Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 01/20/1998
. y r a i ~r tt a ~ ~ Fifif t. Att,, < ~ c i4 #,S.R/ ift~i 7.~r - ' c r C , ~ I Yb ~ t t F t ~1 v~ rJ K'3 y'S,;i 1 r t~` ! . . _ ~ T ICS TI i 0, 4 ^ " t Y t y j ) A _ r Cou IL . _ ILL 1 f 1 Y ''y rk t T®/I ~f i~ r tV yr c a IFfi l ~ u 1:%ad(Y lolccpkt2.d4G iR n PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's (agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (vc;ce) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 20,1998 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. 6:30 PM ® 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. 7:30 P.M. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call 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 7:35 P.M. 2. INTRODUCE LIBRARY DIRECTOR MELINDA SISSON • City Manager 7:40 P.M. 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM UPDATE • Assistant to the City Manager 8:40 P.M. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:55 P.M. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 5.1 Approve City Council Minutes: December 9 and 16, 1997 5.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 5.3 Authorize Expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Funds as Identified and Approved by the Citizens Committee 5.4 Dedicate Property Owned by the City of Tigard as Rights of Way for 72nd Avenue - Resolution No. 98-0I COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 20,1998 - PAGE 2 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 8:00 PM 6. CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY EFFORT a Staff Report: Public Works Director • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 98- ~Z 8:15 PM 7. REVIEW OF DARTMOUTH ASSESSMENT FORMULA DEVELOPED BY THE HARPER REGHELLIS FIRM Staff Introduction: Finance Director 8:45 PM 8. SOLID WASTE EFFICIENCIES TASK FORCE (SWETF) FINAL REPORT • Staff Introduction: Management Analyst/Risk 9:30 PM 9. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF MEASURE 50 AND APPROACH BY WASHINGTON COUNTY Staff Report: City Manager 9:45 PM 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9:55 PM 11. 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 altawed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:15 PM 12. ADJOURNMENT i:\adm\cathy\cca\980120.doc COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 20,1999 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 > Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicola > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. • AGENDA REVIEW Bill Monahan, City Manager, mentioned the request from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue to schedule a dinner with the Council to discuss items such as an initiative on fire sprinklers and alarms. The Council agreed to schedule the dinner for Tuesday, March 3. Mr. Monahan announced the Visioning Party scheduled for Thursday evening at the Water Building, intended to thank all those who participated in the process and to unveil the summary report. The Council agree that staff should call on Thursday to see which Councilors could attend it. Mr. Monahan reviewed the early Sunday morning fatal accident on 99W ill which one person was killed and four others were left in critical condition. • EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:40 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Paard Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 410 led the pledge of allegiance. The Mayor thanked the troop and gave each Scout present a City of Tigard pin. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports Mayor Nicoli shared two ideas he heard during a round table discussion he participated in. The first was to establish a non-voting position for a young adult on all city commissions and advisory boards as a means of involving youth in city government. He mentioned that the City of Tualatin intended to expand its initial test of a young adult on one committee to CITY CCUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 1 include all other task forces in their city. The second idea was to find a facility with furniture and other equipment where older youth could hang out and talk. He mentioned the Costco Sports Station as a. possibility. He asked for discussion by the Council of these items at a later date. • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on Mr. Monahan's meeting with Kim Brown of Interfaith Outreach Services. Mr. Monahan reported that Ms. Brown had informed him that Interfaith might need the City building at Burnham and Ash for a minimum of two years because the office space at the Rite Ceiiter would not be built until the third or fourth phase of that project. At their meeting, Ms. Brown discussed downsizing her use of that building, and sharing it with other groups, such as Community Partners for Affordable Housing and NeighborShare. Mr. Monahan said that he contacted Sydney Sherwood who agreed to meet with Ms. Brown and work or, facilitating a meeting between these non-profit organizations to discuss sharing the building. They would present a joint proposal to the Budget Committee. Ile said that he told Ms. Brown that he did not know what Council direction might be on their continued use of the building. The City's only commitment at this time was to allow its use through June 30. Councilor Rohlf asked to discuss the SW North Dakota situation. Councilor Scheckla asked for a report on the work down by the railroad tracks on Bonita Road. Councilor Moore reviewed the undergrounding utility work in progress. 2. INTRODUCE LIBRARY DIRECTOR MEELINDA SISSON Mayor Nicoli introduced the new Library Director Melinda Sission. The Council welcomed her to the City. Mr. Monahan mentioned that Ms. Sission had been the library director for a system in Arizona, and was named Arizona's Librarian of the Year in 1997. 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM UPDATE Liz Newton, Asst to the City Manager, introduced the two facilitators present: Craig Dirksen and Nikki Malnati. She reviewed the new format staff has developed for the CITs to use this year. She mentioned the addition of a sign up sheet to talk with a staff member one on one about an issue of importance to an individual. She mentioned the intent to educate citizens about the land use process, beginning in February. She said that they would continue to use break out sessions with topics suggested by the CITs. She suggested having task forces meet during those break out sessions as well. Ms. Newton said that the new meeting place was at the Senior Center which had a lot o rooms available and little use on the first Thursday. Mr. Dirksen concurred with Ms. Malnati that the new format was a good idea. He commented that, while he did not think the previous way they ran the CITs was a mistake, it was important to remain flexible and able to change the process in order to meet the changing needs of the citizens. He said that this was a better and more efficient use of the facilities. Councilor Scheckla asked if the CITs met during the summer. Ms. Newton explained that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PACE 2 usually the CITs did not meet in July. She asked the Council if they might consider attending the CIT meetings on a rotation basis in order to be available to citizens with questions or comments. Councilor Hunt volunteered to attend the February 5 meeting. Mr. Dirksen asked for discussion of his concern that this new format did not have a time set aside where people could speak on an issue not on the agenda. He commented that often people simply wanted to "vein' their feelings and the CIT forum provided a way to do so in a non- destructive way. Councilor Moore commented that sometimes Councilors could not answer questions and had to refer the citizens to staff. Ms. Newton reported that she asked the trainer for the January 31 training session to work with staff and facilitators on answering questions as best they could and getting the citizen in contact with the right people the next day. She commented that sometimes staff felt that they did not do their job if they did not resolve the issue completely at that time. Mr. Dirksen mentioned that often citizens were more appreciative of staff taking the time to research the question. Councilor Rohlf expressed his appreciation to Mr. Dirksen for the many years he has worked with the CITs and the public process. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA: No visitors. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Scheckla asked to pull Item 5.3 for separate discussion and consideration.. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda, pulling Item 5.3 off for further discussion. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5.1 Approve Council Minutes: December 9 and 16, 1997 5.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 5.4 Dedicate Property Owned by the City of Tigard 2s Rights of Way for 72"d Avenue - Resolution No. 98-001 > Consent Agenda - Item Removed for Separate Discussion 5.3 Authorize Expenditure of Community Development Block Grant Funds as Identified and Approved by the Citizens Committee Councilor Scheckla expressed concern at the $3000 item slated for overtime to address traffic and criminal problems. Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, explained that the money would be used to address specific areas of criminal and traffic related issues above and beyond what the police department normally did. These issues needed some extra resources for enforcement, education and visibility. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 3 Councilor Scheckla asked if they received this money every year. Chief Goodpaster explained that they %N ere informed last year that these funds would not be available this year. When the Police Department learned that funds would be available after all, the Department submitted an application for a grant. The understanding is that these funds are not available on a yearly basis and should no+ be spent on continuing programs. He said that the money would be spent on singular issues. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Item 5.3. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY EFFORT Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented the resolution that would allow Tigard to participate in the Willamette Water Supply Agency through Tualatin Valley Water District. He said that this would provide a short and long term water supply to the Wilsonville area and to the Department of Corrections, and allow negotiations on a final agreement. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Res Jution No. 98-02. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-02, A RESOLUTION REGARDING WA ER SUPPLY FOR THE TIGARD, SHERWOOD, AND WILSONVILLE AREA. Motion was apnroved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, kohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Hunt asked why Tualatin was not included. Mr. Wegner said that Tualatin did not know at this time whether or not they wanted to participate in a regional facility. Councilor Scheckla asked how Tigard fit into the permit. Mr. Wegner explained that Tualatin Valley Water District assigned 26 mgd to the City of Tigard out of the total amount allowed under this permit number. 7. REVIEW OF DARTMOUTH ASSESSMENT FORMULA DEVELOPED BY THE HARPER REGHELLIS FIRM Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, explained that this was a study session for the Council regarding the assessment formula. Chuck Corrigan, Legal Co,insel, stated that the Dartmouth LID has been completed and the final costs were being finalized. He reported that the pending litigation regarding the acquisition of the right of way has been put on tentative settlement. He reviewed the legal process used by Council to handle the assessment. Tony Reghellis, Harper Reghellis, presented a detailed report on his analysis of the varying factors involved in developing an assessment formula for the LID. He reviewed how the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 4 original assessment method worked with its basis in the proximity of each property to the improvement. He explained that he decided to develop an assessment formula based on what information was known at the time the LID was formed. He reviewed various methods for assessing an LID, and why they did or did not work for the Dartmouth LID. Mr. Reghallis explained his reasons for not recommending the original proximity methodology, commenting on the various arbitrary elements in it. These included the lot increments, the ratios, the exclusion of developable lands within 450 feet of Dartmouth, and the handling of the corner parcels. Mr. Reghallis ,aid that he decided not to use multiple assessment methods to deal with the costs of the various types of improvements constructed (and the propertional benefits to the accessing properties) because the improvements, other than the street, were minor and did serve most of the lots. Mr. Reghallis recommended the net developable area assessment method for the Dartmouth LID. He said that this included all developable area minus the wetlands and some adjustments. Those adjustments include weighing four office building properties at the east end at one-fourth the weight of the general commercial properties because they did not use Dartmouth as much as general commercial did. Mr. Reghallis stated that the net developable method was the most flexible method for what was known at the time the LID was formed. He mentioned that both Waremart and Costco purchased retail land beyond their original properties, something not known in 1980. He said that since those companies paid full urban service prices for the retail land, he saw no reason to assess more for the retail land they purchased outside the LID boundaries. Mr. Reghallis explained his reasoning behind various exclusions or inclusions of properties within the LID (in contrast to the original assessment method). He included the corner parcels, excluded the parcels fronting Pacific Highway (whose access was impaired with the building of the Dartmouth/ 99W intersection), and excluded the lands surrounding future streets. He said that he included SW 72"d Avenue because Dartmouth, not SW 72"d, was the catalyst for the development in the area. He also included SW 70th and SW 69`h. Mr. Reghallis summarized his recommendation. The net developable area method stayed within the LID boundary, excluded wetlands, the center 70 feet of Dartmouth Avenue, and tine properties fronting Pacific Highway, and weighted the four small parcels on this side on SW 70`}' Avenue at one-fourth the other properties. The Council discussed when to schedule the legal procedure for adopting the assessment method. Staff estimated that the process would take 30 to 40 days, meaning a tentative date in late February or early March. Mr. Monahan explained that they needed to wait until the acquisition of the right-of-way was completed before they could start the process but that was imminent. 8. SOLID WASTE EFFICIENCIES TASK FORCE (SWETF) FINAL REPORT Loreen Mills, Risk Manager, mentioned that at the May rate review meeting, Council would be considering the haulers' annual report and the Metro tipping fee reduction. In addition staff anticipated that Council would consider the SWETF-proposed commingling residential CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 5 recyclables prof ram based on the study done by Harding Lawson Associates. She noted that David Allaway from Harding Lawson was pres-cnt to answer questions. Ms. Mills reviewed the SWETF membership, including Mike Leichner (Pride Disposal), Buck Westfall (Miller's), Larry Schmidt (Schmidt Sanitary), Councilor Bob Rohlf, Steve Breid, and John Cook. Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal, presented the SWETF report. The Committee recommended sending a letter to Governor Kitzhaber requesting that the state develop stronger and more recycling markets. If the haulers had a place to sell what they collected, they could more easily commit to a more extensive recycling program that would generate more revenue and reduce rates. Ms. Mills reviewed the state and regional activity on promoting the issue of recyclables, mentioning that Metro has decided not to fund a position to manage recycling for the region. Councilor Rohlf asked what Metro's justification was for not carrying their responsibility in executing the state requirements. Ms. Mills said that apparently the timing was not right for Metro at this time. She said that the request to fund the position died at the Executive level but noted that she was not privy to those discussions. Councilor Rohlf suggested sending to Mike Burton a letter similar to the one sent to the Governor. Councilor Rohlf spoke to the need for someone to market the recyclables on a regional or state level. He said that both the state and Metro had responsibilities in this area and that Tigard should continue to put pressure on both of them to deal with the issue. Mayor Nicoli concurred. The Council directed Ms. Mills to draft a letter to Metro over the Mayor's signature stating Tigard's expectation that Metro would take a more proactive role in dealing with recyclables, given their regional responsibility. Mr. Leichner noted the recommendation to modify the community development code to trigger an upgraded commercial solid waste enclosure for remodels. He said that the current system for new development worked fine but for remodeling, the haulers needed notification of the permit applications so that they could work with the owner to build a trash enclosure that worked for both the hauler and the business owner. Mayor Nicoli asked if it was appropriate for the City to allow a variance to the Development Code standards in a case where no available land existed to house the upgrade unless landscaping or a parking space were sacrificed for it. He commented that unless the City was willing to allow these upgrades through their zoning ordinance, it was a waste of time to have a plan encouraging upgrades. Councilor Rohlf said that the discussion had centered on the difficulties in accessing these enclosures (which slowed down the process and increased rates for everyone), and on who should pay the costs. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that if the City made it easier for business owners to upgrade the trash enclosures, they would probably be happy to cooperate. Councilor Rohlf said that a move in that direction would be consistent with the Task Force thinking. Mr. Leichner agreed that the Mayor's suggestion would be a great element, as this was a matter of economics for the business owners. Mr. Leiclmer noted the SWETF discussion on county wide management of solid waste franchises as a means of reducing paperwork and costs, and of standardizing collection procedures. They looked at MACC as a model but there was not interest on the committee in CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 6 pursuing it. He said that they were not strongly recommending moving forward with it but would like some feedback from Council. Ms. Mills said that more information would be forthcoming from the Washington County Managers Group. Mr. Leichner reviewed the three year solid waste plan. He said that their intent was to provide a plan to enable haulers to replace equipment with a view towards where they needed to be in three years, as opposed to replacing equipment to meet current needs only. Councilor Hunt asked if the haulers intended to switch from the red bins (residential program) to larger bins. Mr. Leichner explained that the Harding Lawson Associates report looked into that issue. Commingling of recyclables meant a cut in collection costs and an easier job for the customer which in turn should generate more material and increase the tonnage recycled. Councilor Hunt questioned whether switching to a larger bin would be easier for the consumer, noting the complaints he received when the haulers switched to the larger yard debris bins that were difficult for many customers to handle and store. Mr. Leichner mentioned that there were several jurisdictions successfully using a one or two bin system but he would leave the pros and cons of those systems to the Harding Lawson Associates report. Councilor Rohlf confirmed that public acceptance was a major consideration in the discussion on SWETF. He said that they did not reach a conclusion on cart sizes because they knew that a certain percentage of the population would be unhappy with any change. However that was not a reason not to move forward with the three year plan. Councilor Hunt commented that after one or two years, most people became accustomed to or had found a way to adapt to the changes. Mayor Nicoli suggested installing recycling stations to house the large containers every 200 feet in Summerfield. Councilor Hunt said that he did not think that would work because there was not any place in Summerfield to put the stations, and advised he did not think the residents would take their recyclables beyond their curb for pickup. Ms. Mills pointed out that the SWETF group recommended a review in 1999 of volume-based versus weight-based rates. This review would include whether or not to add recycling, and if so, should they add split bins. She said that the current study recommended keeping their current system (weight-based rates) of two red bins and yard debris but reducing the source-preparation work by allowing commingling of recyclables in the bins. She said that Council was not locking themselves into recycling with a large cart if they directed staff to return with the three year plan for adoption. Ms. Mills mentioned that organic recyclables (food waste from residences, restaurants, and stores) were currently under discussion at Metro. She said that with the constant changes in the solid waste industry and technology, there would be a lot of changes in three years which the City would have no control over, though they intended to be involved in those state and Metro decisions. She assured the Council that any review would consider these issues. David Allaway, Harding Lawson Associates, commented that in two to three years there might be options for collection of all materials that right now seemed unlikely. He cited the City of Olympia program that used two split carts, one for organic compostables and non- compostable non-recyclable garbage and one for non-paper and paper recyclables, with alternate weekly pickups for each cart. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 7 Ms. Mills asked for Council direction regarding the three year plan. Did Council want to make changes to it or have staff bring it back for adoption on the Consent Agenda? Mayor Nicoli said that he would prefer to hear the consultant's report first and think about it more. Ms. Mills mentioned the City's position (as given in the plan) on Metro's contention that flow control was in their jurisdiction. The City disagreed that federal court decisions have said that flow control was under Metro's authority but the Council was choosing not to spend the money to challenge Metro's authority on it. Mr. Leichner pointed out the coincidence of the reduction in Metro tipping fees, following the discussion on flow control. He speculated that Metro was attempting to make the costs low enough to avoid a challenge. Mr. Leichner reviewed the changes in the residential vacation credits. He explained that they went to a vacation credit with a minimum of two weeks for an unlimited number of times per year in order to accommodate the changing vacation schedules of citizens, including seniors who were in and out of town for several months during the winter. Councilor Scheckla presented several recycling questions on household items he had received from citizens. Mr. Leichner said that batteries were considered household hazardous waste, although most people did just throw them out in the garbage. Neither light bulbs nor the plastic from toys were recyclable at this time. If there were a market for the plastic, it might become recyclable in the distant future. While holiday wrapping paper was recyclable as scrap paper, ribbons and bows were not. Ms. Mills mentioned the Tigard Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Day at Washington Square on Saturday, May 16, and the Bulky Waste Collection Day planned for mid-April at the Pride Disposal lot. Ms. Mills presented the commingling recyclables study report. She reviewed in detail two of the three options studied. These included a two sort of paper and plastic in one red bin, and all metals and all colors of glass in the other one or a two sort of all glass in one bin, and paper, plastic, and metal in the other bin. Both options costed out at approximately 14 to 20 cents per month per household. Ms. Mills explained that the Portland option could significantly impact Tigard because Portland was large enough and close enough to drive a lot of programs. Portland's option was a two sort with all fiber in one bin (newspapers bagged separately) and all containers (metal, glass, plastic) in the other bin. The cost was the same. Ms. Mills said that SWETF preferred the option of paper and plastic together and metal and glass together because of compaction and truck space issues. Ms. Mills commented that in the majority of the country, people only did one or two sorts for their recyclables instead of the numerous sorts done in Oregon. This commingling proposal responded to citizen complaints that the sorting was too time-consuming. They most likely would get greater participation with an easier program which would help achieve their recycling goal by the year 2000. Ms. Mills asked Council to consider this commingling program at the May rate review meeting along with the 1997 Haulers' Report and the Metro tipping fey reduction. Depending on the Haulers' Report, residents could see a decrease in the solid waste rate. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the red bins were not large enough to hold paper and plastic together. Ms. Mills acknowledged that that was an issue. Mr. Leichner commented that if the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 8 overflow paper was put in a sack for easy pickup by the haulers, they would not object to that. Speed of pickup was their primary concern. Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of small businesses and recycling, mentioning cardboard in particular. Mr. Leichner said that he thought that the haulers could work with small businesses to find a way to handle their recyclables. He explained that the reason for the requirement to bundle cardboard was for safety, to prevent scattering, and. tD limit the size so that if a bundle of cardboard were soaked by rain, the hauler could still lift it into the truck. He said that the closest place to Tigard for dumping cardboard legally was Far West Fibers at Hwy. 217 and Denny Road. The Council agreed to Mr. Monahan's suggestion to schedule the commingling program for a study session on March 17. One of the haulers commented that he found the SWETF meetings constructive. He had suggested consolidating management services for efficiency for all affected parties. 9. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF MEASURE 50 AND APPROACH BY WASHINGTON COUNTY Mr. Monahan advised the Council that they did not need to make a recommendation on the Washington County proposal to handle its 15.6% property tax reduction from Measure 50 but they could do so if they chose. He mentioned an option of an across the board reduction in the general fund, including the Library and MSTIP3 programs. Mr. Monahan reviewed the method supported by Washington County Administrator Charlie Cameron. He said that Mr. Cameron proposed a reduction in the MSTIP funding by 18.6% each year, extending the funding to a longer period (12 to 13 years) to make up the amount of time it took to do the full funding of all projects in the program as promised to the voters. The WCCLS levy received only $9.1 million but the 3% increase in land valuation would probably raise that amount back up the level expected originally in two years. Mayor Nicoli said that he was comfortable with Mr. Cameron's proposal. Councilor Rohlf disagreed that the voters would buy the concept of doubling the timeline, especially when the roads remained in bad shape. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the County sell revenue bonds to build these projects now and use the property tax money to pay off the bonds over the 12 years. He mentioned the high inflation rate in the construction industry as increasing the costs over time. Councilor Rohlf spoke for going back to the voters for more funding and explaining that this was an unfortunate side effect of Measures 47 and 50. The Council discussed what approach to take with the County. Mayor Nicoli suggested recommending Mr. Cameron's proposal with the addendum that the voters should have the right to consider bringing MSTIP 3 back to full funding, and suggesting the sale of revenue bonds to build now and beat the inflation. Councilor Rohlf reiterated his opposition to extending the program to 12 years. He suggested recommending that the County target what projects it could complete in the six year period, inform the voters of which projects it could not complete without full funding, and ask the voters if they wanted full funding. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Rohlf's approach. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 9 The Council agree''. that Mr. Monahan should pass their comments on to Mr. Cameron but not send an official letter. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS Date: ja Y1~lg > SW North Dakota Councilor Rohlf reported that, while the traffic diverter has reduced the volume of traffic in the neighborhood, an unfortunate side effect has been people cutting through the apartment complex parking lot. He asked that the police activity in citing people continue while the traffic change was settling into place. The Task Force had thought that the speed bumps in the apartment parking lot would deter cut through traffic so they did not discuss this possibility much. He mentioned that the new signage was not very visible or obvious to drivers. This led to drivers getting trapped and cutting through the parking lot as a way out. He said that there were no signs at all to warn drivers coming from Beaverton. Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to the City Engineer about the signage. Councilor Moore pointed out that there was a learning curve involved here and that eventually people would get used to the traffic change. Councilor Scheckla commented that if they blocked off one road, they simply rerouted the traffic problem to somewhere else. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. ca;6;0~- 4X .,W &g=Q ~ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or, City of Tigard CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1998 - PAGE 10 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 9 011 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard ® O Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. e Tigard,Oregon 97223 13 Duplicate Affidavit eAccounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder_ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at TJ gard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council_Workshor) Meetina a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 15,1998 r n Subscribed and sworn ptbefore me this I5th day of .Tanuary,1998 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BUROEM Not Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: , COMMISSION NO. 062071 h1Y COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 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 January 20, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Workshop Meeting topics: > Executive Session > Citizen Involvement Teams (CIT) Joint Meeting > Update: Private Streetlights > Update: Dartmouth Local Improvement Formula > Update: Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force > Consider: Resolution Endorsing City of Tigard's Participation in a Regional Water Supply Effort > Review: Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments r TT9011 -Publish January 15, 1998. t AdEN.13A.ITEM NO. 4 VISITOR"S. A09NDADATE.: Janus .:IM _z (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you fir3t try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager pr;or to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC 'AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ 4 - VISITOR'S AGENDA - PAGE 2 a DATE:. a®nasM 20,11998'` (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE 11 TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED C-WMA 11 ATT New Format - New Facility - New Focus... and YOU are invited when: Thursday, February 5 7-9 p.m. Where: regard Senior Center, 8 15 S 0°!1®r® The fehrn®rp CIT Rating Agenda 7:00 p.m. - Gener®d Sm on: The land use process - Why should you participate? How can you have an impact on future development? What if you don't like what's planned? This session is designed to give you the tools to get effectively involved when it matters. 8:00 p.m. - Ormkoot S~sslons: (Choose one:) Parks Master Plan: Your opportunity to give input on future plans for park and acquisition and improvements - what would you like to see? 19th Avenue Improvement Project: If you live near 79thbetween Bonita and Boones Ferry, come and find out how things are about to change. The Development Code: This 200+ page document regulates everything from signs to density to trees in our community. Are there things you would like to see done differently? The Code is being changed - this is your chance to find out how and how you can suggest changes. What is a lot? A tract? A significant stand of trees? The Community Development Director will explain how those terms are used in the land use process. Also... Throughout the evening, representatives from EVERY city department will be available to meet with you one-on-one to talk about A~IY issues or concerns you have Just sign up for a 15 minute time slot when you arrive. Plan To Attend! C1T- Citizen Involvement Team Grassroots Neighborhood-Based Agenda Item No 3 MEMORANDUM Meeting CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Liz Newton DATE: January 14, 1998 SUBJECT: New CIT Format As you know, a new CIT format has been established. Beginning in February, all CITs will meet on one evening. The first meeting will be Thursday, February 5, at 7 p.m. at the Tigard Senior Center. The subsequent meetings will be held on the first Thursday of each month from 7 - 9 p.m. At the January 2u^ Council meeting, citizen facilitators will be on hand to discuss the proposed format. The general format of the. meetings will be as follows: 7 p.m. - General Session - designed as information or opportunities to get input on topics of general interest to all participants. 8 p.m. Breakout Sessions - two to five sessions held simultaneously that involve topics of special interest. The topics for these sessions will generally be selected by the CIT members. The third component of the new format will be the availability of a staff representative from each department to respond one-on-one to citi.~ens on specific issues or concerns. Citizens will be allowed to sign-up when they arrive for 15-minute time sk.ts. I will be asking the department heads at the January 14 executive staff meeting who will represent each department at the February 5 meeting. Citizen facilitators will continue to facilitate the sessions. In addition, city council members may wish to rotate attendance to be on hand to meet informally with citizens. The agenda items for the February 5 meeting are: General Session The land use process - how citizens can participate and have an impact. Breakout Sessions The Master Park Plan. 79th Avenue Improvement Project, Interpretations - Lots, Tract, Stared of Trees The Development Code This new CIT meeting format is designed to make better use of staff resources and be more productive for citizens. 6 & a- Council Agenda Item For Agenda of I MEMOF ANDUM Ija 0` q? CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager DATE: January 6, 1995 SUBJECT: COUNCIL. CALENDAR, January - March 1995 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk M. If generally OIL, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. January * 13 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) (State of the City, Executive Summary, Reception following meeting) Study Session Business Meeting 19 Mon Martin Luther Ding Jr. Day - City Offices Closed * 20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) * 27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting February *10 Tues Council Meeting Study Session Business Meeting 16 Mon Presidents' Day - City Offices Closed * 17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) * 24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting March *10 Tues Council Meeting Study Session Business Meeting * 17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) * 24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting iAadm\cathylcoundl\cccal.doc Fl 0 z m O ~ C CD W M Q ca b N U 1U.~ f0 tin H ~l V 1 N a ~yy c N ~ a 1 x 1 o w ~ oa ~ ~ ~ ° ~ CA 00 ~ E ~a d 0 . N Nl v~ U E v ~ U irot F °D v V io °u ~ o o C7 ~ eT .a ; CL n• o ~ H n ~ o 'o . b ~ N ~ y N h to v~ c ~ ° w •dv o a~ ~ bD v 1 o .5 0 ~ •'y O A •5 1 .i. ..1 a°, o a a ° x ? ~ '0 p U h 0 O 'O " H x y Q ~ y ~ ° N v1 0 F r b o < .g! Q O] Q ' ~ ~ O ' y CL 'D O 1 yp d an . > > l CA a L" u -'A > d, or cc W) a • IFV c _ ~ ~ o .n w 5 $ ^ ' ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 v 0 w ~ 04 n ~ o ~ .o ~ F U ~ • ~ i c A Z n AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 1 ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization to Spend Law Enforcement Community Development Block Grant Funds PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK fZt* CITY MGR OK Y-- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before the Council is to approve or not the spending of a recently received Law Enforcement Community Development Block Grant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorize the spending of the funds as identified and approved by the Citizens Committee. INFORMATION SUMMARY We were fortunate to be awarded this $19,609 Law Enforcement Community Development Block Grant for 1997. We received a similar grant in 1996, and this program is very similar to the one of last year. The requirements of the grant are that the funds be spent to reduce crime and improve public safety. There are several categories the funds can be spent in, and the two categories we have identified are law enforcement and also enhancing school safety and security. The grant requires that a citizens committee made up of representatives from the local police, local prosecutor's office, local court system, local school system, and a community representative active in crime prevention have recommendation rights to the Police Department in regards to how the funds are spent. The recommendation before you is the recommendation of the Citizens Committee. $1,000 of the funds would be spent to purchase new speed signs that have been authorized by the 1997 Oregon Legislature notifying motorists that fines double for speeding in school zones. This was at the request of the citizen member that is actively involved in community crime prevention. The committee also recommended $7,000 toward school safety and security, which would include a video recorder, a multiple screen monitor, and external camera at the Tigard High School; 2 different cameras, a recorder, and a motion detector for Fowler Middle School; and also a power shredder and 3 2-channel VHF radios with chargers and belt clips for Twality Middle School. All items would be used by the school in regards to student safety and security. $2,000 would be spent by the local court system to add programming to their new computer that tracks traffic citation activity, which would significantly benefit the deployment of traffic patrols in the Police Department. $410 would be used to send our Crime Prevention Specialist to a 2-week crime prevention/community policing training program at the Oregon Police Academy in February, 1998. $2,000 would be used to send an officer to the 2-week Law Enforcement Forensic Computer training class in Florida, starting April 27, 1998. This is the only location we can receive this type of training, and it is becoming critical when we seize criminals' computers to be able to get into the computers and gain extremely valuable investigative and criminal information. The course will teach the officer how to properly seize and process a DOS/Windows based computer system, and includes evidence identification and proper collection, sector level analysis of hard discs, data recovery, identification of data, destructive software schemes, encryption, theory and decryption techniques, among other computer related topics. $1,000 of the funds would be used by the Peer Court for recognition of the volunteers and also necessary supplies. $2,100 would be used to buy three "stop strips" which are hollow spike strips that are used to flatten the tires of fleeing vehicles. $3,000 would be used to for overtime to address tra_` is and criminal problems. $3,062 would be used to purchase start-up equipment for the full-time gang and narcotics officers. We have already received the check from the Federal Government, and this public hearing is the last process necessary before the funds can be spent. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not to accept the citizens' recommendation. FISCAL NOTES The $1,960 money match could easily come out of the existing PD budget for this fiscal year without affecting our programs or services because of a large cash carryover as a result of personnel turnover. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF , IGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY t ~ /1 J ua 13.1970 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Dedication of property as rights-of-way along the east side of SW 72nd Avenue PREPARED BY: John Hadley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Dedication of property owned by the city as rights-of-way for SW 72nd Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the dedication. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard purchased tax lot 1 S 1 36DA, 1101 prior to the construction of SW 72nd Ave. The required rights-of-way was dedicated at that time. Additional rights-of-way along SW 72nd Avenue is necessary to meet the recently adopted Tigard Triangle Design Standards. Dedication of additional property for rights-of-way purposes is necessary prior to the possible sale of said tax lot. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDFRED None FISCAL NOTES None i Acitywidebum\72nd-99w.doc • JAN 16 '98 10:57 FR TARLOW,JORDAN,SCHRADR503+598+7373 TO 111427578tt684729 P.02i05 January 16, 1998 William A. Monahan, City Administrator City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 # 1? !/ao1e-q VIA FACS1M LE: 684-7202 AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Re: Martin Letter Regarding Assessment Formula Our File No. 44708/27578 Dear Bill: Enclosed is a letter from Gordon R. Martin addressed to the Tigard City Council. Dol,sl, S V. VAN DYK The letter addresses the Martins' concerns regarding the use of the Harper Righellis formula assessing property owners for LID improvements. We request that this letter be included with the newsletter. We had hoped to complete a more detailed analysis ofthc issues and submit it along with this letter, but the analysis is not yet complete, so we will submit it as soon as possible. Please call me if you have any questions. MBOX270*7 Very truly yours, 14MM ANNOPECONYMI 5034997 .ifini"ge "ffiSMS87M TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER email: vandyk@tjslaw.com Douglas V. Van Dyk Enclosure cc: Gordon R. Martin Charles E. Corrigan (Via Facsimile 243-2944) A Total Quulity Management Ur ani:ulicm ^x0t0 (;1-1: .,r.,, i.,r.nr.rr v.r.: JAN 16 '98 10:5? FR TARLOW, JORDAN, SCHRADR503+598+?3?3 TO 111#2?5?89684?29 P.03i05 01/16/98 08:10 'x`541 764 2512 Cordon R. karLin Q002/004 GORDON R. MARTIN P .O. Bar 740 ®L-nedew BeatA. Oregon 97388 (541)-764-3100 Voice Mall 994-2677 Far 764--2512 January 16, 1998 Tigard City Council Tigard, Oregon Honorable- Council Members: Using the Harper Righellis recommendations would give Waremart and the Pollocks the LID improvements for "free" (no net cost) by shifting their share of costs to Costco (approximately $100,000) and the Martins (approximately $600,000) in an obviously unjust manner without a justifiable reason. it would even pay them additional sums because their right-of-way (ROW) payments would exceed their assessmentI Why change the already adopted formula in which everyones' net assessment remains in the dollar range that was known and generally acceptable since 1984? Certainly, the reason shouldn't be because a Waremart's attorney suddenly decided to try and arrange a "free ride" for Waremart by complaining about additional costs caused by LID matters not being settled on a timely basis. As stated above, Waremart's net cost under the R.A. Wright assessment method which the city reaffirmed as ordinance 88-08 results in no increase in net dollar cost for Warernart's property since 1984. in fact, under the R. A. Wright method, considering the change in the value of the dollar since 1984 and their not having paid interest--Waremart would pay much less under the R.A. Wright method of assessment than their property was to pay in 1984 under the same method. The increase in ROW payment to Waremart due to the Pollock litigation delay caused this "no increase." Thus, their complaint was and is without basis in fact. We cannot understand the reasons the city has seemingly been aiding Waremart in moving toward their promotion of a "free ride." We don't understand why various representatives of the city have created a legal theory which they say causes ordinance 88-08 to be without effect as to the LID assessment method. JAN 16 '98 10:58 FR TARLOW,JORDAN,SCHRADR503+598+7373 TO 1110275799684729 P.04i05 ua/16/93 08:11 IaS41 764 2512 Coraon R. Martin 1 003/004 Tigard City Council January 16, 1998 Page -2- The existing 450 foot assessment limit allowed in 1984, without much opposition because the dollar effect was nominal, the selective omission from the LID of many tax lots that were a little within or barely beyond 450 feet from Dartmouth. They were omitted because they were expected to oppose its formation. Using Harper Righeliis enlarges the original assessment boundaries of the LID. Since the legal boundaries of the LID aren't being changed, this unfairly allows the above mentioned selectively omitted properties which are now part of the Waremart and Costco developments to avoid assessment. At the same-, time the- Martin's tax lots that were either a little or partially within 450 feet from Dartmouth were fully included in the LID boundaries for convenience of description . To now advocate an area approach which disregards how the LID boundaries were formed would be a tremendous injustice. This would cause an unjustifiable, large shifting of cost to the Martins. We feel to now change to an area approach consisting of the full area of the Dartmouth LID would, under the circumstances described above, relate directly as in the Dolan situation, to a factual case of an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, in our opinion this would be a change in the LID! The a&sence of the LID was its assessment boundaries, changing these has the effect of changing; the LID. This would in our opinion expose the city itself to the possibility of paying the LID's cost! Additionally, the Harper Righellis recommendation is a flawed report which cannot withstand in-depth scrutiny. The Harper Righellis report assumes that wetlands are worthless. Wetlands which are used to meet city open space requirements are more valuable than uplands that have to be planted and maintained to meet the city's open space requirements. Natural wetlands don't require being maintained. Incidentally, Net Cost which was a major column in the 1984 Assesr-went Roll is not in Harper Righellis! Furthermore, one cannot compute net cost from the report. Why? Net cost has always been the underlying concern of all LID participants! JAN 16 '98 10:58 FR TARLOW,JORDAN,SCHRADR503+598+7373 TO 111#27578#684Y29 P.05/05 ayl row Z41i: Uoraon K. Martin tgj0U4/UU4 I Iib/ 98 U8: 11 Tigard City Council January 16, 1998 Page •3- The Martins have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to bring reasoned and equitable development to the Tigard Triangle. They realize that some City Council members simply don't understand the actions of the Martins in regard to litigation. The Martins have had no choice, they received no attention to their concerns without it. The Martins would appreciate the opportunity to answer to and explain in person all of their actions aimed solely at equity to all in terms of assessments and an adequate design of the Tigard Triangle road system. Does the council know that the Martins voluntarily paid in excess of $50,000 for the addition of a lane to Dartmouth and improvements at 72nd at the time of construction so that some degree of congestion would be avoided by making the improvements before more traffic was present. Whether the council knows it or not the Martins have been the "good guys" not the "bad guys" that certain persons have depicted them to be and they want the opportunity to set the record straight. Does anyone still think that a three lane Dartmouth was an adequate design or that an overpass extension over and an interface with Hwy. 217 through a Collector Distributor System won't be necessary as "triangle" development proceeds to full development? Protecting required ROW for these improvements has been the Martin's driving force. The city's comprehensive plan reflects the success of their resolve. The Martins are preparing a detailed critique of the Harper Righellis study and will submit it to the council as soon as possible. Very Truly Yours, Gordon R. Martin MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager DATE: January 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Review of Dartmouth Assessment Formula Developed by Harper, Reghellis Firm Item No. 7 on the January 20, 1998 Council agenda is a presentation by the Harper, Reghellis engineering firm on the development of the Dartmouth assessment formula. Attorney Douglas VanDyk representing Gordon Martin has requested that a letter with supporting materials prepared by Mr. Martin be provided for Council information. Mr. VanDyk requested that I forward this information to you in advance of the Council meeting so that you may review it before hearing the Harper, Reghellis presentation, if necessary. I required that Mr. VanDyk preview the information with our attorney, Chuck Corrigan, prior to submittal for Council review. Chuck and I have compared notes and concluded that it is preferable to allow Council to hear the engineer's presentation first, then accept comments from property owners. My reasoning is that we did not solicit property owner comments on the assessment method, it appears that the best course of action is to delay distribution of Mr. Martin's memo until after the Reghellis presentation. I will have copies of the letter available for you on Tuesday. If you feel the need to have the letter before that time, please call me. WAM\jh i:ladmkbilr,011598-5.doc AGENDA ITEM # I For Agenda of January 20, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Review of Dartmouth As,3essment formula PREPARED BY: Wayne_ I~ - DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City proceed with the assessment formula as developed by the Harper Righellis firm. STAFF RECOPOIENDATION If the Council is comfortable with the formula, staff will proceed with the notice and 'nearing process. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Dartmouth Local improvement project is nearing completion. Several steps in the process remain including approval of the assessment formula. The City, with the approval of the Council retained the firm of Harper Righellis to develop an assessment formula to fairly spread the final costs of the project. The attached formula was developed in March 1997. The purpose of the study session discussion is to allow the Council to acquaint themselves with the formula and the logic behind it. In the next several months, assuming the final right of way transaction is completed, the City will notify property owners of their share of the project costs. The Council will then hold a. public hearing to spread the assessment. Property owners will then be given an opportunity to pay their assessments in cash or apply to pay in installments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Request changes to the formula. FISCAL NOTES N/A r t B SW Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District City of Tigard, Oregon Assessment Analyses Report - Review Version n n E flad, G H 'u P--~ For: O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach Attorneys At Law By: Harper Righellis, Inc. 5200 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 580 Portland, OR 97201 March 7, 1997 0 is Purpose The assessment of costs for the SW Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District (LID) have been contested. The purpose of this assessment analysis is to independently develop and recommend an assessment method that equitably distributes the LID's costs in proportion to the benefit for the lands within the LID. • The basic elements of this effort are as follows. 1. Assessment Method Options Analysis Identify and analyze a comprehensive list of assessment method options. The list will include reasonable and not-so-reasonable options with the goal being to create as inclusive a list as possible. Each option will be supported with a detailed description and under what circumstances it best distributes cost in proportion to benefit. 2. Costs Identification Review the costs by categoy for potential differential pro-rata distribution. Although uncommon, some costs may be distributed by different methods. 3. Assessment Method - Recommend an independently developed assessment method that equitably distributes cost in proportion to benefit. 4. Assessment Roll - Prepare an Assessment Roll per the recommended assessment method. 5. Report Preparation - Prepare a report that documents the information developed in this effort. H 1 n i 0 E 0 u E Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Purpose - Page 1 i Assessment Method Options Analysis INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This is a comprehensive list of assessment method options and an analysis of them as they would be applied for the Dartmouth Street LID. It includes reasonable and not-so-reasonable options with the goal being to create as inclusive a list as possible. Each option is supported with a description and under what circumstances it best distributes cost in proportion to benefit. SPECIAL CONCERNS Corner Parcels Corner parcels may or may not derive full benefit from a street improvement if significant access is available along the intersecting streets. Each corner parcel requires individual evaluation to determine the proportion of benefit derived from Dartmouth Street as compared to the intersecting street. This evaluation must be done for all corner parcels regardless of assessment method. The proportion of benefit may vary depending on the assessment method. LID B d d C t D t P l tt oun ary an urren eve opmen a erns Since LID formation, parcels outside the original boundary have been combined with lands inside the boundary to form large developments that have sole or primary access from Dartmouth Street. At this late stage of the LID process the boundary must remain unchanged. This creates a situation where there is direct and inseparable benefit to lands both inside and outside the LID. This situation requires evaluation to determine if those parcels or their benefit derived from the improvements should be included. ASSESSMENT METHODS The applicability of assessment methods can vary depending on the type of cost. Although uncommon, it may be appropriate to distribute some costs differently than others. The following the list of assessment method options. Proximity Zones Method (per "Engineer's Report On Dartmouth Extension Street Local Improvement District" by R.A. Wright Engineering, Inc. dated February 8, 1984 and revised March 21, 1988) The name of this method is unspecified in the above referenced report, but the name stated herein generally describes the concept. For this method, three zones of 150-foot widths are established parallel to and progressing away from the Dartmouth Street right-of-way. The closest proximity zone is assessed at three times the rate of the furthest zone. The middle zone is assessed at two times the rate of the furthest zone. This method is appropriate when benefit is directly proportional to the proximity of the street. Specifically, when comparing the nearest two zones, the nearest 150 feet of land should derive approximately 50 percent more benefit than the next 150 feet of land. The middle 150 feet of land should derive 100 percent more benefit than the last 150 feet of land. This is an uncommon approach to relat?ng benefit to costs. This method does not appear to equitably distribute costs based on benefit. The following are reasons for that conclusion. 1. To date the developments along SW Dartmouth Street have not been in patterns where development in the nearest zone derives more benefit than n-sore distant zones nor woutj that pattern have been anticipated at the time the LID was formed. The developments of that era and today are generally large-scale with the parking predominately near the front and buildings at the rear. There is little advantage within a large-scale development based on proximity to a street as this method infers. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method Options Analysis - Page 1 P__:" 2. There are no examples of where land in large commercial areas have been valued proportionately by proximity to its nearest street per the ratio defined in this method. For example in this area, none of the Costco building is within 150 feet of SW Dartmouth Street as that area is all parking. This assessment method implies that the parking lot for Costco derives more benefit from the improvements than the structure. In this example, the fact is both derive equal benefit because they are just parts of a single development. 3. This assessment concept appears to be valid if the closer 150-foot wide zones create visual or other viability impairments to the subsequent zones. Well-planned large-parcel developments do not create those disadvantages. This is a destination business area where much of the retail activity is based on pre- planned trips to the area. 4. The 150-foot dimension of the zones is an uncommon depth for commercial development. Proof of this are the approved developments in this LID. None appear to have capitalized on the value of the frontage as set by the assessment method. 5. The ratio of assessment for each zone is 3-2-1 progressively from SW Dartmouth Street. This appears to be arbitrary. The unit value of the last zone is only 16 percent of the others yet this zone appears to be one where approved buildings are common. It could have easily and more appropriately been a ratio more like 5-4-3, 8-6-5, 10-7-5, etc. There are many combinations that could have been used that would have better related costs to benefit, assuming proximity has value. 6. This method attributes no assessment to lands more than 450 feet from SW Dartmouth Street. Upon review of the lands within the LID it is obvious that all lands within the LID will derive benefit from SW Dartmouth Street. To exclude assessing land that will have primary access from this street merely because it is a prescribed arbitrary distance away is not appropriate. 7. This method attributes no assessment to lands outside dissecting lines to existing intersecting streets. The assessment of each corner parcel to an existing street should be analyzed separately. This is done so in this report for the recommended assessment method and is valid for any assessment method. 8. This method attributes no assessment to lands outside a dissecting line to a future intersecting street that will extend south along the west line of the Martin property (as referred to in the engineer's report). This street was ill planned as it was intended to be constructed directly over a creek and serve a local area that is predominately flood plain and wetlands. This street will never be constructed. Further, development east of this future street is not and was never dependent upon this street being constructed (refer to 1995 Martin land-use approval). This assessment exclusion is not appropriate. 9. This method attributes no assessment to lands outside a dissecting line to a future intersecting street that will enter the Williams property from the drive-in theater property to the northwest (as referred to in the engineer's report). This street was ill planned as it was intended to be constructed directly over the same creek as the other future street. This street will most likely will never be constructed. Further, development in the area of this future street is not dependent upon this street being constructed as is evident by the drive-in theater being converted to a multiplex walk-in theater without providing its part of the street. This assessment exclusion is not appropriate. Assessed Valuation Method This method assesses all lands on the basis of their value. This method is appropriate if all the parcels are either fully developed or have similar potential and there is a relationship between the value of the constructed improvements and their assessed values. Assessed valuation is an appropriate method to distribute the cost of general government services but difficult to consider equitable for constructed improvements. A iurther complication is that some of the parcels are valued extremely low for urban land because they are or were in farm deferral. This method is not appropriate for this LID. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method Options Analysis - Page 2 0 Equal Parcel Method This method assesses each parcel equally. This method is common for LIDs that are comprised of lands that are relatively uniform in size and development potential and derive similar benefit regardless of variations (e.g. an LID comprised entirely of all single-family residential lots). This LID has parcels of varying sizes and development potential thus this method is not appropriate. Frontage Method This method assesses each parcel solely based on its frontage length of the constructed improvement. This method is common when assessing for the widening of an existing street because the public improvements provide benefit proportionate to each parcel in that manner. This method is most appropriate when all parcels already have direct access and pedestrian or other direct-benefiting amenities are constructed. This is a possible method for this LID, but there are several implementation problems. Several major benefiting parcels either do not front the street in equitable proportions to their commercial potential or front the street at all. For these reasons this method is not appropriate. Gross Area Method This method assesses each parcel based on total (gross) area. This method is appropriate when all parcels receive benefit proportional to their total area. Parcels that have portions that do not derive benefit from the constructed improvements are, in essence, over-assessed using this method. Wetlands and steep-sloped areas ofttn do not derive benefit from infrastructure improvements because they are considered undevelopaule, thus have little value to the final development form. But there are situations where these lands, even when not developed, do increase the developability of the remainder of the site. Some jurisdictions allow transfers of density to maintain the overall development potential of a parcel. This method may not be appropriate because there are undevelopable wetlands within the LID. Net Developable Area Method This is similar to the Gross Area Method with the added complexity of factoring out the undevelopable lands. The land-use regulations and development constraints of each parcel are the primary factors that affect the development potential of the site. This method is appropriate when all the parcels have similar use designations (such as retail, office, warehouse, or high-density residential) regardless of current development status. This method is not appropriate without adjustment when the uses vary even somewhat because the basis for assessing is the development potential of the parcels and the difference in benefits derived by differing development types are not reflected. Current Development Area Method This method assesses each parcel based on the currently developed areas of the parcels. Undeveloped areas are not assessed. This method is appropriate only where developed parcels receive benefit proportional to their total area and the undeveloped lands derive no benefit. This method has been used for sewer and waterline construction where the undeveloped parcels do not initially use the sewer or waterline, but when service is provided to those parcels reimbursement fees are paid. This approach is only applicable when reimbursement fees are established prior to the formation of an LID. Without a reimbursement mechanism this method is not appropriate. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method Options Analysis - Page 3 Zoning-Based Use Adjustment To Any Method An adjustment to any method is acceptable if costs can be distributed more equitably. The lands within this LID are zoned one of two types of commercial - general (retail) or professional (office). There is the potential for more benefit to be derived by one of these land uses than the other. If a quantifiable adjustment based on zoning can refine the distribution cost more equitably it should be incorporated. 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method Options Analysis - Page 4 dl`~ Costs Identification INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The costs for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District (LID) can be categorized into distinct groups and reviewed for potential differential distribution. Although uncommon, some costs may be distributed in different manners. For example, a water line that serves only two parcels may be assessed to only those two parcels while the other improvements are assessed to all parcels. ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS BY CATEGORY The original estimated costs to be assessed are categorized by the following general des.-riptions Street and Drainage Cori water urns Constnrction sewer Co . ion Construct .con.l!n! cy ion. Technical Services Adnynistrative Services Land Acquisistion Total J h!", M., 0 ,y 600 000 700 These costs are from the "Engineer's Report On Dartmouth Extension Street Local Improvement District" by R.A. Wright Engineering, Inc. dated February 8, 1984 and revised March 21, 1988. The above consolidates the street and drainage items into only one line item, whereas in the report these costs are shown as seven items. ALL COSTS ASSESSED BY SAME METHOD There are three basic infrastructure elements constructed by this LID - streets/drainage, water lines, and sanitary sewers. Of the total estimated $1,995,700 less than one-fifth of this amount was anticipated for water lines and sanitary sewers and associated technical and administrative services. None of the items listed above were intended for the greater benefit of one parcel versus another disproportionate to an equitable assessment method. There is the ability to assess these three basic infrastructure elements by differing methods. When implementing multiple assessment methods the non-construction items can be difficult to allocate. Considering the proportions of the costs and the added complexity of implementing a multiple assessment method the added refinement is not warranted. All costs will be assessed by the same method. COST TO BE ASSESSED The costs to be assessed by this LID are currently about $4,000,000.00. The orecise breakdown of the costs is not critical since one overall assessment method is recommended. As with most LIDs, the assessment method is determined before the actual final costs are known. The assessment amounts published in this report are per the above total amount. Should the final total assessed amount be different, the assessments will be proportionately different per the assessment percentages published in this report. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Costs Identification - Page 1 11 1] Assessment Method RECOMMENDED METHOD OF ASSESSMENT The recommended method of assessment is the Net Developable Area Method with Zoning-Based Traffic Generation Adjustment. The reasoning for this recommendation and the details of the method are as follows. ASSESSMENT METHOD BASED ON ORIGINAL CONDITIONS The LID was formed in 1984. Generally, LID assessment methods are determined and agreed upon early in the process. The method of assessment for this LID must be based on a reasonable recollection of the knowledge and conditions that were relevant at the time of this LID's formation. To do otherwise is to interject hindsight into the assessment method determination, yet without the area being fully developed this hindsight would be based on incomplete information (i.e. would be hindsight that is not "twenty- twenty"). NON-INCLUSION OF LANDS OUTSIDE LID BOUNDARY FOR ASSESSMENT CALCUALTION PURPOSES The boundaries of the LID are not subject to change, but since 1984 several parcels outside the LID have been acquired and merged to create large developments that have primary access from Dartmouth Street. The portions of the developments and parcels outside the LID boundary should not be included in the assessment calculations. There are several reasons for this conclusion. 1. Only some of the properties along SW Dartmouth Street have developed per the commercial zoning. It is unknown today, as it was in 1984, if more parcels will be merged with the under-developed LID properties to create larger developments. Without knowing how much total acreage will ultimately rely on SW Dartmouth Street for primary access it is not equitable to use any acreage outside the LID for assessment purposes. 2. Most of the acquired land outside the LID was already developed as residential property. These lands were fully served with urban services (streets, drainage, water, sewer, etc.) for that use. This LID provided urban services for the lands within the LID. Although :he residential properties were converted to commercial use and now utilize the LID's improvements, the nature and cost of the LID improvements did not substantively change because of the inclusion of these non-LID lands. 3. All landowners within the LID have similar opportunities to purchase lands outside the LID and merge them to create large developments that have primary access from Dartmouth Street as there are similar amounts of land in residential use adjacent to all the lands within the LID. 4. Most of the non-LID lands were most likely purchased at fully-served and developed prices. The assessment of these lands for "alternative" urban services can be construed to be paying for urban services twice for the same land. 5. An anal^gous situation is if SW Dartmouth Street had been a city capital improvement project paid for by city-wide funding and years later nearby lands were annexed into the City and utilized the road, the City would not spread the cost to these newly annexed lands. This analogy can be extrapolated to this LID. E d Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method - Page 1 e INCLUSION/NON-INCLUSION OF CORNER PARCELS Corner parcels should be fully included in the LID assessment, except at Pacific Highway, because the benefit provided by SW Dartmouth Street is overwhelming compared to the benefits of the intersecting streets. A comparison of the benefits by intersection is as follows. 1. Pacific Highway: Pacific Highway is a state highway (Hwy. 99) that is intended to be a limited access facility, but the constructed SW Dartmouth Street does not provided better access to Pacific Highway than existed before the improvements. The connection SW Dartmouth Street provides to lands in the Tigard Triangle and the interchange at 1-5 is of little benefit to these corner parcels because they derive their commercial viability based on proximity to Pacific Highway. Further, the LID did not fund the improvements fronting these corner parcels. The comer parcels at Pacific Highway should not be included in the LID assessment. 2. SW 72"d Avenue: This cross street is the same functional classification (major collector) as SW Dartmouth Street. It is the only north-south connection in the Tigard Triangle between Pacific Highway and Highway 217. SW 72nd Avenue can be used for access by the comer parcels, but SW 72"0 Avenue alone is not sufficient to support development. Not until SW Dartmouth Street was constructed was the full- development potential of the lands at this corner viable. Proof of this is that the century-long prior existence of SW 72"d Avenue was apparently insufficient for any landowner to fully develop their properties. Even though SW Dartmouth Street is not the only street providing access, the economics and infrastructure appear to have been inadequate for the lands to viably develop fully, thus the corner parcels receive full benefit from the SW Dartmouth Street improvements. The corner parcels should be fully included in the LID assessment. th 3. SW 70 Avenue: This is an unimproved right-of-way, thus secondary access is not available and not likely to be in the foreseeable future. The corner parcels should be fully included in the LID assessment. 4. SW 69th Avenue: For reasons similar to the SW 72nd Avenue discussion above, full development was not viable without the SW Dartmouth Street improvements. The comer parcels should be fully included in the LID assessment. COMPONENTS OF METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Net Develo able Area p The development viability of all lands to be assessed within the LID depends on the existence of SW Dartmouth Street. It is universally acknowledged that land and development values are proportional to size. Commercial land is commonly valued on a per acre basis and buildings are commonly leased and sold on a per square foot basis. Using the net developable area as the basis for the assessment method i s consistent with the manner in which commercial property is valued and benefit related. Assessing the total area of the lands within the LID is not appropriate. Undevelopable wetlands exist within the LID. Only the commercially developable lands derive benefit from the improvements. Unlike residential zoning, commercial zoning does not incorporate density transfer provisions that compensate for undevelopable acreage. Residential development density is transferred by reducing lots sizes thus ailowing th b f l b e same num er o ots ut on only a portion of a site. Commercial buildings are restricted in size by parking requirements thus wetlands do not promote an increasr in development intensity on the remaining portion of the site. Wetlands are excluded from the total area of each assessed parcel within the LID to determine the net developable area. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method - Page 2 E Zoning-Based Traffic Generation Most of the LID costs are for street-related improvements. Even though all the assessed parcels need SW Dartmouth Street to fully develop, the parcels that have the potential for more use derive more benefit, thus should be assessed proportionately more of the cost. The zoning for the lands within the LID west of SW 70" Avenue is General Commercial. The lands east of SW 70" Avenue are zoned Professional Commercial. The vast majority of the LID is west of SW 701" Avenue. The zonings allow developments that can generate varying traffic amounts. Not all the lands within the LID are developed or approved for development s., fulkdevelopment traffic amounts are difficult to quantify. Even if all the parcels were fully developed, there is the opportunity that some of them could redevelop and produce different volumes. Average traffic rates can be assigned to the zonings using information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual dated January 1991. The average weekday vehicle trip ends for each zoning is illustrated below. i a Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Shopping General Office Gross Center Bu~ldir+g Ratio Building (General (Professional of Area Commercial) Commercial) Trips 1000s of sf (trips rate (trips rate 50 91.65 16.58 5.53 100 70.67 14.03 5.04 200 54.50 11.85 4.60 300 46.81 10.77 4.35 400 42.02 9.96 4.22 500 38.65 9.45 4.09 600 36.35 9.05 4.02 800 33.88 8.46 4.00 Based on these rates, General Commercial generates about four times the average weekday traffic of Professional Commercial. This significant ratio further reinforces the appropriateness of incorporating an adjustment. Since zonings do relate to generally quantifiable traffic rates, a zoning-based traffic generation adjustment is appropriate to apply to each net developable area to incorporate the use-related benefit proportionately to cost. The zonings are defined items and each development has the same opportunity to maximize its potential per those zonings. The adjustment is applied as a multiplying factor to the net developable areas for those lands included in the assessment. The areas in Professional Commercial will be adjusted by a multiplying factor of 1.0 (in essence no adjustment). The areas in General Commercial will be adjusted by a multiplying factor of 4.0. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method - Page 3 0 e 'ILL 11, ~c. 0 0 C J I 0 COMPUTATIONS FOR METHOD OF ASSESSMENT The computations for the method of assessment is illustrated below using a hypothetical example. Net Developable Area Method with Zoning-Based Traffic Generation Adjustment Hypothetical Example Net Traffic Assess- % of Total Total Undevelop. Develop. Generation ment Assess- Parcel Zoning Area Area Area Factor Rate ment acres acres acres (trips) (trip-acres) A B AxB I C-G 20.00 4.00 16.00 4.00 64.00 57.658% II C-G 10.00 0.00 10.00 4.00 40.00 36.036% III C-P 8.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 7.00 6.306% Totals 38.00 5.00 33.00 111.00 100.000°x° ASSESSMENT ROLL An assessment roll is on the next page. It shows each parcel by the current tax map and tax lot designations. The assessment roll identifies the four areas that comprise the determination of Net Developable Area (Prior To Added-Width Right-of-Way Dedication) for each parcel. 1. Parcel Area Within LID - This is the gross area of the parcel that is within the LID Boundary. For some parcels this excludes a portion of the total parcel. 2. Dartmouth Street Added-Width Right-of-Way Dedication - This is the area of the parcel that has been dedicated as right-of-way in excess of the LID's identified 70-foot wide center portion. These dedications were development related. At the time of LID formation, this area would have been considered a part of the parcel's developpble area and still should be. Since only some of the parcels have developed, added-width dedications along the entire length of Dartmouth Street have not occurred. Inclusion as developable area of these dedications provides a consistent basis for determining the developable area for all the parcels within the LID. For the same reason, there is one dedication along SW 72nd Avenue at the northwest corner of Dartmouth and 72"d that is included as developable area for that parcel (1 S1 36DC 4600) and is listed in this same category. 3. Dartmouth Street Center 70-Feet Right-of-Way Dedication - This is the area of the parcel that is within the 70-foot wide portion of the Dartmouth Street right-of-way. This area is excluded from assessment because it was considered undevelopable at the time of LID formation. 4. Wetland Area - This is the area of the parcel that is estimated to be wetland and undevelopable. This determination was made based on provided information (Martin, Costco, and Waremart south of Dartmouth Street), observed wetland delination flagging (Pollock), and field observation (Waremart north of Dartmouth Street). These areas are estimates only. All observations were from Dartmouth Street and publicly accessible locations within developed sites. No scientific delineations or measurements were made to more accurately quantify the wetland areas. Buffers are not included in the delineation as those areas may be used for ancillary development-oriented functions such as stormwater treatment and open space requirements. Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District Assessment Method - Page 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 6c G N J O L Cl) t s+ O L D IN: 7 7 0 S $ g S N v ry m m N pp 0 w o w aT c~ r= m vi aD CO co m S y d o m a m c~ n N o cP~ N $ o n a w ~O ~i a n 9i Cp N a N q; O o n m w `r w I I, 40 C" m n u iii w N in ' w w H y w /D vi N uNi w w y _ N p N 0 0 0 0 o i a' a° a' a' a' a' a a' a' a' a' a' a' a a' a' em. a° a' $ C m O O C4 A S O O O q P - pN O m N ° m v { Np O m m N Ih O NNy N N O) N CC N N_ tA'I N ~~St L O umi Q o 0 o ~p N O o cNV N of Q' N Y m o o vi N o N o r n of co V vi W o r o 4 N c . O o A A o ci CC ~7 O t0 m N m <c 6 c g r m m S S S S ° m m ~ (p IA N N ~ m S f0 ~ S mm N ~ mm m O N N y Oi o S S Ol N(~ w¢ O C C G y°j r` m fV r` %2 m 1~ fV O O G G CC N N O G (V NJ a a ~ O 's S o S o S c S a S a ~ e O v S a S e S e S v S a S a O v O a S O S ~ O ~ O v S v S a S a S o S a S s F' Y lL L7 C O 5 c U C7 C7 C2 C7 Cf C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 c7 C7 a a a a C7 C7 C7 C7 U C? C7 N N 6 U U U U U U U U U U U C) U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 O t U •OC'~, 3 p, U `I c N N m l7 A Ol Z co p) M N N m 0, tp Cld N m m A A m O O m O A m N O) O O) M1 A W Mf 1~ ~ I OI O ^ A n Q N Q a N m Q {5 Q ~j Q Q m j ~p ~O 9 ` ( 7 m . - N e O Q n N G M O i O t 0 Q O~ N t7 ~O G G m O O N N ~A I~ t'! a3 O G ❑ 0 9 L a gi 0 0 a Q O O d O N O O (V O < C u a o 2 ° z r 2 ~ 3 a m ~ tN0 O o N N o l0 A n t00 N o m ~ o~ ~ ~ I O l7 CI o O < G O O ~ N Q of !L S O m o v rn N O ~ m °i N q ~ m M1 ° .Y ~ `n m ° m m h m o !n ,C W O 0 0 O 0 0 vi U C W r p Y O W N ~(NI m u 61 Q V O Y Q N V d p + o 0 o 0 0 0 O INA O 6 Q W 3 4 C 8 m L m N ~ m Oi mm m N ~ y 0 O O N S ~ m Pi A m Vf o m O) O Of N n P ~O n P O l0 pN a ~ A V mmp L ~ m Ommi N S N O _ A J j a OJ C fl) m N n N n m q C7 0 f7 an d G m O 7 N - O m N t0 0 O 0 n a. O m } O 0 0 0 O Or m O (7 0 t7 O O O a . LL ` m d a ~ c a m c J O S S S S S O S S O a O S S S O G O S O S S O S O U O S n x t0 ~ LL n m m N N N y O N N O V 10 N N ~O O m < O p V n m M1 m N O~ N ~ ~y ,p m yy V V ~ t y ~ m y $ y m ai = Cod c❑~ ❑ 0 ❑ o a m Q ❑ ❑ c❑~ a cry °o o m a a m a m a m a m ° .4~ p C c7S u m r1pi ag cmi $ a4 a`9, C ~7j x F a y (n y y 0 y y N I ' y y ^ fn Ul y y a y N Vl y N N N C N N N N O y H2--,~ Q. 0 0 h O W O ~ ~ /r N ~ Q n 2 J C lis cx 1 t u Q W -7, W 4 ¢ O = i o f co ~ L-L u a ~ Q: 2 m 0 3A V /'101 MS cz~l e a o 3 Q I ac F I V V V I V ~[[O{ v I 1...._J z v I v i i b b Vii~y I o=c° i I„ o = I I ~°L'' ~I i ' 3A V ONBL MS Z ~ W n V O I o ~ ti b 0 0 0 0 v ~ v v O Q O ~ 0 o v ~ o T v 0 I O i. r is H` / S• l 1 n~~1 ~ a - MS ' /T . i o c o O ~ ~ M :i 3L k U1 O J6 d 0 ¢ I I I vl V L-_j ' = S CL t { o } v : I Q F I I i I o I ~ I l ~ I ♦ ♦ • ♦ . r 0 lZb N 0 V ' i o e r- I i v f W V I;ic 3 C i 0 `Qna. ^W. W f~A C v ! W o m ~ H , a O o w E o~ Q ~ d O W ~z V W n O y H = H W W ~ rt Q ti W ? e @,t, 34 R n 0 ~ Z 4 ~ O 0 O AGENDA ITEM # 2 FOR AGENDA OF 1/20/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE SWETF Update PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK WKY---l U ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive the final report from the Solid Waste Efficiency Task Force (SWETF) and give direction to staff for follow-up. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Give direction to staff for follow-up: 3 year plan will need to come back to Council for formal adoption on consent Commingling of residential recycling will need to be approved by Council during the rate hearings this Spring INFORMATION SUMMARY SWETF met during 1997 and reviewed not only efficiency suggestions made by haulers, but also the regional relationships involved in solid waste management. On 7/15/97, Council gave the following "mid-review" direction to SWETF: indicate information which is attached to this packet for your review). Develop stronger & more recycling markets - a letter to Gov. Kitzhaber was requested * green sheet) Modify the Community Development Code to trigger an upgrade of commercial solid waste enclosures when a remodel permit is sought for the site Review feasibility of a County-wide management of solid waste franchises Prepare a three-year solid waste plan for Tigard yellow sheet) Conduct a cost analysis of commingled residential recycling lavender cover sheet memo) Change residential vacation credits from 1 week - four times a year to two weeks for unlimited times each year Mike Leichner, owner of Pride Disposal, will be representing the Task Force and making the presentation of their recommendations. Mr. David Allaway, Harding Lawson Associates, will be available to answer Council questions about their report on commingling. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Solid Waste & that service delivery was not addressed in the current vision report. FISCAL NOTES N/A December 17, 1997 Governor John Kitzhaber 254 State Capitol Salem, Oregon 97310 Dear Governor John Kitzhaber: OREGON This letter is intended to solicit your support of market development for recycled materials in Oregon. There is a need to increase the manufacturing capacity for materials recovered from the waste stream. This will conserve our natural resources, while stabilizing solid waste costs and strengthening the local economy. Local governments in the Portland metropolitan region and throughout the State of Oregon have been successful with recycling programs, achieving a 34.7% statewide recovery rate in 1995. 24% of this amount is attributed directly to recycling - this is roughly 869,688 tons that was processed and converted into another usable product. However, several market manufacturers are struggling to keep pace with their processing abilities. Last winter, some areas saw scrap paper from residential curbside collection programs stockpiled in warehouses until buyers could be found. Currently, the two drywall recycling processors in the Portland metropolitan region are receiving as much or more than they can use. Collectors must hold recyclable loads in their yards since there is no place able to accept the materials. The majority of wood being collected is being used for energy recovery, not for new wood products. As you may recall, the State has a 50% recovery goal to be met by the year 2000. At current generation levels, this means an additional 554,626 tons will need to be recovered, a good portion of that will need to be recycled. In addition to the State's goals, citizens, both residential and corporate, continue to expect and demand recycling programs remain available and even expand. More effort needs to be focused on developing and nurturing markets that use recycled materials as feedstock in their products. Healthy recycling markets have a major impact on the economics of recycling. Ratepayers of solid waste and recycling services see their collection costs offset by the revenues from the sale of materials. Healthy markets also affect local economies. Washington State provides an excellent example of this. The Clean Washington Center's market development strategies have had a significant influence on the capital investment of nearly $1.4 billion and the creation of over 13,000 jobs in Washington State's growing recycled-content manufacturing sector. The Ciiy of Tigard would like to see the State and Metro increase their efforts in recycled content market development. We would like to suggest several ideas on how this can be accomplished. 1. Allocate funding, as in past DEQ and Metro budgets. Seed money can provide necessary staffing and small business start-up grants. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 2. Maintain rules which require minimum recyclable content standards for some products. This encourages those industries to be better stewards to their products (e.g., more recyclability, less packaging, etc.) and to support R & D for new processing and manufacturing technology necessary to develop recycling infrastructure (such as the APC's investment in a plastic sorting machine which enabled plastic bottle recycling to occur). 3. Review the structure and function of the Oregon Recycling Markets Development Council (ORMDC). Reform and empowerment of the Council may enable it to be more successful. Encourage it to work with regional efforts, auch as the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) Agency. 4. The 1997 Legislature passed SB 3456 which sets up an interim task force to look at commercial recycling. It has been suggested that it could also look at market development. 5. Other ideas include: combining goals with the Oregon Economic Development Department (OEDD) and employment development agencies, tax credits, fee waivers for new market businesses, enterprise zones, eliminating subsidies for virgin materials, and supplying low interest loans or grants for start ups. Encouraging market development is good for our statewide recycling goals while also encouraging employment and investment and resource conservation for the future. Please consider opportunities to support market development for recycled materials through your support of some of the ideas above or other strategies. c: Senator Eileen Qutub Representative Tom Brian Mike Burton & Metro Council Bruce Warner, Metro Langdon Marsh, DEQ Jerry Powell, Chair, ORMDC JoAnn Herrigal, President, Association of Oregon Recyclers &.,,J'udy Crockett, Legislative Chair, Association of Oregon Recyclers Lynne Storz, Washington County Solid Waste Manager Imr/ms/h/docs/sldwstrecycgov.doc CITY OF TIGARD Solid Waste 3 Year Plan - as of 12/15/97 PLAN ASSUMPTIONS A. Benefit the local rate-payer (cost effectiveness and quality of service) while meeting state mandates for solid waste and recycling goals. B. The City and franchised haulers will jointly support the 3-year plan. C. The City and franchised haulers will continue to demand a more aggressive market development. D. Washington County Recycling Cooperative exists at current level or stronger. E. Curbside automation will continue at present or increased levels and with an end goal of cart size standardization. F. Commercial subsidy of residential rates will continue to be decreased to a cost of service level for all customers (based on current Council policy). G. New or modified services, other than those identified in this plan are not intended to be implemented during the next three years. H. Metro may or may not exist (DEQ regulates regional plan without Metro). This may result in rate changes and other cost effective changes. 1. City of Portland changes to recycling programs may affect the Tigard customer's expectation for added service. J. Recognize organics programs are being developed but no changes are anticipated in this plan. K. Studies and pilot programs will be needed during the 3-year plan to accomplish the current plan and review options for development of the next 3-year plan. L. Solid Waste Facilities (like Pride Disposal currently operates) may serve as an appropriate alternative program to meet state mandates for solid waste and recycling goals (e.g., keep disposal costs as low as possible, increasing recycling rates, etc.)) COUNCIL DIRECTION WHEN ANTICIPATING CHANGES TO OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS 3 YEAR PLAN The City Council wishes to balance service delivery and rate reductions while continuing to encourage recycling throughout the changes in flow control administration. The following issues are to be addressed during these changes: How will the customer benefit? Reduced disposal costs should equal reduced rates to the customer, however, rate subsidy reduction and service enhancements will be reviewed before the rate reduction amount is determined. o Determine how and when resort facility costs will be included in the rate-setting process. . " What is an "appropriate" disposal site? PUTRESC:IBLE WASTE Weight or Volume Based Rates The goal of Council is to be ready at the end of this 3-year plan period to decide how to implement weight or volume based rates. One goal through this review is to standardize curbside cart size. 1997-98 June - Dec. Conduct pilot program to determine operational feasibility and issues to be addressed in formal study of program options. 1999 Jan. Dec. Consultant conducts study to determine feasibility of program for Tigard residents. 2000 Jan. - May Council determines how to implement program and rates in next three year plan. loreen/h:/dots/solidwaste/3yrplan.doc 1 SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION County Management of Franchises What would this look like? Options for County management of solid waste franchises are reviewed over this 3-year plan. Implementation of a change may take place during this plan or may occur at the end of this 3-year plan. City Council will determine whether this will happen and the timing if a transition occurs. 1997 Sept. - Dec. City & County staff will present question of County management of a portion or all of the solid waste franchises throughout the County. These presentations will be to the Washington County Managers group, Wash. County Recycling Cooperative, and reports back to SWETF & Tigard City Council. 1998 Jan. - June City & County staff will review options of levels of franchise administration that County may become involved in. This may be done with other cities if interest is expressed during 1997. 1998 July - Dec. Detailed negotiations may occur between interested parties to determine best options for franchise administration. The negotiations will balance program efficiencies, service benefits, and customer satisfaction. 1999 Jan. - Decision made by Tigard, with or without other jurisdictions, to act on study results. RECYCLING Commingling or Co-collection Review options to make curbside collection more efficient and cost effective for curbside customers. Implementation plan and Council decisions will be made to keep overall recyclable tonnage at the same level or higher than before a program is implemented. 1997 Aug. - Dec. Study conducted to determine implementation strategies/tonnage effect/ efficiency/customer satisfaction. 1998 Jan. - May Council will determine whether a modified recycling collection method should be offered. 1998 July - Sept. Modified collection of curbside recyclables implemented, if appropriate. FLOW CONTROL Flow control is defined as the "authority to direct disposal of waste to specific destinations". Metro's code states they have this authority. Federal case law is inter -eted to say that flow control is not within Metro's authority. The City of Tigard takes the positions that it will not spend tax payer dollars to challenge Metro's authority through the court system at this time. However, if flow control is determined to no longer be under Metro's authority, the City will direct its franchised haulers to take putrescible waste to an appropriate disposal site at the lowest cost possible to the rate payer. loreen/h:/does/solidwaste/3yrplan.doc MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Loreen Mills DATE: January 13, 199 SUBJECT: Residential Commingling Report Highlights Per Council direction, the Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force (SWETF) worked with Harding Lawson Associates to conduct a cost analysis of commingling recyclables at curbside for residential customers in Tigard. Since the commissioning of this report, City of Portland and Washington County have also made the decision to start tlus type of program during 1998. The review looked at different ways to sort the materials currently going into the residential "red bin" program. The biggest question is how to handle the glass. The breakage of glass and it contaminating other materials is the issue to consider before a decision is made on what type of commingling program is to be implemented. Highlights from the report are as follows: (See Tables 1 through 3 in the attached report). Three alternatives were reviewed: Alternative A: (two sort) paper & plastic metal & glass Alternative B: (two sort) Alternative C: (two sort moeified) color-mixed glass all other materials color sorted glass (either clear, brown, green or clear and brown/green) all other materials Findings & conclusions: Processing of commingled residential recyclables will be operational by mid-Summer, 1998 at Far West Fibers in Beaverton. Glass markets are out of state for mixed color and in state for color :sorted glass. While the markets are uncertain with mixing glass, only 12% of the residential curbside recycling collections in Tigard,. by weight, are glass. With Portland and many other jurisdictions planning to do commingled collection this year, I believe the markets will develop well over the next several months. Set-out/participation rate currently in Tigard is about 51% for residential customers. In other words, in an average week, 51 % of households set out one or more materials in red bins. It is difficult to anticipate how this will change, however, anticipating a strong education/outreach effort is implemented with such a program change, the assumption in the study is that this would increase to 59%. Processing efficiency or the quantity of material that will be available to market is the question here. An increase in participation resulting from increased convenience and customer acceptance is expected to lead to an i 1 - 15% increase in tonnage. However, again the glass breakage could reduce the ability to market the glass. Even if all the glass had to be "discarded" due to contamination, the net quantities of recovered materials would make up for this loss and our program would be "successful" under the METRO measurements. Collection operations efficiency was determined by a time-motion study to assess how mu: h time the three franchised haulers would save if recyclables were commingled. 12% to 34% on-mute collection tir,_s would be saved by haulers for sorting from the red bins to their trucks at curbside, Remember, though, some of the labor savings resulting from commingling are lost if participation increases because more stops are required. Monthly impact on the rate is the last issue addressed. Currently the cost is $2.66 per household (not including indirect costs). An estimated increase of $.16 per month is anticipated. This is due, in part, to retrofits of trucks and the education component. We look forward to discussing this issue in more detail with you on the 20th. City of Tigard, Oregon Analysis of Commingled Residential Recycling Final Report Prepared for City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 HI.A Project No. 39411 QG' U Wz David Allaway Project Manager December 29, 1997 Prepared by: Harding Lawson Associates Engineering and Environmental Services 115 SW Ash, Suite 525 Portland, Oregon 97204 - (503) 227-1326 Printed on Recycled Paper Analysis of Commingled Residential Recycling City of Tigard, Oregon Summary The City of Tigard, through its three franchised haulers, provides all residents with weekly curbside collection of recyclables. Currently, households are required to set recyclables at the curb sorted into as many as eleven different categories. "Commingling" refers to mixing of certain recyclables with each other by the resident and in the collection truck, and subsequent sorting of mixed recyclables at a processing facility. This report evaluates three different commingling options for residential curbside recycling in Tigard. Results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Major findings include: three alternatives studied in this report have very similar net cost impacts. However, keeping glass separate by color (Alternative C) may be less risky, since a strong local market exists for color-sorted glass, glass has stronger sale value if it is already sorted by color, and the broken glass does not have to be sorted from other materials. Participation will likely increase as a result of the convenience of commingli g. With the increase in participation will come an increase in the total amount of material collected and eventually recycled. Background, Introduction, and Assumptions Commingling of recyclables into two, three, or four mixes will have very little immediate impact on costs. It is possible that costs may go down slightly, stay the same, or increase slightly as a result of commingling. Cost models suggest that a very small cost increase ($0.11 - $0.15/month) is the most likely scenario, for the alternatives studied. This conclusion is based on assumptions about markets, processing charges, collection efficiencies, participation, and other factors, contained elsewhere in this report. Detailed cost impacts are shown in Table 3 and Appendix B. It is important to note that many of the assumptions used in this projection have elements of uncertainty associated with them. Thus, it is possible that the cost impact will be higher or lower than the projection. s A 2-sort system (Alternatives A and B) will likely be more convenient than a 3- or 4-sort system (Alternative C). All In January, 1997, the City of Tigard, Oregon (the City) established a Solid Waste Efficiency Task Force (SWETF) to examine what measures could be taken to increase service levels and control costs in the City's waste management/reduction program. The SWETF is composed of representatives from the City Council, the franchised haulers, the citizens, and involved City staff. It considered several alternative policies and approaches before deciding to conduct a more detailed, focused evaluation of commingled collection of recyclables for those residences served by the City's curbside recycling program. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA, Portland, Oregon) was retained by the City to assist in the evaluation process. The City's franchised waste haulers proposed implementing a commingled residential recycling program that would simplify material sorting procedures by residents into two categories as follows: 1) glass and metal containers; 2) all paper City of Tigard Final R®®ort: Anal lss of Commintslod Rasiidential Raccyei!~na products and plastic bottles. Used motor oil would continue to be set out separately. Other key initial program design assumptions are noted below: processors of recyclables, a total of three alternatives were selected for analysis: Alternative A: paper and plastic; metal and glass. • Residents would use their existing two recycling bins and/or other containers of their choice under the new system, and would not be provided with new bins. • All three franchised service providers would implement the same commingled recyclables collection method. Collection would be performed manually as is currently done. The SWETF discussed automated or semi- automated collection of recyclables in carts, and recommended against this approach in the short-term, because of the high capital cost of outfitting all residents with carts. The plastics/paper portion would be compacted on the collection vehicles. O Collection frequency and schedule would remain unchanged. • Existing collection vehicles would be modified for use in the new program. • Franchised haulers would transfer commingled recyclables to the same processor (Far West Fibers) and would not perform processing operations themselves. To estimate the potential cost impacts and operational efficiencies resulting from commingled residential recycling, HLA recommended comparing the original proposal from the haulers with other collection approaches in addition to the existing collection system. Based on discussions with the SWETF and area 39411\P0'RP044.DOC Alternative B: color-mixed glass; all other materials. Alternative C: color sorted glass (either clear, brown, green, or clear and brown/green); all other materials. The Evaluation Process The steps used in analyzing the commingled residential recycling options are outlined below: Step 1: Describe existing, proposed, and alternative residential recycling systems. The various aspects of the different program approaches are portrayed in Table 1. Step 2: Describe the experience of other jurisdictions with similar commingled recyclables collection systems. For purposes of comparison, the results from a selected number of jurisdictions that have implemented or pilot-tested a transition from source separated to commingled residential recycling are summarized in Appendix A. Step 3: Gather data and information for the proposed and alternative commingled residential recycling systems. Several topics and data/information sources related to cost and performance issues were researched, as summarized below: Page 2 Harding Lawson Associates City of Tigard Final Reegrh Analysis of Commingled Resid ntial Recycling Topic Data/Information Source Size of current routes Interviews with/information from collectors Time used to perform various collection activities Time/motion observations, interviews with/ information from collectors, projections Set-out/participation rate Time/motion observations, data from collectors, data from other programs, projections Quantities collected Collector information, projections Costs Collector interviews/information, current program data, data from other programs, projections Ability of processors/markets to handle commin led materials Interviews and field visits Step 4: Evaluate in qualitative terms the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the current approach, the proposed approach, and alternatives to the proposed approach. The advantages/disadvantages discussion is organized around certain categories such as customer satisfaction, participation and waste reduction impacts, collection issues, market outlook, legal issues, implementation needs, and rate impacts. Advantages/disadvantages of the three commingling alternatives, as compared to the current source separated program, are summarized in Table 2. Step 5: Prepare cost and performance models for the current residential recycling program, the proposed commingling program, and other commingling options. The cost and performance models illustrate the relative economic and operational impacts of the different residential recycling programs to provide the City with a basis for decision-making. The models incorporate financial information about the current program, performance data provided by the three franchisees, information from regional materials processors and markets, results from the time-motion study, and experience from other communities. Table 3 summarizes the results of the cost and performance model. It shows total monthly and per-household baseline costs for all residential curbside recycling in Tigard for 1996 (the baseline year). Costs are allocated into eight different categories: drivers/labor, truck ownership, truck operations, material revenues/market charges, avoided disposal, other direct costs, City franchise fee, and profit. Table 3 also shows how each of the three commingling alternatives are projected to impact per-household monthly costs, as compared to this baseline. Several additional tables provide supporting documentation of the cost and performance model. These are contained in Appendix B. Table B-1 portrays baseline (1996) costs and data in more detail. Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4 use a similar format to illustrate modeled costs and data for each of the three alternatives. Table B-5 contains supporting information about baseline and modeled collection efficiency and labor hours. All of these tables are based on a series of similar tables, one set for each of the three franchisees, which contain company- specific financial and performance information. Tables 3 and B-1 through B-5 portray aggregated, weighted averages of 39411\PO7RP044.DOC Page 3 Harding Lawson Associates City of Tigard Final Report: Analysis of 1!:orn ninaled Residential Recvclina the three sets of hauler-specific tables. The hauler-specific tables contain information from the hauler's annual financial reports to the City. As such, they are protected as confidential under Tigard's Solid Waste Ordinance and are not included in this report. Findings and Conclusions Based on the work undertaken according to the five steps noted above, the following findings and conclusions are offered for consideration: Processing of Commingled Residential Recyclables Local/regional private sector processing experience with commingled mixtures of residential recyclables is limited and relatively recent. In contrast, local/regional experience with processing mixed paper grades from commercial businesses is more developed. All three haulers in Tigard have formal arrangements with Far West Fibers/E-Z Recycling for processing of residential recyclables. Far West/E-Z has been sorting and marketing selected loads of commingled residential material from a few haulers, including one hauler from Tigard, at its Northeast Portland facility for the past several months. The company is in the process of determining the most effective and flexible processing sequence and equipment configuration for commingled residential recyclables. Far West Fibers in Beaverton plans to be operational with commingled processing capability by early to mid-Summer, 1998. This would coincide with the anticipated roll-out of commingled residential recycling in Tigard should the City choose to implement such a program. 2. Glass Markets There are currently a small number of markets for color-mixed glass, but they are out of the state and their longevity/stability is uncertain. The local market for color- sorted glass is a container manufacturer located in Northeast Portland (Owens- Brockway) that is established and reliable. Discussions with industry representatives both locally and nationally indicate that in a commingled mixture, glass is the most problematic material. • This is due to low prices even for color-separated material, irregular or non-existent markets for mixed glass, contamination of glass by other materials (such as metal and plastic bottle caps), contamination of other items by broken glass, and reduction in marketability of glass due to breakage from compaction. Glass currently makes up about 12 percent of residential curbside recycling collections in Tigard, by weight. Concern about these issues led to the two other commingled options presented for review: color-mixed glass kept separate from all other materials (Alternative B), and color-separated glass (two-sort or three-sort) kept separate from all other materials (Alternative C). Regardless of whether residents set out glass mixed with other materials, or set out glass separately (either all colors together or sorted), collectors may need to maintain flexibility in response to processing/market conditions and be ready to perform a two- sort (clear and green/brown) or three-sort separation of glass at the truck. As shown in Table 3, there is very little relative cost difference between any of the three modeled commingling alternatives. The final decision about what to do with glass in a commingled program should be based in part on information provided by the haulers and their processor (Far West Fibers/E-Z Recycling) about the viability of their market(s) for mixed-colcr glass and what they propose to do in case this material cannot be marketed at some point in the future. Equally important is the City's tolerance for risk regarding a potential scenario where markets for mixed-color glass might become unavailable or uneconomical. 39411`PO7RP044.DOC Page 4 Harding Lawson Associates City of Tigard eMI flsoort• Analysis of C9mmingled Realdontial RgSycling 3. Set-Out/Participation Rate Based on the time-motion study and data contained in the haulers' annual reports to the City, an aggregated, average city-wide weekly participation rate of approximately 51 percent was calculated. This means that in an average week, 51 percent of households set out one or more materials. The actual total participation rate (all households that ever set out recyclables) is unknown but probably much higher since some households typically don't recycle at the curb every week. Assuming a strong education/outreach effort is implemented by the involved parties, and factoring in the additional convenience of being able to mix materials, it is reasonable to project a modest rise in the weekly set- out/participation rate. Because of the differences between communities, and the lack of specific information about why Tigard residents currently recycle (or don't recycle), it is very difficult to project the participation impact of switching to commingling. For purposes of analysis, the cost model assumes an increase in average weekly participation to 59 percent for Alternatives A and B, and 56 percent for Alternative C. a corresponding rise in the total number of households offered curbside recycling service (literally, households "passed by" or "pass-bys") per hour or day. 4. Processing Efficiency The quantity of materials collected at the curb does not necessarily equal the quantity of materials recovered and recycled. End market materials specifications, processing equipment capabilities, sorting line performance, contaminant levels and removal, quality control checks, facility throughput capacities, and labor availability all impact the efficiency of processing operations and the difference between materials collected and materials recovered. Under the current source separated program, recyclables are being set out, picked up, and processed in a manner that minimizes contamination and maximizes the potential for efficient handling, processing, and ultimately recovery. "Residue" levels---the amount of unrecyclable material removed from the recyclable stream for disposal---reportedly range from negligible to 3 percent by weight overall. Currently, on a weekly basis most households are setting out between one and five types of material (cardboard, mixed waste paper, newspaper, steel cans, plastic bottles, glass containers, and so on). It is rare that a household consistently sets out materials in all categories each week. Based on the same assumptions noted previously, it is also reasonable to expect a modest rise in the overall quantity of materials collected on a weekly or monthly basis. It is predictable that less time will be spent servicing each "stop" by the collector due to significantly reduced time spent at the truck to load one or two sorts rather than anywhere from one to more than five sets of materials. Thus, there should be an increase in the actual number of "set-outs" collected per hour or day, and The estimated increase in participation resulting from increased convenience and customer acceptance is expected to lead to an estimated increase in materials collected from 2,700 tons per year (rounded) to between 2,900 and 3,100 tons per year (a 11 to 15% increase). Residue rates may also increase somewhat as a result of commingling. However, sorting technologies are advanced enough that any additional residue would likely be more than offset by additional tonnage collected. As a result, the net tonnage of materials actually recycled should increase slightly. As a possible "worst case" scenario, glass currently comprises 120/6 of collected material, by weight. If all of t?ic ccljec±ad glass had to be discarded due to 39411\PO7RP044.DOC Page 5 Harding Lawson Assoclates City of Tigard lalnal Mg2rh Ana la of 22Mminglod R-seldentlal I2=11ne contamination or market failure (which is possible, but unlikely), net quantities of recovered material would stay about the same as current reccvery, given the participation assumptions above. The cost models assume relatively high processing efficiency, and the ability to market a very high percentage of collected material. The models assume that no markets for collected materials (such as mixed glass, or scrap paper) will totally disappear. Should this happen, costs could rise significantly. However, this is true regardless of whether or not Tigard adopts commingling or stays with the current system of intensive separation. 5. Collection Operations Efficiency The time-motion study assessed how much time each of the three franchised collectors are spending performing a variety of recycling collection activities. Two broad categories for allocating time were used. The first category measured time "off- route", and was further subdivided as follows: • time driving to the route from the collector's yard at the start of the day, • time driving back to the yard at the end of the day, and • time spent during the day off the route for purposes of material unloading, either at the collector's yard or a processor's facility. The other category focused on time "on- route", subdivided as follows: • time driving from household to household on the route, time outside of the truck, sorting recyclables from the household bins into various compartments on the truck, and other time spent outside of the truck, such as time walking between the truck and the curb. Concurrent with this study, one of the City's franchised haulers has made arrangements with a processor (Far West Fibers/E-Z Recycling) to accept commingled recyclables in advance of formal program implementation in the City to test out the best collection and processing logistics. While the customers of the company are setting out their materials source separated, the drivers are commingling them into five different compartments on the truck (paper/plastic, metal, three colors of glass) rather than placing them in numerous different compartments. The time-motion study confirms the potential advantages and efficiencies of this approach. The hauler who has piloted commingling at the curb spent 12 percent of its on-route collection time sorting mixed materials and loading them into the truck versus 32 to 34 percent for the other two haulers. As well, the firm had the highest number of set-outs collected and pass-bys made per hour. Collection efficiencies and savings in the form of greater resource utilization (labor and trucks) can be realized with commingling materials both at the point of generation and at the truck. However, some of the labor savings resulting from commingling are lost if participation increases, as more stops are required. 39411\PO7RP044.DOC Page 6 Hauling Lawson Associates a g _O O Im c cc 9 Al ■ 8f ~ r i O e+~ 0 O e a+ b N N -ID O 0 _ O 0qQ 0 vi a~ a O O ppppp cd ppOpp cd pOp cd O y 4; N 5 ' 7 O CS C O F c~ a 'r jo e •9 ( 48 Z N yO Fr O z O z + 0 F; 0 a, y W 14 J~ p F U y CC ~ p .O cd Q a W y . R U a v 'd ° ai 3 O °CJ O O . ~ 'ti o y aFi o~ SO as Q) to 00 O O-C a0o a~'' 2 -6 ~ :w. ° t c ~ d b . Ql 'b > ° y y Fi . U U . U G1. O b ' ~ ~i y -0 N a r.+ z z z F yyy F ~ y to CD "p ' F ~ y ~ v A ~ f9 d . fd 'n ~Tr ~ C ..1 L . c~ 00 cOi ~ ~ E 9% =2 C o0 a) a7 N y O. U .Yi > o~+0 to a aFi ° ^O 3 ° o U to t c (0 1~ CD ~ 7 F L 7 cn O O z O z 3 H .O VwV} O f9 n.+ a) .0 A F i W a) ca F y Cb Q) Q O O .O Cd t0 ~r 00 w 5~ CD S) O • o s • "Cf y CC a" ca W N y y F U ca y .y ) O 0 ca t ~ t~U+ ~0 CO y 'p O , p cd cd cu C4 cn U F y (9 U F 'b y 61 tyv~~ al y O p OJ fC § Cu y ~O y iy f~ f0 b Ei 3 p C7 p y L3' ° t~ y •G n ca R7 O co cc f9 O. pp to V Q A e-~ y 6) y p 'O w iC W CO U U w O . nz F O ai O w p a) 4) a) q C. l ~ co O ^ d , A ~~r zU cnUUmcn P N Q h c O as F c U p C O T . l cd . 0 o s s m o s a e s • o • CD b qp d a) t9 y cSj " y fn Cr p b O Ca N ~ " .y. a) y p O ~ w pa . y f0 ° ~ a) co U o (n a o U P; Current System Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C "No Chan e" Alternative Materials Recycled Newspaper, cardboard, magazines, scrap Same Same Same paper, 3 colors of glass, aluminum cans, steel cans, scrap metal, plastics, used motor oil Sorting 11 different materials each in its own bag; All plastics and fibers mixed in one bin; all glass and metal All plastics, fibers, and metal mixed in one bin; Same as alternative B, except glass is sorted by Requirements bas are laced in two 14 -gallon red bins mixed in the second bin all lass mixed in the second bin color into bas which are laced in the second bin # of Sorts ' a As man as 11. • Two e Two • Two to four brown lass is typically rare). Customer e Relatively high; weekly participation a Sorting requirements are much simpler, e Same as alternative A. o Sorting requirements are still simplified, but not Satisfaction averages 51%. • Residents likely to be more satisfied, quite as much as alternatives A and B. a Some residents may dislike sorting and bagging. Bin Capacity e Typically adequate; some households set • Fibers and plastics may not all fit in a single bin. And, since • Fibers and plastics may not all fit in a single bin. • Fibers and plastics may not all fit in a single bin. out a third container or bags. fewer than 50% of set-outs contain glass, this may And, since fewer than 50% of set-outs contain And, since fewer than 50% of set-outs contain encourage the use of the second bin as overflow for fibers glass, this may encourage the use of the second glass, this may encourage the use of the second and plastics. bin as overflow for fibers and plastics. bin as overflow for fibers and plastics. Participation a Weekly participation averages 51%. • Average weekly participation projected to increase to 59%. a Average weekly participation projected to " e Average weekly participation projected to Impact increase to 59%. increase to 569/6. Waste Reduction • Monthly collections average 45.1 pounds ® Monthly collections expected to average 51,9 pounds per e Monthly collections expected to average 51.9 • Monthly collections expected to average 49.9 Impact per household on route. household on route. pounds per household on route. pounds per household on route. • Some of this new diversion will be lost in processing a Some of this new diversion will be lost in a Some of this new diversion will be lost in residue. Processing residue. processing residue, but less than alternative A. Collection Impact e Under the current system, each driver ® On-route sorting time is'almost eliminated (80% reduction). a Same as alternative A. e On-route sorting time is reduced about 65%. typically spends about 2 hours/day (25% a xecyclables take less time to unload from the truck e Recyclables take less time to unload, but savings of tine) at the curb sorting recyclables e On-route compaction of all fibers may keep trucks from II are not as large as alternatives A and B. into different compartments on the truck. reaching capacity before their route is complete, thus i e Mid-day trip savings due to on-route compaction saving a mid-day trip off-route to empty the truck. But are the same as alternative A. current route sizes and material set-outs suggest that this e Higher participation off-sets savings due to more savings will not be realized frequently. stops. e Higher participation reduces savings due to more stops. Q Net labor reduction is estimated at 15%. Labor Net ]abet reduction is estimated at 1606. Labor savings are savings are estimated at $0.27 per household per _ estimated at $0.32 per household per month. month. Market o Weak for scrap paper and steel cans (20°,16 o Impact of market revenue and higher processing fees is e Impact of market revenue and higher processing a Impact of market revenue and higher processing Outlook/Impact of current collections, by weight). approximately $26/ton, or $0.65 per household per month. fees approximately $25/ton, or $0.50 per fees approximately $21/tan, or $0.49 per e Strong for all other materials. e Requires dependence on intermediate processor to sort household per month. household per month. materials for ma_*ket. 0If metal is mixed with fiber and plastic, glass a Requires dependenc 3 on intermediate processor e Mixed-color glass market is uncertain. might not have to be sorted at all. to sort fibers, plastic, and metals for market. e Requires dependence on intermediate processor e Maximizes collection, processing, and marketing to sort materials for market. flexibility in light of uncertain mixed-color glass a Mixed-color lass market is uncertain. market. Clearly meets all statutory requirements. e Probably meets statutory requirements, a Probably meets statutory requirements. m Probably meets statutory requirements. e Could he problematic if mixed glass market becomes e Could be problematic if mixed glass market e Avoids potential risk of needing to re-educate _ unavailable. becomes unavailable. _ residents to sort glass by color. Implementation a None; program is already in place. e Pride and Schmidt will retrofit one truck each, e Pride and Schmidt will retrofit one truck each. a Pride and Schmidt will retrofit one truck each. Needs m Miller does not plan to retrofit trucks (at this time). m Miller does not plan to retrofit trucks (at this o Miller does not plat: to retrofit trucks (at this e Need to thoroughly educate residents. time). time). ® Need to thoroughly educate residents, e Need to thorou phly educate residents. Monthly Rate urxent monthly cost is $2.66 per _ e No significant rate impact; possible small savings or rate A No significant rate impact; possible small e No significant rate impact; possible small Impact household (not including indirect costs). increase (increase of $0.16/month estimated), savings or rate increase t- revise of $o.1.1/month savings or rate increase (increase of $0.16/ , month estimated), estimated) ~ t r t L_. , i. is __N- -f._,,n...~ r^^_r;.*mam.-m+-.,._- "^°^"+^-',T t"~1..:.'!,G... ~1,•- -•~•a -""'r~..;~.~- +,...-rn•y 7r-. yyy O C c9 Q o O O e-i O O r+ N 1: G F+ y Q. y v H H v 0 H 609 H iI! ~ d yy w ~ ~ CL 'd 0. a V q q o ~ O 7 c~ ^y q m co cq cc 00 ~ ca 4 0 0 O 9 0 N N! 0 p 6 9 6 9 i? i FT 6 4 -03, i09 a ' O U C!! CY V O O W)i U c~ Q' U cc O > C CO "q b co a M N O C0A N O e~i O O ti to N 00 G 'C1 ' g y ti O C H O v C H O v O C C O C N M ~ i Q y H H H 64 H co C.) i V r~1 Fr N y k. -p N ~ Chi ~ p C 6a ` q _ m _ q c0 F O co co C) N N co N n co L) Il V m O N 0 co 4) d ~O a q O O .T. e4 H O 64 O 69 O v e-i Hv 609 6N9 ~ ~ w U a °D N rs, 3 .b 0to0 a ccn c~ O do cr] C,4 in 0 co M N t, N 'a O E.y f/1 O c1] co N .n N cn M N N co - . 6 04 NH v tN-+ c0 m to N 04 N N q 4603- V o00 R oU q + ~ CO G b b ~ _ Q ~ O U > O cc C ' c., ((F//r~~ Err ~ (y ~ 4 co 6 7 Q ca ~ 7 w U O U q q irw„ ~4 67 y^ O > v A Q 0 0 N 4) ;pq ~ N ~ yy yy ~0 t0 mi vl U ca . ° ° q y y v Q 4) Q y w p co q vOi O U Q z (D O 2 a A O a CL) ~ i ° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ 4' G o 0 0 c ~ " ,6 Z U Appendlx A: Summary of Selected Survey Resuft Overview In general, Oregon communities are unique in having initiated and maintained residential, curbside recycling programs based on strict source separation of materials for nearly two decades. The reasons for this pattern are numerous and include a prevalent belief that resident separation of materials fostered environmental and waste reduction awareness; the historical lack of intermediate processing facilities throughout the state; comparatively close proximity to end use markets such as paper mills so materials could be shipped directly to them; an emphasis on manual handling of materials with contamination control and sorting responsibility assigned to generators; and stringent end user specifications that could be met most reliably by not mixing materials at the source. In many other parts of the country with different local conditions, residential recycling programs started with a partially commingled approach (two to four separations) and in some cases reduced the resident sorting requirements or moved to a totally commingled system where all recyclables are mixed together. The kind of transition being considered by Tigard (from total separation to partial commingling) is thus relatively rare, with the exception of those jurisdictions in Oregon also reviewing commingling alternatives, such as Washington County, the City of Portland, and a pilot project in Albany undertaken by Albany-Lebanon Sanitation Company discussed below. In addition, very few communities that were contacted had done research on, or implemented programs involving, manual collection at the curb of residential recyclables. Most communities researched or implemented semi-automated or automated collection. The Albany pilot project was the only exception. Albany-Lebanon Sanitation concluded that a partially commingled program with manual collection did not produce collection efficiency gains which were large enough to offset the additional resources necessary for materials processing. The company is now examining the impacts of switching to a fully commingled residential recycling program using semi- automated collection. Program Profiles Data from three jurisdictions---Albany, Oregon, Tacoma, Washington, and Sacramento County, California---that have recent experience with moving to more commingled residential recycling programs is presented in the following paragraphs. Survey information about program performance was gathered in response to several basic issues, as expressed in these questions: s What materials are collected and how did the sorting requirements for households change? ® What is the average weekly participation rate and how did this change when sorting requirements were simplified? o What is the average weekly set-out per participating household (in pounds) and how did this change when the sorting requirements were simplified? • How significant a problem has contamination been and did it increase as a result of simplifying the materials sorting requirements, and if so, how much? Materials and Sorting Requirements Albany. Albany-Lebanon Sanitation conducted a pilot project to determine the impact of switching from a purely source separated residential curbside recycling program to a partially commingled program. The original residential curbside recycling program requires full source separation of newspaper, cardboard, scrap paper, magazines, steel cans, aluminum cans, scrap metal, and glass (green, brown, and clear) in two bins. The pilot project consisted of a three-bin system, as follows: newspaper in one bin; scrap paper, magazines, and cardboard in the second bin; and all containers in the third bin. This pilot involved around 100 households. Tacoma. The City conducted a pilot project to test a two-sort program. The original system is a five-sort program. Glass, magazines, and batteries are separated and placed in one bin. Mixed containers (steel, aluminum, and aerosol cans) are placed in a second bin. Newspaper is placed in a bag and set next to the bins. In the pilot project all materials were commingled into one cart with the exception of glass, which was placed in a separate bin. Mixed paper, cardboard, and PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) plastic containers were also added to the program. This pilot involved 6,000 households. Sacramento County. The County conducted a pilot project to evaluate the impacts of changing from a three- bin residential rery(Aing system to a one-sort commingled approach. The three-bin system included one bin for three colors of glass, a second bin for newspaper, and a third bin for mixed containers (steel, aluminum, plastic). Mixed paper and cardboard was to be bagged and placed next to the bins. In the pilot project all materials were commiDgled into one cart. The pilot involved 4,600 households. Average Weekly Participation Rate Albany. Average weekly participation increased from 66% to 75% (a 9% incremental increase, and a 14% relative increase). The pilot was supported by a public education effort, which contributed to some of the increase. Tacoma. Estimated weekly participation increased from 13% to 32% (in a low-participation area) and from 29% to 59% (in a higher participation area). Sacramento County. Participation rate was not measured under the pilot project. Instead, a customer satisfaction survey was performed. Prior to the pilot project 48.50/6 of residents favored a three-bin system and 48.3% favored commingled. Ten weeks after the pilot project 850/6 favored commingled and 15% favored the three-bin mode. Average Weekly Set-Out Quantities Albany. Pounds per stop went from 19.4 pounds to 25 pounds, an increase of 29%. Pounds collected per household per week (total) increased from 12.8 pounds to 18.8 pounds, an increase of 47%. Tacoma. For two, five-month comparative periods, total recyclable tonnages increased almost 200%, from 47 tons under the original program to 140 tons collected in the first commingled pilot area. The second pilot area produced a tonnage increase of 120 tons to 210 tons, a rise of 76%. Only 20% of the tonnage increase was attributed to the addition of mixed waste paper, plastics, and cardboard, which were not part of the original program. Sacramento County. The pounds collected per household went from 8.9 pounds per week with the three-bin system to 12.6 pounds per week with a commingled system, an increase of nearly 42%. Contamination and Processing Residues Albany. Contamination with non- recyclables remained basically the same---between 1% and 39/6 by weight per household on average. However, the inability to market mixed color broken glass led to an overall 13% reject rate for all curbside recyclables collected under the pilot program. This increase in contamination means that while collections per household increased from 12.8 to 18.8 pounds per week, actual recovery only increased from 12.8 to 16.3 pounds per week, a net increase of 27%. Tacoma. Quantifiable data on contamination was not available; contamination was characterized as "high" as the start of the pilot project, primarily because of the new materials that became acceptable. Contamination reportedly "dropped considerably" after that point, in part due to an education/information campaign concerning the pilot project. Information is not available on processing residues. Sacramento County. Contamination went from 196 with a three-bin system to 20.8% with a commingled system. This increase in contamination means that while collections per household increased from 8.9 to 12.6 pounds per week, actual recovery only increased from 8.8 to 10.0 pounds per week, a net increase of 14%. Appendix B Summary Cost and Performance Tables I, V• f0 t% Q1 't O to O N M 00 C% w N .p Q` M O `p tT~ Oi V. N N~ M co O C^. O Q H y y H m d H t . g co II ~ ed w U O ~ e y0 G I w a~ i o F7 a Q a C2 0 w L:. T.5 U C ~i y O y: C fL C ' e~i etf F m e0 O O C C '.7 a v O7 ` ai 'd co O U Ri 2 w y cc 4 7 d O C M U C U p- -yo Ow ai U O Qy F ion w n ~ % > m Om ~ O y O ~ g V~ U i'~ b y G m C) Li y U N m b ~ V = N `cc M ~ . L O7 ~ CO U :a d to U 00 N > ' 44 N U „ Cl) (1) 0 1.yy y t r~yr f0 cC 8 6 w0 w y C 4 O y .D p rn C p y C p O Q Of rn q rn N•• « O O O w Cl A O i O Im y Q i a_ ccqq a~ U 0o w~ U LL rl ~ ~ ~d. ~ Td F ~ q ayi ~ ac ~ ea a F ~ o cn u 00 CO N N N 00 m O N e- t? O V? O 449, O H e i h., h iR h Qf 00 N N n co ; N V' O N N N N N C6 cli C4 95 C13 C7 h fy 69 ~ V5, N W L) L) C a0 C. w O d n. N a G7 a N c. m a. d a Cl) n en o D o co N ~ n 46 m p '4 % ° Lq co 40 69 U Ua va Ud Ua O O El $ (sa U U ~ ~ U O co O co O m O O N w f~0 M L M M A vi U a~ a > U 0 .0 y ° m o U 3 42 Ca w O O O 1 . U _ 'O Q y U 0 X U U O y b 0 w O U O U E- E- d 0 a 0 _q U CCJJ a c ~ ycq~, A m W N a m m A p .O •l.7 O z<~ i3 ,~gR V 7 O m a yi p nm ~e °o,gg~~ m °D paR 2 ~ 5 Q b m n o O N N N N N N N m N m~ N N O 7 m O H' .7 Q H m U ~ S g O A Q o e d m a a 5:6 rc m .9 ~ t7 ~ YJ ~ ~ H .0 6 p ~O ~ .O m G S oo m , b C m m m ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ J7 O m m -B 35 h o C " o u o m G m g m m a1 9 o p c i O a v 6 . 8 a s s s a 9 9 0o m a o o °o 0 ° •a mamma ~H ~ommmaOQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q t~Q.$~ 'O O Q . . . + G F U r~ uu CO a y m n . N N N O W O N 'O N O C 0 •r O O U U H H H ~ H H a m ~ .a Q ~O N N O 1~ Q 1~ N N G T 1~ N N T ~ m V' O N m H N H H H ~ ~ H H H M U y s i~ N m C m m `O ' a O a n n CO 0 E ^y HH 44 H y H N HM N N ppp~,,, N H O ~ ~ ~ 5' 3 3 8 a o. m O G. -O tai ~ p `o •o 0 .'7 N y y H .H., co w .O m .r7 S A U aJ V U V m~ ° m m O O O O ~ Z 'b U~ 7 ~ ~ ~ Q E7 47 ~ ~ ~ w Q a~~_ ~ c 6 a v 5' ~ ~ ~ p y7 °o a, c~ F .q o m v1 m co Q co 1" o m u m s m p ~ o •5 0 4 ,J7 m H O q q y A G U m O U o. ~ 5 9 + Cg F F < O CL 9 Z m y 00 'S 9 g t U 'a y ~ c o = ~ ~ e M CC a Cc Ci r m m t0 C i C C x F F~v~~ a m tl0 ~ PC: c v1 U U. o ~ U a v Qf N m m 'o ami O y .ct '~m'r A N 0 O ~yPm O y „y w q~ O as ~ t0 H O m O q m ~ m " e m m y m .O y to m m ~ 6 $ q Q v q 0 c s ik.'7a b~ ~ ~ N O -i ~ H .H.. P co N T t\ N ti H f°9 H c co n ~I H y H H w m sr o> H y yCy J H 'o U? N N d' H O N H U a at H N m m N cn G O m O, Cl 'Q. CIS C,4 M C4 V y mC-4 G t7 H O m ~ ~ qti try. O C ~ m m m 0 0 W E~ LO D w y to mm 01 o . • 0 ~ .o > ~ $ w m a y ? A~ yy v v v ~ C7 M 4+ m ~ ~ j . m m C o 0 0 fLLYLL y y O t3 p b aD 0~ 10 m o 43 q Im C) P P P P C) IM m P cc P W ~ ;a P O P p .•dE» . i3a .9 ~ M O m N CD o H V1. m m s ~ m to V w N Le) O N r, n (D ~ H ~ H HHH N tQ 1!' (c 11 O tD y ' p~ . i u n O co N n M n e O , ~ yy q co H N M N H H ei a 7 Q Q o ~yy 0 3 N ti O n H H q 8 6 E q i ~com O? L'i t0 " N w o w N m --1 .Q t9 y U y m 0 m x m u 00 ~ ° O a m 14 y * 1 qy Q j O m w O U tt M V F u m u F Q m 'LS d m ~ q 0 q p m co co H Q c W 7 d U ya F V v Q ~ ro Qt y O !y q 3 O > allQ ° A g Q q S 9 g:5 x~ Z I It Y a na mi q A LY ~ ' Y 4 •d ~ a p F F O > ~ U ~ 'i U V. O O O W O !G Y b w O N O 7 G. m d c m m o 0 m N m m m m ~ N F m r E,., ~ o m p~ m U U p N ni rN q ^^,T,~ q V N b X3d 80 0 8 B ~a bG a x, N O ~+Nj O v H H_ b~ 1A CO N n N C O VI N C H H H H i t, co v ' H N H o o W lk m O N W! N nO m m Q? ~ a 7 If1 N M M 'd C N N N e+ M y v.H.. M~~ O .y.. y m ;El ^`p o a q-b s m 8 ^q q w ~ ~ m m ONpC?. .b y m m m~ q~~ .U m M N m m O q p o 0 0 °aP o co co co m C, Im 8 cn co C3 0 n VW,' O aW,' ^ C H y H .H-. n M N ~ C ^ H y. m w ID d: ~ y o 0 uWi w H ~ o> H M cn N y o V U U @I @J U q q q q 0riEi E _ N jj,+ O N ~ m 9 4i LM m 10 m a m N W W M N N 0 0 P m N N m U m U N N 00 _ W O m 0 a 42 O m O fg F F ~ C U u w d q b m o o c q O H H H ~ m lR O N W lR Y! d; O N H N m pmp R H V) y T U .J. O O v°Di ~ O n M a ~ n m ~ .b ~0 m m w 4 W H N y N y H N y N d m R; w q . e0 O ~ m 4 m ~ w 3 a~i O m y H q m m g 12 J ~ U mm ,p ~ y p P ~ G m O ~r d b o h 'a 71 O iFF/~ O 9 i ~ c w V V a m 4y $ y p T m 0 9 a~ Q " C' o ~ Q F Z F9m w ~ V 4 LM w p F a .~0 U y a L d U 3 o m o ~k m m ~k cla 0 mss: o 0 0 o ~ a W w 40 Q$ m A yo a y$ 1 r' O C i mn-. m W V 'b y..G m b m L:. n m 79 m c .m c o m c a x a A A L 3 sl d r as 3 .G fl t0 CO M U7 CO u7 co N co co Q1 O N U d' -W V 10 1° c0 p M U] IT M 1\ p O a O n Lo M N O O O CV O N N cl Lo Lo M f6 co .Uy-. Lo cn Lf) to ,O 00 N G 04 0 O N cl Le? iq OR 1~ N N co rcn to i IT -W N O cq •5 O" N C O O N O N N t, u7 1n M M co C, T w ~ryry 0 O Ill M IA t0 N CO O U) CO N O N y U M LL7 10 c0 1t N N 117 M IT N O O O Lo M N O O O N O N N in Lo en M co U p~ L <O 00 .y U rn `1~ U ~ ° W LYJ W A aryl m m ~ m ° cW. W 1m-. 0 0 7 'd O O C Q', q 3 Q Q m W° d d Q1 -0 a W (q N b m ~ cts y CG. ~k ~k ~k ° ~'yG W iL :3. G G G p 96 0 M o E o Q f~' o a a 'm 3 .c 0 0 a "C7 W a 3 y vmi co CO b ° N E co .b ° c o m a O •cc J"' .77 U O p N N ~k y v 21 v :7 •O O C" W o : w ° a , a ir e G N m m m E : 7 G 7 00 00 00 O m ~ gym, ~ ~ ~ ~ w 4 W ~ y N 0 0 0 CD~ m (D CD a) u, C C o U `o E CCo A W 3 [ m° o o c ^m m `o m m cu .9 -0 U .m.• M O eo m h m N N co co 1 p ° m m m N M M cn 0 a o A G. 3 3 3 v n~ ° -0 u v m LM M 00 CO C4 co cc CO aOa~~ O O O CO N O aD N 'T 11 O 'o- co co M CD t*j M o w -8 n 0. r•+ N N O1 w O LL7 N co ~ 1p V~ M O C N 10 H x (D U m m G .C w O r~G ~ vy} 00 ii ~ fD G W W m y ~ ^m ~•t J N 'O 8 Q ~ " ID y o m ~ m 1~ 1lyyyy ry ~ ~ ~ m o © `a o a p~ ~ m4 ws~~~yp ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q C m O a W f,i o OD V ^ W W m y 00 7t- ° mm 3m10, M C13 181 '~"8 ~ o o ~ o"d II II Z ~h' q1 6i ik OA F x d F ik GIs iR < ~R Z ~i d m C~ « AGENDA ITEM # -9 FOR AGENDA OF _Janui-Y 20. 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review and Discuss Measure 50 and Approach by Washingion County PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK , CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council endorse an approach proposed by Washington County to address Measure 50? STAFF RECOWAENDATION Staff recommends that the approach preferred by Washington County Administration be endorsed. Staff recommends that the City Council forward the attached letter to the Board of County Commissioners. INFORMATION SUMMARY Measure 50 caused existing operating and several levies (such as the Cooperative Library and MSTIP3) to be combined into a single rate for each taxing district. The rate of $2.25 per $1000.00 of assessed value is permanent. Due to the voters approval of Measure 50 in May, 1997, County revenue from property taxes will be reduced by 15.6%. As a result, the County has evaluated its options on how to apply the reduction to affected programs. The affected programs are: General Fund - The primary funding source for core County programs Cooperative Library (WCCLS) - Both the County office that provides contract service and the revenue provided to City libraries to provide library service, and Major Street Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP3) - The multi-year, project specific transportation construction program. 'Ile County reviewed various options and is proposing that the following approach be taken to allocate County tax revenues 1° MSTIP3 - Absorb an 18.6% reduction and extend funding for MSTIP3 from the original six years to 12-13 years to buiid all promised projects. 2. WCCLS - Fund the Cooperative with $9.1 million in the first year, adding the statutory 3% plus a portion of exception growth each year resulting in a permanent, growing revenue source. General Fund - Live within the constraints as long as possible without seeking new funding for four years, provided the economy stays healthy and inflation is low. This requires spending down the reserves. If the County Board of Commissioners approve this approach, Tigard will share in the delay of road improvements but receive almost full funding of WCCLS. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The other alternative considered an across the board 15.6% reduction to each program would have reduced the road projects by 46% and reduced our share of WCCLS proceeds by 15.6%. viZSluN 1ASx FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES Tigard shares in the benefits derived from these County programs. A lesser reduction in revenues and projects benefiting Tigard results if the County's preferred alternative is accepted by the Board I: W DM131 LLW9SUMRY. DOC MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manage - A DATE: January 16, 1998 SUBKCT: Review and Discussion of Measure 50 and approach by Washington County During a recent Washington County Cooperative Library Board meeting, members of the Advisory Board were invited to provide input to the Washington County Board of Commissioners regarding the approach to be taken by the County to address Measure 50. In both the December 5 and December 19 Council Newsletters I have provided information generated by the County on the approaches considered to respond to Measure 50. As you are aware, due to the voter approval of Measure 50 last May, County revenues for property taxes will be reduced by 15.6%. The reduction will impact general fund programs, MSTIP 3, and the WCCLS program. Tigard benefits from the MSTIP 3 program as some of the road improvement projects directly benefit Tigard. Tigard benefits from WCCLS in that revenues are provided to Tigard to provide library services. The WCCLS funding allows the city to provide services with less reliance on local property tax. Washington County Administration has reviewed alternative strategies and presented them to various review bodies over the last few months. The County Board of Commissioners will hear recommendations from County Administrator Charles D. Cameron in the near future. In order that Tigard's input may be considered, we have been asked to submit any comments by January 21. I have attended two presentations by Mr. Cameron and am recommending that the alternative titled "Alternative D: Cash Flow Focus" is the fairest approach and has the greatest benefit to programs affecting Tigard, MSTIP 3 and WCCLS. Under this scenario, general fund revenues will be reduced as the Cc,unty will live within constraints as long as possible without seeking new funding. Under this approach, reserve funds would be used to help maintain services and operate the new jail. The County's intent is that no new funding would be requested for four years. This scenario is dependent on the economy staying healthy and inflation staying low. As you are aware, Measure 50 provides for local governments to increase assessed values by a maximum of 3% per year. Cooperative Library Funding would be at a level of $9.1 million dollars in the first year. If growth continues steady, the statutory 3% would be added to this amount each year as well as any property value adjustments which are allowed under this statute as specific exceptions. The $9.1 million dollar level would allow us to maintain service at approximately the same level as today. The major streets transportation improvement program would absorb an 18.6% reduction and funding would be extended from the original 6 year period to 12 or 13 years. The bright side is that all projects would be built. If an alternative approach is accepted to maintain the program for the original 6 years, given the revenues available, approximately 46% reduction of planned projects would result. An election would be needed to seek voter approval of a package to complete the projects promised under MSTIP3. I feel that the County has made a good faith effort to evaluate the proposals and the impacts on Tigard in both the road and the library programs under the so-called preferred alternative is the best course of action. I recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Board of County Commissioners endorsing the preferred alternative. I:\ADMXB:LL1011898. DOC January 16, 1998 Linda Peters, Chair Washington Board of County Commissioners 115 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 Re: County Response to Measure 50 Dear Commissioner Chair Peters: The Tigard City Council has considered the alternatives reviewed by Washington County to address Measure 50. The Council has reviewed information prepared by the County Administrator's office and has concluded that the preferred approach, identified as Alternative B: Cash Flow Focus, in the December 17, 1997, County document entitled "Managing Measure 50" is the best approach available to serve the citizens of Washington County and the citizens of Tigard. Under this approach, the voters who approved MSTIP 3 will receive the benefits of all promised programs, although the construction of those projects will take longer then originally anticipated. In addition, the WCCLS system will receive funding close to that expected by the voters when the serial levy was passed in 1996. The Tigard City Council believes that the preferred alternative is most closely in harmony with the needs of Washington County as well as the intent of the voters when these levies for streets and libraries were approved. The Council hopes that this endorsement assists you in making a decision which best serves the citizens of Washington County. Sincerely, James Nicoli Mayor, City of Tigard I: W MBILLTETERS. DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Item AEo. For Council NewWatter dated CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 CoWact: Bill Monahan, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: January 20, 1998 TOPIC: Council Endorsement of Washington County Approach to Manage under Measure 50 Washington County estimates that revenues for general fund programs, MSTIP3, and the Washington County Cooperative Library System will be reduced by 15.6% in the coming year. The County has considered alternatives to address the reduction in funds. The Tigard City Counci! will consider the alternatives available to Washington County and submit a recommendation on the alternative approach which the Council recommends. One approach calls for an across the board reduction of 15.6% to each of the 3 programs. The alternative would reduce the funding for MSTIP3, the County Road Improvement Program, by 18.6% but extend funding from the original 6 years to 12 to 13 years. This would allow for the construction of all promised projects, however, over a longer time. The WCCLS program would be funded in a manner almost comparable to that approved by the voters in 1996. The Council will choose the method which it feels is most suitable for the County to follow and will provide a letter to the County Board of Commissioners to endorse the reccmmended method. I: ADMXFACTSHT.DOC