City Council Packet - 01/28/1997~a
j
7
ii
i
9
C) T~t
CITY OF TIGARtD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
JANUARY 28, 1997
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
1.%ADAAWU=PKr1D0C
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
s
L
J
a.
®
j
t
r
i
J
ti
~
i
I
r
;
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
BUSINESS MEETING
JANUARY 28, 1997 6:30 PM
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SAY HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
CITY OF TIGARD
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
be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by
contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
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
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 following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 1
a
i
a ,
AGENDA
CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
JANUARY 28, 1997
i
6:30 p.m.
• STUDY MEETING
> 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.
7 p.m.
> TOUR AT THE LIBRARY: SELF-CHECKOUT SYSTEM
7:20 p.m.
> AGENDA REVIEW
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 City Council Meeting Minutes - December 17 and 30, 1997
3.2 Approve Resolution Amending Resolution No. 96-69 to Revise the
Legal Description for Surplus Right-of-Way and Authorize the City
f
Manager to Sign a Quitclaim Deed - Resolution No. 97--DL
3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Rite Center Capital Contribution -
Resolution No. 97- C:
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 2
i
I
1
j
i
3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for a Library Internet Access Grant and
a U.S. Department of Justice Grant for Police Equipment - Resolution
No. 97--6) 7
• 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.
7:50 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density
residential to community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel. LOCATION:
West of SW 135th Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old
Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four
parcels. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in
this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 1.2(2) comprehensive plan
amendments; 2. 1.1 citizen involvement; S. 1, 5.4 economic development;
6.1.1 housing, 8.1.1 transportation; 8.2.2 public transportation;
12.2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also, Community
Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments, 18.32
procedures for quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments. ZONE: M-
H Residential, R-25
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report
d. Public Testimony: Applicant, Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions/Discussion
g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 97-= ! ! 1 -7
8:45 p.m.
5. REVIEW OF VISIONING SURVEY RESULTS
• Assistant to the City Manager and Management/Risk Analyst
9:10 P.M.
6. MEASURE 47 UPDATE
• Finance Director
9:20 p.m.
7. WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION UPDATE
• Community Development Director
COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 3
1'1 10:00 P.M.
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
i _
10:10 P.M.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (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.
1
1 10:30 P.M.
10. ADJOURNMENT
i s\adm\cathy\ccaW7012B.doc
® j vvvlwl~ rwA 'IA r-1VE - JHIVUHKT 28, 1997 - r'PAGE VC rt
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES -JANUARY 28, 1997
•
EXECUTIVE SESSION
>
Executive Session was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli under the provisions of
ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
j >
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
I
,
i
Scheckla.
>
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Steve Crew; Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Risk
Analyst Loreen Mills; Mike Mills, Water Department (Executive Session Only); Asst. to the
City Administrator Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner (Executive Session Only);
and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
i
>
Executive Session recessed at 7:10 p.m. to Tour Self-Checkout System in the Library.
I
>
Tour at the Library: Self-Checkout System
>
Executive Session reconvened at 7:20 p.m.
S
>
Executive Session recessed at 7:38 p.m.
`
1.
BUSINESS MEETING I
• Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. He announced that the
hearing for CPA 96-0009 Shrader would be continued to a date certain of February 11 at the
request of the applicant. f
• Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
j
i
Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
i 2.
~
j
VISITOR'S AGENDA: None
j
a
l
9
y
a CI
TY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 1
.
ju
3
f
a
3. CONSENT AGENDA
i
Councilor Hunt requested to pull Item 3.3.
i
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent
Agenda, pulling Item 3.3.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
f
~
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: December 17 and 30, 1996
f
f
3.2 Approve Resolution Amending Resolution No. 96-69 to Revise the Legal Description for
q
Surplus Right-of-Way and Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Quitclaim Deed -
Resolution No. 97-01
3.3 (This item was discussed separately; see discussion below.)
3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for a Library Internet Access Grant and a U.S. Department of
Justice Grant for Police Equipment - Resolution No. 97-03
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion
3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Rite Center Capital Contribution - Resolution No. 97-
Councilor Hunt said that the language in the packet material appeared to indicate that the
City was waiving $10,000 in development fees instead of only $5000. Bill Monahan. City
Manager, explained that the intent was for the City to provide $5000 of the $10,000 waiver
in cash to Interfaith Outreach, leaving the remaining $5000 available for waiver of
f
development fees.
s.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No.
97-02.
The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 97-02.
J
RESOLUTION NO. 97-02 - A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING CONTINGENCY IN
I
THE GENERAL FUND FOR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE RITE CENTER.
Motion was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla abstained.)
j
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 2
I
PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0009 SHRADER
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from medium-high density residential to
community commercial for an 8.5 acre parcel.
LOCATION: West of SW 1351h Avenue, south of Scholls Ferry Road, and east of Old
Scholls Ferry Road. The comprehensive plan amendment involves four parcels.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are
Comprehensive Plan policies 1. 1.2(2) comprehensive plan amendments; 2. 1.1 citizen,
involvement; 5.1, 5.4 economic development; 6. 1.1 housing; 8. 1.1 transportation; 8.2.2
public transportation; I2 2.1(4) community commercial zone designation. Also. Community
Development Code chapters 18.22 comprehensive plan amendments; 18.32 procedures for
quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments.
ZONE: M-H Residential, R-25
:0
a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title/information and opened the public hearing.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to continue the hearing to
February 11, 1997.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.")
Mr. Monahan said that staff would provide a summarization of all of the information
provided to Council by Friday.
5. REVIEW OF VISIONING SURVEY RESULTS
i_oreen Mills. Administrative Risk Analyst, reported that the survey results showed six areas
of major concern to citizens: public safety, municipal services, schools and education,
growth and growth management, transportation and traffic, and community character or
quality of life. She noted the similar responses from those who thought the community was
either better or worse. Those who thought that the community was better cited reasons of
closer proximity to shopping and road improvements improving the traffic flow. Those who
thought it was worse cited reasons of traffic congestion, no road improvements, and too
much population growth.
Ms. Mills reviewed the answers to Question 9 (page 16) in which the respondents were
asked to select between different policy options. One choice was between maintaining
services at their current level and increasing taxes or maintaining taxes at their current level
and decreasing services. 60% chose maintaining services and 40% chose maintaining the
tax level. Another choice was to maintain current lot sizes for single family homes or to
decrease lot sizes to accommodate Tigard's share of regional growth. 80% wanted to
maintain the lot sizes with only 17% wanting to accommodate Tigard's share of the growth.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 3
She commented that this indicated that Tigard citizens did not appear to support the
proposals of Metro 2040.
Ms. Mills stated that staff would work with the Visioning Task Force to address these issues.
She announced the two community open houses on Thursday, February 27, and Saturday,
March 1. Staff intended to present the survey results and hoped to get additional community
feedback.
Ms. Mills presented a brief comparison of the demographics of the random phone survey of
400 people and the 900 responses received from surveys published in the Cityscape, the
Chamber newsletter, and the Regal Courier. She mentioned that while the demographics
were very different, the responses were quite similar. Staff was confident that the survey
responses represented the broader community concerns of both new and long-time residents.
She commented that the average length of residence for the phone survey respondents was
4.5 years while those who mailed back their responses averaged a length of residence of 12
years with 25% more than 20 years. The long-time residents showed a higher level of
concern for issues that have changed over the years, such as crime, traffic, and loss of open
space.
Li wton. Assistant to the City Manager, stated that she contacted 34 people who were
interested in serving on the Visioning Task Force. They represented a broad base of
community interest. She announced the two introductory meetings on February 10 and
February 13. She said that the purpose of the Task Force was to help staff further refine the
target areas and come up with issues and suggested action measures to address those
concerns.
Ms. Newton said that staff was still partnering with the school district on the visioning
process. She mentioned that only 32% of the survey respondents had children in school at
this time, and only 40% had ever had children in the local schools.
Ms. Newton reported that staff was putting together short informational papers on the six
target areas identified in the survey. The intent was to brief the Task Force on the facts and
realities of working in those six areas of concern. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern about
presenting the Task Force with too much information at the beginning. Ms. Newton
explained that as the target areas are discussed, information would be present to the Task
Force.
Councilor Rohlf noted the short term residence of those responding to the phone survey. He
asked if Tigard had that kind of turnover on a regular basis. Mr. Monahan said no. He
commented that they had a lot of moving between subdivisions within the City, and that the
0-5 years percentage was not reflective of the community as a whole. Ms. Newton reviewed
the phone survey breakdown of respondents by length of residence. She pointed out that
those who mailed back their survey responses chose to do so.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 4
1
3
3
Councilor Scheckla asked if staff was still accepting names for the Task Force. Ms. Newton
s^id that they wanted to limit the Task For
t
35
i
ce
o
members; there was space for only one or
two more. She reviewed the process staff designed to involve more people along the wa
y,
noting in particular the Action Committees that would draft goals to address the specific
issues. Those Committees would incl
d
?
1
u
e one or two Task Force members with more people
from the community invited to participate. Ms. Mills noted the open houses and community
workshops designed to provide additional opportunities for community input into the
process. Also staff spoke to any community group who would listen.
~
Councilor Rohlf asked how the schedule was going. Ms. Mills said that they were doing
i
very well. They were probably only two weeks behind in this 18-month process.
i
6. MEASURE 47 UPDATE
Wayne Einaugg Director, reported that it appeared that the Governor's Policy Advisory
Committee would send, in February, draft legislation dealing with the Measure 47 issues to the
House and Senate Revenue Committees. He reviewed the composition, work, and staff support
of the Committee and its subcommittees. The Committee was charged with looking at Measure
47 in terms of policy decisions that needed to be made by the legislature.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the major issues of Measure 47. These included a definition of the limit
i
,
annexat
on, voter approval of increased taxes, and allocation of loss between jurisdictions. He
explained that the main question on the d
f
i
i
t
e
in
t
on of the limit lay in whether or not it included
ad valorem taxes levied for debt service; if it did, the loss would be less. The annexation
i
questions were whether or not cities lost the increased tar revenues from annexations that have
occurred since the limit year
how did the voter
i
,
requ
rement work for vacant property, and
taxation increases due to improvements on vacant land.
Mr. Lowry said that the question on voter approval was whether or not cities could go to the
voters for property taxes outside of M
easure 47; the latest draft bills indicated that they could do
so. The allocation of losses between jurisdictio
ns was an difficult issue because of the
prioritization of public safety and education; although the schools were taken care of
it was n
t
I
,
o
clear how to allocate among jurisdictions.
Mr. Lowry reviewed staffs plans to deal with the estimated loss of $2 million a year in property
tax revenues. This included eliminating 3.5 positions
red
i
,
uc
ng materials and services by 10%
across the board, and reducing general capital projects. He mentioned the five-year plan
statin
th
,
g
at under this scenario they could maintain the commitment through the year 2001. He
reviewed implications to the f
ive-year plan and the budget process.
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Lowry said that $2 million was a 20%
reduction in the general fund o
erati
b
d
I
p
ng
u
get.
i
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 5
I
Mr. Lowry explained that the inclusion of the incremental debt service in the limit of Measure
47 would cut Tigard's losses by more than half. They levied between $1.4 and $1.5 million a
year in debt service from the 1989 road and civic center bonds still out. He encouraged the
Council to read the updates from the League of Oregon Cities. He noted the opportunity
available to Tigard with Rep. Tom Brian of Tigard as Chair of the House Revenue Committee.
Mr. Lowry said that staff would follow the progress of Measure 47 through the legislature. He
said that they were trying to confirm a date to talk with Rep. Brian in Salem. He said that he
would attend meetings in Salem once the committees got into the Measure 47 issues.
Mr. Monahan men oned that the League of Oregon Cities suggested to the communities with
representatives on the finance committees that they play a key role in this situation.
Councilor Hunt asked when the legal challenges would go to court. Mr. Lowry said that no date
has yet been set. He commented that based on the review of the challenges by attorneys on both
sides, he did not think that the challenges would prevail. He stated that they were going to
operate in a Measure 47 environment; the question was how severe it would be.
Bill McMonagle 12555 SW Hall Boulevard, suggested using delayed annexation as the means
to annex his clients' properties at this time. He reviewed the delayed annexation process as he
understood it. He said that this process would offer the ability for business to continue within
the sphere of influence of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and allow time for the Measure 47
r 1 questions to be dealt with. He argued that the City had an obligation to assist the development
community in implementing the Comprehensive Plan as approved. He mentioned the Tigard-
Washington County Intergovernmental Agreement which was proposed for implementation in
a May 1997. This IGA was developed in response to the 1995 state legislation telling counties to
j give up their urban responsibilities and the cities to take on those responsibilities.
Jim Hendrvx. Community Development Director, asked to come back to Council on February
1 11 with a recommendation on Mr. McMonagle's suggestion. He said whether or not Mr.
I McMonagle's clients' applications went through the City or the County depended on whether or
not they submitted them before or after the May 1 target date for the transition of urban services
to Tigard from Washington County.
Councilor Scheckla asked how the City could tax the properties if they followed Mr.
I McMonagle's suggestion. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that delayed annexation
worked the way Mr. McMonagle understood it, explaining how it worked in West Linn.
{ Delayed annexation simply put off the processing and collection of taxes of an already decided.
He noted that West Linn now had a problem because those delayed annexations were coming
due They were providing services but might not be able to collect taxes because there was no
I vote of the people.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 6
■
Mr. Monahan said that the downside to Mr. McMonagle's suggestion was that Tigard could
possibly lose the value of the taxes generated from the vacant land and from any improvements.
He said that while he was not sure that that was the solution, he did think it should be evaluated.
Mr. McMonagle cited the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which found that a signature on
a petition to annex was in. fact a vote. Mr. Monahan offered that Measure 47 has changed the
rules of the game. He noted that the issue here was with the definition of a vote. He pointed out
that the Measure mentioned an election, and suggested waiting until the legislature gave some
direction on the issue.
Mr. McMonagle pointed out that the Oregon Attorney General had made an opinion that relative
to annexation, only the people being annexed needed to vote. Mr. Monahan pointed out that
there was now a new Attorney General looking at the same law in response to a series of
questions. He reiterated that the City took a risk in this situation of losing tax revenue. They
needed to wait on the legislature.
Mr. McMonagle asked if the City would allow a sewer connection for his clients' properties.
Mr. Hendryx reiterated the city policy regarding providing sewer in the Walnut Island only upon
annexation. He noted that the other property in question was on Bull Mountain in the City's
area of interest; this area could get sewer without annexation if a waiver of remonstrance was
signed. He said that he told Mr. McMonagle that he needed to process the Bull Mountain
property through the County, and that he recommended that Mr. McMonagle wait on his Walnut
Island property until Measure 47 and the annexation issues were sorted out.
,J
Mr. McMonagle said that business considerations and the construction season drove the projects
forward. While they would prefer to move forward with the City of Tigard, they would process
their applications through the County. He said that his clients were willing to process
applications simultaneously through the City and the County in the hopes that the IGA would
happen and they could drop the County application.
Mayor Nicoli asked to put the Walnut Island property on the next agenda to see what could be
worked out. Mr. Monahan suggested looking at the policy because simply requiring a
nonremonstrance would no longer work under Measure 47.
7. WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION UPDATE
i
Mayor Nicoli commented that the article in the Tigard Times implied that the City was pursuing
ttt annexation of the entire Walnut Island. He said that that was not true; several people in the
f Walnut Island approached the City some months ago regarding annexing to the City in order to
receive sewer service but that was only a portion of the Island.
i
Councilor Hunt commented that the agenda title implied that Council would discuss annexation
r but all the Council materials for this agenda item dealt with sewers. Mr. Monahan said that they
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 7
I
L~
would be discussing the sewer; annexation was one option for residents to obtain a sewer
connection.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council direction to staff to investigate the level of interest in the
Walnut Island in annexing to the City in order to receive sewer. He reported that staff found out
(from the community meeting at the Woodard School) that only 10 people out of the three to
four dozen residents in attendance were interested in annexing for sewers. He mentioned the
Cou;,cil policy that the City would only provide sewer service to the Island if they annexed to
the City. He noted the preliminary cost estimates for providing the sewer infrastructure were
approximately $10,000. fi
Mr. Hendryx said that since that meeting staff has looked at the situation in more detail and i
determined that serving the cluster of 10 houses interested in obtaining sewer would cost
approximately $20,000 per household. He explained that staff discovered that they could not
use the west sewer line along the creek! they would have to come in from 12151 He 'd it, t it
i
i
1
i
sai a i
was now up to the property owners to decide how they wanted to proceed. He mentioned that
Measure 47 affected the annexation question.
Mayor Nicoli asked if staff has spoken to USA about funding the cost of the trunk line. Q
Berry. Acting City Engineer. said that he had not contacted USA and did not think that they
would be interested in funding the cost of extending service. Mayor Nicoli suggested talking to
USA and said that he would talk to County Commissioner Roy Rogers also.
Councilor Hunt expressed his discomfort with spending City staff time on this situation since
they did not yet know whether or not the City could levy property taxes on annexed property.
Therefore they did not know if they would bring the area into the City.
Mr. Monahan explained that staff began this process prior to the passage of Measure 47 when
the annexation implications were not well known. He said that while they thought an election
by the people in the area to be annexed indicating their willingness to pay taxes was valid, they
did not know yet how that vote could take place. He commented that staff pursued this matter
because of the health concerns.
Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not know why the City of Tigard would pick up the
burden for these people when they haven't been able to convince the people in their area to join
together to make extending the sewer cost effective.
Mayor Nicoli concurred that the City did not have the money in its budget to assist with sewers
in this area. He noted that many of the septic fields in the Walnut Island were near the end of
their life cycle.
Councilor Hunt commented that the Walnut Island residents told the City three or four years ago
that they did not want to be art of the City.
He said that even if they w
part were willing to pay
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 8
$20,000 per household to get sewer, he would not support annexing the area until the questions
on Measure 47 were resolved.
Mayor Nicoli noted another option of the reimbursement district ordinance which allowed
people to recoup some of their investment as others hooked into the main line. Councilor Rohlf
commented that the City still had an immediate cash outlay with those districts. He spoke
against handling this situation in a piecemeal approach as it did not gain the citizens of Tigard
anything. He said that while he empathi-~ed with their situation, he did not understand why the
City was working on it.
Mr. Monahan explained that the reimbursement district ordinance only applied within the City
of Tigard and would not work in this situation. He said that a local improvement district was
the option most advantageous to the residents.
Karen Thorne. Century 21 Realtor. commented that the Walnut Island did affect the residents of
Tigard because their children attended the same schools and would pass on any diseases picked
up as a result of these conditions. She said that she discovered through her research at the
County that the 8-inch sewer line put in by Matrix and the City was installed over County land
without permits and without notice to their neighborhood. She commented that it has now been
taken over by USA but Mrs. Tibbetts found out that it could not service their area. She
contended that the sewer line lay along the natural drainage for their subdivision.
Wes Fitzpatrick asked why there was a different policy for Walnut Island regarding annexation
and sewer connection then there was for anyone else. He asked why the 8-inch trunk line was
not designed to accommodate their area when everyone knew that it would have to at some
point in time.
Mr. Berry explained that Matrix installed the sewer line along the west side of the creek to
service their new subdivision which was also on the west side of the creek. He said that another
line was needed on the other side of the creek to service the existing subdivision. He said that it ii
was not feasible for one line to service both sides of the creek. i .
i
i
John France. SW Gaarde Street, stated that he lived on the edge of Walnut Island and worked in
the construction division of USA. He explained a method to provide sewer using a pressure line
and pumping, although one pump would service only four to five houses. He spoke for the City
and USA developing a comprehensive plan to provide sewer to the entire area. He asked what
the options were for those who did not have enough land to put in a new drain field. Mayor
Nicoli said that that was dictated by the County.
i
Mr. France said that he was neither for nor against annexation at this time but he could see that
the area would be developed in the near future. He reiterated the need for a system to handle all
the future needs of the Island residents. He concurred with Councilor Rohlf that Tigard would
not want to spend money until they decide whether or not it wanted to annex Walnut Island as a
whole. i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 9
IF
n_ Councilor Hunt supported Mr. France's suggestion for the City and USA to draw up a long-
range plan on servicing the Island. Mayor Nicoli asked if USA did not already have a master
plan for that area. Mr. Berry said that the USA master plan only looked at lines in excess of 24
inches.
Mrs. Tibbetts reviewed the health hazard concerns, stating that this area received all the runoff
in the area. She contended that more runoff was created by the City allowing development
around them. She asked what the alternatives were for the people who had sewer water coming
up under the houses. She asked what the City intended to do about it. She stated that the
County sent her to the City and now the City said they could not do anything because they
weren't in the City. She reiterated that they had a health hazard.
Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the notice mentioned earlier by Ms. Thorne. Mrs.
Tibbetts said that that notice to put in the 8-inch line by Matrix was not sent to the residents in
her area.
!Mayor Nicoli said that he would talk with Commissioner Roy Rogers on this issue to see if
something could be done to reduce the cost of extending sewer to that area.
Mayor Nicoli said that he disagreed that the drainage from the new subdivisions went through
the Tibbetts' property. He cited his knowledge of the land from having grown up in that
neighborhood and his confidence that staff would not allow subdivisions to contribute to the
problem. He concurred with the seriousness of the problem. He commented that Mrs. Tibbetts'
neighbors did not understand the seriousness of the situation and that the City did not have the
money to extend the sewers. He asked for more time to work out a solution with the County.
Mr. Fitzpatrick reiterated his earlier question on why there was a separate standard for Walnut
Island. Mayor Nicoli said that one reason was that the state, Metro, and Washington County
wanted Walnut Island in the City.
Councilor Rohlf asked what the City would get back if they came up with some way for the
residents to pay for the sewer.
Mr. France said that USA was willing to work with cities and counties to get the system
functioning the way it should. He cited the expense already incurred by USA in responding to
complaints from USA customers about the smell from septic tanks about which they could do
nothing. He reiterated his suggestion to create a master plan for a trunk line large enough to
handle the entire area.
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 10
EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:34
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
> Mr. Monahan reported that after discussing the issue with staff, he has concluded that the
City should fill the City Engineer position. He said that he would advertise the position at
the same wage as before but would change the title to Director of Engineering to clarify the
job responsibilities. He said that he wanted to advertise soon in order to fill the position by
June.
In response to Councilor Moore's question on why they did fill the position previously, Mr.
Monahan reviewed the circumstances and responses of the two prior advertisements.
Councilor Moore expressed his concern that by not hiring a fourth engineer they could
overwork their three excellent engineers and lose them. Mr. Monahan confirmed that the
engineers needed help with the administrative work and the staff presence on regional
committees.
Mayor Nicoli asked for a report showing the breakdown of Engineering department funding
by source. He commented that they would have to take a hard look at doing what they could
to free up funding for police and library.
Councilor Scheckla asked how much revenue the police generated through writing tickets.
Mr. Monahan explained that the philosophy on traffic fines was that they served as a
deterrent for safe streets, not as a revenue generator. Mr. Lowry explained that the traffic
fines basically paid for the cost of running the municipal court and processing the tickets.
Councilor Hunt asked why they were hiring a City Engineer but putting a hiring freeze on
police. Mr. Monahan said that engineering was an area that generated fees, and that they
needed a sufficient work force in order to get those fees. Police were funded totally by the
general fund. Mr. Lowry reviewed the funding sources for the Engineering department.
These included fees and general fund moneys; however the Engineering Department is not
100% self-supporting.
Councilor Hunt spoke for waiting to advertise the City Engineer position until after the
Budget process. Mr. Monahan pointed out that they would then miss the construction
season before getting an engineer on board. Mayor Nicoli said that Councilor Hunt raised a
valid point and suggested taking a hard look at the funding. Councilor Moore commented
that if they went to the public, they could probably get funding for police but not for an
engineer.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 11
Executive Session adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
10. STUDY SESSION
Mr. Lowry commented that he assumed in the five-year plan that they would fill the City
Engineer position and the retirement vacancies in the police department. He said that he
recommended waiting to fill the police vacancies until after Measure 47 was sorted out.
The Council discussed whether or not to move forward with advertising the City Engineer
position. Mr. Monahan said that he thought it was worth spending the $500 before the next
meeting because they could meet four deadlines that way. Mayor Nicoli said that he was
unclear on the impacts of Measure 47 on staff positions. He asked for a report on how full-
time employee positions would be handled under the $2 million loss scenario. Councilor
Hunt asked for a comparison of FTEs by department in this year's budget and projected or
next year.
Mr. Monahan asked the Council if they wanted the staff overview presentation of Measure
47 and the departments at a Council meeting or at an orientation meeting with the citizen
members of the Budget Committee.
Mayor Nicoli restated his request for a staff report explaining in clear and understandable
terms what the $2 million scenario meant to the City. He mentioned the money the City got
from the voters to hire 18 new police officers over the next five years. He said that he
assumed that meant that if they did nothing, they would have enough money to keep
everyone currently hired. Mr. Lowry said that was "mostly true." He explained that they
have not laid off people because they were in the first year of the five-year plan, and staff
had planned on building a surplus during the first couple of years and increasing the staff in
the last couple of years. He said that they had one year of the surplus coming in because
they just levied their new tax base.
Mr. Monahan pointed out that staff did not have all the information yet. He mentioned the
need to hire more staff in Building and Planning if they moved forward with the transfer of
urban services from Washington County. He commented that they might have a public
perception problem if they added staff in those areas but not in police. He noted that they
needed to advertise those positions soon also.
Mayor Nicoli commented that he did not want to keep positions frozen going into a new
construction cycle. It placed too much stress on the existing staff. Mr. Lowry said that he
could prepare a two-page report showing the Council in terms of positions what staff had
planned to do prior to Measure 47 and what they now planned to do.
The Council returned to the discussion on whether or not to advertise now for the City
Engineer position. Councilors Moore and Rohlf and Mayor Nicoli favored advertising now
while Councilor Hunt was against it and Councilor Scheckla was hesitant. Upon receiving
majority consensus to advertise, Mr. Monahan said that staff would proceed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 12
l
The Council discussed the scheduling of the Budget Committee introductory meeting. They
decided that staff would present the information on the FTEs and Engineering funding
sources at the February I I meeting.
> Discussion on the transfer of urban services (Intergovernmental Agreement) from
Washington County: Councilor Hunt asked if it was too late to back out of the IGA with
the County. Mr. Monahan said that it was not too late but they should let the County know
as soon as possible. He reviewed the staff work on determining how many employees they
would have to hire and the staff conversations with Washington County. Councilor Hunt
commented that it would be difficult to sell to the public the hiring of more people in those
depart.. en , if the ,r oncy was corning F om the County.
Mayor Nicoli commented that this IGA was exactly the type of government coordination
and efficiency the public has said they wanted governments to do. He cited a similar
arrangement between Multnomah County and the City of Portland.
> Councilor Scheckla said that he could not attend a meeting on the first Tuesday of the
month. He asked for more information on the letter from Judy Fessler regarding the Water
Department shutting off water to people. He noted that two people have contacted him in
the last two days about this situation.
Mr. Monahan said that they would schedule the topic for discussion, as staff did have some
recommendations for changing the process. Mr. Lowry said that the issue was not so much
shutting off the water but shutting it off with only the $13 minimum charge due. He said
that they bent over backwards on working with the public in this area.
> Mayor Nicoli agreed to give the greeting at the Visioning Task Force meeting February 10.
> Mr. Monahan reported receipt of a letter from Mayor Ralph Brown of Cornelius asking for
Scott Rice as the alternate for the Washington County Cities Metro JPACT. Mayor Nicoli
spoke to letting these positions rotate between cities, commenting that Rob Drake and John
Godsey made a good team. The Council discussed representation on Metro committees.
15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:28 p.m.
Q 1 v~,e (tj
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
~or, City of Tigard '
Date: 311 //C-)
is \adm\cathy\ccm\970128. doe
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 28, 1997 - PAGE 13
-1
liter
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 8717
RFAVFRTr1N. r)RFrnN 97075 -
RECEiVED s
Legal Notice Advertising
4 • City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223
9 •Accounts Payable
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice
° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
L]
j
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
ss
.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )
3
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti oarrc3"-Tna 1a_t i n rimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
j
and 193.020; published at Ti as rd _in the
3
-
aforesaid county and state; that the
City COIn-iI Business tdpptinq
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for- ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 23,1997
Subscribed and sworn t bef re me this 3rd day of Janua ,
CFI!;;SEAL
ROC'P! A. . EURGESS
( r' ~~OYY~ E %i NOTAR'. DLIC - OREGON
N ry Public for Oregon u ' CO? Ai _ 110. 024552
H: ' SIC}dF:•:V'RE$MAYt8,14?
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
The fallowing meeting hig}tb is are published for your information. Full
agendas may bib obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S. W. Hall
Boulevard, Tig:iM, On Bon 97223, or by calling 639-417? _
cat 0OUNCIL BUSINESS MEEMG
TIGARD -CITY HEAL L~ 1 TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.)
• Executive Session
• Agenda Review
Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.)
Public Hearing:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0009
Shrader Request
Council Update:
• Annexations, plus discussion about the "Walnut Island-
Visioning Survey Results
• Measure 47
M717 - Publish January 23, 1997.
1. 1.:97 FRI 15:16 FA-1 503 692 5421 CITY OF TUALITIN 001
a
CITY OF TUAL ATIN
PO BOX 369
TUALATIN, OREGON 97062.0369
^ -.00 A.
(503) 692.2000 :Ez
TOO 692.0574 IJ
January 17, 1997
Mayor J1 Nicgff
City o igard
131 SW Hall Boulevard
Ti rd, Oregon 97223
Dear Mayor Nicoli:
Recently Mayor Rob Drake of Beaverton wrote you soliciting nominees for the
JPACT representative for the cities of Washington County, We in Tualatin support
the re-election of Rob Drake as the primary representative and John Godsey,
Hillsboro Council President, as the alternate.
r~
1 After talking with Councilor Godsey, he has indicated that he would be agreeable to
me seeking election to the position of alternate. I have a keen interest in
transportation issues in our county and region. Currently, I serve on the
transportation committees for Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation
(TVEDC), Washington County Coordinating Committee, the League of Oregon
i Cities, and the National League of Cities. I would be pleased to further those
efforts at our MPO as the alternate.
Yours tru ,
i
Ogden
Mayor
f ms
c. Washington County City Managers
Councilor John Godsey, City of Hillsboro
Mayor Rob Drake
i
LOCATED AT: 18880 SW Martlnazzl Avenue F
r
l
AGENDA ITEM # 'Z
F
` FOR AGENDA OF January 28. 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
j
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SW 66th Avenue: Surplus Right-of-Way
i
PREPARED BY: Brian Rager DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK jp c
!;SUE BEFOUL-111E COUNCIL
Amending Resolution No. 96-69 to revise the legal description for the surplus right-of-way and execution of a
statutory quit claim deed to convey the right-of-way to ODOT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution which will amend Resolution No. 96-69 and
h
execute t
e attached statutory quit claim deed.
t
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Qn November 12, 1996, the Council adopted Resolution No. 96-69, which declared a certain portion of SW
66th Avenue right-of-way as surplus to convey back to ODOT (see Attachment 1). After the adoption of that
resolution, ODOT contacted the City and indicated that they do not wish to accept all of the right-of-way that
was described in the legal description for Resolution No. 96-69. Instead, ODOT is willing to accept a smaller
portion of the right-of-way as described in the proposed resolution.
In addition, ODOT indicated that the City will need to execute a quit claim deed in order to formally convey the
right-of-way back to ODOT. The proposed quit claim deed is attached.
OTHER ALT RNATIVES CONSIDERED
FISCAL NOTE
a
3
a
~ idc mmdot
I
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
CITY HALL RECORDS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
NO CHANGE IN TAX STATEMENT
STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED
The CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
J
laws of the State of Oregon GRANTOR, releases and quitclaims to the State of Oregon, Department of
Transportation, GRANTEE, all ofGRANTOR'S right, title, and interest in and to a portion of real property,
situated in Washington County, Oregon, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein
.
by this reference.
i
The true consideration for this conveyance is SDM. However, the actual consideration consists of
or includes other property or value given or promised which is the whole consideration.
This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violatie of
applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting this instrument, the person acquiring
fee title to the property should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verify
d
approve
uses.
Dated this 3_ day of I~MV a &1=1 1997.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
By:
William A. Monahan
l
City AdFflittist#eter Q,
STATE OF OREGON ) d "
)
Countv of Washington )
J
On
1997, William A. Monahan
personally appeared before me, ho, being duly sworn, did sav that he is the City Administrator of the City
of Tigard. Oregon. and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said Citv by authority of its Council;
and he acknowledged said instrument to be the City voluntary act and deed.
j
'QOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON
orF~ca~sE"~ Nly Commission Expires:
S~/~l'~lg
CATHEAINEWHEATi.EY
~~y%Jy NOTARY PUBIfC-OREGON
COA0.11SSION NO. 0~2t78
~rv ^WUSSION E%PIRES MAY t0, 1999
1
. ~
rcmvmearrcw om
All
WESTLAKE
CONSULZ LINTS 1NC
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • PUNNING Phone: 503 684-0652
i.
Far: 503 624-0157
Gerding
i
Project No.: 1045-OIH-96
November 7, 1996
Exhibit °A^ Property Description
E
A tract of land situate in the southeast quarter of Section 1, Townsbip 2 South, Range I West, Willamette
Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the west line of that tract relinquished to the City of Tigard by Resolution No.
600, recorded in the Minutes and Records of the Oregon Transportation Commission, April 20, 1981,
said point also being on the southerly right-of-way of S. W. 68th Parkway;
! thence along the west line of said City of Tigard tract the following courses, South 01°11'39" West;
4.10;
thence South 15140'08" West, 76.53 feet;
thence South 77°12'09" West, 95.77 feet;
i
thence South 01° 16' 19" West, 25.00 feet to a point on the centerline of S.W. Vannes Street (vacated);
thence leaving the herein before descnbrd West line along said centerline of S.W. Vames Street
(vacated) Souh 88°43'41" East, 11529 feet;
thence leaving said centerline North 01°15'29" West, 126.55 feet to the true point of beginning;
i
-
Containing 5._40 square feet, more or less.
NW: 11/7/96
1
f
p101J01tdooimaj/jk
Ili Pacific Corporate Center, 15115 S.W. Sequoia Parkway, Suite 150, Tigard, Oregon 97224
i
.7
1
1
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 7anugU 28 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA rFEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adjustment for Rite Center Capital Contribution
PREPARED BY:Wyne DEPT HEAD OK ~ITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve an adjustment to the 1996/97 budget for the RITE center project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
j Staff recommends a budget adjustment if the Council wishes to make a cash contribution to the project.
INFORMATION SUNIMAR~'
The Budget committee in May 1996 decided to provide Interfaith Outreach a waiver of up to $10,000 in certain
fees and charges related to the construction of the proposed RITE Center. In addition, the committee granted
~se of vacant City facilities for use by Interfaith for office purposes. All of this was in lieu of cash contributions.
`The suggestion has been made that the City make a cash contribution to the fund raising effort of Interfaith
Outreach for the RITE center project. This contribution would offset the previously approved waive] of
development fees.
i
a
! In order to•provide for a cash contribution this fiscal year, a budget adjustment will be necessary to appropriate
contingency in the general fund in the amount of $5,000. The attached resolution meets the requirements of
{ local budget law and provides for the budget adjustment.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Change the amount, then approve the adjustment.
FISCAL NOTES
Approval will reduce general fund contingency by $5,000 and increase appropriations in the Social Agency
f Funding budget unit by $5,000.
"l
AGENDA ITEM # . L I
FOR AGENDA OF January 28. 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 1996/97 Budget a iustment
PREPARED BY:__ Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
i _
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the City Council approve a resolution amending the 1996/97 adopted budget?
STAFF RECOMMENDAT ON
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution amending the 1996/97 adopted budget.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Since the adoption of the 1996/97 budget in June 1996, several events have occurred that require the budget to
be amended. Local budget law allows both of these budget amendments by City Council resolution.
e~ The Library has been awarded a grant of $3,000 from the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
~VIACC) for Internet access. Tigard's Library applied for and was granted funds for the creation of Internet
i access equipment for hearing, sight and mobility impaired Library users. The necessary adjustment recognizes
additional revenue in the general fund of $3,000 and an increase in appropriations for the Library for the same
amount.
The Police Department has been awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice in the amount of $17,904.
The City is required to match the grant amount with 10% of it's own funds. The City match will be in the form
of general fund dollars already included in the 1996/97 adopted budget in the Police department. The grant
funds will be used for the purchase of equipment in the Police department. The budget adjustment recognizes
grant revenue in the general fund and increases appropriations in the Police department budget by the same
amount.
The attached resolution includes both of these budget adjustments.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
I
Change proposed adjustment then approve.
FISCAL NOTES
Increases appropriations for Library by $3,000 and Police by $17,904. Recognizes general fund grant revenue
of $3,000 for Library and $17,904 for Police.
~r
01 28:97 TCE 1S.20 FAA 503 220 2380 Stoel Rives 1 Z00:
STOEL RIVES LLP Agenda Item No. L4
A T I U R N E Y S
Meeting of L Ls< Q
STANDARD INSURANCF. CMER
+ Sw PIrrM AVENUE. SUrri 2.3W
YORTLAN'D. ORRCON •1:e0
,+rrn 150.x/251-3380 fps 150!)2:0..tI0
TOO (813):2x•1043
.
IntrSnR:.rw.v ~roel.mnt
January 28. 1997
MXHAEL C. RoBwoN
Direct D!a!
(503) 294-9194
cmad mcrobinson®stoci.com
VIA FACSEY[ILE
Mr. James N.P. Hendryx, Director
City of Tigard
Community Development Department
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: CPA 96-0008
Dear Mr. Hendryx:
I
This law firm represents the applicants in the above-referenced matter. On behalf of
'
the applicants, I hereby request that you continue the City Council public hearing from
January 28, 1997 to February 11, 1997.
Very truly yours,
Michael C. Robinson (L fff
MCR:Ixh
cc: Mr. Dale Shrader (via facsimile)
Mr. Bill Gross (via facsimile)
Mr. Gary Coe (via facsimile)
Mr. Robert Lefevre (via facsimile)
I
~
. '
PDXlw.e3sg7.1 StS10'10001
I
TIGARD COMMUNITY VISIONING PROCESS SURVEY
1. INTRODUCTION
As part of a Community Visioning Process, the City of Tigard commissioned this scientific survey
of community residents. The purpose of the survey is to understand community attitudes about
® issues and concerns in Tigard. The results will be used in the community visioning process to be
undertaken in 1997.
The survey was conducted during the month of November 1996. Residents of Tigard were
selected randomly and telephone interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers. A
total of 396 interviews were completed. A representative sample of this size is sufficient to
ensure that the margin of error is within plus or minus 5 points at the 95% confidence interval.
The questionnaire was developed by Sextant Consultants, Inc. and Steven Ames Planning in
consultation with City of Tigard staff. The questionnaire was field tested prior to conducting the
telephone interviews.
Results were compiled and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
Responses were cross-tabulated and are available from the City of Tigard. Significant interactions
are discussed in the analysis of the report. Cross tabulations were made for: gender, age, income, ^
home owner or renter, length of residency, school district, whether the respondent has children in
a school district now, and where the respondent has ever had children in a school district.
This survey includes some questions that were asked in an April 1993 community attitude survey,
"Tigard Talks" so that comparisons can be made of attitudes over time.
® Sextant Consultants, Inc.. Steven Ames Planning
II. SURVEY RESULTS
For each survey question the results are provided together with commentary on the significant
interactions. Where no commentary is provided, no significant interactions were found.
i
Question 1. Overall, how would you rate our community on a scale of one to
ten when one is poor and ten is excellent?
r
Overall, respondents give the community a median average ratin of 7.3 on a ten point sc.le.
This is very similar to the rating in a 1993 survey of 7.7. Respondents feel positive about Tigard. j,
There are very few low scores, and fully 12 percent rated Tigard in the high 9 or 10 category. M
e
Significant interactions: There were no significant interactions with subgroups such as
male/female, age, income, or owner/renter, or length of residency.
I
I
r
Table 1
Rati
ng of Community
(1=poor,
10 = excellent
Percent
1
1%
2
0
3
1
4
2
5
8
6
11
7
23
8
42
9
6
10
6
i
I
i
j
i
i
i
1
i
a
{
1
Question 2. In the time you have lived here, do you think the community has
become a better place to live, a worse place, or has it stayed the same?
Overall, about half the respondents said that the community has remained the same since they
have lived here. Of the remaining, slightly more said "worse place" than said "better place." The
responses to this question do not indicate any strong pattern as to whether the perception of the
community is changing either for the better or the worse.
Significant interactions: People who chose the ::3me had a shorter length ofrecidenry in the
community than people who chose better or worse. They were also younger than those who said
either better or worse. Among people who chose better or worse, there was no difference in age.
Table 2
Community has become better, worse, stayed the same
Better place 23%
Worse place 28%
Stayed the same 49%
6extant Consultants, [tic., Stever: Antes Maiming
The rema
Casual lif
Good sch
Nice, nev
ti Commum
More gro
It's just b(
! For tho
The first t
Traffic co
Too man}
The next 1
Too much
Lack of la
The next t
Too much
Too many
The peopl
3. Why is that?
who answered "better"
,o reasons stand above the other. They are:
er, more convenient places to shop/new businesses 22% i
ivements/better traffic flow 19% f
C_
ree reasons are second tier in significance: They are:
rities/community functions/community involvement
13%
-
;s to downtowv/downtown revitalized/
ieighborhood planning
12%
.r-vices/city government is working well
8%
I
ng reasons are reiatively minor in importance. They are:
tyle/nice people/nice neighborhood
4%
Is
4%
r remodeled homes/nice place to live
4%
value to "make things better"
2%
h
2%
:r
1%
who answered "worse"
r stand significantly above the others. They are:
estion/now new roads/no road improvements
44%
:ople/population growth
15% (
f
'
are second tier reasons. They are:
ime/less public safety/not enough law enforcement
i
8%
use planning/loss of green space
8%
> make up a worthy third tier. They are:
:w construction/too much urban growth
6%
:w houses or apartments/too close together
5%
re unfriendly, poor quality, bad
4%
ultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning Page 4
a
Questii
For thr
The first
Better, c
Road iml
The next
Family ac
Better ac
bette
Good cir
The remaining reasons are:
Overcrowded schools
Juvenile crime/gangs
Loss of community spirit/community identity
Taxes have gone up too much/increased cost of living
Too many new businesses
Drugs in schools
- Who IIo~.. .~.7 ♦{~n
lVf Him Who answered ell
The first two reasons stood together. They are.
See nothing to improve/nothing has changed
Haven't lived here long enough to see changes
The remaining reasons are minor in comparison. They are:
Traffic is still bad/no change in roads
No change (neutral)
Some things better/some things worse
Neighborhoods still nice place to live
No negative change
Still growing too fast/still growing too much
No change in city services
No positive change
Good people
Nc increase in crime
Still fee safe
Taxes still going up/cost of living still going up
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
23%
18%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1 i Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
~r
Question 4. What do you see as the most important issue facing our
community?
The intertwined issues of traffic congestion and growth management are considered the most
important issues by respondents. Both public safety and education are important, second tier
i concerns followed by city services and several, unrelated concerns.
1 c`
Table 4 j
Most Important Issues Facing Our Community
Traffic congestion 2800
Growth Management 24% I
Planned growth management/control urban growth 16%
Population growth 8
j Public Safety 13%
Crime/public safety/adult-related drug issues 8
1 Juvenile crime/gangs/juvenile related drug issues 5 f
Education 140%
School f inding/school improvements 8
Overcrowded schools 5
Education I
City Services 7%
Property taxes/Measure 47 3
City services/city maintenance 3 I
Lack of infrastructure I
I
i
Other Concerns: 7%
Community involvement/
r
sense of community/morals 2
Youth activities 2
Cost of housing I
Cost of living 1
City appearance/need more parks I
Significant interactions: none.
J'extant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
1
I
Question 5. In choosing a community in which to live, how important is each -
quality? (very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or
very unimportant to you)
Using the answers for "very important," to rank the answers, respondents ranked crime-free
neighborhoods, quality public schools, and good place to raise children, as the highest values in
selecting a community. Easy to get around is a high value when combining both "very important"
and "somewhat important."
Table 5
Importance of Qualities in Choosing a Community
(Ranked by "Very Important)
Quality
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very and
Somewhat
Important
Safe, crime-free neighborhoods
93%
7%
100%
Quality public schools
81
12
93
Good place to raise children
81
11
92
Easy to get around
68
29
97
Friendly people, community spirit
59
35
94
Trees, views, scenery
57
37
94
Availability of affordable housing
54
37
91
Convenient location
48
42
90
Local government services
45
45
90
Local parks and recreation
programs
44
47
Small town atmosphere
36
45
Pedestrian-friendly downtown areas
34
45
J
Good place to do business
30
50
Availabili of sho in
24
57
81
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven.4mes Planning
c
i'
r
i
is
I
i
Significant interactions:
j
For safe, crime-free neighborhoods, there were no significant differences by age, income, gender,
j or length of time in the community. This is an important value for all groups. i
1 For convenient location, women place more importance than men.
FE
1 Quality public schools was more important to women than men , to people with higher incomes,
j and to respondents with children now or ever in school
I
A good place to raise children had no important differences among sub groups except that people (
who have children in school tend to see this value as very important. '
i .
Females place more importance on availability of shopping, although both genders chose i
somewhat important most often. Respondents choosing very important were older than
respondents who chose somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant.
Respondents choosing somewhat important were older than respondents choosing somewhat
unimportant.
~ i
For availability of affordable housing, females placed more importance here. The lower the `
income, the greater the importance placed on availability of affordable shopping. Renters place
more importance here too.
i
For pedestrian friendly downtown area, females placed more importance here.
I
i
I
i
j
f
U
1 Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
j Question 6. How would you rate this community for each quality?
1n t' th re ondents aye highest rankin-s to availabili of -h- in convenient
ra mg a community, sp g b ty PP 5,
location, trees, view and scenery, and good place to raise children. Lowest rankings were for
pedestrian friendly downtown and availability of affordable housing.
Table 6
Rating Community for Qualities
(Ranked by "Excellent")
Quality
Excellent
Good
Excellent and
Good
Availability of shopping
41%
49%
90010
Convenient location
33
53
86
Trees, views, scenery
27
48
75
Good place to raise children
25
57
82
Friendly people, community spirit
23
53
76
Quality public schools
22
44
66
Good place to do business
22
58
80
Safe, crime-free neighborhoods
21
55
76
Easy to get around
16
32
48
Local parks and recreation programs
15
49
64
Small town atmosphere
15
43
58
Local government services
14
54
68
Availability of affordable housing
10
33
43
Pedestrian-friendly downtown area
8
41
49
M Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
1
1
i
Significant interactions:
j There were no significant interactions for the three highest ratings: shopping, location and
i scenery. I
1
For affordable housing, owners tended to choose good, while renters tended to choose fair or
poor. Respondents choosing excellent were older than respondents choosing fair. Respondents
choosing fair had a longer residency than respondents choosing good. Respondents who have
ever had children in the school district rated this a little lower than respondents who never had
children in the district.
Pedestrian fi-iendly downtown: Over half of respondents earning under $25,000 rated this as
good.
I
i
i
I
I
t
t
t
t
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
Comparing imnortance with quality rating. Questions 5 and 6 compared.
r~
Table 5.1 compares respondents answers to the questions about "what qualities are important in
choosing a community" and how they rate the Tigard community. Some qualities such as safety
from crime, quality public schools, and good place to raise children are very important values, but
get lower ratings. On the other hand, some qualities that are less important such as availability
of shopping or good place to do business get high ratings, but are less important as reasons to
pick a community, according to the respondents.
Easy to get around away of asking about traffic flow, among other accessibility attributes is - -
ranked as number four in terms of values, but number 9 in terms of rating the community.
Table 5.1
Comparison of Importance with Quality Rating
Quality
Very Important
Rating
(Ranking)
Excellent Quality
Rating
(Ranking)
Safe, crime-free neighborhoods
93%(1)
21%(8)
Quality public schools
81(2)
22(6)
Good place to raise children
81(3)
22(7)
Easy to get around
68(4)
16(9)
Friendly people, community spirit
59(5)
23(5)
Trees, views, scenery
57(6)
27(3)
Availability of affordable housing
54(7)
10(13)
Convenient location
48(8)
33(2)
Local government services
45(9)
14(12)
Local parks and recreation programs
44(1011
15(10)
Small town atmosphere
36(11)
15(11)
Pedestrian-friendly downtown areas
34(12)
8(14)
Good place to do business
30(13)
25(4)
Availabilitv of sho ine
24 14
411
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
Community character and quality of life (community identity and spirit, sense of place; j
families and children, arts and culture)
Question 7. In planning for our community, how important to you is each of
the following areas of concern?
This question was asked as part of the survey in order to define target areas of concern for the
community visioning process. As a result of the survey, the target areas are defined as:
Schools and education
Public safety
Transportation and traffic
- - '
VrowLll al1LL gI'U WLIl 1Ld11i1geulGUt
Urban and public services (water, sewer, fire protection, hbrary, parks and recreation)
Housing, neighborhoods, and livability
Table 7
Importance of Areas of Concern
(Ranked by "Very Important")
Pea of concern
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very and
Somewhat
Important
Schools and education
82%
14%
969'0
Police, fire, library, water, sewer services
79
20
99
Traffic and transportation.
73
25
98
Growth and growth management
71
23
94
Affordable housing and neighborhood quality
61
31
92
Parks, recreation, open space
49
43
92
Communitv character. Ti ard's identi
26
52
78
1
i
a
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
Schools and education: more importance placed by women, and by people who now or ever had
children in schools.
Police, fire, library, water, sewer services: Females place more importance here. The lower the
th lik h
income, a more e1y w c oose very important.
Traffic and transportation: Respondents choosing very important were older than respondents
choosing somewhat important.
Growth and growth management: Respondents with children now or ever in the school district
placed more importance here.
Affordable housing and neighborhood quality: Renters placed more importance here.
Parks, recreation, open space: No significant interactions.
Community character, Tigard's identity: Females place more importance here. Respondents
choosing very important were older than respondents choosing somewhat important.
® 1 Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
Page 13
f'"1
Question 8. In your opinion how important is each of the follow]"
1
g
educational priorities for students?
Several questions were asked to determine community attitudes specifically about education.
The rankings indicate that learning the basics, getting a high school diploma, and learning
technology skills are uppermost in respondents' priorities. School facilities to provide for the
growth in the number of students is also an important priority as is keeping classes small in size,
and having work experience as part of the curriculum
Interestingly, both music, drama and the visual arts as well as sports were rated about equal with a
strong majority seeing these as either very or somewhat important.
Three components of Oregon's school reform program rated low. These included a second
language and the Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery (CIM and CAM).
Table 8
Importance of Educational Priorities
(Ranked by "Very Important")
Educational priority
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Very and
Somewhat
Important
Learning the basic skills of reading, writing and
math
99
1
100
Earning a high school diploma
96
3
99
Learning technology skills
71
26
97
Facilities to accommodate growth in
student population
67
27
94
Keeping class sizes small
60
32
92
Having work experience as part of high school
49
36
85
Participating in music, drama and the visual arts
42
49
91
Sports and other extracurricular activities
39
48
87
Learning a second language
36
47
83
Earning a certificate of initial mastery
29
26
55
L:a= a certificate of advanced
endorsement -1
20
1
30
50
Sextant COMultal ds, Inc., Steve: Ames Planning
Significant interactions:
i
Learning the basics: No significant interactions.
Earning a high school diploma: Women placed more importance here.
Learning technology skills: No significant interactions.
Facilities to accommodate growth: Females placed more importance here. Respondents choosing
suinewhat important were older wan respondents choosing very important. "There was a tendency
for incomes under $50K and $75K+ to place a little less importance on this than incomes in the
$50-$75K range, but the interaction was not strong. Respondents with children now or ever in
the school district placed more importance here.
Small class size: Females place more importance here. Respondents choosing somewhat
unimportant had a longer length of residency than respondents choosing very important or
somewhat important. Tigard-Tualatin school district people chose very important more than did
others (61% to 50°,o). Respondents with children now or ever in the school district placed more
importance here.
Work experience: No significant interactions.
Music, drama, visual arts: Females place more importance here. Respondents with children in the
school district now placed more importance here.
Sports: Respondents with children in the school district now placed more importance here.
Second language: Females place more importance here. Owners chose somewhat important
more than did renters. Respondents with children now or ever in the school district placed more
importance here.
Certificate of Initial Mastery: Respondents choosing somewhat unimportant were younger than
i respondents choosing very important or somewhat important. Respondents with children now or
ever in the school district placed more importance here.
i
Certificate of Advanced Mastery: Respondents choosing very important were older than
respondents choosing somewhat unimportant. Respondents with children now or ever in the
school district placed more importance here.
® Sextant Cotasultants, Inc., Steven Ames Plamung
mm
Question 9. Decision makers often have to choose between different policy
options. For each set of options, indicate which option you favor, Option 1 or
Option 2.
The policy options question showed several strong preferences among respondents. Each one is
described together with the significant interactions where they exisr.
I Encourage protection of open spaces
l Accommodate new development
79%
~i
1 A strong preference for preserving open spaces. Renters chose option 1 more than did owners,
while owners chose option 2 more than did renters.
Improve roads for cars
Improve alternative forms of transportation such as
buses, bike paths and pedestrian walkways
53
47
Given the strong indications of concern about traffic congestion, it is impressive that alternative
transportation was about equally favored as improving roads for cars. There were no significant
differences in responses from different subgroups.
r~
Maintain current City services even if it means increasing taxes 59
Maintain current tax levels even if it means reducing City services 41
Since the survey was conducted a week after a state-wide property tax limitation measure was
approved, it is interesting that more than half of the respondents were willing to increase City
taxes in order to maintain the current level of service. Respondents who chose option 2 had a
longer residency than respondents choosing option 1
Maintain current lot size for single family homes 83
Decrease lot sizes to accommodate our share of regional growth 17
This question which refers to increasing housing density by shrinking lot sizes, shows a strong
preference for maintaining the current lot size for single family homes. There were no significant
interactions.
i
Fund projects to reduce traffic congestion on major road arterials 76
Fund projects to address traffic issues in neighborhoods 24
When it comes to actually funding specific projects, respondents pointed to major road arterials
rather than neighborhood traffic as their strong preference. There were no significant interactions.
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
Foster a Tigard identity
65
Emphasize Tigard as part of the Portland metropolitan area
35 I
Respondents showed a strong preference for fostering a Tigard identify. There were no
significant interactions.
Focus on small-scale commercial areas that nrP nPrivctrinn-nrienterl
M
Encourage large-scale commercial development that is auto-oriented
20
This question showed a very strong preference for small-scale, pedestrian-oriented commercial
areas. Tigard-Tualatin school district people chose option 2 more than did others (82%
to 67%),
while others chose option I more than did Tigard-Tualatin school district people (18% to 33%).
i
Continue City finacial assistance of social service programs operated
by non-profits
80
Eliminate City financial assistance for social services operated
by non-profits
20
Respondents showed a strong preference to continue the current social service programs.
No
® significant interactions.
® i oexranr t.oizsuttants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
3
4
Demographics
Question 10. How long have you lived in the com
0-5 58°,/0
6-10 19
11-20 12
21+ 9
- 3
Comment: A surprisingly large number of respond
Question 11. What is your age?
s
<35 28%
35-44 31
3
45-54 19
55-64 7
65+ 15
Comment: The survey included representation froi
i
Question 12. Do you own or rent your residence?
Own 71%
Rent 29
r
Comment: The survey heavily represented owners
a
Question 13. Respondent gender
Male 49%
Female 51
i
Question 14. In which of the following categories
in 1995?
Under $25,000 15%
$25,000 - $50,000 28
J
$50,000 - $75,000 27
Over $75,000 21
DK/ Refuse 9
Comment: The respondents represent a full range i
Question 15. Which public school district de you i
Tigard-Tualatin 83%
Beaverton 8
Other 2
Unsure 6
Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning
1 -1
j~
i
Comment: Most of the respondents live in the Tigard-Tualatin School District. Those who are
I
unsure probably do not have children in school
Question 16. Do you currently have children in that school district?
Yes 32°./0
No 68
Question 17. Have you ever had children in that school district?
Yes 40%
No 60
5 .
1
i
i
I
I'
f
I
j
i
I
_
U
I Sextant Consultants, Inc., Steven Ames Planning Page 19
y'
~ (a~ lay - - .
City of Tigard, Oregon
City Council Measure # 47 Update
January 28, 1997
January 9, 1997
Summary of Governor's Task Force Progress
On Ballot Measure 47
Severed processes have been underway since the election to prepare for the upcoming legislative session.
The most notable is the Governor's Local Government Policy Advisory Committee. The Committee is
made up of ten members most of which are elected officials from local governments around the state. The
committee is supported by several technical committees made up of various officials of local governments
and by employees of several state agencies including the state department of revenue and the Attomey
Cienerals Office.
The supporting technical committees include Fees and Charges, Annexation and Zoning, Elections, Urban
Renewal, and Bonding. It appears that the issues of property tax administration. The future of levies and
the distribution of losses are being analyzed by the Department of Revenue and the AG's office.
Most of the work of the technical committees has been completed. Their recommendations have been
forwarded to the Policy committee for final action. The result of all this work will be draft legislation in
the form of several bills. These bills will then be considered by the appropriate committees during the
legislative session. Most of the work will be done by the House Revenue committee which is chaired by
Tom Brian, Tigard's state representative.
After attending several lengthy meetings -,with speaker, from the various technical committers and the
policy committee, I have found the following to be the current thinking on those issues relevant to us:
Definition of Limit:
The current thinking is that although the language in the measure does not exclude debt service levies
from the limit calculation in 1994/95 or 1995/96, the limit should be calculated using only operating
levies. This will result is a greater loss that doing it consistent with the language in the measure.
This issue is being considered a policy choice rather than a technical one. Politicians are thinking citizens
are expecting a 20% reduction in property taxes and this issue could look like a loop hole government
created to lessen the blow. The early state estimates which is where the 20% came from mistakenly
interpreted the language in the measure. The Attorney General has been asked to form an opinion on this
issue.
To give you an idea of the importance of this issue, Tigard's loss could be cut in half if the language of the
measure is implemented literally.
Annexations:
Legislation is being drafted to allow for a vote of the area to be annexed as part of the current annexation
process. It is still unclear what will happen if there are no voters. I think they will lean towards a strict
interpretation which will say no vote, no tax. Improvements to vacant land annexed without a vote will
fall under the improvement exception but the original value of the land would not be taxable.
No one has apparently thought about all those annexations that have taken place since March 31, 1995
that have been taxed by the annexing entity but will then be rolled back to the preannexation tax level.
City's will be required to provide services but will be in effect denied the related funding. There is also
the issue of the disparity between taxpayers based on the timing of the annexation.
Voting measures outside the measures limits:
j The actual language of the measure allows for the voters to approve new or additional taxes above the 3%
limit. The authors say the language was meant to include debt service only. If new operating levies are
j allowed if approved by voters, the ciTect of the measure will eventually be nullified. This fact along with
the threat by the authors to sue anyone who trys to vote outside the limits and the fear of not carrying out
the spirit of the tax revolt has transformed this issue into a political hot potato. The ability to vote outside
the limit for operating purposes has been coined a "Local Option" and has become a policy issue rather
than a technical one. It is therefore unknown at this time how this issue will fall.
j
On the one hand, legislators will want to ensure that the limit is real and on the other, they realize how
drastic a change it would be if expiring levies could not be replaced or new levies for voter supported
programs could not be considered.
Absence of new levies or the ability to ask taxpayers for increases in the taxbase above the 3% will turn
our focus to fees and charges for services, and to revenue sources we have never considered before Like
local income taxes, changes in the business tax, franchise fees, and possibly a local sales tax, all of which
would highly unpopular and would under the measure most likely require a vote.
Allocation of Loss:
The current thinking is that this process should be done at the local level rather than by the state. By
local, the DOR thinks it should be done at the County level. The theory is that all local governments
within each County excluding schools will get together in March and April and discuss how public safety
should be prioritized among all the entities. Once the priority is given to public safety and everyone
agrees, the County Assessor will be given the agreed upon percentages to use in distributing the
unsegregated taxes as they are collected.
This process would occur each year and would have to be done by individual tax code.
I 4
The state feels that priority to public safety means that public safety must be cut at least one dollar less
than non public safety activities.
i
Once the distribution formula is set, each local government receiving property tax revenues will then be
required to prioritize public safety within itself. The priority may be different than that used in the
allocation determined at the County level.
j appeal periods: ( -
1
j In several instances, a procedure is being considered to lower the risk to local governments in interpreting
the language in the measure. The local government makes a decision to take action that it feels is exempt
from the measure. It must give notice to the public that such action has been taken. Citizens have 60
bays to appeal the action or disagree with its exempt status. Appeals will be heard by the tax court. If no
l appeals are filed within the appeal period, the City can no longer be challenged on the decision and can
implement it without fear of legal action.
i
This procedure is being considered for fees and charges, Issuance of Bonds, use of bond proceeds and the
priority given to public safety.
,t
r .1 Public Education:
There has not been much discussion in this process about how education will be dealt with. There is an
education committee but it has only met one time and for some reason is behind all the other committees.
Most feel that the requirement to give priority to public education will be met by the state making up lost
school revenues. It is still unclear how schools will participate in the allocation of the losses an how the
percentage of the loss to be allocated to schools will be determined. How this happens could have a
dramatic impact on non public safety programs. Keep in mind also that the less the loss to schools, the
{ less the state will ha:•c to make up form its other programs. There is therefore a risk to local governments
I in how schools are treated in the allocation process. I do not believe that this issue has been discussed yet
I
Legislative process.
The legislative leaders understand the horrible Lime pressure local governments are under to prepare
budgets for the 1997/93 year. Tom Brian expects to have some of the more urgent issues resolved by e
April with the balance by the end of the session. Tom has invited County and local officials to meet with
him periodically to discuss the progress being made.
Conclusions at this point:
The more conservative interpretation will win out in the long run. Nothing that looks or smells like a
j loop hole will be taken advantage of. Marty issues will be sealed in court rather than through the
legislative process. The City should carefully follow the progress of these issues during the session and be
prepared to give input at hearings and in the form of information. `
We should continue to budget assuming a significant loss but be prepared to add back packages should the
J loss be less than expected. III
f
4
i
j
j.
Representative Tom Brian
1 Dear Tom:
i
i
r
The City of Tigard is bracing for a significant loss of property tax rs from
i
I implementation of ballot measure #47. The amount of the loss estimated for Tigard has varied
from $1,800.000 per year to $2,631,958 per year. Both of these estimates include the assumption
that the limit year calculation includes non debt service levies only.
The language of the measure does not specify that the limit be calculated using only operating
levies without debt service. This was an assumption that many people made without really
looking at the language itself.
The levies to be included in the "Ad Valorem taxes" mentioned in the language related to the
limit years is a huge issue. The inclusion of debt service levies in the calculation of the limit has
the potential to affect Local Governments future tax revenue stream for many years. To illustrate
how much difference this issue can make, Tigard's loss using the limit of 1995/96 less 10%
calculated with and without the debt service levy included in Ad Valorem Takes for purposes of
r-, the limit is estimated as follows:
Without debt service in the calculation: $1,800,000
i
With debt service in the calculation: $ 505,000
Tigard's debt service in 1995/96 was $1,439,395. 90% of this amount would reduce Tigard's
loss by $1,295,000. If we assume the greater loss estimate of $2,631,958, the inclusion of debt
service in the limit calculation would reduce the loss to $1,336,958.
As you can see, this issue is extremely significant for the City of Tigard. Our debt service relates
to voter approved bond issues for the Civic Center construction in 1984 and in 1989 for street
improvements.
Tigard is very vulnerable to Measure 47. Voters approved a tar base increase of $1,700,000 in
j November 1994. The new tax base was levied for the first time in 1996/97. The Measure 47
limit years are prior to 1996/97 and therefore ignore the new tax base which is effectively
eliminated by the measure.
I
If I can provide more information on this issue or any other issue, please call me at 639-4171 ext
r
~i Wayne Lowry
Director of Finance
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
!i
S
January 7, 1997
Gary Hansen, Commissioner, Multnomah County
Portland Building, Room 1500
Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Hansen:
CITY OF TIGAR®
OREGON /
Thank you for your attendance at the TSCC meeting yesterday. I appreciate your willingness to
discuss the activities of the Policy Committee and the various concepts that are being developed
to implement the measure.
I have attended several meetings in the last few weeks at which the activities of the various
committees have been discussed. I would like to share our views on several issues that I think
should be included in the decision making process of the Committee.
Limit Year Ad Valorem Tax
Section l lg (1) specifies "ad valorem tar" in section (i) and (ii) which describe the application of
the limit to be placed in 1997/98. Because the exclusion of taxes levied to pay debt service is
referred to only for 1997/98, it should not be concluded that debt service levies must be excluded
from the calculation of the 1997/98 limit.
The Department of Revenue has recommended that debt service be excluded from the limit
calculation. We believe that although this will result in a greater tax cut, it goes against the
language in the measure. If the authors of this measure had intended to exclude debt service
levies from the ad valorem taxes in the limit years, they would have made that clear in the
language. To make assumptions about what they intended and then use those assumptions to
drive policy making is flawed.
The Media commonly reported measure 47 to cut taxes by at least 10%. We see no reason why
the policy committee should consent to allow the exclusion of debt service which needlessly
reduces already scarce tax revenues.
Tax Increases related to Annexation
Annexations that have been approved since March 31, 1995 need to be addressed Properties
included in these annexations have been charged the increased property tax for 1996/97. The
annexing jurisdictions have provided services to these properties and have received revenues from
the annexation tax base increase provided by statute.
® 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
i
f
t
j
j
i
For 1997/98, however, these properties taxes will be rolled back to the 1995/96 less 10% which is
before the increased tares were levied on them. This will result in the reduction of future taxes to
the pre annexation level for these properties but the annexing jurisdictions will continue to be
liable for providing services. In addition, neighbors on the same street could pay greatly differing
taxes even on similar homes and receive the same services. Since these annexations have already
taken place, the vote requirement does not seem practical.
We would like to see legislation addressing this issue. Perhaps annexations in place since the limit
year can be grandfathered in or a post annexation election can be held. It seems very unfair to
Cities and their taxpayers to allow annexations of new properties to stand that are no longe-
funded by the tax base increase due to the unfortunate timing of their annexation.
Tar Increases outside M47
This is a very critical issue to local governments. The current property tax system does not
provide very well for growing areas since growth in new construction assessed value does not
generate increased property tax revenues. The City of Tigard for over 20 years has used a five
year financial plan to govern the provision of services to the community. Every five years, a new
plan is established. The cornerstone of the plan is a tax base adjustment ballot measure put before
the voters. The five year proposal explains to citizens what level of services will be provided for
the coming five years and asks for approval of taxes to fund the proposal. The City also commits
not to go back to the voters for five years. This system has worked well for the City as the
community has supported the last four such proposals, the last of which was approved in
November 1994.
Section 3 (a) of M47 does not preclude operating levies or taxbase measures. In fact, by it's
simple reading, it seems to allow for new or additional ad valorem tax levies as long as they are
approved at a general election or they meet the voting requirements at any other election. It is a
grave mistake to infer that this section only refers to debt service and does not provide for other
levies outside the measure.
The language allows for the prerogative of voters to vote for increases above the 3%. This is
consistent with the requirement in other sections of the measure that tax increases occur only with
voter approval. To conclude that voting levies outside the measure is a "local option" and may
eventually supersede the measures effect and is therefore bad policy, is to place language in the
measure that was not there when the voters approved it. This is an issue of language, not politics
or policy. We should not try to repair the perceived flaws in the language of the measure by
reading things into it that are not there. The Committee should strive to create legislation that
implements the measure as it is written rather than what the voters thought the measure should
have been.
The ability of the voters to decide on community supported programs must be conserved. There
are many levies that will expire over the next several years. Services that have been strongly
1
s
supported by citizens but are not public safety or public education may not be fundable if voters
are not given the opportunity to make taring decisions on these issues.
a
a
Prioritization of Public Education
We understand that a separate committee is dealing with public education and it's prioritization
under the measure. It is important to recognize the potential impact that this prioritization may
have on local governments. We recommend that public education losses be distributed in such a
f
1
way to minknize the effect on local governments losses.
t
!
Under measure 5, schools and non schools are separated : nd compete for different portions of the
upper tax limit of S 15 per thousand. Because the State will be replacing all or a portion of school
losses, schools should not be prioritized in the allocation of the loss process to the detriment of
1
i
non school or non public safety programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to you and the Committee. If you have
i
any questions, please call me at 639-4171 ext. 345.
v
Sincerely
Wa
Yn Lowry
Director of Finance
CC:
Governor John Kitzhaber
Harvey Rogers, Attorney
Bob Muir, Asst Attorney General
Dick Townsend, League of Oregon Cities
i
Richard Munn, Department of Revenue
Representative Tom Brian
L
i
i
( 1
:
~-l
i
i
j
i
f
Measure 47 - The Deliherari!nn~
Begin and Continue
re`~e opening of the legislative session has signaled the
..eginning of meetings, meetings and more meetings to
discuss the implications of Measure 47 - at least for
the Legislature. For the rest of us, work began m
onths ago, even before the passage of the measure.
Nevertheless, the opening of the session means that
efforts to bring all of the distinct groups into ac -e-
ment will now begin in earnest.
First, the Legislature. Revenue Committee member-
ships were finalized this week for both House and
Senate committees. Tom Brian (R-Tioarrlt for..o.
Tigard Mayor, is chairman of the House Committee;
Ken Baker (R-Clackamas), is chairman of the Senate
Committee. Other members of the House Committee
are Representatives Lee Beyer (D-Spring fief:); Anitra
Rasmussen (D-Portland); Lane Shetterly (R-Dallas);
Randall Edwards (0-Portland): Tony Corcoran (D-Cot-
tage Grove); Leslie Lewis (R-Carlton); and Mark
Simmons IR-Elgin). Other members of the Senate
Committee are Neil Bryant (R-Bend), Tom Hartung (R-
Portland), Joan Dukes (D-Astoria) and Randy Leonard
(D-Portland). For the first two weeks of the session,
the committees will meet jointly for orientation
sessions which will cover finance issues generally.
Orientation discussions about Measure 47 should begin
,--Pxt week.
dJutside of the Legislature, League Board
representatives Larry Griffith and Alice Schlenker have
been participating in the Governor's Local Government
Policy Advisory Committee to draft a comprehensive
legislative proposal. The Advisory Committee and
Technical Sub-Committees have met numerous times
over the past months and their efforts have produced
several drafts. Although several major issues remain
unresolved, the group is moving closer toward a
finished product. Their intention is to deliver the draft
to the Legislative Committees as soon as possible.
Preliminary conversations with Representative Tom
Brian suggest that any draft provided by this group will
be given serious consideration, and may even form the
framework on which legislative deliberations are
based.
The major components of the draft proposals include:
1. New Levies. The so-called "local option" has been
incorporated into the draft, allowing local
jurisdictions to seek voter approval for additional
operating and bond levies outside the limits of the
Measure.
Fees and Charges. Under Measure 47, increases in
fees and charges for any "government product or
service" which is used to offset lost property taxes
must receive voter approval. The main thrust of
L
League of Oregon Cities Legislative Bulletin /January 17, 1997
the proposed layisidtiun is to define 'government
product or service" as including only those services
which are "principally available" from government.
For example, sewer user charges would be an
example of a service "principally available" from
government, and increases in such charges to
offset property tax losses would not be allowable
without a vote. However, services that are not
"principally available" from government, or for
which there are alternative providers (such as a
swimming pool), would not be subject to these
provisions.
3. Annexation. The Measure provides for certain
exemptions from the cap on taxes, including for
properties that are improved, rezoned, subdivided
or annexed. If a property is annexed, the taxes on
that property may increase in excess of the
limitations if a "majority of voters" approve the
annexation. The current draft clarifies that
'majority of voters" means only the voters in the
area to be annexed, unless no voters reside in that
area, in which case voters of the entire jurisdiction
would be approached.
4. Urban Renewal. The draft endorses the premised
that tax increment revenues pledged to
outstanding and future bonds are not and will not
be subject to the Measure. Further, increases in
incremental revenues are not "new and additional
taxes' subject to voter approval.
5. Bonds. Capital construction and improvements will
be defined to include furnishings. The definition of
bonded indebtedness will likely be based on
current statutory definitions, and will include tax
increment financings and other obligations to
which property taxes are pledged. Other details
are still to be worked out.
6. Public Safety Definition and Prioritization. Current
drafts provide that public safety shall mean law
enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical
services corrections and emergency dispatch. The
current prioritization language holds that the
percent of revenue reduction to public safety shall
be less than the percent of revenue reduction to
other government programs.
Issues to be Resolved:
1. Allocation of Loss. The big one. How should the
loss be allocated to prioritize public safety?
Providing complete discretion to local
governments? Setting the allocation in a strict
formula that allows no local discretion?
Somewhere in between,? Is it even possible to
have a formula that reflects the different
conditions inherent in each tax code?
Page 3
C.ilculatwn of the "Cut." The strict language of
the Measure says that property taxes must be
reduced to the lesser of 1994-95 levels or 90% of
1995-6 levels of total ad valorem taxes including
the taxes for bonds. Assuming that the measure's
i anguage is incorporated into legislation, the
j property tax reduction will be far less than was
j originally estimated.
i
Although we are optimistic about some of the
:omponents of the draft proposals, it is important to
r,!mcntber that they are components of a drafr
uroposal. As such, they are, subject to change.
tie next meeting of the task force is on January 17.
:'•Vo will keep you posted as things develop.
Transportation Funding
on Session's Agenda
The outlook for the passage of a transportation
funding package this legislative session is the best it
has been for years. Support for a funding increase has
been expressed by legislative leaders as well as by the
Governor. Following the release of the Governor's
nudget recommendation, which called for an increase
or $391 million for transportation in the next biennium,
House Speaker Lynn Lundquist (R-Powell Butte) stated
'the disagreement over vehicle taxes might revolve
around how much." The general sense in the Capitol
.s not if something will pass, but what the package
entails and how much it raises. While the initial news
is positive, there is still a long road, filled with many
possible detours, to travel before we have a funding
bill signed into law.
The Governor is proposing an ambitious plan that will
place a fee on the miles traveled by each vehicle, a
transportation system access fee, and indexing of the
Gas Tax. The Governor believes these new fees will
•elp reduce the miles people will drive, raise more
`unds for transportation, increase the number of
payers for our transportation system, provide funds for
transit, and finally, protect us from the inevitable
decline in gas use due to alternatively fueled vehicles
and future higher mileage vehicle:. In addition, the
Governors' legislation implements the Oregon
Transportation Initiative recommendations that include
establishing regional committees which would use
livability and economic opportunity criteria to make
transportation spending decisions.
Legislative response to the Governors' proposal has
been less than enthusiastic. Some legislators
expressed concern that at the same time that a
consensus had developed around raising the Gas Tax,
the Governor's plan goes off in a different direction
that may make it much harder to assemble the needed
three-fifths vote for approval.
Page C
Other proposals that are circulating include: a nine-
cent increase over three years in the gas tax, pushed
by the Associated General Contractors, and a six-cent
increase over two years that the Board of AAA Oregon has said that they can support in addition to a $6
increase in the Vehicle Registration Fee. Other
legislators have mentioned increases ranging from four
to ten-cents. A one-cent increase in the Gas Tax with
an equivalent increase in the Weight-Mile Tax raises
$25 million per biennium
While we are starting the session an a positive note,
there are a number of major issues that must be
overcome before a transportation funding package is
passed. A Constitutional Amendment, passed in the
spring of last year, requires that revenue measures
pass by a two-thirds vote rather than majority vote.
That means 36 votes are needed in the House and 18
in the Senate, compared with 31 and 16 in years past.
Other issues will include reaching agreement on which
fees and taxes to raise, with the legislature initially
inclined to look to raising the Gas Tax and Vehicle
Registration fee, and the Governor favoring the fee on
vehicle's miles traveled, the Transportation Access
Fee, and indexing of the Gas Tax to inflation.
Interest groups have raised several issues that they
would like addressed in any funding legislation. The
segments of trucking industry have raised two issues:
first, opposition to any fee increase; and second, to
aboltion of the weight-mile system of truck taxation
and replacement with a diesel fuel tax. Their most
recent proposal puts the highway fund at risk and
shifts taxes from interstate truckers to in-state
truckers. At odds with the truckers is AAA of Oregon,
whose leaders have stated that they will oppose any
package that doesn't increase truck fees
proportionately. Finally, several industry groups have
indicated a desire to include preemption of local
transportation revenue raising authority in the funding
measure.
To ensure that we pass a funding measure, and to
make sure it provides adequate funding to meet real
city needs it is vital for cities :o contact their
legislators and inform them of the condition of the
local transportation system and the importance of
additional funds.
Plugging into Electricity
Industry Restructuring
Competition nas struck the electricity industry. One of
the last great American monopolies is being -
deregulated. This deregulation or "restructuring" will I-,
fundamentally alter the basic framework of electric
utilities. These traditionally vertically-integrated -
monopolies are being broken up. New energy and
energy service providers are entering the marketplace.
League of Oregon Cities Legislative Bulletin January 17, 1997
11
IS
F
!eade. !ne .,!fc...,, cpo...auon
funding. During the 1993 and 1995 sessions
transportation funding issues went directly to the to
House Revenue Committee where they died.
file this session it appears the bill will have an
additional Committee stop at the Transportation
Committee, it appears that will be an advantage.
The Transportation Committee members have a great
deal of experience and interest in the funding issue
and will have the time to focus on the specifics of a
package. The Revenue Committee is going to be
deeply enmeshed in resolving many of the questions
that are raised by measure 47.
In an effort to coordinate House action on
transportation funding and spending issues
Transportation Chair Montgomery, Revenue Chair
Brian and Ways and Means Transportation
Subcommittee Chair John Watt (R- Medford), plan to
meet regularly to coordinate their efforts. The
attention, so early in the session, to transportation
issues puts us far ahead of our effor;s during the
past two sessions.
Living in the Past
~;i's face it; it happens to all of us. At some time or
other, we wish that we lived in simpler times; times
without the complexities of property tax limitations,
federal devolution, crime On most of the
occasions when this desire to 'live in the past'
occurs, it's alright to daydream of those simpler
moments. In fact, we can only think of two
instances when its not okay. The most obvious is
when you refuse to return to the present - ever. The
second is when you're putting together the first
Legislative Bulletin of a new session. In the first
instance, your family will be terribly worried. In the
second, you'll have to publicly note that the list of
legislative committee members, puolished in last
week's Bulletin, listed the members of the 1997
House Committees and the members of the 1995
Senate and Joint Committees. Then, you'd have to
say that you have corrected this problem in the
current edition and urge your readers to throw out
last week's listing of committee members and
replace it with this week's listing. All in all, it could
make you feel somewhere between silly and stupid.
It did us, anyway. We hope you forgive us.
League of Oregon Cities Legislative Bulletin /January 24, 1997
Measure 47 Activities
In the second week of the legislative session, the
members of the committees charged with addressing
the implementation of Measure 47 continued efforts
to orient themselves in the brave new world of
taxation. From general information on the State's
financial resources to more specific data on excise,
income and property taxes, Committee members
immersed themselves in a broad array of facts and
figures.
House and Senate Revenue Committee members
have continued to meet together during this
orientation period. On Wednesday, specific Measure
47-related orientation sessions began with Legislative
Revenue staff members providing a fairly detailed
review of the Measure's provisions and the issues
associated with each. The Committee is scheduled
to wrap up orientation sessions this week. Next
week, the House and Senate Committees will
separate: the House will begin deliberations on
Measure 47 in earnest, and the Senate will take up
education finance. Local governments have been
asked to present testimony on Tuesday and
Wednesday of next week to review the efforts of the
Local Government Policy Advisory Committee to
draft a legislative proposal.
Such efforts continued this week. The Advisory
Committee, originally established by the Governor to
bring together cities, counties and special districts to
craft a proposal reflecting the point of view of non-
school local governments, met Thursday in a final
session. Although the language being drafted for
legislative review is far from complete, the
Committee has made excellent progress in addressing
many thorny issues and establishing basic principals.
The House Revenue Committee has indicated that it
is extremely interested in receiving a copy of this
draft as soon as possible, even if it is incomplete.
In the Local Government Group's deliberations, the
following decisions were reachad during the past
week:
1. Allocation of Loss. The Committee's draft will
incorporate two options in determining the
manner of allocating the loss incurred by each
jurisdiction. The first option will be for local
governments to attempt to reach agreement
among themselves on the manner in which losses
will be allocated and public safety prioritized.
Should they fail to reach agreement, or should
local governments prefer not to engage in local
deliberations, the draft provides a formula to be
used as a "default." If this approach is selected,
each local government would certify the portion,
if any, that it uses for public safety. Thereafter,
revenues post-Measure 47 effects would be
calculated on a tax code-by-tax rode basis.
Page 3
i
_ I
j
I
i
i
Ninety-five percent of the revenues would be
allocated on a pro-rata basis to every jurisdiction.
Five percent of the revenue would be reserved
for public safety and be allocated to each
provider on a pro-rata basis.
2. Additional Levies. New and additional levies
outside the limits of Measure 47 but within the
limits of Measure 5 would be allowed for every
jurisdiction, but would be subject to voter
approval land voter turnout requirements for non-
general elections). Jurisdictions could also ask
for voter approval of levies inside the limit - an
approach that might be used to replace expiring
serial levies. To the extent that expiring levies
under the limit are not renewed, other
jurisdictions have the opportunity to increase
their tax collections on a pro-rata basis assuming
sufficient levy authority exists.
3. Bonds. Capital Construction and Improvements
will be defined as under Measure 5 with the
addition of definitions for 'qualified maintenance
and repair" and "qualified supplies and
equipment.' Qualified maintenance and repaid
would be any expenditure which includes
modifications that were not reasonably
anticipated at the time the property was
constructed or acquired or if completing
maintenance and repairs adds value to the
property and does not merely maintain the
existing value. Qualified supplies and equipment
would be defined as those that, upon installation,
are incorporated into the property for which the
bonds are issued. In addition, vehicles used for
public safety with a projected useful life of five
years, or for which the period of repayment
matched the useful life of the vehicle, would also
be eligible. Tax Increment Financings and those
that are secured by property taxes would be
defined as bonded indebtedness for purposes of
the Measure.
On other fronts, the Attorney General's office has
indicated that it expects to have responses to several
critical questions posed by the legislative revenue
staff during the first week of February. Among other
issues, the Attorney General has been asked to opine
on the question of whether or not in calculating the
cut, bonds can be considered part of the 'base."
The difference could be substantial in the amount of
loss incurred by each jurisdiction. Other questions
include whether the voter turnout requirement
applies to renewal of taxes (such as serial levies)
authorized inside the Measure 47 cap and whether
urban renewal taxes can be imposed without voter
approval.
Page 4
1
Governor's Natural
Resources Investment Budget
Governor Kitzhaber has recommended the creation of""
a Natural Resource Investment Account. It provides
$30 million per year for state services to retain and
rebuild state parks, clean up rivers and streams, and
restore salmon runs. Funding will come from a
3Cwholesale tax on beverage containers.
Specifically, $15 million per year would be used to
restore existing park operations and program
services, repair and renovate facilities, improve
computer and information management, improve
recreation and natural resource programs, develop
facilities in existing parks, acquire new park
properties, and reduce park user fees. $10 million per
year will provide grants to Oregon landowners and
organizations, including watershed councils, Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, and the Cooperative
Extension Service, to protect and restore healthy
stream conditions and to restore watersheds and
recover declining salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat
stocks. $5 million per year will assist state agencies
in coordinating and facilitating implementation of the
salmon plan and to prepare plans required by the
federal Clean Water Act for streams listed as water
quality
limited. The proposal includes 19 positions be adders---,
to both the Department of Agriculture and to the
Department of Environmental Quality for these
purposes.
The Governor's proposal includes a new system of
redemption centers, and expansion of the bottle bill
law to include coffee, tea and juice containers.
Under the new system beverage distributors will pay
4.5 cents per container to a state-run account: 3
cents for state parks and healthy streams, and 1.5
centers for a handling fee for redemption centers. In
areas without redemption centers, retailers will be
required to continue to accept containers.
The Governor's proposal is contained in HB 2208, HB
2209, and HS 2346.
The League supports the Governor's Salmon
Restoration Initiative and Healthy Streams
Partnership, but does not have a position on the
funding proposal at this time. It will be discussed by
the LOC Board of Directors at its January 24
meeting.
League of Oregon Cities Legislative Bulletin / January 24, 1997
J
_1
j AGENDA ITEM # rJ
1997
OF J
28
anuary
.
FOR AGENDA
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
j COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Walnut Island Presentation of results of workshop and feasibility of sewer extension
1
PREPARED BY: Laurie N. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ~
I
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
j Staff will present the results of the meeting with Walnut Island residents regarding extension of sewer service.
Information will also be presented regarding the costs of exiension of sewer service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
! No staff recommendation.
i
INFORMATION SUMMARY
j Staff met with Walnut Island residents on December 19, 1996 to receive input from the residents on hooking up
4
,gyp the City's sewer system. The majority of residents indicated they did not want to receive sewer services from
-
efhe City, or be annexed by the City. Staff asked residents to identify, on the map provided, whether or not they
t .
wished to receive sewer services. Engineering staff then took this information to determine the feasibility and
yS costs associated to extending sewer service to residents interested in receiving the service. Engineering staff
! found that it would cost approximately $20,000 per resident to receive the sewer hook-up. A memorandum
from Engineering staff is attached.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No alternatives are presented.
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal notes are presented.
i
i
i
i?dou;dc' -dot
R,:
I
1
A
A
'j
,
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ;lam
i TO: Laurie Nicholson
r~
FROM: Chris Beatty
i
DATE: January 21, 1997
t ~ -
SUBJECT: Cost Estimates for Sanitary Sewer in Walnut Island
~ i
At the meting with the resident- from the 121st Avenue, Alberta Street, James Street, and Marion Street the
residents were asked if they were interested in bringing sanitary sewer to their neighborhood. Responses were
charted on a large exhibit map. Based on this map, there appears to be seven residents on James Street who show
interest. There appeared to be very little interest elsewhere. I prepared cost estimates to serve interested residents "
with sewer, particularly by extending the existing sever in the dminao vay to the west of these properties, up to
James Street. After a more thorough investigation of this possibility, it vvas found that the sever was located on
j the west side of the drainigevay, not along the low point. Therefore, serving James street from this line would
not be possible. This leaves two options for serving James Street with sanitary sever:
2
] Option "A" - extending sewer from Lansdowne Lane through the dminageway on the cast side, then up to James
i Street.
I
i
i
I
1
3
s
L
Option "B" - extending server from Tippitt Place up 121 st Avenue to James Street.
Estimated costs for each option are shown on the attached Exhibit "A".
Two methods of funding projects are by a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) or by a Reimbursement District. f
Both methods require annexation to the City. A L.I.D. is funded by the sale of municipal bonds. Each member
of the district pays installments for their fair share of the project whether they connect to the sewer or not.
L.I.D.'s are typically more expensive due to high administmtive costs of selling the bonds. A Reimbursement
District is funded by an individual, corpomtion, city , etc.. Each member repays the original funder ofthe project
for their 42ir share of the project. This is paid in a lump sum payment at the time they connect to the sewer.
There is no requirement to connect to the sewer if the resident has a properly functioning septic system. Both
funding methods would cover lice cost for the public server only. Each member of a district would also be
required to pay a $2235 hook-up fix and are responsible for all costs for private plumbing and abandoning the
existing septic system.
f
Another possible option for serving James Street with sanitary sewer is to wait until the large, undeveloped M
properties to the south of Marion Street develops. If these properties were to develop, sever would have to be
extended by either Option "A" or Option "B". This could make a project much less expensive to the properties i
t
on James Street.
3
EXHIBIT "A"
a
OPTION "A" - EXTENDING SEWER FROM LANSDOWNE LANE THROUGH DRAINAGEWAY
UNIT PRICE
COST i
.
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF PIPE OFF STREET (FP) 1070 $100
$107,000
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF PIPE IN STREET (Fr) 1030 $75
$77,250
$184,250
20% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
I
$36,850
i
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$221,100
15%ENGINEERING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
$33,165
t
i
' ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$254,265
i
$250,000
i
OPTION "B" - EXTENDING SEWER FROM TIPPITT PLACE UP 121ST AVENUE
UNIT PRICE
I
COST
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF PIPE IN STREET (FT) 1920 $75
j'
$144,000
20% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
$28,800
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
$172,800
{ 15%ENGINEERING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
$25,920
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
$198,720
S200,000
NOTES:
OPTION "A" WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL LAND ACQUISITION. THE ESTIMATED COST
j
SHOWN ABOVE DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS.
f
OPTION "A" COULD SERVE 8 YES VOTES WHILE OPTION "B" COULD SERVE 7 YES VOTES.
I
1
i
i
I
ti
CITY SEWERS AND SANITATION =4
104
.
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER SYSTEM;
ASSESSMENT PLAN
224.065 Writ of review. Notwithstanding
any of the provisions of ORS 224.010 t(
` 224.010 Definitions for ORS 224.010 to 224.170, owners of any property against `i
224.170. As used in ORS 224.010 to 224.170
which an assessment for a local improvement
- unless the context requires otherwise:
,
under this chapter has been imposed may
(1) "City" means any incorporated city seek a review thereof under the provisions
or town.
"
of ORS 34.010 to 34.100. 11967 c.280 §2 (enacted in
lieu of 224.060 and 224.070)l
(2)
Council" means the council or other 221070 [Amended by 1959 c.220 §2; mNaled by 1967
municipal authority of a city
280
. C-
§1 (224.065 enacted in lieu of 224.070)1
224.020 Authority of city to constr
t
uc
224.080 Record and effect of judgment.
sewage system. Whenever the council of Upon final determination of the review a j
any city deems it necessary or ex
edie
t t
p
n
o
construct a sewer partially within and par-
tially without the
it
transcript of the judgment shall be filed with
the auditor, clerk or other official of the cit
c
y, or to construct a
sewer outlet, or do any other work, acts or
things without the city for proper dis
o
l
y
having charge of the assessment records,
whereupon it shall be entered in the records
p
sa
of sewerage and drainage, the city, through
its council
ma
i
b
of the city and other records as provided in
ORS 224.090 and 224
100 and shall c
tit
t
,
y acqu
re
y purchase, con-
demnation or otherwise, any property rights
of way, easement and other rights without
.
ons
u
e
the assessment against the property. It shall
bear interest from the date that other as-
the city as may be needed or deemed essen-
sessments for such sewer or work bear in-
tial for the construction of the sewer
sewer
terest and shall be enforced and collected in
,
outlet, or other works. It may also provide
like manner as the assessment is collected
for and do all things which may be necessary
aainst s
r
u
e
w
h
h
e
or deemed essential for proper construction
a
sessed for
s
e
er
or other
work
In
ch
of such sewer, sewer outlet, and for other
works, acts and things which may be deemed
.
case the ud ment on a
g ppeal is for the same
amount as the assessment, no entries need
necessary or essential for the proper disposal
of sewerage and draina
e from th
it
be made of the transcript. [Amended by 1967
c280 §31
g
e c
y and
adjacent territory.
224.090 Assessment lien on property
224.030 Authority of city- to alter wa_
outside city limits; priority. No assessmtvl[
ter flow; limitations. A city, through its
council, may divert water and waterways
fill
under ORS 224.040 against property beyond j
the limits of the city shall be a lien on the
,
or drain lakes, ponds or other waters, in-
crease or diminish the flow of waters in na-
Property until a certified transcript of the
assessment in so far as it affects such
j
tural channels or dam channels and do such
other acts and thi
prop-
erty has been filed with the county clerk or
ngs a: may bo lound nec-
essary or essential for the matters provided
other person having custody and charge of
the mortgage records of the count
F
for in ORS 224.010 to 224.120 and in ORS
224.170. However
no
ro
ert
i
ht
y.
rom
the date of such filing the assessment shall
b
,
p
p
y r
g
s or other
vested rights shall be taken without agree-
ment with the owne
e a lien and charge against the property
upon which it is imposed, prior and superior
r or a proceeding of con-
demnation
to all other liens and encumbrances whatso-
,
ever thereon, except general taxes.
_ 224.040 Assessment of property; col-
s lection. The coun
il
224.100 Records and indexes of tran-
c
may provide for and
; make a local assessment for benefit
i
scripts; effect of review. The clerk or offi-
s aga
nst
any and all property whether within or
without the
it
cer referred to in ORS 224.090 shall record
the transcript referred to in that
ti
i
c
y or partially within or par-
tially without the city and enforce a col-
sec
on
n
the mortgage records of the county and
lection of such assessments
i
properly index it. The issuance of a writ of
.
224.050 Rights of owners outside city
limits
Th
review shall not prevent the filing, recording
and indexing of such transcript
but u
on j
.
e owners of property without the
city shall be
iven lik
ti
,
p
final determination of the review a further
g
e no
ce and shall have
like opportunities of remon
t
transcript shall be filed showing the amount
s
rance and have
all other rights and remedies which the
ow
of the assessment. A notation shall be made
upon the margin of th
d
f
ners of property within the city may have
or be given, including the privile
es of th
e recor
o
the first
transcript showing that it has been merged
i
g
e
Bancroft Bonding Act or similar charter
provisions relatin
t
b
di
nto the second transcript. The second tran-
script shall be indexed and recorded and the
g
o
on
ng of assess-
ments.
same shall, for the amount specified therein
222060 (Amended by 1959 c220 §I; n•p•alcd by 1967
e.280 §1 (224
065
,
have the same force and effect as the first
transcript would have had
.
enacted in lieu of 22.7.060)1
. JAinended by 1967
e2P.0 §41
Title 21
Page
89
(1995 Edition)
m
i
I
1
i
I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
~ G
I.
I,
I
i
i
t
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Ratification of a three year labor agreement between the rite and the Tigard Police
Officers Association effective July 1 1996 and ending June 30 1999 /
PREPARED BY: Sandy 7odrow DEPT HEAD OK . &t - CITY ADMIN OK L4~~
Should the City Council ratify a three year labor agreement recently negotiated between the City and the Tigard
Police Officers Association to be effective July 1, 1996 and end June 30, 1999, and direct the City Manager to
sign the labor agreement on behalf of the City. Major provisions of the agreement, as previously discussed with
Council, include the implementation of the Classification and Compensation Study effective July 1, 1996; a 3%
cost of living increase effective July 1, 1996; a 6% increase to all sworn employees on February 2, 1997 in
exchange for sworn employees paying 6% of the PERS retirement contribution beginning February 2, 1997; a
I 1% increase effective February 2, 1997 for all non-swom employees in the ICMA retirement program in
exchange from employees changing from a 12% to an 11% retirement contribution (10% contribution effective
ly 1, 1997 with offsetting 1% salary increase); and the removal of the classification of Sergeant from the
TPOA bargaining unit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Your Council ratify the agreement between the City and the Tigard Police Officers Association as described
above and authorize the City Manager to sign the labor agreement on behalf of the City.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Major highlights of the proposed agreement include the following items previously discussed with Council:
• Effective July 1, 1996 the results of the Classification and Compensation Study will be implemented for TPOA
represented classifications;
• Effective February 2, 1997, sworn employees will start contributing 6% of the PERS retirement contribution;
• Effective February 2, 1997 non-sworn employees will change from a 12% to an 11% retirement contribution
into the ICMA retirement program (10% contribution effective July 1, 1997 with an offsetting 1% salary
increase);
• The cost of living increase negotiated for TPOA represented employees will be 3%, effective July 1, 1996, as it
was for Management/Professional and OPEU employees;
• The classification of Sergeant has been removed from the bargaining unit;
• The Association and the City have entered into a "sidebar" agreement to discuss the issue of compensation
under the educational/longevity provisions during the life of the contract.
AGENDA ITEM # . Zoo-/
FOR AGENDA OF t .18
The fiscal impact for the major economic items was previously presented to and discussed with Council at their
November 26, 1996 meeting.
i:ki"i&-da
1
I
t.
i ;
-1
1
I
j
I
AGENDA ITEM # b
8
~
i
FOR AGENDA OF _y3_
1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution amending the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and
j Professional Group Employees to add the classification of "Sergeant" at Range 63.
PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK liy~4^--CITY ADMIN OK
i
[
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
1
j Should the Council amend the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management/Professional Group
employees by adding the classification of "Sergeant" at Saiary Range 63.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Your Council amend the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group
I
[
Employees to include the classification of "Sergeant" at Salary Range 63 as shown on the attached Resolution.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
I Prior to the negotiation of the new labor agreement with the Tigard Police Officers Association, the classification
.,.qf "Sergeant" was represented by the Association. As part of the new labor agreement it was agreed that the
"
"
Sergeant
be removed from the bargaining unit and placed in the Management and Professional
4-classification of
Group. Positions within the classification of "Sergeant" perform supervisory functions, and, therefore, are more
appropriate for inclusion in the Management and Professional Group. Human Resources has reviewed the duties
1 and responsibilities of the classification of "Sergeant" and has taken into account the relationship between the
Sergeant and the subordinate Police Officer classification as well as the results of the Classification and
j
Compensation Study adopted by City Council and recommends placement of the "Sergeant" classification at
s Salary Range 63 in the Management/Professional Salary Schedule.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
{
!
FISCAL NOTES
Placement of the "Sergeant" at Salary Range 63 in the Management and Professional Group Salary Schedule
I
retains the appropriate spread in total compensation between the Sergeant and subordinate Police Officers as
well as maintaining the concepts of supervisor subordinate relationships adopted as a result of the Classification
f
and Compensation Study. Range 63 also represents a 60,o increase to offset the employees' assumption of 6%
of the PERS retirement contribution. The fiscal impact of this action was previously presented to and discussed
with Council at their November 26, 1996 meeting.
I
i
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EXISTING FY 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL GROUP EMPLOYEES TO ADD THE CLASSIFICATION 4
3 OF SERGEANT AT SALARY RANGE 63.
a
WHEREAS, as a result of labor negotiations with the Tigard Police Officers Association, the classification 1
of Sergeant was removed from the bargaining unit and placed in the Management and Professional Group;
1
y WHEREAS, Human Resources has determined that the appropriate salary range for this classification is
Range 63; 1 "
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the existing FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional
Group Employees to be amended to reflect the addition of the Sergeant classification;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: An amended FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group
! Employees reflecting the addition of the classification of Sergeant at Salary Range 63 is
attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A;
+1 SECTION 2: The Council orders the adoption of the amended FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for
r Management and Professional Group Employees.
1997.
Mayor - City of Tigard
CITY OF TIGARD.. OREGON
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL GROUP
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR 1996/1997
EXHIBIT A
MNGMT
3 RANGE
CATEGORY
CLASSIFICATION TITLE
I 43
i
M3
Confidential Executive Assistant
44A
M4
Library Volunteer Coordinator
M4
Library Technical Services Coordinator
j
M3
Micro Computer Support Technician
45
M3
Assistant Planner
Executive Assistant to City Administration
Human Resources Technician
Circulation Supervisor
Risk Technician
46A
M4
Buyer
M3
Police Records Supervisor
48
M3
Development Services Supervisor
50A M3
Fleet Services Coordinator
Youth Services Specialist
Associate Planner
Budget & Financial Reporting Analyst
Wastewater Operations Supervisor
Water Operations Supervisor
Grounds and Streets Supervisor
Human Resources Analyst
City Recorder
Library Division Manager
Senior Human Resources Analyst
Senior HRrrelecommunications Analyst
Page 1
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
i
I
PAY RANGE
$12.28 - $16.45
$2,128 - $2,851
$25,541 - $34,218
$12.59 - $16.87
i
$2,183 - $2,925
$ 26,191 - $35,104
I
$12.92 - $17.31
$2,239 - $3,000
$26,865 - $36,003
p -
$13.24 - $17.76
I
$2,296 - $3,077
$27,551 - $36,926
i
$13.94 - $18.67
$2,416 - $3,236
$28,987 - $38,836
$14.66 - $19.64
$2,540 - $3,405
$30,485 - $40,859
$15.03 - $20.15
l
$2,606 - $3,492
$31,271 - $41,907
$15.42 - $20.66
$2,673 - $3,582
i
$32,070 - $42,981
$15.81 - $21.19
$2,741 - $3,673
$32,894 - $44,080
$16.63 - $22.29
$2,884 - $3,865
j
$34,605 - $46,377
j
$17.06 - $22.87
$2,958 - $3,964
$35,491 - $47,563
$17.50 - $23.45
$3,034 - $4,064
1
$36,402 - $48,773
1
r-
1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL GROUP
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR 1996/1997
EXHIBIT A
MNGMT
RANGE
CATEGORY
CLASSIFICATION TITLE
PAY RANGE
58
M2
Project Engineer Hourly
$17.96 - $24.05
Operations Division Manager Monthly
$3,112 - $4,170
Property Division Manager Annually
$37,338 - $50,034
Utility Division Manager
Administrative Services Manager
c
59
M2
Planning Supervisor Hourly
$18.59 - $24.67
i
Plans Examination Supervisor Monthly
$3,191 - $4,276
Annually
$38,287 - $51,308
60
M2
Senior Management Analyst/Risk Hourly
$18.88 - $25.30
Monthly
$3,273 - $4,386
Annually
$39,273 - $52,631
61
M2
Planning Manager Hourly
$19.37 - $25.96
Financial Operations Manager Monthly
$3,357 - $4,498
Annually
$40,285 - $53,979
63
M4
Sergeant
Hourly
$20.37 - $27.30
Monthly
$3,531 - $4,732
Annually
$42,372 - $56,784
-
64
M2
Building Official Hourly
$20.89 - $27.99
Engineering Manager Monthly
$3,621 - $4,853
Annually
$43,455 - $58,236
66
N12
Assistant to the City Administrator Hourly
$21.98 - $29.45
Lieutenant Monthly
$3,810 - $5,105
'
Network Services Director Annually
$45,715 - $61,257
68
M2
Human Resources Director Hourly
$23.12 - $30.98
Monthly
$4,007 - $5,370
Annually
$48,087 - $64,440
69
M2
Police Captain Hourly
$23.71 - $31.78
Monthly
$4,110 - $5,508
Annually
$49,323 - $66,101
70
M1
Library Director Hourly
$24.32 - $32.59
Finance Director Monthly
$4,215 - $5,649
City Engineer Annually
$50,584 - $67,786
72
M1
Public Works Director Hourly
$25.58 - $34.28
,
Community Development Director Monthly
$4,435 - $5,942
Annually
$53,218 - $71,306
`
73
M1
Police Chief Hourly
$26.24 - $35.16
Monthly
$4,548 - $6,095
d
Annually
$54,578 - $73,141
:
Page 2 H:tDOCSWNGTSLRY.XLS
-
REVISED 1/05/97
W
4
AGENDA ITEM # Be-
FOR AGENDA OF
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution directing that a) the City discontinue payment of the 6% employee portion
of the Public Employees Retirement System contribution on behalf of all swom employees of the Tigard Police
Department represented by the Tigard Police Officers Association, and on behalf of all swom officers of the
department within the Management Professional Group; b) the 6% employee contribution not be subject to state
and federal withholding; and c) the current FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group
employees be amended to reflect a 6% increase effective February 2, 1997 for the classifications of Police Chief,
Police Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant in exchange for those swom personnel paying 6% of the PERS retirement
contribution.
PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow DEPT. HEAD OK .CIT'Y ADMIN OK &v'4-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City act to direct the discontinuation of the City's payment of the 6% employee portion of the PERS
retirement contribution for all sworn employees of the Police Department; authorize this employee contribution to
be in pre-tax dollars; and amend the current Salary Schedule for Management Professional Group employees to
provide an offsetting salary increase of 6% to the classifications of Police Chief, Police Captain, Lieutenant and
,,,,ergeant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution as described above and attached to this agenda summary,
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On the direction of the City Council, the negotiated labor agreement with the Tigard Police Officers Association
(TPOA) contains the provision that the City shall cease payment of the 6% employee portion of each sworn
employee's PERS retirement account, and it also provides for a 6% offsetting salary increase. The attached
Resolution would formalize ceasing such payment on behalf of the TPOA swom employees, and would, as
well, authorize ceasing the payment on behalf of swom employees in the classifications of Police Chief, Police
Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant. Your Council will recall that a decision regarding the status of the retirement
benefits for the Chief, Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant was delayed until the final outcome of the TPOA
negotiations was known. The Resolution proposes to extend the same retirement benefits and corresponding
salary adjustment to these staff as those provided for TPOA. Such action would be consistent with prior actions
by Council regarding retirement benefits for management and TPOA staff. j
L.
i
ie process of carrying out Council's direction to
to provide a salary offset for such reduction.
if sworn positions was discussed with Council at
impact not previously discussed with Council
salary to the classifications of Police Chief, Police
f
j
f
1j
f
FR~-
[r
f
~ _
gg
k.
~r
j
CiTY OF TiGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
i
I
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1997 THE CITY DISCONTINUE
PAYMENT OF THE 6% EMPLOYEE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF ALL SWORN EMPLOYEES OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZING THAT THE MANDATORY 6% EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION
NOT BE SUBJECT TO STATE AND FEDERAL WITHHOLDING, AND AMENDING THE
CURRENT FY 1996-97 SALARY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL
GROUP EMPLOYEES.
WHEREAS, the City has reached agreement with the Tigard Police Officers Association to discontinue I
payment of the 6% employee portion of the Public Employees Retirement System account; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to discontinue payment of the 6% employee portion of the Public
Employees Retirement System account for Management and Professional Group sworn employees of the
Police Department; and
WHEREAS, all sworn employees will be required to contribute the employee contribution of six percent
(6%) to PERS from funds deducted from employee salaries effective February 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to permit employees paying the employee portion of the PERS contribution to
do so in Member Paid pre-tax (MMPT) dollars ; and
WHEREAS, Human Resources has evaluated the placement of the classifications of Police Chief, Police
Captain and Lieutenant on the current FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional
Group employees and has determined that they should be placed on Range 75, Range 71 and Range 68
respectively; f r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: Effective February 2, 1997 the City shall discontinue payment of the 6% employee
portion of the Public Employees Retirement System account for all sworn employees of
the Police Department. f
SECTION 2: Payment of the 6% contribution through payroll deduction is mandatory for each
employee who is a member of PERS. Employees do not have the option of receiving
the salary payment is cash and paying the PERS contribution directly.
SECTION 3: The gross wages of employees on the W-2 form for federal and state income tax
purposes will be reported by the City for tax purposes and will be reduced by the
amount of the employees contribution.
t
I
e~
RESOLUTION NO. 97--
Page 1
G:a
8
SECTION 4.
An amended FY 1996-97 Salary Schedule for Management and Professional Group
employees reflecting the new ranges for the classifications of Police Chief, Police
Captain and Lieutenant is attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A.
SECTION 5.
The Council orders the adoption of the amended FY1996-97 Salary Schedule for
Management and Professional Group employees..
PASSED:
This day of 1997.
j
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
iAcitywidclresolutdot
i
{
RESOLUTION NO. 97-_
Page 2
C;-rv r%9 Tir.ARD; OREGON
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL GROUP
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR 1996/1997
EXHIBIT A
MNGMT
RANGE CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION TITLE PAY RANGE
43 M3 Confidential Executive Assistant Hourly $12.28 - $16.45
128 $2 851
44A
M4
Library Volunteer Coordinator
M4
Library Technical Services Coordinator
i
M3
Micro Computer Support Technician
45
M3
Assistant Planner
j
Executive Assistant to City Administration
Human Resources Technician
Circulation Supervisor
Risk Technician
46A
M4
Buyer
M3
Police Records Supervisor
j
48
M3
Development Services Supervisor
50A
M3
Fleet Services Coordinator
Youth Services Specialist
51A
M3
Associate Planner
Budget & Financial Reporting Analyst
52A
M2
Wastewater Operations Supervisor
Water Operations Supervisor
Grounds and Streets Supervisor
' 53
M3
Human Resources Analyst
55A
M3
City Recorder
56A
M2
Library Division Manager
57
M3
Senior Human Resources Analyst
Senior HR/Telecommunications Analyst
Page 1
Monthly
$2,
Annually
$25,541 - $34,218
Hourly
$12.59 - $16.87
Monthly
$2,183 - $2,925 t
Annually
$ 26,191 - $35,104
Hourly
$12.92 - $17.31
Monthly
$2,239 - $3,000
Annually
$26,865 - $36,003
Hourly
$13.24 - $17.76
.
Monthly
$2,296 - $3,077
Annually
$27,551 - $36,926
Hourly
$13.94 - $18.67
Monthly
$2,416 - $3,236
Annually
$28,987 - $38,836
Hourly
$14.66 - $19.64
Monthly
$2,540 - $3,405
Annually
$30,485 - $40,859
Hourly
$15.03 - $20.15
I
Monthly
$2,606 - $3,492
Annually
$31,271 - $41,907
Hourly
$15.42 - $20.66
Monthly
$2,673 - $3,582
Annually
$32,070 - $42,981
Hourly
$15.81 - $21.19
Monthly
$2,741 - $3,673
Annually
$32,894 - $44,080
i
Hourly
$16.63 - $22.29
Monthly
$2,884 - $3,865
Annually
$34,605 - $46,377
Hourly
$17.06 - $22.87
Monthly
$2,958 - $3,964
Annually
$35,491 - $47,563
Hourly
$17.50 - $23.45
Monthly
$3,034 - $4,064
Annually
$36,402 - $48,773
J
J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL GROUP
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR 1996/1997
ExuIRIT A
i MNGMT
RANGE CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION TITLE
i
58 M2 Project Engineer
Operations Division Manager
Property Division Manager
Utility Division Manager
Administrative Services Manager
59 M2 Planning Supervisor
Plans Examination Supervisor
60 M2
61 M2
63 M4
Senior Management Analyst/Risk
Planning Manager
Financial Operations Manager
Sergeant
a
64 M2 Building Official
3 Engineering Manager
s
66 M2 Assistant to the City Administrator
Network Services Director
i 68 M2 Human Resources Director
Lieutenant
70 M1 Library Director
Finance Director
City Engineer
71 M2 Police Captain
72 M1 Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Page 2
Hourly
Monthly
Annually
Hourly $18.59 - $24.67 -
Monthly $3,191 - $4,276
Annually $38,287 - $51,308
Hourly $18.88 - $25.30 _ k
Monthly $3,273 - $4,386
Annually $39,273 - $52,631 I
Hourly $19.37 - $25.96
Monthly $3,357 - $4,498
Annually $40,285 - $53,979 i
Hourly $20.37 - $27.30
Monthly $3,531 - $4,732
Annually $42,372 - $56,784
Hourly $20.89 - $27.99
Monthly $3,621 - $4,853
Annually $43,455 - $58,236
Hourly $21.98 - $29.45
Monthly $3,810 - $5,105
Annually $45,715 - $61,257
Hourly $23.12 - $30.98
Monthly $4,007 - $5,370
Annually $48,087 - $64,440
Hourly $24.32 - $32.59
Monthly $4,215 - $5,649
Annually $50,584 - $67,786
Hourly $24.94 - $33.42
Monthly $4,323 - $5,793
Annually $51,876 - $69,516
Hourly $25.58 - $34.28
Monthly $4,435 - $5,942
Annually $53,218 - $71,306
Hourly $27.57 - $36.95
Monthly $4,779 - $6,404
Annually $57,348 - $76,848
I
H:IDOCS\MNGTSLRY2.XLS
REVISED 1/24197 I "