City Council Packet - 04/15/1997
,r a 2
~'ef~~3+~t~i~~ ~ ~j `c-,~r>.•4~F 9 ~.J .s s a wux+~n f '~.»1 ~ t%> u~t7~Y >i1~,+~~7
fl r5.,'~..,fl'f-*t«.ua:.4ar,~+srarrx'~arar. C6uk~.=afs?'x2,~'$,-. ..~.s.. .:Scs F•~^9 .i... .,.:-:.:~C~f IY,~,.:
' v: F tru i tlt y,~' S 7 „ - z ~ a ry y+ at.
e?sr~ 4'%t `AY~~C','*~v't#'IS t~ffis-Y t s' ~ -Y 4r tk) ~ 7 Y.s L~``
"'J r~ 135 i T ~ L t ~ YL '`i. r y r 3£ 'y ksF (>t,~,}.yr .4,.+
~ Y tz ~`~~✓rxa h~„~~ v r rt,, i n~ ~ x~o r~ ~ x~k '~-j °r"a
t Rs "r x sY' { '"1' ya, ti•^c a~ s t f x"``" f ~ J~yy~~ ~~?s~,~~,r 'i~t!J ~ yak. ! r s.
L "h i,, lr °S ji .~.d'. tr+ ;~,,b ~ •y u x ~~.»x>-} ~ f'~nc&t rat#4~.~. Es
r A~ a.~.. ,rkr~~ 4t r~l s ~ 'ir`v hs'rY 5'~$G' ~ "•~'t, L+y tr b ~~y~..~.j,Z~~+ .
»ryy~`~ h 'lrz 1y, 6 ~ A 1 , .l;i~k h `YYA '•i~~~~~e~ ~ 3~ p
,vs~i~,~, ,'~+-s!s•-t~t^'`~ ~.'r +Ya'~.'t~Y ..zGy~! .,,,y'V ~p y~4~~er~'1
'ls Y L`a~f"r'~25.+5''.4 51Cq G ~`CA 1 Y- k+ ~ J,'~t~.
d 4n 'Si ,y q 5 v' r t `
nk5 ~TPrf Ta ,i
k M
v•
v
t .
C1 _
Y X ~r .
i
i
w
F S
r---
REVISED 4/10197
1
i
i
s
CITY OF TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEEnNG
APRIL 15, 1997 5;30 PM
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW BALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be `
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting
j either the Mayor or the City Administrator.
i
i _
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying
be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda
f items can be heard in any order after 7.30
i
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).
i 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 `I
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 - i
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 1
(
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
APRIL 15, 1997
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Ca!! to Order - City council & 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
6:40 PM
2. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL POLICY ON INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR SPECIAL
COMMUNITY EVENTS u
Risk Manager
300 PM DISCUSSION: TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN ISSUESI
Community Development Director
7:30 PM - -
4. DISCUSSION: SEWER SERVICE OPTIONS
i' Community Development Director _
i
7:45 PM
5. DISCUSSION: STREET ISSUES ON BULL MOUNTAIN
(Note: Discussion topic setover from Visitor's Agenda on 418197)
Community Development Director
8:15 PM
6. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
8:25 PM
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (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.
i
_ 8:45 PM f - -
8. ADJOURNMENT
ccai:\adm\cathy\cca\970315.dm
j COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 2
j
f
7 I
Agenda Item No.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of S 13
WORKSHOP MEETING
i MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 15, 1997 I
I
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order -City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and
Ken Scheckla.
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the
City Manager Liz Newton; Engineering Manager Brian Rager; Senior Planner Nadine
Smith; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
2. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL POLICY ON INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR SPECIAL
COMMUNITY EVENTS
Loreen Mills, Administrative Analyst, presented her concerns that the City have adequate j _
special event insurance. She explained that today cities needed this coverage, citing an example
j from the City of Canby and the public perspective that cities had deep pockets. She referenced
i her memo outlining concerns about special event insurance liability. She recommended that the
City insulate the master insurance policy against several claims in one year exceeding the
policy's coverage limits. She suggested developing a uniform policy to apply to all requests for
special events as opposed to working on a case by case basis.
Ms. Mills referenced a 1991 national survey of cities that identified items increasing a City's -
exposure for special events, directing attention to the top 11 items as listed in the packet which
she distributed to the Council. She explained that the basic issue was whether or not the City
should add special events under its insurance policy or require event operators to provide their
own insurance. She held that the City adding a special event to its own insurance policy
increased the City's risk of exposure since the City did not control the event, and the City's
policy only covered special events in a very limited fashion.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the City could get a more reasonable insurance rate. Ms. Mills said yes,
but advised that it would better to give the event operators the extra money to purchase their
own insurance policies than to increase the City's risk of exposure. She pointed out that if 4
someone made a claim against the City, that claim went on the City's experience record; it
could potentially increase the City's insurance rates over the long nm and make it more difficult
J for the City to obtain the insurance it needed to run the City. If the claim was made against the
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE I
F
j '
event operator's policy, and the City was not named, then the City was clear of the incident.
? Ms. Mills said that she was working with the City Recorder on developing a Special Events
Management manual for event operators to help them identify potential problems and risks. She I
reiterated that it was not a wise decision to provide insurance for something over which the City
had no control. A healthier way to manage risks and the possibility of suits was to give the
i event operators the money to buy the insurance and have them name the City as an additional
insured.
Councilor Rohlf commented that the special events in Tigard have become part of the livability
of the community. He expressed concern that requiring event operators to purchase their own
insurance might discourage these citizen volunteer groups from handling these events. Bill
Monahan, City Manager, commented that it was the Country Daze event that was of particular
concern to staff because they did not know how it would be handled. He pointed out that staff i
' worked closely with the Hot Air Balloon Classic and the Fourth of Ally events. and kncv; what to
expect.
Councilor Hunt agreed with having a uniform policy for all event requests. He asked if special
event insurance would cover the expanded concession stand at Cook Park. Ms. Mills said that
the concession stand was not considered a special event, and would be covered under the City's
property and genera! commercial insurance. However the operation of the stand was not
covered; the sports group running it would provide their own insurance, naming the City as an
j additional insured.
i
{ Ms. Mills asked for Council direction to review the issue prior to making any changes in the
current policy. She mentioned several options, including purchasing "special event insurance"
that would not impact the City's base policy.
s
Mayor Nicoli asked how long staff needed to study this issue. Ms. Mills said that in a month
she could have ball park figures but that it could take up to six months to get a definitive answer
from the insurance company. She explained the factors and processes within the insurance
industry that impacted getting that answer.
In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Mills said that the City has had no
claims filed against it since 1989; prior to that she would have to review the records. She
confirmed that there were different rates for policies covering events at which alcohol was _
served as opposed to those where no alcohol was served. She mentioned that if Country Daze
wanted to serve alcohol they could hire a professional server who carried its own alcohol
liability insurance. She agreed that the insurance for a one day event was probably cheaper than
the insurance for a three day event.
The Council agreed by consensus to accept Ms. Mills' recommendation that event operators
provide their own insurance and to direct her to study alternative policy options.
i
i
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 2
i !
i
i
3. DISCUSSION: TIGARD TRIANGLE DESIGN ISSUES
Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, referenced her memo written in response to the citizen
j questions raised at the last City Council meeting regarding the Triangle design standards. She
said that the most questioned standard was the 660-330 standard. This was imposed as part of
the transportation improvements approved in December and codified at the March hearing.
Mayor Nicoli stated that while he had understood at the hearing that the Task Force supported
the design standards recommendations, since then he has not heard any Task Force member tell
him that they were happy with the Council action. He suggested reconvening the Task Force to
discuss this issue and arrive at an acceptable solution peacefully. If the Task Force could not
resolve it, then Council would have to.
Mr. Monahan commented that there was a difference between telling the Task Force that the,
City would adopt whatever they came up with and giving them a base line standard of what was
acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council did not give the Task Force any conditions when they
originally met. He raised the issue of whether these street needs could be met by private roads
rather than by public roads. 1
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that these standards have not yet been applied to any applications. He
spoke for giving the standards a chance to work prior to modifying them. Mayor Nicoli said _
that while normally he would agree with Mr. Hendryx, this was a situation where what the Task
j Force thought the City was doing and what the City actually did were two different things. The
j misunderstanding needed to be resolved, and the Task Force was the appropriate place in which
j to do that.
1 Councilor Moorespoke in support of the staff approach of allowing the standards a chance to
work. He commented that there might be only one application that questioned this standard. He J
noted the existence of the variance to allow modifications in a plan.
Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that the standards might be continually challenged.
Mayor Nicoli explained that after the hearing he came to understand the implications of this
standard. The 660-330 standard meant that the City would take over private property as public
streets and have to pay to maintain them, instead of having private property owners maintain the
accessways. He cited the Landmark Ford property as an example of an existing development
that would be negatively impacted by this standard if the owner ever sought to modify his
building. He said that he felt that they made a mistake and that they needed to revisit this
particular issue, although he was not opposed to the design standards themselves.
Councilor Hunt raised the issue of whether or not the Task Force had agreed with the staff
j recommendation at the time the standards came to Council. Ms. Smith said that at the last
meeting this issue was discussed with different points of view presented. She stated that she had
understood that there was a consensus on the Task Force to move forward with this
1 recommendation.
~J Councilor Hunt supported the staff position also.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 3
f
I
i
Councilor Moore asked for clarification on whether or not Metro required this standard to be
g met in mixed use areas. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the issue within the context of "big box retail"
} development which Metro decided not to prohibit in General Commercial areas. He pointed out
that the 660-330 standard was applicable to the entire area, not simply Mixed Use Employment
or General Commercial zones. The intent was to provide street connectivity throughout the
entirc mixed use en;pioyawnt cenier. Ms. Smiih mentioned that the standard also applied to
regional centers like Washington Square.
Mayor Nicoli cited the standard's application to regional centers like Washington Square as the
reason he wanted to address the issue. He spoke against creating public streets running through
Washington Square, reiterating the issue of public versus private streets to address the street
connectivity need. 1
The Council discussed finding out exactly what Metro's intentions were regarding the 660-330
standard. Ms. Smith said that she understood the intent of Metro as providing for pedestrian
access easements. Mr. Monahan said that staff could work with Metro to get certainty on this
issue, and then return with a recommendation to Council.
Mayor Nicoli spoke to discussing this issue with other cities who might not yet be aware of the
implications of this standard on their mixed use zones. Councilor Moore concurred with first
finding out what Metro's intentions were. Councilor Rohlf asked for discussion on the impact
of changing the standard on the rest of the Triangle street plan. Ms. Smith pointed out that
changing the standards meant going back through the Code and Transportation Plan amendment
j process as well as a re-evaluation by ODOT and DLCD.
Mayor Nicoli contended that the public versus private street issue did not affect connectivity.
3 He reiterated that it simply meant that cities and counties would start maintaining private real
estate. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that without the public easements, the City could not guarantee
their citizens 24 hour year round access to those streets. Mayor Nicoli argued that private
business owners did not shut down their accessways unless they had a very good reason such as
maintenance or an event; it was a poor way to do business.
Councilor Scheckla supported Councilor Moore's suggestion to continue with the staff
recommendation.
The Council discussed the variance issue. Mayor Nicoli commented that property owners
would not be able to meet the harsh variance criteria, citing Landmark Ford as an example. He
reiterated his concern about the effect of this standard on the property owners in the Triangle.
Councilor Moore commented that existing developments making modifications would not have
to meet the new street standards. Mr. Monahan mentioned an alternative of developing separate
variance criteria for the Triangle.
Mr. Hendryx explained that an existing development would not have to retrofit the entire site if
the owner was simply developing another portion of the site. However if he were modifying the
3 existing development, he would have to meet the standards.
Mayor Nicoli said that the 660-330 requirement for mixed use was not intended to apply to
~J General Commercial. He contended that this standard effectively prevented commercial
development.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 4
i
I
Mr. Monahan summarized the direction to staff as exploring this issue further without
i reconvening the Task Force, getting clarification on Metro's intent with regard to the 660-330
standard, gaining a better understanding on where this standard was supposed to apply, and
returning to Council with a report. The Council agreed by consensus.
4. DISCUSSION: SEWER SERVICE OPTIONS
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council direction to staff to identify sewer service options for the
Walnut Island and portions of unincorporated Washington County.
Councilor Hunt noted the Council goal to work with USA to identify where to locate trunk lines.
He disagreed with the staff approach because he did not think it fulfilled the Council goal. Greg
Berry, Project Engineer, explained that USA already had a trunk line master plan, and that the
City staff knew where sewer lines needed go in. He mentioned that building lines in the Walnut
area was largely dependent on the order of development.
Mayor Nicoli said that while he agreed with development bringing sewer in, he thought it was
important for the City to make sure that lines were put in the right direction to serve even the
pocket areas. Mr. Berry said that that work has largely been completed and could be easily put
into publishable form. Mayor Nicoli asked for a map that illustrated the projected sewer line
locations to be presented at a future workshop. f -
j Mayor Nicoli asked if the Moore property near James and Marion Streets off Walnut was still a
potential development. Mr. Hendryx said that the developer was in pre-app conference at
Washington County currently. He confirmed that the City could have input into the
development process but pointed out that if the urban services transferred to Tigard, then the f
City would take over that review process and put the conditions on the development itself.
1 Mr. Hendryx mentioned that a former staff member had done an overall sewer plan for the
Walnut Island, including preliminary cost estimates.
I Mr. Berry reviewed the funding options available to citizens through USA. These included a
sewer extension program with a flat $6000 connection fee and installment payment provisions;
it applied only in the County. The Council discussed the USA $6000 connection fee. Mayor
Nicoli commented that USA's intent was to stop freeloaders from hooking into the sewer. He
mentioned that USA was considering adding on interest to the $6000.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the options available to Mrs. Tibbetts' and her neighbors to obtain sewer.
These included forming a reimbursement district through the County and forming a local
improvement district through the County or USA or through the City.
Mayor Nicoli directed staff to inform Mrs. Tibbetts of the Moore property development that
might help her and her neighbors' situation, and to suggest that she wait on any action until that
was approved.
Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of who got the $6000 for hooking up to trunk lines that were
within the city limits.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 5
t
j Councilor Hunt asked if permitting the Walnut Island neighbors to connect to sewer without
? annexing the City did not reduce the City's leverage in getting them to annex to the City, and
3 violate the agreement with USA. Mr. Hendryx explained that in the case of a health hazard
situation, that agreement was abrogated. He said that until recently, staff had not known that the
sewer line to which those Walnut Island neighbors could hook up to was under USA jurisdiction
at that location. The line went in and out of the City's jurisdiction.
Councilor Scheckla cited a situation off of Walnut and 106`h in which a homeowner wanted to
hook up to the sewer but the owners of the three homes between his property and the sewer line
did not want to hook up. He asked how the homeowner could get sewer. Mr. Hendryx said that
staff now had the infomiation on the different funding options available to homeowners that
might help in that situation. Ms. Beery explained that even so, without the consent of the other
homeowners it was unlikely that that homeowner could get sewer. !
t
Mayor Nicoli requested staff to contact the appropriate person at USA to v:hcm to communicate
these issues. He spoke for the USA ordinance affecting the cities as well as the rural portions
because that was more fair. He proposed waiting until after the ordinance was finalized, and
then having staff meet with Mrs. Tibbetts to discuss the options available to her.
5. DISCUSSION: STREET ISSUES ON BULL MOUNTAIN
Mr. Hendryx distributed a map illustrating the street connections on Bull Mountain. He
referenced Dick Bewersdorff s memo on the history, requirements and reasoning behind
barricades. He reported that while the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation study was never
adopted, portions of it were incorporated into the Transportation Plan.
Brian Rager, Engineering Manager, explained that the neighbors who lived on 114`h were j
very concerned about the completion of 114`h to connect Gaarde and Bull Mountain Road, and 6
the potential cut through traffic that would use it. The existing neighborhood street was not
capable of handling that much traffic. He said that staff has not investigated this issue but
I would look at both the road condition and the potential for cut through traffic.
1
The Council discussed the issue of opening up substandard streets which then provided a
convenient route to avoid traffic problems on major streets. Mayor Nicoli asked if the neighbors f
understood that the City would bring their street up to standard if the City needed to make that
connection to alleviate traffic problems. Councilor Rohlf said that he had gotten the impression {
from the testimony that the neighbors had always thought this would be a dead-end road, and E
did not want it opened up.
i
f
Councilor Hunt commented that more traffic was the price of progress. He said that he could
not see not putting in a street simply because it would cause more traffic in front of someone's
house.
I
Mayor Nicoli noted that the issue of street connectivity was larger than this specific instance.
He asked if there was a problem with the Planning Commission not insisting on planned street
connections in the face of neighborhood opposition. Mr. Monahan concurred that that was an
issue of concern. He spoke for the Planning Commission and Council meeting on a regular
basis to discuss City planning efforts to make sure that the Commission was in harmony with
the direction of the Council and staff.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 6
i
,I
j
1
L~
i
{
1 Councilor Rohlf commented that he saw the role of government as protecting neighborhoods
from traffic, and expressed concern at ruining a neighborhood area. He spoke for systematic
traffic planning to identify the areas most vulnerable to future traffic and the areas where roads t
( had to go through to meet future transportation needs.
Mr. Hendryx said that staff has heen working, on the required Transportation System Plan for the I
last three to four years. They were currently waiting on the completion of the Regional
• Transportation Plan to finish their evaluation of street needs in Tigard. At this point staff was i
working with a consultant and has not yet begun the public involvement process.
Mayor Nicoli asked staff to provide Ms. Froude with this information on why 114`h was
barricaded.
6. NON AGENDA ITEMS
> Goal Setting
Councilor Hunt expressed his concern that this year's goal setting process did not allow for
more discussion of goals by the Councilors. Mr. Monahan said that staff intended to bring the
goals back in the fall since they were going off-cycle. He commented that the Council liked all
the goals each Councilor mentioned, resulting in a long list of goals which could be shortened if
j a Councilor did not agree with all of them.
Councilor Moore referenced a goal setting seminar he attended that recommended using a -
i facilitator and holding the session outside a regular meeting. Mayor Nicoli said that while he
i did not have a problem with any of the goals set forth, it was an issue if staff was overloaded.
Councilor Scheckla spoke to keeping all the goals but prioritizing them. Councilor Hunt noted
that often staff had said that they were already working on a goal mentioned by the Council. 4
Mr. Monahan said that staff would report back on work already completed or in progress
S relating to Council goals.
( Councilor Hunt asked when Council became involved in the transportation plan. Mr. Monahan 1
suggested researching the records to find the Council discussions on that issue, especially
considering all the changes Metro has made over the years.
> Monopoles
Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of monopole proliferation. Mr. Monahan said that staff was
working on addressing that issue. Councilor Moore mentioned that it was under discussion at
the Community Development Code rewrite. He noted the number of requests for electricity to
monopole sites alr,:ady received by PGE as an indication of the fast pace at which this issue was
developing.
Pam Beery, Legal Counsel, explained that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 increased the
number of cellular service providers licensed per community from two to eight. Each provider
had its own network of line of sight facilities which translated to a lot of poles. Ms. Beery said
that cities could not prevent the providers from building their networks to serve the whole town
but they could regulate them through limiting them to certain zones or by making it tougher to
locate in areas where the city didn't want the towers, and easier where towers were acceptable.
She mentioned that several jurisdictions in the vicinity were working on this issue now.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 7
i
i
- G
{ 1 Mr. Monahan said that he asked Mr. Hendryx to start a process outside of the Code rewrite to i
address this issue to get regulations in place as soon as possible. I
I > Sidewalks
i
Councilor Rohlf asked if the City enforced keeping sidewalks clear of overhanging shrubbery.
Mr. Monahan said that that was primarily the responsibility of the individual property owners.
Ed Wegner, Public `.':'or k_s director, reviewed the Citv's method of takine care of safety
clearance problems caused by overhanging shrubbery.
> Boat Parking on Street
Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of boat parking on the street. Mr. Monahan said that the letter
went to the CSOs who were aware of the problem, and arranged with the property owner to j
move the boat away from the comer and onto his property where it did not pose a sight a
clearance problem. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, commented that the CSOs
did not feel they had authority to deal with boat parking because boats were not mentioned
specifically in the ordinance as RVs were. However boat parking was not a major issue in
Tigard.
> Volunteer Dinner
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan reviewed the logistics of the
Volunteer Dinner.
i
> Fir Grove Update
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan reported that the code
enforcement situation on Fir Grove was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. He said that he i
has asked the judge to work with the CSOs and Community Development to make the process %
work more smoothly and compel compliance more quickly and with less effort by the City.
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the workshop meeting at 9:45 p.m.
> Mr. Monahan reported on the interviews for the City Engineer position. He recommended
offering the position to Gus Duenas. The Council discussed the Engineering Department. Mr.
Monahan reiterated that they would have to fill the position Gus was vacating.
> Mr. Monahan reported that the contractor working on Hall Boulevard had until May 1 to
complete the construction. After that the City would assess late charges.
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:57 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 8 F
i
L~
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the workshop meeting at 10:07 p.m.
> Mr. Monahan noted the Public Officials Caucus on Thursday. He also mentioned two
workshops coming up on SB 122, and who would be the ultimate service provider for Beaverton
and Tigard outside the Portland area.
ii
.i.Di'U vii :iiNT: 10:09 p.m.
j
GC- ~l.t IlQ W a
Attest: -Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder J
i
City of Tigard n l
Date: ~l✓~ /
_ I
- 1
I
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 13, 1997 - PAGE 9
,
z z.
{ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notlce TT 8787
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 R E C E I V E D
Legal Notice Advertising APR 15 1997
•City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY OF TIGARD-
I
13125 SDd Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit j
'4rigard,Oregon 97223
'Accounts Payable •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
I, Kates Snyder ' _ ~
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Yom,. ; r
Director, or his principal clerk, of thdliga xL-Tua 1 a t n T ;-mes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at T; Bard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
r; t y (o ,nc; 1 Workshop
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONR successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
April 10,1997
Subscribed and sworn to afore me thisl0th daV of Apri 1 , 19~-- -
~
_'CAL
11 f Fir ROT
.':IiCaES&
~ NOTA. : -OREGON
' Notary blic for Oregon ~ri4' ;gr 0. 04552
My Commission Expires: cS M!•Y 16.199'
j AFFIDAVIT -
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
April 15, 1997 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Executive Session (Red Rock Creek Conference Room)
Discussion Topics (Town Hall)
Annexation - Sewer Issues
Tigard Triangle Design Standard Issues
Park Maintenance Discussion - Grcenspaces
M787 -Publish April 10, 1997.
lj
I
i
v
Top 11 Concerns for Special Events
1991 National Survey
Sale & consumption of alcohol
a
in~~exper
NCuanced organizers
i
Size of crowds & over capacity crowds
Poor communication system before & during event
Dangerous or hazardous event activities
Inexperienced security
No evacuation plan
Free & uncontrolled admission 1.
Weather conditions
Use of locations not designed for events
Insufficient budgets
`t
rt
I
t:
i.
a
%
l
' i
I ;
i i.
j~ LOSS CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS AT SPECIAL EVENTS
I 1115197 Discussion with Special Events Work Group
Ili
1. Site Evaluations:
A Indoor Events
1. Evacuaiion Plans
2. Fire Protection & Prevention
3. Electrical Hazards
4. Fall Hazards
5. ADA Access f
6. Seating k,
7. Unique Hazards
B Outdoor Events k
i
1. Evacuation Plans
2. Fire Hazards
3. Slip & Fall Hazards
Energy Sources
4.
5. Natural Hazards
6. Unique Hazards
C. Parking
1. Written Plan
2. Estimating Parking Needs
3. Emergency Vehicle Access `
1 4. Security & Lighting
~ 5. Remote Parking Areas ,
i 6. Attendants
7. Accidents
D Traffic Control
1. Traffic Control Plan
2. Staffing (Police, Streets Division, other)
3. Road Closures & Barricades - MUTCD Standards
4. Road Construction
5. Signage
i
6. Pedestrian Safety
I 7. Business & Neighborhood Notification
1 '
E Transportation
1. Transportation Plan
2. Shuttles & Buses
3. Scheduling & Routing
I 4. Licenses
5. Driver Training
6. Vehicle Maintenance & Inspections
7. Transporting the Disabled (ADA Access)
I
L
F Vehicle Safe
1. Authorized use
2. Insurance
3. Motor Vehicle Records
r
4. Inspections & Maintenance
5. Training
6. Accident Reporting & Investigations
} 7. Specialty Vehicles
G Crowd Management - stagger subevents as much as possible!
1. Estimating Crowd Size & Characteristics
2. Site Diagram
3. Signage
4. Alcohol & Drugs
5. Firearms
6. Security
H Security
1. Security Plan
2. Private Security vs. Police !
3. Command Post k
4. Cash Handling
i 5. Access Control
6. Crowd Control
7. Incident Reports
I EmeraencyManagement Plan
1. Jurisdiction Involvement -Police, Public Works, Fire, Health Dept.
2. Evacuation Plan
3. Emergency Access Routes
4. Medical & First Aid
5. Ambulance Service
6. incident Reports
i
j J ADA Issues
1. Parking & Transportation
2. Facility Access
3. Programs (Activities) & Services
4. Communications
5. Evacuation Plans
K Sanitation
1. Restrooms
2. Drinking Water
J 3. Handwashing
4. Trash & Recycling Storage & Collection
5. Maintenance
r
T7
1
L Food & Beverage Concessions
1. Permits
2. Insurance
3. Hygiene
4. Propane
5. Trash & Recycling Storage & Collection
6. Non-Sanctioned Vendors - plan for addressina at site
l M. Alcohol Concessions
1. Policies & Procedures
2. Permits
3. Insurance
4. Staff Training
5. Security
ImispevndcAcc
1
1 Y'
Z
I 1.
- I .
V
O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW
CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ((~~le-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW D-
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street ~I
Portland, Oregon 97209 APR 14 j93~, 1
TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402
- _ FAX: (503) 243-2944 ~I~JLJ U E51& aaa~•
DATE: April 11, 1997 f
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager and Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director '
FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Offlce-~Pl
RE: IGA - Negotiation Meeting Scheduled for April 14, 1997 ~I h
Attached per your request please find the new IGA draft. I have shown only new language to this
draft as redline or strikeout.
Please let me know as soon as possible if the draft and the accompanying memorandum need
modifications before they can be sent to the Council and the County.
Also attached please find a summary of the County's self insurance claims for the past two and
one half years. There were only two claims over $10,000 in this period (though there are still
open claims).
pjh/ecnil90061 /monahan.tne3
r
I
` ' f. •J
V r
r
4
r
J."
O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW
CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -p.`:..'
tt 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street up i
' Portland, Oregon 9Y'09 I J APR 14
TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402
U
I FAX: (503) 243-2944
V u V
- -
DATE: April 11, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard
William A. Monahan, City Manager
i
FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office
I
RE: Urban Services IGA with Washington County
Negotiation Session Draft for April 14, 1997 Meeting with County
Attached is a new version of the IGA. I have shown the language as we have agreed to date,
including changes requested by the County and some changes requested by the City's Risk
Manager. The current language shown as redline or strikeout is what we have recently agreed can
be added to my last draft.
Still in dispute is the language which the County requested be added as paragraph IV(A)(2)(b)
instead of the language currently shown. This would be the language which limited the County's -
responsibility to $50,000 per claimant.' If that language is included, at a minimum it should be
amended in three particulars:
1. Payments by the County should include settlements as well as judgments;
2. In order for the County to avoid paying for any portion of a claim, it would have to be
determined that no defense presented by the City had any sound basis in law or fact; and
3. Neither party should be responsible for punitive damages assessed against the other, as a
matter of public policy.
As the draft currently exists, all claims, including LUBA and court actions, are subject to cost
sharing unless either the City or County insists on going forward with defense in the face of
objection by the other.
' For your convenience, a copy of that portion of the County's proposed language is
attached. I~
O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW
CORRIGAN & BACHRACI I
Memo re: Urban Services IGA with Washington County
April 11, 1997
Page 2
Also still in dispute is the reserve account paragraph which the County had proposed as (IV)(A)
(2)(c). Again, if it is included, it should:
1. Not require the City to set up a similar account, since the City is not self-insured;
2. Not provide for return of the proceeds of any account to the County on termination of the
agreement.
I believe the creation of a reserve account as part of this agreement is not necessary since the
County is self-insured, and its self insurance program will likely require it to adjust for this
agreement in any event. But if such provision is included, it should be amended as noted above.
Finally, Ed Wegner noted today that he is still concerned with the lack of detail on road
maintenance obligations. Staff should specify what additional information is needed from the
County at our upcoming meeting on April 14.
In all other respects, it appears we have either come to agreement on the terms of the IGA or the
language still to be discussed appears in redline or strikeout in this latest draft.
pjb/acm/9006 I /council. -3
.
;vii.-..
j
i
^ Attachment
] Section (IV)(A)(2)(b):
For constitutional takings claims, and inverse condemnation claims, including civil rights claims
alleging takings Cni TNTY shall indemnify CITY un to a maximum amount of $5Q,000 for each
claimant on a 50/50 basis with the CITY participating in the first dollar of defense costs and
judgments including attorney fees. In no event shall COUNTY be responsible for punitive
damages. COUNTY shall not be responsible for costs or judgments or attorney fees resulting
from a defense brought by CITY for which the COUNTY provided a notification in writing to
CITY that COUNTY's legal opinion was that the defense has no sound basis in law or fact.
Section (IV)(A)(2)(c): t
COUNTY shall create an insurance reserve account to pay for its portions of the claims, defense
costs, judgments and attorney fees described above in section (b). COUNTY shall fund this
account with $50,000 as of the starting date of this agreement. CITY shall also fund an insurance
reserve account to pay for these same costs. CITY shall begin funding this account by placing
10% of all fees earned into a separate insurance reserve account. CITY shall continue making this
payment to this account until the account balance reaches $50,000. Both CITY and COUNTY
shall maintain the required balances in these accounts during the tern of this agreement and for
two years after the termination of this agreement.." 1cr the two years has expired, the CITY shall
transfer the balance of this account and all accrued interest to COUNTY.
t pih-n90001'coun=0.Rtt(4411:97)
t
)
I
l
• ~ i
O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW
1 CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,
a 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
j Ponlnnd, Oregon 97209
TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 '
FAX: (503) 243-2944
DATE: April 11, 1997 - -
TO: Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard
FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office;'
RE: County Self Insurance Program Loss History
We have obtained and reviewed the County's loss history reports for the self insurance program
from July 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996.
J The reports can be summarized as follows:
1994-95:
Land Development - 2 claims, both closed, total paid $1,000.
Building Services - 7 claims, all closed, total paid $11,500.
There was one taking claim in this group, and the rest appear to be automobile liability claims.
1995-96:
Land Development - 2 claims, one still open, total reserves $1,000. 5r
Building Services - 9 claims, 3 still open, total paid/reserved $25,000.
1996-97 (one half the fiscal year to December 31, 1996):
Land Development - 5 claims, 4 still open, total reserves $21,000.
Building Services - no claims.
As you are probably aware, "reserves" represent the risk manager's assessment of likely exposure
in any given claim. Depending on how much information was available when reserves are
established, and how far along the claim is in processing, this figure may or may not represent
a realistic assessment of actual exposure. Further, reserves reflect out of pocket costs of claims
including legal costs.
pjb/ecm/90061 /council-4 t
1
m -
I
I .
w _
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY
This agreement is entered into this _ day of 1997, by
WASHINGTON COUNTY, hereinafter "COUNTY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, hereinafter
"CITY" both political subdivisions of the State of Oregon. j.
g_
WHEREAS, ORS 190.007 provides for the furthering of economy and efficiency in local
government and that intergovernmental cooperation is a matter of state wide concern; and -
WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of government may enter into agreements for the
performance of any and all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or
agencies have authority to perform; and
WHEREAS, Article IV(13)(2) of the Urban Planning Area Agreement called for a study of the
transfer of responsibility for certain urban services from the COUNTY to the CITY to determine
the cost effectiveness and feasibility of this transfer; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY believe it is in the best interest of efficiency and
economy to transfer responsibility of certain services to the local unit of government consistent
with the objectives of SIB 122;
i WHEREAS, this agreement provides for a newly designed method to provide governmental
services, is unique to the parties, and is subject to amendment; it is not intended to be used as a l
model agreement for other jurisdictions;
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/rIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page I
J r
I
9 I
i
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
( I. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT
A. The area affected by the intergovernmental agreement is defined by Exhibit "1" to
this agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the "area."
U. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
A. The COUNTY agrees to delegate to the CITY any and all additional authority that
it possesses and which is needed by the CITY to carry out planning, development, road
functions and other related activities within the area. The effective date and terms of the
delegation of authority are as provided for in this agreement. Among the actions to be
authorized pursuant to this provisions will be:
1. Provision of planning information to applicants for development review for r "
all land development proposed for the active planning area. .
j 2. Performance of pre-application conferences.
3. Preparation of staff reports and performance of site visits for pending
applications.
4. Coordination and provision of public notice of land use applications.
5. Collection of fees pertaining to development applications, building permits
right-of-way use fees, systems development charges and traffic impact fees.
6. Presentation of staff recommendations pertaining to land use proposals at
public hearings.
j 7. Preparation of administrative decisions for those applications that do not
require public hearings, in keeping with the Tigard Community Development
Code.
8. Conducting of public hearings before the land use approval authority as
provided by the Tigard Community Development Code.
9. Conducting of appeal hearings before the land use approval authority as
provided by the Tigard Community Development Code.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 2
J I
i
,a
.D
' .7
^ 10. Preparation of final orders for all final decisions made pursuant to this
1 agreement.
11. Representing the CITY in any appeal of a decision made by the CITY
1 under this agreement to LUBA or any other court and representing the CITY in
mandamus actions or any other actions in state or federal court.
12. Review of construction activities related to development approvals granted
pursuant to this agreement for compliance with conditions of development
approval.
13. Coordination with engineering and other appropriate staff for review and i."
approval of public facilities related to development application and construction.
14. Interpretation of the applicable comprehensive plan and implementing
regulations for the area.
15. Exercise of subdivision authority within the active planning area.
16. Processing and issuance of building permits for all construction activities
- i within the area. Performance of all building inspecting and enforcement relating to
permits issued.
17. Maintenance and improvements of roads within the area.
18. Issuance of all access permits and right of way use and right-of-way
construction permits for the area.
19. Enforcement of code and permit violations including:
1 car
a. Development and zoning violations
b. Building code violations
c. Conditions of approval violations
_ i
d. Right of way permit violations
C. Road and street hazards
20. Removing vegetation from right-of-ways.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 3
- Y
21. Reviewing OLCC and DMV land use compatibility statements.
111. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
_ j
A. General Terms Regarding Responsibilities of the Parties.
It is the intention of the parties hereto thai there be no cost to the CITY in the
undertaking of the responsibilities under this agreement. As to operational costs,
the fee schedule adopted for development review and building permit services is
intended to fully cover all direct and indirect costs to the CITY associated with
development review and building permit functions. In recognition of initial start up
costs and the assumption by the CITY of applications in process, an initial dollar
transfers outlined below will be made by the COUNTY to the CITY as provided
for herein. w
As to code enfoicement, an at-tial estimate of-costs-to-the-C-~! code
-1-y fb
transfer&mdi
andm taking of code enfbi cement.
i As of the date of this Agreement, the parties contemplate that there are three
1 broad areas of cost of service in the Affected Area which is the subject of this
agreement. Those areas of cost are:
1. operational expenses,
Z. defense of litigation, administrative and LUBA appeals occasioned
by development review and engineering review of development; and
3. liability under tort, constitutional and related theories. r
It is the intent of the parties that the CITY will be fully compensated for j
operational expenses relating to this Agreement. The remaining two described f
cost areas to the CITY will be analyzed
. as provided in Section
(1V)(A)(2), (IV)(A)(3) and (VI).
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/PIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 4
- i -
i
A
B. The County agrees to perform the following activities as part of this
intergovernmental agreement:
Transfer all documents, files, and computer data relevant to the particular
j services denoted in the agreement on or before the effective date of the agreement.
The data shall be in a format compatible to the CITY's system. All costs
associated with the creation and/or duplication of these documents, files and
computer data shall be borne by the COUNTY. The documents to transferred are
listed in Appendix 1. All documents shall be transferred before the effective date
of this agreement.
2. Any service under this agreement provided by CITY that requires payment I
by COUNTY to CITY for such service shall only be required of the CITY as long i
1.
as COUNTY makes the payments to CITY as required by this agreement. This
agreement shall terminate if COUNTY is unable to make payments to CITY
required under this agreement due to reductions in the COUNTY budget. G
1 Transfers of all special fund allocations to the CITY for specific services
denoted in this agreement shall be done before the effective date of the agreement
or later as specified in this agreement. For all subsequent years, the allocations
shall be made no later than 30 days after July I of each year. Any interest accrued
by the CITY shall be used in furtherance of delivering such specific services. In
the event of funding short falls for operational expenses arising out of the CITY's
assumption of obligations under this agreement, the provisions of paragraph
IV(A)(1) shall govern the transfer of additional funds to the CITY by the
COUNTY.
i
4. Provide as needed technical assistance to the CITY to assist in those
services requiring COUNTY expertise. Such technical assistance shall be f
delivered to the CITY at no charge and in a timely manner. More specifically, the
COUNTY agrees to provide technical assistance in development review to assist
the CITY's Community Development Department render appropriate land use
decisions including "areas of special concern" and floodplain/drainage hazard
areas, as defined in the COUNTY's Bull Mountain Community Plan.
5. Provide coordination with the CITY in updating and development of the
COUNTY's transportation capital improvement program.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 5
- -1
i
1
^ 6. Adopt provisions of Tigard's Municipal Code and engineering standards,
i street standards and other City rules that are necessary for the CITY to have
authority to fulfill the delegation provisions listed under section II of this
agreement. I
7. If at a quarterly meeting, it is determined that the COUNTY ee schedule is - I
not adequate to compensate CITY for services performed, upon presentation of
adequate documentation to this effect, COUNTY shall adjust its fee schedule for
the area to attempt to cover the cost of the service. In addition, the cost recovery
provisions of paragraph IV(A)(1) shall apply consistent with the intent that there
be no cost to the CITY for operational expenditures under this agreement.
C. The CITY agrees to perform the following activities as part of this F
intergovernmental agreement:
1. Perform land development services (development assistance development
review) on a daily basis consistent with the CITY Community Development Code
as adopted by the COUNTY.
2. Perform building inspection services (plan review, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, structural) on a daily basis consistent with the state law and the CITY
code as adopted by the COUNTY.
3. Utilize the CITY's street standards as adopted by COUNTY in evaluating
public and private development and/or projects in the area.
a `
4. Perform road maintenance work for local public streets and receive
payment for such work from the Urban Road Maintenance District, as described in
Exhibit 2.
5. Perform road right-of-way maintenance on roads and streets and receive
payment for such work from COUNTY Road Funds, as described in Exhibit 3.
6. Perform road maintenance work and receive payment for such work from
Maintenance Local Improvement Districts, as described in Exhibit 4.
7. Perform road capital improvements and receive payment for such
improvements from Traffic Impact Fees, as described in Exhibit 5.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/PIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 6
j .
i.
I
1
8. Perform code enforcement services on a daily basis consistent with the
1 CITY codes as adopted by the County and receive payment for such enforcement,
I as described in Exhibit 6.
9. As of the date of this agreement, CITY shall impose a condition upon any
applications which requires street liohtinv, that the applicant will agree to the
formation of a Street Lighting District.
i
10. Take responsibility for and complete inspections and reviews for all
existing building permits and complete review of all development permit
applications (including requests for extensions on existing permits) that are filed
after the effective date of this agreement and receive payments, as described in
Exhibit 7.
It. Collect all pertinent fees and taxes relevant to building permits, traffic f
impact tax, sign permits, right-of-way use permits, sign permits and development
application fees. CITY will use the COUNTY fee schedule for all engineering and
development permits as that schedule is annually adopted by COUNTY. CITY
shall apply its own fee schedule for building permits. CITY shall retain all fees it
collects for its services. COUNTY shall continue to collect MLID and URMD
assessments for this area and transfer them as provided for in this agreement under
Exhibits 2 and 4.
12. All other actions reasonably necessary to carry out the authority given to
CITY as provided for in the attached Exhibits.
IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES AND RELATIONSHIPS
A. The COUNTY and CITY agree to:_.
1. Operational Expenses.
I It is the parties' intent that this agreement be revenue neutral to the
CITY. This agreement attempts to be revenue neutral through fund
transfers and the collection of fees by CITY. It is expected that the fees
gathered will cover the cost of those services including some enforcement
or appeals of CITY decisions. However, if those funds transferred or fees
gathered are not sufficient to pay for the services required by this
agreement, the COUNTY shall in addition to adjusting the fees as stated in
Section IV(A)(7), reimburse CITY for the any deficiency remaining at the
end of each quarter. Such reimbursement shall be made within thirty (30)
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AGREEMENT/r]GARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 7
I .
days of a quarterly meeting or within thirty (30) days of the end of any
fiscal year whichever is applicable. To be eligible to receive such payments
for the deficiency, the CITY is required to:
a. Meet quarterly with COUNTY and give accounting records of the
CITY's fund for these services that describe the cost of services and the
revenues generated daring the quarter. CITY shall also make estimates
about levels of services, staffing requirements and revenue projections for
the next quarter. The quarterly meetings shall aid in determining the fund
transfers that are set in the annual meeting as described below.
b. Maintain a separate fund for all accounting functions relative to the
area covered by this agreement.
C. Be in compliance with all other provisions of this agreement.
2. Defense of Appeals/Liability
As described in paragraph II(A)(I 1) above, it is contemplated by the
parties that LUBA or other court actions may arise from the review of
development in the area subject to this agreement. The CITY will undertake
responsibility for defense of such actions. The cost of such defense will be borne
by either the CITY or the COUNTY or a combination thereof as provided for in
this paragraph.
a. When the CITY receives notice from any party that a LUBA
appeal, court action or other legal review of the CITY's authority is
contemplated by that party, the CITY Community Development Director.
shall immediately notify the COUNTY Land Use and Transportation
Director in writing. The Directors or their designee(s) shall confer to
determine the source and nature of the requirement resulting in the
i dispute'. and the CITY's decision on whether or
not to defend the action. The COUNTY shall have IO days from the date
of the CITY's notice in which to decide whether it wants the CITY to z
proceed in the defense of such action. If the COUNTY requests that the
CITY proceed to defense where the CITY would otherwise elect not to do
so, the COUNTY will fully reimburse the CITY for all costs of defense
including direct and indirect costs. Similarly, if the CITY believes it is
important to proceed the defense where the COUNTY does not concur,
the CITY will absorb the cost. In cases where both parties believe it is
important to defend an action, the parties will share equally the cost of
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/rIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY "
Page 8
i
I
i
I defense. The same process shall apply in all subsequent appeals from the
LUBA or court decision. In all other cases, the parties will resolve the
dispute over cost using the dispute resolution methods contained in this
agreement. The parties here recognize that the intent is that the party
j creating the cost should bear responsibility for that cost.
b. Consistent with the hold harmless provisions of paragraph VI, it is
the parties' intention that each be responsible for liability arising out of its
own employees' negligent acts.
3. Dispute Resolution. l
To the extent possible, COUNTY and CITY staff will observe the rules,
standards and regulation reference by this agreement. In the case of a dispute t".
about the terms of this agreement or how to effectuate this agreement, the
COUNTY and CITY staff will immediately refer the dispute to the COUNTY
Director of Land Use and Transportation and the CITY Community Development
Director to resolve the dispute. If the Directors have not resolved the dispute
within 30 days, the dispute shall be forwarded to the CITY and COUNTY
Administrators. If the matter cannot be resolved by the Administrators within 30
days, it shall be forwarded to the Council and the Board for resolution. If the
matter still cannot be resolved, the arbitration provisions of ORS 190.710-190.800
shall apply.
4. Amendments.
Requested amendments to this intergovernmental agreement shall be
submitted in writing to both the COUNTY Land Use and Transportation Director
and to the CITY Community Development Director with adequate explanations as
to the necessity of such amendment. A decision by the Directors to either reject or
accept the amendments must be made in no more that 30 days from the receipt of ;
the request. After review and approval by the Directors, the amendments must be
submitted to the CITY Manager and COUNTY Administrator for signature or
presentation to the Board and Council.
The CITY Council and the COUNTY Board of County Commissioners
grant authority to the CITY Manager and the COUNTY Administrator to make
such changes as needed to this intergovernmental agreement to effectuate the
intent and purpose of this agreement. For amendments that will result in a
financial impact, the amount of the financial impact needs to be within the
Administrator's and Manager's delegated authority. Any amendments outside this
" URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 9
~ J
- E
j
authority need to be made by the Council and the Board and must be submitted to
the Board and Council within 90 days of the Administrator's or Manager's receipt
of the proposed amendments.
5. Annual Review.
COUNTY and CITY will jointly conduct an annual review of this
intergovernmental agreement beginning November I and ending no later than
January 30 of each year to allow adjustments to upcoming COUNTY and CITY
budgets. Such joint review shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
agreement, procedures, and the delivery of service in meeting the requirements of i
the agreement. The annual review shall also evaluate the costs of providing the j
services, reimburse the CITY for operating deficits described in section IV(A)(1), I
and adjust such moneys that are transferred to the CITY to render services under "
this agreement. The CITY and COUNTY agree to take the results ofthis meeting,
along with any amendments to the agreement made pursuant to paragraph 4 above,
to their respective Board and Council within 30 days of such meeting. The Board
and Council agree to take action on such request consistent with this agreement.
6. COUNTY will make changes in Article VIII of its Community
Development Code (CDC) necessary to adopt changes in the CITY's development
code as it applies to the area. COUNTY and CITY shall work together to ensure
that all CITY code changes are promptly adopted by COUNTY.
F 7. The parties agree to coordinate planning efforts under Metro's 2040
Growth Concepts at a time mutually agreeable to the parties.
V. TERM OF AGREEMENT
1 A. This agreement shall be effective upon execution by both parties and shall
remain in effect for five (5) years, or until terminated by mutual agreement of both
parties. By mutual agreement, this agreement may be extended for another five (5) f
years. Either party may terminate this agreement between the dates of March 1
and July 1 of any year with 90 days written notice to the other party.
B. The CITY shall be responsible for processing all permits or applications for
this area which have not been completed at the time of the termination of this
agreement.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARDAVASHINGTON COUNTY
Page to
i
I
11!
1 C, Notwithstanding the termination of this agreement, the terms of this
agreement shall govern the resolution of and payment for any claim or suit that
arises from the actions of either party in the performance of this contract when
! those actions occur before the termination of this agreement.
VI. HOLD HARMLESS
A. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the
Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, CITY shall hold harmless and
indemnify COUNTY, its Commissioners, employees, amt and volunteers agents j
against any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses (including all attorney(s)
fees and costs), arising out of or resulting from CITY's performance of this I
agreement where the loss or claim is attributable to the negligee acts or omissions
of the CITY, except as provided in sections (IV)(A)(2)(a) and (b). I q
B. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the
Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, County shall hold harmless and
indemnify CITY, its Councilors, employees, and agents and volunteers against all
claims, damages, losses and expenses (including all attorney fees and costs) arising
out of or resulting from COUNTY's performance of this agreement where the loss
or claim is attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of COUNTY, except as
provided in sections (IV)(A)(2)(a) and (b).
VII. GENERAL PROVISION
A. SEVERABILITY: COUNTY and CITY agree that if any term or provision of
this contract is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict ✓
with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected,
and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the
contract did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid.
y B. THIS AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE COMPLETE AND
EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE DESCRIBED HEREIN AND SUPERSEDES
ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS OR PROPOSALS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL
OTHER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE I
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, '
MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT WILL BE
BINDING ON EITHER PARTY EXCEPT AS A WRITTEN ADDENDUM
SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED AGENTS OF BOTH PARTIES.
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTrriGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page I I
{
~JJ
This agreement commences on June f2, 1997~ras All applications or
'dl
request for permits received by COUNTY between May 1, 1997 and June I, 1997 will be
transferred to CITY for all remaining actions necessary for those applications and permits.
In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Urban Services Intergovernmental I
_ A,.-ICCIIM11 un the date set uppoNite their sIgnatWcs.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ,
I
By By
Linda Peters Jim Nicoli
Chair, Board of County Commissioners Mayor, City of Tigard
Date Date t
I•
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
j
County Counsel City Attorney
i PJh'~mvMx l/s tn7ln i&3(4/1 1W)
J.
I
URBAN SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT/TIGARD/WASHINGTON COUNTY
Page 12 - ti
- 1
f
EXHIBIT 2
Urban Road Maintenance District
Responsibility for services under the URMD shall not take effect until November 1, 1997. CITY
shall provide maintenance of urban roads in the area to kccp cxisting roadb in tine URMD
consistent with the work program to be negotiated each year and the funding provided by the
District. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints from the area concerning
road conditions and maintenance. The funding for the URMD will expire in 1998/1999. The last
day for the imposition of assessment for this District will be November 1999. Once the funding
expires, the duties for urban road maintenance under this District and under this agreement will
cease.
City shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under this
fund.
City shall receive payment from the County from the UMRD in the amount of $1,620.00 as of ti
November 1, 1997. This money is for minor maintenance duties for the remainder of the 1996-
1997 year. There after, the City shall receive an amount that will be negotiated between the
parties for a work program for the following year. This amount shall be established during the
annual meeting of the parties as specified in the agreement. Payment shall be made by COUNTY
within thirty days of July 1 each year for the duration of the agreement.
~ t z
E
i
-7 7
777777-.
i
! EXHIBIT 3
i
Road Fund Maintenance
CITY shall assume responsibility for road maintenance duties described in this exhibit as the Road
Maintenance Program on November I, 1997. CITY shall provide maintenance of roads in the
area to keep existing roads consistent with the work program to be negotiated each year and the
funding provided by the District. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints
from the area concerning road conditions and maintenance.
CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under
this fund. .r.
i
CITY shall receive payment from the COUNTY from the COUNTY Road Fund in the amount of
$41,343.00 as of November I, 1997. Thereafter, the CITY and COUNTY shall mutually agree
upon a work program and an amount to be received for such work program for the following
fiscal year at the annual meeting of the parties.
I Road Mainten-gnce Program
There are 44.95 miles of road to be maintained in the transfer area with 30.07 miles of local roads,
j 4.24 miles of minor collector roads and 10.64 miles of major collector roads respectively. Road
maintenance is scheduled and service requests prioritized as per the county's road prioritization f
policy. The COUNTY's Road Maintenance Priority Policy provides guidelines for allocation of
our maintenance funds. These guidelines shall be used to help establish the yearly work program
for the area. The policy defines various maintenance activities by type, ranging from legally
mandated services, to total reconstruction. A numerical value is assigned to each activity based
on the road's functional classification with major arterial and collectors given first priority for
s,eneral maintenance. Minor collectors and local roads are given a higher level of service with the
passing of the URMD program, however without renewal the maintenance service on these roads
will follow our priority matrix and receive emergency and hazard abatement only.
! Emergencies and hazards are given top priority, for example all stop signs and stop ahead signs
damaged or down are repaired within two hours of notification. For collector roads that are both
in area, as well as the unincorporated portion of Washington County, CITY shall assume full
maintenance responsibility. (Example: Bull Mountain Road). Development affecting the arterials
and collector streets within the transfer limits has already happened and appears to be "built out".
Traffic Operations Program
Traffic Operations provides support to include analyzing traffic control device warrants to insure and
enhance roadway safety. Also provided are traffic analysis, studies, reports and pre-marking services
as necessary. Traffic Operations staff support the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program by
J conducting traffic studies and obtaining traffic count data. Staff work with individuals and citizen
i
-17
groups to address neighborhood livability issues and implement traffic enhancements. A $5,452.00
allowance has been provided for this purpose. Neighborhoods requesting traffic calming shall be
ranked and prioritized as per CITY's current method. An amount of $7,500 shall be used for projects
that would normally qualify under CITY's program. Funds may also be used for education tools such
as readerboards, banners, and community outreach.
The Mountain Gate Subdivision has requested traffic calming in their neighborhood. Under
COUNTY'S current program they do not rank high enough to qualify for funding. The Homeowners
Association has verbally agreed to pay for traffic calming improvement themselves. It is
recommended that CITY complete any necessary staff work and engineering development to get this
t
1 project off the ground. c;
Night Road Logs: To ensure a high standard for maintenance of signs and striping, CITY shall
conduct night road logs checking for reflectivity once a year on arterials and collector roads. This k
is accomplished with 2 employees working as a team, covering an average of 55 lane miles per night
or 7 lane miles per hour.
Mileage
Street Name Limits
I
115th Avenue Former Street to City Limits 00.18 I
121st Avenue Walnut Street to Gaarde 01.66
Street
131 st Avenue Beef Bend Road to Fischer 01.06
~r
Road
150th Avenue Sunrise Lane to Beef Bend 02.32
Road 1
a
Bull Mountain Road Highway 99W to Beef Bend 06.18
Road
01.36
Fischer Road Highway 99W to 131st
Avenue
Former Street Walnut Street to 121st 01.66
Avenue
Gaarde Street City Limits to 121 st Avenue 00.89
j
1 _
•I
Roshak Road Bull Mountain Road to End 00.56
of AC
i Tiedeman Avenue Walnut Street 00.03
' Walnut Street 106th Avenue to 135th 03.16
Avenue
I
19.06 lane miles
Station Counts: In order to track traffic trends and monitor the level of service, CITY shall conduct
counts at the following established stations. Average cost during the 95/96 fiscal year was $63.97
per count.
Street Name Cross Street T Location
f
150th Avenue Beef Bend Road 3N #439
Bull Mountain Road 150th Avenue lE #403
' Walnut Street 122nd Avenue I W #438
Traffic Maintenance Program
Striping and ctends• No work proposed for this fiscal year.
VeQetation Program: No work proposed for this fiscal year. A minimal payment of $3,000.00
j for incidental brush removal.
6
Drainage Program ? ;r
Drainage requests, including emergency situations are currently handled by the Unified Sewerage
Agency. The major collector roads are not scheduled for ditching until the 1999/2000 fiscal year.
However, an $6,000.00 budget will be transferred to CITY for drainage maintenance, emergency
response and additional citizen requests not currently identified by USA. The following work
program shall be completed for the upcoming fiscal year by CITY:
1. Bull Mountain Road: Ditch south from Roshack Road and install rip-
rap in ditch as needed.
U
- - - _ j'
2. Bull Mountain Road Reshape ditch and install shoulder rock at
f. d 11670 SW Bull Mountain Road mailbox installed in flowline of ditch, light
flooding of property.
3. 150th Avenue: Light ditch work at 14400 SW 150th Avenue,
homco:v:ner mailbox located in ditch blocking flow.
I
4. 121st Avenue & Walnut Street; Spot ditching at inlets and outlets of
the driveways and road crossing tiles.
Yr
i
1
11 -
i
j
- + G
EXHIBIT 4
j Maintenance Local Improvement Districts
As of May 1, 1997, CITY shall impose a condition on any land use application requiring the
creation of roads, for the establishment of a Maintenance Local Improvement District. CITY
responsibility for service under the Maintenance Local Improvement Districts shall not commence
to November 1, 1997. As of this date, CITY shall provide maintenance of roads covered under
applicable Maintenance Local Improvement Districts in the area following a work program as
mutually agreed to by the parties. CITY shall be responsible for responding to citizen complaints
from the area concerning road conditions and maintenance.
CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for repairs and maintenance performed under
this fund.
iCITY shall not receive any payments from the COUNTY from the Maintenance Local
Improvement Districts for 1996-1997 year. There after, the CITY shall receive an amount that
will be negotiated between the parties for a work program for the following year. This amount
i shall be established during the annual meeting of the parties as specified in the agreement.
Payment shall be made by COUNTY within thirty days of July 1 each year for the duration of the
agreement.
1
I
i
.
- - - - - - - - - -
- j
EXHIBIT 5
I Traffic Impact Fees
CITY shall assume responsibility for collecting traffic impact fees for the area as of date of the
agreement. Funds shall be spent for projects in the area as determined by CITY working with the
COUNTY in conjunction with the Washington County Coordinating Committee. A work
program shall be established for the area by the parties for the area at the annual meeting of the f
parties. Funds allocated from the TIF shall used to finance the agreed upon work program.
CITY shall keep a subaccount of all expenditures for improvement made under this fund.
CITY shall collect these fees and shall be responsible for all accounting and auditing for these
foes.
- i -
I C; T
h-
j
i
EXHIBIT G
Code Enforcement
CITY shall assume responsibility for code enforcement as of the date of this agreement. CITY
shall enfurcc codas and respond to citizens complaints and prosecute violators for violations of
Washington County Code Articles VIII and IX (Ordinances 487 and 488). CITY shall keep a log
of all complaints and the response time to these complaints as well as the results of the
complaints. CITY shall keep all fines levied from violators.
County shall pay a base amount of $15,000.00 with this amount being transferred to the CITY on i ,
May 1, 1997. At the end of the fiscal year 1997-1998, if CITY has responded to more than 71
cases in the area COUNTY shall pay an additional amount of $150.00 for each case not to exceed N
= $30,000.00.
j
t
a J
r #1
+ t9
i
4
r,
,
EXHIBIT 7
1 Building Permits
City shall issue all building permits, for all activities requiring permits under the Building Codes
and other CITY codes as adopted by COUNTY and perform all inspections in a timely manner.
CITY shall assume responsibility for completing existing permits on the date of this agreement
and all building permits requested for the area thereafter.
County shall pay City $200,000.00 to complete existing building permits. These funds shall be
transferred as of the day of the agreement.
CITY shall keep an accounting of all funds collected and expenses in maintaining the building
inspection program. Funds collected by CITY shall be used to operate the CITY building permit t
program for the area. [
t
i
02
Y a
U
i
1 ,
i
.
i A enda Item No. a
Meeting of 101 ~;k7 -2
n MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
j
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Loreen Mills, Risk Manage DATE: April 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Special Event Insurance Policy
Based on discussions held at the last Budget Committee meeting, this memo is being written to
describe the current practice for insuring special events in Tigard and what recommendations I
would make for insuring these events in the future.
HISTORICAL PRACITCE:
There is no written policy regarding when the City will or will not insure a community event.
Historically, we have provided insurance coverage for those events that the City is sponsoring and
that the City has direct control over. The one exception to this practice is the Fourth of July event.
Past policy direction to me has been to add them to our insurance coverage (including the pyrotec)
even though we do not control the event Our insurance carrier has not charged us for this rider to
our policy, though they have the right to charge us if they choose to. That cost would usually be
1 $500 per event
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF RISK MANAGEMENT I
Before making my recommendation in this matter, it is important that Council understand what the
role of Risk Management is so they understand how the City treats its risk. As the City's Risk
Manager, I'm charged with reviewing our exposure to risk and taking steps to control the risk. I do
that by taking the following steps:
ldenti the risk (be aware of new services provided, changes in Tigard's rules and regulations,
review contracts & IGAs, etc.);
Evaluate the risk (estimate the frequency and severity of a particular exposure);
Treat the risk (avoid the risk altogether, transfer the risk to someone else, insure the risk, & have a
loss control plan for the area of exposure); and
Finance the risk (purchase insurance coverage, self-insure or self-fund, join risk-sharing pool, or
some combination of all of the financing options).
i
- _ b
I
1
I The first "rule of thumb" in managing risk is to only insure. or finance. those risks which you
ore, ni ation controls. The reason for this is simple, the City of Tigard has enough risks with our
own operations we don't need to take on other peoples' risks and finance those. It is in the
financial best interest of the City to not run the risk of paying for "claims" that result from an event
that we do not manage. Using the example of the Country Daze celebration, an organized proud of
volunteers plan, coordinate, and hold the celebration. The City assists them with some budgeted
j funds and some traffic control assistance from Police and Public Works. However, we have not
made our insurance coverage available to them since we don't make the decisions on how the event i .
will be managed or how we might reduce or limit the risk exposure during the event.
I~I
If the City were to begin insuring any or all events in the community, we would run the risk of 4
higher future insurance rates. A claim from one of these events could use up our insurance limits in
any one year so that they were not available for other claims filed against the City. k
POLICY DECISION RECOMMENDATION:
I would strongly encourage Council to take the following actions:
• Direct my office to develop a written policy for Council review for determining when the City's
insurance policy(s) will be available for special events in the community. I would suggest that
the Council adopt said policy BEFORE any changes in our current practice are made. I believe
this process could be completed by September 30, 1997.
Continue our current practice until a Council policy is adopted.
i
• Deny the nP_w request for insurance coverage for Country Daze at this time. Once Council has
I had an opportunity to determine their position in this matter, the could review a
they gain whether I~
Country Daze qualifies for insurance coverage for the 1998.
• Determine whether he 1998 Fourth of July celebration should have access to the City's
insurance covemee. I would suggest, at this late date, the Fourth of July celebration continue to
use the City's insurance coverage for the 1997 event. This Fall share the Council's newly lit
adopted policy on event liability with the Fourth of July committee and advise them of any 1
changes they would see for the 1998 event. l[
3 I'm happy to discuss this issue further if you would like. Please advise what direction Council
would like to take in this matter. Also, Council may be interested to know that I am currently
working with City staff to develop a special event liability manual for use with all of our events.
We are using the Hot Air Balloon event to review the draft manual and help us better manage the
crowds and event.
;
i
1MWd0cs/spmdi.doc
,
{
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance
DATE: April 2, 1997
SUBJECT: Balloon Festival Funding t
To follow up the conversation at the Budget Committee last night, my staff has researched the
history of funding of the Festival of Balloons. We found that the City has made payments of
I 520,000 over the past three fiscal years as follows:
1994/95
The City paid 55,000 to the Festival on March 2, 1995 for the June 1995 event. This amount was [
not in the adopted budget approved by the Budget Committee. The Council approved an
1
appropriation of contingency by resolution 95-09.
1995/96
The City paid $5,000 on January 31, 1996 and $5,000 on April 11, 1996 both for the June 1996
event. The original 55,000 was approved by the Budget Committee. Council then received a
request for an additional 55,000 due to the combining of many of the Country Daze activities in the
June 96 Balloon Festival. Council approved the request for the additional funds by resolution 96-
18.
1996/97
The City paid S5,000 on December 18, 1996. These funds were approved by the Budget
Committee for the June 1997 event. Council approved a request to disperse these funds early to
cover remaining costs from the 1996 event
The Festival of Balloons request currently before the Budget Committee is for S10,000 for the June -
1998 event
~I hope this information is helpful. I will forward this on to the Budget Committee in my next
mailing to them.
i
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 4/15/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
i m , znd~rd5 Report
ISSUE/AGENDA "TITLE T~'~r n u i
PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISS tF BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A variety of comments and requests for revisions have been submitted since the adoption of design standards
for the Tigard Triangle.
S STAFF REC'OMMEN12ATION
Staff recommends no further Council action.
JNFORMATION SUMMARY
SSeveral documents have been submitted to Council requesting consideration of amendments to the Tigard
Oriangle design standards that were adopted on March 11, 1997. Staff committed to return to Council with a
summary of issues and recommendations on the proposed amendments. A memo is attached addressing these .
issues.
I OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
( Direct staff to prepare code amendments.
I
t
FISCAL NOTES
I
Not applicable. l
1 IRPLMNADINE%TRIANGLE\CCDE S. SUhi -
I - -
i
CITY OF TIGARD
Cannnmity Dm kpment
ShapingABetter Community
,
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF T IGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor
k .
DATE: March 28, 1997
i f
j SUBJECT: Triangle Design Standards
I ,
This memo is intended to provide information regarding various proposals for revisions to the now
adopted design standards for the Tigard Triangle, and what options are available to address the -
issues raised.
Process with Task Force
After Council's direction on December 20th to address design standards, staff and the consultants
reassembled the task force that had participated in the MUE zoning (a list of the task force
participants is attached), with the addition of a representative from DLCD. The Task Force was
mailed a copy of the design standards outline that had been provided to Council at its 12/20
meeting. The Task Force met a total of four times, first going over each issue, and then reviewing
the complete document. Staff and the consultants also met separately with Gordon Martin and his
engineer and with Mark Edlin and his architect, Rick Saito at their request.
The Design Standards packet was mailed out to the task force members on February 21 st for the
intended February 25th Council meeting. It became obvious that there were outstanding issues
and the task force needed one more meeting. We asked for a continuance to the March 11th City
Council meeting and met with the task force one last time on March 3rd. When we completed our
review of the design standards at our meeting of March 3rd, it was with the understanding that
although not every task force member was happy with every standard, there was consensus that
this was the document to take forward to Council and no further meetings of the task force were
necessary.
Memo to City Council 1
March 28, 1997
1 Summary of Issues
Following is a compilation of the issues that have been discussed in various letters and documents
that have been submitted since the public hearing on March 11th.
A. Street Connectivity
As Council will recall, a standard that requires that development must provide public street
i'
connections for local streets at intervals of no more than 660 feet and pedestrian
connections at 330 feet was first adopted as part of the transportation map update that was
adopted on December 20, 1996, and was further clarified within the Street Connectivity €
portion of the Design Standards that were adopted on March 11th. The standard is one
that is required to be met in Metro's adopted Functional Plan, for "new residential and j }
mixed-use developments" (Title 6, Section 3, A(2)). The standard was also included to j '
address the need for efficient internal circulation within the Triangle. It was noted during
consideration of the new zoning that the transportation impacts that were anticipated by I
future development must be limited to what would occur under what was allowed in the
comprehensive plan. Part of the transportation impact must be addressed by providing
increased intercirculation and opportunity for specific pedestrian and transportation
improvements. Findings related to this requirement were made that the City met the
requirements of the Transportation Rule and Goal 12 by adopting these standards. The I
adopted findings document, on page 8, paragraph 4 reads:
"Also addressing Goal 12 are the proposed amendments to the circulation element of
the Plan. These changes call for a specific pedestrian and transportation improvements
that are needed to reduce the reliance on the automobile. Street spacing standards
identified in the Functional Plan are part of the package of amendments. Together, with
the other changes, a more pedestrian friendly environment will be created. Street
improvements will also create better access for Tri-Met. We take notice of these
changes and our adoption of them." S
These provisions were applied to the entire Triangle because although only a portion of the
Triangle is rezoned to a Mixed Use Employment designation, the entire Triangle is
designated as a mixed use employment design type classification on Metro's Growth
Concept map, which is what the Functional Plan refers to when requiring street connectivity
j
in mixed use areas. Additionally, the importance of treating the Triangle as a whole when
considering design and street connectivity was stressed by Council when direction was
given to provide design standards for the area. The "performance option" that is part of the
Functional Plan was included as a design standard option at the request of one of the task
force members and was discussed with Metro and the task force. It provides the option of
meeting the public street standard by showing that local street spacing occurs at intervals of
no less than eight street intersections per mile, and further that the shortest vehicle trip over
public streets from a local origin to a collector or greater facility is no more than twice the
J straight-line distance.
Memo to City Council 2
March 28, 1997
i!
i
Various proposals have been received for modification to these standards. First, a
provision that would allow the local street standard at eight intersections per mile discussed
above to be met by including "private commercial driveways" and that "local origin" be
considered as the curb-cut to a parcel at its property line (Memo dated March 20, 1997 from
Triangle Task Force Members and Interested Property Owners). Rewriting the standard to
count private commercial driveways to include this language would have the effect of
allowing development to occur without the provision of additional local streets within the
Triangle.
Another modification was proposed regarding this standard on March 20, 1997 that would
provide that if dedication was required to meet this standard, the City would agree to pay
"then current fair market value" for the square footage taken or would exchange existing
dedicated right of way for "to be" dedicated right of way. It does not appear to be in the
City's best interest to begin paying for right of way that is normally part of development
impact costs. j
Previously, it has been suggested that the standard be met by the use of private streets
i .
within development. Council has indicated a general concern with the provision of private j
streets meeting public requirements with maintenance and the ability to retain public access
permanently expressed.
Certain circumstances may require the use of variances to address particular property
constraints. To address this, the standards refer to where "topography, barriers such as
railroads or freeways, or environmental constraints such as major streams and rivers
prevent street extensions and connections". _
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council retain the standard as written for the following reasons:
• The Tigard Triangle is designated as a mixed use employment design type on Metro's Urban 14.
Growth Concept map.
• The Functional Plan requires that the standard be met in mixed use areas.
• The City relied on the ability to increase pedestrian and auto connectivity and opportunity in the
findings submitted for approval of creation of the mixed use employment zone.
• The goal of creating design standards for the entire Triangle was to create an area that would
look and function differently than what currently exists.
• Issues associated with public access and maintenance exist with allowing private streets to
meet the requirement.
• Variance procedures exist to address truly extraordinary circumstances in the Triangle.
J
Memo to City Council 3
March 28, 1997
e
B. Building Setback
It has been suggested that the 0 - 10' setback for buildings be provided only along major and
minor arterials in the Triangle rather than throughout. The purpose of the setback is to provide
3 for a more urban feel, improve the relationship between pedestrians and buildings by
increasing the interest, the pedestrian access and allowing better visibility of buildings. Again, i
it was the intent of the design standards to provide consistency in appearance throughout the
Triangle, and to ensure a different look and feel. If these standards apply only to development
i on major and minor arterials, this purpose would be defeated.
Recommendation:
• Retain setback standards for the entire Triangle. j
i
C. Nonconforming Developments E
r,
Requests have been received that special rules be adopted for nonconforming developments
within the Triangle, such as CUB Foods. These rules would allow redevelopment of these
uses utilizing the same site plan (building and parking lot placement, etc.,) that were originally
approved if the building was to be destroyed by casualty. The City currently has regulations
that state that if a building is destroyed to the extent of 60% of its value, it must be
reconstructed to meet current standards. It would appear that there are no special
circumstances that would necessitate the exception of certain properties within the Triangle
from this standards. The purpose of the standards is to bring about a change in the way the
Triangle looks and functions as redevelopment occurs. Excepting properties from coming into
conformance with these standards would seem to be inequitable and at odds with the intended
purpose.
Recommendation:
• Do not create special rules for nonconforming developments within the Triangle.
1 .
i
Attachment: Task Force Participants G
i
t
I LLRPL"ADINEITRIANGLEIDES. CC -
Memo to City Council q
March 28, 1997
1
9
;
Tigard Triangle Task Force
Membership List
Name Address Phone/Fax
Tim Roth 12540 SW 68th Parkway, Suite B 639-2639/624-0239
Tigard, OR 97223
Gordon Martin 12265 SW 72nd Avenue 620-2477/620-1842
Tigard, OR 97223
Jim Corliss Landmark Ford 639-1131/598-8363
12000 SW 66th Avenue e
i Tigard, OR 97223
Paul Simmons Vice President of Retail 588-3426/588-5657
Development
Waremart
P.O. Box 12909
Salem, OR 97309
Darlene Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd 620-9642
Tigard, OR 97223
Ken Rosenfeld 11930 SW 70th 684-0612
Tigard, OR 97223
Kathy Godfrey 7435 SW Hermosa 620-8593
Tigard, OR 97223
Laurie Nicholson ODOT 731-8282/731-8259
123 NW Flanders
Portland, OR 97209-2736
Mary Weber METRO 797-17351797-1911
600 NE Grand
Portland, OR 97232-2736
Mary Tobias TVEDC 620-1142/624-0641
10200 SW Nimbus, Suite G-3
Tigard, OR 97223
i
77
Don Pollock Don Pollock Investments 292-4373/292-4862
1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202
Portland, OR 97221
1
Robert Gerding/Edlen Development 299-6000/299-6703
Gerding/Mark Edlen Company I
2525 SW First Street, Suite 201 e
Portland, OR 97201 i
Rick Saito Mackenzie/Saito & Associates 224-9570/228-1285
PO Box 69039
Portland, OR 97201/3909
Jerry Koberlein 16104 SW 72nd Ave 598-8634/598-8686 i
Tigard, OR 97224
Mayor Jim Nicoli 9025 SW Center 620-2086/684-3636
Tigard, OR 97223
j Mark Padgett Planning Commissioner 620-9858, Ext. 303
11270 SW 95th
Tigard, OR 97223
City Staff Nadine Smith/Jim Hendryx 639-4171/684-7297
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Consultants John C. Spencer 282-9853/282-2723
Spencer & Kupper
j 3533 NE 24th Avenue
Portland, OR 97212
i
Elaine Cogan 225-0192/225-0224
Cogan Owens Cogan
10 NW Tenth Avenue
Portland, OR 97212
- Beth Wemple 228-5230/273-8169
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205
Lloyd Lindley 224-9188/227-5810
PO Box 9068
Portland, OR 97207
J
lj.
- I
y
AGENDA ITEM #
/ FOR AGENDA OF April 15. 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Sewer Service Options
PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK .7&2_4ITY ADMINOK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
Options for extension of sewer service to parts of unincorporated Washington County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This agenda item does not involve an action on behalf of City Council.
I FORMATION SUMMARY
Quring Council discussion of both sewer service options for Walnut Island and Bull Mountain, the issue of
sewer service options for thcse areas has arisen. Per Council direction, staff has investigated options for
property owners who need sewer service and may not annex due to Measure 47, or the property owners do not
want to annex to the City.
To receive sewer service, there are some options available to a property owner. United Sewerage Agency
(USA) is proposing to adopt an ordinance that would require owners to pay a $6,000 fee to connect to a sewer
which the owner did not contribute to the construction costs. The fee would reimburse the installer of the
f sewer. An owner or a group of owners could request that the Agency be the installer, construct the sewer and
collect the fees as the owners connect to the sewer.
i
Another option is a Local Improvement District (LID) which could be established by the City if the area is not
annexed, or by the City regardless of annexation.
With Council approval and annexation of the area to be served, the City could install the sewers to provide the
requested service through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program.
In all of these options, the owner would be responsible for completing all work required on private property
including connecting house plumbing to the public sewer in the street and abandoning septic systems.
~j OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
I
Phe alternatives are listed in the memorandum. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide information.
FISCAL NOTES
There are no fiscal impacts involved.
i t
~ i
' i:tirywidellseuersum.dd ~ ~
E
{
_ C
4'.
1
I
.3
MEMORANDUM
I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
TO: Laurie Nicholson
FROM: Greg Bevy AFW
DATE: April 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Sewer Service Options
To connect to a sewer, an owner must pay a $2200 System Development Charge and pay for at
least part of the cost of constructing the public portion of the sewer. Several options are available
to construct the sewer and pay the fees.
One option Unified Sewerage Agency is proposing to adopt by ordinance on July 1, 1997, would
require owners to pay a $6,000 fee to connect to a sewer in which the owner did not contribute to
1 construction costs. Please refer to the attachment. This fee would reimburse the installer of the
sewer and is expected to promote sewer construction is two ways: First, if a person is the installer
and is required to construct a sewer that could serve properties other than the installer's own
property, at least partial reimbursement for the cost of constructing the sewer could be expected. i,
Also, an owner or group of owners could request that the Agency be the installer, construct the
sewer and collect the fees as the owners connect to the sewer. The ordinance also provides for
{ installment payments for this fee and the SDC.
Another option is a Local Improvement District (LID) which could be established by the County if
the area is not annexed, or by the City regardless of annexation. The advantage of a LID is that it is
financed through the sale of municipal bonds. The disadvantages are the high administrative costs
and the requirement that owners must begin making payments as soon as the district is formed even
if they have not connected to the s,:wer.
With Council approval and annexation of the area to be served, the City could install the sewers to
provide the requested service through the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. With this
option, the City would form a reimbursement district, construct the sewer, then charge each owner a
share of the cost of the sewer as connections are made. Each owner must pay the entire amount
upon connection; installment payments are not available.
In each of these options, the owner would be responsible for completing all work required on
private property including connecting house plumbing to the public sewer in the street and
abandoning septic systems.
e ;
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Proposed Ordinance 34
Local Sewer Improvement (LS11 Fee
k
I €
i Purpose: The proposed ordinance establishes a fee that would be paid by property F
owners who connect to a sewer line that they didn't help pay to build. This fee, called a
Local Sewer Improvement (LSI) fee, would be in addition to the normal Systems
Development Charge (SDC) paid by anyone who connects to the public sewer system.
k
Difference BetweenlSl and SDC: The Systems Development Charge (SDC) is the
charge that funds the Agency's Masterplan improvements in the collection system and
the treatment plant improvements. Collection system masterplan improvements include r
the large diameter trunk and interceptor sewer lines designed to handle several smaller
local drainage basins. The Agency collects the SDC from every property that connects .
1 to the public sewer and then builds the masterplan and treatment plant improvements
as they are needed.
The LSI fee would be a charge to help reimburse a private (or, in some cases, public)
party for building small diameter (less than 15") sewer lines. When and how these local
sewer lines would be built could vary greatly depending on individual development
plans and timing. SDC's would not be used to help build these lines. Local sewer
S improvements can also be built through the formation of a Local Improvement District -
7 (LID), where the property owners jointly decide to fund a local improvement and have
j the Agency design and build it.
Fee Amount: The proposed LSI fee is $6,000 per connection. It would be assessed to
j those properties adjacent to the local line which connect to the line being built. Property
owners can apply for 10-year financing for both the LSI and Systems Development
Charge (which is currently $2,200 per connection). For the parry building the line, there
is a one-time application fee and a yearly administrative fee for the Agency to process
the reimbursements.
1. -
Notice Requirements: Before the Agency enters into an LSI agreement with the party I
building the line, the adjacent property owners will be notified and given the opportunity
to discuss other options, which may include forming a Local Improvement District.
s
Adoption Process: The Agency's Board of Directors will hold public hearings on the i
proposed ordinance on April 1, April 8, and April 15, 1997, at which the public can
comment. The proposed effective date of the Ordinance is July 1, 1997. Also, each
j year the public could comment on the amount of the fees when the Board of Directors
j reviews and adopts the Agency's Rates and Charges Resolution and Order.
j Examples of how this new fee would apply are shown on the attached page.
155 North First Avenue, Suite 270, MS 10 Phone: 503/648-8621
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 FAX: 503/640-3525
i
1 i
1
J
i
m ALTERNATE LID BOUNDARY . ALTERNATE LID BCUNDARY
PROPOSED LOCAL
PROPOSED LOCAL /
_ SEVER IMPROVEMENT SEVER IMPROVEMENT - -
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO 1 PPOPEPTIES SUBJECT TO
LOCAL SEVER IMPROVEMENT LOCAL SEVER IMPROVEMENT 1-
1EE UPON CONNECTION FEE UPON CONNECTION
1 f R\ I
- I ~F\ j~ n11 ~ I I
\ *Owner IOUl Ids 0
W local r'i-`--
Zi • wner uI Ids , Impro rent AVENI_Ew "C"
I local sewer
Q~ Improvement to \ 4k
replace Fall Ing y
77
AVENI E T
unified
sewerage
ufrol agency
SC~LE~
„we
17.
I
1
f I
MEMORANDUM
~ f
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan ~
DATE: April 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item No. 5 - for April 15, 1997
The attached memo from Dick Bewersdorff is for discussion at the April 15, 1997 Council
meeting, Item 5 regarding Street Issues on Bull Mountain.
t
I
{
f '
E
i
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff
DATE: April 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Laurelglen Estates Subdivision (SUB 96-0008) <
The City Council requested information on condition of approval number 24 related to the above
subdivision.
Condition 24 required a temporary barrier be maintained at the northerly extension of SW 114th -
'~Avenue. This is the 3/4 street extension required for the development of the Laurelglen
Subdivision. Removal of the barrier is contingent on a City Engineer's report regarding the
i
capacity and condition of SW 114th north of the proposed subdivision.
SW 114th is classified as a local street. North of the propnsed subdivision, it is an oil mat surface
of 16-18 feet in width in a 50 foot right of way. It is not built to city standards. Neighborhood I 9
testimony at the hearing was unanimously opposed to opening the street. The neighborhood felt
the street would act as a collector/bypass for Bull Mountain traffic.
i While the Commission understands the need for street connections, the existing condition and
capacity of SW 114th as well as the potential traffic speed were of concern. The majority of the
Commission felt that a study relating to the capacity and safety concerns along with
recommendations for improvements, if any, would be appropriate prior to opening the street.
The opening of street connections from Bull Mountain Road to Walnut and Scholls Ferry has been
controversial for a long time. In 1989-90, the City, Washington County and citizens in the Bull
Mountain area developed what is known as the NE Bull Mountain Transportation Study. This
study was presented to the Council but was never officially adopted. Some of the items, however,
were incorportated into the City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. These included
connections between Walnut and Scholls Ferry in the vicinity of SW 132nd, SW 135th and Sunrise
Lane. (See attached Figure 12-1 from the study). These connections are now included on the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. 1
{
The 135th Street connection has been made and connects to Scholls Ferry through Benchview
Terrace and Hillshire Woods. The 132nd connections awaits development of intervening
properties. Gaarde is being extended to the north as development occurs.
j When the Arlington Ridge subdivision was approved, the Council and Planning Commission chose
77
not to require the connection between Gaarde and Bull Mountain Road along 121st because of
immense neighborhood opposition from those in Ames Orchard. SW 121st had been considered
an alternate connection to Bull Mountain Road in the NE Bull Mountain Transportation Study.
Lti`hcn adequate street connections from Bull Mountain Road to Scholls Ferry adequately spread
the traffic between streets, it is expected that local street connections like SW 114th could be
made. Such connections should be based on the carrying capacity of the street.
i:curpln\dick\lau-114.mem
04/11/97 8:48 AM _
i
-
ARTER12LL
t s MAJOR COLLECTOR
A V MINOR COLLECTOR
O
1 o LOCAL STREET
~~C c o APPROXIMATE ALIGN14ENT
w
0 (Exact alignment to be o
On
CIO
Av determined at time of
development.
\ TRAFFIC SIGNAL
'When wacx
c
o m
3 _ r
\115th Ave s9W
SW
ri- Q CC t
e
1.
`-L-~ 1 - 8aI2 rt taLn Ad. -
Satscs~etioo _ '
j ~......i~uly 700•
E
+a oorridoc louttoo wt of 126th Are.
1 '°o• - 400- "`t / SVJ. 131st
of 232nd A~ at sr.laut st_ Ave ~
ve
t S.W. 133rd Ave.
3 S-W. 135th Ave_ \ -
U)
o ` ~d , - obi
41
Sh' 141st Ave.
Sunrise Ln. S.W. 1501h vl ve.
(Amended 1/3/90)
Figure 12-7
NE Bull Mountain RECOMMENDED PLAN
Transportation Study FOR LONG - RANGE DEVELOPMENT
juj
4L Oft 14
r ~TT-
VI,
Tvt
It i , 11
r
i
1
}
~ ~ n 1... ~ ,•,I I W I 1 n ~•r ~ G, f ,
Go I.l------------ Ll
I n•M nrw Q
1T1 V. ~
~ ~ a { 1 I r]]
4 ,w M 4 ,ti V IE u t ~ I
uuu
_f
JJ~'
1
L'
O
1
I
. U
~I
~ c~s~ ~o.
PLOT _PLAN DIVISION
1 LAURELGLEN ESTATES SUB
E /1 H I B I 1 MAP q SUB 96-0008
ZON 96-0010 j