than a wood Mayor Wait Hitchcock, a contingency fund that has reached URBAN ROADS MAINTE• third of the city's $3 million budget :ayes office in January, said about $10 million. Other cuts could NANCE DISTRICT: About $148.000 could be lost, about 51.t mutton. The y ate levels it the appear new keeping a floor closed in of the district's $2.5 million budget city fears It may have to cut in Po. In incomplete returns, here is howlocal TIGARD th jail. could be lost to quality surfs a lice, fire, library, parks and code en. residents voted in Tuesday's election. City Cri nc9, Petition 2 to hit local government. Vob ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PA- bly meaning a forcement. : added, cal part of the prat TROL DISTRICT: The district, for some roads. Updated eledionreSUllsareavailable 0n John ilorehl 4,550 ridged raleeart cut eprob* which pays for police services In GASTON: About $17,000 could the Web sites for Washington Count'- Jan Rigdmt .........................................0.673 tic time Hills Char MUI, CITIES vanish from Gaston's $105,255 burg hnp7M•x w.eo.washinplon.ocus-and Corner amenement, Measure 74.57 N Aloha, naleigh O ...................._.........._......._.........6.506 (•~•t exactly what they do- Cedar !fills and Met , r, could lose BANKS: The City expttls to lose at but officials aren't certain where Yamhill County - MIDI/ r the cuts will be made. No . 53.702 lint hcdcl. said, "',h1ch a a 5718,000 of its $G4 million budget. $8,206 of its 5.,0.368 budget, perhaps year growth Cial wwr results sults will a a mhilpppear an oearan k hla Met. Ceaneramenrmenl, Meas.. 7o 5s :f chaos. They're voting diner. Officials worry about the ability of ending plans to expand police serv• IL SBORO: Hillsboro rive e nday's 's 7.feb Yes......_...................................._..........6.ill enemnsurethan they are on voters to reauthorize the district Ice. oIan probably will be roWest page, NO .....2,065 r! ° / when it expires next year BEAVERTON: in iday, city vol. :ut off, bringing a halt to plans for WASHINGTON COUNTY TUALATIN ay MAJOR STREETS IMPROVE ers lowered the city fax base, ronect• 'xpandlr 'Ice and other scrvlces. . Courtly Cammisstoner, District I City Counca, Posaiia 7 , - ?ores; Grove, a 5,0,,m ;cr Ivan Rurnett said was MENT PROGRAM III: Voters ap ing transfer of the fire department t s- ~ -d~°-5,°~1'PtR 4l?a Afrtgkxnt. su'7vi lfatslon s,ln~-,••.•••-,•_.......,:.._.....e,056 • Steven DOOSan~~:D: «hti \:264irrvr r, ,r.•-,:. .+'.>i,. n,tulc.Vii:.. :....:__._.._.1._._.....8.436 Still Cnrismarf:._._..! 1 L Wei r CURRENT FACILITIES Sam= JAIL 185 $5,545,381 $5,783,832 JAIL HEALTH - $863,797 $900,940 CCC 88 $1,996,537 $2,082,388 SCENARIO i 4 In W". 4qlqvgt JAIL 407 $9,319,310 JAIL HEALTH $900,940 CCC 180 $2,124,387 I COURT HOLDING $283,498 SCENARIO 2 mommommomm 1 JAIL 350 $8,777,040 { JAIL HEALTH $900,940 { CCC 180 $2,124,387 COURT HOLDING $283,498 E I TOT `L _,~~~530 0 i J FINANCE PLAN - j ~ I i i w f f i I 1 r 2. Resource Reduction Priorities ' f Generally, the County will respond to major 't resource reductions in accordance with the priorities I set forth below. In implementing the actions set forth - in these priority categories, the County will proceed as follows: First, the actions described in Category I will be implemented. If that proves sufficient to deal with the revenue shortfall, then no further action will be taken. If that proves insufficient, then the County will proceed to Category 2. Only if those actions prove insufficient to deal with the problem will the County proceed to Category and so on to each succeeding priority category. 1 50 ttt i FINANCE PLAN The remai ni ng countywide services will receive steady or decreasing General Fund support. 'Most of these latter services (principally certain surveying and planning programs, and certain educational and recreational programs) will contin- ue to be funded primarily by dedicated revenue sources. The County will not be the provider of last resort for these services. (Please refer to the section entitled "Fundamental Principles Y and Priorities for Service Delivery" on page 4.) Funding forservice level commitments for the first five years of County 2000 was the new tax base approved by voters t in 1986. Asa consequence of the passage of Measure 5, the 1986 I tax base had to be stretched to cover the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years and will continue to have to be stretched for future ` fiscal years, or possibly, until a new state and local government 1 financing mechanism is put into place in Oregon. } Depending on what changes are made in Oregon's state I and local government financing systems in Fiscal Year 1994-95, the County may need to seek a new tax base. Further, if no changes are made in Oregon's state and local financing systems, the County will likely experience serious resource reductions, even if a new tax base is obtained. In the event of a reduction in resources, the County will V r be guided by the resource reduction strategy that follows. Resource Reduction Strategy The potential components of any resource reduction L f; strategy are essentially the same for all local governments. The i . differences come in how these components are structured in any particular jurisdiction (i.e., what happens first, what programs, if any, are exempt from reductions, etc.). Thesc components include: F. ■ Distinguishing between high priority and lowerpriority programs. ■ Incremental expenditure cuts. N Major program cuts. ■ Across-the-board cuts in funding. ■ ImOlemenlation of new revenue sources. 0 01190, 1 49 F711.%- FINANCE PLAN CategorvPriority Description `J i InilialActions F I EliminationofGeneralFund "block grant" support for outside agencies that are not funded by a dedicated revenue source and not controlled by the Board of Commis- sioners will be proposed by the Budget If no changes are Officer (County Administrator).' This made in Oregon's refers to funding of outside agencies whose programs the County has determined would state and local ft- not be provided directly by the County, if the outside agency currently providing the nancing systems, the program did not exist. If it is decided that this service would be provided directly by County will likely P the County, then the County will under- take its normal evaluation process to de- experience serious (ermine whether this service would be ' most efficiently carried out in-house or resource reductigus, t contracted out, and, if contracting is _ IIII deemed most appropriate, a contract will even if a new tax be established for services. For, those ! base is obtained programs that fall into this latter category, their treatment under any expenditure re- F i duction scenario will be in accordance with where they fall in terms of general County 2000 priorities (i.e., Public Safety r and Justice, Health and Human Services, etc.). I 1 2 Moderate service level reductions will be proposed on a case-by-case bcsis. These t service level reductions will focus first on I reducing the additional general fund sup- port provided to the different areas of t ~ County government (i.e., Public Safety and Justice, Health and Human Services, General Government, etc.) since the in- 1 _ 1 °See attached program Evaluation Criteria (Appendix A) 1 1 1 11 1 51 f FINANCE PLAN ception of County 2000. However, this does not mean that the exact positions or programs added since 1986 will be elimi- natcd, nor does it mean that each Depart- ment in an area will receive a reduction proportional to their prior increases. In- "7f it becomes stead, reductions will be made in such a way as to attempt to ensure balanced ser- i necessary to make vice delivery systems in (host areas. significant service Intermediate Actions ((o be consideredonly p,. level reductions, itinitialactionsproveinsutticient) the goal will be to 3 Major new sources of discretionary reve- nue will be proposed (such as a County reduce the quantity sales tax or business occupation tax) and/ ordedicated revenue sources that the Coun- Of SCrVICe provided ty has the authority to undedicatc will be proposed for reallocation (such as Hotel/ rather than the Motel tax). This process will be conduct- ed with extensive public participation. quality of service. " 4 Major program reductions will be pro- posed in general accordance with County 2000 priorities.10 These reductions will t fall into two general categories: i i First, are program reductions that will be proposed in response to a reduction in County discretionary revenue. In this case, program reductions will be made by f service area in the following order: i "Generally, the use of discretionary revenues to back-fill the loss of State-shared revenues for those programs for which the \ stbte has primary responsibility will not be proposed. Excep- tions may be made on a case-by=case basis, focusing primarily on those programs that are part of a service delivery system jar which the county has primary responsibility. 52 rt t t t s FINANCE PLAN a) Culture, Education and ~J Recreation, base level of Sheriff's , Patrol, and certain Planning and Survey programs. b) Health and Human Services and Public Safety and Justice (excluding base level sheriff patrol). Second, there arc program reductions that will be made in response to significant reductions in State-shared revenues' for programs that are primarily the State's responsibility. In I this case, the County will consider l returning responsibility to the State for operating those programs. In deter- . ~ mining which programs will be returned to State control, first priority will be given to those programs that are part of - a service delivery system for which the State has primary responsibility (such as Aging Services). In the case of those State-funded programs which are part of service delivery systems for which the County has primary responsibility (i.e., Community Corrections), the County will evaluate the impact on the rest of that service delivery system of l returning responsibility to the State. l • t "State-shared revenues arefunds that come to file Counryfrom due Stare, either as dedicated funding foi specific programs or as discretionary revenues front miscellaneous stare taxes (i.e., liquor and cigarette taxes). - 3 111 53 r 71 FINANCE PLAN - - I ExtremeActions(tobeconsideredonly Illj as a fast resort) 5 A reduced County work week will be proposed to achieve salary cost savings. 6 Failingsufficicntcombined revenue and I expenditure changes to balance the bud- get and maintain an adequate service level for Slate-mandated programs, the County will need to take the necessary - steps leading to obtaining protection from debt and obligations through au- thorized restructuring. F i tt 54 t~ EXAMPLE TAX REDUCTIONS PROJECTED UNDER BALLOT MEASURE 47 i j Property 1996-97 1997-98 Projected Tax Bill Projected Bill Reduction House $1,441 $1,048 $393 Hillsboro 1,230 sq. ft. - 96 av. = $112.500 95 av. = $ 87,000 Apartment complex $154,793 $138,485 $16,308 388 units 96 av = $11,688,100 r 95 av = $11,335,900 Office Building $5,865 $4,314 $1,551 j' 7,664 sq. ft. - 96 av. _ $508,400 95 av = $408,200 e. 3 e. Ballot Measure 47 Tax Limit Formula: 1. 1997-98 limit (excluding levies to pay bonded debt) is the lesser of the following: a) 94-95 tax or b) 95-96 tax less 10% j 2. In all future years, tax shall not exceed previous year's tax plus 3%. 3. Except taxes may increase under certain situations including improvements to property, rezoning, subdivision, lot line adjustment, annexation approved under certain conditions, disqualification from special assessment or exemption. l J760 DOC t 7!1256 - - 77 • ff Expenditure Review Index i Page No. i r ~ A-1 Police Expansion 1 A-2 Purchase of Police Vehicles 2 A-3 Schramm Property Purchase 3 A-4 Gray Water Line 4 A-5 Cook Park Expansion: Lamb/Gray & Thomas 5 i B-1 Washington County Transfer of Jurisdiction 6 B-2 Durham Road Transfer; 79th/Durham Signal 7 B-3 Combination Sewere Cleaner 8 B-4 Building Maintenance Projects 9 B-5 Feed Store Parking Lot 10 B 6 Visioning 11 B-7 Development Code Rewrite 12 B-8 Other Equipment Purchases - Vehicles 13 B-9 Portable Diesel Emergency Generators 14 t C-1 Council Computer Purchase 15 C-2 Cityscape 16 C-3 Cable TV Broadcast of Council Meetings 17 C-4 Mediation 18 C-5 Annexations 19 C-6 CITs 20 C-7 Funding for Social Service Agencies 21 i C-8 Computers 22 is \adm%cadiy\e xpindx.doc i , f Expenditure Review Item: Police Expansion A-1 A Report Prepared by: Ron Goodpaster Cost. $349,700, with an additional $132,943 that was anticipated to be budgeted in the I 1997/98 fiscal year to complete remodeling inside the police facility. Source of funds. General fund. 4. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? As soon as possible. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. We had advertised the addition project and accepted bids on October 8, 1996 and we have until November 22, 1996 (next Friday) to accept or reject the bid. Both the architect and the contractor have been told the project has been put on hold at this time. Is there a lower cost option? With the uncertainty of the effects of the recent election on City funding and services, I would recommend that the project be put on hold for now and reconsidered when more information is known regarding the impact of Ballot Measure 47. City Administrator Recommendation - Delay the project. Unless we increase staffing as fI planned under the tax base approved in 1994, the expansion is not needed at this time. The plans can be used later. I Expenditure Review - Page 1 74 Expenditure Review Item: Police Vehicles A-2 t Report Prepared by: Ron Goodpaster 1 j Cost. $130,330 i Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes.`.: When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Within the next few weeks. Orders from departments that sent in purchase requests in January were not honored and since there are no other vehicle bid options this year, there may be more vehicles requested that normal. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. The original request was to purchase five vehicles, one was for additional personnel to be hired in Patrol. Three were for Patrol replacements and one was to be used by Youth Services. In consideration of the uncertainty of the impacts of Ballot Measure 47, we have frozen hiring the new positions, thus eliminating one vehicle, made arrangements for the Youth Services position to use their vehicle another year and then purchase three for Patrol replacements. This would continue the rotation plan to keep the fleet in good shape, reducing down time for repairs, eliminate high mileage repair costs, prevent doubling up i 1 officers when patrol vehicles are down for repair, and spread mileage out to all the fleet ' vehicles. Is there a lower cost option? Purchase three vehicles. All three would go into patrol. t City Administrator Recommendation - Continue the rotation plan by purchasing three vehicles now. I Expenditure Review - Page 2 t 1 P"') Expenditure Review Item: Schramm Property Pur hac A-3 Report Prepared by: Liz Newton Cost. According to Ms. Schramm's accountant, her asking price is around $500,000. Barton Delacy, our appraiser has the value at no higher than $436,000. In addition, a structural engineer's analysis of the building would cost from $3000 - $5000. A remodel of the building is estimated at $450,000 - $565,000, although since some of the work to repair the building after the fire is currently underway, those costs may be lower. Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? No. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? According to Ms. Schramm's accountant, she is interested in leasing the building as soon as possible. Our opportunity to "tie up the building" will probably be gone when she signs a 1 long term lease. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. Since Ms. Schramm appears to be interested in leasing the building, the advantage of leasing or purchasing the property now gives control of the property to the City to use tT entirely or in part as our needs dictate. Is there a lower cost option? In the short term, it would probably be a cheaper to lease the building with an option to buy and sub-lease the portions the city doesn't need immediately. City Administrator Recommendation - Continue discussion to acquire an option on the building. A lease with an option to buy in 2-5 years would allow us to have control of the building and plan for our needs. If we lease the facility now, we will need to secure a sublease to reduce our costs. Expenditure Review - Page 3 II~ Expenditure Review Item: Gray Water Line A-4 Report Prepared by: Ed Wegner Cost. $88,971 Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes i r When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? As soon as possible. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. i, The City of Tigard has committed $88,971 to Phase 2 of the project, which is far enough j along that we cannot back out at this time. Phase 2 is to bring the gray water line to the edge of the Thomas property. It will then be the City's project to cross the Gray property and into Cook Park. Is there a lower cost option? { Phase 2 is to bring the gray water line to the edge of the Thomas property. It will then be the City's project to cross the Gray property and into Cook Park. This would be the portion of the project we could hold on at this time no expenditures yet because we are still working with the Cook Park Task Force in developing the Master plan for the expansion. City Administrator Recommendation - Proceed with this project. We have committed to it and the long-term savings are substantial. Expenditure Review - Page 4 Expenditure Review ol. Item: Cook Park Ex anaion A-5 Report Prepared by: Jim Hendryx Cost. $20,000 ($16,000 remains) f ' Source of funds. Parks SDC Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Now. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. The consultant is under contract to complete the Cook Park Master Plan. The City is in need of additional parking, sports fields, picnic shelter, etc. The City needs to determine its future park needs. Gray/Lamb/Thomas properties are not buildable. With the exception of Metro's Greenspace Program, properties will remain undisturbed. Coordination with Metro - and USA would protect future options for park expansion. Is there a lower cost option? Yes, stop study, but proceed with purchasing small amount (5 acres) of land or lease from Lamb/Gray as needed. Recommendation: Not proceed at this time. City Administrator Recommendation - Continue discussion by the Committee to I determine the scope of a Cook Park Master Plan. Use the remainder of the park planning funds as needed to fund the plan. Purchase those acres needed to carry out the plan, using city and non-profit league funds. Expenditure Review -Page 5 it 7-1 Expenditure Review Item: Washington Co Jurisdiction Transfer B-1 Report Prepared by: Jim Hendryx Cost. Unknown at this point. Estimate that up to five FTE's would be required to serve the area with building, planning, engineering, and code enforcement. Impacts on public works are not known at this time. Additional workspace would be needed to accommodate new employees. No funding exists for this work space. Source of funds. General funds would be used for the planning, engineering and code enforcement activities. Funds for road maintenance activities are not known at this time. The fees charged for these services would be at Washington County's rate, which is significantly higher than r Tigard's. Additional work would be required to determine if costs would be adequate. I. Building activities would pay for themselves; uncertain about other services. j f Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? No. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Immediately. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. j Extensive work has occurred to get this project to where it is. Additional revenue would be E generated by proceeding; however, total costs are unknown. The public would have the perception that services are expanding. Ultimately, annexation could result; however, actual costs/revenues are difficult to determine. Need to have additional information prior to proceeding. i Is there a lower cost option? Yes. Limit the services that the city provides in the area to "fee supported" only. Proceed to get information on overall impacts. Recommendation: Not proceed at this time. City Administrator Recommendation - Discuss with Washington County Staff how to carry out the program while holding the County to its commitment to make the City whole for any expenses. ' Expenditure Review - Page 6 J E Expenditure Review Item: 79th Avenue/Durham Road B-2 f i Signalization Report Prepared by: Gus Duenas Cost. $77,000 (plus $23,000 already expended) Source of funds. 50% City of Tigard ($49,289 budgeted under the Gas Tax) 50% Tigard-Tualatin School District (up to $50,000 as their share of costs) Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes Project status: Design has been completed. Project is now out forbids (advertisement publishfd 11114/96 i in the Tigard Times and Daily Journal of Commerce.) Bid opening is scheduled for December 10, 1996. Contract award is projected by the end of December and installation + will be in the March-April 1997 time frame. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? ( Decide whether to award bid in December. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. We have already spent funds in anticipation of signal installation after the State turns the road over to the City. The City of Tigard has already spent approximately $23,000 for i installation of conduits, signal loops, and other underground work, which were incorporated - into the Durham Road Construction Project. The project now out to bid will procure and J install the rest of the signal system to complete the project, including controller, poles, mast arms, signal heads, signal wires, and all other appurtenances required. In addition, the School District has reaffirmed its commitment to fund up to $50,000 as their share of the - project cost. I talked to George Fisher, business manager for the District, and he confirmed that the School District is still participating in the project cost. i Is there a lower cost option? At this point, there are no lower cost options. We have already saved possibly $10,000 or more by having the underground work within Durham Road incorporated with the ongoing construction project. This ensures that the newly constructed roadway will not be cut or disturbed to accommodate this project. i City Administrator Recommendation - Continue by installing the signal. This is a safety concern; we have expended resources to prepare for the signal and should complete the project (with School assistance). Expenditure Review - Page 7 '1 6 Expenditure Review ! Item: Combination Sewer Cleaner B-3 Report Prepared by: Ed Wegner Cost. $175,000 Source of funds. Storm Water Fund $87,500 Sanitary Sewer Fund 87,500 Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? As soon as possible. E Justification/advantage of proceeding now. Bidding, ordering, and purchasing could take six to eight months. Specifications are currently being developed. This replaces a 1986 Aquatech Jet Rodder with a combination - i J sewer cleaner. I would highly recommend proceeding due to funding sources (not general fund). Repairs are needed to Aquatech and to maintain our sanitary stormwater work plan. Is there a lower cost option? t t City Administrator Recommendation - This piece of equipment is totally funded from dedicated funds; I recommend that it be purchased. j. . -j j U Expenditure Review - Page 8 Expenditure Review Item: Ltldmg Maintenance Projects B-4 j Report Prepared by: Ed Wegner Cost. Drive up book drop for library $2,500 Replace carpet in library foyer 4,000 Police Dept. office space reconfiguration and paint 2,000 Senior Center interior paint 3,500 Senior Center Carpet upstairs 3,000 Replace carpet in Town Hall and RRCCR 4,500 Source of funds. General fund. j Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? This fiscal year with enough advance notice to place in work schedule or order materials needed. City Admin. Recommendations on expenditures: Recommends: Drive up book drop for library Cancel project Cancel Replace carpet in library foyer Defer project due to Defer possible library expansion status Police Dept. office space Defer project DXer CO(y,p jo~(2,~ reconfiguration and paint , J Senior Center interior paint Last year we began working Fund Sr. Senior Center Carpet upstairs with the Senior Center Direc- Center 't'SVO 4 for to get the Center back Projects i in shape. These are the two major projects scheduled for this year. Because of high amount of community use, we should proceed with painting and replacing the carpet this spring Replace carpet in Town Hall & RRCCR Defer project; schedule for Defer ' cleaning after Tree Lighting f Expenditure Review - Page 9 Expenditure Review Item: Feed Store Parking Lot B-5 Report Prepared by: Bill Monahan Cost. Engineering estimates that we can pave the lot, provide landscaping, and complete half- street improvements for approximately $55,000. The project could be completed in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce construction project as the City and Chamber will have a shared access t, Source of funds. General fund. f Are there funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes, see pages 143 and 144 of the budget. When a decision needs to be made on the expenditure? The Chamber will likely begin construction in the spring or summer of 1997. Prior to that, the Chamber will need to know if the City parking lot will be built simultaneously with the IJ Chamber project. Construction of an access on City land rather than Chamber land impacts the use and design of the Chamber project. As a result, a discussion in early 1997 will be needed. i Justification/advantage of proceeding now? 1 The parking lot has been identified by the Downtown Merchants Association as a key project to stimulate economic revitalization of the area. If the land is not developed as a puking lot, the land will likely be used for parking, however, in an inefficient manner. In order that our public property serve as a good example of how we expect property owners to maintain their properties, we should improve and maintain this land in accordance with i our own regulations. Is there a lower cost option? In the short term, clean up the lot, secure it, prevent parking until the Chamber development ' occurs. City Administrator Recommendation - Hold off on design and construction until spring f~ to allow some time to sort out questions related to Measure 47. Expenditure Review - Page 10 4 Expenditure Review I Item: Visioning B-6 Report Prepared by: Liz Newton Cost The current budget for this item is $55,900 for this fiscal year, with an additional $15,000 expected as a grant from Metro. " Source of funds. General funds. Are the funds budgeted for this fiscal year? Yes. When a decision needs to be made on the expenditure: Since the Visioning process is underway, any decisions about adjusting the budget should be made immediately so the process stays on track. Justification/advantages of proceeding now. In light of Measure 47, the Visioning process appears more important. It is an opportunity for citizens to work with the City to set a plan and priorities for the future and also provide input on what services are important to maintain and what are less critical. Is there a lower cost option? In reviewing the Visioning budget, the only discretionary dollars appear to be design of the logo and production costs for pins for the participants, a total of $3,700; celebrations and i committee refreshments budgeted at $3,000, and contractual services for an Administrative Assistant budgeted at $33,280. The design for the logo has been donated by a Tigard High School student. There will be costs associated with preparing camera ready art work for the pins, but we may save $1,500 by having the art work donated. Perhaps refreshments for j committee meetings and celebrations could be donated. A student intem has been hired to work half at a lower salary than budgeted for the Administrative Assistant. The total j estimated cost is $7,280; $26,000 less than budgeted. ! City Administrator Recommendation - Proceed with the lower cost program. Expenditure Review - Page 11 ~ t= Expenditure Review Item: Comm uni y Development Code,-Rewrite B_7 Report Prepared by: Jim Hendryx Cost. $75,000 ($60,000 remains) a Source of funds. General Fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Immediately. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. The Community Development Code is in desperate need of a rewrite. It is confusing to the public and staff. The rewrite offers the opportunity to eliminate and streamline procedures. Revised Code could offer the opportunity to lessen the need for staff resources. Is there a lower cost option? Yes. Reduce the scope of review to eliminate unnecessary standards and streamline the existing code. Recommendation. Proceed with the rewrite as currently identified. y ~fied. City Administrator Recommendation - Complete the project as designed. A streamlined code should allow for easier administration. I . - i _ Expenditure Review - Page 12 . d i 4 Expenditure Review Item: Two Utility Vehicles B-8 Report Prepared by: Ed Wegner , Cost. $40,000 Source of funds. f Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 5,000 Storm Water Fund 5,000 rog Water Fund 10,000 ` Street Fund 20,000 Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? This fiscal year with enough advance time to assure delivery during the fiscal year. s Justification/advantage of proceeding now. This represents two vehicles in Public Works, replacing two 1988 Chevy S-10 Blazers originally purchased by the Police Department as K-9 units. Supervisory personnel use these vehicles that are equipped and ready to respond to emergencies throughout the City. The replacement vehicles would also be a Blazer or equivalent, but with 4-wheel drive. Due to funding sources the money would be available (not general fund dollars). However, if across-the-board savings are needed, we could delay the purchase of these two vehicles until early next year. Is there a lower cost option? Due to funding sources the money would be available (not general fund dollars). However, I - { if across-the-board savings are needed, we could delay the purchase of these two vehicles until early next year. Another alternative would be to purchase one vehicle this year and 1 another next year. Perhaps specifications could be written to bid in May/June to hold prices over and order another vehicle after July 1. City Administrator Recommendation - Proceed with the purchase using dedicated funds. 1 Expenditure Review - Page 13 r~ Expenditure Review I Item: Portable Diesel Emergency Generators B-9 i Report Prepared by: Ed Wegner Cost. $56,000 Source of funds. Water fund. r Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes i When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? As soon as possible. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. These 150KW portable emergency diesel emergency generators will be used at the pump station at the 10 MG reservoir site and at the Bonita Road pump station or any other site needing power. I know of no rental or company who could supply us with a generator if we would have a power failure for a prolonged period of time. We could delay until spring if need be or hold off on this expenditure entirely and gamble that we would not have problems. Due to the funding source the funds are available (not general funds) and I would recommend proceeding with this purchase. Is there a lower cost option? If the City of Tigard and Washington County both declared emergencies and the Governor's office agreed, we may be able to utilize National Guard resources. City Administrator Recommendation - Proceed with the purchase. i Expenditure Review -Page 14 1 , t Expenditure Review Item: City Council Computer Purchase C-1 1 Report Prepared by: Paul deBruyn - 1 Cost. $6,500 I Source of funds. III General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? For three computers. a" When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Timing is up to the Council. If/when they want to be added to the e-mail system and be connected to the City network. Delaying the purchase will delay the access to the information. E r; Justification/advantage of proceeding now. J~ See above. 1 Is there a lower cost option? Purchase only one computer (for a cost of $3,000) and share it among the Council to begin training and to determine if they wish to use it. j City Administrator Recommendation - Proceed with the purchase if Council members I wish to connect to the City system. } i f Expenditure Review - Page 15 1 i i ' Expenditure Review Item: Cityscape C-2 f Report Prepared by: Cathy Wheatley i Cost. Estimated cost for an 8 page Cityscape (per issue) = $6,625 ($79,500 per year) Estimated cost for a 12 page Cityscape (per issue) = 7,218 ($86,616 per year) *6 page and 10 page editions are more expensive for the printer because of paper ` layout/cutting. It is more expensive to do 6 pages than 8 (and more expensive to do 10 pages than 12). Source of funds: General fund. i Is it budgeted this year? Yes. When a decision needs to be made on the expenditure? Decision can be made at an y time; no contractual obligation to consider. Justification/advantages: Communication resource for announcements, City programs, Council issues (upcoming agenda items). In the past, many residents have noted they get their information about the l City from the Cityscape. Regular features include: Mayor's comer, solicit applications for 'r! board/committee vacancies, CIT announcements, Library programs, conservation announcements, Council activities, utility billing announcements, non-profit organization announcements. Staff recommends City retains the Cityscape as a monthly communication tool. Is there a lower cost option? 1. Eliminate Cityscape. i 2. Reduce number of issues. For example, limit size to eight pages but when needed publish special editions of 12 pages once or twice a year to publish survey results and include CIT map). City Administrator Recommendation - Plan for smaller, eight-page editions, publishing 12 times a year. The Cityscape may be our best source of providing information to the public. Using it every month could allow us to reduce paid advertisements while reaching more people. 1 Expenditure Review - Page 16 Expenditure Review Item: Cable TV Coverage of Council Meetings C-3 Report Prepared by: Cathy Wheatley } Cost. Coverage is currently for two meetings per month @ $400 per meeting (if meeting lasts 3.5 hours). Annual cost budgeted: $9,600 Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. r. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Decision can be made at any time. We do have a contractual obligation to notify TVCA 30 t days in advance of a cancellation of the contract. i Justification/advantage of proceeding now. Cable coverage is a communication tool linking us to the citizens. With this service, the public record also includes a video tape of business meetings/hearings. Is there a lower cost option? Eliminate coverage. Reduce the number of meetings covered. Recommendation: Cancel coverage on nights when there are no public hearings or a limited amount of business items. City Administrator Recommendation - Follow Cathy's recommendation, canceling I coverage when possible. j i. Expenditure Review - Page 17 -d- 4 f Expenditure Review t C-4 Item eta on Report Prepared by: Liz Newton { Cost. $22,075 for the program outlined on the attached memo. Source of funds. General fund. When a decision needs to be made on the expenditure? The program is divided into three parts. A decision needs to be made by the first of the year if we want to fund a mediation program in-house for fiscal year `97298 so that the f . program design and development can be completed by July. If the City decides not to f proceed with an in-house program, the $9,750 estimated cost could be saved. The City of Beaverton trains volunteers in the spring. The City needs to decide during the budget process if funds should be allocated for training for Tigard volunteers in fiscal year ! `97-'98. The current budget included $325.00, which paid for Wendi Hawley's training. There are no additional funds budgeted for training in the spring of `97. Currently the City of Tigard paid the City of Beaverton on a per case basis to process Tigard cases. The current budget estimated 60 cases for this fiscal year at a cost of $200 per case for a total of $12,000. In the first 4 months of this fiscal year (July through } i October) only 6 cases have been processed. At that rate the City of Beaverton may only process 20 cases at a cost of $4,000, $8,000 less than budgeted. Is there a lower cost option? I would recommend that we continue to contract with Beaverton for mediation, services and that we not design and develop a City of Tigard program at this time. This would bring the i 1I total cost to about $5,500 to offer the program instead of the $22,075 budgeted. It is 1 City Administrator Recommendation - Contract with Beaverton to use that program. If Beaverton changes the program in response to revenue reductions, we may need to revise our approach. Expenditure Review - Page 18 r i NOV-18-1996 15:18 CITY OF BEAVERTON P.01 i t` Post-It-Fax Note 7671 gate •a To'.. - Sa1t9r Flan PoJDeot. Adlard, Chief of Staff. Phon* 0 A- Sweetland Faz • t` i:-+I 28,1996 Consultation Proposal i and I talked about three areas in which the City of Beaverton: Tigard in starting up their own dispute resolution program. below are the three, including cost to Tigard and a brief _ l : Tgn' and develop program. This includes information about brochvis, frs volunteer scheduling and; bilities staff caps , responsibilities, jolt descii1~tions, work flow patterns, statistical reports, materials and ogpgimient, trailing requirements for staff and volunteers, etc- Cost: - S-Yftorur (estimate two to three hours a week for one year, total: $7,800. "1400) I ' ' au3 aad coordinate volunteers: This includes training Tigard vohmtsers "Ilasic Mediation skMs (40 hour training for those who have liftle i - o€~to mediation training) and Casework Development (8 hour training for tl se irho have had comprehensive 40 hour training from approved i . trdmerss other than Beaverton). Cost: $650 per person if not volunteer wiYfli Beaverton for one year, $325 per person if volunteer with Beaverton foie year, and is available for referred Tigard cases. (6 have applied,' aot scxpened yet; possible total cost of $1,950 if all volunteer with Beaverton for a year) Pioces§ Tigard cases. This includes intake, case management, joint . ;sessrai s, follow-up, as well as gacldng and statistical compilation. Cast: f r. .IJOb::ger case, however, if a case goes over 10 hours, then S20/hour ational (possible caseload unknown; assume for budget purposes 'IU gr month at $200 each, total cost of $24,000). Li6tme kdow if you would like any,additional information. I will be sending 'izio. similar to this one, once you and I talk about this and the figures ' me~wdhyour approval i TOTAL P.01 Expenditure Review Item: Annexations C-5 Report Prepared by: Jim Hendryx i'Cost. Filing fees for the Boundary Commission range from $260 - $650 per application. Staff costs are based upon amount of time spent on processing annexation applications. Applicants do not pay for the cost of processing applications nor for the filing fees for the Boundary Commission. Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Immediately. Measure 47 has changed the ability for jurisdictions to increase ad valorem property taxes on newly annexed properties above the 3 percent limit per year. Voter approval is required in either a general election or special election (50 percent voter tumout)to go above the 3 percent limit. As a result, voter approval is needed before City taxes can be levied. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. 1 Specific properties on James and Marion Streets are having serious septic tank problems. These property owners want to annex to get City sewer service. Proceeding with annexation will allow the City to assist the property owners to address their sanitary sewer problems. Additional information is needed to understand the full effects of Measure 47 and its impacts to annexation. Is there a lower cost option? Uncertain. F l Recommendation. Need more information before proceeding. City Administrator Recommendation - Continue to develop information on the changing rules that apply to annexation. Proceed cautiously with annexation requests, shifting processing fees to applicants. Expenditure Review - Page 19 - - - - - Expenditure Review Item: Community Involvement Teams C-6 Report Prepared by: Liz Newton Cost. On May 8, 1996, Wayne Lowry wrote a memo estimating the cost of the CIT program at $27,025. A copy of the memo is attached. Source of funds. General fund. Are the funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. When a decision needs to be made on the expenditure? Since this is an ongoing program budget adjustments could be made at any time, but changes any that affect the program should be discussed with the facilitators and members. i Justification/advantages of proceeding now. Since the CITs are Tigard's citizens i involvement program, I believe the program needs to be continued however, changes in the program could be made that would be less costly. Is there a lower cost option? There are some changes that could be made that would lower the cost of the program without significantly altering the program. As illustrated on the attached memo, the largest cost of the CIT program is staff time. I suggest the CITs f reduce the number of meetings held per year and that staff attend only as requested. The j January meetings usually conflict with the holidays and the July meeting usually conflicts with the Independence Day holiday. I suggest these meetings be eliminated for a savings of $3,805 in staff time, mailings, postage, and refreshments. In addition, I suggest that the April meeting be a joint meeting to discuss the Capital Improvement Program. Holding one meeting in April instead of 3 would save an additional $550. In addition, I suggest that staff attend on an as requested basis. The CIT members could determine as they set their agendas which Resource Team Members would be necessary. Perhaps only 2 not 4 staff people would attend each meeting for an estimated additional savings of $8,971 per year. Further, we have already reduced our mailing costs this fiscal year to about 100 items per month by mailing only to those requesting agendas. This reduces the mailing budget by l 75% or about $1,150. The agendas are also in Cityscape so most members don't mind not receiving one in the mail. We have reduced the Facilitator Training costs to about $500, a savings of $475 by limiting the number of participants and shortening the training session to 6 hours from 12. The training is critical to support the Facilitators and we continue to get excellent feedback. City Administrator Recommendation - Accept Liz's recommended course of action. Expenditure Review - Page 20 d ~ MEMORANDUM 1J CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator - Uz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance td< f DATE: May 8, 1996 SUBJECT: Cost of CIT program g As you know, Martha Bishop has asked me to determine the annual cost of the CIT program. She wants to have this background so that she can determine if the funds to , support the program are well spent or should be directed some other way to encourage . citizen input. I have estimated the annual costs as follows: Staff Time 48 meetings with ave of 4 staff, 3 hrs per meeting 13,250 Copies 150/mtg, 48 mtgs, .02/copy 144 Postage 400 items per month, 12 months, .32 each 1,536 Food/Coffee $15/mtg, 48 mtgs 720 Facilitator Training 875 Liz Newton Time 1.5 hrs @ $28/hr 250 days per year 10.500 j Total 27,025 Note that the majority of the costs of the program are attributed to staff time totaling $23,750. i. Expenditure Review Item: Social Service Agencies FLndin~ C-7 Report Prepared by: Wayne Lowry Cost. The formula is .5% of the previous year's budgeted operating budget. This means that for 1997/98, the current policy for establishing the upper limit of such funding would be based on the current pre-Measure 47 operating budget. The current operating budget is $18,590,984..5% of this is $92,954; therefore, the limit for 1997/98 would be $93,000. Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes - current year is budgeted and partially expended. The decision now would be for next fiscal year and to determine policy for requests received outside the budget cycle. I When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? During the Budget Committee process. Justification/advantage of proceeding now. Is there a lower cost option? City Administrator Recommendation - Divide funding into social service agency allocations and special events. Require agencies and events to demonstrate how the services/events proposed will benefit Tigard citizens. Advise agencies that the formula will be reevaluated in light of Measure 47 reductions in future years. I i Expenditure Review - Page 21 1 c Expenditure Review Item: Computer Purchases in General C-8 Report Prepared by: Paul deBruyn Cost. Amount budgeted for computer purchases: $167,000 Less amount already spent or committed ( 60,000) Amount Remaining $107,000 Of the $107,000 remaining, $61,000 is in the Library ($29,000 for CDROMS and $24,000 + for automatic check out). Kathy tells me she is dropping $14,000 out of her requests and an additional $8,000 from Computer Services can be dropped. Source of funds. General fund. Are these funds budgeted this fiscal year? Yes. All computers being purchased have been budgeted. When does a decision need to be made on the expenditure? Purchase dates would have to be determined by the individual department heads and their priorities. f Justification/advantage of proceeding now. Individual project priorities determine purchase dates. Is there a lower cost option? Prices were reduced on October 1, so costs will be less than budgeted. Reducing warranty from two years to one year, and installing some hardware ourselves could reduce costs by about $50 per computer. City Administrator Recommendation - Continue all computer purchases that have been approved. Next year and the year after, the challenge will be to maintain the systems, respond to user complaints, and stretch the replacement schedule of the system while ( maintaining an efficient system. I: i9admlcathykxpI .doc Expenditure Review - Page 22 7-] i 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories- Microsoft Imcmet Explorer Page 1 of 9 1 News Top Local Stories 10:50pm 11-5-96 k Unofficial Elections Results rof\~ OREGON t United States Senator R -Gordon Smith 49% J D -Tom Bruggere.....47% First District Congressional Representative R - Bill Witt 43% D - Elizabeth Furse..... 54% i Secretary of State R - Stan Ash 32% D - PhilKeislin61% f i State Treasurer is D-Jim Hill..... 55% R - Bev Clarno.....41 % Attorney General R - Victor Hoffer 38% D - Hardy Myers 56% . , is OREGON MEASURES Measure 26, Changes the principals that govern laws for punishment of crime Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM 17 1 rill 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 2 of9 r^1 Pass 62% I Fail 38% f - Measure 27, Gives legislature new power over both new and existing administrative rules Pass 26% Fail 74% Measure 28, Repeals certain residency requirements for state veterans' loans Pass 57% Fail 43% Measure 29, Governor's appointees must vacate office if successor not timely confirmed b Pass... 25% Fail 75% Measure 30, State must pay local governments costs of state mandated programs i i Pass 47% Fail 53% Measure 31, Obscenity may receive no greater protection than under federal constitution Pass 43% Fail 57% Measure 32, Authorizes bonds for Portland Light Rail and transportation projects elsewhere Pass.....47% { Fail 53% 1 Measure 33, Limits legislative change to statutes passed by voters Pass 44% Fail 56% Measure 34, Repeals 1994 Bear/Cougar Initiative I' . Pass 41% Fail 59% Measure 35, Restricts bases for providers to receive pay for health care Pass 34% Fail 66% Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM - 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 3 of 9 Measure 36, Increase the minimum wage 1 Pass 55% i Fail 45% Measure 37, Expands bottle refund law Pass 39% j Fail 61% 1 Measure 38, Prohibits livestock in certain polluted waters or on adjacent lands Pass 34% Fail 66% Measure 39, Government, private entities cannot discriminate among health care provider catagories Pass .....41 Fail 59% Measure 40, Gives crime victims rights, expands admissable evidence, limits pretrial release 1 Pass 53% !!`~~+y Fail 47% px Measure 41, States how public employee earnings must be expressed Pass .....32 Fail 68% Measure 42, Requires testing of public school students Pass 32% Fail 68% I Measure 43, Amends collective bargaining law for public safety employees ' Pass. 43% Fail 57% Measure 44, Increases cigarette and tobacco tax Pass 56% is ' . - . Fail 44% Measure 45, Raises public employees' normal retirement age; reduces benefits Pass 33% Fail 67% Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM AM- 4 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 4 of 9 - { Measure 46, Counts non-voters as "no" votes on tax measures 1 1 7Pass..... 11% i Fail 89% Measure 47, Reduces and limits property taxes Pass 49% Fail 51% Measure 48, Instructs state, federal legislators to vote for congressional term limits ! Pass 44% Fail 56% MULTNOMAH COUNTY ELECTIONS is i. Measure 26-51 Gresham Parks and Recreation General Obligation Bonds Pass 39.7% Fail 60.29Measure 26-52 Gresham Parks and Recreation Five-year Serial Levy Pass..... 43.47% Fail..... 56.52% Portland City Council, Position I Jim Francesconi 52.04% Gail Shibley.....47.53% Portland City Council, Position 2 Chuck Duffy..... 36.77% Erik Sten.....62.7% WASINGTON COUNTY ELECTIONS County Commissioner Dick Schouten..... 51.5% Kim Katsion.....48.4% Banks Mayor Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM p' , a ........~v.~......r ~ • r 1190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories -Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 5 of9 1 Raymond Deeth.....25.6% i Michael Crippen.....74.3% Hillsboro Mayor Gordon Sherman..... 33.7% Gordon Faber..... 66.2% Sherwood City Mayor Rick Hohnbaum.....10.3% Lance Sessions 7.7% i Barry Kennedy 4.3% Bill Boyle..... 40.5% k Ron Tobias..... 37.0% Beaverton Tax Base, Measure 34-52 i Pass .....58.7% Fail 41.2% j Cornelius Tax Base, Measure 34-60 r. ` Pass 40.6% Fail 59.3% r King City Tax Base, Measure 34-54 Pass 47.2% Fail 52.7% North Plains Tax Base, Measure 34-53 C _ Pass 45.2% 'r . r: Fail 54.7% Sherwood Police Serial Levy, Measure 34-55 {r Pass 70.2% Fail 29.7% Sherwood Library Serial Levy, Measure 34-56 Pass 74.3% Fail 25.6*,. Tigard Charter Amendment, Measure 34-57 Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM 1190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories -Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 6 of 9 ~I Pass 77.6% Fail 22.3% Tigard Charter Amendment, Measure 34-58 f Pass 73.0% Fail 26.9% Banks Charter Revision, Measure 34-59 .1 Pass 83.5% Fail 16.4% CLACKAMAS COUNTY ELECTIONS County Commission, Position I t: ' Bill Kennemer..... 56.8% Marc Rappaport 43.2% . ~ County Commission, Position 3 ~ Ed Lindquist..... 51% 1 , Patricia Ferrel-French 8.2% Jerry Grisham..... 40.8% Measure 3-79 Home Rule Charter for Clackamas County f' Pass 44% Fail 56% Measure 3-82 To Make Offices of Clackamas County Commissioners Nonpartisan Pass 43.4% Fail 56.6% Canby Mayor 1 Scott Taylor..... 54.9% Terry Prince..... 45.1% Measure 3-85 Milwaukie Tax Base Pass 54.3% Fail 45.7% Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM Lam' 1 i 1] 90 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 7 of 9 Measure 3-78 Lake Oswego Youth and Communities Three-Year Serial Levy Pass 65% Fail 35% I Measure 3-80 Lake Oswego School District Bond Request i Pass 65.4% Fail 34.6% Mayor of Lake Oswego Holstein..... 25.3% Klammer.....58.7% Bates..... 15.9% t WASHINGTON STATE 3rd District Congressional i D -Brian Baird 51% R - Linda Smith 49% Governor D - Gary Locke 59% R - Ellen Craswell......410/ r Lt. Governor D -Brad Owen 51% R - Ann Anderson..... 44% Reform - Shawn Newman 3% Lib. - Art Rathjen..... 2% Secretary of State D- Phyllis Kenney 39% R - Ralph Munro 58% Nat. Law. - Gary GiII..... 3% State Treasurer + 1 D - Mike Murphy 57% . R -Lucy DeYoung...-.43% ` ~ • Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM f. t . 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories- Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 8 of 9 Attorney General D - Christine Gregoire..... 62% R - Richard Pope 34% L - Richard Shepard 2.4% NL - Luanne Coachman..... 1% Superintendent of Public Instruction Teresa Bergeson..... 64% Ron Taber 36% t CLARK COUNTY k'. County Commissioner, District 1 ; D - Betty Sue Morris..... 54.7% - - ` R - Paul Lacy 45.3% County Commissioner, District 2 D - Judie Stanton..... 51.4% R - Gary Kaster.....48.6% Clark Public Utilities Commissioner, District 3 Jane Van Dyke 52.9% Ed Geiger..... 47.1% Battle Ground proposition to adopt Council-Manager and drop Mayor-Council Yes 66.2% No 33.8% Clark County sales tax increase to fund construction of juvenile detention facility Yes 35.6% No 64.4% Fort Vancouver Regional Library Bond Yes 44.7% No 55.3% Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM f S milinsh- IU 1 190 KEX NEWS: Top Local Stories - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 9 of 9 I Horn & I Weather I Sport I Personalities I Ncas I Gond Times I About KF.X Last revised: 10:50pm 11-5-96 i t r ' I r I I j ~ 1 Wednesday, November 06, 1996 9:59 AM • t Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 1 of 14 Washington County Oregon Unofficial Nov. 5th Election Results Ewing results last updated: 5:05 PM, November 8, 1996 Final Posting Candidate Races - Federal I State I C4i1-NAY I Soil & Water Conservation I Banks I Beaverton I ; Comelius I Durham I Forest Grove I Gaston i Hillsboro I v I Lake Oswego I North Plains I Portland I Rivergrove I Sherwood I Tigard I Tualatin I Wilson-ille Measures -Measures 26 - 31 I Measures 30 - 40 I Measures 41 - 48 I ]mss I Beaverton I Comelius I King Cn• I Lake Oswego I North Plains I Sherwood I Tigard I School (Lake t oswelzo) j Voter Statistics - Total Statistics Federal E I 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 102 U.0% ~ 62,846 fE IN ION & LiURE 74,041 qq o 1 0 a ° illus 308 I 0.21/0 0,9o4 7. 1 o ° 1 65 out of 265 Precincts reP g ortin o Votes Percent I .(100.0/) I-. - _ro I _ ,o j j „ Sunday. November 10. 1996 t 10:4 .anl . fi s Washington County, OR - Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 2 of 14 IUS REPRESENIAIIVE IN CONGRESS, FIRS"' ')IS"' Votes Percent I 1265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ~ELIZABETAFIIRS .)Y a~ _ .o Go to the I= of the page State Votes Percent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) - jlIAN ASH 5 1,:!09 _ o 1,884 io 0 IT; CEASURER {I 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent j pIM HILL 72 3 . o 1 45.4% I-: EYEKS 1,/41 o 1,653 1 u 1 NERAL 65 out of 265 recincts re ortin Votes Percent p p g. (100.0%) o KARLSOR(i 1,687 2' I° MICHAEL ALLAN CAMPBELL-- 0 _ io i % Votes Percent 2 out of82 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 14,191 3. o 46.97. 3 , out of 4 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 508 io j: REPRMESEN Votes Percent 7 out of 47 precincts reporting. (100.0%) CFR {I _ 969 4 9 I Sunday, November 10, 1996 10:47 :11\1 EL 11®111` Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 3 of 14 s Votes Percent 2 out of 32 precincts reporting. (100.0%) dr, j ~ I ro I Votes Percent 0 out of 30 precincts reporting. (100.0%) o UITTIRUSECK i o .4 1 .y . ro - y HEFRESENTA Votes I Percent 7 out of 37 precincts reporting. (100.0%) j 1305 SHOOK I i o 12.075 I ro h 3 7 out of 37 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes i Percent RYAN DECKERT 11,477 5 r° L31LL MUSHOFSKY 10,220 47. I/o 5 out of 45 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent f . i 53.4%-- BOB 1.20-1 0 ro I 10 out of 10 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent BUITIMNAN o I I ro ' 23 o ' KEPRESENT out of 23 Precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent . ro 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 1 _'t I Votes Percent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) j I J Go to the IQp of the page ° i ' County Sunday, Novembcr 10, 1996 10:47 AM a 1`' l " e Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 4 of 14 '$4 out of 53 precincts reporting. -(1.0%) Votes Percent . I 47.8% iKO -A ISIS, ,)2.1% o 8 out of 79 precincts reporting. (98.7%) Votes I Percent _ ~FOY K KVUt" 23;828-; 100.01/. Votes Percent 265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 100.0% Go to the T9R of the page III Soil & Water Conservation 65 out of 265 recincts rt ortin Votes Percent p P g• (100.0%) MUM. I IL AND WATER DIRECI OR ZONE 2 j Votes Percent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Irt )UNJuZ)bt 71,997 100.0 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent Go to the I= of the page Banks Votes Percent I out of I precincts reporting. (100.0%) bil 69 42.8 0 MICHAEL CRIPPEN 92 57.M BANKS CITY COUN 3 1 Votes Percent I out of I precincts reporting. (100.0%) ~ 23.61,; 69 21.0'. - 130 30.8% I U-1 24.4,; i Go to the Ii of the page Beaverton Sundae, November 10, 1996 10:47 A41 E Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 5 of 14 . BEAVER ION CITY MAYOR 39 out of 39 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 0 39 aut of 39 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 3.- o - 39 out of 39 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 100.0% - - - Go to the Jap of the page Cornelius ORNELIUS out of 3 Precincts reortin I Votes I Percent P g• (100.0%) OMPH 1) 13KOWN I i 100.0% I FORNELIUS CI I'Y COUNCIL VOTE FOR Votes Percent 3 out of 3 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 8:54 32.3% 0 o 1bu [CORNELIUS CI I Y COUNCIL VOTE FOR Votes Percent out of3 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ;r 56.9% Go to the 12p of the page 1 Durham Votes Percent out of 2 precincts reporting. (100.0%) N 61138S J 49.7% Go to the IM of the page Forest Grove FOREST YE F 3 out of 7 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 1,457 7 ~ Votes Percent TEDTETrOWA= .o i T5 0. 2.203 _ 2.170 2T.1 OT i Sunday. November 10. 1996 10:47 AM Washington County, OR - Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 6 of 14 Go to the T= of the page Gaston I I1 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent q o ON CITY COUNCIL FOSI I ION 2 1 Votes i Percent " =I of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) o STON CITY COUNCIL F0 SIIION3 Votes Percent 1 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I i1idARTL3 7 o Go to the T= of the page Hillsboro LESHORO CITY MAYOR 8 out of 28 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 6 PILLS Votes ' 8 out of28 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Percent 013 COUSSENT 5.958 a [KAREN MUKINNEY 7,13.) ILLSBOR WARD 2= 8 out of 28 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent /o HILLSBORO 8 out of 28 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 0 55.2 io Go to the The of the page King City j Sunday. November 10, 1996 10:47 AM s _ . Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 7 of 14 [KING CI I Y COUNCIL ' Votes Percent j rA~ IZ out oft precincts reporting. (100.0%) 1, DE.Si 1`1 Rbb 853- o 8.40/16 13.4% MNECUXLE b Go to the J of the page Lake Oswego C [LAKE OSWEGO MAYOR I11 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I Votes Percent y, 50.0% ° [LAKE OSWk;GO CI I T COUNCIL VOTE FOR 3 Votes Percent i I out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) MIKE ANDERSON 0 50. /o o Go to the TAR of the page North Plains [NOR Votes Percent 7 1 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) o 7 1 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent ~013ERT (BU I CH) 312 I 5.-ro ro Go to the Ialp of the page Portland 0 TL RTL otes Percent out of 5 precincts reporting. (100.9%) V jvrKA "I/- i I - E % Sunday. Novcmhcr 10, 1996 10:47 AU g w Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 8 of 14 1 IFOST Votes Percent out of 5 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 139 I ) I io ! 14- i Votes Percent out of 5 precincts reporting. (100.0%) D L)Ul-lY Jut) 5 b OKYLAND CITY out of 5 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent io Go to the TQR of the page Rivergrove Votes R) I Percent I out of I precincts reporting. (100.0%) o EXWUNCE MU io Go to the TAR of the page Sherwood Votes Percent I Ir out of 4 precincts reporting. (100.0%) RUN FOWAS 1,052 42.09/6 ° LANCE SESSIONS Jj I 1J.2% BARRY W KENNhDy 7.6% PILL 13UYEL out of 4 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent - ,o o I 33.51- Go to the iii of the page Tigard Votes j Percent 3 out of 23 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I 1 i 81T-1 0°- Sunday, November 10, 1996 10:47 AM i Washington County, OR - Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 9 of 14 Votes I Percent '13 out of23 precincts reporting. (100.0%) "r - 14 ro 2.120 io Go to the Ji of the page Tualatin POSITION 2 J 1 42 out of 12 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ! Votes Percent is I EVEN L)UDSQI j I'D I-1 i J>.> ro - 644% IL out of 12 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 1Y COUNCIL POSITION 6 12 out of 12 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent i HAR 2,171 Go to the lou of the page I Wilsonville iWILSO l I out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes I Percent I i ro i /o I Votes Percent 1 out or I precincts renorGing. (100.0%) AACDONALL) 2.8.5% LAY LUFLR V. u 0 Go to the of the page o i i es Measures 26 - 31 ~~any_PS .~u.~ct,nc~ls ehwFue,azo 1 laws joy rr e c2unis hvr1 t t t# _ 54cuEt GS out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes i Percent o (D-7 V- ..>._ro l.J 33 - Sunday, November 10. 1996 10:47 4\1 • e 7 Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 10 of 14 1 YlJ2W °F `C(G St (1 7 6; .PS F t'S I Lc1'L.(.'L2 ~?2~uJ ~I,LtP~. (.1 -LO i IAIE5fEANUHL L Ad 9 Votes Percent Sp 1)j(), 265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ~ l i j t euw i Votes PerceZ~ 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) SfC~ INU D9-346 41.3% r7o,-e H42, fSIAIEMEASM 29 , rior,!i, rl eco m1 Z• C( 4 265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes PercentC[ 34.204 4. - SIAIJEMEASURE30 '9 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 'otes- ( Percent T ~~CY i ATE MEAS URE 31 J. ° cTr, otes cent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 11 ZZ, 77,947 -C `J 2 - Go to the IDp of the page Measures 32 - 4 SIATEMEASUT= 65 out of 265 Precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent N /a NO 71,304 /O S IATE MEASURE 33 'q"0i6,)e all O 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Per en 847 J 1.09/b ATE MEASURE 34 Votes ereent P 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. ( 00.0%) Jv v 11 r.3 I T6 3191 l A~- -E MEAM Cc"il/G 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent ~~h C Y IYF S 31,858 1 -36 1 s_ c L i / L ✓ Votes , s Percent ~65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) f Sunday. November 10. 1996 10:47 A\t L~ I' ~ e Washington County, OR-- Election Results Online- Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 11 of 14 Votes Percent _ X65 out 01 7265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I o . 44.5% \l- !No . 1 ! I J,J o 1 t~ f> Votes Percent I I 265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I 1,ULC ~--Q t_,~G)Y jT1 ES 58,107 39.8% INO 87.799 Votes Percent LI~'l?.Cy'1 f7s( - 265 out o1265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I ~~Jn^ S Gu TES_ 59,930 4::. 2 82,010 5777 i - I A:1 k; MEAS U HE 4U I'i~ l'.'u55 Percent / 'Wis 65 out of 265 precincts reportin 100.0%) (v( 88,846 ,J_ I J 9. o Go to the Ig of the page Measures 41 - 48 s A405 h(L.D ftbl~t_ em lv cnv -ea~rnin rlucSr 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes I Percent be- :,0.761 I 36.3% INU 63.6% j SIAIL MEASURE; 42 !Z4Z6_X&;eF otes Percent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I - JJ. /o ~ STATE MEASURE 4.3 -74 ")WW!5 NO 1 66.1% cv~tec 1 ores Per ent 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) -'-TTY -59,671 ! V ° J I 56.2116 PTA-rKMEASUFLL 44 4 1 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent 9.33,871 IN U I io , STATE I J I ~ O 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ~ of j Percent ' 59.5422 lp~0.7% i Sunday, November 10, 1996 10:47 ANI l t Washington County, OR Electi n Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Pace 12 of 14 S -/2o" ll I 'a, SURE 4t) ATE MEA n 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I Votes I Percent 1 I 19,066 No 1.!9,.Ibv 265 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I Votes Pe ent io AC IYLS I 76.7U I u 71.540 " ~_iB J. ercent LOZ. /ice P65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) l f~ j I 49.41,6 rjyJ{f' . IYES 69,964 Go to the JDp. of the page g Banks CITY OF 13ANKS MEASURE 34-59 I out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent /o Go to the Jp of the page Beaverton ER I ON MEASURE 34-52 9 out of 39 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent lybb 12.673 57.8% 4 2. 1 I Go to the J= of the page Cornelius I C1 I'Y Uk' CUR ELIUS MEASURE 34-60 j out of 3 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent ~ I 8 I I ! Go to the JQ of the page I King City T . X KING CITY MEASURE 34-54 Votes Percent 12 out of 2 precincts reporting. (100.0%) 11 bb 641 I -4 9.3 , I Sunday, November 10, 1996 10:47 AM 1 - ( - I Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 13 of 14 Go to the IQp of the page Lake Oswego L OSWEGO MEASURE 3-78 1 out of I precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent I IYES I _ j o r, j Z' Po _ 50.0% -83 Votes Percent 11 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) . o 0.0% i 11 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I Votes Percent b Go to the 19p of the page North Plains TH PLAINS MEASURE I out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) - Votes Percent IS ~~~'o 195 INO 233 Go to the 1R of the page Sherwood MEASURE Votes Percent out or 4l precincts reporting. (100.0%) o 64.8 o NU 947 - -5 T Votes I Percent N out or4 precincts reporting. (100.0%) ' YES- j~Ti7S -X2_.1 r-% i INO Go to the lQp- of the page Tigard 34-57 Votcs Percent 23 out of 23 precincts reporting. (100.0%) I , I $ No TS I -.4 1.3 Sunday, Novcmber 10, 1996 10:47 AM e Washington County, OR Election Results Online - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 14 of 14 ASUKE _ i.. r:. iCITY 58 i 123 out of23 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent !YES IU.03~ 3.014 76 ,o Go to the dip of the page School (Lake Oswego) 11 out of 1 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent F{ Go to the I of the page Total Statistics w 65 out of 265 precincts reporting. (100.0%) Votes Percent fC O r rsT1~ 216,015 0.011b i o ~AIL SAFE ~I ` i zuu i 72.6% ~ ~ i Go to the T!oj2 of the page For more information send an E-Mail message to: a&tnco.washington.or.us j or write to: Washington County A&T Division 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 13-10 Hillsboro, OR 97124 or Telenhone: 503-648-8670 y or Facsimile: 503-693-4854 Go to the Tsp of the page Return to the A&T Division Page Return to the Elections Department Page Retum to the Home Pave Washington Counn, Orcoon j Sunday November 10, 1996 10.47 ANI 1 f