The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/12/1998 (ON ~ 1 ~ ®F T10 ` R D TID CITY COUNCIL OREGON Mill MEETING Y 12, 1998 COUNCIL MEETING ILL E TELEVISE tAadmyolcopkt1.doo 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684--2772 ITV RE Y1f Ann v ~o ■ ■~/O1RY ~ f. 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. Visitoes 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 664-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 664-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 12,1998- PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL EASINESS MEETING MAY 12, 1999 - 6:30 PM 6:30 PM ® STUDY SESSION > 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 is close any information discussed during this session. 7:30 PM 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 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. Proclamations: 2.1 National Police Week (Flay 10-16) and Police Memorial Day (May 15) 2.2 Emergency Medical Services Week (May 17-23) 7:40 PM 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 PM 4. 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: 4.1 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes: April 14,1998 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for the Construction of 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault to DaNeal Construction, Inc. COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 12,1998- PAGE 2 e Consent Agenda - Item- 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 ftems which do not need discussion. T:60 PM 5. CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCE - PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE a. Staff Report: Police Department b. Council Questions/Discussion j~ C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98- 1 V 8:10 PM 6. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW - VISIONING PROGRAM UPDATE a. Staff Report: Administration Department b. Council Questions/Discussion 8:20 PM 7. DARTMOUTH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from the April 14, 1998, City Council Meeting) The Dartmouth Local Improvement District has reached the assessment stage. Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that a proposed assessment be prepared and presented to the City Council in a resolution. The resolution, upon approval by the City Council adopts the proposed assessment, directs that property owners be notified of the proposed assessments and that a public hearing be set to consider objections. On April 14, the Haaring was left open in order to receive any additional information on the matter. a. Reconvene Public Hearing: Mayor Nicoli b. Staff Report and Notation of Additional Information Received: Finance Department, Legal Counsel & Consultant C. Close Public Hearing d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Deliberation: Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Ordinance in Accordance with Council Findings; Set Date for Consideration of Ordinance COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 12,1998- PAGE 3 9,M P" 8. PUBLIC HEARING - RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NOW CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE (Continued from the April 28, 1998, City Council Meeting) a. Public Bearing Reconvened (Public testimony was concluded on April 28, 1998) b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Staff Recommendation: Community Development Department d. Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 98Qq 9:30 PM 9. WON AGENDA ITEMS Wash 5~. ~Ct 9:40 FhM 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: he Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.650 (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 is close any information discussed during this session. 10:00 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT I: ADM\CATHY\CCM\980512.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 12,1998- PACE 4 Agenda (tern No. 3®~ Meeting of (0106M9 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Mike Miller (Public Works); Finance Director Wayne Lowrey; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel Tim Ramis, and Tony Reghellis of Harper Haugh Reghellis. > Executive Session The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 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 recessed to Study Session at 7:40 p.m. > Agenda Review Bill Monahan, City Manager, noted a non-agenda item on the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force. Mayor Nicoli said that he had some non-agenda items also. Mayor Nicoli reported on the Board and Commission interviews at Councilor Scheckla's request. He mentioned that they asked staff to look into increasing the Library Board by two to three people over the next one to two years because of the significant role the Board would play in promoting the bond issue. Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Manager, said that she would contact Craig Dirksen to see if he was still interested in volunteering for the Planning Commission. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Troop 847 led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli thanked the scouts and presented each scout with a lapel pin. 1.3 Council Communications/Linison Reports Councilor Hunt reported on the Willamette Water Supply Association (WWSA) meeting last week. He said that WWSA has already drawn up bylaws and established a budget. He mentioned that Sherwood and Tualatin have included WWSA in heir budget for next year. He commented that nothing was yet finalized as Clackamas River Water had a question about allocation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 1 m~71 Councilor Hunt reported that Wilsonville has not "signed on" because of concern that they would lose control of their water rights. He stated that while Wilsonville has been represented at the meetings, he was not certain that they had internal agreement on what direction to take. He emphasized that the budget was only for planning to investigate property acquisition, water line routes, and costs. No jurisdictions have yet committed funds for implementation of a plan. The Council agreed that their anticipated portion should be included in the FY 1998/99 budget. 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli mentioned a discussion on moving Council meetings to Monday night, and initiating a zoning ordinance Change regarding paving parking lots. Mr. Monahan noted the resolution to appoint the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force. 2. PROCLAMATIONS: 2.1 National Police Week (May 10-16) and Police Memorial Day (May 15) 2.2 Emergency Medical Services Week (May 17-23) Mayor Nicoli noted the two proclamations which he would sign after the meeting. Mary Boyle, Metro West Ambulance Public Relations Director, introduced Sam .doe, Senior Paramedic and Field Training Officer. Mr. Joe expressed the appreciation of the EMS workers in Tigard and Washington County for the City's proclamation of May 17 to May 23 as Emergency Medical Services Week. He said that it was their goal to meet the emergency needs of the community in a compassionate, timely, and professional manner. He invited the Council to participate in the VIP Ride-along, and to come to the EMS Week celebration on Thursday, May 21, at noon. On behalf of the EMS workers, he presented to the Mayor a plaque from Metro West Ambulance. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA > Chief Steve Winegar, Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, presented the Paull Nagy Award for 1998 to Chief Ron Goodpaster for his dedicated work as a member of the Board of Directors in upgrading the training provided at the policy academy. He said that Chief Goodpaster was the Police Advisory Committee Chair for the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training for the State of Oregon and worked hard to address problems the department has had. Chief Goodpaster thanked Chief Winegar. He explained that Paul Nagy was the Chief of Police at Dallas for whom the award was created in remembrance of his dedication to the Association. > Trish Stormont introduced Pam Benson and Marland Henderson. She announced that the Tigard Farmer's Market was opening Saturday, June 6, in the Healthfirst Parking Lot on Hall Blvd at Greenburg/Olson with hours from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. (on every Saturday through October). She thanked the Council for their past support of the Farmer's Market. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: April 14, 1998 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for the Construction of 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault to DaNeal Construction, Inc. 5. CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCE - PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council discussed this item in detail at their last study session. Chief Goodpaster reviewed the staff work on investigating options and alternatives in developing this tool that the police needed to deal with a particular problem. He said that the ordinance was modeled after the City of Beaverton's ordinance which they felt best met the concerns expressed by the Council while still giving the police an appropriate tool to deal with these situations. He pointed out the department policy attached to the ordinance that set the enforcement criteria for this ordinance. Chief Goodpaster explained the process of implementing this ordinance. He said that the police could not arrest someone for public consumption of alcohol but only issue them a citation. However, if the violator did not appear in court, then the judge could issue an arrest warrant for failing to appear. He reiterated that this was a tool for the police to stop a type of behavior (which frequently generated criminal activity) before the criminal activity occurred. He recommended adoption of the ordinance. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 98-10. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 98-10, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 7.32.180 PROHIBITING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW - VISIONING PROGRAM UPDATE Ms. Newton presented a summary of the activities underway in the target areas of the Visioning Program. She reported that in the Public Safety area, they have selected a volunteer assistant to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 3 71 help stair coordinate the Neighborhood Watch Program. a ilvted the hiring of the v.ir`+,mi~;,nih, Volunteer Coordinator, Susan Koepping, (under the Community Character area) who has already placed volunteers in departments where they have not been extensively used (Municipal Court and Planning Department). Ms. Newton mentioned the review of infrastructure needs in the Public Facilities Plan to accommodate infill, redevelopment, and increased densities as part of the Development Code Update and the appointment of a Washington Square Regional Center Task Force (Growth and Growth Management). She noted the partnership work between the School District and the City in providing community based recreation activities and in working on sharing resources between the libraries (Schools and Education). Ms. Newton said that under Transportation and Traffic, staff would look at more traffic calming projects in the upcoming budget. She mentioned the positive response from parents and drivers to the "double traffic fines in school zones" signs. She noted the successful pilot program at Fowler Middle School to provide recreational activities to children during Spring Break. She said that during the summer staff would try to identify citizens' parks and recreation needs and move forward to create appropriate programs. Ms. Newton said that she would report to Council every quarter. She encouraged citizens to read the report, available in the library and City Hall lobby. Councilor Scheckla asked for further information on the Quality of Life goal to work on the Central Business District. Ms. Newton reported on the April 22 meeting held at the Water Building which 15 business and property owners in the downtown attended. She mentioned that the staff s role was to provide resources. A member of the Chamber Business Advocacy Group facilitated the meeting. She said that at the meeting tomorrow night (May 13 at 5:30 p.m.) the group would discuss the boundaries of the downtown, its image, and how to proceed. She said that staff would continue to mail notices and information to the over 300 downtown business and property owners on their mailing list. Councilor Hunt mentioned the WWSA meeting tomorrow night in the high school Commons with City staff, Oregon Environmental Council representatives, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the consulting team front Murray Smith & Associates. 7. DARTMOUTH[ LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from April 14, 1998, City Council Meeting) The Dartmouth Local Improvement District leas reached the assessment stage. Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that a proposed assessment be prepared and presented to the City Council in a resolution. Thz resolution, upon arproval by the City Council adopts the proposed assessment, directs that property owners be notified of the proposed assessments and that a public hearing be set to consider objections. On April 14, the Hearing was left open in order to receive any additional information on the matter. a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public hearing. b. Staff Report and Notation of Additional Information Received CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 4 Milmlil Tony Reghellis, Harper Haugh Reghellis, rcported that he received undated wetlands information from the Martins, Costco, and Waremart. He said that there was only one minor discrepancy but all parties understcod that he would go with the information provided by one of the parties. He noted his updated net developable acreage calculations, as submitted to Mr. Corrigan. Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel, entered into the record Mr. Reghellis' final proposed assessment, the 1988 Ordinance 13-04, excerpts from the R.A. Wright deposition taken in 1989, and a summary of the City Attorney's opinion. He stated that, although they have not yet found the archive transcript from 1989, Mr. Van iDyk has agreed that the contextual pages surrounding the excerpt he submitted could be introduced. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Tigard Municipal Code 13.04.060, the binding document for the City, read the same in 1988 as it did today: the final assessment began after the project was completed. He concluded that according to this statement, if the Council in 1988 had provisionally adopted anything, it was done within the context of how the process would work within the final assessment. Mr. Corrigan pointed out that the assessment procedure began in either 1994, 1995 or 1996, depending on one's point of view. He observed that at this point, 6 to 8 years after 1988, staff lacked the necessary expertise to develop an assessment formula, and the mediation effort of the property owners to find a mutually acceptable formula had failed. He mentioned that each property owner during that mediation submitted a formula different than the 1988 formula. Mr. Corrigan commented that the task of ascertaining a formula now fell to the Council who hired a consultant to develop the final assessment formula. He pointed out that even if the original Wright formula had been used, Council would have been obligated to review it prior to distribution and could make modifications to it. He stated that the Council's obligation (no matter which formula was used) was to hold public hearings on the formula. The only standard for their decision was that the assessment charged against each lot within the LID was according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. Mr. Corrigan said that the Council could not by law preordain its conclusions. It had to take testimony, sift through the facts, and make its decision based solely on special benefit. He emphasized that the Council did not have the power, even if it assumed that it did adopt something in 1988, to tie the hands of a future Council with regards to the analysis now before it. Steve Van Dyk, attorney for the Martins, requested that the 1984 Tigard Municipal Code also be entered into the record. Mr. Corrigan had no objection. c. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. d. Staff Recommendation. Mr. Corrigan noted Mr. Reghellis' recommendation as presented to Council. He said that the City Attorney recommended that Council proceed with the understanding from the City Attorney's Office that the Council could in fact consider all the formulas before it, including the Harper-Reghellis formula. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 5 e. Council Deliberation: Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Ordinance in Accordance ;vWk C'o•~nci! FindinEs; Set Date for Consideration of Ordinance. Councilor Hunt expressed his dismay that the Council was put in the position of deciding this issue. He pointed out that none of the current Councilors were on Council when the original Wright formula was reviewed, and therefore did not know the reasoning that went into it. He observed that the property owners' failure to reach agreement forced the issue to come before Council; but whatever Council decided, someone would not agree with it. He said that he supported Mr. Reghellis' formula as a logical and fair way to distribute the costs. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Hunt that referring this back to Council after 10 years was not good. He said that he thought that both methods were fair. He asked for confirmation that the sequence of events (following the property owners' inability to reach an agreement) included one party suggesting a return to the Wright method. Staff confirmed that was so. He said that right now he leaned toward the Wright method, commenting that this should have been taken care of long ago. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's and Councilor Moore's comments. He said that he supported the Reghellis method. Mayor Nicoli said that while he thought that the Reghellis method was the best method, the original formula did have merit and he would be comfortable supporting either one. He mentioned the fact that when the LID was originally formed two of the three property owners with single family residences on their lots opted out of the LID. He commented that the third property owner may have made some assumptions and therefore did not ask to be exempted. He asked that the third property owner be allowed the exemption at this time, if he so desired, because the other property owners had received it. Councilor Hunt said that he would not favor a combination of the Wright and Reghellis methods, on the grounds that trying to find another formula would simply drag the process out longer. Mayor Nicoli explained that he proposed basing some portion of the assessment on one formula (e.g. 75%), the remaining portion on the other formula (e.g. 25%) and totaling the two amounts together as the total assessm°nt. He pointed out that Mr. Reghellis reviewed the variety of possible assessment formulas in his presentation, and indicated that a combination of them could be used. He said that he did not want a new equation, just a combination of the two methods. Councilor Moore concurred with Councilor Hunt that a combination method could cause more difficulties. He suggested making it clear that this was a tough choice between two options, each of which assessed the properties accurately. He reiterated that he could go either way. Although he leaned towards the Wright method, he would support the majority Council decision. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to direct staff to draft an ordinance in support of the Reghellis method of distribution of costs (as submitted on May 11, 1998, on the Dartmouth Str,~,.,t Assessment Roll Comparison, right-hand column) and bring it back tc the Council. Mayor Nicoli restated his request to allow the third property owner to request exemption for his CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 6 Pill property, the same as the other two property owners were allowed to. He asked if the entire lot or simply t e area around the single family residences had been exempted in 1984. Mr. Corrigan ted that in the Reghellis formula there was no exemption for pre-existing dwellings that were not exempted in 1984. He said that he did not know how much of the properties were exempted from the district. Mr. Reghellis clarified that the exemptions for the single family residences were taken on a lot basis. He reviewed the location on Map 4 of the three tax lots with single family residences on them in 1984. He explained that a pure exclusion (that would not impact the other LID members) would reduce the total assessment. Otherwise, exempting the property would trigger a recalculation of the amounts assessed against each of the other properties. Mayor Nicoli asked if the boundaries of the Martin property were known. Mr. Reghellis said that Mr. Van Dyk had that information. Mr. Van Dyk said that he has just been informed that there was an additional tax lot affected beyond the cross-hatched one shown on the map. Mayor Nicoli proposed a motion to allow the Martins to exempt their rerzidential structure in the same manner as was allowed for the other two property owners. Councilor Scheckla asked how that would affect the redistribution. Mr. Reghellis reviewed a scenario which involved a I% reduction in land and corresponding 1% increase in assessment. Councilor Moore suggested that staff prepare two ordinances, one as recommended and one with the exclusion. Councilor Hunt asked that staff review the size of the Martins' property and provide the Council with the recalculated assessments. With regard to the Mayor's suggestion, Mr. Corrigan explained that the staff would analyze the special benefit to the various properties. He emphasized that Council's decision should be based on special benefit. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Mayor Nicoli, to move to amend the motion to direct staff to include this property amongst those that were exempt from the assessment. Amendment was approved by majority voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, and Moore voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla abstained.) Motion was approved by majority voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, and Moore voted "yes." Councilor Scheckla abstained) Mayor Nicoli expressed his appreciation for the excellent work done by the attorneys in this matter in presenting their various clients' cases. Mr. Van Dyk informed the Council that he would submit a request to Mr. Corrigan on behalf of his client for the Council to make some other specific rulings as a part of this quasi-judicial proceeding. Mr. Monahan noted that staff world bring back the ordinance on May 26. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 7 CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE (Continued from the April 28, 1998, City Council Meeting) a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public bearing. b. Staff Report Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that the findings were provided by the appellant and found acceptable by staff. c. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx recommended adopting the findings. d. Council Deliberation: Resolution No. 98-24 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Bunt, to adopt Resolution No. 98-24. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-24, A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS (EXHIBIT A) CONCERNING AN APPEAL BY RAZ TRANSPORTATION OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON- CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Washington Square Regional Center Task Force Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution 98-25. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-25, A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER TASK FORCE. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Co;ancil meetings Mayor Nicoli mentioned Councilor Rohlf's interest in moving the Council meetings to Monday night because of Tuesday night conflicts he was having with his new employment. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would miss half the Monday night meetings because he frequently traveled on the weekends, returning on Monday. Councilor Moore said that he was comfortable with either Monday or Tuesday night meetings. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 8 Councilor Hunt said that he had no strong feelings on Monday or Tuesday night meetings. He c'nmmF nt~rl that he liLeµ Tuesday r,-'g A meetings because it gave the opportunity for Council to consult with staff on Monday to answer questions raised by the Friday newsletter/packet. He agreed with Councilor Moore's concern at moving the meeting to accommodate one Councilor while at the same time penalizing another Councilor. Mayor Nicoli suggested holding one meeting a month on Monday night and the other two meetings on Tuesday. Councilor Hunt commented that doing so would cause a lot of confusion. He asked to discuss the matter when Councilor Rohlf was here. > Paved Parking Lots Mayor Nicoli noted the previous conversations at Council meetings regarding the requirement to pave all parking lots in the city. He suggested asking the Planning Commission to develop a proposal and return with a recommendation to Council on this issue. Councilor Moore agreed that the Planning Commission was the appropriate body to consider this issue but pointed out that they have discussed it before. The Council discussed the Mayor's suggestion. The Mayor pointed out that increasing runoff into streams by paving parking lots was a major issue. Councilor Seheckla supported the Mayor's suggestion. Mayor Nicoli noted several examples in Tigard of existing large gravel lots used infrequently by the owners or only on certain days of the week (Washington Square, the Catholic Church, Cook Park, trucker parking lots). Councilor Moore noted an issue of maintaining the lot attractively, as gravel lots could look ugly with weeds and mud puddles. Mayor Nicoli concurred. He commented that staff could add conditions on gravel lot appearance, size, and methods to reduce the amount of gravel kicked out on the roads to address those concerns. Mr. Monahan said that staff would pass on the Council's concerns to the Planning Commission. > ;Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. STUDY SESSION > Post Office Mayor Nicoli reported on a conversation he had with the local Post Office manager. He said that the Post Office would be building a warehouse facility for joint use by the Beaverton and Tigard Post Offices from which the mail carriers would pick up their route mail for delivery. The downtown Tigard and Beaverton Post Offices would be retained with some improvements. The Council discussed the annoyance that businesses located in Tigard used "Portland" as their mailing address instead of "Tigard." Councilor Scheckla reported that the Post Office food drive was successful, loading two National Guard trucks with food. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 9 > Wdl!»m: : `.:'ater auppiy Agency goo Councilor Hunt reported that from his conversation with the Wilsonville City Councilors at the WWSA meeting, it appeared that the Council, the staff, and the Mayor were not communicating. He said that the Councilors had no prior knowledge of the information presented at the meeting, and were quite surprised that WWSA was looking at property other than Wilsonville's for the water treatment plant. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to make sure that the appropriate people knew of Wilsonville's communication problems. > Survey results Ms. Newton distributed the one page summary from Adam Davis analyzing the survey results. The Council discussed the survey results. Councilor Hunt commented that he thought the survey was very inconclusive. Councilor Moore pointed out that the answers to Question 7 indicated some confusion. Ms. Newton agreed that the respondent's support of renovating facilities over building new facilities did not indicate an understanding that before the city could renovate the library building for new city offices, they had to build a new building for the library. Ms. Newton commented that while the survey did not send an overwhelming message to the Council, it did indicate that they might want to look at the best use they could make of the existing facilities. Councilor Hunt said that he read the results as saying that the people were divided and without strong opinions; therefore, if the City presented the facts and figures well, the bond measure stood a good chance of passing. Councilor Moore pointed out that the answers to the first three questions showed a focus towards transportation improvements. Councilor Hunt mentioned .hat the respondents indicated that asking for a road bond a few years after the library bond would make no difference to their support of the road bond. Councilor Scheckla asked staff to find out how many people the consultants had to call in order to get 300 respondents. Ms. Newton mentioned Mr. Davis' note that while only 20% had heard about a possible facilities bond, 40% supported it. She agreed with Councilor Hunt's observation that educating the public as to the City's needs would be beneficial. Mr. Monahan noted that 80% of the respondents read the Cityscape, which meant that the newsletter was a valuable vehicle for disseminating information. Ms. Newton said that she learned at a seminar on surveys that in the Pacific Northwest bond measures did better when a lot of information was given to the voters. She cited the City's success in passing their tax base by focusing on providing information to the voters. The Council discussed how to proceed. Mayor Nicoli stated that the consensus of the Council was to move forward with the facilities bond. Councilor Scheckla asked to wait on the May 19 election results before developing a plan. Mr. Monahan noted the various people and groups invited to the May 26 study session on election law and procedures. He suggested holding a discussion at that time about the options for the bond. Mayor Nicoli suggested asking others from the community to join in that discussion to generate CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 10 additional ideas. Councilor Hunt commented that they needed to be careful that they did not send a message to their committee that the Council was not interested in their recommendation but wanted other people's opinions. Mr. Monahan suggested a discussion between the Council and the Space Committee (following the election law discussion) regarding what to do and how to proceed. He noted that the Committee could suggest other people to include in the discussion. Ms. Newton commented that the Space Committee had been uncomfortable being only four people to work on this issue. Mayor Nicoli asked what the timeline was to get the measure on the ballot. Ms. Newton reviewed the staff requirements and County Election Office deadlines. Staff needed the ballot title finalized by August 1 I in order to meet the filing deadline of September 3. > Miscellaneous d Councilor Hunt and Moore mentioned the good comments they have received regarding the Cityscape. ® Councilor Moore reported that, as a PGE official, he met with Bruce regarding the Festival lighting. He said that they were looking to put in permanent power in the park, commenting that he hoped that that became part of the park plan. The Council discussed the power needs at Cook Park. Mayor Nicoli reported that he told staff to study the overall electrical needs of the park before running power to the two new gazebos, and to develop a plan. Ms. Newton said that PGE informed her that the City might be eligible for funding from the business program called "Betsy" that was sunsetting in 1999. Councilor Hunt suggested informing the Budget Committee of the capital expenditures contemplated for the park. Mayor Nicoli agreed that it would be good to inform the Budget Committee regarding the Council's intent to aggressively pursue the purchase of land and pathways, as well as the water matter. ® Mr. Monahan advised the Council that he saw no reason to hold his annual review on the new May 15 review date, as they had just held it on the old November date. The Council agreed. e Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling June 2 for a meeting to review the Council ground rules and rules of staff. The Council agreed. ® Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Monahan saw any problem with him attending the downtown business owners' meeting tomorrow night. Mr. Monahan encouraged Councilor Moore to attend and reinforce the City's role as a resource rather than as a facilitator. Ms. Newton said that she thought that the business owners would like a Councilor to attend. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Cit;, would assist the downtown merchants financially. Mr. Monahan mentioned that there was still $27,000 left of the $50,000 Council allocated to the downtown merchants four years ago. He explained that Mr. Hendryx included $50,000 in his budget for next year because of the discussions during the Visioning process of hiring a consultant but that money was simply a placeholder. ® Mr. Monahan encouraged the Councilors to attend the water meeting at the high school, noting that the Oregon Environmental Council sent out information about the meeting to people outside of the Tigard area. Councilor Hunt commented that they were finding that half of the Tigard CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 11 O residents have lived in the city for less than 10 years. The residents have lived in areas that got water from worse places than the Willamette River, and therefore were not as concerned about it as were the long time Tigard residents who were fed the story that they had to have Bull Run water. Mayor Nicoli said that he intended to snake opening remarks at the meeting to inform those present that Tigard had a strong record of being environmentally conscious, and intended to move forward in the future with the same commitment it has shown in the past. Councilor Hunt commented that no one disagreed on the need for water, the issue lay in fish habitat. Mayor Nicoli said that he would let the technical people deal with that issue. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Record r a r, City of igard ate: ~CZ,~I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1998 - PAGE 12 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Leoal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice T't' 9120 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd, • Tigard , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit oAccounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I_ Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theT? Bard-Ti,a l ati.n Ti.meS a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti qa rc3 in the aforesaid county and state; that the ci ty Oniint- j 1vleeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ontire issue of said newspaper fo ONlti successive and consecutive in the following issues: May 7,1998 _ Subscribed and sworn to befo me this7t-h r;ay of Play 998 OFFICIAL SEAL. 04otary Public for Oregon R06 A. BURGESS 4,0 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO, 062071 AFFIDAVIT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 IU 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. TIGARRD CrI Y COUNCIL AND LOCAL. CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING May 12, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Proposed Ordinance: Concerning Drinking of Alcohol in Public • Continuation of Public Hearing: Dartmouth Local Improvement Dis- trict (7:30 p.m.) • Continuation of Public Hearing: Raz Transportation Appeal "Partial Revocation" (Director's Interpretation Modification) • Update: Visioning Program ® Executive Session M120 - Publish May 7, 1998. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - VISITORS AGENDA, D ATE < May 12, 1995 (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. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED -T-V- 54} S-tDaMO f Am 3Er15o~ T1C-Ac~~ RP-MEE:94' Carl loess- SL-> Bs M~iZK~-ti- I Jka~s~ TI e.in 7~a3 l AadmUolvisitaht.doo p 12,1998 r7AGE...,TEIVI.O. - VISITOR"S AGENDA- PAGE 2. DATE-. (limited to 2 minutes or loss, 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. STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED i Aadm\jo\visitsht.doc 1~1)eDending on the cumber of person wishing to testigy, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We asap you to 16u;t yoitw o al. a -rents to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written continents are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - RAZ TRANSPORTATION APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION RELATED TO THE STATUS OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Sneaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) i 1M. U, e~uui cam aL ~O.^.e We. II Njkme, Address nd Ph l ~Se , ~t. "Awn Aodcl~ so) qv~ IV 31 Name, Address and Phone No. N , Address and Phone No. WA Xt 2 4MA N kw-\,AY \S"-J\~P600 1Ol~L~ SvJ 95qe$-jiR- ~G.nO \<2\ SU-) 5a\wo' C( -7 2. )l L~ ICO Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. lob oa S~ °Z6 -PL, 9 'i-two -M Name, Address and Phone No. Name, dress and Phone No. S cowl /t s Poe /a., L p ?72Zo 25--64" Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. C, G Ell O rG kc --CL 11 00 Ov`a ACA,(CL C-e- t01 S VV AkCAIVI St. Por-~ ~ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Proponent (3 akin in Favor) Opponent (S eakin A ainA) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. I Name, Address and Phone No. I, Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. is\adm\jo\testify.dos T-~ MEMORANDUM viii' O!= TiGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: May 5, 1998 SUBJECT: City Facilities Expansion Phone Poll Results Attached is a one page memo from Adam Davis of the polling firm Davis and Hibbitts that conducted the phone poll regarding expansion of city facilities. The memo summarizes key points regarding the survey results. Also attached is a copy of the survey results. Staff will be prepared to discuss the information with council during a study session before or after the business portion of the meeting on May 12, or at the workshop meeting of May 19, whichever is the preference of council. May 05 98 09.52a Adam Davis 503 220 0576 p.2 MCA Davis & ibbnrts, Inc. Market and PuNi_ Opinion 'RcSaurch 921 S.W. Morison, Suite 424, Portland, OR 97205 Phone (505) 220-0575. FAX 220-0576 e-mail: davishib*fta.eom May 4, 1998 TO: City of Tigard FR: Davis &.1- iibbitts, Inc. RE: Survey Results Attached are the results of a telephone survey conducted by Davis & Hibbitts, Inc. to assess public attitudes of regib2ered voters within the City of Tigard. The survey was conducted between April 22*4 and 20, 1998 and averaged 9-11 minutes in length. The sample size for the survey was 300. • Voters in the City of Tigard are about evenly split on the merits of a bond measure for nrw c,ty facilities. • People who had heard or read about plans for new city facilities were more likely to vote for the bond measures, but only 21% of the respondents actually reported hearing or reading anything. At the same time, 80% said they read Cit ca e. • A strong majority (64%) of participants felt city facilities are adequate for providing services to the community now and in the future. Respondents were not specifically asked about the library. • Voters were more supportive of "renovating" facilities than paying for new buildings. ® The $17 million measure maybe snore strongly supported in part because it provides for a new police building. Along with transportation improvements, police services were rated most in need of additional financial resources at this time. • Library services were rated the highest value for the tax dollars invested, followed by police services, city park and recreation services, and transportation improvements. • Traffic congestion/traffic control was the biggest issue which respondents felt their city government should do something about. 't'here is strong support for improving city streets. It did not seem to matter if the respondents supported or opposed a facilities measure this year; a majority ofhoth groups. said they would be more likely to vote for a street improvements measure in a future year. • These findings do not reflect the demographics of'l'igard's general population; rather. they represent the. demographics of motivated voters who are older and more likely to be home owners. May 04 s6 06:36a Adam Davis 503 220 0576 P•8 Kati is arc Hibbitts, inc. Tigard Survey - April 1998 Q 1. Wbat would you say is the biggest issue in Tigard that you feel your city government should do sornething about'? (Open, probe for the os biggest issue.) Traffic congestion - 35% O Growth, population - I 1 4 Roads - 9 _ Education - 7 • Crime 6 ,Vota:.Addihonal ropnntat found in computcr tablam 92. I'd like to read you a list of services provided by city government- Using a 0 to 10 scale, "lure 0 represents very poor value, and 10 represents very good value for the tax dollars invested in them, please tell me where you would rate each service. You can use any number between 0 and 10. (Rotate) a) Police services - 7.77 b) Transportation improvements - 5.01 c) Library services - 7.93 d) City park and recreation services - 6.77 Q3. Let me read you that list again. After I do, please tell me which one service is most in need of additional financial resources at this time. 1. police services 33% 2. transportation improvements - 39 3. library services - 5 4. city park and recreation services - 13 9. DKINR - 10 Q4. Let me read you that list again. Which one service is j%Md rnog in need of additional financial resources at this time. 1. police services - 25% 2. transportation improvcments - 22 3. library services - 16 4. city parle. and recreation services - 23 9, DK/NR - 14 Q5. Have you heard or read anything about plans for new city facilities in Tigard? 1. yes-31% 2.no-78 9. DK/NR - I Q6. Would you say that Tigard's city facilities are adequate for providing services to the community now and in the future: yes strongly, yes somewhat, no somewhat. or no strongly? 1. yea strongly 24% 2. yes somewhat - 40 3. no somewhat - 20 4. uu YlrG n-4 y - 6 a. DK/NR - l0 1 Matt 04 BB 06:3Ga Adam Davis 503 220 0576 P.9 Q. 7. There has been some consideration given recently to placing a measure on the ballot this fall related to city facilities. The measure could provide for additional spaco for library, police, and other sty services to alleviate overcrowding and meet growing service demand levels. Let me read you some specific elements of a possible measure. For each, please tell me if you would strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strengly disapprove of that patticular part of the measure. Keep in mind that to iruplemeat that part of the measure would mean a tax increase of some kind. (Rotate) STRONGLY MM-EWHAT SOINIEWHAT STRONGLY APPROVE APPROVE DISAPPROVE DISAPPROVE DK/NR PERCENTAGES a) Build a new library 20 28 26 20 6 b) Renovate the existing librwy to meet demands for other city services 29 38 14 10 9 c) Build a new police building 16 21 26 22 l5 d) Renovate the existing pollee building for planting and building services 22 39 14 9 16 Now, I'd like to ask you about a specific ballot measure, SPLIT SAMPLE 3a. (SUBSAMPLE A) In November, you may be asked to vote on a treasure to issue bonds for anew library and police building in Tigard and to remodel city buildings to alleviate overcrowding and meet growing service demand levels for other city services. It is estimated that the total amount raised from the measure would be $17 mullion, and would cost the owner of a $150,000 hone about $69 per year. As of today, would you vote for or against a measure like that? 1. for - 43% 2. against - 47 9. DK/NR -11 3b. (If DK Q83) Well, would you lean towards supporting or lean towards opposing, a measure like that? (n=16) 1. lean support - 25% 2. lean oppose - 25 9. DK/NR - 50 vote results tivulr leaners 1. for - 45% 2. against- 49 9. DK/NR - 5 2 tray 04 9e 0e337a Adam Davis 503 220 0575 P.10 v, 9a. (SUBSANAPLE B) In November, you may be asked tc vote on a measure to issuc bonds for a new library iii Tigard aril to remodel city buildings to alleviate overcrowding and moat growing service demand levels for other city services. It is estimated that the total amount raised from the measure would be $10 million, and would cost the owner of a $150,000 home about &40.50 per year. As of today, would you vote for or again a measure like that? 1. for - 37% ( 2. against - 45 9. Dk/NR - 17 09b. (If DK Q9a) Well, would you lean towards supporting or lean towards opposing a mensure like that? (ng2ti) 1. lean support - 35% 2. lean oppose - 23 9. DK/NR - 42 vote results with leaders 1. for - 43% a against - 49 9. DK/NR - 7 Q. 10. Sometime in the next 2 to 5 years, the City of Turd may also put a measure to improve city streets before the voters. If the City chooses to put the city facilities measure 1 just mentioned on the ballot this year, would you be more or less likely to vote for a street improvement measure in a future year? 1. More likely - 65% 2 l .ass likely 19 3. No difference (volunteered) -14 4. Refused - 2 Ql 1. And now, a few questions for statistical purposes only. What is your age, please? 1. 18-34 -12% 2. 35-=4 - 42 3. 55-~ - 46 Q12. How long have you lived in Tigard? 1. 0-10 years - 521% 2. 11-20 years - 24 3. 21Y - 24 Q13. Do you rent or own your home? 1 rent - 22% 2. own - 73 Q14. Do you have children living in your household that attend K-12 public schoo;s? 1. yes - 2&n 2. no - 74 i Q15. Within the past three years, have you visited the library, police, or city offices on i 3125 SW Hall? i 1. yes - 78% no - 22 3 04/06/1998 11:06 00000000000 METROWEST AMBULANCE PAGE 01 VEBULANCE S T P.O. Box 1635 H1113boro, Oregon 57123.1635 648-6658 alammm, May 19- 23, 1998 s To the City of ank you for placing a Metro West Ambulance representative on the agenda for the May 1998 City Council Meeting. As promised I have enclosed a copy of the Proclamation text that will be read and presented by our representative. Our representative will come prepared with a few remarks and a plaque to present to the Council. I would really appreciate it if you can send me a copy of the agenda ahead of time so that we can plan accordingly. If possible I would like to know the approximate time the Proclametion(s) will begin. Thank you again for your assistance. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Elsa ansen Public Relations & Mazketing, Assistant Phone 648-6658, zt. 148 04/06/1998 11:06 00000000000 METROWEST AMBULANCE PAGE 62 TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK Of MAY 17.33, 1998 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Whereas, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and Whereas, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and Whereas, emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and Whereas, emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, para- medics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and Whereas, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services providers are volunteers; and Whereas, the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and Whereas, Americans benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of ihese highly trained individuals, and Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and Whereas, injury prevention and the appropriate use of the EMS system will help reduce national health care costs; and Now, therefore, I [name, title, city, state] in recognition of this event do hereby proclaim the week of May 11-23,1998 as EIAERGEMCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. Date Signed by Attested by Mince soul beret ONE Agenda Item No. ±i a CL MEMORANDUM MWing of . la G g ~V.v., ~V rr>< ..1 1 1 I-~ un 7 . c~R rOr~ Va• a TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Manager DATE: May 5,1998 SUBJECT: COUNCIL. CALENDAR, May - July 1998 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. May 11 Mon Budget Committee Meeting - Tigard Water Building (6:30 p.m.) *12 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 21 Thurs Budget Committee Meeting - Tigard Water Building (6:30 p.m.) 25 Mon Memorial Day - City Offices Closed * 26 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting June 1 Mon Budget Committee Meeting - Tigard Water Building (6:30 p.m.) *9 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 12-14 Fri- Sun Tigard Festival of Balloons - Cook Park *16 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) n4 23 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting Ju 3 Fri Fourth of July Holiday - City Offices Closed 4 Sat Old Fashioned 4th of July - Tigard High School *14 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *28 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 1:\adm\cathy\cound1\ccca1.doc ~easi~eSs Tigard Council Tentative Agenda 06123191 - 0611619$ ~torkSbuQ I?ue~ 6111 $it511ie55 study W_ ion 0610919- Bue: 614 Code e: 5128 Review of Housing S $usineSS Gpdatuj 5l5190~ 05126t98- Bit orkS T~k Force Recommendations CY► Btae 5114 session 05119,'9®... study 1 015 Bue: 517 study session udget PC, yVo~rlcshopT°P°~ Cathy) lnviteBlC ( 33 A Council Goal IJp to ( Board) Library I br, _'t:00Pm• Training by City G1T R'- Posts - 6:45 p.m' Atty• elections 30-45 Tub`- ® (L;~Newton) (D GrMPaces Update ee (Jim l..endtYx " D°~e Consent Agenda Roberts) tdentiftcat1°ns of t Trecs process - enda Consent Ag (3~m Ilendr9x) n°ns rlake Report Consent Agenda S~te OP concerns ou nt-mtenanCe (Ed Weer) business lVieeting to Rate e Results W as DiscI;,ss Sure Y W aclcshop Topics pub.Hrg.Saud 06123 Or T t 14) ewton) ce ent {Z'~ (slide v ecting esolutio ►IGrdi11 Adjustor Update ess Mentor (Wegner) Out M R Batley) et Hearing Review (Cathy Budg Meeting free annexations u dak) by sensation) H j Otes Business Julia ACA _ presentation 15 ')D mm Ordinance Jim HendrYX aatey (20 min.) D,nouth a d ; ZCA 98.0005 Iohnsonl Paula M wing a sho tion (Wa`m t Annexadon 629-g534 (willbe h Exer.5~s Edwards' Considera thBrefore, sould Re= Chuck Corr►gan) OZCA 9%-(,006 Lehman video, RolTertFtani Summerlalte Options- aation Gus Duen as 92nd StreetlCoral Street be accessabteR.Gp°rt on L~tt° Actionltem ( Aesthetics - EdWegner) Annexa9g0 0j T u rner gegulationsof eating - 3. ZCA Wrisdictions -continued ubl ic ti Annexatio P n 00 arch 24 meeting. a Change ort on Grant from Street Na Phase 2) ash Sq. -Rep (Jim Hendryx) ark Ron G (ppplewd P W ending { 2 Subdivislo") at PC on eavill 5 Streets Update: Pub• Fab' Plan (Gus Duenas) AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 12. 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUN MARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award Contract for the Construction of 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault PREPARED BY: Mike Miller DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _V-/ ISSUE BEFORE TBE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for the construction of a 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Local Contract Review Board award the contract to DaNeal Construction Incorporated. INFORMATION SUMMARY In July 1997, a 24-inch water valve failed on the supply line from the City of Portland located on SW Tiedeman Street. During the repair of the valve it was discovered that the existing valve had a working pressure class rating of 150 psi instead of the required 250 ;psi rating. Since our summer supply plan hinges heavily upon the ability to regulate the water flow to our terminal reservoir during off peak times, in order to keep our water rates from Portland low, we are requesting that a new 24-inch control valve and vault be installed. This will not only allow us to regulate water flow from Portland to the terminal reservoir through our SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system, but it will also enable us to operate the valve remotely. One of the immediate benefits of being able to remotely operate the valve is that we will not be required to send a crew out in the middle of the night to open and close valves to adjust flows. The Engineer's estimate for this project is $85,000 to $95,000. Five bids were opened and read aloud on April 27, 1998 and are as follows: DaNeal Construction, Inc. $89,915.60 Copenhagen Utilities & Construction, Inc. $95,931.00 HPS Construction, Inc. $105,457.00 Marshall Associated Contractors, Inc. $105,835.00 WG Moe & Sons $106,805.00 References have been checked for the low bidder, DaNeal Construction, Inc. Their references and pre- qualification letter indicate a good work record for the company on similar projects. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Continue to operate the valves manually and run the risk of another valve failure. We believe that the remaining valves downstream of the valve that failed are also 150 psi class water valves. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CONBUTTEE STRATEGY This project is in compliance with Urban and Public Services Goal #4, to actively participate in regional development of water sources. The control valve allows us to utilize existing pipeline capacities from Portland d►iring off-peak ti.+nes more emcientiy and effectively. FISCAL NOTES The funding source for this project is the Water Capital Improvement Fund 15-6270-755.100. is eiWMda\sw=dot MM Murray Siihl & associates, hc. F,lgineers~Planners 121 SN. Salmon, Suiie 1020 Podand, Oregon 9"2N PHONE 503.22i•9010 RX 503.225.9022 94-0310.303 April 30, 1998 Mr. Mike Miller Utility Manager City of Tigard 12800 S.W. Ash Ave Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault - Award of Contract for Construction Dear Mike: We have reviewed the bids for the construction of the above referenced project, opened April 27, 1998. We recommend award to DaNeal Construction, Inc. for the bid price of $89,915.60. DaNeal Construction, Inc. had been qualified to submit bid proposals per Addendum No. 1 of the contract documents and is the apparent low bidder. Please find enclosed DaNeal Construction, Inc.'s pre-qualification letter which describes their experience in this type of work. Recently they completed the S.W. Benchview Place Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewerage Reconstruction project that involved repairing utilities which were damaged by a significant landslide and required specialized construction details and trench excavation constraints. DaNeal Construction, Inc.'s original bid and bid bond are enclosed and appear to be complete and responsive. DaNeal Construction, Inc. did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 on his bid form. Tim Ramis, the City's attorney agrees that waiving this as an informality is appropriate since it has no bearing on price, time or changes to the work and is allowed under paragraph 17.1 in the Instruction to Bidders of the Contract Documents. Enclosed, also, is a bid tabulation spreadsheet comparing all the bids and the engineer's estimate, a copy of the agreement and extra copies of the contractor's bid and bid bond for your records. Mr. Mike Miller April 30, 1998 Page 2 Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments concerning our recommendation and the enclosed material. Sincerely, MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Jeff S. ones, .E. Civil Engineer Enclosure JSJ:jsj cc: Dave Erickson (DaNeal Construction, Inc.) 1J.W"U 'PRG1ECfS1W1"3 1n.',0M e.Mihe J•29.9A doe - - lsiu~ai; Smith &I~ociales, Ins. SID OPENING RECORD EnoiisP)alIl ffs Date: _ April 27 1998 Time: PM EN 1alS~Sssael~o P~a2BS90►0 Project No.: 94-0310.203 pu 97201 sz M912 Project Name: 24-inch Diameter Control Valve Vault Cit of Ti and Owner: Location: Cit Water De artment BIDDER BID AMOUNT COMMENTS Copenhagen Utilities & Construction, Inc. $95,931.00 DaNeal Construction, Inc. $89,915.60 Apparent Low Bidder BPS Construction, Inc. $105,457.00 Marshall Associated Contractors, Inc. $105,835.00 W.G. Moe & Sons $106,805.00 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $85,000 to $95,000 • F: PROJL'CIM94\0310.1URFORM.MID OVENINGDOC ~gl r.. - EMW AGENDA ITEM -5 FOR AGENDA OF, r 1_ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE New Ordinance - Public Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage PREPARED BY: Ron Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before Council is the adoption of this new ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed Public Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the direction of Council after the work study session last week, this is coming back to the Council for adoption. At the work study session last week, Council also requested an enforcement policy that would accompany it for their review. Attached is the proposed Public Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance and also a draft Department enforcement policy. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not approving the ordinance. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This issue also falls under Goal #1 cf the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow visioning process. The goal is "The community residents, business owners, and service providers will form partnerships to effectively enhance public safety and emergency service." This type of issue, drinking in public, does effect the livability issue of the downtown area and several residential and apartment areas we have, and I believe the adoption of this new ordinance would directly address this specific goal and would enhance our general public safety. FISCAL NOTES The adoption of this ordinance would create minor additional work load for the court clerk and judge in adjudicating citations that are issued, and it is not expected that any additional moneys would be needed in those budget areas because of this ordinance. We do not anticipate a tremendous amount of these types of citations being written and will rely heavily on just the fact that the officers have it as a tool available which they do not have now which hopefully will stop the behavior. iAcitywide\uun.dot uniAr i TIGARD POLIO DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 98-XX TO: All Personnel PROM: Ronald D. Goodpaster Chief of Police DATE: April 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Drinking in Public Ordinance The purpose of this directive is to establish Tigard police policy on the enforcement of the newly adopted Public Consumption of Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance. This new Ordinance prohibits drinking alcoholic beverages in or upon any public place or premises open to the pubic unless the location has been licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. This does not include City parks. This is an infraction, and violators are to be cited in Tigard Municipal Court on a Citation to Appear in Court form. POLICY: It is the policy of the Tigard Police Department that the Drinking in Public Ordinance be used primarily as a last resort after other attempts to get adults to stop drinking in public have failed. If a person is drinking in public and under the influence and unable to take care of himself/herself, the proper course of action would be to follow the Department detoxification procedures. If you have any questions regarding this policy, contact your supervisor. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 5/12/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA LTLE. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow U1pdate PREPARED BY: Loree Mills/Liz Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive an update report on Tigard Beyond Tomorrow activities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. INFORMATION SUMMARY The community is now in its first year of accomplishing activity that will result in meeting our 20-year goals. The attached information highlights activity for the first quarter of this calendar year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY All target areas of concern for our citizens have been addressed over the last 3 months. FISCAL NOTES N/A i Acitywic'.^h :sion\5-I2rpt.cc ' IGARD BEYOND TOMORROW UPDATE 1998 - First QUarter Report TARGET AREA GOAD 4 TtC3 t THIS QClART R` Public Safety Area #1 The community residents, business a Selected citizen volunteer to owners, and service providers will form coordinate Neighborhood Watch partner-ships to effectively enhance Programs. public safety and emergency services. . Completed first Enhanced Security Program survey for an apartment complex in Tigard. #2 Develop long-term, stabla funding a Developing a data base to track sources to ensure efficient, calls for service from "regional uninterrupted public safety and population emergency services. #3 The community is trained and a Community education information is prepared for emergencies. currently being "tested" and reviewed. e Developing plan for joint "emergency" exercise with NF&R & City of Tualatin. Community Character #1 City will maximize the effectiveness a Hired Community Volunteer & Quality of Life of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the Coordinator, Susan Koepping. greatest good for our community. a Developed inventory of existing volunteer opportunities. #3 Provide opportunities to work a Revising parking regulations. proactively with Central Business District a Meeting with downtown business & (CBD) businesses and property owners property owners to begin and citizens of Tigard to set the course discussions about the areas future. for the future of the central downtown area. Growth & Growth #1 Accommodate growth while a Developing criteria for location of Management protecting the character and livability of accessory units in the CDC update. new and established areas. o Evaluating the infrastructure needs to accommodate infill, redevelop- ment and increased densities in the Public Facility Plan work. e Addressing planning and growth issues associated with the Regional Center with the creation of the Washington Square Task Force. #2 Urban services are provided to all a Council adopted a "passive" citizens within Tigard's urban growth annexation policy on 2/24/98 boundary and recipients of services pay (Resolution No. 98-16). their share. #3 The City encourages and supports a Housing Code Task Force was private sector programs to maintain created to address affordable diverse and affordable housing. housing issues in Tigard. 71 TARGET AREA (cont.) G®At.. (cont.) ACTIONS THIS QUtFtTlrR cont.)' _ ~t1 Cnhnnl$ anti city government will ® Community Volunteer Coordinator is ~cr~v®:~ Guu~q41~~~ work together to provide a community- working with School District based recreation activity program for Coordinator to maximize volunteer young people. resources. • City Library staff meeting with School Library staff to share ideas. Granted School $7,000 for enhanced security measures. School District was able to "match" this money from their insurance carrier. This targeted security needs at the middle & high schools). Transportation & #1 Improve traffic safety 0 Constructing more traffic calming Traffic devices on appropriate streets on a regular basis. • Created a Traffic Enforcement Compliant Board to target enforcement in areas of compliant. • Worked with School District to double fines in School Zones through the city. Urban & Public #1 Library will have a stable funding • Reviewing how to match needs and Services base for the provision of basic services. resources of both public and school libraries. 6 Evaluating possibility of sharing staff between the public library and the school media centers. #2 Create a special parks and • Conducted a successful Spring Break recreation district with the City of Tigard '98 Pilot Recreation Program at spearheading the process and School District facilities. maintaining membership for its citizens. d Developing a new Parks Master Plan which includes facility and open space inventory. ® Developing •a "garden project" for students at Mary Woodward School with School & City Parks staff. #4 Actively participate in regional • Joined consortium of water providers development of water sources and interested in the Willamette River as a adequate, innovative funding future source of drinking water. mechanisms to develop those sources C Hired Murray Smith to develop for Tigard users while exploring local preliminary engineering report and options for water reuse and implementation plan for developing a groundwater sources. water treatment facility on the Willamette. • Publish monthly Cityscape articles encouraging citizens to conserve and reuse the water resource. i/citywide/vision/98-1 stgt.cc AGEI~'D7 FOR - AGENDA OF v`aaY 12, 19'90 CrrY nF TTC,ARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Dartmouth Local Improvement District Public Hearing PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Close the hearing and deliberate toward findings for a proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff tc return with an ordinance for Council consideration on May 26, 1998. INFORMATION SAY At the Council meeting of April 14, 1998, the City Council left the record open in order to receive any additional information on this matter. Both the City Attorney and LID participants are likely to submit information into the record at the hearing. It is recommended that once the additional information is noted for the record that the public hearing be closed and that the City Council conduct its deliberations on the proposed assessments for the Dartmouth Local Improvement District. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY FISCAL NOTES Madmtcathy%daradoc p., ,y,_5' 1 r~r wO~r 4yN : F,-?'"~'i°,~4i'cr.7`t ? x Y+y mot' r A LAND DELIVERED AR 1^, 1 nnn l-~ T}'1 tvtay tom t>tio Mr. James Nicoli / /l~~ Mayor + City of Tigard e , Q e 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97224 Re: Dartmouth LID/Assessment Formula Hearing Our File No. 44708/26799 YN Y ? '".f 7 `zT'^yz,~,~ ' Dear Mayor Nicoli: '£yn s atis 4 ~ ~ t J s~4SFs; " ' f ~ss~ Enclosed are the following exhibits which are being submitted for the record in f; rr , 4r the Dartmouth LID Assessment Hearing. Included as Exhibit 97 is additional testimony of Jerry Palmer. % vial "a. f d~ Exhibit No. 52: Letter of January 16, 1994, from Charles Corrigan to Simmons, Keeney, Martin, Wilson, and Willis regarding meeting January 26, 1995 to discuss LID. 4 Exhibit No. 53: Letter of January 25, 1994, from Charles Corrigan to ,r t Simmons, Keeney, Martin, Wilson, and Willis regarding mediation and LID costs. F~.. Exhibit No. 54: Letter of December 5, 1994, from Charles Corrigan to Simmons, Keeney, Martin, Wilson, and Willis regarding getting together to discuss LID. ' royoxzs posnwrms Exhibit No. 55: Letter of February 3, 1995, from Douglass Hamilton to Gordon Martin regarding Confidentiality Agreement. Exhibit No. 56: Letter of March 8, 1995, from Paul Simmons to Corrigan, Davis, Graves, Keeney, Pollock, Martin, Willis, Wilson, 1g Wooley, and Christensen regarding settlement progress. 1. emaU: Exhibit No. 57: Letter of March 10, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Graves, Keeney, Martin, Martin, Montgomery, Pollock, Simmons, Stewart, and Wilson regarding meeting to discuss assessment 3 ` formula. Exhibit No. 58: Letter of March 23, 1995, from Charles Corrigan to Gordon S. Martin regarding possible amendment of City ordinance for Bancroft bonuing. } Exhibit No. 59: Letter of March 28, 1995, from Jeffrey Keeney to Ed Christensen regarding Costco concurrence to employ S Christensen. rt A Total Qualitv Management Organization , 'y tri~,~# r ~k & tr' n 16799 053 DVD lfr.doclAL10 511 1/9 8-3 3r ~.rJ FM7TTaar11ooww,q Jordan , Schrader ayor James Nicoli Page 2 Exhibit No. 60: Letter of March 30, 1995, from Randall Wooley to Ed Christensen regarding City's concurrence to employ Christensen. Exhibit No. 61: Letter of April 8, 1995, from Gordon S. Martin to William Monahan regarding Bancroft bonding for LID. Exhibit No. 62: Letter of April 18, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Alexander, Graves, Frank, Martin, Martin, Montgomery, Pollock, Simmons, Stewart, and Wilson regarding Pollack jury award. Exhibit No. 63: Letter of July 14, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Frank, Martin, Martin, Pollock, Simmons, and Wilson regarding cost of Christensen's work. Exhibit No. 64: Letter of October 18, 1995, from Charles Corrigan to Martins regarding purchase of Martin property. Exhibit No. 65: Letter of February 6, 1996, from Robert Ball to Charles Corrigan regarding Waremart's position. Exhibit No. 66: Letter of February 6, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Ed Christensen regarding review of Christensen's draft memo of January 22, 1996. Exhibit No. 67: Letter of February 16, 1996, from Paul Simmons to Gordon S. Martin regarding second LID. Exhibit No. 68: Letter of March 12, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Willis, Christensen, Martin, Keeney, and Ball regarding settlement agreement. Exhibit No. 69: Letter of March 12, 1996, from Donald Willis to Ball, Keeney, and Corrigan regarding settlement of first LID. Exhibit No. 70: Letter of March 13, 1996, from Donald Willis to Corrigan regarding Pollock conditions to settlement. Exhibit No. 71: Fax memo of March 14, 1996 from Gordon Martin to Charles Corrigan regarding Martin's agreement with settlement. Exhibit No. 72: Letter of March 21, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Willis, Christensen, Wilson, Keeney, Ball, and Martin regarding settlement of LID. 26799 053 DVD lindoclkt/05112198-3 Tarlow, Jordan & Schrader Mayor James Nicoli Page 3 Exhibit No. 73: Letter of March 22, 1996, from Donald Willis to Charles Corrigan regarding Pollock's positions on settlement. Exhibit No. 74: Letter of March 26, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Donald Willis regarding Christensen assessment issues. Exhibit No. 75: Leiter of April 5, 1996, from Jeffrey Keeney to Charles Corrigan regarding Costco settlement approval. Exhibit No. 76: Letter of April 11, 1996, from Robert Ball to Charles Corrigan regarding Waremart disagreements with Christensen's assessment formula. Exhibit No. 77: Letter of April 12, 1996, from Robert Ball to Charles Corrigan enclosing diagrams of net developable acreages. Exhibit No. 78: Letter of April 16, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Keeney, Martin, Willis, and Ball regarding meeting with property owners. Exhibit No. 79: Letter of May 1, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Judge Kantor regarding his efforts to effect an agreement among property owners. Exhibit No. 80: Letter of June 10, 1996, from Donald Willis to Chuck Corrigan regarding City's conditions to dismiss Pollock's appeal. Exhibit No. 81: Chart of June 19, 1996, LID formula comparison. Exhibit No. 82: June 28, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Keeney, Willis, Larpenteur, Martin, Ball, Simmons, Christensen, Pollock, and Davis, regarding mediation. Exhibit No. 83: Letter of July 23, 1996, from Martins to Mayor Nicoli regarding final assessment procedure for LID. Exhibit No. 84: Letter of July 25, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Martins regarding retaining a consultant to develop an assessment formula. Exhibit No. 85: Letter of July 25, 1996, from Martins to Charles Corrigan regarding Bancroft bonding. Exhibit No. 86: Letter of August 1, 1996, from Martins regarding Dartriouth ROW purchase and adoption of assessment formula. 26799 053 DVD ltr.docUt/0J11Z/98-3 'C'arlow, Jordan & Schrader Mayor James Nicoli Page 4 Exhibit No. 87: Letter of August 1, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Gordon S. Martin, regarding ROW acquisition and Bancroft bonding. Exhibit No. 88: Letter of August 1, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to John Wilson and Jack Graves regarding possible inclusion of Burgerville property in LID. Exhibit No. 89: Letter of September 18, 1996. from Charles Corrigan to property owners regarding development of assessment formula. Exhibit No. 90: Letter of October 14, 1996, from Martins to Mayor Nicoli regarding assessment related issues and formulas. Exhibit No. 91: Letter dated November 5, 1996, from Charles E. Corrigan to property owners regarding assessment formulas. Exhibit No. 92: Letter dated March 21,1997, from Charles E. Corrigan to property owners regarding Harper Righellis' Assessment Analysis Report. Exhibit No. 93: Letter dated April 3, 1997, from Martins to Chuck Corrigan regarding acquisition and assessment formulas. Exhibit No. 94: Letter of May 21, 1997, from Martins to Tigard City Council regarding the Martins' acceptance of City of Tigard's offer dated April 17, 1997. Exhibit No. 95: Letter of May 280, 1997, from Charles Corrigan to Gordon R. Martin regarding initiation of condemnation proceedings. Exhibit No. 96: Letter of September 19, 1997, from Charles Corrigan to Douglas V. Van Dyk regarding settlement of condemnation issue. Exhibit No. 97: Additional testimony of Jerry Palmer regarding the zone v. area methodology comparison. MAPS AND CHARTS Exhibit No. 98: Map 1 (zone method of assessment) Exhibit No. 99: Map 2 - Noting properties excluded from LID Boundary Exhibit No. 100: Map 4 - Location of residences. Exhibit No. 101: Ordinance 84-18, Sections 1 & 2 26799 053 DVD 1rr.docls1U105/12/98-3 Tarlow, Jordan & Schrader Mayor James Nicoli Page 5 Exhibit No. 102: Ordinance 88.08, Title, Sections 1, 4 & 5 Exhibit No. 103: The Engineers Report Revised on 4-20-88 Exhibit No. 104: Minutes of 4/11/88 City Council Meeting (excerpt) Exhibit No. 305: Letter dated 1/9/89 from R. Wooley to Bruce Kelly Exhibit No. 106: Harper Righellis - proposal (Assessment Map) Exhibit No. 107: Chart - Gross Assessment Under Original "Zone Method" ® Exhibit No. 108: Chart - Gross Assessment Under Harper Righellis Method Exhibit No. 109: Chart - Net Assessment Under Original "Zone Method" Exhibit No. 110: R.A. Wright Engineering Map "Exhibit A" Exhibit No. 111: Chart - Net Assessment Under Harper Righellis Method Exhibit No. 112: Gross Assessment Distribution If Total Areas Of Waremart and Costco Are Included. Exhibit No. 113: Map 3 Exhibit No. 114: Book - Quoted from A. Brockman Chapter 13 - Special Assessments re: Frontage Footage Method. (excerpt) Exhibit No. 115: Brockman Book - Area Method (excerpt) Exhibit No. 116: Brockman Zone Method (excerpt) Exhibit No. 117: ORS 223.415 (excerpt) Exhibit No. 118: Adopting the Formula - Dames v. The City Counsel (excerpt) The maps and charts (Exhibits 98 though 118) have already been introduced in the record. They are mounted on large boards and will be retained at our offices until the City notifies us that they are to be delivered at City Hall. This is my understanding from a discussion ~xith Chuck Corrigan. 26799 053 DVD Itr.dOclsfu/05//2/98-3 °Tariow, Jordan & Schrader Mayor James Nicoli Page 6 Also enclosed is a revised listing of exhibits previously entered in to the record. Previous lists contained an overlap of numbers 43 through 45. Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER 41t4 )l A Douglas V. Van Dyk Enclosures cc w/enc: Gordon R. Martin cc: Robert Ball, Esq. (Via Facsimile 295-1058) Charles R. Corrigan, Esq. (Via Facsimile 243-2944) Jeff Keeney, Esq. (Via Facsimile 972-3725) 26799 053 DVD la.doclrkt/OS//2N8-3 RECORD OF EXIBITS DARTMOUTH LID ASSESSMEN'T' HEARING MARCH 17, 1998 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF GORDON R. MARTIN AND GORDON S. MARTIN Delivered March 12,.1998: Exhibit No. 1: Binder containing: Tab 1: Written testimony of Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin, dated March 17, 1998. Tab 2. Legal Analysis Regarding Change to Dartmouth LID Assessment Method, by Douglas V. Van Dyk, submitted on behalf of Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Mzrtin, dated March 17, 1998. Tab 3. Jerry M. Palmer, Review of the Dartmouth LID Assessment Analysis Report, dated March 7, 1998. Tab 4. Kent W. Cox, letter dated March 9, 1998, regarding change to Dartmouth LIT.) method of assessment. Tab 5. Christensen Engineering, letter dated March 12, Y)98, regarding citywide benefits of Dartmouth LID. Tab 6. Specific grounds for abjection to proposed assessments. Delivered March 17,1998: Exhibit No. 2: January 1982, Financing Local Improvements By Special assessments, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, School of Community Service and Public Affairs, University of Oregon, in cooperation with League of Oregon Cities Association of Oregon Counties, pages iii - iv and pages 13-27. Exhibit No. 3: February 14, 1984, Revised Engineer's Report on Dartmouth Extension Street Local Improvement District. Exhibit No. 4: 1984 Map prepared by R.A. Wright showing Assessment Zones. Exhibit No. 5: April 23, 1984, letter from Charles D. Ruttan, attorney for the Martin family, to Mayor and City Council, City of Tigard, regarding objections to assessment. 26799 037 DVD doc.doclrfs105112198.3J Exhibit No. 6: July 3,1984, Respondent [City of Tigard's] Motion for Summary Judgment, Martin a City of Tigard, Washington County Circuit Court Case No. 34-05170. Exhibit No. 7: August 13,1984, Supplemental Return to the Writ of Review, and Return to the Writ of Review, dated June 13, 1984, and documents described therein. Exhibit No. 8: February 26, 1986, Appeal file--Martin v City of Tigard, including Opening Brief and Reply Brief. Exhibit No. 9: April 15, 1987, Charter of the City of Tigard (Amendments through November 4, 1986). Exhibit No. 10: Resolution No. 87-103 (invitin4 public testimony and comment on Dartmouth LID and to determine the need for and scope of a curative - hearing dated July 13, 1987). Exhibit No. 11: July 21, 1987, letter from Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer, to property owners. Exhibit No. 12: March 15, 1988, letter from City of Tigard, Randall R. Wooley, acting director, Community Development Department, to property owners regarding March 28, 1988 hearing. Exhibit No. 13: March 21, 1988, Engineer's Report on Dartmouth Extension Street Local Improvement District. Exhibit No. 14: March 31, 1988, Council Agenda Item Summary. Exhibit No. 15: April 20, 1988, Engineer's Report on Dartmouth Extension Street Local Improvement District. Exhibit No. 16: January 9,1989, letter from Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer, to Planmark. Exhibit No. 17: February 13,1989, deposition of Robert A. Wright, page 91. Exhibit No. 18: November 6, 1990, Ballot Measure 5, official 1990 general voter's pamphlet. Exhibit No. 19: February 15, 1993, Complaint, City of Tigard v Donald E. Pollock, et al. (Condemnation of Real Property). Exhibit No. 20: December 8, 1993, Final Order No. 93-17PC, Final Order Approving Application for Commercial Retail Building by Costco. Exhibit No. 21: June 10, 1996, letter from Gordon R. Martin and :Gordon S. Martin to Mayor Jim Nicoli regarding review and investigation of the assessment process for the Dartmouth LID. 26799 03- DVD doe.docIrA105//2/98.3) Exhibit No. 22: July 23, 1996, letter from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin to Mayor Jim Nicoli regarding final assessment procedure for Dartmouth LID. Exhibit No. 23: September 16, 1996, Assessment Analysis Services Contract between City of Tigard and Harper Righellis, Inc. Exhibit No. 24: October 14, 1996, letter from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin to Mayor Nicoli regarding Assessment Related Issues. Exhibit No. 25: October 28,1996, letter from Harper Righellis, Inc. to Charles E. Corrigan with attached draft report. Exhibit No. 26: :`.March 7, 1997, Harper Righellis, Assessment Analysis Report--Review Version. Exhibit No. 27: January 15, 1998, Cost Summary for Dartmouth LID (attached to Affidavit of Douglas Van Dyk). Exhibit No. 28: January 16, 1998, letter from Gordon R. Martin to Tigard City Council. Exhibit No. 29: January 20, 1998, Council Agenda. Exhibit No. 30: Transcript of Hearing regarding Dartmouth's LID assessments dated January 20, 1998 (tape). Exhibit No. 31: February 17,1998, Council Agenda. Exhibit No. 32: February 17,1998, Council Agenda Item Summary, Agenda Item No. 6, adopting the proposed assessments for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District and establishing a date for a public hearing. Exhibit No. 33: February 17, 1998, Resolution No. 98-11 (adopting the proposed assessments, directing that notice be sent, and establishing a public hearing date). Exhibit No. 34: February 18,1998, Notice of Public Hearing for Dartmouth LID Proposed Assessments (Tax Lot 2S11BA100). Exhibit No. 35: February 18, 1998, Notice of Public Hearing for Dartmouth LID Proposed Assessments (Tax Lot 2SHBA401). Exhibit No. 36: February 18, 1998, Notice of Public Hearing for Dartmouth LID Proposed Assessments (Tax Lots 2SllBA101 and 2S11BA300). Exhibit No. 37: February 24, 1998, Resolution No. 98-17 adopting the proposed assessments and directing that notice be sent to benefited property owners, and establishing a public hearing for the Dartmouth LID (supersedes Resolution No. 98-11 to correct Exhibit A that listed property owners on the assessment roll that were exempted by Ordinance No. 84-17). 26799 03' DVD doc.docIrIV03112198.3] e Exhibit No. 38: March 16,1998, Revised Dartmouth LID Assessment Roll, with correspondence from Charles R. Corrigan to representatives of property owners. Exhibit No. 39: March 17, 1998, letter from Douglas V. Van Dyk to Mayor and Council objecting to new assessment roll. Exhibit No. 40: March 17,1998, Council Agenda. Exhibit No. 41: March 17, 1998, Council Agenda Item Summary, Agenda Item No. 5. Exhibit No. 42: Resume of Kent W. Cox. Exhibit No. 43: Financing Local Improvements by Special Assessment, by Glenn W. Fisher, pages 16 - 46. Exhibit No. 44: Current Wetland Delineations for Costco property, Martin property, Waremart property and Pollock property. Exhibit No. 45: Current Tigard Triangle Zoning Classifications (1998). Delivered April 2, 1998 Exhibit No. 46: January 18, 1996 facsimile Memorandum from Waremart (Gordon E. Davis, Consultant) to Ed Christensen. Exhibit No. 47: August 25, 1993 Waremart Waiver (Non-Remonstrance Agreement) regarding Second Dartmouth LID). Exhibit No. 48: March 25, 1993, WaremartlSupervalu Development Approval, Final Order No. 93-05 PC Exhibit No. 49: Martin's Reply to Waremart regarding Change to Dartmouth LID Assessment Method. Exhibit No. 50: Jerry M. Palmer, Dartmouth LID: Rebuttal to Robert Ball and Gordon Davis' Written Submissions. Exhibit No. 51: Kent W. Cox & Associates - Letter dated April 6,1998, to Mayor Nicoli & Council regarding response to letter from Robert S. Ball. 26"99 03- DVD doc.dnclrlc/05//2/9R•JJ o' o , O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRA.CH J.:.°F H. BACHI ACH CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoye SoccYi 181 N. Grant. Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH (503) 266-1149 DOLrrutC• COLLETPA" TELEPHONE: (S03) 222-4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN" FAX: (503) 243-2;44 STEPHEN F. CREW GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE G. FRANK HAMMOND* MALCOLM E. JOHNSON MALCOLM E. JOHNSON* First Independent Place MARK P O'DONNELL 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER January 16, 1994 (206) 699-7287 TY K WYMAN FAX:(206) 696-2051 BY FAX AND MAIL J /ES M. COLEMAN • ALSO ADWr= TO "Acne W WASMMON SP." C-d ADWrrW To MAcna W CALMMNu ONLY Mr. Paul A. Si ons Mr. John Wilso Waremart The Holland, nc. P.O. Box 12669 109 W. 17t St. Salem, or gon 97309 Vancouver WA 98660 Jeffre H. Keeney, Esq. Donald oe Willis, Esq. Tonko Torp Galen Marmaduke & Schwa , Williamson & Wyatt Boot 1600 800 Pacwest Center 160 Pioneer Tower 121 SW 5th Ave. 8 SW 5th Ave. Por land, OR 97204 tland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: This will confirm that we will be meeting on Thursday, January 26, 1995 at 3:00 p.m. in the Tigard Civic Center to discuss the Dartmouth Local Improvement District. The city thanks your clients (who are certainly invited as well) and companies for taking the time to see if we can bring this project to resolution by agreement among all the parties. If you have any specific questions you would like to address, please let me know and I will make sure they are on the agenda. I envision the discussion focusing on (1) the costs of the LID to date; (2) the potential additional costs (i.e., those associated with the additional right-of-way acquisitions) and; (3) the spreading of the LID costs among the benefited properties. If you/your clients determine that it might be worthwhile to pursue the LID assessment determinations by consensus among the effected property owners, the City has tentatively retained the services of a mediator to provide assistance as requested. The City is willing 5a o~ r o O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN tit BACHRACH jaRuary 11, 1995 Page 2 to fund at least the first several hours of the mediator's services by payment that would not be charged back to the LID. I look forward to meeting with each f you on the 26th. Si e y urs, ..es E. Co r gan CEC/fw cc: Randy Wooley P. S. In that the matters to be discussed at the meeting are in the general nature of potential settlement discussions, I trust we can agree that those communications will not be admissable in subsequent judicial proceedings, in the event that they become necessary. If that presents a problem for anyone, please let me know. EXHIBIT S RAGE OF r V ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 .95 11:52 No.006 P.02 O'DONNELL RAMjS CRAW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF N. 14A!:itAA(u ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIACKAMa OOVNTY OPYICP T3iFOWRE W. EAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 161 .b COreg n 97013 PANIRlA J. DPERY Por lNnd, Otcgan 97209 Cerby, Oregon MARK I.. BUSCii (S03) 366•!149 49 DOMINIC: 0. COLL.ETTA" 77LEPHONY: (903) 222.4402 CHARLFS E. CORJUGAN' FAX: (503) 348.3944 911:11IIEN F. CREW GARY P. FIRLMDNF* PLJ:A,SF REPLY TO PORTLAND OPPICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGION oPPtCE G. FRANK IIAMMOND` MALCOLM E. JOHNSON MAtMI.M L. JOHNSON4 First Independcnt Place MARK P. O'DONNELL 1220 Main Stmt, Suttc 970 TimuTtlYV. RiMIS Vancouver, Washington 96660.2964 WIIJJAM J. STAINAKYH January 25, 1994 02063 699.7867 TY X. WYMAN FAX:(206) 696.2051 BY PAX AND lt4M JAMY:S M. COLEMAN A:.fO A94h'19~ TCl MMC'nCd L`I WNIIIhQ'(ON ,p"110 rs.nwl Ave nul 1D W."Cl IN :Al FQMIA LYW:Y Mr. Paul A. Simmons Mr. John Wilson Waremart The Holland, Inc. P.O. Sox 12909 109 W. 17th St. Salem, Oregon 97309 Vancouver, WA 98660 Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke & Schwabe, Williamson 6 Wyatt Booth 1600-1800 Pacwest center 1600 Pioneer Tower 1211 SW 5th Ave. 888 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. EXHW E3 12265 SW 72nd Ave. .L.OFTigard, OR 97223-•8604 Re: -City-of Tigard (partmouth Locffi1 Improvenent- District Gentlemen: Attached are a couple of pieces of information that might be useful at our meeting on January 26th. As mentioned in my letter of January 16th, the City has made tentative arrangements with a mediator to provide assistance in helping resolve outstanding issues, if such a process its agreeable to you. Attached is a brief biography of Doug Hamilton, an experienced mediator who has worked in a variety of complex commercial matte's. Doug will be introduced at our meeting and will be available to explain how mediation might assist in this situation, and answer any questions. Also attached its a very preliminary, rough draft summarizing the Dartmouth LID costs. There have been no discussiono regarding the acquisition of the remaining right of way, but lust so as to come up with a working total we have plugged in values consistent with those returned by the jury in the Pollock/Carpenter condemnation case. While all of the numbers in this summary are subject to Range= Ml OUONNELI_ RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jan 25 95 11:53 No.006P.03 O'DONINHI.T. RAMIS CRSVI `",^vi2iiiuni~ er i![►~:HKif►CH aanuary 25, 1995 Page 2 refinement (or are no bettor than best guess estimate$ at this time) this information might be at least a starting point for Carta In aspects of our discussion. Sin ly your Ch as E, Corrigan CEC/Pw Encl. oc W/encl.: Randy Wooley Doug Hamilton EXHIBff PAGE a OF a o ODONNELL RRMI`> ET RL 503-243-2944 Jan 25,05 11:54 No.006 P.05 Jmnt+ary 5, 19 5 Approxim&t.e coats thru December 31, 1994; conatxuction $1,093,000 DRAFT B Right of way 404,000 ForpISGUS la1►purpoto only Legal 103,000 Engineering 236,000 Financing 157,000 Administration , 104, 000 (includes wetlando work) Total thru 1994 02,177,000 potential additional costa: Jury, awaxd to Pollock $ 232,000 (paid 1-20-95) Pollock attorney Peps 1.95, 000 (amount requested) Additional right of way required: Waremart 7361000* Martin 423,000* Parcel Crl 87,000+ Additional finance costa 90f000 (th.ru June 1995) Wetlands monitoring 25,000 (required by permit) Potentl.a,l total ooet $3,965,000 Plus additional legal., admi.nistraL•ion, and finance costa until the UD is closed. Notes: *Eatimates of additional right-of-way coske are based on payment at the rates determined by the Pollock jury. Tho abovo cQeto are appx;oximate based on the data available at this time. Coats will be refined at the time of tinel LID asgassment based on a detailed review or all oosts $inns 1984. EXHIBIT S3 _ PAGE -3 OF a O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACiRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKP.MAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLL~TTA** 1EL.EPHONE: (503) 222-4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW GARY FIRESTONE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE G. FRANK HAMMOND* MALCOL.M E. JOHNSON MALCOLM E. JOHNSON* First Independent Place WILLIAM A. MONAHAN 1220 Main Street, Suite 510 MARK P. O'DONNEL.L Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS December 5, 1994 (206) 699-7287 WILLIAM J. STAL.NAKER FAX: (206) 696-2051 TY IC WYMAN BY FAX AND 14AIL JAMES M. COLEMAN • ALSO ADMMW TO PRAcnce W WASHINGTON SP.W C-d ADMRTPD TO PRAcncz IN CAMOHNIA ONLY Mr. Paul A. Simmons Mr. John Wilson Waremart The Holland, Inc. P.O. Box 12909 109 W. 17th St. Salem, Oregon 97309 Vancouver, WA 98660 Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke & Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Booth 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 1600 Pioneer Tower 1211 SW 5th Ave. 888 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Re: Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Consistent with my telephone conversations with each of you, I am writing to confirm your willingness to get together to discuss the City of Tigard Dartmouth Local Improvement District. Although it might be wishful thinking, I would hope that it is possible for us to get together sometime during the next two weeks. Please note on the enclosed calendar pages which blocks of time you have available and fax those pages back to us tomorrow. If we cannot coordinate a meeting at this time, we will do our best to get something scheduled in January. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH May 25, 1994 Page 2 Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions in the interim. S ' 'rely ours, Charles E. rrigan CEC/ fw cc: Randy Wooley William A. Monahan P.S. to Gordon Martin: I have also enclosed a proposed extension of the existing permit of entry for your review and signature. Thanks. EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PERMIT OF ENTRY DEADLINE TO JUNE 30, 1995, HEREBY APPROVED: DATED this day December, 1994. Gordon R. Martin EXHIBIT PAGE a OF 1 OWN thr3rm.tt 1VE~)1<1 February 3, 1999 Gordon Martin 12265 SAY 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Dartmouth LID Case Dear Gordon: As requested, I am writing to confirm that the Confidentiality Agreement does protect from disclosure evervthing you and your father tell me except to the extent you authorize me to disclose it to others. As such, there can be no compromise agreement among the parties that would be disclosed to the City of Tigard or the city council without permission to make the disclosure. There are some techniques that I can apply to test the parties' willingness to accept certain proposals without letting any one know what others are willing to do unless the proposal is accepted by all, but we can discuss that at greater length when we get together. This will also confirm any telephone advice to you that the City of Tigard is a party to the mediation and as such is entitled to the same protections as all other parties are afforded, including confidentiality. The city too may make disclosures to me that I am not authorized to reveal to you or to the others. The city is in no greater position than any other party and I will not make any report to the city council of any confidential information that I receive from anyone. I hope: this answers your questions, and I look forward to talking with you and your father next week. Please call Christina at my office who can schedule some time for us to get together. Very truly yours, glass a (con ~®F Oric SW Columbia, Suitc ISSO l'cjrrlanc,, (.)P, 97258 phone 503.226.2800 fa.,: 50e.226,280I An Employee Owned Company F.O. SOX 12909 WAREM INC. SALEM, OREGON 97309 DISTRIBUTION ON CENTER (503) 581-6100 March 8, 1995 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN GORDON MARTIN O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW 12265 SW 72ND AVENUE CORRIGAN & BACHRACH TIGARD, OR 97223 1727 NW HOYT STREET PORTLAND, OR 97209 D. JOE WILLIS SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT GORDON DAVIS 1211 SW 5TH AVE., SUITE 1800 1020 SW TAYLOR, SUITE 555 PORTLAND, OR 97204 PORTLAND, OR 97205 JOHN T. WILSON JACK C. GRAVES 109 WEST 17TH 109 W 27TH STREET VANCOUVER, WA 98660 VANCOUVER, WA 98660 RANDY WOOLEY _ JEFFREY KEENEY CITY of TIGARD TONKON, TORP, GALEN, 13125 SW HALL BLVD MARMADUKE & BOOTH TIGARD, OR 97223 888-SW 5TH, SUITE 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204-2099 EDWARD K. CHRISTENSEN, P.E. _CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING DON POLLOCK 333 S. STATE STREET, SUITE 196 NORTHLAND HOMES, INC. LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 1834 SW 58TH AVE, SUITE 202 PORTLAND, OR 97221 RE: TIGARD DARTMOUTH LID MEDIATION Gentlemen: We have all received the February 28, 1995 letter from Douglas Hamilton by now. The fact that he received "strong cooperation" and stated that he was "encouraged about the prospects of settlement if everyone remains realistic" was refreshing, yet expected. If nothing else, it points out that there is a potential resolve to the individual issues of each party involved. However, it should be remembered that those issues are primarily between the City of Tigard and most property owners; not between the property owners themselves. Therefore, I question the need for the property owners to continue needless expendatures, such as the $10,000.00 requested by Mr. Hamilton. SQL/ 360i 81 ATE ST. N. E., SALEM, OREGON 97301 P ®F a page 2 I would strongly suggest another meeting between the property owners and the appropriate City Staff Personnel. Prior to this meeting, it would be good to have identified in writing your issues, and your recommendations for solution. With that in hand, I would then request the City to respond to each issue. Again, all appropriate City Staff need to be present. We, and they need to put aside past difficulties, individual hidden agendas, and future schemes that were not part of the intent of the original LID. Too many lawsuits have already been litigated; more could be filed. Ultimately, who benefits? One final point; the assessment formula! Gordon Martin has spent considerable time and effort on formulating a reasonable 'first approach' on this matter. This should be shared with all owners to see if there could be at least an agreement on assessments. Ed Christensen has assisted in this process and I feel his fees should be paid bli- all parties, prorata to the final formula adopted. In summary, Waremart/CUB feels that there could be a resolve to the decade long issues clouding this LID. The last thing we need is 'another study', 'another lawsuit', and 'another cost'. I hope we can at least agree on that. Sincerely, i Paul A. Simmons V.P. Retail Development PAS:pm EXHIBIT ,J~lk~ PAGE A OF Z rr i T-$a j:,,r ENSEN N~INEE~.ING March 10, 1995 Mr. Jack C. Graves Mr. Don Pollock The Holland CompanyBurgerville USA Northland Homes, Inc. 109 W 27th Street 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 Vancouver, WA 98660 Portland, OR 97221 Mr. Jeffery Keeney Mr. Paul Simmons Rep: Costco Wholesale Corporation V.P. Retail Development Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth Waremart/CUB 888 SW 5th, Suite 1600 3601 State St., N.E. Portland, OR 97204-2099 Salem, OR 97301 Mr. Gordon R. Martin Mr. Donald and Ms. Louise Stewart P.O. Box 740 11990 SW 72nd Avenue Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Gordon S. Martin Mr. John T. Wilson 12265 SW 72'nd Avenue The Holland, Inc./Burgerville USA Tigard, OR 97223 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 Mr. Kenneth M. Montgomery P.O. Box 991 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 SUBJECT: DARTMOUTH ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) COST SHARING AGREEMENT Dear Property Owners and Representatives: This letter is in response to the March 8, 1995 letter from Paul Simmons regarding an approach to resolving the assessments for the Dartmouth Road LID. We at Christensen Engineering, Inc. have assisted Mr. Gordon S. Martin in developing a formula for allocating by spread sheet, the assessments for the Dartmouth Road LID. This "assessment formula" is presently in a draft form and needs to be further refined. Based upon my discussions to date with the majority of the property owners and also the City of Tigard representatives, the final formula does not need to be refined much further in order to be acceptable as a final apportionment to the parties involved in the LID. We would appreciate the opportunity to present our "assessment formula" to the LID property owners at the earliest date possible, because the costs of the LID continue to mount. The cost for the Christensen Engineering, Inc. work to date Paul Simmons referenced to is approximately $4,500. To refine the assessment with a high degree of accuracy, but not to the point of involving a team of surveyors to analyze the areas within the district by metes and bounds, including the costs to date, will total $7,350. Involving a tears of surveyors to perform 7000 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598'1866 Fax (503) 598-1868 EMINT., 52 PAGE..eL®0F k. • a• these types of calculations, would add $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost, and ,.,)t i,.pro le the overall assessment accuracy by much. In defining the costs associated with Ziic assess;,;ant ji.:.iuia a;.a in th:, spiist .^,f compromise, we have included all the costs identified in the attached "draft - Dartmouth LID Cost" from O'Donnell, Ramis et. al., and additional considerations which increase the total LID costs to f$4.2 million. As noted, the final cost of the LID may fluctuate slightly, and the final assessments will be based upon the date that the assessment is approved. If there is no additional court related judgements, interest payments, attorney fees and such, the final cost of the LID should not exceed the $4.2 million figure. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall Conference room to discuss the "Assessment Formula" on Wednesday, March 22, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. If a decision to agree on the assessment criteria can be made at the March 22, 1995 meeting. Christensen Engineering can turn around the assessment analysis in about two weeks from that date and present it to the city unless another meeting is needed with the property owners, prior to that action. In order for the Christensen Engineering, inc. fees to be added into the final assessment calculations for performing the assessment analysis, we need a majority of the property owners (by acreage) to approve our hiring. Therefore, please sign the space provided below, because resolving this costly LID is in your best interest. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Burgerville USA Ed Christensen, P.E. - President i Price/Costc Who ale mpany attachment CUB/Waremart Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Kenneth M. Montgomery Don Pollock Donald Stewart Louise Stewari EXHIBIT S 7 PAGE A OF • 02/15/1994 12:13 2924862 DON POLLOCK INV. PAGE 02 PM-29-1995 04:06 >PISTEN.' 1 DGNIKIWa P.03 then "m ofcai would add $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost. aazW not improve the overall as Snwat acmw4cy by much. in dearamg the coats associated with the asses>nent formula and in the spirit of compromise, we have included all the coats ideta fad in the attached "draft - Dmrnouth LID Cost" ftom O'Donnell, ftznis at. al., and additional considerations which 4= time total LID costs to *34.2 million. As noted, the final cost of the LM may &wtuaate s y, and the final assessment will be based upon the daft that the ass=cat is approved. thera is no additim al om= related judga=4 intezast paymetu4 attorney fees and sawk the fiW coat ofthe LID should not exceed the $4.2 trillion figure. We have scbedtrlrad a meeting at time Tigard City Hall Corftrence atom to d1wiss the "jusexAmma F0101t " an ~tNIA"Asdav. lM6srehs Z L I5 st 4V229,9 Please attend or have your representative at that . Ifs decision to arse on the a56t it criteria can be made at the March 22, 1995 me4tinj, lumstenwn Engineering can turn aradmd the amcs3mem arWysis in about two wed from that date acrd present it to the city urdem another meeting is needed with the propeM owners, prior to that action. In order for the Christeam Engineering, Inc. foss to be added into the final asssmuncnt Calculations for perforating the Luesmant analysis, we need a majority of the property, owners (by acreW) to approve our hiring. `Lrherefore, please sign the spare providsd below, because resolving this city LM is in your best irrmnst. Sincerely, CEDUSTEPISEN ENGINE£MO. iWC G G - Ewgenille USA Ed auistenmn, P.R. prazident PricelCostco Wholesale Company attachment CUD/Wareamart Gordon R. Mania Gordon S. Martin Kermeth M. MonWrnwy a--3 Don Pollock Donald Stewart Louise Stewart TOTAL. 0.03 EXHIBIT 5-7 PAGE 3 OF these types of calculations, would add $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost, and not improve the overall assessment accuracy by much. In defining the costs associated with the assessment formula and in the spirit of compromise, we have included all the costs identified in the attached "draft - Dartmouth LID Cost" from O'Donnell, Ramis et. al., and additional considerations which increase the total LID costs to t$4.2 million. As noted, the final cost of the LID may fluctuate slightly, and the final assessments will be based upon the date that the assessment is approved. If there is no additional court related judgements, interest payments, attorney fees and such, the final cost of the LID should not exceed the $4.2 million figure. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall Conference room to discuss the "Assessment Formula" on Wednesday, March 22, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. If a decision to agree on the assessment criteria can be made at the March 22, 1995 meeting, Christensen Engineering can turn around the assessment analysis in about two weeks from that date and present it to the city unless another meeting is needed with the property owners, prior to that action. In order for the Christensen Engineering, Inc. fees to be added into the final assessment calculations for performing the assessment analysis, we need a majority of the property owners (by acreage) to approve our hiring. Therefore, please sign the space provided below, because resolving this costly LID is in your best interest. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Burgerville USA Ed Christensen, P.E. President Price/Costco Wholesale Company attachment CUB/Waremart Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Kenneth M. Montgomery Don Pollock Donald Stewart Louise Stewart EXHIBIT -7 PAGES OF~o IVA-i M - M9 5 2,31 AR CNa t STENSEN ENG: U 1 K I NG P, 02 these types of calculations, would add $10,000 to $1,000 to the co,-t, and not improve the overAl assessment accuracy by much. In defining the costs associated with the assessment formula and in the spirit of compromise, we have included all the costs identified in the attached "draft - Dar►mouth LID Cost" from O'Donnell, Ramis et. al., and additional considerations wluch increase tiie total LID costs to j:$4.2 m.Illion. As noted, the final cost of the LID inay fluctuate slightly, and the final assessments will be based upon the date that the assessment is approved. If there is no additional court related judgements, interest payments, attorney fees and such, the final cost of the LLD: should not excccd rho $4.2 million figure, We have scheduled a meeting net the Tigard City Hall Conference room to discuss the "Assessment Formula" on Wqdnesdav NfArr i 22,199„5 at 4:00 n.rn. Pleasa attend car have - _ i your legal representative at that meeting. If a decision to agree on the assessment criteria can be made at the March 22, 1995 meeting, Christensen Engineering can turn around the assessment . analysis in about two weeks from that date and present it to the city unless another meeting is needed with the property owners, prior to that action. In order for the Christensen EigineEring, Inc. fees to be added into the final assessment calculations for pertbrming the assessment analysis, we need a majority of the property owners (by acreage) to approve our hiring. Therefore, please sign the space provided below, because - resolving this costly LLD is hi your best interest. Sir.-;orcly, CIMISTENSEN P-NGINRERING INC. Burgerville USA •Li t~• Ed C:hricrAnsen, P.E. President Price/Costco Wholesale company attachment CUBAVaremart Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Kenneth M. Montgomery 1 Don Pollock - ,7 Donald Stewart. Louise Stewart EXHIBIT S 7 PAGE S OF !o` ~~~TONKON, TARP, C'rALEAT, MARMADUKE ~ BOOTH ATIOIIMM AT LAW 1600 PIONEER TOWER 886 S.W. PflW.. AVENUE PORT ANA OREGON 97204.2099 (503) 221-1440 PAX (503) 274.8779 JEFrREY H. KEENEY. March 28, 1995 VXA TELECOPY Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, OR 97223 Re: Costco Wholesale Corporation / Dartmouth Road L.Z.D._ Dear Ed: This letter will confirm our conversation of this morning wherein I informed you that,Costco Wholesale Corporation has authorized you to proceed in accordance with the terms of your March 10, 1995 letter to me. Do not hesitate to call either me or Jackie Frank of Costco if you have any questions. Mr. Frank's telephone number is 206-803-6280. ' Sincerely. y H. K ney JHK/mend copy: tor. Jackie Frank (via telecopy) Mr. Mark Vandehey Y EXHIBIT _ -5 2 PAGE --Co - OF 4_ Z00/ZOO6 V XJ J901 NONN0L 8LL8.41Z COS.$ 84 TT S8/8Z/CO Y O'DONNUL RAMIS CREW COR,.R1G kN v i ACHRACi i 1 JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. ioA1RD 1721 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oragon 97209 Canby. Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (501) 222-4402 TMZPHONE: (503) 266-1149 D014TNIC G. COUHMA" FAX: (SO) 243.2944 C{ ".RILES a CORRIGAN` VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE STEIKHEN F Q" GARY n. FIRESTONE` Fuss Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PLFASE REPLY TD P01 AND OFFICE 1220 Main Street. Suite 570 G. FRANK HAMMOND` Vancouver, Waaitington 98660-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON` TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX (360) 696-2051 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS March 23, 1995 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER TV IC WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL • AL^+O ADMnTFA TO MACria V WASHWOTON A[ Mn=TO PRACRIM W CAUFOIWIA ONLY Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 2nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Gordon: As agreed, we have been doing some research on the City's Bancroft bonding ordinances to determine if the County assessments on your family's property might prevent the City from bonding the LID assessments. While the City code as it now exists could present such problems, both I and the City's Finance Director would be comfortable recommending to the City Council that, given the circumstances here involved, the ordinance be amended to address your situation. My suggestion is that if the property owners can put together a proposed assessment package for the Council's consideration, that proposal and the bonding issue be submitted to the Council at the same time. Please let me know if you have any additional observations or questions, and I would be most interested in knowing if it looks like the property owners will soon be presenting a joint proposal to the City. Thank you. S' urs, J H Charles E. orrigan CEC/fw cc: William Monahan W ne Lowry Randy Wooley E3 Bff PAGE..,1111 ..1. i TONKON, TORP, GALEN, & BOOTH Ayronsm Ar LAW 1600 PIONM TOWM "a S.W. F!F'f1i AVENUE PORTWM OREGON 97204-2099 (S03) 221-3440 FAX (5033) 274-CM JEFFRF-Y H. KEBNEY March 28, 1996 VIA ` ELECOFY Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, OR 97223 Re: Costco taholesale Corflorstion / Dartmout Road L.I.D. Dear Ed: Thits letter will confirm our conversation o£ this morning wherein I informed you that,Costco Wholesale Corporation has authorized you to proceed in accordance with the terms of your March 10, 1995 letter to me. Do not hesitate to call either me or Jackie Frank of 'Costco if you have any questions. Mr. Frank°s telephone number is 206-803-6280. Sii c rely, s^e6y H . K ney JHK/mind copy: Mr. Jackie Frank ( via telecopy) 9 Mr. Ma1rk Vandehey y r~'O T"~ ~ f 'tom - 1.E Z/1"~tl Tom, wr~ cI ~6~' CZO~) ~G•~-era EXHIBIT„ PAGE~OF Z00/Z00 ' Y Xd d?IOL NO}INOJ 8119 91Z C09 89:TT S8/9ZlCO March 30, 1995 t CITY OF TI D OREGON .Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Dartmouth Street LID You have submitted a copy of your March 10, 1995, letter to the Dartmouth LID property owners proposing work by your firm to prepare an assessment -formula for distributing the final LID costs among the various benefitted properties. You have further submitted evidence that the major property owners within the LID support your pi,,posal and agree that the LID should pay for these services. Accordingly, you are hereby authorized to proceed with the work as described in your letter of March 3.0, 1995. Fees not to exceed $7,350 will be paid by the City from LID funds. Please address billings to my attention. Sincerely, CjZ Randall R. Wooley City Engineer _ EXHIBIT PAGRE .1-OF L. 13125 SAN Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)'6'39-4171 TDD (503) 6$4-2772 ABR. Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-3604 • Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 April 8, 1995 Mr. William Monahan Administrator City of Tigard 13123 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Bancroft Bonding for Dartmouth LID Assessments. Dear Bill: Before the March 28, 1995, council meeting I presented to you a letter dated March 22, 1995, from Mr. Charles Corrigan concerning the Martin's ability to Bancroft Bond their Dartmouth Street LID assessments. The letter stated in part that: Mr. Corrigan and the City of Tigard Finance Director, Wayne Lowry, are: "comfortable recommending to the City Council that, given the circumstances here involved, the ordinance [concerning Bancroft Bonding] be amended to address your [the Martins] situation." Essentially, the City Attorney and Finance Director agree that Bancroft Bonding should be available to the Martins to finance their Dartmouth LID assessments. In order to proceed with the financial planning for Tri-County Center, the Martins need a definitive answer from the Council on whether or not Bancroft Bonding will be available to them. Please take whatever steps you feel are necessary to obtain a decision from the Council concerning this issue. If you have any questions feel free to call. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Gordon S. Martin cc: Charles E. Corrigan EXHIBIT U 1 PAGE -L- OF R~r aIS-FENSEN (i~NCHNEEMN41G FeTOIZ M91 lid 1,1, Lelel VA IN 51 Z LeiR L94-1 April 18, 1995 JO: 95-106.01 Mr. John Alexander Mr. Kenneth M. Montgomery Alexander's Restaurant P.O. Box 991 11700 SW Pacific Highway Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Don Pollock Mr. Jack C. Graves Northland Homes, Inc. The Holland Company/Burgerville USA 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 109 W 27th Street Portland, OR 97221 Vancouver, WA 98660 Mr. Paul Simmons Mr. Jackie Frank V.P. Retail Development Costco Wholesale Corporation Wai.-mart/CUB 10809 120th Avenue, NE P.O. Box 12909 Kirkland, WA 98033 Salem, OR 97301 Mr. Gordon R. Martin Mr. Donald and Ms. Louise Stewart P.O. Box 740 11990 SW 72nd Avenue Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Gordon S. Martin Mr. John T. Wilson 12265 SW 72nd Avenue The Holland, Inc./Burgerville USA Tigard, OR 97223 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 SUBJECT: DARTMOUTH ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LED) NOTICE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLLOCK JURY AWARD Dear Property Owners and Representatives: In accordance with our March 22, 1995 meeting, I met with Randy Wooley of the City of Tigard and Charles Corrigan of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and Bachrach immediately after being approved to perform the final LID assessment calculations. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to finalize the costs for the LID and to end the legal disputes concerning this project. The City's main concern in regards to finalizing the cost of the LID and the legal concerns of the City is receiving notification from the LID participants that the Pollock jury award for the LID right-of-way acquisition is acceptable. The jury determined that the value of the property adjacent to general commercial areas was $7.50/sf. and to commercial professional business districts, $6.00/sf., plus interest as determined. Obviously, if anyone disputes the jury award, this will result in a continuation of the appeal process regarding the LID and the attorney fees. Given that the possibility of overturning or significantly changing the jury's decision is remote, proceeding with appeals is like throwing 7000 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 22o Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598-1866 Fax (503ofid 8 PAGE _L.OF -Lv- Frogs GORDON R. MARTIN PHONE No. 583 764 2512 Apr.23 1995 11:09AM P01 motley away. In addition, it great cleat of time needed for the noxt LID will be expended- . l3elow I have left a signature black for recognizing the jury award as stated nbove. If you recognize that stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies best interest, please aign in the space provided, then fax or mail your respense back to mo at yum- earliest convenience so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the City. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City I Iall "Rcd Rock Creek." Conference room to present tllc "Assessment I,'ornlula" on FcLdRX MKy S. 1995 a,t 3:00 pm. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: }candy wooley Charles Corrigan Jeffrey 11. Keeney I/we accept the Jammy 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth 1.T1) right-of- way acquisition adjacent to general commercial areas of $7.50/sti. and to commercial professional business districts, $6.00/sf., plus interest as determined. John Alexander ?!G~,~.-t.-- . ON Cordon R. Martin Y N Burgmille USA Y N Gordon S. Martin Y N Price/Costco Wholesale Company X T1. Kenneth M..Momgomery Y N Dun 1'oilock Y N IJonalcl Stewart I.auiSC Stewart EXHIBIT (z;L PAGE cP,-OF kv money away. In addition, a great deal of time needed for the next LID will be expended. Below 1 have left a signature block for recognizing the jury award as stated above. If you recognize that stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies best interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the City. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall "Red Rock Creek" Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Friday, Mal 5, 1995 at 3:00 p.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: Randy Wooley Charles Corrigan Jeffrey H. Keeney !/we accept the January 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth LID right-of- way acquisition adjacent to general commercial areas of $7.50/sf. and to commercial professional business districts, $6.00/s£, plus interest as determined. Y N Y N John•Alexander Gordon R. Martin Y N Y N Burgerville USA Gordon S. Martin Y N Y N Price/Costco Wholesale Company Kenneth M. Montgomery Y N Y N CUB/Waremart Don Pollock Y N Donald Stewart Louise Stewart EXHIMT 6e P- PAGE -3 OF 0 Ilion Gordon Dads TO WAREMART P.03 JUL-06-1995 1344 FROM rJ ~ n money away. In 4ddi;ion, a great deal of tirne noodcd for the nit LID will be expended. Below I have left a sigrtatur-e blQPk Or remeninng thajti,ry --ird no otaeeA aba-z. Ir,vu ,z&,vI9IJ w saint stopping the regal train from rolling is in your individual or companie6 best interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the city. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall "Red Rock Crcek" Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Friday, -May 5,1995 at 3'tb4 >a.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, CHRISTENSP-'N (ENGINEERING, INC. ]Ed Christensen, P.E. Prm ident cc: handy Wooley Charles Corrigan Jeffrey .H. Keeney Uwe accept the January 20,.1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth LID right-of- way acquisition adjac t to general commercial areas of $7.50/sf and to commercial professional business districts, 36.00/sf., plus interest as determined. Y N John Alexander Gordon R. Martin XN YN. Burgerville USA Gordon S. Martin i Y N _ Y N PricelCos came Company Kenneth M. Montgomery 1 V N Y --CUBfwaremart Don Pollock _X N Donald Stewart Louise Stewart PAGE I OF ( Jt~-1~-19'35 831119 CHR'S'TENSEN EKG/U.KING P.03 I money away. In addition, a great deal of time needed for the next LID will be expended. Below I have left a signature block for recognizing the jury award as stated above. If you recognize,that stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies best interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mall your response back to me at your earliest convenierice so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate a~ceptanee of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the City. l We have scheduled a meeting, at the Tigard City Hall "Red Rock Creel' Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Friday Mgy-g 1995 at 3:00 0M Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, CMZ.ISTENSEN EENNGINEE)UNG. JNC. Ed Christensen, P.E. _ President i cc: Randy.Wooley Charles Corrigan Jeffrey R Keeney I/we accept the January 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth LID right-of- way acquisition adjacent to general commercial areas of $7.501sf. and to commercial professional business districts, S6.0015f., t lus~ interest as determined. John Alcx i- r Gordon R. Martin WPnc iti U Gordon S. Martin ' YN ostco w holesale Co parry Kenneth M. Montgomery y N Y N CU.BIWaremart Don Pollock --Y,- N Donald Stewart Louise Stewan EXHIBIT &cR PAG& (E, to 600/600e V Id aNOS KORN" OLZ9 tLZ £OE.& .66:97 se/03/90 "U"OH a POL.LOC K INVESTMENTS 1834 S. W. 58th Avenue Suite 202 Portland, Oregon 97221 (503) 292-4373 April 24, 1995 FAX (503) 2924862 Mr. Ed Christensen. Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97223 Dear Ed: Reference your letter of April 18, 1995 sent to me.by fax. I am willing to accept the jury 'award witri i.nLerest as soon as the City dismisses its appeal of that matter. Based on advice of my attorneys, I cannot accept the. benefit' of that verdict without jeopardizing my right to cross appeal which we have filed - after the City appealed. Once the City has dismissed its appeal, I will concur to accepting the figures.that the jury returned plus. the appropriate interest and obviously the fees that the judge will award: As you-may or may not 'know, the court has now conducted the attorney ,fee hearing and has 'set most 'of the ,award. . My'attorney is preparing the" final documents 'on that at this time and should have them into the judge in short order:. I have . not heard from him-what the . 'total. 'final : figure will be but it, is at least close'. to the total dollar.'figure that was requested. Please let me know if the City is willing to dismiss its appeal so we can keep this matter moving forward.' Thanks. Sincerely, Donald E. Pollock . cc: John Alexander Jack Graves Jackie Frank Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Kenneth M. Montgomery Paul Simmons Donald and Mrs. Louise Stewart John T. Wilson EXHIBIT 6 PAGE (.a 'OF I-itl~IS7'ENSE'N NC33 IY' - 4 EEFUNG July 14, 1995 JO: 95-106.01 Mr. Jackie Frank Mr. Don Pollock Costco Wholesale Co. Northland Homes, Inc. 999 Lake Drive 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 Bellevue, WA 98027 Portland, OR 97221 Mr. Gordon R. Martin v](4r. Paul Simmons P.O. Box 740 V.P. Retail Development Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 Waremart/CUB P.O. Box 129,99 Mr. Gordon S. Martin Salem, OR 97309 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. John T. Wilson The Holland, Inc.Burgerville USA 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE DARTMOUTH ROAR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) COST SHARING AGREEMENT Dear Property Owners and Representatives: We have completed the greater portion of our work for the Dartmouth Road LID. However, we did not realize the effort that would be required to mediate the concerf:s of all the participants between the participants and the City, non-participants, and each other, as well as, the time it would take to obtain responses from some of those involved in the approval process. As such, we request that an additional amount of $4,500 be authorized in order to complete the remaining portion of the work and our additional costs to date. We appreciate having been able to assist you in this matter and will continue to do so through its completion. Sincerely, CHRISTENNSSEEN ENGINEERING, INC. Fd Christensen, P.E. President attachment 7000 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 22o Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598-1866 Fax (5o3) 598-1868 EXHIBIT PAGE _L_ OF Jill I/We agree to allow an increase for Christensen Engineering, Inc. fees for the Dartmouth Street LID by the amount of $4,500 for work performed in conjunction with this project. These fees are not to be increased without written authorization. Burgerville USA John Wilson ,PFi ostco Wholesale C pany Jackie Fra CUB/Waremart, Inc. Paul Simmons Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock Northland Homes, Inc. D(NIBIT 6P3 PAGE 2 OF I/We agree to allow an increase for Christensen Engineering, Inc. fees for the Dartmouth Street LID by the amount of $4,500 for work performed in conjunction with this project. These fees are not to be increased without written authorization. Burgerville USA John Wilson hJ C Price/ (rank Jackie CUB/Waremart, Inc. Paul Simmons Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock Northland Homes, Inc. EXHIBIT (o 5 PAuE 3 OF (o •r e I/We agree to allow an increase for Christensen Engineering, Inc. fees for the Dartmouth Street LID by the amount of $4,500 for work performed in conjunction with this project. These fees are not to be increased without written authorization. Burgerville USA John Nilson Price/Costco Wholesale Company Jackie Frank CUB/Waremart, Inc. Paul Simmons Gordon R. Martin e Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock Northland Homes, Inc. EXHIBITS PAGE OF ammmm 07/19/95 09:31 x°503 764 2512 Gordon R. Martin ~+•Christensen @1002/002 IfWe agree to allow an increase for Christensen Engineering, Inc. fees for the Dartmouth Street LID by the amount of 54,500 for work performed in conjunction with this project. These fees are not to be increased without written authorization. Burgerville USA John Wilson Prlce/Costeo Wholesale Company Jackie Frank CEIB/Warermart, Inc. Paul Simmons 4tgf Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock Northland Homes, Inc. EXHIBIT l~ 3 - PAGE S OF EQ/11/1555 14:39 2924862 DON POLLOCK INV. PAGE 02 _nr-B/-lyj3 13 i93 Gi~13TEvSEv E`/O~VIKt Ka P.03 11We &Wee to allow &n increase fbr Christensen Engineering, ?'pc. fees for the Dartmouth Street LID by the amount of $4,500 for work performed in coajunction with this yrojcct. 't'hese fees are not to be, i=cased without written authorization. Burgerville USA. John Wilson Price/Costco Wholesale Company Jackie Frank CUB/VYarcmart, Inc. Paul Simmons Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin ' Don pollock Northland Homes, Inc. TOTAL P.a3 EXHIBIT 6,3 PAGE !a OF r»TATT'}T7 Y~AA/fTQ f'tDia~77 O I`J~.~1V1V Ujj 1111~sty vs~ae CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLkCKAir°,AS 06L.-.rP+_' OFFICE THEODORE W BAIRD 1721 N.W. Hoyt Street 161 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHION& (M) 222-4402 TELEPHONE (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLL.IrrrAO* FAX: (503) 243-29" CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE STEPHEN GARY F. F F. . CREW First Independent Place E. GAAR ?LEASE REPLY TO POM AND OMCE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM G. FRANK HAAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON* TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O•DONNELL FAX (360) 696-2051 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS October 18, 1995 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER K. JAMES M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL • ALSO ADWrrM To "AMOK R4 WASHINGTON ALSO ADMTnw To MAcna IN CAUFOMA Gordon artin, Sr. LI-Gordcn S. Martin, Jr. PO x 740 12265 SW 2nd Avenue neden Beach, OR 97388 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard Dartmouth LID Dear Gordon and Gordon: As you may be aware, discussions between the City and the Dartmouth LID property owners continue in an effort to reach a "global" resolution of all outstanding issues. One outstanding issue in getting these matters resolved is the City's purchase of your right-of- way property. Toward this end, enclosed find a draft purchase agreement that my office has put together for your review and comment. In that the City may be willing to go ahead with this step independent of other matters under consideration, I thought it appropriate to at least get this document to you for your consideration. Thank you., Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc(Encl.) cc w/encl.: Ed Christensen Wayne Lowry cc w/out encl.: Randy Wooley Jim Nicoli EXHIBIT- W7 PAGE OF fie... 03/14 15:31 1898 FROM: 503 820 2477 TO: 2473 PAGE: 1 From EAST ELROPE SPORTS LTD. FH0tE No. S03 SM 2477 Mar. 14 19% 3: 38PM P01 I i ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avonue Tigard, Chrpn 0722.1-Rb04 Pbcae: (503) 620--3477 FaxNolce mall (503) 620-18x2 TELECOPMR TRANSMISSION COVER SNF.ET DATE: .'/14/96 TIMP- 3:00 P.M. TO: O'Donnell Rarnis / Charles Corrigan C117Y, STATF,, COUNTRY: Portland Oregon TDLEPIION13( 503) 243-2994 PLEASE, CONFMM AT (503) 620-2477 PACES, (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) S13133ECT: D ouch LID Settlement Agreement SPECIAL INSTRUC11ONS: Dear Chuck: Doth my fathcr'and I arc in ogreomcnt with the March 12, 1996 Dartmouth Settlement agreement. Thy individual property assessments re&osented in Exhibit 1 are also aaccptable. Our Gross Assessment on Exhibit 1 is $843,406.00, with a R.O.W. value of $518,240.00 being credited against our Gyms AssosamcnL which will zasult in a Not Assessment of b25,166.00. We also understand thai these numbers will fluctuate slightly to refl •l uxuut calculations for interest. We will event ly be conveying the R.O.W. to the City which will nut vidy mquira a conveyance from my father, Gunlua R. Marlin, but also a convcyance Prom unclo, RobuTL 11. Martin and y self Gordon S. Martin. This conveyance is necessary since both of us are contract ini st holders on tax lot 101 Map 2S 1 1 BA. My father, Gordon R. Martin is the solo ownbx of R.O.W. un tax lot 100 Map 2S 1 1 DA. Pleusc Udw ibis into account during the drafting of the transfer documents. If you have any question please call. FROM:,,, _ GORDON S. MAR'11N EXHIBIT (o ! PAGE A OF~~ BURC ASE AUM SALE A-Cz ' DRAFT DATE OF AGREEMENT: October 1995 For Discussion Purposes Only BETWEEN: GORDON R. MARTIN 12255 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon ("Seller") AND: The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 ("Purchaser") RECITALS A. In order to provide for street and other improvements, the City of Tigard caused to be formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District (the "LID"). The LID was created to provide a financing vehicle for said improvements. m B. Purchaser is the owner of property abutting Dartmouth Street in the City of Tigard, which property is within the boundaries of the LID. C. Seller is desirous of purchasing from Purchaser that portion of Purchaser's real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Properties"). Seller desires to sell the Properties to Purchaser on the terms and conditions stated herein. AGIREEMENT 1. Purchase and Sale of Properties. Seller agrees to sell the Properties to Purchaser, and Purchaser agrees to purchase the Properties from Seller, at the Purchase Price set forth below, on the terms set forth in this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price and Payment of Purchase Price. 2.1 Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Properties shall be AND _^".^P, DOLLARS ) ("Purchase Price"). 2.2 Payment of Purchase Price. Purchaser shall pay the Purchase Price in one of the following described manners, as the parties shall agree. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties shall strike out from this Agreement the inapplicable provision, and shall initial the provision which accurately describes the agreed upon method of payment. Page 1 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF 2.2.1 Cash Payment. The Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at the Closing, subject to closing adjustments and prorations, if any, described below. (Strike out' inapplicable provision) bwak a lohr gad Aucbuu OR 2.2.1 Credit Against LID Ass men . Upon calculation of the total LID assessment to be levied against Seller, Seller shall be entitled to a credit in the amount of the Purchase Price to be applied toward Seller's obligation to pay said LID assessment, subject to closing adjustments and prorations, if any, described below. (Strike out inapplicable provision) tai aU oC &Let.W w.b.br 2.3 Escrow. Upon full execution hereof by both parties, Purchaser shall submit a fully executed original of this Agreement to Tigard, Oregon, which shall serve as escrow agent (the "Escrow"). 3. 1 in . As used in this Agreement, "closing," "date of closing" or "closing date" shall mean the date of the recording of the warranty deed described in Section 5 below. Closing shall occur sixty (60) days after Seller's execution hereof or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. Seller shall pay the cost of recording fees and one-half (lh) the cost of Escrow services. Purchaser shall pay the cost of transfer taxes and one-half (lh) the cost of Escrow services. All real propdrty taxes shall be prorated to the date of closing. 4. Conditions Precedent to Closing. Purchaser's obligation to purchase the Properties is subject to the occurrence and satisfaction of each of the following conditions precedent: 4.1 Financing and Approval. The Tigard City Council shall have approved the purchase of the Properties. 4.2 Title. Seller shall deliver good and marketable title to the Properties and the title policy required by Section 5 of this Agreement; subject only to those exceptions which are acceptable to Purchaser in accord with Section 5.1 hereof. 4.3 Environmental Review and Remediation. Purchaser may elect, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement, to obtain an environmental assessment of the Properties, and in the event Purchaser shall so elect, the results thereof shall be satisfactory to Purchaser. 4.4 Covenants and Representations. All of the representations, warranties and covenants of Seller contained herein shall be true, accurate and complete and performed as required as of the date hereof and as of the date of closing. Page 2 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT (a PAGE OF 9 4.5 Foreign l?erson Affidavit. Seller shall execute and deliver at closing an affidavit containing Seller's warranty and representation that Seller is not a foreign person under IRC § 1445. 5. Title Matters. 5.1 Preliminary Title Rep=. Within five (5) days after the execution hereof, Seller shall furnish to Purchaser a preliminary title report showing the condition of title to the Properties, along with copies of all exception documents. Purchaser shall have twenty (20) days after receipt of the preliminary title report and exceptions within which to notify Seller, in writing, of Purchaser's disapproval of any exceptions shown in the report. 5.2 Deed: Title Policy. Seller shall convey the Properties at closing to Purchaser by statutory warranty deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except zoning ordinances, building and use restrictions, reservations. and federal patents, with no other exceptions unless accepted by Purchaser in writing. Seller shall furnish to Purchaser a standard owner's title insurance policy in the amount of the purchase price, from the title insurance company named in Section 2 above, showing good and marketable title subject only to the exceptions stated above. 6. License and Possession.. Seller hereby grants to Purchaser a license to enter upon the Properties at any time after the date hereof to conduct surveys, environmental tests and review, and other necessary studies. Purchaser shall be entitled to exclusive possession of the Properties on and after the closing date. 7. Covenants Warranties and Representations of Seller. Seller covenants, warrants and represents to Purchaser, as of the date hereof and the date of closing, as follows: 7.1 Title. Seller warrants good and marketable title, good right to convey, quiet possession and further warrants that no work, labor or materials have been, or as of closing will have been, expended, bestowed or placed upon the Properties which either remain unpaid or for which a lien may be filets. 7.2 Waste and Maintenance Obligations. Seller shall not commit or suffer any waste of the Properties and agrees to comply with all laws, regulations, ordinances and requirements of all governmental authorities applicable to the use or occupancy of the Properties. 7.3 Ownership. Seller shall not sell, contract to sell, assign, lease, or otherwise transfer the Properties or any part of them, nor grant an option to any party to acquire all or any portion of the Properties. 7.4 No Condemnation or Assessment Proceedings. Except for the LID, there are no pending or threatened condemnation or similar proceedings or any assessments affecting any of Page 3 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 5 OF Ll the Properties and, to the knowledge of Seller, no such proceedings are contemplated by any governmental entity. other than such action-., by t".e City O Tigard. 7.5 Litig`,,tion: Law. There is no litigation, arbitration, or administrative hearing pending before any governmental authority that concerns or affects the Properties, or any portion thereof, and, to the best of Seller's knowledge, no such proceeding is threatened. To the best of Seller's knowledge, the Properties comply with all laws, ordinances, and governmental approvals and decisions that relate to them. 7.6 Hazardous Materials. As used in this Agreement, the term "Hazardous Materials" means any hazardous or toxic substance, material or waste as defined by any federal, state or local law. Seller warrants, represents, and covenants as follows: 7.6.1 SeLer has not received any notices of violation or advisory action by regulatory agencies regarding environmental control matters or permit compliance with respect to the Properties. 7.6.2 Seller has not transferred hazardous materials from the Properties to another location in a manner not in compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations, or permit requirements. To the best of Seller's knowledge, no other person has transferred hazardous materials from the Properties to another location in a manner not in compliance with applicable environmental laws, ieguiations, or permit requirements. 7.6.3 There are no proceedings, governmental administrative actions, or judicial proceedings pending or, to the best of Seller's knowledge, contemplated under any federal, state, or local laws regulating the discharge of hazardous or toxic materials or substances into the environment. 7.6.4 Seller has not during its ownership of the Properties, stored, produced, or disposed of any hazardous materials, including asbestos, on the Properties. 7.7 Status of Seller. Seller warrants that Seller is not a foreign person, foreign partnership, foreign corporation, or foreign trust, as those terms are defined in IRC § 1445. Seller warrants that Seller is lawfully authorized to convey clear, marketable title to the Properties described in this Agreement. 7.8 Breach of Agreements. Neither the execution of this Agreement, nor the execution, delivery, or recordation of any document or agreement referenced herein, nor the closing of the transaction contemplated herein, constitutes or will constitute a default under any other agreement or contract that relates to the Properties or to which Seller is a party. 7.9 Contracts and Leases. Seller warrants that, as of the Closing Date, there will be no parties or trespassers in possession of any of the Properties, and there will be no leases Page 4 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE to QE 9 affecting the Properties, and that there will be no maintenance or service contracts or other contracts affecting the Properties. 8. Remedies. The parties shall be entitled to such remedies for breach of contract as may be available under applicable law, including without limitation the remedy of specific performance. 9. Waiver. Failure by Seller or Purchaser to enforce any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of that right or of any other right under this Agreement. 10. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 11. Attorneys' Fees. In any action to interpret, construe or enforce this Agreement, or any part hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable co; is and attorneys' fees, including any title insurance.premiums or other title company charges and including fees and costs on any appeal. This provision shall include prevailing party fees in any adversary proceeding in bankruptcy, including motions for relief from stay. 12. me . ration. Modification or Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Properties and supersedes all prior written and oral negotiations and agreements with respect to the Properties. Any modifications, changes, additions, or deletions to this Agreement must be approved by Seller and Purchaser, in writing. 13. Governing Law: Interpretation. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Oregon. If a court holds any portion of this Agreement to be void or unenforceable as written, Seller and Purchaser intend that such portion of this Agreement be enforced to the extent permitted by law, and that the balance of this Agreement remain in full force and effect. 14. Good Faith: Further Assurances and Additional Documents. The parties covenant, warrant and represent to each other good faith, complete cooperation, due diligence and honesty in fact in the performance of their respective obligations. The parties shall execute and deliver any additional papers, documents and other assurances and shall otherwise perform as reasonably necessary in connection with their respective obligations hereunder and to carry out the intent of the parties hereto. The parties shall execute and deliver all other appropriate supplemental agreements and otl.er instruments and take a ny other action necessary to make this Agreement fully and legally effective, binding and enforceable as between the parties and as against third parties. 15. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. 16. Statutory Disclaimer. THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE Page 5 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE -7 OF . . PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING CF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH LIMIT'S LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTIES SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES. 17. Survival. All of the terms and covenants contained in this Agreement which require performance by either party after closing, including Seller's duty to indemnify and all Seller's representations and warranties, shall survive closing and delivery of the deed. 18. Memorandum. At Purchaser's option, the parties shall execute a Memorandum of this Agreement, which the Purchaser may record with the rccarding officer of Washington County, Oregon. SELLER: PURCHASER: THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation GORDON R. MARTIN By: WILLIAM A. MONAHAN City Administrator dge\tigud\mrrtin.(10112/95/nsk) Page 6 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE 9 OF ` ~Jf tom"" Leggy DescriPt'on ptN1BIT PAGE _ - Q -g-" SEt4"f',~Y 2- 6-96 ; 4 : 56PM ; 8.V-L. JA:\ 1 K. & \OVACK- 4559999001959818689;0 2/ 4 BALL, .SAN IK & NOVACK ATTORNCVQ. AT LAW ONF MAIN PLACE 101 3. W. MAIN ^TRGGT. QUIT[ 1100 1101 PCNN57LVANIA AVE. N W.Dull9 103! PORTLANO.OREGON 27204.3274 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20004 TCLEP'NONE 1503) x20-24526 leLCPNONC IZOZI 03111•3907 POt1CRT S. OALI. YELECOPY 1503)205-10545 Ttt CCOPY IZOZ1703.00.7 February 6, 1996 BY TELECOPIER (503) 243-2944 Mr. Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Dartmouth Street LID Dear Chuck: As you know, we represent Waremart, Inc, with respect to the formation of the Dartmouth Street LID. The purpose of this letter is to set forth Waremart's position on this matter, without recounting the entire history of the various parties' views. On February 1, you forwarded to me the most recent draft of a settlement agreement among the proposed LID participants and the City of Tigard. On February 2, Ed Christensen delivered another copy of the same document accompanied by a memorandum from him dated January 22, 1996 in which it was proposed that participants in the Dartmouth Street LID waive the right to remonstrate against the formation of a second LID for additional improvements. It was explained by Mr. Christensen and Gordon Martin that Don Pollock would require the waiver of remonstrance as a condition of entering the settlement agreement for closure of the Dartmouth Street LID. Waremart's position is straight-forward, an follows: 1. Waremart will not sign a waiver of remonstrance for a second LID as a condition of finalizing the Dartmouth Street LID. There are at least two important reasons for this position: (a) there is no legal basis to impose such a condition; (b) the scope and relative benefits of any second LID involve complex EXHIBIT"S- .0~ OF Z SENTY BY : 2- 6-96 : 4 : 56PM : BA1.. UN l K. & NOVACK- 4559999001 *5981868.. 31 4 ®ALL,JANIK 6 NOVACK Mr. Charles E. Corrigan February 6, 1996 Page 2 discussions that will take time to resolve, and no further delays are warranted in finalizing the Dartmouth Street LID. 2. After finalizing the Dartmouth Street LID, Waremart is prepared in good faith to discuss future traffic improvements in the Tigard Triangle. This may involve one or more additional LIDs. 3. The proposed settlement of the Dartmouth Street LID is acceptable to Waremart if it is finalized promptly. Waremart believes the coats included in the LID are excessive and are allocated inequitably. uowever, if the settlement agreement ie signed promptly by all parties, Waremart is willing to withhold its objections in order to conclude the process. If the settlement agreement is not signed promptly by all parties, Waremart will not be bound by the costs which are proposed to be included or the formula for assessment. We believe any formula proposed by the City would be more favorable to Waremart. 4. If the settlement agreement is not promptly finalized, Waremart will object to inclusion in the Dartmouth Street LID, or in any assessment against Waremart's property, of (a) any fees and costs incurred by the City or Mr. Pollock arising from the filing by the City of an appeal in the condemnation litigation, (b) any fees and costs incurred by any party to such litigation in excess of reasonable amounts, (c) any differential between the cost of interim financing of Dartmouth Street LID improvements above the cost of financing such improvements through Bancroft bonding of includable costa, since the date on which other participating property ownera uccepted the valuation determined in the condemnation case, and (d) any other costs that do not benefit the Waremart property. 5. The property valuations established in condemnation litigation by which the City acquired right-of-way from Donald Pollack, Julia Pollock and Richard Carpenter are acceptable to Waremart for right-of-way to be acquired from Waremart. 6. This entire process has been unnecessarily contentious, time-consuming and inefficient. Waremart believes the parties should conclude the Dartmouth Street LID now, and proceed in constructive ways to address remaining traffic concerns in the area. EXHIBIT 5 OF 3 • ' T BY~ 2- 6-96 4:57PM : BILL,JANiK,& NOVACK, 4569999401#5981868 4/ 4 BALL, JA NIK & NOVACK Mr. Charles S. Corrigan February 6, 1956 Page 3 Please call me if you would like to discuss any of the foregoing. Sincerely, Robert S. Ball (Jew-) RSB/ew cc: Paul Simmons Gordon E. Davis Gordon R. Martin Joe Willis Jeff Keeney Donald Pollock - ocs~ua.o: EXHIBIT PAGE-3 OF.3 IM m FEL-06-1°'?G -!S:09 .:HF.ISTEHSEN EHG '1J1KIt•;G F.01 01DOINNELL RAMIS CRH\V CORRIC3t'_N & BACHRAC: i jur m. 8MHrWH ATTD1 "Al AT LAW CL4cX MAC COV?m OPME rrmopam W. tiebtFtD m Kw. "q1 Wet is 1 N. Cram, suite = F0"A J. SMY Portland, onjoa 97,t;b+ caf ft Omen 9"19 IMX L. BUSCH IMI" ONS: (M) =-"n 7ELE HON& (s* 20&1149 DOM1MC O.OOUXTA', PM; (90) 343-2W - - CNAKM 8. Ct7M3Ge W iiTRMSN F. CRAW vANCOWM WASMO N OPM W)LLJM 9 CAM rta,tru ttort v Yo rcart~m riastctt 2M MAN $M% swty 59o 0. PANICHAMMOND# Va=uvor. WeettYt, WW-^764 X LNNM V. HELM TWAPRON& CM) 017-72" WN10 L. JAMARtD VAX 0" 649.7=1 bMCOLM JOHAi60ie• pebruarf 6, 1996 MARK F. OWN U1, ?IMc7TM V. P"IS JAM M. OOLEh+ N %%%UAM J. SrAWAM Su3AN J. wu)= 41!'60,4 ' ,u.~.twrnrtc »rre~set~:wrot~~ur~x+ t A..WAGlt.'•1J19 AV,4~4a:/i Cltt7tlA:11t Mr. Ed %'"hristemtlon Christenwri Ensinearing 7000 SW Hampton S'rftt suite 220 Tigard, OR 97223 YES: City of ftnout Tar Ed: in follow-up to 41r. telephone conversations we have had today, as woo as my b,111-.11 :vvjew taf your dmft momo dt tod knuf ry 22,1'996 (which you just faxed aver today), Id we C:Cturlrttn My urtdera5 nding of qtr InSW to thts points I tsWd ConCaning your M=O: 1. Tho v1ditional provision to bo added to the bait nouth UD wad n7em agrex-guent, as of out In your nimno, would not expand or change the City's obligations as currently set out in the proposed a,g=mont. That Is, while the proposo(t aSmemant =taint a pmislon wbmby the City agmr~s "[tjo support the eomplstion of the Dartzmouth Stmt ttapotmition system Improvements w1th the City's support throuSh a second LJD or other Aindlrlg mecharlam," to the exicnt that you? proposed 1ldd.Wonal pravisitm die; ism a nd LM wbo the participants might be, them improvment3 to be made and thcIr cost, etc.), the City umnot at 013 point fl,lw that any of those partivilm would be irncludM In a seoortd UD, In the avwt on$ wore famed, 2. Similarly, the City cawot =ke arly position at thie timo sagarding ;rte fkasIbility, li3cetthood, o< particsttaru of this "baRCi district" spoken to in your drisflt ilrovl~iaet. 3. Yo.1r refs mnoe to "nonvo:untsry pazWponta° in Uhz srx:ond ID should =Wally r"1d "nonparticipants.' 'T'hat is, to the extent that property owuzr3 ctlooso not to pastlcipato in a wood LTD, dating provlslon SC mikes It Ow that the City'a su. art for such on lid "is EXHIBIT (a (0 PAGE -!-OF FED- i :'3~ IS: 1 ==IF' : ~TEI i'3cN ila '4~ I I N! i P. 02 C)`17q~1~~1.~ lt~ii~► Cleary C®RRDC AN & BACl lRACH Mr. &1 Christensen Rbroary 1995 Pap 2 based upon an undartWding that all property owners included is that LID would be voluntary partlclpants or would have lured appUcaEble non-remofletrian~ agraomenta; I'm sure the City Council would not want to cmat>r an ambiguity by now includIM a provision using the term "Ponvoluntary partlcipants." 4. in that it appears one or more of the property owner, in the extating LM are unwilling, at least at this point, to sign off on the concept of a uwad LID, we anticipate that it/they will stet sign an agreement that iacludes your proposed additions. That being the ow, we will mood to add language to rile effect that those signat+orift who am willing to be bound by your new provision underttaad that other signatories might sat be willing to do so, and that fty (thc arias who are wD tg to accept your new provision) will be bound by the entire agreement, even if one or more of the other signatories zig'n the agre=ent only on tine condition that they will not bo bound by your now provision. 5. 1 undeNAnd the lsat provision of your paragraph to quality the Mocks' agrmnent to piarticipate in a s=ons LM on tha conditions that they or their su am can get acceptable devolopment approvals, assuran=s of adequate trzc equity, ft establisbmeint of a bmfit district, atc. I underatand that this provision is = to be read to suggest that tiro City is agrocing :hat those conditions will nemasrily W Met. I will be sharing your mama amxl this l r with Dili Monahan to am whU thought be w4y havo. Obviously, withM a thorough. review by any office and smno doliberation with and ditvction from Bill and ft Council, all of my initial observations am only tH.at. 7 tanks for your continuing afforts to get this project wrapped up. s yours, OW A chartge B. corrig" CECINC ?tel. cc w/encl.: William A. Monahan EXHIBIT &(o PAGE Z OF 0- Fn ~d" An Employee Owned Company WAREMART, INC. °.O..°+^- i2"av9 DISTRIBUTION CENTER SALEM, OREGON 97309 (503) 581-6100 February 16, 1996 Mr. Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Dartmouth LID Deax Gordon: Let me follow-up from our meeting last week with my understanding on how the subjects were left at the conclusion of the meeting and with a restatement of my position. I think our preliminary discussions on the scope of a possible second LID were useful. However, as you know, I have not changed my fundamental position that only after we have finished the first LID will I be prepared to explore thoroughly or enter into any agreements uu a possible second LID. While I have stated this position now many times, I have also said that at the same time I am willing to discuss a possible second LID, but that I will not agree to any form of linkage between the two. With regard to the scope of a second LID, I understand that based on our discussion last week, you are preparing a proposal and cost estimate on what such an LID might look like. I certainly look forward to seeing that proposal. However, I am not willing to continue exploring a second LID unless the first LID is finalized. The scope of any second LID is not likely to be resolved in the near term. The two processes must be separated, and the first LID must be brought to closure. For this reason, if there is no signed agreement between all parties by March 15, 1996, I will EXHIBIT 7 3601 STATE ST. N. E., SALEM, OREGON 97301 PAGE I OF M ~ 1 Gordon Martin February 15, 1996 Page 2 discontinue any fzuther discussions and urge the City to formulate its own assessments and hold hearings. My nncitinn ie set forh inn Dobb Rollo le++e. ^ ,1. n_ _o i' B-1 v avste to Chuck Corriga ri dated February 6, a copy of which was sent to you. nicer Paul A. Simmons, Vice President Waremart, Inc. cc: Don Pollock Robert S. Ball Jeffrey Keeney Joe Willis Charles B. Corrigan Gordon E. Davis Ed Christensen EXHIBIT PAGE , 2_ OF c~L- 1~ O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTOP*lvYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE 1M. SAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grave. Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE. (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA'• TELEPHONE: (303) 4:lY2 9.1 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (503) 243.29" STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE* PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND• TELEPHONE. (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L. JARRARD March 12, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON* ' MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SPECIAL COUNSEL • A1S0 ADMMW TO PRAcnCE M WASHINGTON • • ALTO ADMirTTED TO PRACtiCE IN CALIFORNIA BY FAX AND SURFACE MAIL. Donald Joe illis, Esq. Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Schwab illiamson & Wyatt Tonkon ToGalen aduke & Eooth Pacw t Center, Suites 1600-1950 1600 Pioneer To r 12 SW 5th Ave 888 SW 5th A . ortland, Oregon 97204-3795 Portland, O 97204 Mr. Ed Christensen Robe . Ball Christensen Engineering Ball anik & Novack 7000 SW Hampton Street S}ite 100 Suite 220 Ol SW Main St. Tigard, OR 9Zin, /Portland, OR 97204 Gordon S. 14 . MAC ONLY 12265 SW 2nd Ave. Tigard, R 97223-8604 Re: ' City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Gentlemen: I am writing in response to Joe Willis' letter of March 12, 1996 (copy enclosed for Ed Christensen). After I last spoke to Joe, I did attempt to contact Ed Christensen right away to see where things stood. It has been and remains my understanding that Ed represents one or more of the affected property owners in the Dartmouth LID, and that all of the property owners agreed, or at least recognized, that Ed was serving as sort of a mediator to get matters resolved. EXHIBIT PAGE OF a7- r ti. O'DONNELL RAb1IS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH March 12, 1996 Page 2 Ed got back to me last Friday (March 8) and explained that the proposed settlement agreement that the City drafted and circulated months ago (latest version enclosed) was now acceptable, except for one necessary addition (necessary to whom, I am not sure). That addition would provide that the City would create a "benefit district." The purpose of the benefit district would be to require any property owner not included in a second LID, but who subsequently soug' lit to develop property that benefited from the LID No. 2 improvements, to make payment (to the LID No. 2 participants?) commensurate with that benefit. I have just had an opportunity to run this proposal by Bill Monahan, the City Administrator. Simply put, Bill understands the City Council's clear direction to be that the first LID is to be closed before the City Council begins consideration and deliberations regarding the formation of new improvement districts, benefit districts, or other traffic/improvement fmancing mechanisms for the Tigard Triangle. I will be glad to accept Joe Willis' proposal that I put the settlement document "into final form" and circulate it immediately. Please accept this letter and its enclosure as my initial effort in that regard. I do not have "Exhibit 1," which is the assessment formula developed by Ed Christensen. I believe all the property owners have seen that, but I am not certain. In any event, if everyone can live with the documents as they now read, it would appear we have a deal. If that is not the case, please let me know (preferably by letter with copies to everyone else) and I will try to determine if we can or cannot put a deal together. Sincerely yours, e" r Charles E. Corrigan C. CEC/fwc Encl. cc: William A. Monahan EXHIBIT 09 PAGE a OF 03/12 11:48 1996 FROM: SCHWABE WILLIAMSON T0: 2473 PAGE: 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAR, _32-' 96 11:35 I Z: SCHWABE W I LL•I,Fr q - TEL. NO: 503-?96-2900 - - - - 4475-P02 - - - - - - - WAiAS1 PAC%Wr C ENOF. SUfM 26006 0 MI S0VrkW89r i UrM AVBNUS - rORTLAND, OREGON 97204-M J TELMIKONE: 305:27AM • PAIL S03 796.2= -'I3 E) : 630.685.1760 1 ATTORNZYS AT LAW DONAID ]OS VVn= Larch 12, 1996 via Facsimile and 1pilrst claws ]wail Robert S. Ball, Esq. Ball Janik & Hovack 101 SW Rain St., Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Jeffrey H. Feeney, Esq. Tonkon Torp, at al. 888 SW Fifth. Ave., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 Charles E.Corrigan, Esq. O'Donnell Ramis & crew, at la. 1727 NN Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: Dartmouth LID Gentlemen: Please reference the letter, dated February 16, 1996, of Mr. Paul Simmons, Vice President, Waremart, Ino. to Mr. Gordon i S. Martin. I In that letter a signed agreement involving all parties was demanded by Mr. Simmons by March 15, 1996. This is to inform you that Don Pollock, ray client, does not insist on a waiver of right to remonstrate against the second LID in order to resolve the outstanding questions involving the existing Dartmouth LID. Mr. Pollock had previously been given a copy of suggested assessments, and had expressed tentative approval of those as well, with an adjustment to reflect he will 2~*eoeive interest at the legal rate on all amounts awarded but not yet in his hands. PDRTLAND fiiF'TnA VANCOM l WAmUNUMN CMBXM - WAS MMU4 a WAStMU" ■ 0C n JCT CW C0LLA to as 2"W-MI =04-M X2 020 (16/55555/33333/JW65 F8'= PAGE _L-OF F203/1 11:49 1998 FROM: SCHWABE WILLIAMSON TO: 2473 PAGE: 3 . . MAR-12- 196 11 i 36 I D: W I U. I RlSw - TEL ND: 5@3-796-~ - - - - #475 Pea - - - - - - - SCHWABE 1 , MarCh 12, 1996 Peg4 2 Yt is my belief that there should be no reason that the first Dartmouth LID matter cannot now be fully resolved. I requested Chuck Corrigan on behalf of the City to make certain that these matters were receiving the appropriates follow up actiona so they could be concluded. On behalf of Hr. Pollock, I need to have some form of final proposed agreement and dollar figure, so that it in clear as to ghat tae are agreeing to. I assume ~sr. Corrigan will sea that the document is put into final form and circulated iaediately. I_ Very tr~ yours, i I Don d o Willis Mae cc: Donald Pollock Gordon S. Hartin 1 i i . i i 1 I i I i I SOMAU W91LUUOM ec %YATr t16/SS4s4/R3~,0,14a/6'iS6~(~~fT PAGE a 0 F -5- za~ AGREEIV!lF.NT The parties to this Agreement are The Holland, Inc./Burgerville; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Waremart, Inc.; Gordon R. Martin, Sr., Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Don^1d E. Pollock, Julia Gail Pollock and Richard L. Carpenter (collectively the "Property Owners") and the City of Tigard ("City"). RECITALS 1. In 1984 the City formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District ("LID") for the purpose of constructing a roadway known as Dartmouth Street within the area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Highway 217 and Highway 99W (the "Tigard Triangle"). 2. The Property Owners own properry within the boundaries of the LID ("the LID Properties"). 3. Dartmouth Street has been constructed and is open for use. 4. Pursuant to the City's ordinances establishing and controlling the LID, the City intends to assess all the costs of the LID against the LID Properties. 5. The Property Owners have agreed amongst themselves as to how the costs of the LID should be assessed against the LID Properties. 6. To complete the LID the City must acquire ownership of the Dartmouth Street right-of-way from Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart. 7. In condemnation litigation (the "Pollock Litigation"), the City acquired ownership of the right-of-way property previously owned by Donald Pollack, Julia Pollack and Richard Carpenter ("Pollock"). The jury verdict rendered in the Pollock Litigation established property valuations which Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart have agreed to accept as just compensation for the right-of-way property to be acquired from them by the City. 8. The City appealed the judgment rendered in the Pollock Litigation, and Pollock filed a cross-appeal. Both the City's appeal and Pollock's cross-appeal have been voluntarily dismissed. 9. The City and the Property Owners wish to resolve all outstanding matters necessary for the completion and final assessment of the LID. Page 1 - AGREEMENT EXHIBIT &1 PAGE 3 OF 5_ NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that the LID costs of approximately 4.2 million dollars shall be assessed against the LID Properties in the percentages set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart, Inc., agree to convey their Dartmouth Street right-of-way property to the City for payment consistent with the valuations established in the Pollock Litigation, including interest as agreed upon by the City, Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart, Inc. consistent with the interest applicable to the award in the Pollock Litigation. The City's payment for the right-of-way property shall be in the total sum of $ to Gordon R. Martin, Sr., with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995, and a total sum to Waremart, Inc. of $ with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challenge the validity or other aspect of the LID, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, and waive all irregularities and defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the LID proceedings, including but not limited to, the apportionment and determination of the actual cost of the LID. 4. The City agrees to amend its ordinances to remove the limitation on bancroft bonding based upon the assessed value of the subject real property. 5. The City agrees as follows: a. To participate in preparing and supporting a study of options to resolve the Tigard Triangle's transportation problems at the desired level of development as requested by the Tigard Triangle community and as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to assure their acceptance; b. To promote to the necessary jurisdictional and highway officials consideration of an additional port al in and out of the Tigard Triangle to service the business interests of the Tigard Triangle community and consideration of an interim ramping system from nortabound Highway 217 to Dartmouth Street; C. To support the completion of the Dartmouth Street transportation system improvements (including item b, above) with the City's support through a second LID or other funding mechanism. The City's support for a second LID is based upon an understanding that all property owners included ir. that LID would be voluntary participants or would have signed applicable non-remonstrance agreements; d. To advocate support of The Holland, Inc./Burgerville's temporary right- EXHIBIT Page 2 - AGREEMENT PAGE OF -5- nT• n,n,,., a, in/right-out driveway connection to Highway n79n~' to n e. To advocate within the :-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan process Alternative 7, including tool box measures, which provides the maximum level of service practicable for the Tigard Triangle and the surrounding subareas. 6. The Property Owners agree that this Agreement is binding on their successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, such that all the parties' signatures need not appear on the same document for a signing party to be bound by the Agreement's terms. DATED this day of 1995. THE HOLLAND, INC.BURGERVILLE COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION By By_ Title Title WAREMART, INC. By Title Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Donald E. Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Richard L. Carpenter Julia Gail Pollock C:\orcc\ccc\ti gard\dartmout. agr(fwc) 12/19/95 EXHIBIT Page 3 - AGREEMENT PAGE - OI=,~ ~ gLEwy~~ PA ~'!n CENTER. SUITES 16CO-18M W~8 Al.Vd A~~~t1°~i 1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE , PORTLAND, OREGON 97104-3WS ec IOVYAr b TELEPHONE: 503 222-9981 • FAX: 503 7962900 -'TELEX: 650-686-1360 T V P.C ATTORNEYS AT LAW DONALD JOE WILLIS MAR 14 1996 March 13, 1996 1, ~~G.ev v ~~~~v Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re:- City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Chuck: Reference your fax of March 12 to me. Don Pollock's willingness to agree is conditioned upon his receipt of interest at the legal rate on all amounts awarded until he is paid them by the City, or until he can file a motion with the court to withdraw the monies on deposit. That motion cannot be filed until after the matter is resolved, because Don would be recfaired to waive his right to cross-appeal. The language set forth should be added at the end of paragraph 2 to make this clear: "It is agreed that Pollock-will receive interest on all amounts awarded at nine percent until funds are disbursed from the court to him, or paid directly to him by the City." I have faxed your letter and this response to Don for approval. EXHIBIT `10 PAGE _L._.OF PORTftND SEATTLE VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OREGON o WASHINGTON ■ WASHINGTON • DIS'TRtCT OP COLUMMA 5W=9981 206&11.9169 306694nsSI 2026U-MI (SMl2/63249/83558/Jw/644643.1) I Charles Corrigan March 13, 1936 Page 2 It is critical that someone send me what is claimed to be the agreed assessment formula with the dollars in it so Don knows for certain what it is he is being asked to approve. Thanks. Very truly yours, f may,,, Donald Joe Willis JW:se ` cc: Robert S. Ball (via fax) Jeffrey H. Keeney it Ed Christensen Donald Pollock " Gordon S. Martin (via mail only) EXHIBIT 17 c PAGE A OF a SCHWABE WILLIAMSON di WYATT (SWW2/63249/83558/JW/644643J) A A.BR Incoroorated 1 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 ffm FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: 3/14/96 TIME: 3:00 P.M. TO: O'Donnell Ramis / Charles Corrigan CITY, STATE, COUNTRY: Portland Oregon TELEPHONE ( 503) 243-2994 PLEASE CONFIRM AT (503) 620-2477 PAGES: 2 (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) SUBJECT: Dartmouth LID Settlement Agreement SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Dear Chuck: Both my father and I are in agreement with the March 12, 1996 Dartmouth Settlement agreement. The individual property assessments represented in Exhibit 1 are also acceptable. Our Gross Assessment on Exhibit 1 is $843,406.00, with a R.O.W. value of $518,240.00 being credited against our Gross Assessment, which will result in a Net Assessment of $325,166.00. We also understand that these numbers will fluctuate slightly to reflect exact calculations for interest. We will eventually be conveying the R.O.W. to the City which will not only require a conveyance from my father, Gordon R. Martin, but also a conveyance from uncle, Robert H. Martin and my self Gordon S. Martin. This conveyance is necessary since both of us are contract interest holders on tax lot 101 Map 2S 1 1 BA. My father, Gordon R. Martin is the sole owner of R.O.W. on tax lot 100 Map 2S 1 1 BA. Please take this into account during the drafting of the transfer documents. If you have any question please call. FROM: ~ Si L GORDON S. MARTIN EXHIBIT PAGE OF --(Z._ A_QREFXfENT The parties to this Agreement are The Holland, Inc.Burgerville; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Waremart, Inc.; Gordon R. Martin, Sr., Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Donald E. Pollock, Julia Gail Pollock and Richard L. Carpenter (collectively the "Property Owners") and the City of Tigard ("City"). RECITALS 1. In 1984 the City formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District ("LID") for the purpose of constructing a roadway known as Dartmouth Street within the area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Highway 217 and Highway 99W (the "Tigard Triangle"). 2. The Property Owners own property within the boundaries of the LID ("the LID Properties"). 3. Dartmouth Street has been constructed and is open for use. 4. Pursuant to the City's ordinances establishing and controlling the LID, the City intends to assess all the costs of the LID against the LID Properties. 5. The Property Owners have agreed amongst themselves as to how the costs of the LID should be assessed against the LID Properties. 6. To complete the LID the City must acquire ownership of the Dartmouth Street right-of-way from Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart. 7. In condemnation litigation (the "Pollock Litigation"), the City acquired ownership of the right-of-way property previously owned by Donald Pollack, Julia Pollack and Richard Carpenter ("Pollock"). The jury verdict rendered in the Pollock Litigation established property valuations which Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart have agreed to accept as just compensation for the right-of-way property to be acquired from them by the City. 8. The City appealed the judgment rendered in the Pollock Litigation, and Pollock filed a cross-appeal. Both the City's appeal and Pollock's cross-appeal have been voluntarily dismissed. 9. The City and the Property Owners wish to resolve all outstanding matters necessary for the completion and final assessment of the LID. EXHIBIT "j / Page 1 - AGREEMENT PAGE o2. OF 4v NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that the LID costs of approximately 4.2 million dollars shall be assessed against the LID Properties in the percentages set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart, Inc., agree to convey their Dartmouth Street right-of-way property to the City for payment consistent with the valuations established in the Pollock Litigation, including interest as agreed upon by the City, Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart, Inc. consistent with the interest applicable to the award in the Pollock Litigation. The City's payment for the right-of-way property shall be in the total sum of $ to Gordon R. Martin, Sr., with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995, and a total sum to Waremart, Inc. of $ with an additional ;per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challenge th-_ validity or other aspect of the LID, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, and waive all irregularities and defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the LID proceedings, including but not limited to, the apportionment and determination of the actual cost of the LID. 4. The City agrees to amend its ordinances to remove the limitation on bancroft bonding based upon the assessed value of the subject real property. 5. The City agrees as follows: a. To participate in preparing and supporting a study of options to resolve the Tigard Triangle's transportation problems at the desired level of development as requested by the Tigard Triangle community and as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation ODOT") to assure their acceptance; b. To promote to the necessary jurisdictional and highway officials consideration of an additional portal in and out of the Tigard Triangle to service the business interests of the Tigard Triangle community and consideration of an interim ramping system from northbuund Highway 217 to Dartmouth Street; C. To support the completion of the Dartmouth Street transportation system improvements (including item b, above) with the City's support through a second LID or other funding mechanism. The City's support for a second LID is based upon an understanding that all property owners included in that LID would be voluntary participants or would have signed applicable non-remonstrance agreements; d. To advocate support of The Holland, Inc./Eurgerville's tempos-ary right- EXHIBIT Page 2 - AGRYENT PAGE OF in/right-out driveway connection to Highway 99W to ODOT; e. To advocate within the I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan process Alternative 7, including tool box measures, which provides the maximum level of service practicable for the Tigard Triangle and the surrounding subareas. 6. '*be Property Owners agree that this Agreement is binding on their successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, such that all the parties' signatures need not appear on the same document for a signing party to be bound by the Agreement's terms. DATED this , day of , 1995. THE HOLLAND, INC./BURGERVILLE COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION By By Title Title WAREMART, INC. - By Title Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Donald E. Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. i z n - Richard L. Carpenter Julia Gail Pollock J H 7 J C:\OrCC\CM\d gU d\dartmouL 8e f WC) 12/19/95 Page 3 - AGREEMENT EXHIBIT PAGE OF • 1 Wright. out drivoway cotumdon to Highway 99W to ODOT; c. + To advocato within tho I-51 ISliway 217 Subaroa Transportation Man proccas A.ltornadvo 7, inoluding tool box rricnaures, which provido$ th9 ! maximum loval of sorvloo pmotlectblo for the Tigard 7l1aaible and the sur ending submas. 6. The Ptoperty Ownern agroo that this Agrooment is binding on thoir succossors and AS9R~f1S, ~ 1 7. This Agreement ertay bo oxeovtod in c4untorprarts, such that all the partloo' slgeiatures need not nppesir on the aarne document for a oigning party to bo bound by tho Agreenlant's i~irnlS. i DATED this I day of , p9~S. r--- TH8 HOLLANI>, 6*1C./mMORRVIILL$ C03TCO WROL ALU CORJPORAVON Titles TYde I~ WARBMART, INC I Title ^1 Cliu'{I4tl It. Martili, ;sr. I ~u,tcitd J3, I'oLlock Gordon S. IvSart n, Jr, i YCiGhRr(i L. t.nrpeutcJulfa Gail Pollock I C't0roA*N%lkArd\derv'WJ1 dr{Mo) tlrt9rfl5 1 I EXHIBIT Pages 3 - ACJRRU PAGE OF 1 . • yr°~m t:u•" E.pGFE SPCPTS i..TD. PF9_MIC oi•a. 1 X03 626 2.477 I°t3r,:3 19`3b u.,j;0RPI P^3 i i i to/eight. out drivowny connection to Highway 99W to OD. C)Ti 1 c. To advooato within tho 1-3/1410tway 217 Subarea TramportAtion flan procesa Altomativu 7, Including tool box mensuros, wWch provides thq Ira>timum level of cvrvloe pmc.ticablo for trio Tigard T-iiiuzble and the surrounding subaroas. i 6. The Property Owner. agme that ttus A.z,,reerne t is blydin$ on thoix successors Reid assigns. 7. This Agreement may bo executed In Countorpsrts, such that all the partit„z' signatures nee4 not nppear on the same document for a aigning party to bo bound by tho Agreemont'S tQCiilS. t VATEM this day of 1495. THE HOLLAND, IINC.IBVRt.' BRVILLS CMG?STCO WHOLSSA.' D CORPO AVOrr i Title Title i f WARBMAIt'i', 1NC.i . f r 3 Ry Title GC),rdoll R, Martin; Sr. jq4 bunald 12, 1,1011041 c3oxdatz S. Mart n, jr, i 4 i YticharclrL. "nrpelitc~r Iuits Gail Pollock i Ca'unolON~rlAanl.dn~u.n:,r o1+(F.~e) I~r1919,1 . EXHIBIT I PAGE to OF Pap. 3 - A QR NT I. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA'° TELEPHONE: (503) 222 4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX (303) 2a3 294a STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONT* PLFASE REPLY TO POR7LIND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660.2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L. JARRARD March 21, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SFrcctAL COUNSEL • ALSO ADWrrW TO PRACncE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACnCS M CAUFORMA Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Jeffrey H. Keeney q. Schwabe, Williamson Wyatt Tonkon Toip Galen Marmaduke & Booth Pacwest Center, Suit 1600-1950 1600 Pioneer T'-ower 1211 SW 5th Ave 888 SW 5tht5ve. Portland, Oregon 204-3795 Portland, O 97204 Mr. Ed Christens n Robert . Ball Christensen Et n, Ball ' & Novack 7000 SW H ton Street Sui 100 Suite 220 1 SW Main St. Tigazd, OR 7223rtland, OR 97204 Mr. John ilson Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Mr. Jac Graves 12265 SW 72nd Ave. The H hand, Inc. Tigard, OR 97223-8604 109 . 17th St. V ouver, WA 98660 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Gentlemen: By my letter of March 12, 1996 (which I inadvertently faded to send to The Holland, cony enclosed for them), I explained that, as best as the City Manager could determine, if this case was to be resolved by mutual agreement it would have to be according to the terms of the settlement agreement enclosed with that letter. I have received responses from Joe Willis on behalf of Don Pollock and from Gordon S. Martin on his behalf and on behalf of his father. Copies of those responses are enclosed. EXHIBIT ~ PAGE-J--OF,~ O'I)ONNEL1 R.AMIS CREW CORRIGAN b BACHRACH March 12, 1996 Page 2 I have also had a conversation with Ed Christensen who I understood to say that other property owners (I am not sure he was referring to all of the other property owners) were willing to settle this matter without requirement of further amendments to the settlement agreement enclosed with my last letter. In any event, we will need responses from Waremart, C'.ostco and The Rolland before we can determine where we are. Thank you. y arles E. o an CEC/fwc Encl. CAO[CCk=\ti9WdkWWi:et1t2 cc: William A. Monahan P.S. Also enclosed is a fax from Ed Christensen to me and Joe Willis that includes the assessment formula that Ed developed. EXHIBIT ? PAGE a OFID eaov:~ ~ ~ PACWEST CEZZIMR, SUITES 1600-1800 W111 I r~N1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3795 ~H 1 TELEPHONE: 503 222 Ml • FAX: S03 796-2900 ■ TELFx 650-6851360 P.C ATTORNEYS AT LAW DONALD JOE WYLi.LS fiftcen%o NAR 1.4 1996 March 13, 1996 0 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Charles E. Corrigan OODonnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Chuck: Reference your fax of March 12 to me. Don Pollock's willingness to agree is conditioned upon his receipt of interest at the legal rate on all amounts awarded until he is paid them by the City, or until he can file a motion with the court to withdraw the monies on deposit. That motion cannot be filed until after the matter is resolved, because Don would be required to waive his right to cross-appeal. The language set forth should be added at the end of paragraph 2 to make this clear: "It is agreed that Pollock will receive interest on all amounts awarded at nine percent until funds are disbursed from the court to him, or paid directly to him by the City." I have faxed your letter and this response to Don for approval. EXHIBIT_ W PAGE - OF PORTIAND SFATRS VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OREGON a WASHINGTON a WASHINGTON n DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5002224981 2D6621-9163 306604-701 202624-Mi (SWU2/63249/83550/jW/644643.1) i , Ciarle E_ Corriq_an March 13, 1996 Page 2 It is critical that someone send me what is claimed to be the agreed assessment formula with the dollars in it so Don knows for certain what it is he is beings asked to approve. Thanks. Very truly yours, C. - Donald Joe Willis JWase cc: Robert S. Ball (via fax) Jeffrey H. Keeney 11 Ed Christensen Donald Pollock it Gordon S. Martin (via mail only) EXHIBIT PAGES OFD SCHWABB WiLUAMSON & WYATP (Sdj2/63249/83558/JW/644643.1) 03/14 15:31 1908 FROM: 503 820 2477 TO: 2473 PAGE: 1 From EAST ESE SPORTS LTD. PHO14E No. 503 628 2477 Mar. 14 19% 3:38PM MI I ABR Incorporates I 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-9604 :Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fex/Voica trial: (543) 620.1"2 TELECOPM-R. TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATR: W14/96 71MR: 31M P.M. TO: fl'))onnel Ramis / Charles Corrigan CITY, STATE, COUNTRY: PortlmW Oregon T>;LE-PIIONE : (503 ) 243-2994 T'liXASE CONFIRM AT (503) 680-2477 PAGES. (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) S13B3ECr: Da i oath LID Settlement Agreement SPP.C,'IAL INS UC11ONS: Dear Chuck: Both my fathcr~and I arc in agreement ~Nith the March 12, 1995 Dartmouth Settlement agreement. The individual property assessments repmssented in Exhibit 1 are also ac ptablc. Our Gross Assessment on Exhibit 1 is $843,406.00, with a R.O.W. value of $518,240.00 bciag croditod against our Gross Assessment, which will result in a Not Assessment of $325,166.00. We also understand that these numbers will fluctuato slightly to refl •t exact calculations for interest. We will event ly he conveying the R.O.W. to the City which will not only require a conveyance fro my father, OuLduu R. Martin, but also a conveyance ?Mm unola, lRubmt II. Martin and y self Gordon S. Martin. This conveyance Is necessary since both of us are contract int st holders on Wx lot 101 Map 2S 1 I BA. My father, Gordon P. Martin is the sole own Hr urRO.W. uu tax lot 100 Map 2S 1 1 BA. Plun= tultu this Into account during the draping of the tranarcr documents. If you have any question plcago eaa11. FROM:-g.;~.~ GORDON S. MARTIN EXHIBIT 7,,;? PAGE S pF 03114 16:32 1098 FROM: 503 620 2477 TO: 2473 PAGE: 2 Fran : EAST E SPORTS LTD. FHME No. : 583 620 2477 Mar. 14 1996 3:39PM P02 Rrf+af : EA£T G1ROPG b'oORT8 ~TD. C tlo. s ~7 tiQ/L 8477 Mani lWb W21WPM P03 +i i rtght• out dgavoway Connection to mighway 9pW to ODOTi e. o advoaalo withtn tho I-6Mjlhwmy 217 Subarea Tevmmp*rtA9cn plus ~roooaa .hltoma4vo 9, including toot box moamwoo, which providoa the f 491MU tf level of servloo jamWcsble for tho Tlgatd TrIsmVis and the a trrounft subams, 6. T1sa P rty Ownarn Game that thlo AgroameAt is bhuHns or iholr eoccossors and 9. T611 rosment may bs wmauted in seunforparU, xuoh ihr.i eS the }tw.tlvo, algeaturea need nee poor on the avm* dooansebt fee a oigning !tarty to bo bound by tho AFSraanloris's e~~, TUB HOLLA1M, 11IC iDtM0XMVILLZ COSTCO'91mALI3.gAm Co"ORATfWi Tilla_ - WARMA"T, INC 7d14 13G Cq . Martini .Sri ~`~_'~L BUM 15, 1100kT- Gordon S. M TlRtti , JP, X0-fi; Q c;atpontc tufts Gali nclloc a. u.+,+.+. W ► W w, m, n w... d iLiN97 Pop 3 - At3 I t~(H1G1T 7)L PAGE OF 10 • 03/15 09:58 1998 FROM: TO: 2473 PAGE: 1 MAR-15-1996 09:50 CHRISTENSEN EWz/VIKIlG P.01 1aY~irI~ilEElf~Il~~ FAX DATE: TO: -jZa 1A11 I- I- I.% F1:LOM: 96 23W.-Pf FAX NUMBER (S): ?9(0 Z 94Z~ 24,3°Z9 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: CONWEN'TS: M1 T --S 7- T ^ AtJ&4 f 7000 S.W. llamptoP Strcet. Suite 220 Portland, Arcxon 97.23; (5o3) 598'[866 Fax (soy) 598•t868 PAGES OF. /~D O LL- C) CY (n W w z C.7 d n i OF 3 12118195 DA12-18.XLS li L10 ASSESSMENT FOR DARTMOUTH -STREET. SUMMARY OP' GDNSTRUCTICM * MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 32',305235 POLLOCKLANDACCUISRt6N,JURYAWARDi1NTERESTASOFI-2D-95 $390,765 co IWERESTACCU1111UTATHMONTHEBALANCEOF A00013RIf1NTHROUGH 301M $19,979 AM INTEREST PER YEAR T MMRTINRIGNT.OF-WAYCREDRPWt51NTEREST3TNROUfly3131m SS18940 CY tx18FOODRIGHT-OF4IVAYCREDITPLUS INTEREBTSTHR000H3r31l96 $887,647 TOTAL COSTS ' 34,126,868 t t7 • 103% Cad Off CM*rFootapa 3938.23 TOW Laty84 Of C~bno1181 8281.15 It Central Una 93 dTots baT1h of Oararz! Formula for Fom1De for famula for Groaa LID RAW Lad Nat LID Cor" Lk* Pmp°ttlr OiriaK Fam%h FF2,&VM FF-DEPTH FF4DEPTH t00°A ZaOeB zone C t009iDepth ZA#ZB+ZC Atseaamorg Creft AweYr~n1 Footage t~ t~oolaga i 460.00 7.1676 450 1 211,4: 105,551 70,981. 35,111 211,102. 211,123 211,102 887,847 (678 CtMom131 1,221.47 195196 ` 450 0 !,1'-020 1 573.0101 382,083 191,0411 1,148.020 1,146,134 1,146,020 0' 1,11Q020 z CobNodh92 450.00 7.12% 450 1 4 211,1 D2 1(x,551 70,381 35,191 211,102 211,123 211,102 0 211,102 13 Ct11Sdi84f 1 314.00 50273 150 0 61,243 0 0 0 81,243 81,243 0 81.243 µY~lj cuss s a 2 _ 314.0D W 150, 0 0 1,984 0 0 1.984 1pB4 0 1p64 • , ' ' CubSouth Is chnped 5093 of LID Aneasm°td beca0°o tha tesi faea In Mar9~ a petty 0 C03F0011 BU13- 2 TOTAL 2.176.47 288073 1,fe1,460 917,647 TIM03 I mm Piker Ces6co11 10 N 1 881.97 133776 450• 806,72& ! 404,363 211,829 134,815 ' 808,7213 806,807 W5,728 0 4108 718 m Ptker Coelot 1A 313100 WA 15D 0 7,20;1 0 0 0 7,2M 7,203 0 7,203 ,F9 f Caro! O 2A 314.00 NU 150 0 0 228 0 0 228 226 0 226 24,575 24,675 0 2{S7S Mar CAMWI m 28 31440 WA 150 0 0 24,575 0. 6 O ~ • 1 ' L` ~ o Cl) 1. rn Lu 2 OF 3 12118195 DA17.-18ALS a: Si of Tdd Car"DO Oeplhol Gaunl Fomxlatar Fomx{alcr Forrnulafa~ ~ amesUD RAW lath t1dUO Fooegc ~Fo Property« Forrnla FF-depth FF•DFpTH FF<DEPTH ZaleA ZonaB ZoneC 1O050ep1h ZA7B-ZC A4= Q~ Angumwit 0 Pried Costoo9 150 0! 0 0• 23,037 0 73,033 23,03;1 D 23Q33 3C 333 O Pdoef cositoP 11 1 11 t93.60 WA 150 D 2s,1o2 0 0 0 MD2 25,142 0 25,402 N Pdad Goatee ti n 193.10 WA 15a 01 1 0 53,640 D a 53,540 53,540 a 53AW O PIW Coe10a9 f ` 33 193.00 WA 150 a 0. 30,214 D 30,280 34,210 D 30,M pFdcpJCOSTCQ aus-WTAL 1181,97 13.7711 WA WA 973.188 0 077,19E IAa1hY1 150.00 7.10",1 450 1 211,1021 1 106,551 70,311 35,191 2111102 211,123 211,tDZ 0 211,102 i The Orel450It ae ent dated s t 50% since one dde of the VoNrty falls on 72nd Am magn02 504.73 6.01711- 450 0 473,600 230,800 157,896 71,919 473,1100 473,847 473,600 518,240 (44.841) huM solgh 580,94 NIA .150 0 0 0 2100 0 2,103 2103 0 2.103 ((~j77 BArMtln 91A 314,00 WA 150 O 58,921 0 0 D 58,921 66,921 0 58,921 11 Aevat2129 311.00 WA 150 0 0 71.803. 0 0 71,601 ' 71,030 0 71,803 fAeNr99C 314.00 WA 160 0 0 0 28.078 0 28,078 25A76 0 NAM MMM 9118 i43~{08 618,244 721,181 O TOTAL 18489 i8,2i,; U. Po3ock 11ixth t l 10207 1.83%1; 279.01 1 18211 16,291 0 16.2M Pollock IOM 92 120.72 1935n 150A7 0 58.649 66,632 18 0 0 KIM KIWI 0 58,849 w yl PdbckMx%#3 385,28 0.15%, A 0 231,82 100,731 50,551 0 0 231,262. 231282 0 73t~62 O POLLOCIt WITH OD. 5. 1 1.71Y, 304,222 0 30{221 Oj O Pok*&tffi91 MA2 2.335 60 1 68406 0 O PdFacit&xfflt2 58094 0.265 450 1 138,2114 90,681 327 0 270,61 270,4511 D 270,61 H 2 O ' MIN Illim- ` LA- C) c• w =CD a 3 OF 3 12118/95 DA12-18XLS r 96 of TOM 0 car" Lbw Cctttr3l lira Depth at DkWer Donets! Fartale ror i FOMVA for Foarala for ZamA Zone 6 Zom G 113?%De ZA+ZB+ZC Groaa Lb R.O.W Lord Not L!D Footage Foo1a®e PropsttT ForavA FF>dqM FF•DEPTH FFiDEFTH Assaximi Credit Aeae29111d POLLOCK SOUTH SUB. TOTAL 726.x6 11.09% 330,146 0 330,662 M d^' I N ALasancarf 1 193.00 3.18%1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 NAPDA NAPOA NAPOA AkxirJmM2 103.10 N1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 O NAPOA NAPOA NAPDA O ~ E- Etta®xMBo S." 55.251 W10% 18499 1. 1 14,745 .1 - G 0 0 0 i 14,745 0 14,745 BurgerAs Is d%W based on 10,000 SF area &ided bfl 2 for the Impmvornents on Mots Sired &irginik mom* 154.61 247% 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAPOA NAPOA NAPOA B1rrguvIlie SUBTOTAL 200.16 3,3B% l 16444 0 11,746 Stereaa101 IM99 9.W% 0 1 0 NAPOA NAPOA NAPOk Y StmrAf 2 ! -64.34 1.47% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAPOA NAPOA NAPOA STEVIARTSUD- TOTAL 195.13 3.13%• NAPOA NAPOA HAPOA fZWQ 74.trr 1.20% 0 1 0 NAPOA NAPDA NAPOA [;1 TaLLe S,tf12: 100.00% ttJFJF1I 4,116,114Ae 1A06,6a69e* 2,716,972.e2 POLU3CK LAND ACOMMOII, JURY AWARD & INTEREST AS OF 3A1f60 (413,744 TOTALS t 4,126,616.10, 1,406,111.16 2,309,234.16 KAPOA IRCITA PART OF ASSESSMENT O tb RIGHT OF WAY CALCULATIONS: ~ LAND INTEREST NO. OF INTEREST TOTAL O1 $ VALUE RATE DAYS VALUE VALUE r- MARTIN 413,441.33 at $7.5 Per St 9.00% 102E 104,708.88 SIV4021 FROM SOW TO 31:1.16 y~ CUBFOOD 700,148.25 at$7.5PerSF 9.0054 1026 170,SDO.52 887,848.7r FROM! I&1TO3r;fl9T o° Ta~1 1,466 en o ~ w ti 3 O L~MB 17 JL`e PAMESC CEW ER, SUITES 1600.1800 T~ I LAM~rv~N nil SOU-1- *-ES KF-1--i AVENUE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3795 TIM"HONE 503 222-9961 • FAX: 503 796-2900 - TELEX: 650-686-1360 Re- ATTORNEYS AT LAW DONALD JOE VAMLIS March 22, 1996 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Chuck: I have your letter of Ma ch.21, 1996. Pollock's position is set forth in my March 13 letter. Having reviewed carefully the three page document from Ed Christensen, I want to make sure that everyone understands that in addition to the jury award there is a judgment for attorneys' fees and experts' fee and other court costs in the approximate amount of $190,000, which has been accruing interest at 9 percent since it was entered. I do not see any line item for that in Ed's figures, but I do not know what all is included under miscellaneous costs. Please let me know your thoughts on the most efficient way to see how we can get this matter nailed down. I thought we had an agreement on everything, until someone wanted to condition the resolution of the first LID on approval of a second one. It is my understanding that problem has now gone away. On behalf of Don Pollock, I would like everyone to consider that he had to front end money for attorneys and experts to protect himself. He wound up with a road in front of his property smaller than the other players. It is my understanding the others did get a widened roadway by paying only the actual incremental cost of constructing the extra width. Don was denied that. Thus, I think the position he takes is more than reasonable. EXHIBIT, PAGE OF ~e PO#tTTAND SEATTLE VANCOUVER `1VASHING7'ON OREGON a WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON ■ DISMCT OF COLUMBIA 303 222-Ml M6 621.9168 sos dwassl 202 6244 POI (SW2/63249/83558/JW/644643.1) Charles E. Corrigan March 22, 1996 Page 2 Please let me know your thoughts on how to get this wrapped up efficiently and quickly. Thanks. Very tru y Donal ~y a W' lis JW:se cc: Robert S. Hall (via fax) Jeffrey H. Keeney Ed Christensen Donald Pollock of Gordon S. Martin (via mail only) EXHIBIT 7 3 PAGE / OF SC WAW Wn11AMS0N & WYATr (SWt2/63249/83558/J9/644643.7) w ~ O'DONNELL, RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH AmRNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1717 N.W. Hoyt Sweat 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA) BEERY Fontanel Oregon 97109 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEP'riONE. (503) 266-1149 222 4w2 DOMINIC G. COLLEITA" TEI EFHON 03) (203) 243-29" CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (20 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F FIRESTONE* PLEASE REPLY TO PORMAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660.2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND• TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L. JARRA,RD March 26, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMM SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SPECIAL COMM • Assn A>MMW ro "AMM w WASH rscs+oa Aso A Wane To P.Ucrt a sN a UFORMA BY FAX and FIRST CLASS iVIA~[. Donald Joe illis, Esq. Schwabe, illLamson & Wyatt 1211 SW th Ave., Suites 1600-1950 Portland, Oregon 97204-3795 Re: City of Tigard/Pollock/Dartmouth LID Dear Joe: In response to your letter of March 22, 1996, and in response to a voice mail message received from Rob Ball on the same day, I would encourage all of the property owners to communicate directly with Ed Christensen regarding assessment issues. The City has not been privy to any of the discussions leading up to Ed's proposed formula. I think my client's only involvement has been to make it clear that the City Council wanted all of the LID costs included in the amount that is to be spread on the properties. I am at a loss to comment on any of the particulars of Ed's proposal. Bill Monahan, the City Administrator, is relatively comfortable that the City Council will be willing to implement any reasonable assessment formula so long as it includes the City's costs and all of the affected proper'.y owners sign off or. it. EXHIBIT--- -1q PAGE _ - OF w~ O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Donald Joe Willis, Esq. March 26, 1996 Page 2 Where are other matters that the City will need to take care of (e.g., amending its bancroft bonding ordinance, dismissing the Pollock appeal, purchasing the Waremart and Martin right of way, etc.), but I don't think any of those tasks are the subject of controversy. S" ours, Charles E. Corrig CEC/fwc cc by fax: William A. Monahan Ed Christensen John Wilson/Jack Graves - The Holland, Inc. Jeffrey H. Keeney ` / Robert S. Ball cc by mail: Gordon S. Martin, Jr. cc: Mark L. Busch EXHIBIT -7,V PAGE OF 7- Ti;1171KnN; TORP, OALEN, MARMAIDUKE BOOTH ATMONM AT 1AW 1600 MOM= TOWER 883 S.W. FW= AVENUE PCQ n AND. OREGON M04-=" ~ (SMtt)n=•t-1450 FAX (SM) Z744fl9 JBPMW H. KEENEY April 5, 199s VIA T9LRCCy.1Y MM FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. Charles D. Corrigan O'Donnell, R%~mis, Crew, Corrigan a i:achrach 1727 NW Hoyt Sti°_et Portland, OR 97209 Re: Costco Wholesale Coraoration / Dartmouth Road LID Dear Chack: 1 have reviewed your March 12, 1996 letter, together with the fot-n of Settlement Agreement attached thereto, with representatives of Costco Wholesale Corporation. I have also reviewed with Costco the subsequent letters by and among you and Joe Willis. ThG purpose of this letter is to inform you that Costco is prepared to execute the Settlement Agreement subject to their final approval of (i) the final LID assessment spreadsheet (the December 18, 1995 draft of which is acceptable) and (ii) the exact terms and conditions under which their assessment will be paid under the Bancroft Bond. Please give me a call so that we can discuss how to fi,aalize this ma.ttsr as soon as pcs ' le. Sin rely, y Keeney JHK/mmd copy: Mr. Richard J. Olin (via telecopy) Mr. Jack S. Frank " Mr. Mark Vandehey " EXHIBIT -7E5 PAGE 1_._ OF Z00/ZOou S sd CMU NOS.~IO.L $Lis 9LZ C09$ ZT:DT 981901g0 Z :39vd UVE :Ol eLL9 4LZ £09 :novzl 988 ze:v+ g0/t0 SALL. JANIK & NOVACK ATTORNICYS AT LAW 0NC PLAC.- 101 S.W MAIN STREET. SUITL 4100 11Oi PCNNST w4Nl• ave." M..tu1TE 1035 PORTLANO. ORE00N 97204.3274 WASNINVINN.0 C 20006 TELEPHONC t5031 2E®-252$ ME"ONE 120.8 630.2307 R OBCRT S DOLL I CLICC:OPT (5031295-1058 TELECOPT 12 021 763-6247 April 11, 1996 By TZLECOEIER (503) 243-2944 Mr. Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Dartmouth Street LID Dear Chuck: After protracted discussions among the affected property owners, Waremart cannot agree to the assessment formula proposed by Ed Christensen on behalf of Mr. Martin. The proposal being circulated is fundamentally unfair to Waremart, and is based or. allocation criteria which shift LID costs from Mr. Martin to Waremart. Accordingly, Waremart asks that the Tigard City Council prepare its own formula for assessment and schedule a hearing on that formula. Waremart's concerns are apparent from the comparison of the Christensen/Martin formula with the alternative formula described on the enclosed exhibit. Mr. Christensen's formula is based upon the lineal frontages of the subject properties on Dartmouth Street. His choice of that methodology is obviously based on the fact than his client's property has little Dartmouth Street frontage in relation to its size. Waremart's a_iternative proposal is that the properties be assessed based uron their relative net developable acreages. This method takes into account the gross areas of each property, and deducts wetlands areas which are undevelopable. The net acreage within each ownership is the area that is benefited by the LID. EXHIBIT 20 PAGI! /Z #!#8981869#100Z66699s; -NONAON '8'NINdf " 11 9 Wd10:2 96-11-6 :Ag IN33 I' L • v ALL. JAN 1 K 6 NOVACK B71 Mt. Charles E. Corrigan April 11, 1996 Page 2 Please also note that the net developable acreage formula allows right of way credit to each property on the same basis as the Christensen formula. It also accepts, at least at this time, the overall LID cost of $4,125,866 which was set forth in the most recent spreadsheets we have seen from Mr. Christensen. Waremart is prepared to accept that cost, with continuing accrual of interest thereon, if the net developable acreage formula is accepted. otherwise, as we have previously indicated, Waremart believes that some components of the cost should not be assessed to Waremart. The enclosed exhibit is based upon very rough calculations or estimates of wetlands areas within each property. I believe precise calculations are readily available for the Martin, Costco, Waremart and Burgerville parcels, but probably not for the Pollock property. Any final assessment using this formula would obviously require survey determinations of wetlands areas. We are prepared to meet with the City and all other parties to discuss this matter, but we ask that the City proceed with its own analysis of the issues in the meantime. Sincerely, V~ Yw Robert S. Ball RSB/sk Enclosure CC: Paul Simmons Gordon E. Davis Gordon R. Martin Joe Willis Jeff Keeney Ed Christensen EVU PAGE OF .3 / I; # : #999I9GS# 100Z666SSE -NJVAON T 'N I NN(' 'TIVS WJ0 : S 99-11-V : A9 ,IJGS to rn a ' Bargervi0e TotsdI 1D1irt b LIT) Formula comparison Pollock April 11, 1996 Costco Wa►remart l arh° 149746 4,125,867 973,185 1,651,450 643'080 <0> 1,819,631 1~ormtlla 843,406 <g87, 647> <413,1744> 18,746 - , 06 ',1.35 Christensen Allocation -III 763,803 229,336 o Gross Assessment <51g,24Q> 973,1$5 ® Less ROw Credit 325,168 CO Net Assessment Based 11.24 .23s Allocation Formula 16.96 20.656 15 .32/a .71°/0 0 Alternate 4,125,450 ° ag$b le 4 Acres 22.4 28 ,173 13,202 on Devel 38°/a 23.710/a .87 64$ 1,819,631 s Net Acreage 978,242 11191,137 <413,744> <01> a % of Total 1,294,696 <0.> <987,647> 13,202 205,819 234,429 ® Gross Assessment <S1g,244> 42 303,490 776,456 9'?8,2 Less ROw Credit Net Assessment Ouva ben ing back from benefit zones Stepp a result of rounding g 96 using a road centerline footage based formula spy ' Discrepancies are cified in issued Permiu) and o net of mitigation as spe `r 2 Based on spread Sheet dated Y28/96 on each prop' a after deduction for wetlands { based ft road frontage able acreag win have been rem 3 Formula based on the net develop Some of the acreages fron'that table and drawing Ca cis other undevelopable propertymss, plotted 415/96. = G-1, S5O Engin erville props I 4 See attached drawuig lion and the inclusion of the Burg ov3llFill Pemut No. 9256 0 on new wetland informs ation in acc ordance with RenD t TIo, 10232 been done nor has a o S Net after wetland fill and tits a6on in accordance with RemovaUFiu Perini Since no full delineation has ell r-O 6 Net of wr wetland fill and rr itig Wetlands area are appro~ outh LID, exempted all c, e is after deduction for Wetlands. Ordinance $4'17, forming the Damn rn Net acreag lied for However . 73 acres vre Inoval permit been app oximately fi I The actual acreage of this pro OV, is from LID costs. is feet of this Property from any w but 10,000 square -v ~ s o BALL, ..IAN 1 K & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 10, S.W. MAIN STREET. SUITE 1100 1101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N. W..SUITC 1039 PORTLAND. OREGON 97204.3274 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 TELEPHONE 15031 228-2525 TELEPHONE 12021 638-3307 ROBERT S. BALL TELECOPY 15031 295-1058 TELECOPY 12021 7a3-6947 April 12, 1996 Mr. Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Dartmouth Street LID Dear Chuck: Enclosed is a diagram showing rough calculations of net developable acreages of the properties within the proposed Dartmouth Street LID. Sincerely, Robert S. Ball RSB/sk Enclosure cc: Paul Simmons (w/o encl.) Gordon E. Davis (w/o encl.) Gordon R. Martin (w/encl.) Joe Willis (w/encl.) Jeff Keeney (w/encl.) Ed Christensen Wencl.) H@j1 PAGE OF a- 1 m W t CD .r.l+Ir 1 OOSKO W rut fell M OSS w h N . n!) • N N . 0.10 . I- on-I 021. 41 II 1j I 1 •O•TID'IMowS 1 7.1 • ) IIN • )n • OM / ( prhMDYMR (1.) Srrl lu 1•Irq[ IWt tKJVxe.11. Mhrl ru+d Ih0e111M1 fM rWRli II I 1 (7) 7.1 KJft commTl l fIN a RIIwM "U K II II ~ rihrlKM0. f1M Wgt+lOrJ IN h•Itop, nVI K.W/IRJ 1 II II I' IhWIK[ aKlfh+~ 1 741 y i (J.) I~ 0 ~f/IKIUDLS uu)/aC VUWS K lanr IW d 11 IS I 11 11 I~ 1 IIgM4f1 a leto f/I eM i~i v 1 \ I 1, C 4hr•Cf O v 1 1 1 1 I ~ ~ - IIRIabO \ I` ' I D I ~IJ41S q+U< mefo v 1 1 1 S rhwl.c[ amunor Jp. Y ta)a[>D I \ 1 P' 1 rl+u+ct e v 1 D 1 Igr.a aawlo+ I~~i,~q 9 _ wnnurH = _ _ - aw. wJma°urt'sr ' 1 r•on•4 ainfa i.iio v ~ - _ ~ ~ _ ~ - - ` J 1 t 1 iW 0OO I 1 1 I hom SrVI rh +•wa[ r.", 11Q, (o nlh 1 1 O.ShrJ rullr rhd[•IV IM /W- +bK 1 1 1 I [•R+D.O R1000! fd1 hcm hb M•OIJS 1 1 1 htt +nOl - Ib,IN Y ~ 7..10 KAL f~Ol1 uhn IM.ON Y 1 .nvu aawld. 1.» v I 1 .(.V.qt O Y 1 1 1 1 , t SvJmO; 1 eHI11N I 1 I I e•ost .we n..for v ~ wss .Kw IAK.N v 1 •ofl•u aaullo.. 1•+. v 1 1 1 ~ I tl S\ /JOn•a aelU+qt I.re• Y 1 'rth•.uf. Jl.rl• y 1 bR+1.C h1+IM9i 1•Mf Y 1 1 1 [ II • _ 1J ♦ I 1 \ 1 1 ` 1 I WDf ` 1 .lem Iwlr.na wuo a .wro+w,nor n slo~ \ v earm'r bu ros+ iGrqul •.tK 1 ••I e•sco d ws.•Iwrlo O•D+Inct a CONSULTING CMCIM[DLT we K•Lr fMh)Q.IYl MI/ fuOl•n+IM 1 YdnD a COrfIaKO nnunwn fwD IDr11•n1. Grrt.r S 1 - LR11.lD K CP/IMe W. IICtR••i W. DARTMOUTH STREET ` I PROPERTY EVALUATION \ 11 11 PROPERTY AREA CALCULATIONS DARTMOUTH ST. PROPERTY AREA DIAGRAM f porno basn[-Ikm r O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1717 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Ponland, Oregon 97109 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. guscH TELEPHONE. (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE: (4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX (303) 243-2944 3) STEPHEN CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIItESTONE• PXEAsE MPLY To PORTlwrm OP+a1CE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE (360) 699.7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L. JARRARD April 16, 1996 MALCOLMJOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. SPALNAKER SPECtnt. CoutaM • AM ADWrr a TO "ACrxx IN wAMNGTON AUO AD►vrMO TO PUCrICt IN CALF RNA Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt & Booth 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 1600 Pioneer Tower 1211 SW 5th Ave. 888 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R: Martin, Jr Robert S. Ball 12265 SW 72nd Ave. Ball Janik & Novack Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Suite 100 101 SW Main St. Portland; OR 97204 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Mayor Nicoli has asked that we convene a meeting that would include the principals of Costco and Waremart, Don Pollock and at least one of the Martins, and those participants' attorneys, if that is their preference. The Mayor believes it is imperative that the parties attempt to keep the focus on future improvements in the Tigard Triangle, which will be difficult to do if everyone has to shift their concentration back to the creation, analysis and perhaps challenge of a City-imposed assessment formula for the first LID. EMPBT RASE ^vrr ~ O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH April 16, 1996 Page 2 My staff will be coordinating the scheduling of the meeting. If you have any questions or concerns that you believe the City needs to address before the meeting, please give me a call. yo l E. Corri ' CEC/fwc cc: William A. Monahan EXHIBIT -78 PAGE OF s ;4A1. 31 'sl, 17:34AN o'D0tVELLP F'A!-IIS P. O'DONNEL RA141S CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHP ACH ATTORNEYS AT Law CLACK 90,W COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street to t N:. Grant, Suite 202 FAMELA J. LEERY Pordand, Oregon 9r-09 Canby, O.ego7 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELIrPHONI-": (:03) 2:2.4402 TELEPHONE! (503) 20.114y DOMINIC C. COLT MA'* PAX (SO3) 243.2944 CHARLES E. CORRICAN' STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUV R, WASH :NC,ON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FiR:STONr'E• PIEASIRP IN TOt'0R7"gDOMCE 1220 Main Street Su'(e S70 WILLIAM E. OAAR :'ancower, Washingtor.936c0•2964 G. FRANK HAMLIIOND• TELEPHONE! (360) 6947267 KWMETH D. HE! M FA.K (360) 699.7221 DENISE L. JARRAW may 1, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEWN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAXER 6MLiL COUNSEL At$O AbbIrM TO h1AMICE IN wA.zHL:cmr: • • ALSO A JW- TEG N FFA1:r.C6 N CALIFOPtiIA The Honorable Henry Kantor District Court Judge Multnomah County Courthouse 1021 SW 4th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Judge Kantor: As discussed during our telephone conversation of April 30, 1996, I and my office represent t11- -City of Tigard. The City is working with four owners of property located within what is known as the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District. The total cost of that project will be somewhere over $4 million, and the City is working with the benefited property owners to detem-Ane if they can come to a mutual agreement as to which portion of that cost each of them will bear, as opposed to proceeding via the more traditional (and time consuming, and expensive) City- imposed assessment determination process. You have agreed to receive from each of the property owners a letter indicating the percentage (pot dollar amount) of the total cost of the LID that each owner is willing to have assessed against that owner's property. You will then total those percentages and provide the total sum to me, which I will then circulate to all interested parties. You will not divulge to anyone the individual percentage figures, unless they total 100% or more, in which case you will transmit to me both the total figure and the individual percentage numbers submitted to you by each property owner. EXHIBIT PAGE s OF ~ w ~ MAY 0.1 '96 10: 34AM i DOf -NELL, RAM I S P • 3 C•)OVNELL RAIVILS CREW CC RTRI iAN & BA.CHRACH The Honorable Henry Kantor May 1, 1996 Page 2 Attached to this letter is a form letter that I have asked the property owners to use, or to base their own letters upon. Thank you very much for your willingness to assist in this important matter. re y yours, Charles B. Corrigan CEC/fwc Encl. cc: Mayor Jim Nicoli 'Rayne Lowry Bill Monahan Dom Colletta Paul Simmons Gordon Davis Donald Pollock Gordon Martin Ed Christensen Jeff Keeney Rob Ball Joe Willis Jim laaspenteur EXHIBIT PAGE -Z OF 3 May 1, 1996 The Honorable 1110nry Kantor District Court Judge Muhrioniah County Courthouse 1021 SW 4th Ave. Portland, OR 91204 Re: City of Tig( rd/Dartmottih Ucel Improvement District Dear Judge Kantor; I represent Consistent will! Chuck Corrigan's letter to you of May 1, 1996, I,. willing to pay of the total cost of the City of Tigard Dartmouth Local 1.-,jpro-V--;n03'.! District, it is understcod that you will add all of the property owners' "percentage" figures and provide that suni to Chuck Corrigan, who will then circulate that figure to all of the interested panies. P.acIr individual pmty's submi.ision to you will remain confidential if th,- aggregate of those fig-tires is less than 100%. If the total is 100% or greater, we have agreed that you will provide the total figure and the individual percentage figures to Chuck Corrigan!. This letter is submitted to you within the course and scope of ongoing settlement discussions and Is rot only confidential, to tl:e extent discussed above, but shall not be admissible its evldeme in any proceeding of any nature, unless this process Is successful such that the figures would Wconic. public to the extent necessary to calculate and spread the LID assessments. Trunk you. Sincerely Yours, EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF__ SCHWABE PACWES'T CEPfI'ER, SUITES 1600.1600 WILLIAMSON1211 1211 SOL~iWM FIFTH AVENUE • PORUAND, OREGON 97204 795 1 TELEPHONE. 503 222-9981 • FAX 503 796-299 - TELEX 6,50.666-1360 ATTORNEYS AT LAW DONALD Jos WnAiS June 10, 1996 Via Facsimile Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Chuck: In reference to your letter of May 13, 1996, I offer the following: Pursuant to phone conversations I have had with your colleague, I again asked that the City dismiss its appeal and agreed that Don Pollock would dismiss his cross-appeal. Both of these dismissals would occur without costs. I do not have the City's agreement yet to do that. I understand you have some concerns that Gordon Martin would no longer agree to accept the value figures that Don Pollock was awarded by the jury. I have a great deal of trouble with the City's position. As you recall, when the City first appealed, Pollock cross-appealed.simply as a precaution. I was told repeatedly that the City appealed only to make sure that the land values awarded would not create problems for the other persons within the LID and, if those persons agreed to those land values, that the City would dismiss its appeal. They did agree and the City did not dismiss its appeal. As the matter unfolded, the City continued to put additional conditions on its willingness to dismiss the appeal. The other parties have, in fact, agreed to accept those values. The other parties have, in fact, agreed that Don should be given interest up to the legal rate on all sums awarded him (including that portion that was paid into court which he cannot withdraw because of the appeal). As this matter drags on, those interest costs continue to accrue, and attorneys' fees on both sides continue to accrue. PORTLAND SEAMS VANCOUM WASHINaMN ORPOON ■ WASHINOTON 01 WASHINGTON • DWRICT OP COLLMIA ~(HIp671 ,rr 50 272-9081 206622-1711 W 604-7551 702 634-001 PAGE OF - chuck Corrigan June 10, 1996 Page a I again ask you to dismiss the city appeal and I will dismiss Don's. We will both stipulate that those dismissals are without costs. That will put Don in a position of being able to drag down the money that was paid into court, and require the City to pay the balance of the funds owing, and at least cut off any further accruals of interest. Please confirm immediately that you are prepared to do this. V truly yours, Wald Joe Willis VJW:se cc: Jeffrey H.. Keeney Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Gordon Davis Donald Pollock James A. Larpenteur, Jr. SaNWABH W1111AMSON WYA7r EXHIBIT __.j60 PAGE --j:~, OF N% I .L•~~~ 3''Q~Srp''~7di ~i~1~~A~ '~tjS R.*'n"'~ ~~j l~ ~G 14~ 11.. 1/~ 1~`"y- Ares{~LlMV}:i- A7 ,~assss*~'i:i 7YJ f?'~►!7F r rtlk~ .•~iiz..AT~i1 2~ orn+ oC~c sscsaa ~ric#;t ~v zJ~{gj l~ta^SSQ- ~f ;r' e•Y" a (S.~j~C ~r~o~~' 16 96ar- 6%, Not e xs t~ .s ~ 33 4334 424.9% fr ae4• eitt 7, riff' r~lS E:% 1. I 5 j7> 54- -1 #4;fass ~.xts~-?a+=~'ss .,..~.'e~.,;.» ~ "'.~^~`~'ri. tom, ~ f ~ twa TEF tam wod~-Vx~'. POL y~1, of sdtiD 1 f 1 p.to~j ty_ A. L~itig, s_ t~:1znd O&u 3 t~clvw::. . 7,rj? + i" sE4P~ • w ~ti{ 4s ~S 1 '7d4 And s3w r e - ~'c7(a;. :f:t~1i4 ~+uC? CU Giy- s}' ice"' L W"~AL S ..n ili: i\. ~ `ii ~ fr A'.U~;,.•- ~ ~~~icF dpk... Wtt+ ~j t . ~1r~=1~r } 4 .SSitYa@~ '3 on 't air - r .tid,fi~= :ii~'r.G ;~i•?3:rf,"-, :t.. ~i et 1 ~~'1^.~ 5~ C'~- ' .yam. ~'t d~~°ae '-r~ 4`ii. t~.^-,j•'^` •r:- Irn 4 T I IN piano • ~ 9 OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 17JF-FF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CL.4CKAb1.4S COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA°' TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 MALCOLM JOHNSON- June 28, 1996 MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS JAMES M. COLEMAN WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL • ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA BY FACSIMILE and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAX LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Paul Simmons , Donald Joe Willis Ed Christensen James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Don^1d Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Cordon Davis Robert S. Ball Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Jim Larpenteur's letter to me of June 26, 1996, states that his clients are amenable to proceeding with mediation. I received a similar indication from Waremart, through Rob Ball, in his letter of June 20, 1996. Because I did not receive unanimous approval for proceeding with mediation within the five-day period established in my letter of June 12, 1996, the City has started the process of retaining a consultant to develop an assessment formula. If, at this point, Costco and the Martins join in requesting mediation, I would certainly relay the fact that all involved are now willing to so proceed. I do not know whether that would affect the City's decision to go ahead in establishing its "own" proposed formula. x EXHIBIT PAGE OF June 28, 1995 Page 2 If and how the to-be-retained consultant might solicit further input from the affected property owners remains to be seen. Certainly all relevant materials submitted to date will be included in the working file that we give to the consultant as he begins the project. S' ly yours, Charles E. an CEC/mcm cc by fax and mail: Mayor Jim Nicoli Mr. Wayne Lowry Mr. William A. Monahan Dominic Colletta, Esq. EXHIBIT g o2- PAGE OF a- ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tiga d, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 July 23, 1996 Mayor Jim Nicoli Nicoli Engineering P.O. Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 RE: Final Assessment Procedure for Dartmouth LID Honorable Mayor Nicoli: As you are probably aware, there appears to be some confusion surrounding the final assessment formula the City has formally adopted. The following information should help correct misunderstandings that may exist concerning the most relevant City of Tigard's Resolution and Ordinances that pertain to the Dartmouth LID. _ Resolution 84-14. Represents the City's intention to have a hearing to form the LID. Ordinance 84-17. The actual formation of the LID by the City. Ordinance 84-18. Adopted the preliminary engineer's report containing the pre- assessment procedure (which includes an assessment formula) for the Dartmouth LID. Ordinance 88-08. This is a multi-purpose ordinance which addresses many different aspects of the Dartmouth LID. One of the purposes was, as mentioned within its working title, to establish a final assessment procedure. This was accomplished by adopting as the final assessment procedure, the pre-assessment procedure that was contained within the preliminary engineer's report that was also adopted by Ordinance 84-18. It should now be clear that our references to the "Ordinance 84-18 Formula" in our letter and document of June 10, 1996, is referring to the final assessment formula contained within the preliminary engineer's report that was adopted by Ordinance 84-18 as a preliminary assessment formula and later adopted as a final assessment formula within Ordinance 88-08. E)(HiBOT UPAGE_J_OF Honorable Mayor Nicoli July 23, 1996 Page Z The City of Tigard has over several years, referenced the assessment procedure formulated by R.A. Wright Engineering and contained in the preliminary engineer's report, as the final and legally binding assessment procedure to be used by the City. With regards to the most recent attempt to modify the final assessment formula, all major LID participants had agreed to accept the proposed modification before it was implemented and subsequently rejected. In particular, the modification to the (R.A. Wright Engineering) final assessment formula was based on specifically defined and previously agreed upon concepts. These corrected for its curve related deficiencies that had allowed property with a higher ratio of front footage to land, to receive without the proper adjustment to assessments, the various substantial benefits such a ratio can imply (e.g., reJuces the need to build further access roads and extend utilities; provides a better view corridor for on site advertisement; etc.). Regardless of any other reasons, it should be self-evident that without the support of all major LID participants to implement a different assessment formula, the City should be required to use its own already legally adopted final assessment procedure as directed by the City of Tigard's Ordinance 88-08. Furthermore, before the City attempts to change the final assessment formula, all major LID participants who have relied upon it in making development decisions, should be able to assume the City would first obtain their consent to a change. Very truly yours, y Gordon R. MartinWtu,,, Gordon S. Martin CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Robert S. Ball Chuck Corrigan Paul Simmons Ed Christensen EXHIBIT PAGE OF MUM offi. soon r ODONNELL RAi4I7 ET AL 503-243-2944 All 25.96 15:03 No .021 P.03/04 O'DONNELL R.AMIS CREW CORRIOAN & BACHRACH JRRF It, RACHRACH AT`IY)Rxey3 AI' LAW CIACKAibtAS COUNTY OFFICE J FP PIt, BEERY 1727 N.W. Kq1 BOOM ISi N. orant, Suite z0: PAM MARK A J, 5 t Ponl+rd, Orsgaa 07209 Canby, Orogon 97013 D. DANIEL CI1ANDUR ~ 431E1TtoNE: (soa) 222402 TEi itF}IONB; (50)) 266 1340 DOMINIC t3. COi.t.ETTA )'Ax: C}iARItS Z. CORAl4AN4 (3c1~ ~13.29i~ STFSTFA LTIS P. CREW VANCOUVER, WASH'NMON OFFICE A CI UN . BL6NF:i Furot Independent Plate CARY F, ISNER Nir' PIAA300Pt.Y110Y=1&A"0MC4 1220 Main Streat, Suite $70 WA'Wy I S. oAAR Vancower, W49*4i n 98660.1961 O. FTIA M S. N►AOND' TELEPHONE; (360) 609.7287 KF.'~NE'i'H Q. Nt?Livi FA X+ (360) 6D9-?121 MALcoLM JOHNSo July 25, 1996 !MARK P. O'DONN81d. -rWOT1IY V. RAMIS JUSA M. C IDDRR WILLIAM J. STAI.NAKER SUSAN J, v.' SPECIAL axW11 ,tsr.. • 0490 Ar wtM%) .0 PM:Rr.R 7: WA9:,trC;ON RAO AD.kuni n To PAAQ1YCt N r-kWQA81A ADA nVi TO YI41MO iN WA TANA AND WARMA JION OW BY EAX an EMS1 CLASS MIL Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. I2265 f"NN' 2nd Avenue OR 97223 City of ligaRY128=011111 IRi t-Of Wav r-QUW1i n EXHIBIT SLe PAGE_J_OF 2 Dur Gordon, I rim writing on behalf of the City of Tigard in r$sponse to your letter to me of July 18, 1996, and your letter to Mayor xicoli dated July 23, 1996. After substantial delays and frustrations in attempting to get the Dartrrlouth LID property owners to work together in arriving at an agreed•upon assessment fonnula, the City Council finally established a deadline by which the parties would have to agree to a mediation process and, jf they failed to-do so, aster which the City would proceed in devoloping its own assessment formula, That d"dline is now well behind us, Forgetting for a moment the question of tinning, some of your and your father's pre-conditions to entering mediation, as set out in the July 18th letter, call for a Ycsponse: 0 ^110h V.1%12Att,6y the, "1=0-Matt .r- hat eR.rta9_r~ tc tj artmacp-,. ally be conaidzrW va°t of i1U~' ti.4n• The mediation that the City Council would have suppo-ned, had unanimnus consdnt been forthcoming in a timely fashion, would have involved the assessment formula only. 0 "k"e nediation shalt 1 on _.~SI.S >ld L~..hllt it o-s spat result in An re)Ilent it shall _rot b 'c 19 8,.4.b21 1-. -LIt It was the City's position, whon Teed tion was still an option discussion, that in the evont the mediation was unsuccessful tho mediator would be expected to report to tho City Council on his/her recommonded assessment formula. lis w i ODONNELL PAtIIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jul 25.96 15:04 hJ0.021 P.04/04 0-DO tiNSI.t. RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Gordo:i S. Mattitl, Jr. July 25, 1996 Page 2 "f1..151 on' 11a its til% of applort njnce 88-08 and its HS5001310 Until reading your letter of July 23rd, I did not understand this statement. Now I do. The confusion arises from your int.rpretittion of tiro Ia:,guage used in Ordinance 5E-08. Per that ordinance, the assessment process adopted by the City Council for this project changed from the "pre-assessment procedure" to the "finx. assessment procedure." Those two procedures, which are mutually exclusivC. described in Tigard Municipal Code 13.04.060;b)(2) as follows: "The council may use either it preassessment procedure or a final assessment procedure. Preassessment begins at the formation stage and assessments are basal on the estimated costs. Final assessment begins after the project is completed and is based on actual costs." Thus, the assessment procedure now being initiated, i.e,, the final assessment procedure, is "beginning," and the assessment formula remains to be determined, The City and my office are now In the process of retaining a consultant to assist in the development of an assessment formula for the Dtatntouth UD. I hope to have more information to share with all of the property owners in that regard in the near future, Sincerely yours, Charles B. Corigan CEC/fwc cc: Jim Niooli William A. Monahan Wayne Lowry Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Donald Pollock Robert S. Ball EXHIBIT QF Jeffrey H. Keeney Paul Simmons PAGE Gordon Davis ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 July 25, 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Bancroft Bonding Status Dear Chuck: As you know, before the Dartmouth LID was formed the City had stipulated that all participants would be eligible for Bancroft Bonding. However, at the time it was not known that our farm deferral would render our property ineligible for such bonding. It was later decided by the City of Tigard's Finance Director and yourself that it would not be inappropriate to amend the Bancroft Bonding ordinance, whereby we could become eligible for this form of bonding. Consequently, it was disappointing to hear from you that the Tigard City Council has decided not to take action concerning Bancroft Bonding that would give us the ability to Bancroft Bond our assessments. Your message seemed to indicate that you felt the Council probably needed more explanation regarding this matter. If this is true, do you expect the Council to reverse their decision after they receive more explanation? Also, if the Council were to reverse its position, when could we expect it to occur? As you are probably aware, many decisions have been postponed while waiting for an answer to the question concerning our-ability to Bancroft Bond the assessments. Hopefully, you can provide us with some positive information regarding the status of this matter. Very truly yours, i7'o way,,,,, R Gordon R. Martin Bye Gordon S. Martin CC: Mayor Jim Nicoli EXHIBITS-! PAGE --/-OF ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 Aug 1, 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Dartmouth ROW Purchase Dear Chuck: Thank you for your letter of August 1, 1996, informing us of the City Council's decision and the City's desire to move ahead with ROW purchase agreements. As you are aware, the City currently intends to establish and adopt a new unknown assessment formula to distribute LID costs to the participants. After your letter of July 25, 1996, informed us of the City's intentiwis, it interrupted our decision making processes for several reasons, one of which is explained below. The assessment formula determines the actual value received for ROW because each participant pays for a portion of their own ROW. Our agreements made in the past were based on either R.A. Wright's Engineering assessment formula that we claim is also the final assessment formula and/or the Christensen adjusted formula which slightly modified for curves the R.A. Wright Engineering formula. Therefore, while possible major changes in the assessment formula are being considered by the City, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to make responsible decisions concerning ROW. Additionally, if the previous informal mediation had not been abruptly ended near its completion, this matter would have already been resolved. However, we do wish to cooperate with the City in every reasonable way. As we gain the necessary infonration to continue with our decision making processes, we will immediately pass them on to you. Very truly yours, - , 1" ~ " J, xz,,,-z Gordon R. MartinyAt, L Gordon S. Martin CC: Mayor Jim Nicoli EXH!B!T--a(P-- PAGE-L- OF .,.j.- ODONNELC RAM I S ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 1,96 12:33 No. 009 P.02 O'DONNELL RAMIS CR81W CORRIGAN & BACH CI'i JEFF H. WHRACH A~rroludsYS AT zww CLACItA,►,us CbiJM'Y bFFICB NW. PAMELA J. SWAY ST3t MM "S Stmt 163 N. Grant Suits 2o2 t ' x I. ZUSCH toKt+aa. Orasda 9T2c~ Cenb Oregon 97003 D. NI COLL L>3R os "L'~8 V. (M) M-6403 TELBPHONM (SO3) 766.1149 ObMiN1C 0 d. . COLLETTA CHARL8S,. CORRIOANs FAX (Sat) S4J•V64 SYFJ'I IBN F. CREW VANC~OLtVER, wAStitNCroN Af+F1C6 MARTIN G. boLk,; Fim Independent Place PAUL L C C. . I319NPR FtjIAfZR ttldrLY 110 301C:t AP~d oSItR43 1220 MAIn Street Butte $70 GARY F. F11udS"PO~tB° varucatnwr, Waehington98660•x964 WILLIAM B dMR TRIBPHON& (16o) 604.77 0. FR M DHlM.~ND' 'FAX (160) 699.72x1 MAI,CO H D. H NSbN August 1, 1996 ALCOL.M JOHNSON MARK A, O'LONNBLL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS JAM M. CbL$Mm WILLIAM J. BTPSNA9CI3R SUSAN J. WImPA MAL COtlN % ~ ao AcM.~a tv liucncs rh vAeliLvc^av • • AV* a'MWO:O PRM'TiCR ~t CJ4.179N'.IA AIAOPMCMAwMOWANAANDWAMIL`1CTION ~y Fmand rr~ ~v* A ~r g~ Gordon 5. Martin, Jr, 12266 SW 2nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re; Qtx Q of th 1JQ1 fight-af MAY A0111111 on Dear Gordon: I am writing in follow-up to my volcemall mt;ssage of July 29th, to which you have not responded. As explained in my message, the City Council did pass the amendment to the Bancroft bonding ordinance necessary to allow you to gay the UD assasment in instatlmonts. That having been done, it is time to get the right-of way acquisition completed, I previously sent you .a couple of draft proposed real property transaction documents, and hope you have had a chance to review them, Dominic Colletta of our firm's Real Estate Department will be in charge of this aspect of the file. Could you please give Dominic br me a call sight away to confinn that we can got going on the acquisition. r Thank you. rely rs, Y Lcharles 93. rrigan GBCifwc M Jim Nicoll EXHIBIT-2- William A. Monahan Wayne Lowry PAGE L OF 2 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 1,96 12:32 No.009 P.01 O'DONNELL RAMIS CRIEW CORRICIAN & BACHRACH ATTOMYS AT LAW 1127 K.W. Novi Street ertians, brogan 072M THL 3PI10NIB: (so) 2224402 FAX: (503) 243.2944 yt" aRwLLyTO7i0A'1Tmvoi/T~iC~2~pp THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNI Y PRIVILEOEO AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIIIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW, IF THE MADER OF THIS MEaSNO? 18 NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPOt 181®LE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, bISTRIBUTIOI I OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION 18 STRICTLY PROHIDRED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERF OR PLFASE IMMgDIATIELY NOTIFY US SYTELF-PHONE AND A&TURNTHE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDREtl8 VIA THE Ud9. POSTAL SERVICE, THANK YOU. AAT9: August 1, 1996 CLIEM PTO.: 50032-01 TO: Gordon S. Martin, Jr. FAX 520.1542 Phone 620-2477 FROM: Charles B. COrcigan FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRAN$MI'tTEi3: Lettor re °PigtlrrdlDartmouth LID COMMENTS: PAGE(S) TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SKEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PACES, PLEASE CALL. THE UNDERSI()NED AT (303) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANx YOU, SIGNED: Pran Chandior r AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED: 1. AN CITUGINALIS AVAII.AMEUPON REQUBU, EXHIBIT 97 PAGE OF ,~Z ~ ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 2,96 8:37 No.012 P.05i06 Q°DONNELL, RAMPS CREW CORRIOANT & BACHRACH J1;Fl? 11, DACI IRACCI I ATTORtiMIY8 AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE PAMPLA J, BEBAY Val N.W. Hoy: street 181 N. Grant, 6ults 202 MARK L. BUSCH Portia-W, Orepn 97204 Canby, Oregon 9701' D. DANIBI, CIJANDLIM TRIAPHON81 (503) 2224402 TELEPHON& (SO3) 266.1149 DOMINIC 0. COLIETTAe' PAX: (SM) 2e3-2944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* STEM II3N P. CRUW VANCOUV..R, WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOIAN Pint Independent Place PAUL C. SLSNER plies +mrr.YTDF:rA7T~s1+7dP2~lCL 1220 M43n StrGat, Suite $70 GARY F. FIFZSTONB* Vancouver, Washii4ton 98660.2964 WILLIAM S. OAAR TELEPHONE: (360) 699.7287 0. FRANK HAMMONU* FAX: (360) 699.7321 KENNETH D. H131-M August 1, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DOANELI. JAMES M. t,OLSI+IAN TIMOT11Y V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STAINAKER 9=" COUNUL AI AO AbAlr .Ub Te: PIA' hu.. W WA211 W Ct.M AM ADMrnD TO PMCMd IN QQ IPM4A ♦ . MAO PAAMICK 64 Movrulx AND WAS4Wd?0N BY EAX and 13 ' LA55 AZ Mr. John Wilson Mr. Jack Graves The Holland, Inc. 109 W. 17th St. Vancouver, WA 98660 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement Distr)ct Dear Messrs. Wilson and Graves; For the past several months the City of Tigard has been working with the affected property owners within the Dartmouth Local Improvement District, other than your company, in an attempt to determine if consensus could be reached on an appropriate formula for the spreading of the LIT) assessment, I3ecatlse Burgerville's proportion or any assessment will almost certainly be smaller than that of the other owners, and because it was anticipated that any agrv d-upn formula would of course be presented to Burgervi7le for its approval, the City decided not to distract you with those ongoing discussions unless sand until it was determined that they would be fmitful, The bad news is that the discussions did not culminate in an agreed-upon formula. The good news is that you did not have to spend any time or resources participating In that ultimately unsuccessful process, In any event, because the City is now going to proceed in developing its own assessment formula, we will put Burgerville rack Into the loop. Enclosed is a largely 601f-explanatory )otter explaining where we now are, Also unclosed are the various proposed formulas that have Won supplied to tho City by some of the affected property owncrtt. EXHIBIT PAGE-i-OF -2- ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 2,96 8:38 No.012 P.06/06 O'DONNBLL RAMIS CREW CORRIOAN & BACHRACtl Mr. John Wilson Mr, Jack Graves August 1, 1996 Page 2 Plca9a fool free to contact me if you have further questlons or observations. Sincere y.yours, •r mot:/ Charles E. CoriiDan CEC/fwc Encl. cc w/encl,: Jim Niooli Sill Monahan Wayne Lowry Donald Joe Willis James A. Urponteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr, Robert S, Ball Jeffrey H. Keeney Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis Paul Simmons i t U(HIBIT PAGE X OF Z we= O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT TAW CLACKAMAS COUN'T'Y OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L. BUSCH Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 D. DANIEL CHANDLER TELEPHONE: (503) 222 4 402 TELEPHONE (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA•• FAX: (503) 243.2944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN First Independent Place PAUL C. EI.SNER PLEASE REPLY TO PORnA.`TD OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 GARY F. FIRESTONE' Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 WILLIAM E. GAAR TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287 G. FRANK HAMMOND• FAX (360) 699-7221 KENNETH D. HELM September 18, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER sPECtAL COUNSEL • ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMrfTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA • ♦ ALSO ADMTr _0 TO PRACTICE IN MONTANA AND WASHINGTON BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAX LIST T®: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis John Wilson Jack Graves Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: The Tigard City Council has now had an opportunity to review the issues outstanding as to Dartmouth LID. The City is confident that it legally adopted the post-construction "final assessment" process, and it will be implementing the next step in that process by directing the engineering firm of Harper Righellis to proceed with the development of an assessment formula. (The City is also confident that it is entitled to include the "direct" and "indirect" costs of the LID, including legal expenses, in the total cost of the project.) EXHIBIT 8 PAGE _L_ OF O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH September 18, 1996 Page 2 The City will also be taking steps as necessary to begin acquisition of the Martin right-of-way via litigation. Sincerel yours, Charles omgan CEC/fwc c:\orcc\cec%tis.ra\meetiae7.lt8 cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan EXHIBIT PAGE OF FAX/MAELING LIST Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke James A. Larpenteur, Jr. & Booth Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 1600 Pioneer Tower 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 888 SW 5th Ave. 1211 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 FAX:274-8779 FAX: 796-2900 PHONE:221-1440 PHONE: 222-9981 Ed Christensen Robert S. Ball Christensen Engineering Ball Janik & Novack 7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 100 Suite 220 101 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97204 FAX: 598-1868 FAX: 295-1058 PHONE: 598-1866 PHONE: 228-2525 Paul Simmons Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Waremart 12265 SW 72nd Ave. P.O. Box 12909 Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Salem, Oregon 97309 FAX: 620-1842 FAX: 503-588-5657 PHONE: 620-2477 PHONE: 503-588-3426 Donald Pollock Gordon Davis 1834 SW 58th Ave. #202 P.O. Box 8774 Portland, Oregon 97221 Portland, OR 97207 FAX: 292-4862 FAX: 227-7221 PHONE: 292-4373 PHONE: 248-1185 William A. Monahan Wayne Lowry City Administrator Finance Director City of Tigard City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 FAX: 684-7297 FAX: 684-7297 PHONE: 639-4171 PHONE: 639-4171 Mayor Jim Nicoli John Wilson Nicoli Engineering Jack Graves P.O. Box 23784 The Holland, Inc. Tigard, OR 97281 109 W. 17th St. FAX: 684-3636 Vancouver, WA 98660 PHONE: 620-2086 FAX: 360-694-9114 PHONE: 36--694-1521 0:\0rCC%C6C%dz&Sh1ruc.I6t(fw0) EXHIBIT PAGE 3 Or ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 October 14, 1996 Mayor Jim Nicoli Nicoli Engineering P.O. Box 23784 Tigard, Oregon 97281 RE: Assessment Related Issues and Formulas/Christensen Objectivity /Miscellaneous Issues Honorable Mayor Nicoli: The purpose of this letter is to correct some of the mistaken perceptions that have been propagated by others concerning the past year of mediation and the assessment formula. We have also submitted some assessment formula comparisons and information based on a more precise Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula and costs updated as of April 30, 1996. Our view concerning assessment formulas is that any formula which improperly disregards the relative location of Dartmouth to assessed property, and/or does not avoid double assessments that cari arise when credit is not given for improvements required to other existing public roads such as 72nd, will be subject to rejection by the Martins. INDEX OF TOPIC HEADINGS The Core Problems 2 j Regarding Mediation Breakdown 2 Waremarts Apparent Confusion as to Intentions 3 Reply to Waremarts Concerns as to Christensen's Objectivity 4 Normal Cost Sharing vs. Cost Sharing Disregarding Road Frontage 6 Christensen Formula Not Strict Lineal Method 6 Effect of Martins Suggestion on Costco 6 Precedence Set Regarding the Use of Half-Street Improvement 7 Regarding Waremart Assessment Formula Claim 7 Gross Assessment Comparisons 8 Value of Frontage 9 Dartmouth Road Service Area 10 Effect of Increasing Row Price 10 Total Area--Not Viable 11 Lower ROW Cust Effect on Costco .........................................................12 Various Assessment Comparisons 13 Closing Rem.aics 14 EXHIBIT PAGE -I-OF ..oL~ Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 2 THE CURE PR®BI EMS Most of the issues and problems that have been discussed for over a decade, have a core or root which traces back to problems concerning the underdesign of the Dartmouth road, the condemnation and/or threatened condemnation of ROW and other property, and the inability to Bancroft Bond our Dartmouth LID assessment. For over a decade the Martins provided and presented information regarding the underdesign of Dartmouth. They were ignored. Dartmouth as it exists today provides ample proof that the Martins were correct. Dartmouth was not intended to be a phased construction project by the City. When the Dartmouth LID was promoted by the City, it was to service all the LID participants without the need for future improvements or restrictions requiring further improvements to Dartmouth before development was allowed. It is disconcerting to know that after a decade of presenting information to the City regarding the underdesign of the Dartmouth road, that we alone must face the potential to pay for the City's mistakes regarding Dartmouth traffic capacity projections. This potential exists because to date, there is no guarantee that anybody but ourselves will pay for the necessary improvements to Dartmouth that are currently a condition of our development approval. REGARDING MEDIATION BREAKDOWN There are apparently three primary reasons why the settlement agreement was not concluded before Waremart's self-imposed deadline of March 15, 1996. The first and foremost reason is related to the problems associated with establishing costs, and in particular, those related to the Pollock litigation. The second reason concerns the City's reluctance to drop its appeal regarding the Pollock case on a timely basis (for detailed comments see Martins' letter of August 16, 1996). The third reason is related to Waremart's prior commitments to the City regarding non-remonstrance as it pertains to future Dartmouth road improvements. However, the settlement agreement was not ratified because of Waremart's apparent unwillingness "to follow through with their commitments and agreements. One of Waremart's conditions of development approval requires that they sign a non- remonstrance agreement concerning future improvements to Dartmouth. The Waremart conditions of approval were available to the public and it was not necessary to rely upon Waremart to provide this information. However, Gordon Davis on behalf of Waremart was relied upon to '.provide information regarding the existence of any non-remonstrance agreements concerning Dartmouth or 72nd Avenue. Gordon Davis provided only a non- remonstrance agreement regarding 72nd Avenue. Therefore, the Martins mistakenly believed that Waremart did not have a non-remonstrance agreement regarding Dartmouth. (Apparently this non-remonstrance agreement which is required as a condition of approval, cannot be located in the City records). If the Martins had known of the existence of Waremart's condition of approval regarding a Dartmouth non-remonstrance agreement, they would have had less reason to argue that the settlement agreement include provisions relating to future improvements to Dartmouth. That is, by not providing information regarding Dartmouth related non-remonstrance commitments, through Gordon Davis, Waremart itself was partially responsible for the delays arising from the consideration of future EXHIBIT `Yd PAGE OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 3 improvements to Dartmouth that were previously attributed to the Martins. Incidentally, Pollock was also warning at the time that he would not accept any agreement or LID that did not provide for the future Dartmouth improvements. In fact, not only did the Martins eventually acquiesce on the issues relating to future improvements to Dartmouth without knowledge of Waremart's Dartmouth related non- remonstrance commitment, it was Waremart that complained about the delays and established a March 15, 1996, deadline to sign the settlement agreement. It is ironic that the entity whh.ii complained the most about delays and ultimately refused to sign the settlement agreement which would have led to a prompt closure of the Dartmouth LID, is the same entity that is also responsible for some of the delays they were complaining about and the non-closure of the LID. Waremart has demonstrated an apparent unwillingness to follow through with their commitments during negotiations when they refused to sign the settlement agreement under the circumstances that existed. This is evident because as of April 5, 1996, all major LID participants had given either written or verbal approval of the settlement agreement. y However, Waremart decided to formally retract all support of the agreement six days later on April 11, 1996, after verbal support for more than one year, and written support until March 15, 1996, (i.e., 3 weeks before the settlement agreement had approval of all other major LID participants). Furthermore, it seems that when Waremart recognized that the settlement agreement was ready to be concluded only three weeks past their deadline of March 15, 1996, Waremart realized that refusal to sign the settlement agreement based on their deadline would be unreasonable. Apparently, Waremart had decided to not uphold their previous commitments and thereby found it necessary to develop a rationale (which in actuality" was unsupportable) unrelated to their deadline to appear reasonable when they retracted their previously agreed upon commitments and support. WAREMARTS APPARENT CONFUSION AS TO INTENTIONS With regards to the last minute revocation of support by Waremart, at first it appeared withdrawal of support was to be based on time factors (see Paul Simmons letter of February 16, 1996). However, in Robert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, the "rationale" changed to one of implied unethical behavior arising from a conflict of interest. The basis of which leads us to believe that Robert Ball is evidently not aware that the assessment formula used by Ed Christensen was essentially the same formula Paul Simmons on behalf of Waremart had agreed to and promoted uvPr one year earlier. It is also the same formula all major LID participants agreed to hire Christensen Engineering to formalize--not create. Concerning some of Waremart's other changes of attitude, we suggest comparing Rcbert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, with Paul Simmons letter of March 8, 1995. In Paul Simmons letter, he supports: (a) the same concepts ultimately employed in the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula aimed at emulating a straight road with the Ordinance 84-18 formula appied to it; (b) the use of Ed Christensen to continue work on the formula; and (c) not incurring further needless expenditures such as a mediator. EXHIBIT qU PAGE OF jk__ __011 1 1111 IN I Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 4 Robert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, written on behalf of Waremart, revokes the support of Waremart by apparently suggesting: (a) the Christensen/Martin formula (i.e., Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 formula) is not fair (though it was based on the same concepts supported by Waremart in March 1995); (b) the Christensen 84-18 formula is biased towards the Martins because of a conflict of interest (this conflict was known and willingly accepted by Waremart for more than one year; moreover, Waremart itself was a client of Alpha Engineering in which Ed Christensen was both the project and client manager for Waremart); (c) the City should prepare another assessment formula (the third so far), because the Christensen 84-18 formula is shifting costs from Martins to Waremart (see explanation below and on pages 6-9); and (d) the Christensen 84-18 formula is primarily based on a (strict) lineal frontage method of assessment (see refutation on pages 6-9). It is obvious from the comparison of Paul Simmons letter of March 8, 1995, and Robert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, (and others as well), that they present inconsistent viewpoints. In fact, Paul Simmons letter refutes accusations contained in the Robert Ball letter. Evidently, Robert Ball was not well informed based upon the incorrect interpretations and information that was submitted in his letter. Regarding the shifting of costs referred to in Robert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, there never was a question about the fact that "straightening" the curves for assessment calculations would result in a higher assessment to Waremart than would result from applying an unadjusted Ordinance 84-18 formula. It was Waremart's Paul Simmons who suggested doing the calculations that the Martins had suggested as a means to overcome the unfairness to property on the outside of a curve in terms of the ratio of land area to frontage. Paul Simmons knew that applying the Martins' suggestion would increase the Waremart assessment because Dartmouth's major curve wrapped frontage around two sides of Waremart's property. The Martins never insisted that their suggested method be used. In fact the Martins asked Ed Christensen to convey to Mr. Simmons that they fel` Waremart's apparent desire and effort to improve the fairness of Ordinance 84-18 was "magnanimous" of them. Therefore, we were truly amazed that Mr. Ball would make the statements he has made regarding the Martins and Christensen Engineering--because the facts clearly and fully refute his statements. REPLY TO WAREMARTS CONCERNS AS TO CHRISTENSE. "S OBTECTIYITY It has been implied that Christensen Engineering was improperly influenced in forming its assessment in favor of the Martins because they are among its clients. This implied accusation is not true. The basis for the adjustments to the R.A. Wright Engineering assessment formula which resulted in an assessment formula that is often referred to as the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula, had been known and presented from the beginning to the LID participants and extensively to Waremart. Specifically, the background concerning Ed Christensen is as follows: EXHIBIT 9p PAGE _q_OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 5 (1) Ed Christensen introduced himself to us on behalf of Paul Simmons who was at the time representing Supervalue and sometime later Waremart. For several years Mr. Christensen worked as a consulting engineer on matters that pertain to the Dartmouth road and vicinity, some of which required that he contact us. Based on the fact that the Waremart property managers wcre using Christensen for their project engineering work, and having observed his work relating to the Dartmouth road elevation changes, widening, and intersection improvement at 72nd avenue, we eventually contracted some of our own related engineering work with him. It was much later before Christensen ultimately began to analyze the assessment method used by Ordinance 84-18. (2) Before any consideration was given to assessment formulas, Christensen believed that a strict centerline approach (i.e., the owner of property abutting the road is responsible for building the half of the road which directly abuts the property) as commonly used was the proper assessment method for Dartmouth and would correct for the Dartmouth curve assessment advantage to Waremart. (3) The Martins suggested linking frontage to the Ordinance 84-18 method so as to emulate the assessment results as if Dartmouth was a straight roadway. This was *he same as suggesting that the strict centerline approach be modified so as to improve fairness through, as Ordinance 84-18 does, accounting for: (a) property depth of less than 450 feet, (b) the decreasing benefit of road frontage to property as distance from it increases, and (c) cost of constructing and/or improving intersecting public roads benefiting traffic movements on Dartmouth. (4) The Martins for several years had intermittently reviewed with Supervalue/Waremart several spreadsheets which explored various attempts to find the fairest approach to the problem of allocating assessments within the LID. Paul Simmons suggested that Ed Christensen formalize what appeared to be the fairest approach at the time which was the approach the Martins were suggesting. (5) The City contracted with Christensen Engineering to formalize the Martins' suggested method based on Ordinance 84-18, which applies the lineal feet of frontage against the areas of Ordinance 84-18 zones and does so in the same ratios as between the existing A, B, and C zones. He was not hired to apply an assessment method of his own choice. (6) The method chosen to be formalized initially measured frontage along the sides of the road ROW, however, it was pointed out by Christensen, that the measurement should be based along the middle of the road ROW rather than along the sides of the road ROW. (7) The Martins knew their suggestion to modify the strict centerline approach as in (3) above, together with Christensen's suggestion in (6) above, would significantly increase their assessment in relationship to a strict centerline approach, even though Christensen's suggestion had a slight decreasing affect. The actual amount of the Martins' increase is $225,778. The Costco increase is $266,501. Conversely, the Martins' influence on Christensen reduced the Waremart net assessment by $179,361 and the Pollocks' by $283,954, from the assessments which would have resulted if EXHIBIT _qD PAGE S OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 6 Christensen had used what he originally believed to be the best approach (see (2) above). ` (8) Although the Martins knew in advance that their suggestion if implemented would significantly increase their own assessment, they believed it would be fair. (As shown in' table 1, the Lineal frontage approach (i.e., strict centerline) would cost Martins $689,022. The Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 formula would cost the Martins $914,800). NORMAL COST SHARING VS COST SHARIN T DI EGARDING ROAD FRONTAGE One way to bring assessments into perspective is to consider that under ideal circumstances where a road is being built voluntarily through the center of several identically dimensioned properties with each owner providing ROW and cost of construction through their respective property--then each owner will pay a percentage of the total construction cost through the several properties which is equal to their respective percentage of total centerline frontage. For example, a property that has 70% of the frontage would pay for 70% of the road construction cost. In contrast to this example of equitable division of cost, is the present apparent effort of Waremart and Pollock who together have approximately 66% of the total frontage owned by the assessed participants of the LID, attempting by disregarding frontage and other matters, to promote and justify their paying only in the range of 41 % of the construction and miscellaneous costs. They seem to want others to pay for roadway and frontage they have and others do not have. To emulate the ideal example they would pay 62% if the road was built voluntarily (not 66% as expected in the ideal example due to various conditions that are present in this case). Analogously, the strict centerline assessment method mentioned above would also have them pay in the same range of 62% ($1,391,256) of costs excluding ROW costs. HRIS NSEN FO 1Vii Tt A NOT STRICT METHOD If the widely accepted and most commonly used strict lineal front foot (without depth adjustment) assessment method is used (i.e., half-street improvement or strict centerline), the assessment amounts would be significantly different from those of the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula. For convenience, table 1 is provided below comparing the results of three different assessment methods. It should be noted that the tables in this letter contain the most recently refined calculations available based on costs. as of April 30, 1996. However, more time and money will be necessary to update costs and refine results to the level of precision required before formal allocation of assessments. EFFECT OF MARTINS SUGGESTION ON COSTCO Now that the Martins have the calculation results and realize that in terms of a strict centerline approach `heir suggestion to modify it, effectively increased the Costco assessment and reduced the Waremart and Pollock assessments; and because there appears to be misunderstandings of the Martins' method and dissatisfaction with the results, the Martins now realize that Ed Christensen's original suggested method was apparently the best method because of its common use and ease of understanding and application. We therefore will not O(HIBIT 20 PAGE OF 1(0 Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 7 object if Costco believes the strict centerline approach (which Christensen Engineering would have used if not influenced by the Martins) is the best approach and convinces the City of Tigard it is the assessment method that should be used. After all, if the individual property owners had simply constructed Dartmouth across each of their respective properties and negotiated with their neighbors for payment of the share of the ROW market value and construction costs relating to the portions of the road fronting those neighbors; the result would closely emulate the results of using the strict centerline approach Christensen Engineering originally advocated. PRF D .N . SET REGARDING T S OF HAI F STREET IMPROVEMENT A precedence has been set indicating that the half-street improvement method of determining assessments is acceptable to Waremart, Costco, Martins, and Pollock. Waremart, Costco, and Martins used half-street improvement as the method to allocate costs associated with the addition of extra lanes to Dartmouth. According to Donald Willis's letter of March 22, 1996, Pollock was not allowed to add extra lanes to that portion of Dartmouth that borders his property. However, if he could have added the extra lanes, a half-street improvement method of cost allocation regarding the extra lanes would have been applied to his property as well. REGARDING WA FMART ASSESSMENT FORMMA CLAIM Waremart began its process of renouncing its commitments and agreements made during the mediation process when Robert Ball on behalf of Waremart, submitted his letter of February 6, 1996. In his letter, a claim was made to the effect that any formula proposed by the City would be more favorable to Waremart. In view of the fact that it is not uncommon to use the strict centerline approach (i.e., half-street improvement) as an assessment formula, and after comparing the Christensen formula with the strict centerline approach in table 1, it is clearly apparent that the City could easily select an assessment formula that is less favorable to Waremart than the Christensen formula. Therefore, Robert Ball's assertion is incorrect. TABLE 1: GROSS ASSESSMENT COMPARISONS (within LID boundary) $9.46 ROW* Lineal frontage Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 $8.63 & $6.65 (i.e., half-street Ordinance 84-18 formula ROW** improvement) formula Martin* $ 689,022 $ 914,800 $1,052,903 Waremart* : $1;737,691 $1,558,330 $1,338,038 :Pollock*,*' $ 964,179 $ 680,225 $ 697,668 Costco $ 640,226 $ 906,727 $ 970,799 Burgerville $ 36,196 $ 7,232 $ 7,906 EXHIBIT qv PAGE OF It Mayor Tim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 8 TABLE IA: GROSS ASSESSMENT PERCENTAGE COMPARISONS AND CENTER LINE (within LID boundary) $9.46 ROW* Total Center Lineal frontage Christensen Adjusted Ordinance $8.63 & $6.65 Line (i.e., half-street Ordinance 84-18 84-18 ROW** Percentage improvement) formula formula Martin* 15.25% 16.94% 22,49% 25.89% Waremart* 38.46% 42.72% 38.31% 32.90% Pollock** 21.34% 23.71% 16.73% 17.15% Costco 14.17% 15.74% 22.29% 23.87% Burgerville 3.34% 0.89% 0.18% 0.19% Alexander 3.09% Stewart 3.12% Montgomery 1.23% Totals 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Burgerville assessed for only .8011 % of total center line GROSS ASSESSMENT COMPARISONS Upon comparing the gross assessments in table 1 of the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84- 18 Formula to the Ordinance 84-18 results, as expected, the Waremart assessment is increased most by the Christensen 84-18 formula due to the curve correction; the Pollock property is largely unaffected by curves and this fact is reflected in the small difference to its assessment; and the Martin and Costco assessments both show a significant decrease by the Christensen 84-18 formula due to property that borders the major outer curve. However. the Costco prom also has borders on the inside of a smaller curve that offsets most of their outside curve assessment decrease due to the curve correction by the Christensen 84-18 formula. Further observations concerning table 1 comparisons show that: (1) the Christensen formula in general, has results significantly closer to those of the Ordinance 84-18 zone approach and not to a strict lineal frontage method as Robert Ball's letter of April 11, 1996, seemed to presume even though Paul Simmons was well informed concerning the method used to adjust for road curvature; (2) the increase in the Waremart assessment using the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula rather than the Ordinance 84-18 formula, reflects the formula's evening of assessment for the well known benefit advantage to property that lies on the inner side of a road curve in contrast to the outer side (see Martin June 10, 1996, letter and document for an in-depth explanation); (3) the decrease in the Martin assessment using the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula rather than the Ordinance 84-18 formula, reflects the lesser benefit to land of a given size that abuts the outer side of a curve (i.e., there is less centerline footage in relation to land of the same size abutting the outer side of a road curve, than the inner side); (4) if strict lineal frontage had been used, as can be seen from table 1, both Waremart and Pollock would have received much larger assessments than assigned by the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 formula, while both the Martips and Costco would have substantially lower assessments. EXHIBIT V .~.l~ PAGE OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 9 Specifically, when expressed as a percentage of total LID cost, the affects on gross assessments the Christensen 84-18 formula have in relation to the Ordinance 84-18 formula are as follows: Waremart increases by 5.42%, Martins decreases by 3.40%, Costco decreases by 1.58%, and Pollock decreases by 0.43%. Furthermore, the Costco gross assessment is a combination of an increase and decrease of assessment because their property is subject to respectively, an inner and outer side of a curve. Additionally, the fact that Costco has a smaller percentage decrease than Martins is related to the absence of any Martin property that lies within the inside of an offsetting curve as does the Costco property. If none of the Costco nronerty was on the inner side of a road curve- their grocc essment would have been decreased in the range of 5,17% of total TIT) cost in relation to the Ordinance 84-18 formula assessment (a decrease that is larger than the Martins percentage ecre.acP because ico owns more property on the Qutside of the same curve shared with th artins). These percentages reflect a very weak basis to suggest that the increased assessment to Waremart was due to anything but the agreed upon modification of the Ordinance 84-18 formula to account for benefits that are directly related to the Dartmouth Street road curve. VALUE OF FRONTAGE The manner in which land is developed is irrelevant to the benefits associated with road frontage. The value of the front footage and land adjacent to it, does not diminish whether such land is utilized by building directly upon it, or is used for required open space or parking to maintain an unobstructed view corridor of development that is located further from the road. Owners often manipulate development sites and frontage using view corridors that will optimize advertisement benefits to anchor stores. Advertisement benefits are extremely important to retailers and they increase when exposure from the road is increased, therefore the more road frontage--the more value provided by advertisement benefits. It would be helpful to find someone to explain and convince our potential retailers that land without frontage and/or view is as valuable as land with frontage and/or view, because they do not practice that philosophy. For many years, it has been widely recognized that placement of buildings away from road frontage is directly related to parking requirements. The larger the building--the more parking spaces are needed, thus large buildings with their customer entrance oriented toward the road must be set back from the road because customers should not need to park at the rear of a store. Also, buildings are set back to provide for future small building pads such as those used by fast food restaurants, etc., that will still allow a good view corridor to the larger buildings. In contrast, a small building with lower parking requirements can be placed closer to the road while respecting view corridors of stores further from the road. Additionally, there are no guarantees that land now used for parking and/or view corridor, will not be used as a building site later. Therefore, suppositions that diminish the value of front footage (i.e., road frontage) because of the location of buildings along the Dartmouth road frontage (or any road frontage), are based upon groundless theories. The value of frontage is not reduced when buildings are located away from the road for parking and view corridor purposes. EXHIBIT 10 PAGE OF , fro Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 10 Additionally, we have asked the Grubb & Ellis Company (which is marketing the Martin property) for their response concerning the value of frontage (please see the enclosed Jim Parsons and Ron Dowhaniuk memo of July 9, 1996). According to both these experienced retail property marketing consultants, frontage (property) is more valuable than property further from the road (i.e., there is more benefit to property when there is more road frontage abutting the property). Specifically, they remark, "There is no question that frontage [property] is more valuable than back property." DA TMOLI' H ROAD SERVICE AREA Upon studying the enclosed map of the Dartmouth road, it is easily seen that Waremart's property has been in effect, surrounded on two sides by the Dartmouth road. It can also be seen from the map that the Martin property is bordered by Dartmouth along a relatively small corner of their property. The significance of these two facts is directly related to the frontage property advertisement value and the amount and cost of infrastructure necessary to service the property and its inherent value of advertisement. With regards to only infrastructure aspects, the further property is from the road, the more it will cost to utilize that property (i.e., property further from a road receives less benefit from the road than property which abuts the road). Therefore, the Waremart property is completely serviced by the Dartmouth road because all of their property is relatively close to the road. In regard to the Martin property, a large portion of their property either does not border Dartmouth or is much further from Dartmouth access than any of the Waremart property. The physical reality that Martins have substantially less frontage in relation to their land area and its shape, translates into considerably less benefit received from the road by the Martins, than that received by Waremart. EFFECT OF INCREASING ROW PRICE Concerning ROW costs, it is of interest to-note that when a comparison is made between Waremart's net assessment according to the Ordinance 84-18 Formula with a $3.19 ROW cost (before the Pollock litigation) versus a $9.46 ROW cost plus the Pollock litigation cost, Waremart will benefit from a net assessment that is lower by $130,044. Likewise wish the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula, Waremart will benefit by a net assessment that is lower by $53,931. For convenience, table 2 is provided below containing the above information. TABLE 2: WAREMART NET ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS (within LID boundary) Waremart Net Assessment Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Scenarios (within LID boundary) Ordinance 84-18 ROW @ $3.19 $ 718,739 $574,560 ROW @ $9.46 $ 664,808 $444,516 Net Assessment Reduction ($53,931) ($130,044) due to higher ROW cost EXHIBIT _ PAGE --~L OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 11 Paul Simmons on behalf of Supervalue did not want to support a more favorable $6.00 ROW ` price for land even though it was pointed out to Supervalue by the Martins several years ago, that Pollock would be treated unfairly because his land that surrounds the Dartmouth road has less depth than others. Apparently, Supervalue did not want to change its ROW price commitment to the City while obtaining City regulatory approvals. Pollock eventually litigated this inequity and the court judgment was in his favor. Yet it is Paul Simmons on behalf of Waremart who continues to appear most upset about the costs and time associated with the Pollock litigation that probably would have been avoided by supporting the $6.00 ROW value for land at the time the unfairness was first pointed out to Supervalue. It is ironic that despite all the litigation expense added to the LID, Waremart would still have benefited from a net assessment reduction due to a higher ROW price resulting from the settlement agreement that Waremart rejected on April 11, 1996. TOTAL. AREA--NOT VIAB The use of a total area approach to assessment has no merit unless all LID participants have parcels with exactly the same property characteristics in relation to a roadway. There is no distinction made between benefit to a parcel 115 of a mile from the roadway that has limited exposure and will need road extensions to access it. and to one that abuts the road and does not need road extensions. Furthermore, assessing on a gross area basis disregards each tax lots individual circumstances in relation to road location that will cause insurmountable problems with regard to Dartmouth, e.g., when tax lots that have access to Dartmouth are assessed at the same rate as tax lots that do not. All land that is used to form the LID should be subject to assessment under a total area approach. The City did not exclude wetlands or undevelopable land during the formation of the Dartmouth LID. It would be incongruous if such land is excluded from the total area of the LID when determining acreage to be assessed as has been suggested by others. That is, wetlands and undevelopable land which was used to gain approval of the LID formation, is to be excluded when determining the assessments using the total area approach that has been promoted by others. If wetlands and undevelopable land are to be excluded from assessment, was the LID formation incorrect to consider such land as part of the LID? Furthermore, the Martins receive less benefit from Dartmouth because of the road location in relation to their wetlands. In terms of cost, the Martins wetland involves much more expense than wetland associated with Waremart. The Martins must relocate their wetland, they cannot simply use it as open space. In contrast, Waremart does not have any of the costs associated with relocation of wetlands. As stated in our letter of August 19, 1996, the avoidance of double assessments is commonly provided for when uCLermining the method of assessment. In accordance with this concept, to prevent effective double assessments, Waaremart, Pollock, and the Martins, should be provided credits for improvements to 72nd avenue required of them. However, after such credits are provided, under a total area approach Costco would be assessed substantially more of the Dartmouth LID costs than previously expected. This would be unfair to Costco EXHIBIT o PAGE -LL OF IG Mayor Jim Nicoii October 14, 1996 Page: 12 in terms of a substantial change and their percentage of frontage. Thal is, a total area approach is unfair if credits are not provided, and unfair if they are. This reason alone makes the total area approach inherently unfair and unrealistic when applied to the Dartmouth LID. In particular, tax lots that have access to 72nd Avenue do not benefit from Dartmouth as much as those which rely on Dartmouth for access. However, under a gross area basis, tax lots that can readily use 72nd for access will be unfairly assessed for both Dartmouth and 72nd improvements. In accordance with 13.04.080 of the City Municipal Code in force at the time Ordinance 84- 18 was enacted, when determining assessments, proper consideration was to be given to the :special and peculiar benefits derived by each lot within the assessment district. The total area approach proposed by two LID participants, assumes that the Martin land is one tax lot and can be assessed as such. That assumption is false, in fact, what is referred to as the Martin land is actually made up of several individual tax lots with various forms of ownership and different individual interests for each one of th em within the LID. Only two of the tax lots directly abut Dartmouth and the others do not have and cannot be provided a guaranteed access to the road until the development of the Martin property is certain and the drainage ditch wetlands separating the two abutting properties from the others are actually moved to the other tax lots to provide access. Further complicating matters of access to Dartmouth from the various tax lots' land is the fact the drainage ditch, with its associated wetlands runs the full length of the overall Martin property east to west. This effectively has created a physical and regulatory barrier between the approximately 1/3 of the Martin property with a border on Dartmouth from the remaining 2/3 without a border. To assess tax lots without frontage as if they had frontage and/or access to the road would be highly inequitable and unacceptable. Without regard to any of the many other reasons it should not be used, the total area approach as proposed is a waste of time and money to consider, because from a technical and legal standpoint it cannot be properly applied to what has been for purposes of brevity, commonly referred to as "the Martin property." LOWER ROW COST EFFECT ON COSTCO It is our understanding that Supervalue and/or Waremart in conjunction with obtaining development approvals during 1992 and 1993 committed to accept the City of Tigard's offered price for their Dartmouth right-of-way which was approximately $3.00 per square foot. Perhaps it would be more fair to Costco if the City required this $3 purchase price commitment to be honored with the addition of interest. Up until the Robert Ball April 11, 1996 letter, we believed that cooperation among the parties would result in a connection of Dartmouth to Highway 217. This we thought would provide Costco with substantial ROW payments that would make up for the settlement agreement ROW price increase from approximately $3 plus interest to $10. Now that the probability of this later Costco ROW compensation has diminished greatly, we will not object if Costco decides to request (and both requests are granted): (1) that the City requires Waremart to honor its earlier $3 ROW EXHIBIT PAuE -tc2 OF Z& Mayor Jun Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 13 price commitment and (2) that the City use its usual "half-street improvement" cost assignment procedure for abutting property in regard to Dartmouth (the property owner is required to pay the cost of improving the half of the road abutting their property to the City specifications without regard for the depth of the property or intersecting streets). This assessment procedure will provide approximately the same results (depending upon various refinements) as the strict centerline approach discussed in this letter. We would expect that Costco would make these two requests on the basis that Waremart and Pollock have apparently disassociated themselves from the settlement agreement developed and approved over a period of many months which raises the ROW price to Martin and Waremart and establishes the assessment method to be applied. The following table 3 shows the approximate results of the City implementing these requests. Notice that Costco's Ordinance 84-18 assessment is almost 100% higher (see table 1) than the Costco assessment under the parameters of table 3 below which reflect the Waremart's originally accepted $3 ROW price. TABLE 3: STRICT LINEAL FRONTAGE WITH LOWER ROW COSTS Lineal Frontage Assessment Gross Assessment Net Assessment Method (within LID boundary) Martin 0$3.79 ROW $ 545,167 $ 336,456 VVaremart {a$3 79 ROW$1,374,893: ` $1.;017,484 Pollock $8;63 $0:65 'R OW $ 762,876 $ "345,784 Costco $ 506,559 $ 506,559 Burgerville $ 28,639 $ 28,639 TOTALS $3,218,134 $2,234,922 VARIOUS ASSESSMENT .OMPARTSONS Upon comparing net assessments in table 4 below, notice that the Martin assessment is $225,778 higher under the Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula than under the strict centerline lineal footage formula. TABLE 4: NET ASSESSMENT COMPARISONS (within LID boundary) $9.46 ROW* Lineal frontage Christensen adjusted Ordinance 84-18 $8.63 & $6.65 (i.e., half-street Ordinance 84-18 formula ROW** improvement) formula Martin* $167,245 $393,023 $531,126 Waremart* $$44,169,; $6:64,808 $444,5:6 Pollock** $547.,087 $263,133 ;$280;576 Costco $640,226 $906,727 $970,799 Burgerville $ 36,196 $ 7,232 $ 7,906 Table 5 below illustrates that when the Martins exercise the options they now hold on the Pollock and Waremart property their lineal frontage on Dartmouth will almost be equal to Waremarts (see also enclosed Dartmouth road map with options held by Martins exercised). Additionally, notice that the strict centerline lineal footage method provides an al proximate 1/3 reduction to Costco over the other assessment methods. This 1/3 reduction is primarily EXHIBIT q PAGE 13 OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 14 due to the removal from the other LID participants of depth adjustment and the very significant assessment credit for improving dedicated city streets that intersect with Dartmouth. Furthermore, the Martins' net assessments under all three methods are much higher than Waremart's while the Martins still have 1.64% less centerline assessed frontage. TABLE 5: NET ASSESSMENTS WHEN MARTIN EXERCISE OPTIONS (within LID boundary) $9.46 ROW* LLneal frontage Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84- % of Total $8.63 & $6.65 (i.e., half-street Ordinance 84-18 18 Lineal Feet ROW** improvement) formula formula Assessed Martin* $ 920,425 $ 856,359 $1,023,559 35.46% gJazemart* . 1 615.,5:49 594;.1.37 $ 355,512 37.40%.... Pollock** 22;527 129,532). 122,853) :I 10 81% Costco $ 640,226 $ 906,727 $ 970,799 15.74% Burgerville $ 36,196 $ 7,232 $ 7,906 0.89% TOTALS $2,234,923 $2,234,023 $2,234,973 100.00% 1. Reflects full ROW credit TABLE 5A: GROSS ASSESSMENTS WHEN MARTIN EXERCISE OPTIONS (within LID boundary) $9.46 ROW* Lineal frontage Christensen Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 % of Total $8.63 & $6.65 (i.e., half-street Ordinance 84-18 formula Lineal Feet ROW** improvement) formula Assessed Martin* $ 1,442,202 $ 1,378,136 $1,545,336 35.46% Waremart* $ 1,5.. $ 1 ,07,659 $1,249;034 37 10:% Pollock** $ 439;619 $ 287,560: $ 294,239 <'1Q 81% Costco $ 640,226 $ 906,727 $ 970,799 15.74% Burgerville $ 36,196 $ 7,232 $ 7,906 0.89% TOTALS $4,067,314 $4,067,314 $4,067,314 100.00% 1. Reflects full ROW credit CLOSING REMARKS Without the support of all major LID participants for a different assessment formula, the City should be required to use its own already legally adopted final assessment procedure (see Doug Van Dyk's legal analysis regarding City of Tigard Ordinance 88-08). Because a decision has been made not to abide by the settlement agreement prepared by Chuck Corrigan, rather than unfairly force the cost on the last to develop, our position will be to expect the 2nd LID, which has been previously committed through non-remonstrance conditions of approvals, agreements, and/or other commitments, to be voluntarily implemented if our August 16, 1996, commitment is accepted by December 31, 1996. Otherwise, we will insist that it be implemented. This will help assure: (a) that costs are distributed equitably, and (b) the removal of existing development restrictions relating to required roadway improvements on undeveloped, LID property along Dartmouth. EXHIBIT 20 PAGEIq 01`1~L_ Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 15 Because of Robert Ball's letters of April 11, and June 20, 1996, a question has arisen concerning the distribution of costs associated with further necessary Dartmouth road improvements, and the appropriateness of current LID assessments without benefits associated with the right to use the roadway at its assessed level of development. While we believed tNit Waremart was willing to work towards a solution, we were prepared to allow the identification and allocation of future improvement costs to remain unknown. This attitude no longer applies and we are not prepared to allow these important road improvements (e.g., signalization and intersection improvements at 72nd and Dartmouth with an approximate cost of $400,000) to remain ambiguous if our commitment to sell ROW is not accepted. We are no longer assured that these improvements will ever occur unless we must unfairly finance them ourselves. Additionally, unless certain improvements are implemented that are used by all LID participants and Tigard Triangle traffic outside the LID, the Martin property is not allowed to develop or use the Dartmouth road. Consequently, without the assurances that the road improvements will be implemented on a timely basis and that we will not be forced to disproportionately finance them, we find it most unacceptable to be assessed for a roadway we may not be able to use. Incidentally, we understand that Waremart was intending to allocate gross assessments to the parcel of land which Future Shop was intending to use on the basis of the percentage of total frontage without depth adjustment or consideration. If this is true, it appears incompatible - that they would propose an assessment approach that is equivalent to half-street improvement to Future Shop, and propose a total area assessment approach to the participants of the LID. That is, by applying the half-street improvement method of assessment when they assess others, they implicitly acknowledge that frontage is important, however, when they are being assessed, they declare frontage is not important. Based on Doug Van Dyk's legal analysis of Ordinance 88-08, it is apparent that the legally adopted final assessment procedure is the pre-assessment formula contained in Ordinance 84- 18. It was only with the support of all major LID participants that the Ordinance 84-18 formula supplied by R.A. Wright Engineering (i.e., what we claim is also the final assessment formula) was slightly modified according to previously agreed upon concepts that correct for its curve related deficiencies. Please refer to the Martins' letter of June 10, 1996, in which realistic options open to the City are presented and our letter of August 16, 1996, in which we have made a commitment to the City. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Martin ~m Gordon S. Martin Enclosures. 1. Paul Simmons letter of March 8, 1995 EXHIBIT 90 PAGE __L~j OF Mayor Jim Nicoli October 14, 1996 Page: 16 2. Paul Simmons letter of February 16, 1996 3. Dartmouth Road Map 4. Dartmouth Road Map with options held by Martins exercised 5. Jim Parsons, Ron Dowhaniuk Memo of July 9, 1996 6. Doug Van Dyk Legal Analysis of Ordinance 88-08 7. Waremart Condition of Approval CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Robert S. Ball Chuck Corrigan Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Harper & Righellis Engineering EXHIBIT PAGE-Lip 4F & _ OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 131 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L BUSCH Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 D. DANIEL CHANDLER TELEPHONE: (503) 2224402 TELEPHONE: (503) 266.1149 DOMI NIC G. COLLETTA• CHARLES E CORRIGAN• PAX (503) 243-2941 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN First Independent Place PAUL C. ELSNER PLEASE REPLY TOPOR'ILANDOFFICE 1220 Ma.InStreeL Suite 451 GARY F. FIRESTONE' Vancower, Washington 98660.2964 WILLIAM E. GAAR TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 G. FRANK HAMMOND• FAX (360) 699-7221 KENNETH D. HELM November 5, 1996 `JIALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. SPALNAKER SPECIAL COUNS& • ALSO AMMW To Paecttcs IN WASHWCr A= ADMnM TO MAC= W CALWORNIA A= ADMn7W to PMCDM IN MONTANA AND WAS H 4MON BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAN LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis John Wilson Jack Graves Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentiemen: As previously explained, the engineering firm of Harper Righellis has been retained to develop a proposed assessment formula for the Dartmouth LID. All of the assessment formulas suggested to the City by the various parties have been supplied to Harper Righellis, and Gordon Martin, Jr. additionally submitted further materials to them. The purpose of this letter is to make sure that any party who wants to make suggestions regarding the proposed formula, but who has not done so, gets those suggestions to Harper Righellis at this point. EXHIBIT-2-L- PAGE _ OF .a- L O'UONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH November 5, 1996 Page 2 Thank you. Sincerely ycurs, Charles . C 'gan CEC/fwc 0:%0=\C=Ntiprdxmeet0g2. u9 cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Tony Righellis EXHIBIT PAGE d2 OF A O'DONNBLL RAIMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT 1AW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L. BUSCH Ponland, Oregoa 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 D. DANIEL CHANDLER TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 3) 2x30 DOMINIC G. COLT MA** TELEPHONE: (2 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN' FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN First Independent Place PAUL C. ELSNER PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 451 GARY F. FIRESTONE' Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 WILLIAM E. GAAR TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 G. FRANK HAMMOND• FAX (360) 699-7221 KENNETH D. HELM March 21, 1997 MALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN JAMES E. OLIVER, JR. SUSAN J. WIDDER TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM J. STALNAKER ALSO ADW TED TO PRACTICE IN W/SHINCTON • ALSO ADMRTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ALSO ADMTITED TO PRACTICE IN MONTANA A.ND WASHINGTON SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis John Wilson Jack Graves Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Dartmouth LID Property Owner/Owner Representative: Enclosed find the "Review Version" of an Assessment Analysis Report prepared by Harper Righellis. The City intends to officially circulate the proposed assessment formula at such time as it can also include the dollar amounts of the proposed assessments, which, obviously, cannot be done until the total cost of the project is known.I (The enclosed report uses a $4 million figure for the sake of discussion.) 1 The following statemc :t appears in the enclosed report: "As with most LIDs, the assessment method is determined before the actual final costs are known. " That statement can be disregarded, as under the City of Tigard's "final" assessment formula process, the costs are established at the time that the assessment formula is circulated and ultimately adopted. EXHIBIT qZ PAGE OF s O'DONNELL RAIvIIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH March 21, 1997 Page 2 A remaining cost component to be determined is the price the City will pay for the Martin right- of-way. That in turn depends upon whether the Martins are prepared to-accept the "Pollock rates" as established in the City's prior condemnation litigation, or if the values are to be established pursuant to condemnation litigation between the City and the Martins. Gordon S. Martin had asked for an opportunity to review the enclosed report before he and his father make that decision. Thus, whether the LID gets wrapped up at this point or is essentially put on hold pending condemnation litigation between the City and the Martins is a question that should be answered shortly. The City will of course share that information as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, C" ee.~ Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc Encl. c: \orcc\cec\tgard\mccdng2.110 cc w/encl: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry cc w/o encl: Bill Monahan Tony Righellis EXHIBIT PAGE OF A13R incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 April 3, 1997 Mr. Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Dartmouth LID Right-Of-Way Acquisition. Dear Chuck: Your letter dated March 21, 1997, appears to imply that we are the only LID participants that have not agreed to a price for LID right-of-way acquisition. To the best of our knowledge, a price for our right-of-way has not been offered for at least six years or more. If you would kindly send us copies of the Pollock and Waremart right- of-way acquisition agreements and any computations that were used to arrive at the amounts, we will review them. When a reasonable price for our right-of-way is offered we will be happy to consider it. As stated in previous correspondence, we continue to maintain that the assessment formula in force for the Dartmouth LID (the R. A. Wright formula) is the same formula that was adopted as a critical component of Ordinance 88-08 authorizing the use of the Final Assessment Procedure. From an ethi-I °wpoint, since the R.A. Wright formula is in fact the formula property owners have relied on long before and after Dartmouth was constructed, the only reasonable formula to use would be the R.A. Wright formula. Of course, a possible exception to this is if RU LID participants accept in writing a formula that differs from the R. A. Wright formula. Sincerely, Gordon R. Marti n~a l Gordon S. Martin CC: Mayor Jim Nicoli EXHIBIT x'13 PACE OF -L-- ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice m,-il (503) 620-1842 May 21, 1997 Tigard City Council %Mr. Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Re: Dartmouth LID Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Related Matters. Dear Chuck: The Martins are now prepared to accept the City of Tigard's offer dated April 17, 1997, to purchase our right-of-way (ROW) for the Dartmouth LID. However, as stated numerous times before, since the City plans to add the cost of the ROW back into the total LID cost, it is of great importance to the Martins which assessment formula is used to allocate the LID costs, and that Waremart not receive more per foot for their ROW than the Martins (We are assuming they have agreed to the same amount per foot). Since the City is using the Final Assessment Method adopted in Ordinance 88-08, it is a requirement for the Dartmouth LID, to implement the R.A. Wright Engineering Report and Formula. The implementation is required because the R.A. Wright Formula was originally adopted in Ordinance 84-18, and later adopted as an essential part of Ordinance 88-08. The R.A. Wright Engineering "zonal formula" will allocate 25.89% or $1,035,600.00 (assuming a $4,000,000.00 total LID cost) of the LID assessment to the Martins. Consequently, out of the Martin's $568,369.56 ROW purchase price, we will be paying 25.89% of our ROW purchase price which is $147,150.87. Although the Martins question the constitutionality of charging back the cost of ROW to the Seller and/or charging the cost to a LID, we are nevertheless ready to accept the offer to purchase our Dartmouth LID ROW at the prices stated in your April 17, 1997, letter, and not now or later question the constitutionality. This acceptance is of course conditioned on the R.A. Wright Formula being implemented and Waremart not receiving more per square foot. PAQE.LOF Chuck Corrigan May 21, 1997 page 2 Incidentally, if the City pays for all the ROW for the Dartmouth LID out of its General Fund and does not add the ROW cost back into the LID, the Martins will accept the City's offer to purchase our ROW at the prices stated in your April 17, 1997, letter. If the City of Tigard decides to implement an assessment formula other than the R.A. Wright Engineering Formula, all LID participants will have to agree to it first before the Martins decide to accept the April 17, 1997, offer. Indications are that the City is considering an assessment formula prepared by Harper Righellis Inc.. This formula is a gross "area formula" which is completely unacceptable to the Martins. The Harper Righellis Inc. Formula totally disregards among other matters, the fact that the original LID boundaries were not disputed because the assessment area by zone did not go beyond 450 feet from Dartmouth. Furthermore, the Harper Righellis Inc. Formula allocates 40.39% of the total LID costs to the Martins while completely disregarding the fact that the Martins have frontage on only 15.25 % of Dartmouth. Furthermore, the Formula will require us to pay 40.39% of our own ROW purchase price. By increasing the Martin's share of the LID by 14.5 % through adopting the Harper Righellis Inc. Formula, the City will have manipulated the assessment process in such a way, that we will not actually receive "just" compensation for our ROW. Under the adopted Ordinance 88-08, which employees the R.A. Wright Formula, the Martin's assessment will be $1,035,600.00. Under the Harper Righellis Inc. Formula, the Martin's assessment will be $1,615,600.00. If the City disregards Ordinance 88-08 and increases the Martin's assessment by $580,069.07, the City will in effect be surreptitiously taking back the $568,369.56 we are to receive from the sale of our ROW, and consequently will have in fact taken our property without = compensation. The Martins will not accept the City's offer to purchase our ROW under these conditions. We hope the City has learned sufficiently from the Supreme Court Dolan vs. City of Tigard decision that the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution still has meaning and circumventing it may have costly consequences. If Ordinance 88-08 had not included an assessment formula to be used to determine the individual LID participants "shares" of the total cost (total cost to be determined upon completion of the LID), the Martins would have remonstrated at the time of the adoption of Ordinance 88-08. Promoting and forming a LID based on an assessment formula which determines each participant's share of the total cost, and then later adopting a Final Assessment Method that cancels the original assessment formula that determined these shares; eliminates each participant's ability to have determined, based on their expected estimated share, whether or not to support the LID before the project is built. EXHIBIT PAGE I- OF Chuck Corrigan May 21, 1997 page 3 In adopting the Final Assessment Method by Ordinance 88-08, the City obligated itself to implement the R.A. Wright Engineering Formula which is described within the Ordinance and Council Minutes as the method of determining individual shares for the purpose of assessments. If the City now uses a formula which changes each participant's share from that of the R.A. Wright formula, the City will have circumvented due process, and denied each participant his fundamental right of remonstration. This may require the LID to be reformed, which may result in the City paying for Dartmouth. Without this right of remonstration, the City would be expecting LID participants to agree to go into a LID blind, not knowing if any one of them was going to be forced to pay 5 % or 50% of the total cost. No sane businessman would be part of a transaction which has the potential for such a wide ranging cost liability. On another related topic, the right-of-entry for the Dartmouth ROW has obviously been continually granted by the Martins under the conditions decreed by Ordinance 88-08 relating to LID cost sharing. If the City now decides not to abide by Ordinance 88-08, specifically, by not implementing the R.A. Wright Formula, the Martins will consider the right-of-entry agreement to have been breached by the City. We have received with your letter dated May 8, 1997, the corrected Plat Map and Legal Description. When John Hadley rectified the Plat Map to the Supervalue Plat which had been recorded, he failed to recalculate the ROW area that is being purchased by the City. According to Christensen Engineering, the area of Parcel F is now 28,417 square feet and Parcel E is now 26,720 square feet. Slope easement F remains the same square footage. Sincerely, Gordon R. Martin gyp Gordon S. Martin Enclosure ~~J~ cc: Jim Nicoli Robert Rohlf Brian Moore Kenneth Scheckla Paul Hunt EXHIBIT PAGE OF, O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 7H.BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE RY 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 NDLER + r TELEPHONE: (503) 222.4402 TELEPHON& 1503) 26(-1149 LLETTA" FAX: (503) 243.2944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN First Independent Place PAUL C. ELSNER PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 451 GARY F. FIRESTONE* Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 WILLIAM E. GAAR TELEPHON& (360) 699-7287 G. FRANKHAMMOND• FAX (360) 699-7221 KENNETH D. HELM May 28, 1997 MALCOLM JOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN JAMES E. OL[V&R JR. SUSAN J. WIDDER TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM J. STALNAKER • ALSO ADMrMD TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON • • ALSO ADMrrrM TO PRACnCE IN CALIFORNIA ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MONTANA AND WASHINGTON BY FACSIMILE and CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIP'T' REQUESTED Gordon R. Martin, Sr. c/o Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 2nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard v. Martin Washington County Circuit Court Case No. Dear Gordon: I am writing in response to your letter of May 21, 1997. The City cannot decide to adopt any specific assessment formula prior to the acquisition of your father's property. Until the City knows its final costs for the LID, the last component of which is paying for the Martin property, it cannot circulate the proposed LID assessments. It is only after the proposed assessments are circulated that a final determination as to the assessment formula and the corresponding assessments can be made. Given your and your father's position that a voluntary sale will not take place unless the City _ first adopts an assessment formula, there appears to be no other fashion in which to proceed at this point but for the City to initiate a condemnation proceeding. Toward that end, enclosed find a summons and complaint. As you have been acting as your father's agent for the past several years, I trust that you are authorized to accept service of the enclosed papers for him. Please J notify me by May 30th if that is not the case. We are sending the original of this letter and its enclosures by certified mail to confirm your acceptance of them. EXHIBIT 95 PAGE -/-OF O'DONNELL RAMI5 CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Gordon R. Martin, Sr. c/o Gordon S. Martin, Jr. May 28, 1997 Page 2 If you and your father choose to retain counsel for the condemnation case, be sure to give him/her a set of these papers and ask him/her to give me a call. m er Charles E. Co i CEC/fwc Encl. EXHIBIT 25- PAGE OF a SEP 22 '97 09:38 FR TARLOW,jORDA,N,SCHRADR503¢59877373 TO 181#27578#620184 P.02/06 wr r v.v r u v uvrww..~...i ru ,i 11J r„G O' DOIo NE?LL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHR,ACH JEFF H. BACKRACH ATTOMPYT AT LAW CLAC'K&SIAS COUM OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY 1127 N.W. Nor Sum • 181 N. Gran; suite 202 1e9AkK L. BUSCH POAUM, oroson 47109 Canby, Oregon 97013 D. DANIEL CHANDLER TELEPHONE: (543) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE, (SW) 2224402 CHARLES E. COPMOAN• FAXr M) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN First In4epan*nt P1soa ?AU'L C. ELSNER Puns WLY To POATLAMD 0MCE 1220 Main Stmet, Suitt 451 C+ARY F. FIRESTONV Vancouver. Washington 98660.2964 WILLIAM 1. GAAR TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7247 C1. FRANK HAMMOND• FAX: (360) 699.7221 MALCOLM JOI'$NSON• September 19, 1997 MARK P. ODONNELL - JAMES E. OLIVER, JR. JAMBS M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAICER SPLCIAL Cau m, ALSO ADMM90 To PRAC=r; IN WABMtfI MN ' AL30ADM1T=70PRACt71BNC,WFORNIA ALSO ADMITTED 70 PRACiSM W WASHINGTON AND MONTANA BX FA.CSIFd~YL~ Douglas V. Van Dyk - - Tarlow Jordan & Schrader PO Box 230669 Portland, OR 97281 Re: City of Tigard v. Martin WAshington County Circuit Court Case No. C970605CV Bear Doug: I am writina in response to your letter of September 5, 1997, which outlined the terms of a possible agreement to settle the above-referenced condemnation litigation. The City accepts the Manins' offer, to wit, 1. At closing, the City will pay the Martins in cash the principal sum of $368,369.56, plus interest from April 1, 1997, to the date of closing, The per day interest amount will be $104.22, assuming that the Martins agree with the City's calculations, or $104,33, assuming that the City agrees with the Martins' calculations. Please contact Wayne Lowry, the City's FWance Director, to discuss those calculations. 2. The Martins will convey clcar title to their right-of-way property to the City. 3. The City will not hold the hearing on the proposed assessment formula until after January 1, 1998. To make sure that we are clear on this point, the hearing in question is the one called for by Tigard Municipal Code 13.04.060(C)(6), copy enclosed. EXHIBIT . 9k PAGE OF SEP 22 '97 09 c 39 FP. TARL0I4, .JORDAN t SCHRADR503+598+7373 TO 181#27578#620184 P.03/06 vLi i ~V./• b"S 1 I V .YV! • wiry. I%rY Ii-0 r 1, _ O' DONNELL RAMI$ MW COMGAN & BACHRACH Douglas V. Van Dyk September 19, 1997 Page 2 4. The City's condemnation lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice and without costs to any party. As for the Matins' interest in confirming that the Warermart purchase was made on the same basis as the City's proposed payment in this case, enclosed find a letter to me from Wayne Lowry explaining those calculations. The payment to Waremart was consistent with the figures in Mr. Lowry's letter. Let me know who you would like to dram the settlement and dismissal papers. Sincerely yours, Charles Co 'gan 0 CEC/frvc cc: William A. Monahan (By fax) Wayne Lowry (By fax) Pamela J. Beery EXHIBIT 9G► PAGE --.2- OF~ SEP 22 '97 09:40 FR TARLO!J, JOPUAN, SrHRADR503+598+7373 TO 181#27578#620184 P.04/06 4~t,h' 7J -de 1:1,~%:L4t-1.1 u'vuNriLLL, KHMlb TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE failure with respect to mailing of notice shall not f application to pay in installments is made, is due be jurisdictional or invalidate the assesar„tent , within thirty days of the date of the notice and, if vroceediags, but there shall be no foreclosure or unpaid on that date, will accrue interest and legal action. to collect until notice has been given subiect the property to foreclosure. by personal service upon the property owner or, if personal service cannot be had, then by (3) 5upplernentary notice of publication once a week for two consecutive assessment, in form and content to be determined weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the by the finance director, may also be published or city, posted by the finance dimeter, (6) The council shall hold the public (b) Installment Payments. :searing on the proposed assessments to consider those objections filed in writing and may adopt, (1) The owner of any property correct, modify or revise the proposed assessed for an improvement in the sum of assessments. The council shall determine the twenty-five dollars or more, at any time within ten amount of assessment to be charged against each days after notice of such assessment is first given, lot within the local improvement district may file with the finance director a written according to the special and peculiar benefits application to pay in installments. .accruing thereto from the improvement. • (2) The finance director shall accept (7) The council shall spread the the writter application to pay in installments assessment by ordinance. (Ord. 86-210§5 and 6, unless the amount remairdT►g unpaid on the 1986; Ord. 83-40 §8,1985). current assessment together with the unpaid balance of any previous assessments for 13.44.070 1~inAnce and closure. improvements against the saute property exceeds the real market value of the property. (a) Notice of Assessment. (3) The written application shall: (1) The finance director shall send notice by first-class mail within ten days after the (A) State that the applicant and effective date of the ordinance spreading the property owner does waive all irregularities or assessment. defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause the improvement to be (2) The notice shall state the following constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the cost; and (A) The effective date of the ordinance levying the assessment, the name of the (8) State that the applicant or owner of the property assessed, the amount of the property owner understands the terms and specific assessment aAd a description of the conditions of the city's payment policies including property assessed; the penalties for nonpayment. ()3) A statement that an (4) The council may adopt rules application may be filed to pay the assessment in regarding the financing of improvements, installments in accordance with the provisions of assumption of payments resulting from a transfer Section 13.04.050(b); of ownership, interest rates and service charges for late payments. (C) A statement that the entire amount of the assessment, less any part for which 13-09.8 EXHl IT PAG _11L F - -mom MIEW 119110111M SEP 22 '97 09040 P TARLOW,JORDAN.SCHP,ADR503+598+7373 TO 18192?57833620184 P.05/06 02/20 J"`5. SLC ,'alai W JA:' ""-y`- .1471 • I• TO. 24/a' PAGE: It M-20-1997 01:28 M FRQ ;.0.T. UATER 70 CITY AMY P.0i r N % Mamli I ,2997 CITV, OO*F,TlGAMRD 116GON fta%' ouut~ rnactiPS today, I Ave cwt d t cost ai the right of way'and associated oaseraents ! et to be P&chased fmm Ar=art and Iviartiu. Since ow meeting this'mornkg, John Hadley bas de that, the si m& improviaents along the North Past side of peel C w m $lwed thin the right of y. This apparently mews that the slope ew=e= we discussed is I not . to purchast: fora warea=m The foil' wing costs for a ! of way have been detm mined usit g the Pollock rews. of $7.54 per i uarh £p ' k4 of April' I;1 97. f Pare-.1 C ; 90,5..9 7.54 679,192.50 I! ~ arcel ti 3,8 .14 7.5D 23.405.00 Total "05,097.58 01 6 ntccrasc from. e 3, 1993 thm April 1, 1997 2d&989S4 d Total w I ; 4.5 125. 'fit . aj. at ddyiatez~estpa April 1, 1997 174,40 Parcel B 26,717 7.50 200,377.50 parcel F 28,416 7,50 213,120.00 E Parcel If: 'lope 61115 1.50 .~,17?.sQ T)tg ff 422,670.00 9 a iatErest from 7 e 3, 1993 thm April 1, 1997 14&622.U rand, TOW if"tttin P day interest ~Lo April 1. 1997 104.22 I + ' If you h0e+~e $my questions a out this Wor=dcn, pleas: let me lmow. ~iz;cex+el' I ' s ayn tm= Directs Fi ' EXHIBIT 1 s 126 Tt. f H011 Tigerd. OR 97 S (6(3) 634•4171 MD (&W) 684-2774 -RA OF P WL D1.TrH,~L1D ZONE VS. AREA METHODOLOGY COMPARISON This methodology comparison is for four properties (A through D), of equal frontage on Dartmouth. The properties are not based on actual ownership, but are presented to illustrate the affect of assessments on varying property depths, which is the case of assessed parcels within the District boundary. 7,ONE IddM0DQJ..O-M The zone methodology as used by R.A. Wright in 1988 is Exhibit C. This methodology weights area by depth from street as follows: 3 for first 150 feet; 2 for next 150 feet; 1 for neat 150 feet; and zero beyond 450 ct. The percentage of t5W District assessment is shown on the Exhibit #1. AREA METHOD =gL The area methodology as used by Harper-Raghellis in 1998 is illustrated in Exhibit #2. This is for the same depth of properties and is based on area only. The percentage of tot District assessment is shown on the Exhibit #2. COMPARISON: The property depth of 450 feet from the street is the balance of the two methodologies. That property is "C" and the percentage of both methodologies is 30%, The Area methodology places 40% of the total assessment on the assessed parcel at 600 foot depth ("D") vs. 10% and 20% on the 150 foot and 300 foot deep properties ("A" and "B„). The Zone methodology places 30% of the total assessment on each of the properties 450 feet in depth and beyond ("C" and "D"). Properties closer to tie street are assessed 159 and 25% each ("A" and "B"). The fairness of the Zone methodology (RA. Wright) is the affect of assessing the area closest to the street vs. the area greater than 450 feet from the street. This fairness is amplified when properties outside the District boundary are added to "A" and "B". Their areas utilizing the street increase, but the assessment does not reflect the street benefit. The unbalanced property depths LIT_3 the District boundary are reflected fairly in the Zone methodology (R.A. Wright) and not at all in she Area methodology (Harper- Reghellis). 1A32A.004Nw= M244da=w4&h-com EXHIBIT 7 PAGE-Z -OF MAY 12 ' 98 10.44 $03 452 8043 PAGE. 02 lea art" Sot lei EXHIBIT PAGE __?-OF " ~~h1AY 12 ' 99 10.44 503 452 8043 PAGE. 03 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 D. DANIEL CHANDLER Portbnd. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA•o TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* TELEPHONE: (303) 2224402 STEPHEN F. CREW FAX: (503) 243-2944 MARTIN C. DOLAN VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE' First Independent Place WILLIANIA E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 451 G. FRANK HAMMOND• Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON' TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX: (360) 699-7221 T. CHAD PLASTER ° May 11, 1998 TIMOTHY V. P-AMIS WILLIAM J. S T ALNAKER JAMES M. COLEMAN ANDREW H. STAMP SPECIAL COUNSEL BARTON J. WACHSTETER • ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHTNGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON AND MONTANA BY FAX and FIRS' CLASS MAIL Wayne owry Finan Director City f Tigard 131 5 S.W. Hall Blvd. Ti d, OR 97223 Re: Tigard/Dartmouth LID Assessment Roll Comparison Dear Wayne: Enclosed find the latest version of Tony Righellis' assesment comparison sheet, revised to add a column reflecting the latest numbers he came up with as a result of the wetlands information received from the property owners. Thought you might be interested. Sincerely ours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/N,c Encl. cc w/encl. by fax: William A. Monahanj/ CC~L. Yl'L2~'Vf" W Dartmouth Street LID Assessment Roll Comparison a 0. Origlannl Assessment Original Assessment 1011 Orlgiml Assessmani tv0h rR Final Assessment R oo Two Parcel Exchrslon two Parcel ERchision nds Houndntles A Costce Correction Percotd Percent Percent Percent of Total of Total of loinl of ToW Assessmerd Assessment Assessment Assossmert Assessment Assessment As:.assment Assessment Tax Ma Tax Let % S A S 56 S S Pacific Highway Froniln Parests O.OOx SO.00 0.00% SO= 0.00% 50,00 H0.00% 50.00 I 157 36CD 97x0 0.00% S0.or 0.00% $0.00 0.1p% SO.00 0.00% SO.00 Q x iS136CD 9800 0.00% SO,00 U.OD% $0.0.0 0.00% SO.00 0.005 50,00 4- Q- iS136CD 9900 0.00% 50.00 0.001, 50.00 0.00% 50.00 O,OD% $0.00 0 N tri I Costca Parcels 26.48% $1,212,07T.12 26.76% $1,221,612.14 17.6796 ;606,600,38 22.41% $1,025,7D2.68 1S136CD 2004 0.42!: $19,152.49 0.42% S19,3Si.51 0.48% $21,752.85 0.00'% $0.00 N I 15136CD 2200 22.52% N 61,030,872.42 22.701, $1,041,584.rA 13.17;6 $802,891,18 12.62% $577,742.67 N N 2St IBA 200 3.54% $162052.22 3.59% $163730.iS 4.02: 184054.35 9.79% 5448049.79 o J~ M M WarerrlettPatcals 24.19% S1,107,12024 24.44% 1 86 F ri Q O $,1fe 24.67 27./71% fl 257,478.02 21.5656 $1,123,956.44 I Ifl to 1S13GCD 2000 8.50% 5388,817.42 8.958% $392,857.74 9.8571. $411,607.89 7.335 $375,393.11 11. : ~ iS1 36CD 4200 0.97 $44,396.36 0.481, 644,867.70 1.10: 550,424.14 97.46% 544,607.78 1S138CD 4300 3.40% $156,720.42 3.449: $157,338.56 3.86: $176,662.68 4.36% $199,215.71 nJ j Li 1Si 36DC 2x03 0.58% $26,36827 0.58% 528,84227 0.65: 529,948.34 60.57% 627,719.43 r•1 1S1360C 2504 0.67% $26,116.51 0.58% 526,387.89 0.E 529,6G2.40 59.99?: S27,454.T7 iS1360C 4500 7.17'.% 5328,244.23 659 7.26% $331,655.11 8.15: $372,810.56 7.54,% $345,064.00 I 1S1360C 4600 3,00?: $137457.03 3.03: $138885.39 3.11: $156119.63 3.16% 574/50058 (Y Pollock Parcels 6.947E $109,976.14 7.99x, $365,666.64 8.98% $111,042.61 9.9351, $!54,514.50 r' H >L Q.S 1S1360C 1400 3.44% 5157,562.23 3.48',•'6 $159,199.50 3.91: $178,954.74 3.621. 5165,036.00 a s. 151 36C 4402 0.95% $43,531,30 U 0.00% $0.00 O.OD : $0.00 0.00% $0.00 1S13GOD 7500 0.18: 58,024.03 0.18,. TJ _ $8,107.41 0.20: $9,113,47 18.45% Sn,445.17 V { i~ ' 1Si 36DD 7600 0.28% $11.890.00 0.26: U.) S12,013.55 0.30'• 513,504.32 27.34% 612,514.04 ~ x o 2SI !Alt 2800 0.08%. r 53,538.88 0.005 $0.00 $0.00 9.00% 50.00 0.00:•'. Q 2-St 1M 2900 0,39}: $18,05b.97 0.40% $16,243.59 0.46% 520,507.46 41.52% $19,003.63 R 2S11AR 100 3.845: 166373.73 3.67% $168102.57 4.13: $188962.61 5.44% $248915.66 t1 i = 11140n, Parosir 40.39'6 $1,618,863.50 40,61% $1 667,673.52 45,88% $2,0n,640.00 43.10% ;1,972,574.41 0 i 251 108 100 1,01X $46,293.06 18256 546,774.11 1.15% 552,578.36 1.19% SS2.278.89 LL 12Sf IBA 101 8.64% S39S,332.82 8.73% S399,44U.85 9.81:•: $149,007.90 9.56% $437,477.40 L C 251 IRA 300 23.81 ; $1,089,906.68 24.06: 51,101,232.23 27.05: SI,237,885.34 25.11% $1,149,430.61 251 MA 401 6.93% $31713094 7.00`. $320,426.35 7.071,: $3GO 188.40 7.28% $333„^,81.x1 n Dartmouth Street Center 70-Foot RI ht. 0.00% S0,00 O,OG*4 $0.00 0.00% 50.00 0.00% 03 $0.00 Ch is, 36CD 4400 0.00% 50.00 0.00% $0.00 0.0050.00 000`6 S0.00 1S136DC 47DO D.oD:. 50.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00. $0.00 Sotsis; 100.00% $4,S7S,837.01 100,00% S4 ,;76,63),Ot 100.007. $4,576,637.01 100.0056 $1,676,0;7,01 yr } 0 a: O'DONNELL RAMIE CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 D. DANIEL CHANDLER Portland, OrcSon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 DOMIMC G. COLLETTAi$ TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* TELEPHONE: (503) 222.4402 STEPHEN F. CREW FAX: (503) 243-2944 MARTIN C. DOLAN VANCOUVER, •YA SHINGTON OFFICE NARY F. FIRESTONE* First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 451 G. FRANK HAMMOND• Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK. P. O'DONNELL 1998 FAX: (360) 699-7221 T. CHAD PLASTER ° May li, TIMOTHY V. RAMIS WILLIAM J. STALNAKER JAMES M. COLEMAN ANDREW H. STAMP SPECIAL COUNSEL BARTON J. WACHSTETER • ALSO ADWrrED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ALSO ADMMTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON AND MONTANA BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL Joe Willis Jeffrey Keeney Robert Ball Douglas Van Dyk Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Gentlemen: Enclosed find the Harper & Righellis Proposed Final Assessment Roll and Assessment Map which reflect the wetlands information provided to Tony Righellis. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc Encl. cc w/encl by fax: Wayne Lowry William A. Monahan Cathy Wheatley Dartmouth Street LID Proposed Final Assessment Roll Parcel Dartmouth Dartmouth Net Developable Area Street Street Area (Prior Within Added-Width Center 70-Feet To Added-Width Trafffic Percent LID Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Welland Right-of-Way Zoning Generation Assessment of Total Boundarv Dedication Dedication Area Dedication' Designation Factor' Rate Assessment Assessment Tax Ma Tax Lot + acres + acres acres acres net acres (trips) trl -acres % $ Pacific Highway Fronting Parcels 1.3219 0.00000% $0.00 1St 31 CD 1700 0.8132 0.8132 C-G 0.00 0.00 0.00000% $0.00 1S136CD 1800 0.1738 0.1738 2-G 0.00 0.00 0.00000% $0.00 1S136CD 1900 0.3349 0.3349 C-G 0.00 0.00 0.00000% $0.00 Costco Parcels 11.8342 22.41270% $1,025,792.66 1S136CD 2200 6.6900 1__2.24118 0.2736 6.6652 C-G 4.00 26.66 12.62319% $577. 2S1 IBA 200 9.7204 4.5514 5.1690 C-G 4.00 20.68 9.78951% $448,049.79 Waremart Parcels 12.9667 24.55747% $1,123,955.44 1S136CD 2000 6.3805 1.3892 1.1221 3.8693 C-G 4.00 15.48 7.32805% $335,393.11 1S1 36CD 4200 0.5935 0.0729 0.1518 0.5146 C-G 4.00 2.06 0.97464% $44,607.78 1S1 36CD 4300 3.5384 0.0952 1.3353 2.2983 C-G 4.00 9.19 4.35269% $199,215.71 1S136DC 2503 0.3198 0.3198 C-G 4.00 1.28 0.60565% $27,719.43 1S136DC 2604 0.3167 0.3167 C-G 4.00 1.27 0.59966% 527,454.77 1S136DC 4500 3.8015___0.1794 _ 3.9809 C-G 4.00 15.92 7.53936% $345,064.06 1S1 36DC 4600 1.4904 0.1766 1.6670 C-G 4.00 6.67 3.15721% $144,500.58 Pollock Parcels 7.3265 9.93076% $454,514.50 1S1 36DC 4400 1.9109 1.9109 C-G 4.00 7.64 3.61901% $165,636.00 1S136DC 4402 0.5279 0.5279 C-G 0.00 0.Cn7 0.00000% $0.00 1S1 36DD 7500 0.3897 _ 0.3897 C-P 1.00 0.39 0.18452% $8,445.17 1S1 36DD 7600 0.5775 0.6775 C-P 1.00 0.58 0.27342% $12,514.04 2S11AA 2800 0.1719 0.1719 C-P 0.00 0.00 0.00000% $0.00 2S11AA 2900 0.8770 0.8770 C-P 1.00 0.88 0.41521% $19,003.63 2S11AB 100 3.3425 0.4708 2.8716 C-G 4.00 11.49 5.43860°/ $248,915.66 6Sarfin Parcels 22.7569 43.09907% $1,972,574.41 2S11BA 100 1.5521 0.6575 0.2915 0.6031 C-G 4.00 2.41 1.14221% $52,276.89 2S11BA 101 5.8333 0.6080 0.1783 5.0470 C-G 4.00 20.19 9.55851% $437,477.40 2S11BA 300 14.4087 1.1480 13.2607 C-G 4.00 53.04 25.11426% $1,149,438.81 2S1 1BA 401 3.8461 3.8461 C-G 4.00 15.38 7.28410% $333,381.31 Dartmouth Street Center 70-Feet Right-of-Way Dedication Parcels 0.0000 0.00000% $0.00 1S136CD 4400 0.6898 0.6898 0.0000 C-G 4.00 0.00 0.00000% $0.00 iS136DC 4700 0.0685 0.0885 0.0000 C-G 4.00 0.00 0.00000% $0400 Totals: 68.3889 0.7729 3.4329 9.5228 56.2061 211.21 100.00000% $4,576,837.01 A value of zero Indicates a non-assessed parcel at Pacific Highway due to lack of benefit. 5/9198 36CD 1700 PARCEL LINE 36C0 1800 IBA 401 PARCEL DES16NATION PACIFIC HWY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY 36CD 1900 0 `PARCEL .S LID BOUNDARY l~v~ I \I °I WETLANDS (APPROXIMATE) 36CD 2000 ~I QP`~F~c COSTCO'PARCELS j 36CD 2200 / 0 WA REMA R T ZONING ~Q I I PARCELS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL 3 ' 36DC COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL ,nl I 36DC 4500 2504 \ I 36DC I 1503 W I = 0 3600 7500 36CD 4300 36CD 4400 ^ 36DC 4402 36DC 4700 36CD 4100 36DC 4600 136DC 4400 36DD 7600 I-rig 1 ' 1BA 18A 101 HST k:;: °;RrMO V1AjB OCK PA RC S~ RTMOUTH ST. lAA 2800 0 1 MA RTIN PARCELS I j I t Q I lAA 18 300 b ° 2900 d; 1BA 401 ' Ibb b° b I 66664 I b b b I b V WAREMAR r PARCELS rp er INCLUDE DARTMOUTH ST ighellis, Inc. Assessment Map CENTER 70-FEEr a w ® i w s e R a SW Dartmouth Street LID R/GHT-Of-WAY DEDICATION PARCELS 5200s2 WfJ°0'"`°M SUM S°D °"R1D "'07"1 Tigard, Oregon 0518198 (503) 221-113; ruc (sw) m-,m .III + TONKON, TORP, GALEN, MARMADUKE L BOOTH 16W PiO?Z= TOT/M OU S.W. Farts AVF.NM PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-2099 (503) 221.1440 FAX (543)1744"9 JEFFREY H. P.1Y June 28, 1996 VIA TELECOFX Mr. Charles B. Corrigan O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard Daz`Tr~uth Local Improvement Distric* Dear Chuck: In response to your letter of this morning to the Local Improvement District participants, please be advised that Costed Wholesale Corporation would be willing to proceed with mediation as set forth in your letter dated June 12, 1996. I apologize for not responding within the five-day period set forth in your June 12, 1996 letter, but did not do so on the assumption that, based upon my review of their June 10, 1996 letter to Mayor Nicolai, the Martins were not willing to proceed with mediation. Do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Since ely, - y H Keeney J-HX/mmd copy: Mr. Jack S. Frank (via telecop ) Mr. Mark Vandehey " LID Participants " zooizoo(J 8 U JHO.L NOSMN01 etas 941 C09~U 9P:9T 96/SZ/90 E09 :Noaj 9861 9t:9L 8Z/90 4 TONICON, 9:ORP, GALEN, X&Rb=U'RE to BOOTH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16o0113Meea To+.et as s.w, plltlt nvnaaa Port)aad. &4. M04-2099 (5(i3) 211-141o PAX: (50) 274-SM TMM 36082 -EQ-PM FAX COVER PAGE DATE: June 28. 1996 THIS TRANSMISSION IS TO: TBLEPHoxx Q9XW Y F-UMFiR VAX NUMBER Charles S. Corrigan 222-4402 243-2944 O'Donnell, Rands, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach Donald Joe Willis 222-9981 796-2900 James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 620-2477 620-1842 Robert S. Ball 228-2525 295-1058 Ball Janik & Novack Paul Simmons 1-503-588-3426 1-503-585-5657 Waremart Ed Christiansen 598-1866 598-2868 Christiansen Engineering Donald Pollock 292-4373 292-4862 Gordon. Davis 248-1185 227-7221 TBIS TRANSUISSLON IS FROM: aTeffrey H. Keeney CLIENTMATTER NO.: 2641-42 NUMBER OF PAGES ( INCLUD=6' COVER PAGE) If you do not receive all of the pages, please contact our fax operator at (503) 221-1440, Ext. 476. COHMENT5 : The original document being transmitted: z will not be sent to you. will be sent by overnight delivery. _ will be sent by regular mail. - other: The Wom atlon mock lead )n Otis [aca8nile tan/mMon Ls wnEdeatIA and 1t ltotaded only Ie 4ba nao of ft tndhidwl cc entity to whom It is cldraeaad. L may eaataia Lsfoonation yxohcfnd by the Amoraey-dleat paiviteaa If ft ma*r of Um mt_ xV Is not the hAended toclp6xl, you ua hereby no lad the ny tilecloonw. copy. dhaslution, or dw takltg of aqy adbon in tQWa a on tha omftl3T of dds iCafffityurJod;*a la strlotly ptohmlb& II you taro xmdvoi this frAdetdl. ttamaiaalea to error, pklae k®odLx* notify w by a CoDect teiepbonc can to (903) 221.!4!0, and alm the utginel &csienibe to um at On Address sbavn via mo U.3. Poottl 3arr1vr. 2&1.421137434 ZOO/TOOO if Id "01 ISO M01 6L49 p4z COS.a 0:97 98/sS/90 174083 9881. Lt:9t 6x/90 ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 19 C July 18, 1996 JUL 19 1996 Chuck Corrigan CORRCA eitriua+ O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Mediation Request for the Dartmouth LID Dear Chuck: You have asked for a response as to whether the LID participants want to enter into mediation to achieve an assessment allocation and settlement agreement. Based on Costco's memo of June 28, 1996, accepting further mediation, and after further consideration, we have decided to agree to mediation with the other Dartmouth LID participants provided all the parties including the City, sign an agreement prior to commencing mediation which incorporates precisely the following conditions as written below: (a) the mediator must be approved by the unanimous consent of all LID participants; (b) all matters that pertain to the Dartmouth roadway shall be considered part of the mediation; (c) the mediation shall be considered confidential and, if it does not result in an agreement it shall not be discussed at any subsequent proceedings regarding the LID; (d) the City will continue its policy of supporting Ordinance 88-08 and its associated final assessment formula if all major LID participants do not reach an unanimous decision; and (e) the Martins' agreement to mediate shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights arising from prior agreements regarding the assessments. If any of these conditions present a problem, please let us know. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Mart Gordon S. Martin LA. CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A Monahan Robert S. Ball Mayor Jim Nicoli Paul Simmons Ed Christensen 'O: 2:I3 PAGE: 2 07/q3 1 4 :08 1990' Fa5032951 058 SENT BY:Xerox Teleccpiar 7021 '-23-90 ; 2:33PM 3032951! 2473 ;a~ 2 BALL .JANIK uP A T T o R 'N a V a OM H4JN ?LAW 101 547j rmC'r AlAw snim7. surra 1100 FORn.l 97204.3219 Remy S. RuL ThUWMM W 3-228i r"wJf*bp:p m FACIM118 Safi-29&1Q88 July 23, 1996 BY TIEaLECOPMR Mr. Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Street LID Dear Chuck: This letter responds on behalf of Waremart to the lcttrr of July 18 from the Martins, who have now imposed conditions to the mediation process that was approved by the property owners in t>-^ meeting in your office on April 25. Two of the c-nititions imposed by the Martins represent a major step backw and are unacceptable to Ware kart. First, the Martins now require that "all matters that pertain to the Dartmouth road-,vay,;-ball b-- considered part of ft mediation." The Martins previously had relinquished their demand that the Dari Street LID be suspended until second LID was approved by the proper ; oi,Am s. There is nothing to be achieved by superimposing discussions about a future L;..1 in our cllrreat discussions, which deal only with the appropriate assessment formulr :ar rmprovements which have already been constructed. Waremart will not agree to Ns r;on ition. The Marries also have sought to leverage the City into resurrecting the preliminary assessment fnrmala cons deed in Ordinance 88-08 as a condition of the mediation. ('The Martins in June referenced Ordinance 84-18, which you indicated should have been a reference to Ordinance 84-14). In any event, the Martins have incorrectly described the formula previously reviewed by the City Council as a "final asse`amsnt fminmla. " rf it were final, we would not be having these discussions. The; mediatiot was int d for the purpo a 00l7960.C 1°OML.ila•m. O Wa00maTem. D.C. 34A.W. ?AGE: 3 07/23 14 O 1996 FROM 5032351058 T0: 2473 7021 1-23-90 2:34PM 5032951( 21'13 3 3 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier BALL JANiK L.P Mr. Charles B. Corrigan July 23, 19% Page 2 of establishing a formula. As you know, the formula reviewed by the City Co=ii approximately 12 year6 ago was merely a recommendation. Plotting has occurred to make ' "bnal, ° and it was based upon asamptions about development patterns which have proved be incorrect. Efforts at mediation, which Waremart has consistently supported, are obviously futile. We assume the City is proceeding to develop an assessment formula and to hold a • Sincerely, 64 Robert S. Ball RSB/ew Enclosure cc: all by fax: Paul A. Simmons (w/encl.) James Larpentecr, Jr. (w/encl.) Gordon E. Davis (w/encl.) Jeffrey H. Feeney (w/encl.) William A. Monchan (w/encl.) Ed Christensen (w/encl.) Gordon S. Martin, Jr. (w/encl.) Donald Pollock (w/ancl.) Donald Joe Willis (w/encl.) OA0796D.C ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice mail (503) 620=1842 July 24, 1996 JUL 2 5 1996 Chuck Corrigan co°DpA"~;,ub O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Mediation Conditions Dear Chuck: Several objections and comments have been made concerning our conditions to mediate contained in our letter of July 18, 1996. First, we would like to make clear that the Martins were not among the property owners that agreed to mediation in your office on April 25, 1996. However, we did not disagree to mediation either. With regards to our condition (b) to meditate in which we state that, "all matters that pertain to the Dartmouth roadway shall be considered part of the mediation." It was our understanding from your letter of May 13, 1996, page 2, where you refer to a "global settlement" as the goal of the mediation, that this condition was consistent with the purpose and/or goal of the mediation. The use of this approach to solve problems is by far the best, and we are in complete agreement with you. In our letter and document of June 10, 1996, we have made clear that when Waremart rejected some elements of the settlement agreement, all elements of the agreement ceased to be binding on the other parties. The rejected settlement agreement consisted of a compromise on several elements including: (a) inclusion of the disputed Pollock attorney fees, (b) a fairer assessment formula in relation to road curves, and (c) the postponement of a formal commitment to the formation of a 2nd LID which is necessary to complete Dartmouth's widening to five lanes and signalizing at 72nd. The Martins compromised on this last element even though they are prohibited from using Dartmouth until the 72nd intersection is signalized. It is unreasonable to expect that after an agreement is reached through compromise that one parry can unilaterally declare its rejection and still expect others to be held to the elements it wants while rejecting the elements it no longer likes and/or wants to promote. :i Milli, Chuck Corrigan July 24, 1996 Page 2 Our condition (d) to mediate states that, "the City will continue its policy of supporting Ordinance 88-08 and its associated final assessment formula if all major LID participants do not reach an unanimous decision." This condition merely supports the already existing final assessment formula established by the City in Ordinance 88-08, which has also been the basis for all assessment related discussions over the years. Our letter of July 23, 1996, provides a further explanation regarding this matter. Upon reviewing, this letter, we hope that the LID participants who have recently rejected mediation, reconsider their positions. Indeed, our conditions have already helped to avoid costly and unnecessary mediation time at the expense of the LID by clarifying the issues concerning the relevant LID ordinances and intended scope of the mediation. If there are any further problems with our conditions to mediate, please let us know. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Martin ~7t Gordon S. Martin CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Robert S. Ball Mayor Jim Nicoli Paul Simmons Ed Christensen f 1 ABR Incorporated R EC1=ivEu 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue AUG 51996 Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 c°~DO~ cam, 6~uws CREW FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 August 2, 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Mediation Conditions/Abandon Mediation/Final Assessment Formula Dear Chuck: This letter is in response to your letter of July 25, 1996, in which several points are covered concerning deadlines and conditions to mediate. Your letter also seems to indicate that the City and your office are in the process of retaining a consultant. CONSULTANT SEL.EI3'I0N Concerning the consultant, does the City and your office intend to obtain the major LID participants unanimous approval of the consultant to use such as Ed Christensen was given? In any event, if the City intends to proceed with retaining a consultant to establish a new final assessment formula after reading this letter, we would like to recommend using both a certified commercial real estate appraiser and an engineer to work out the assessment formula in order to help ensure the benefits from the road are understood. Furthermore, to help ensure that there has been no bias introduced such as that which has been claimed before by one of the LID participants, the chosen appraiser and engineer should have no cormections to the LID participants or with any representative of the City. DEADLINE EXTENSION With regards to the deadlines, we were unaware that you considered the deadline had past in consideration of the fact that the deadline had already been informally extended once before in your letter of June 28, 1996. Regardless, in relation to matters of this significance, it was not appropriate to expect such an unreasonably short deadline to be met anyway--especially after the previous informal mediation process was abruptly ended near its completion by a participant that helped promote the mediation and the Christensen assessment formula from the beginning. For this reason and others, it was not easy for us to decide whether we wanted to enter into mediation again. We also did not expect that these deadlines were meant to be final based upon your letter of May 13, 1996, where you Chuck Corrigan August 2, 1996 Page 2 infer that your intent is mainly to keep the process moving, not to be imperious in your decisions such as where deadlines are concerned. In any case, you now appear to imply that the City is no longer open to the LID participants mediating among themselves. CONDITION (B TO MEDIATE With regard to our condition (b) to mediate, "all matters that pertain to the Dartmouth roadway shall be considered part of the mediation" you responded by informing us that the mediation would have involved the assessment formula only. We assumed this condition represented the intent of the mediation due to letters written by you leading up to the proposed mediation and the basis upon which the informal mediation of the past year had been conducted. The informal mediation conducted by Ed Christensen and supported by all the major LID participants, had been attempting to reach a global settlement by considering far more issues and problems than just the assessment formula. Additionally, your letter of May 13, 1996, page 2, 2nd paragraph, responding to our inquiries concerning the mediator, refers to the goal of the mediation as pursuing a global settlement that will include the assessment formula. This seemed to indicate to us that the mediation itself was originally meant to be globally oriented. Until your letter of July 25, 1996, we were unaware of any notices to all the LID participants that the mediation would be clearly limited to only the assessment formula. Regardless of the scope of the mediation intended, what good would it do within the structure of formal mediation, to only consider one of the many issues concerning the Dartmouth LID when many of those issues directly affect the benefits derived from the Dartmouth road? If all issues are not considered, could it not unnecessarily result in an unfair and inequitable formula? CONDITION (C) TOM IATE Concerning your response to our condition (c) to mediate, "the mediation shall be considered confidential and, if it does not result in an agreement it shall not be discussed at any subsequent proceedings regarding the LID." One of the reasons this condition was introduced was because we were under the assumption that the mediation process was originally intended to not be binding based on your letter of May 1, 1996. However, your letter of June 12, 1996, states that the mediator will recommend the assessment formula to be adopted by the City, as opposed to your letter of July 25, 1996, in which you infer that the mediator would report to the City. In our view, the City's adoption of a recommendation appeared to introduce inadvertently a form of binding mediation. CONDITION (D) TO MEDIATE In consideration of our condition (d) to mediate, "the City will continue its policy of supporting Ordinance 88-08 and its associated final assessment formula if all major LID participants do not reach an unanimous decision" was based upon the City representing for many years that the R.A. Wright engineering assessment formula is the basis upon which the majority (or all) of the actual costs (i.e., the estimated costs) will be distributed. It was also based upon the interpretation of Ordinance 88-08 presented in our letter of July 23, Ell Chuck Corrigan August 2, 1996 Page 3 1996, in which we reported that Ordinance 88-08 essentially adopted the preassessment formula contained in the preliminary engineer's report, to be the final assessment formula: as well. Until your letter of July 25, 1996, we were unaware that the City had decided to not use the R.A. Wright engineering assessment formula that was originally formulated for the City to collect the majority (or all) of the actual costs of the LID. Had we known that the City had made this change, we would have added the word "former" before "policy" in our condition (d). In view of the fact that we represent one of four major participants that must pay several hundred thousand dollars, we do not feel that it was appropriate for us to discover two years after the project was completed that the City had decided to establish a different assessment formula to collect the actual costs without first obtaining the consent of all the major LID participants. In other words, we find it unfair that the City should be allowed to implement such a project without providing prior notice to each participant regarding the share of the costs they will -ventually be expected to pay. With regard to the latest attempt by the LID participants to adjust R.A. Wright's Engineering assessment formula, Ed Christensen was given unanimous approval by all the major LID participants before he formalized specifically defined agreed upon adjustments that inade fairer the Ordinance 84-18 assessment formula created by R.A. Wright Engineering. Additionally, this agreed upon adjustment was a result of extended discussions and compromises made during the informal mediation process that has been recently and abruptly ended. Information supplied in your letter of July 25, 1996, seems to suggest that Ordinance 88-08 does not contain the final assessment formula. This suggestion is based upon municipal code that allows the City to choose either a preassessment procedure or final assessment procedure. Our response is that while the City may have the right to choose its assessment procedure according to code, it does not follow that the final assessment formula has not already been determined in Ordinance 88-08. CLOSING REMARKS Before the City proceeds to establish another assessment formula without the unanimous consent of all the LID participants, the City may wish to consider each of the following points: (1) As we stated in our letter of July 23, 1996, it is unreasonable and unfair if the final assessment formula is allowed to differ from the preassessment formula without the approval of all the LID participants. For many years, the City has presented the R.A. Wright Engineering assessment formula as the method that will be used to allocate the majority (or all) of the actual LID costs. To change it now, would imply countless development decisions made during the past ten years were possibly in error since the City assessment information supplied over the years would now be considered as incorrect and unreliable. In addition, regardless of any legal basis, it Chuck Corrigan August 2, 1996 Page 4 is fundamentally incorrect to expect that participants of any LID, cannot rely upon the City to inform them beforehand as to what share of the costs they are expected to pay before a project is constructed. (2) Ordinance 88-08 assigns as the final assessment formula, the preassessment formula contained within the preliminary engineer's report. The minutes of the City Council meeting adopting Ordinance 88-08, also support that this was the intent of the City. (3) It was not the intent of the revisions to the City's municipal code to provide a legal basis to make substantial changes to what the City originally intended to use as the Dartmouth LID assessment formula. This is especially true when any change in the formula has significant effects. It is also unreasonable to contend that a final assessment formula should differ from the preassessment formula because the costs have changed and/or whether they are referred to as actual rather than estimated costs. To date, we have not submitted any material for the consultant(s) because we were not informed that the City had without exception, abandoned the mediation process as a means to solve the Dartmouth road problems until your letter of July 25, 1996. We will be providing more information for consideration as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Martin jyD Gordon S. Martin CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Robert S. Ball Mayor Jim Nicoli Paul Simmons Ed Christensen O'DONNELL RAMIS CREk CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATMRNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMA.S COUNTY OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L. BUSCH Pordand, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 D. DANIEL CHANDLER TELEPHONE. (So3) 266 1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE: (3cn) =4402 CHARLES F- CORRIGAN• FAX: (sat) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE MARTIN C. DOLAN Fuss Independent Place PAUL C. WNER PLEASE 1tEMY TO PORTLAND orrice 1220 Main Street, Suite 57o GARY F. FMESTONE° Vancouver, Washington 9866o-2964 WILLIAM E. GAAR TEWHONE.• (360) 699-7287 0. FRANK HAMMOND• FAX (360) 699-7221 KDINETH D. HELM MALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DONNF.LL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER August 13, 1996 SPECM . COMM • use ADMMW TO MC= LN WA WOMN ALSO ADMaTW TO MAC= N CALOWNIA a ♦ A= ADMMD TO PMC= M MONTANA AND WASHNMON Gordon S. Martin, Jr. 12265 S.W. Second Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID/Right-of-Way Acquisition Dear Gordon: I have been holding off on responding to your letter of August 2, 1996, as many of the points raised in that letter will become moot if the City has to initiate legal proceedings to acquire the Martin right-of-way. You have not responded to my letter of August 6, 1996, and as I am supposed to be on vacation as I dictate this letter (August 9), and will be on vacation as soon as I finish doing so, through August 18, 1996, I wanted to get back to you to make sure that I was not considered a bottleneck in the communication process. I am scheduled to meet with the Tigard City Council in executive session on August 20, 1996, and the more information I can present to them the better. Back to the topics raised in your letter of August 2: ® Consultant Selection: Through my office, the City has received a bid from the engineering firm of Harper and Righellis for the development of a proposed assessment formula. 'T'here will not be much point in focusing on the development of a formula until it is confirmed that we know what the total cost of the project is going to be. So long as the cost of right-of-way acquisition O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Gordon S. Martin, Jr. August 13, 1996 Page 2 remains an open question, which you have made it by refusing to proceed with the sale process at previously agreed-upon rates, consideration of issues surrounding the development of an assessment formula is premature. ® Deadline Extension: In the process of attempting to facilitate the mediation process, the City (through me) did establish some deadlines. By so doing, it certainly was not the City's intent to ever suggest that it would not support mediation amongst the property owners without any City involvement. Speaking only for myself, that would seem to be the best of all worlds. Should the property owners at any time be able to present a unanimous proposal to the City for an assessment formula, I assume it would be received with great interest and considered favorably. Limitinn Mediation to Consideration of the Assessment Formula: The parties were unable to get together to agree on mediation. Had that not been the case, at least one participant made it clear that future improvements were not acceptable as a topic of mediation. Likewise, the City Council has expressed its intent to close this Local Improvement District before additional issues are considered. Last, as discussed above, the old issue of developing an assessment formula has become moot, or at least premature, until the cost of right-of-way acquisition has been determined. ® Having the Mediator Subunit a ProRosed Assessment Formula to the City: As discussed above, the various features of a proposed mediation process have become moot (unless, of course, the property owners conduct their own mediation process and present unanimous suggestions to the City, which suggestions may allow the existing 1JD to be closed before other mattars are taken up). ® Preassessment Verses Final Assessment Process: As discussed in recent communications, the City changed from a "preassessment" to "final assessment" formula eight years ago. I have so stated in every court hearing, legal brief, and in all other written and oral communications whenever the matter has come up. I am not aware of any other City representative indicating anything to the contrary. I anticipate that the City will soon determine whether Zt will proceed, with the assistance of consultants, to develop an assessment formula or whether assessment issues will be put on hold O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Gordon S. Martin, Jr. August 13, 1996 Page 3 so that right-of way costs can be determined. That decision hinges on whether the City will be a',1e to purchase the right-of-way at previously agreed-upon rates or if litigation will be necessary to determine what those rates will be. The City awaits your response in that regard. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/mcm cc: Mr. William A. Monahan Mr. Wayne Lowry Mayor Jim Nicoli Jeffrey H. Keeney James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Robert S. Ball Ed Christensen Gordon Davis Donald Joe Willis Paul Simmons Donald Pollock John Wilson Jack Graves } .ABR Incorporated AUG 1 9 1996 12265 S. W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 C Phone: (503) 620-2477"" ` a+L Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 August 16, 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: ROW Conveyance and Valuation/Dismissal of City Appeal Dear Chuck: This letter is in response to your letter of August 6, 1996, in which you claim that we have "reneged" on an agreement. Your claim is based on incorrect conclusions reached by failing to consider pertinent information and circumstances surrounding the settlement agreement and the informal mediation process. Apparently, you ? ssume that either the mediation process conducted by Ed Christensen has not ended, or, that agreements and correspondence arising from a mediation process are binding regardless of the outcome of that mediation. Neither of these views are shared by us. In reply to your letter, we find it necessary to consider a number of matters in depth, some of which include: (1) the Martins' ability to Bancroft bond and whether they should consider this a special favor, (2) the City's failure to timely dismiss the Pollock appeal which substantially contributed to the failure of the mediation process and global settlement agreement, (3) dismissal of the City's appeal after the mediation process ended rather than during the mediation process, (4) circumstances related to the informal mediation process and settlement agreement, and (5) why it is incorrect to accuse the Martins of having "reneged" on an agreement and implying that they are attempting to break their word. Also, at the end of this letter, we offer a compromise commitment regarding ROW conveyance that we believe is more than fair to Waremart, and the City--considering the circumstances expressed in this letter and our letter of August 2, 1996. Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 2 iNDF-X OF TOR IC HEADINGS Regarding Right to Bancroft Bond 2 Denial of Reneging on Agreements or Word .........................................2 Global Settlement Context ...............................................................2 Should Agreements be Considered Binding Beyond Intended Scope?............ 3 Enforcement of Commitments and Agreements 3 Background Regarding Ed Christensen and Agreements 3 Comments Regarding Ed Christensen's Letter of April 18, 1995 .................4 Regarding Conveyance of ROW 4 Regarding Valuation of ROW 4 Global Settlement Agreement Related to ROW Sale and Value 5 Questions and Comments Regarding Dismissal of City Appeal 5 Closing Remarks 6 Commitment Regarding ROW Conveyance 8 REGARDiN Q RIGHT TOR NCROFT ROND We are appreciative of the City Council's decision to allow property that is on farm deferral to Bancroft Bond. However, several points should be remembered concerning this matter: (a) the City was fulfilling its word given to all the LID participants over a decade ago regarding the ability to use Bancroft bonding, (b) the City's decision was made after years of allowing us to face the prospect of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars with little or no notice and without the ability to bond, (c) now that we have been given the right to Bancroft bond our assessment, we have recently learned that under the Oregon Constitution, the City must allow LID assessments to be paid over 10 years. In any event, we still appreciate the good intentions displayed by the City. DENIAL OF RENEGING ON AGREEMENTS OR WORD We have never knowingly reneged on any agreement or our word. Furthermore, we have not reneged on any agreement to convey right-of-way to the City because we have never agreed to convey right-of-way outside the context of the global settlement that had been the goal of the informal mediation process which inherently included a revised assessment formula. GLOBAL SETTLEMENT CONTEXT Our agreements and correspondence you refer to in your letter of August 6, 1996, were all made within the context of an informal mediation process which had as its goal a global settlement agreement. This is the same settlement agreement which you helped to draft. It was our impression and belief based on statements made at the time that all agreements and correspondence were made within the context of mediation, albeit informal. Ed Christensen will attest that all letters of agreement signed or initialed during the informal mediation process that he was conducting, were intended to bind the parties only if property owners reached a global settlement regarding the Dartmouth LID. While you have made it abundantly clear that the Martins were intending to support the Pollock valuation of ROW and eventually convey their ROW, you did not make it clear that such intentions were made within the context of an informal mediation process that had as its goal, a global settlement agreement. Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 3 SHOULD AGREEMENTS BE CQNSIDERED FINDING B.YQND INTENDED SCDM? It would be helpful if an explanation could be given as to why the City is expecting us to uphold agreements and correspondence that had been made within the context of mediation and a global settlement. That is, in order for us to understand how the City could possibly consider that we have renebed on our word, an explanation would be helpful concerning why the references regarding our intentions and agreements should be considered as being made outside the context of the informal mediation process seeking a global settlement agreement. We will reexamine our position regarding this matter if it can be reasonably shown that contingent agreements intended to be binding only if the mediation concluded successfully, should also remain binding if the mediation did not conclude successfully. ENFORCEMENT OF COMMITMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, If it is your intention to hold us to commitments and agreements without regard to the context in which they have been made, then you should also hold all the LID participants to their word, commitments, and agreements as well. In so doing, this would have the effect of enforcing the settlement agreement you prepared. BACKGRQUND REGARDIN ; ED CHRIS NSEN AND AGREEMENTS Ed Christensen was retained by the LID participants and the City to formalize an agreed upon assessment formula. In order to carry out that project, it was necessary for him to finalize all the costs associated with the LID. We are sure that the City is well aware that this step was time consuming and complicated because of problems related to the Pollock litigation. In an attempt to stabilize the costs, one of the agreements prepared by Ed Christensen related to the valuation of the ROW. That agreement is contained within his letter of April 18, 1995. This agreement contained no language whatsoever that implied any LID participant would sell their ROW. There was no mention regarding value of ROW being related to an assessment formula because this was an informal contingent agreement. It was also understood that the assessment formula was already implicitly related to the ROW value since the purpose of the agreement was to help finalize the costs in order that the assessment formula could be completed by Ed Christensen. This was afterall, what he had been retained to do. In all subsequent correspondence involving Ed Christensen, the absence of any clear connection to an assessment formula with regards to the LID is due to the fact that it was considered implicitly related to the assessment formula he had formalized. This fact would be obvious to anyone who knows the job he was retained to complete. Furthermore, in any correspondence involving the Martins, the absence of any clear connection to an assessment formula with regards to the LID is due to the fact that any reference to the LID implicitly involved the assessment formula prepared by Ed Christensen, or, the assessment formula the City had been supporting for over ten years. This fact would be obvious to anyone who was aware of the ongoing informal mediation process and its associated assessment formula. In consideration of the City's long standing support of the R.A. Wright assessment formula and the lack of any notice given to the LID Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 4 participants by the City advising them to the contrary, it was not unreasonable that any and all our correspondence implicitly assumed the City would be using either the Christensen or R.A. Wright assessment formulas. COMMENT REGARDING FD RIST N 'S LF R OF APRIL 18_ 1995 In your letter of August 6, 1996, you point out that the City has relied upon Ed Christensen's letter agreement of April 18, 1995, that was neither signed by all the necessary signatories or determined the interest to be applied to the jurj valuation. It was not an agreement to sell and obviously was intended to rely upon other agreements in which interest was to be determined. The unknown interest rate, independent of other information, suggests that the agreement was part of a set of agreements; in fact, it was part of the settlement agreement prepared by yourself. The letter agreement of April 18, 1995, was part of the informal mediation process and it would be improper for it to be considered as binding outside the scope of a failed mediation process. Furthermore, Ed Christensen himself will attest that it was not intended to be binding if the property owners did not reach a global settlement regarding LID assessments. If it was meant to be an agreement to sell, Costco would not have needed to sign it because Costco does not have ROW to sell. According to Donald Joe Willis's letter of June 10, 1996, to yourself, he states that "I [Joe Willis] understand you [Chuck Corrigan] have some concerns that Gordon Martin would no longer agree to accept the value figures that Don Pollock was awarded by the jury." This indicates to us that as recently as June 10, 1996, you were probably aware of the non- binding nature of the April 18, 1995, letter agreement prepared by Ed Christensen. When all the above issues are considered in combination with recital 8 on page 1 of the settlement agreement indicating that the dismissal of the City's appeal is to be considered as part of the global agreement that you helped to prepare, the City should have been advised not to rely upon the April 18, 1995 letter agreement. Furthermore, this should have been evident because of your involvement during the past year and the circumstances that have existed since Waremart and later Pollock wrote letters in which they have renounced agreements made in relation to the mediation process and a global settlement agreement. RE RDIN . .ONV .YAN OF ROW We have never agreed to sell our ROW except within the context of the settlement agreement you helped to draft. We kept our word and agreements when we initialized that settlement agreement on M~-ch 14, 1996, as opposed to other LID participants that have not initialized it but have at one time or another formally and/or informally agreed to all the contingent agreements of the settlement agreement. REGARDING. VAL.UATIQE OF ROW In Ed Christensen's letter of April 18, 1995, we have agreed within the context of a global agreement to the valuation of the right-of-way acquisition at an amount equal to the total of the two amounts consisting of Pollock's jury award and the interest on that award. We did not agree to sell our right-of-way in Ed Christensen's letter of April 18, 1995. The word HER= Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 5 "sell" was explicitly not included in that agreement. The important difference between sale and valuation is readily understood when this contingent agreement is considered within the context of the global settlement agreement rather than as an isolated agreement. Within the context of the global agreement and apparent demonstrations at the time of good faith as they related to promises of cooperation to expeditiously establish a second LID to complete needed construction not included in the first LID, we acknowledged that the value was acceptable. However, until all the contingent agreements of the mediation were formalized and combined in a global settlement agreement, we were not prepared to agree to sell unless all LID participants signed the global settlement agreement, _GLOBAL SETT ..M NT AGREEMENT R ..AT .D TO ROW SALE AND VAI Ufi The reason we did not agree to sell ROW until the settlement agreement was enforceable, was primarily due to the assessment formula contained within that agreement. It is essential to understand that the share of LID costs a participant must pay, directly affects the actual value the participant receives for ROW because it is considered as part of the actual costs of the LID. Therefore, determining an acceptable ROW value was dependent upon knowing the assessment formula used. That is, if a fair ROW price is determined before the assessment formula is determined, an unfair formula would render the previously fair ROW price as unfair. Q11 .STION AND COMMENTS REGARDING DISMTSSAI. OF = APPEAL We wonder what the real basis was for dropping the City's appeal regarding the Pollock, case. Furthermore, we wonder to what extent Pollock's renouncement of his commitments regarding the settlement agreement is related to the dropping of the City's appeal. Why did the City apparently drop its appeal without regard to the settlement agreement, when the City intended to drop the appeal only within the settlement agreement? We are perplexed as to why the City would drop its appeal months after the opportunity for a global settlement was lost, especially since it could have dropped the appeal six months earlier as well. If the City had not delayed its appeal dismissal for approximately one year, the problems related to Pollock would have ended earlier. This would have led to his signing of the settlement agreement, as it would Costco, and according to Paul Simmons letter of February 16, 1996, Waremart would also have signed the agreement. Thus, the Dartmouth LID may have been settled and closed amicably. That is, if the City had dismissed its appeal on a timely basis the Dartmouth LID would now be closed. What changes occurred that would convince the City to drop its appeal only after the City unnecessarily delayed its dismissal to such an extent that it became one of the primary reasons why the settlement agreement was never concluded? For the above reasons, it does not follow that the basis upon which the City dropped its appeal is related to the letter agreement of April 18, 1995. If the City did rely on it as you have claimed, then why was the appeal dismissed after the settlement negotiations apparently ended when the City was unwilling to dismiss the appeal for over a year during the settlement negotiations? Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 6 If in fact the City did drop the Pollock appeal some time after June 10, 1996, we find it coincidental that Pollock's letter of June 26, 1996, renounces his commitments made during the mediation process. Also, upon reflection of the past six months, we also fins it coincidental that Waremart began a process relating to its renouncement of agreements and commitments with remarks claiming any formula proposed by the City would be more favorable to Waremart. Such a comment can give rise to unsettling questions. Waremart's lack of good will was apparently confirmed when they gave notice to agree with the global settlement until March 15, 1996, and later refused to sign the agreement even though it was initialized by us on March 14, 1996; Pollock was in agreement with its terms according to Donald Willis's letter of March 22, 1996; and Costco was also in agreement with its terms according to their letter of April 5, 1996. CLOSING REMARKS To our knowledge, by initializing on March 14, 1996, the settlement agreement prepared by you, we became the only LID participant that has kept our word, commitments, and agreements made during the mediation process. However, your letter of August 6, 1996, appears to give the impression that our word will be meaningless if we do not accept the ROW value and that we renege on agreements. The analysis of the information in your letter fails to consider information and circumstances surrounding the global settlement agreement and the informal mediation process that was in progress at the time. Within the global settlement agreement, we have agreed to convey the ROW under the terms of that agreement, yet you neglected to reference that fact even one time in your letter which claims that we have reneged on an agreement. After your apparent implications that we should feel indebted to the City because of a special favor that is difficult to consider as a favor for reasons already explained, you then proceed to suggest condemnation litigation as a possible approach to solve this problem. Solutions to complex problems require careful consideration and when undue pressure is applied, the passibility of unnece- - ry litigation increases. Pressing for solutions when large amounts of money are at stake, will not yield the same results as when little or no money is involved. We did not agree to sell ROW outside the context of the informal mediation process. Furthermore, regardless of context, it is unreasonable to expect us to sell ROW without the City first providing reliable information concerning the assessment formula that will be used. It is inappropriate that the City should ask anyone to make such a decision until the City can provide reliable information regarding the pertinent terms of an LID. If the City continues to claim that the assessment formula has not been determined with regard to the Dartmouth LID, then the LID participants did not and do not know the assessment formula which is arguably the most important issue related to this LID. Any reasonable person would not have proceeded with this LID unless the assessment formula had been considered determined. Also, if the City is to keep its word and uphold principles of fairness, then it should realize that it should not establish a new assessment formula without the consent of all the LID participants. Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page When the City recently decided that it was not bound to uphold the assessment formula it had been supporting for over a decade, it removed the foundation for any potential agreements regarding the Dartmouth LID. It is unreasonable to expect participants to uphold their commitments, when the City does not uphold its own commitments and responsibilities to the participants of the LID. Whether or not the assessment formula has been considered determincd, it is irresponsible of the City to change the formula in view of the City's past position, without the consent of all major LID participants. In regard to your references concerning your letter of May 1, 1996, it was not correct to state in your letter of May 1, 1996, that we agreed to sell ROW regardless of the global settlement. It is also not correct to state in your letter of August 6, 1996, that your letter of May 1, 1996, confirms that we agreed to sell ROW. Neither of these references were appropriate and can withstand scrutiny. In cases such as this, silence is not considered as affirmation. Furthermore, your letter of May 13, 1996, acknowledges that we had notified you on May 10, 1996, informing you that we were in the process of preparing information that was pertinent to the LID. This notification to you should have been enough to suggest that no conclusions should be drawn regarding your letter of May 1, 1996, until we provided such information. The City relies upon you to inform them on all kinds of matters, and it is important that you be as correct as possible. However, your letter of August 6, 1996, does not appear complete in terms of interpreting the information you presented. Especially in consideration of the fact that you were well aware of the mediation struggles that have been involved with finalizing the costs of the LID because of the Pollock litigation. Despite the knowledge you should have had regarding the mediation, rather than encouraging Waremart to reconsider its position, you immediately proceeded to establish a new assessment formula rather than uphold the R.A. Wright formula as the City should have for reasons we have outlined in our letter of August 2, 1996. It has been disconcerting to us that we should even need to point out such reasons. It has in fact been a curiosity to us that you did not appear to even consider upholding the R.A. Wright assessment formula. While it had been our intention to convey the right-of-way even if a global settlement was not reached among the participants, such intention was under the assumption that the City was supporting the R.A. Wright assessment formula as it had for over a decade. Regardless of whether Ed Christensen's letter of April 18, 1995, is binding outside the informal global oriented mediation that was ongoing at the time, we do not anticipate any need to change from the Pollock based valuation unless the assessment formula ultimately used, significantly and unfairly reduces the value we receive from the ROW. Regardless of whether the City considers the arguments presented in this letter as valid, before actions are taken regarding our ROW, we suggest that a legal review of Ordinance 88-08 based on the information that has been sent under separate cover, could help resolve the issue of Ordinance 88-08 and the final assessment formula to use, as well as the issue relating to ROW. In any case, we see no valid reason why the City cannot wait to make Chuck Corrigan August 16, 1996 Page 8 ROW decisions until after the assessment formula which shall be used to allocate the actual costs of the LID has been determined. (Please see our letter of August 2, 1996, in which we provide se,.,eral reasons why such a formula should have been established before Dartmouth was ever constructed). COMMITMENT REGARDING ROW CONVEYANCE Since the determination of an assessment formula is not dependent upon knowing the actual ROW costs, acceptance by the City of the following commitment should not hinder the progress cowards the closing of the Dartmouth LID. In the event the City determines it should and does retain the assessment formula adopted within Ordinance 88-08, or adopts another assessment formula accepted by us, we will immediately convey our ROW subject to the following restrictions, guarantee, and price per square foot. This commitment is good until December 31, 1996. We will convey ROW only when the period in which any new assessment formula can legally be challenged has expired, and the City guarantees that the approved final assessment formula will not be changed after we convey ROW. The price per square foot of our ROW will be computed based on the method used by Christensen Engineering when determining the total cost of the LID. Specifically, the price per square foot of our ROW will be equal to the sum of the Pollock jury award for commercial retail land of $7.50/sq. ft ($413,497.50) plus an amount computed by applying an interest rate of 9% compounded monthly to this amount beginning on June 3, 1993, and ending when the ROW has been conveyed to the City, providing Waremart does not receive a price which is in excess of this price for their ROW. If Waremart does receive a price per square foot for their ROW in excess of our amount, our price per square foot must be raised to equid the Waremart ROW price per square foot. This commitment (which we are willing to formalize if the City desires) should alleviate most concerns regarding the need for litigation to obtain the Martins' ROW. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin CC: Mayor Jim Nicoli Enclosures (mail only) A,BR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue U Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 August 19, 1996 AUG 0 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Assessment Formulas Dear Chuck: According to your letters, it appears that the City Council has not yet considered issues relating to assessment formulas in detail. However, we felt the following observation concerning the unfairness of a total area approach would be of interest. The avoidance of double assessments is commonly provided for when determining the method of assessment. In accordance with this concept, to prevent effective double assessments, Waremart, Pollock, and the Martins, should be provided credits for improvements to 72nd avenue required of them. However, after such credits are provided, under a total aica approach Costco would be assessed substantially more of the Dartmouth LID costs than previously expected. This would be unfair to Costco in terms of a substantial change and their percentage of frontage. That is, a total area approach is unfair if credits are not provided, and unfair if they are. This reason alone makes the total area approach inherently unfair and unrealistic when applied to the Dartmouth LID. Very truly yours, Gordon R. Martin 13j Gordon S. Martin Encl. CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Roiuert S. Ball Mayor Jim Nicoll Paul Simmons Ed Christensen A BR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 Phone: (503) 620-2477 AUG Fax/Voice mail (503) 620-1842 196 August 19, 1996 Chuck Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: Assessment Formula and ROW Cost/ROW Sale Price Unknown Dear Chuck: Upon reading your letter of August 13, 1996, it appears you are incorrectly suggesting assessment formulas cannot be determined before ROW costs have been determined. It also appears from your letters of August 6, 1996, and August 13, 1996, that you incorrectly assume there exists an agreed upon price for the sale of our ROW. Both of these issues and other matters are discussed below. 12ET .RMINATION OF ASSESSMENT EQRMULA NOT DEPENDENT ON ROW COSTS It is not necessary to determine ROW costs before an assessraient formula can be determined. A formula contains variables which have values that are easily changed. ROW cost is considered as a vlriable. It may exist as a variable within the assessment formula or as part of the total cost of the LID. In either case, the assessment formula itself can be used repeatedly to allocate assessments according to different ROW costs or total LID costs. With the use of a computer, the formula will yield assessments almost instantaneously. Therefore, as stated on page 8 of our letter of August 16, 1996, "the determination of an ass,-ssment formula is not dependent upon knowing the actual ROW costs." The determination of the formula is also not dependent upon the total cost of the project. Consequently, it is not premature to discuss the issues surrounding the assessment formula to use, and it is not necessary to put assessment issues on hold -so that ROW costs can be determined. WHEd ARE EXACT ROW COSTS NEEDED At the time the City decides to levy assessments against the property owners, the exact ROW costs will be needed to apply the assessment formula. The assessment formula can Chuck Corrigan August 19, 1996 Page 2 provide the desired assessment amounts within seconds after the ROW cost is entered into the computer. CONVEYAN .F ROB=! Our letter of August 16, 1996, contains a commitment to the City which consists of the terms in which we will convey ROW and the price of the ROW. This commitment should enable the City to continue the process of closing the LID. ACCEPTAR , ITY OF ROW PRICE DEPENDENT UPON ASSESSMENT FORMULA Under cne present circumstances, assuming a ROW price does exist (which it does not), it would be impossible to determine if such a price was acceptable without knowing the assessment formula. An acceptable ROW price can be above or below fair market value. The acceptability of a ROW price is dependent upon and implicitly related to the assessment formula (whereas the assessment formula is not dependent upon or related to the ROW price). That is, a fair assessment formula can render a ROW price to be acceptable, and an unfair assessment formula can render the same ROW price to be unacceptable. Therefore, the acceptability of a ROW price can only be reasonably decided after the assessment formula has been determined. EXACTA RE .D UPON ROW PRICES NON- XISTENT We are unaware of any offer from the City to purchase our ROW within the past year that also provides the price the City is willing to pay. You have referenced agreed upon prices yet you have not stated exactly what they are. Based on your letters of August 6, 1996, and August 13, 1996, you apparently believe there has been an agreed upon price stated in Ed Christensen's letter agreement of April 18, 1995, yet that contingent agreement does not contain an exact price. Furthermore, upon reading our letter of August 16, 1996, it should become evident that even if the letter agreement had an exact price, that price would not be binding because the letter agreement is not binding outside the context of the informal mediation process. Regardless of price, there was no language in that contingent agreement indicating we would sell our ROW. This distinction of value versus sale is important in this case because the acceptance of the valuation of ROW was dependent upon the assessment formula, and though the formula had been informally accepted by all major LID participants, it had not yet been formally accepted. OSINQ REMARKS Because it is unnecessary to know the actual ROW costs to determine the assessment formula, the City does not need to stop the process of determining the assessment formula it intends to use. Delaying the process of acquiring ROW within the LID should not delay the eventual closing date of the Dartmouth LID providing an acceptable assessment formula is used. The process of acquiring ROW may be accomplished after the assessment formula has been determined and during the process of determining the overall costs of the LID. Therefore, in terms of the commitment contained within our letter of August 16, 1996, it would be prudent for the City to first determine the assessment formula in order to ascertain whether a disagreement concerning ROW price and conveyance exists before commencing what could be unnecessary and extended litigation. Chuck Corrigan August 19, 1996 Page 3 Based on comments made in Doug Van Dyk's letter of August 9, 1996, we assume the City's attorney fees will not and should not be included as part of the LID costs. Very truly yours, GC d~~ti `T N~G1 r~I~ ~14- Gordon R. Martin 13y Gordon S. Martin ~M. Encl. CC: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Pollock Donald Joe Willis Gordon Davis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. William A. Monahan Robert S. Ball Mayor Jim Nicoli Paul Simmons Ed Christensen / October 22, 1995 F TIG Tony Righellis i OARD Harper, Righellis OREG®N 5200 SW Macadam Ave. Suite 580 RECEIVED Portland, OR 97201-3837 OCT 24199 Re: Dartmouth LID Dear Tony: Tigard City Attorneys, O'Donnell, Ramis, et al, have contracted with you to prepare the assessment formula for the Dartmouth LPJ. Although i am aware that Chuck Corrigan of the firm has discussed the assignment with you in great detail, I feel it is important that the City stress the importance of your independence. As you are aware, the Dartmouth LID has been a controversial issue with the City for several years. Our City Attorneys have represented us in litigation and negotiations with property owners throughout the LID process. As a result, it is critical that your firm operate totally independent of the City Attorney's office and City staff in determining the appropriate assessment formula that you recommend to the City Council. Although our City Attorney and our Finance Director, Wayne Lowry are the most knowledgeable individuals regarding the history of the LID, I expect you will use them as a resource rather than advisors in developing your recommendation. If you have any questions regarding the independence which you have in developing your recommendation, please call me. Based upon my review of your proposal to provide these services, however, I am confident that you understand the project fully and expected complete independence in making your recommendation. Sincerely, _ William A. Monahan City AdmiListrator WANBjh c: Chuc)s.Corrigan City Council i:Wm\bt111a M96.1.d= 13125 &V Hall Blvd„ Tioard, uz 97221 (503) 639-4171 1DO (503) 684-2772 U l ~'^f 13.0 4.010 Title 13 LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS* Chapters: 13.04 General Procedure him Chapter 13.04 GENERAL PROCEDURE Sections: 13.04.010 Definitions. 13.04.020 Council powers. 13.04.030 Plans and specifications--Required. 13,04.040 Notice. 13.04.050 Remonstrance. 13.04.060 Ordering improvement. 13.04.080 Assessment. 13.04.085 Contents of application to pay in installments. 13.04.090 Abandonment of proceedings. 13.04.100 Curative provisions. 13.04.110 When preliminary plans and specifications required. 13.04.120 Bids--Notice. 13.04.130 Informal bidding procedures. 13.04.140 Bids--Sealed. 13.04.150 Bids--Opening. 13.04.160 Filing of documents required. 13.04.170 City council authority to order improvements. 13.04.180 City council power to purchase materials, hire labor and supervise work. 13.04.010 Definitions. (a) "City clerk" means the officer of the city serving as clerk and in direct charge of the clerical work of the city. (b) "City engineer" means the person designated as such or engaged by the city council to be in charge of the engineering and related work of the city. * For statutory provisions providing that statutes con- cerning assessment provisions shall not apply when a. city charter or ordinance provides otherwise, see ORS 223.399. 162 (Tigard 9/84) 13.04.020 (c) "Local improvement" means: (1) The grading, gravelling, paving or other sur- facing of any street, or opening, laying out, widening, extending, altering, changing the grade of or constructing any street; (2) The construction or reconstruction of side- walks; (3) The installation of street lights; (4) The installation of underground wiring or related equipment; (5) The reconstruction or repair of any street improvement mentioned in this subsection; (6) The construction, reconstruction or repair of any sanitary or storm sewer or water main; (7) The acquisition, establishment, construction or reconstruction of any off-street motor vehicle parking facility; (8) The construction, reconstruction, alteration, relocation or repair of any flood control dike, dam, flood- way or drainage facility; (9) The construction, reconstruction, installation and equipping of a park, playground o3! neighborhood fa- cility; (10) Any other local improvement for which an assess- ment may be made on the property specially benefited. (d) "Local improvement district" means the property which is to be assessed for the cost or part of the cost of local improvement and the property on which the local im- provement is located. (e) "Lot" means lot, block or parcel of land. (f) "Owner" means the owner of the title to real prop- erty, or the contract purchaser of real property, of record as shown on the last available complete assessment roll in the office of the county assessor. (g) "Preassessment" means a method of assessing prop- erties for local improvement districts prior to construction of the project, based upon the engineer's estimate (either the city or consulting engineer). (Ord. 84-42 §1, 1984; Ord. 84-10 5§1, 2, 1984; Ord. 62-6 §l, 1962). 13.04.020 Council powers. (a) The city council, when- ever it may deem it expedient, is authorized and empowered to order any improvement, to determine the character, kind and extent of the improvement, to levy and collect an assess- ment upon all lots and parcels of land especially benefited by the improvement, and to determine what lands are specially benefited by the improvement and the amount to which each parcel or tract of land is benefited. (b) The city is authorized to make payment of all or any part of the cost of any improvement, provided the method 163 (Tigard 9/84) 13.04.030--13.04.050 selected creates a reasonable relation between the benefits derived by the property specially assessed and the benefits derived by the city as a whole. (Ord. 62-6 §2, 1962). 13.04.030 Plans and specifications--Required. Whenever the city council shall deem it expedient or necessary to order any improvement, it shall require from the city engi- neer plans and specifications for the improvement and esti- mates of the work to be done and the probable cost thereof, together with a statement of the lots, parts of lots and parcels of land to be benefited and the percentage of the total cost of the improvement which each of such lots, parts of lots and parcels o-.L' land should pay on account of the benefits to be derived. The city clerk shall have such plans and specifications available in his office for inspection. If the city council shall find such plans, specifications and estimates to be satisfactory, it shall approve the same and shall determine the boundaries of the district benefited and to be assessed for such improvement. The action of the city council in the creation of such an assessment district shall be final and conclusive. The city council shall by resolu- tion declare the purpose of such improvement, describing the probable total cost and also defining the boundaries of the assessment district to be benefited and assessed. The action of the city council in declaring its inten- tion to make any improvement, directing the publication of notice, approving and adopting the plans and specifications and estimates of the city engineer, and determining the dis- trict benefited and to be assessed, may all be done in one and the same resolution or enactment. (Ord. 62-6 S3, 1962). 13.04.040 Notice. The resolution of the city council declaring the purpose of the improvement shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the city, provided that the publication shall be not less than ten days prior to the time when all persons interested may present their objections to the improvements. Such notice shall specify the time and place where the council will hear and consider objections or remonstrances to the pro- posed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby. (Ord. 81-98A 91(part), 1981: Ord. 62-6 §4, 1962). 13.04.050 Remonstrance. Within ten days from the date of the publication of the notice required to be pub- lished in Section 13.04.040, the owners of sixty-six and two-thirds percent or more in area of the property within the assessment district may make and file with the city recorder written objection or remonstrance against the pro- posed improvement, and such objection or remonstrance shall 164 (Tigard 9/84) 13.04.060--13.04.080 be a bar to any further proceedings in the making of such improvement for a period of six months, unless the owners of one-half or more of the property affected shall subse- quently petition therefor. (Ord. 81-98A §1(part), 1981: Ord. 62-6 S5, 1962). 13.04.060 Ordering improvement. If no such objection or remonstrance is made or filed with the city clerk within the time designated, the city council shall be deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to order the improvements to be made and the city council may thereafter provide by ordinance for the making of such improvement, which shall conform in all reasonable particulars to the plans and specifications previously adopted. (Ord. 62-6 S6, 1962). 13.04.080 Assessment. Upon signing a contract or upon preassessment or upon a determination by the city council to make the improvement under its own supervision by pur- chasing the material and hiring labor, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably convenient, the city council shall deter- mine whether the property benefited shall bear all or a portion of the cost and shall direct the city engineer to apportion and assess the cost of making such improvement upon the lots, parts of lots and parcels of land within the assessment district in accordance with the special and pe- culiar benefits derived by each lot, part of lot and parcel of land. The city clerk shall cause to have mailed, or cause to have personally delivered, to the owner of each lot proposed to be assessed, a notice of such proposed assessment, which notice shall state the amount of the assessment proposed on that property and shall state a date by which time objections shall be filed with the city clerk. Such notice shall fur- ther require that any such objection shall state the grounds 164-1 (Tigard 9/84) ~t~e~ov.S 00.y cs ►~y thereof. The city council shall consider the city engineer's estimates of assessments and all objections thereto filed with the city clerk, and without any further notice may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments, and shall determine the amount to be charged against each lot within the district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. If there be no contract let for the accomplishment of 165 13.04.080 the work, the total estimate of the city engineer shall be considered to be the contract price for the improvement dis- trict. In any event whether there be a contract price arising from a bona fide contract or whether the estimate of the city engineer be used as hereinabove provided, there shall be added to said contract price the cost of right-of-way and ex- penses of condemning the land, all costs of engineering, superintendence, advertising and legal expenses and also any and all other necessary and proper expenses incurred which additional amounts shall be and do become a part of the amounts to be assessed against each lot, part of lot and parcel of land benefited by the improvement. The assessment as adopted by the city council against each lot or parcel of land shall be declared by ordinance and the city clerk shall thereupon enter the same in the lien docket of the city, each improvement district estimate and assessment being maintained in a separate docket from other prior or subsequent estimates and assessments. Assessments shall thereupon become a lien upon the property assessed from and after the passage of the ordinance spreading the same and entry in the appropriate city lien docket. The city may thereafter enforce collection of such assessments as provided by ORS Sections 223.505 to 223.650. If the initial assessment has been made on the basis of estimated cost and upon completion of the work the cost is found to be greater than the estimate, the city council may make a deficit assessment for the additional cost. Proposed assessments upon respective lots within the assessment dis- trict for the proportionate share of the deficit shall be made, and notices of such assessments shall be given as pro- vided with respect to the original assessment as hereinabove in this section set forth, and all objections filed with the city clerk within the time limited therefor shall be con- sidered, and determination of the deficit assessment against each particular lot, block or parcel of land shall be made as in the case of the initial assessment, and the deficit assessment with respect to each lot and block shall be fi- nally determined by the city council and spread by ordinance as in the case of the initial assessment. If assessments have been made on the basis of estimated cost and upon completion of the work the cost is found to be less than the estimate, the excess assessment shall be re- apportioned and credited to each lot and block according to the manner in which the original assessment was computed. 166 (Tigard 9/84) 13.04.085 The costs and expenses of local improvements that may be assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvement shall include, but not be limited to: the costs of construction and installation of the improvement; adver- tising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision; materials, labor, contracts, equipment, inspec- tion and assessment costs; financing costs, including in- terest charges; the costs of any necessary property, right- of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings; attorneys' fees and any other necessary expenses. (Ord. 84-10 53, 1984; Ord. 62-6 S8, 1962). 13.04.085 Contents of application to pay in install- ments. The provisions of ORS 223.215 notwithstanding, the writ-ten ten application of the applicant and property owner to pay an assessment arising out of a locol'improvement shall state the following: (1) That the applicant and the property owner does thereby waive all irregularities or defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause said improvements to be constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the costs thereof; (2) The application shall provide that the applicant and property owner agree to pay an assessment in equal semi- annual installments over a period not to exceed thirty years as the city council may provide, with interest at a rate to be established by the city council at the time the assess- ment ordinance is adopted. The rate shall be adjusted if and when Bancroft bonds are sold so that the interest rate' on the application does not exceed the net effective in- terest rate on the bonds plus two percent to defray the city's administrative expenses. Noticeof the rate adjust- ment shall be given by mail to the affected applicant and property owner. (3) A statement, by lots or blocks, or other conven- ient description, of the property of the applicant assessed for such improvement. (Ord. 81-98A yl(part), 1981: Ord. 80-37 §l, 1980). 166-1 (Tigard 9/84) 13.04.090--13.04.120 1_3.04.090 Abandonment of proceedings. The city council shall have full power and authority to abandon and rescind proceedings for Projects hereunder at any time prior to the final consummation of such proceedings, and if liens have been assessed upon any property under this procedure, they shall be cancelled, and any payments made thereon shall be refunded to the payer, his assigns or legal representative. (Ord. 62-6 S9, 1962). 13.04.100 Curative provisions. No assessment shall be invalid by reason o a fai ure to give, in any report, in the proposed assessment, in the ordinance making the assess- ment, in the lien docket or elsewhere in the proceedings, the name of the owner of any lot, tract or parcel of land or the name of any person having a lien upon or interest therein, or by a mistake in the name of any such person having a lien upon or interest in such property, or by reason of any error, mistake, delay, omission, irregularity, or other act, juris- dictional or otherwise, in any of the proceedings or steps hereinbefore specified, unless it appears that reasonable notice has not been given of the hearing upon the proposed assessment or that the assessment as made, insofar as it affects the person complaining, is unfair and unjust, and the city council shall have the power and authority to remedy and correct all such matters by suitable action and proceed- ings. (Ord. 62-6 §10, 1962). 13.04.110 When preliminary plans and specifications required. At any time it is proposed by any department of the city to undertake any public improvement involving ex- penditures in excess of five hundred dollars, the officer in charge of such department shall prepare, or cause to have prepared, specifications and plans for the work in prelimi- nary form and shall submit them to the city recorder or city clerk for preliminary approval by the city council. The city recorder or city clerk shall bring the proposed public im- provement before the council at the next regular or special meeting. Such preliminary plans and specifications shall include a statement of the purpose of the improvement, whether or not funds are specifically budgeted or available for such expenditure, the estimated cost, and the probable time of completion and need for the improvement. The city officer in charge of such department shall personally, or by designated subordinate, present the pro- posal to the council at said meeting. (Ord. 65-14 1965). 13.04.120 Bids--Notice. Upon approval by the council of the preliminary plans and specifications, either as 167 13.04.130--13.04.150 submitted or as amended, the city recorder or city clerk shall give notice of intention to receive written sealed bids at a time and place in the notice to be set forth. The notice shall fully describe the purpose for which the bids are being solicited and the time and place of opening of the bids, and shall fu:thcr stata that plans or specificatiois, or boiGil, may be obtained from the city recorder's office, unless the specifications are included in the notice. Such notice shall not be publicized until completion of plans or specifications as may be necessary. Except as stated in Section 13.04.130, the notice shall be published in one issue of a newspaper of general circula- tion and published in the city, not less than one week prior to the date of opening of the bids. (Ord. 65-14 §2, 1965). 13.04.130 Informal bidding rocedures. Where the in- terests, or property, o the city would suffer material in- jury by delay, or where the council determines that the city's public interest would be materially benefited by immediate purchase or contract, the city council, by unanimous declara- tion of all councilmen present of such fact, entered in the minutes of the meeting, may direct that competitive bids be secured informally through public advertising or the cir- cularization of written notice for bids, or both, containing the necessary specifications and requirements for the public improvement, or stating that they may be obtained in the office of the city recorder. In such instance of informal bidding procedures, rea- sonable measures shall be taken that calls for bids be adequately advertised and the prospective bidders have a reasonable opportunity to submit their bids, and in such cases of informal bidding procedures, sealed bids likewise shall be submitted and opened at a time and place appointed therefor. (Ord. 65-14 §3, 1965). 13.04.140 Bids--Sealed. All bids shall comply with the requirements of the notice, shall be sealed and filed with the city recorder, and shall not be opened prior to the time fixed in the notice. (Ord. 65-14 §4, 1965). 13.04.150 Bids--Opening. The city official or au- thorized representative concerned with the public improve- ment shall be present at the time and place specified in the notice and shall publicly open all bids filed. All bids shall then be promptly evaluated by the public officer and a memorandum recommending acceptance or rejection thereof prepared for consideration by the city council. The public officer shall not consider any bid which does not 168 13.04.160 comply with the terms or conditions fined by the notice or invitation for bids. (Ord. 65-14 55, 1965). 13.04.160 Filing of documents required. All official specifications, plans, bids, acceptances, copies of purchase orders and other documents forming part of the "public im- provement file" shall be maintained at all times in the office of the city recorder and be available for public inspection. (Ord. 65-14 §6, 1965). 169 CITY UN Tit ,[.FZ ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance prescribing the procedure to be followed in ma'.ting local assessments for benefits from a local improvement upon the lots which have been benefitted by all or psrt of the improvement. IT IS OMAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD: Section 1 - DEFINITIONS: (a) "Local improvement" means opening, laying out, widening, extending, altering, changing the grade of, constructing, receh- etructing or repairing any street or alley, constructing or recon- structing or repairing any sewer, drain or system th--reof, laying or installing any water main, or performing any ether public work for which an assessment may be n.--de on the property specially benefitted. (b) "Owner" means the owner of the title to real property, or the contract purchaser of real property of record as shown on the last available complete assessment roli in the office of the County Assessor. (c) "Lot" means lot, block or parcel of land. (d) "City Clerk" means the officer of the City serving as clerk andin direct charge of the clerical work of the City. "City Engineer" means the person designated as such or engaged by the City Council to be in charge cf the engineering and related work of the City. Section 2.- Council Powerag (a)- Th6 City ouncil, whenever it may deem it expedienty is hereby authorized and empowered to order any improvement, Co determine the character, kind and extent of the improvement, to levy and collect an assessment upon all lots and parcels of land espec- ially benefited by the improvement, and to determine what lands are specially benefited by the improvement and the awount to which each parcel or tract of land is benefited. (b) The City is authorized to make payment of all or any ,part of the cost of any improvement, provided the method selected creates a reasonable relation between the benefits derived by the property specially assessed and the benefits derived by theCity as a whole. sfi_ Section 3.- Plana and S ecificationa• Whenever the City Council eem it expo ent or necessary to order any improve- ment. it shall require from the City Engineer plans and specifics- tions for the improvement and estimates of the work to be done and Page 1 - ORDINANCE NO. ' d r the probable cost thereof, to.-then with a statement of the lots, parts of lots and parcels of laud to be bcnefited and me percent- age of the total cost of the improvement which each of such lots, parts of lots and parcels of land should pay on account of the benefits to bachrived. The City Clerk shall have such plans and specifications available in his office for inspection. If the City Council shall find such plans, specifications and estimates to be satisfactory, it shall approve the same and shall determir: the boundaries of the district benefited and to be assessed for such improvement. The action of theCity Council In the creation of such an assessment district shall be final and conclusive. The City Council shall by resolution declare the purpose of such improvement, describing the probable total cost and also defining the boundaries of the assessment district to be benefited end assessed. The action of the City Council in declaring its intention to make any improvement, directing the publication of notice, approv- ing and adopting the plans and specifications and estimates or the City Engineer, and determining the district benefited and to be assessed, may all be done in one and the same resolution or enactment. Section 4 - Notice: The resolution of theCity Council declaring the purpose or the improvement shall be published at least twicc in a newspaper of genera circulation published in the city, provided that the first publication shall be not less than 10 days prior to the time when all persons interested may present their oojectiotis to the improvement. Such notice shall specify the time and place where the Council will hear and consider objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby. Section S - Remonstrance: Within 10 days from the date of the first publication of the notice required to be published in Section 4, the owners of 66-2/3% or more in area of the property within the assessment district may nake and fi;.e with the City Clerk a written objection or remonstrance against the proposed improvement, ar-4 snbh ob ection ter remonstrance shall be a bar to any further proceeding in the making or such improvement for a period of six months, unless the owners of one-half or more of the property af- fected shall subsequently petition therefor. Section 6 - C~rderin Improvement. If no such object+.;n or remon- strance be mace or tiled -with the City Clerk within the time designated, the City Council shall be deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to order the improvements to be wade ana the City Council may thereafter provide by ordinance for the making of such improvement, which shall conform in all reasonable particulars to the plans and specifications previously adopted. Section 7 - Bids: When any improvement is ordered the City Clerk upon instru tion from the City Council, shall i med- iately invite proposals for making the same. The proposals shall be opened in the pzesence of a maority of the City Council and the contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for either the whole of said improvement or such part as will not materially conflict with the completion of the remainder. The City Council shall have Page 2 - ORnINAM'3 NO. 'Z-"~' 11011111 the ri itC i:u iCjcCt o.-.y cr all prc;.o-15 race4 "ed. Tr ?ii orouoSdiS m~G shape rejected the City Council shall have power by resolution duly adopted, to order that such iW,.rov=ent, or any portion, msy be made under the direction of the City Council by purchasing the materials and hiring the labor. The City Council shall have the power to provide for the proper inspection and supervision of all work done and to do any other act to secure the faithful carrying out and the completion of all contracts, and the making of all improvements in strict com- pliance with the ordinances and specifications therefor, and shall have power to direct that the cost o. said improvement, or any por- tion thereof, shall be paid for by the City generally. If a coc.- tract is contemplated to be awarded to a private contractor or con- tractors, then and in that event the contract shall be let only to the lowest responsible bidder upon the terms and provisions above set forth. The requirements of Chapter 279 Oregon revised Statutes, insofar as applicable to the work proposed to be done in the City of Tigard, shall govern the bidding, contracting and performance of the work, including prequalifiration of bidders, payment and performance bonds and enforcement of the provisions thereof. The invitation for proposals for bids shall be published in a weekly newspcper published in the city in two consecutive issues; the first publication whereof shall be not less than 10 days prior to the day for opening said bids, and the City Council may direct upon which day thereafter said bids or proposals shall be opened as above provided. The City Council may provide for progressive payments in the contract. Section 8 - Assessment: Upon signing a contract or upon a determin- ation by the City Council to make the improvement under its own supervision by purchasing the material and hiring labor or as soon thereafter as is reasonably convenient, the City CCancii shall determine whether the property benefited shall hear all or a portion of the cost and shall direct the City Engineer to apportion and assess the cost of making such improvement upon the lots, parts of lots and parcels of land within the assessment district in accord- ance with the special and peculiar benefits derived by each lot, part of lot and parcel of land. The City Clerk shall cause to have mailed, or cause to have personally delivered, to the owner of each lot proposed to be assejaed, a notice of. such proposed assessment, which notice shall stage the amount of the assessment proposed on that property and shall state a date by which time objections shall be filed with the City Clerk. Such notice shall further require that any such objec- tion shall state the grounds thereof. The City Council shall con- sider the City Engineer's estimates of ossessments and all objec- tions thereto filed with the City Clerk, and Without any further notice may adopt, correct, modify or reAse the proposed assess- ments and shall determine the amount to be charged against each lot within the district according to the special and peculiar ben- efits accruing thereto from the improvement. If there be no contract let for the accomplishment of the work the total estimate of the City Etginear shall be consid- ered to Ae the contract price for the improvement district. Page 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 6 2 In any o vent mere be a atra=t Fr ice at i Ciflo_ from a bona fide contract or whetter the estimate of the city dn- i' gineer be used as hereinabove provided, there shall be added to said contract price the cost of right-ef-way and expenses of con- demning the land, all costs of engineering, superintendence, adver- tising and legal expenses and also any and all other necessary and proper expenses incurred which additional amounts shall be and do become a hart of the amounts to be assessed against each lot, part of lot and parcel of land benefited by the improvement. The assessment as r.dopted by the City Council against each lot or parcel of land shall be declazed by ordinance and the City Clerk shall thereupon enter the same in the Lien Docket of the city, each improvement district estimate and assessment being maintained in a separate docket from other prior loysubsequent es- timates and assessments. Assessments shall thereupon become a lien upon the property assessed from and after the passage of the ordinance spreading the same and entry in said appropriate City lien docket. The City may thereafter enforce ccllection of such assessments as provided by Sections 223.505 to 223.650 CRS. if the initial assessment has been made on the basis of estimated cost and upon completion of the work the cost is found to be grez.ter than the estimaete; the City Council may make a deficit assessment for the additional cost. Proposed assess- ments upon respective lots within the assessment district for the proportionate share of the deficit shall be made, and notices of such assessments shall be given as provided with respect to the original assessment as hereinauove in phis section set foith, and all objections filed with the City Clerk within the time limited therefor shall be considered , and determination of the deficit assessment against eaca particular lot, block or parcel of land shall be made as in the case of the initial assessment, and the deficit assessment with respect to each lot and block shall be finally determined by the City Council and spread by ordinance as in the case of the initial assessment. If assessments have been made on the basis of estimated cost and upon completion of the work the r_ost is found to be less thr- the estimate, the excess assessment shall be re-apportioned and credited to each lot and block according to the manner in which the criginal assessment was computed. Section 9 - Abandonment of Proceedings: The City Council shall have ball. power an aut or ty to abandon and rescind proceedings for projects hereunder at any time prior to the final consummation of suA proceedings, and if liens We been assessed upon any property under this procedure, they shall he cancelled and any payments made thereon shall be refunded to the payer, his assigns or legal representative. Section 10 - Curative Provisions: No assessment shall be invalid by reason o a a ure to give, in any report, in the proposed assessment, in the ordinance making the assessment, in the lien docket or elsewhere in the proceedings, the name of the owner of any lot, tract or parcel of land or the name of any person hav- ing a lien upon or interest therein, or by a mistake in the name of any such person having a lien upon or interest in such property, or Page 4 - ORiINANCE NO., /'2 - Nam by reason of an7 error, wiotaka, delay, omissinr.. irregularity, or In other act juriodictioaal or otherwise, in any of the proceedings or steps Lreinbefore specified, unless it appear th.=t ct:4zv::a!`1e notice has not been given of the hearing upon rl,e proeosed assess- ~ ment or that the assessment as made, insof.:a;. is it affects tae pperson complaining, is unfai- and unjust, and the City Council shall t vs the power and authority to remedy and correct all such matters ~ by suitable action and proceedings. l Section 11: It is hereby declared that an emergency exists and that it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health, and safety of the people of the City of Tigard, Ore- go n, that this ordinance become effective immediately in order to establish procedures for assessments for public improvements here- tofore and hereafter made within the City. PASSED: By the City Council this -2- dav of 1962. APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of G , 1962. #F 3 i SET Meyor, City of Tigard Atte2t: Clark, City of Tigard Pago S - ORDINMCB NO., ___k 1 CITY 0: 14 .:IT:1 c.:,S2ECT 10 COirTZACTS FO 'D LIC S, :icction p_ the Cihart.ar o_ t.l, .:its 01 =i:~ard reads is follows: Section 0 . LID'S. contract in c::ccss of 4.5.00.00 for Dublic imorovcment to a :axle `,y r private con- tractor s':ialf be let to thn lowest responsible bidder for the contract and shall be done in ac,:ordance with plans and specifications a?iroved by the council. T:he council sthell have the ri,.''it co reJect any or all Said bids." ..rMT' ..S, it is necessary C.1d to :'re:cribe ;c1J-ies and procedures to :;ive effect tc t:ie lore,, in.; C:hcrter . ro•:isicn, 1~Qri, E O-Z , TI E CIT': Ci 71G'.1,.D O: a:.i::3 '.S : CLL0 :S Section 1: t r:ny time it is proposeC.:) any Denartr._nt th_ c=ity to urdertaka any public improvement i.nvoivin:; ;e of such e.::;:enditures =n ercass „ $500.00, the officer in char, department shall prepare, or cause to have prepared, speci_ficatien^ anc: plans fot the work in prelicninarv Lorm and shall submit same to the City F.ecorder or City Clergy: for preliminary approval :;y the City Council. The City I.ecorder or City Clerk shill bring the pro- posed public inprovemeat beLore the Council at t::^.e ne%t re.ular c: special meetin. Such preliminary plan, and specifications sIVII in- clude a statamerit of the purpose of the improvement, ..nether or not finds ate specifically budgeted or availaole for such e::penditure, the estimated cost, and the probable time of completion and need =or the improve-.nent. Tie city officer in charge of such daportment shall 1•r_rsonoll.y. or by d^signrted subordinate, present the proposal to the Council at said ineeting. Section 2: Upon approval by t lie Council oL the pr(hlimfnary plats and specifications, either as Submitted or as ::vended, the City fty rl'.'rk shill Ave notice-- of intention to `corder o_- ~.i.. receive onrit.ten sealed bids at a time and olace in sair ponce to set: forth. The notice shall fully describe the purpose for which the bids are being solicited and the time and plane of opening of the bids, and shall further sta to that plans or specifications, or both, riay be obtained from the City Pccorderra Oftice, unless the specifi- cations are included in the said notice. Such notice shall not be ORDINANCE NO. 65• 14 •i I publicized until cc::pieti.cn o:. pi;.:is or ;,ecii_ Liens as • ':)L necessary. E: cept cs stated in cihc ncnt succeccin section. ? si id notice shall be published in uru! issue o? nec:s >a cr c. en- oral circulati_:: ..:r: ; u` lislhcd in th:2 Cicy o: ':i;at-6, nor l.,.ss Cie. n on:: V°,:ck prior to _-hc date OZ Op-c:1in.--. O~ Said 'JiOs. Section 3: Where the interests, or pro,Qrty, of the Ci.ty sufFer mareris l i njt:ry 'ry c;elny, or w hara determines tih< the City's ,,L:*L)1ic inxeresr_ would '.;e mate i.• cr.- efited by immediate purchase or conLreet, the City Council,: #mous declaration or all councilmen eroscat o much -acc, enter.:L: the minutes or the meetin_„ may direct that competitive bits ae secured in=or:nally throuv;h public advercisin,; or the circuiariz: tio: of ,.ritten notice for bids, or moth, ccnts,irin,; the necessr: i- -fications and requirements for the public i-:orove:nent, or statict;; that surge may be obtained in Lhe office o: tae City tecorder. In such instance of inforc:al biddin; pL'ccedL:ra::, ra:t- sonr,ble measures alkali be taken that calls for bibs J_ adatiuatcly advertised and that prospective bidders theve a rcasorable o,~~rtuai.t; to submit t:Leir :,ids, and i:i such cases of informal :,ru- cedares, sealed bids like-wise r i.1 be. submitted z:.:-,d same ,..ail : opened at a ti-me and place ,•;,noiati•d thereon. Section 4: All bids shr.ll comply ith tiht~ recuire:-ents 0.. notice, shall be sealed and filed with t'aa Cicy~i c- corder, and shell not be opened prior to t,.e tima fined in the :u: i SeeL`on 5:_ The city o_-iicial or auLhorized representative con- cerned ::itit the said public is-nrovement s:h;:il be pru^ sent at the time and place specified in the notice and shai2 pui:- licly open all bids filed. 1.11 bids si:ail then be promptly evaluated by s: i.t! public of• icer and a memorandum recce-onei.n„ acceptance or thereof prepared for consideration by the City Council. Said :r_:blic officer shall not consider any bid wL-Icih doas not comply t+it:L t'.:e terms or conditions fined by the notice or invitation for aids. Section 6: iai official sF eciacations, Diana, aids, QCC~pCaliCeS, copies of purchase ordars and other documents pares of the "Public Improvement File' shall be maintained at ail times in cho Office of the City Lecord,a: and be available for put,lic inspection. it and Section 7: irasnrsch as it is for tae benefit: of Lhe City of tlintthis matter be heard -,ith the least possible delay, and it is necessary for the peace, health T.nd s?f.ecy of Cho City of Ti-ard that this ordinance becorr_ e::fective with the least.-possible delay, an emer„ency is thereby declared and this orc:inaaca si,-nil !)c- come effect•.'ve upon its passage by the City Counca.l and approwl by the Mayor. rASSED: By the Council, by t:nan`,mco:n vote of all Council members present, after heirs:; read t, es by title only This .--,day cf tiny, 196.). ecorurfar Czta o: x3. Z APPROVED: By the Mayor, this 25thd_-y of flay, 144.4. ORDIIUMCH No.55- 1a isyor - ty o M tard Section 13.04.085. Contents of Application to Pay in Installments. The provisions of ORS 223.115 not- withstanding, the written application of the applicant and property owner to pay an assessment arising out of a local improvement shall state the following: (1) That the applicant and property owner does thereby waive all irregularities or defects, juris- dictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause said improvements to be constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment: of the costs thereof. (2) The application shall provide that the applicant and property owner agree to pay an assessment in equal semiannual installments over a period not to exceed 30 years as the City Council may provide, with inter- est not to exceed 10 percent per annum on all the assessments which have not been paid. (3) A statement, by lots or blocks, or other con- venient description, of the property of the applicant assessed for such improvement. 2. Except as set forth in section 1 above, the procedures for financing improvements pursuant to the Bancroft Bonding Act of the State of Oregon shall be followed in the financing of local improvements. The only substantive change accomplished by this ordinance is the increase of the maximum allowable interest rate from 7 percent to 10 percent. PASSED: By Uy,Q_~~y~ous vote of the City Council this ~a day of 1980. ayor, City of Tigard r ATTEST: Recorder.. C~ o Tigard 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE No. 81- 98-A AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGA'?D CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 13.04 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. DEALING WITH LOCAL IVAPROVEMENT DISTRICT PRO- CEEDINGS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That Section 13.04.040, Notice, 13.04.050, Remonstrance, and 47085, Contents of Application to Pay in Installments, of the Tigard Municipal Code, relating to public notice requirements, remonstrance requirements and installment application requirements of the Local Improvement District proceedings, be, and the same are hereby amended to read as follows: "13.04.040 Notice. The resolution of the City Council declaring the purpose o the imporvement shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, provided that the publication shall be not less than ten days prior to the time when all persons interested may present their objections to the improvements. Such notice shall specify the time and place where the Council will hear and consider objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby." "13.04.050 Remonstrance. Within ten days from the date of the publication o the notice required to be published in Section 13.04.040, the owners of sixty-six and two-thirds percent or more in area of the property within the assessment district may make and file with the City Recorder written objection or remonstrance against the proposed improvement, and such objection or remonstrance shall be a bar to any further proceedings in the making of such improvement for a period of sic months, unless the owners of one-half or more of the property affected shall subsequently petition therefor." "13.04.085 Contents of a plication to na in installments. The provisions o RS 15 notwithstanding, the written application of the applicant and property owner to pay an assessment arising out of a local improvement shall state the following: (1) That the applicant and the property owner does thereby waive all irre*ularities or defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause said improvements to be constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the costs thereof; (2) The application shall provide that the applicant and property owner agree to pay an assessment in equal semi-annual installments over a period not to exceed thirty years as the Csty Council may provide, with interest at a rate to D~ established •i by the City Council at the time the assessment ordinance is adopted. Alf" The rate shall be adjusted if and when Bancroft bonds are sold so _ that the interest rate on the application does not exceed the net effective interest rate on the bonds plus two percent to defray the city's administrative expenses. Notice of the rate adjustment shall be given by rail to the affected applicant and property owner. (3) A statement, by lots or blocks, or other convenient description, of the property of the applicant assessed for such improvement. (Ord. 80-37 §L, 1980)." Section 2. Inasmuch as this ordinance is necessary to protect the genera welfare of the public by making publications of the above- noted hearings as cost effective as possible, and noting the fluctua- tions of the bond market may result in the loss of sales of city bonds and consequent inability of the city to fund local improve- ment projects and, therefore, protect the public welfare, an emergency is recognized to exist and is hereby declared and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval by the City Council. PASSED: By the City Council by S vote of all Council members present, a ter eing read two times by number and title only, this 4 day of n/,r r 1981. Recorder - City o Tigard SIGNED: By the Mayor, this day of 1981. Mayor - City o agar l ORDINANCE No. 81- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE, No. 81- 98-A AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 13.04 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. DEALING WITH LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PRO- CEEDINGS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That Section 13.04.040, Notice, 13.04.050, Remonstrance, an 4.085, Contents of Application to Pay in Installments, of the Tigard Municipal Code, relating to public notice requirements, remonstrance requirements and installment application requirements of the Local Improvement District proceedings, be, and the same are hereby amended to read as follows: "13.04.040 Notice. The resolution of the City Council declaring the purpose o the imporvement shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, provided that the publication shall be not less than ten days prior to the time when all persons interested may present their objections to the improvements. Such notice shall specify the time and place where the Council will hear and consider objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvement by any parties aggrieved thereby." "13.04.050 Remonstrance. Within ten days from the date of the publication o t e notice required to be published in Section 13.04.040, the owners of sixty-six and two-thirds percent or more in area of the property within the assessment district may make and file with the City Recorder written objection or remonstrance against the proposed improvement, and such objection or remonstrance shall be a bar to any further proceedings in the making of such improvement for a period of sic months, unless the owners of one-half or more of the property affected shall subsequently petition therefor." "13.04.085 Contents of application to Da in installments. The provisions o RS 223.215 notwithstanding, the written application of the applicant and property owner to pay an assessment arising out of a local improvement shall state the following: (1) That the applicant and the property owner does thereby waive all irregularities or defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause said improvements to be constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the costs thereof; (2) The application shall provide that the applicant and property owner agree to pay an assessment in equal semi-annual installments over a period not to exceed thirty years hs the City Council may provide, with interest at a rate to nip established e n:. I' by the City Council at the time the assessment ordinance is adopted. The rate shall be adjusted if and when Bancroft bonds are sold so that the interest rate on the application dogs not exceed the net effective interest rate on the bonds plus two percent to defray the city°s administrative expenses. Notice of the rate adjustment shall be given by mail to the affected applicant and property owner. (3) A statement, by lots or blocks, or other convenient description, of the property of the applicant assessed for such improvement. (Ord. 80-37 §L, 1980)." Section 2. Inasmuch as this ordinance is necessary to protect the general of the public by making publications of the above- noted hearings as cost effective as possible, and noting the fluctua- tions of the bond market may result in the loss of sales of city bonds and consequent inability of the city to fund local improve- ment projects and, therefore, protect the public welfare, an emergency is recognized to exist and is hereby declared and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and approval by the City Council. PASSED: By the City Council by vote of all "Id Council members present, ester being rea two times by number and title only, this J,6 day of 1981. Re; or e - City o Tigard, 1981. SIGNED: By the Mayor, this day of ~zLo,(iep" ~i~/L~~ZCy• GEC. ~~C~'•~r Mayor - City off Tigard ORDINANCE No. 81- y.~~, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON E ORDINANCE NO. 84-1-0- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE DEFINITION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AND SETTING FORTH THE COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH riAY_ BE ASSE:GED AGAINST PROPERTY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS 223.387(1), define the meaning of the term "local improvement", the City finds that for clarity purposes, it would be in the interest of the City to adopt the same language as the statute. WHEREAS, the costs and expenses of local improvements which may be assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvement can be inferred from the Tigard Municipal Code from practice and custom, it would be in the public interest to specifically make clear the costs and expenses which may be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. T2;C 13.04.010(x) shall be amended by deleting the entire section and by enacting the following definitions. "13.J~.G10 Definitions (a) "Local improvement means: 1. The grading, gravelling, paving or other surfacing of any street, or opening, laying out, widening, extending, altering changing the grade of or constructing any street; 2. The construction or reconstruction of sidewalks; 3. The installation of street lights; 4. The installation of underground wiring or related equipment; 5. The reconstruction or repair of any street improvement mentioned in this Gubsection; 6. The construction, reconstruction or repair of any sanitary or storm seiner or water main; 7. The acquisition, establishment, construction or reconstruction of any off-street motor vehicle parking facility; 8. The construction, reconstruction, alterrtion, relocation or repair of any flood control dike, dam, floodway, or drainage facility; 9. The construction, reconstruction, installation and ' equipping of a park, playground or neighborhood facility; 10. Any other local improvement for which an assessment may be made on the property specially benefited." Section 2. TMC 13.04.010 shall be amended by adding the following definition: C~ 11(f) Local improvement district" means the n:operty which is to be assessed for the cost or part of the cost of local improvement and the property on which the local improvement is located." Section 3. TMC 13.04.060 shall be amended by adding rha following provisions. "The costs and expenses of local improvements that may be assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvement shall include, but not be limited Lo: the costs of construction and installation of the improvement: advertising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, contracts, equipment, inspection and assessment costs; financing costs, including interest charges; the costs of any necessary property, right-of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings; attorneys' fees and any other necessary expenses." Section 4. Inasmuch as the amendments are necessary to clarify the a.!sthority and powers of the City and in effect codify the existing law regarding matters currently before the Council, an emergency is declared to exist to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By a_h % 11=ts s vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this rth day of YY1 a r- 1984. geputy City Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: This Th d.-.y of at- L 1984. Mayor - City of Tigard "PRO AS TO F /F dit y Attorney (JM:pm/1287A) ORDINANCE NO. 84- 1_ PAGE 2 --01 NMI N9011-6waft AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF MU 12, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Raz Transportation Appeal of the Planning Commission's Modification Concerning a Previously Issued Director's Interpretations Related to the Status of a Non-Conformin Commercial Use. PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff r '4?; DEPT HEAD OK IAI N6 CITY MGR OK Lpye- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's modification of the previously issued Director's Interpretation and require that the northerly 200 feet of the property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway be returned to an unused state? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's modification of the previously issued Director's Interpretation based on the findings adopted by the Planning Commission as presented to the City Council on April 28, 1998 and supplemented by findings prepared by Jack L. Orchard representing the adjacent property owners. INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 28, 1998, the City Council held a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's modification of a previously issued Director's Interpretation regarding the Raz Transportation use of property at 11655 SW Pacific Highway. The Council closed the public hearing and requested that the legal representative of the adjacent property owner provide supplemental findings for the City Council May 12, 1998 meeting that would uphold the Planning Commission action. These findings, prepared by Jack L. Orchard, are attached as are the original findings prepared for the April 28, 1998 meeting. Other issues related to noise, fumes, vibrations are under code enforcement review and will be addressed separately. OTHER ALTERNAITVES CONSIDERED 1. Prepare alternate findings VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CO1VIly =E STRATEGY Not applicable FISCAL NOTES Not applicable I:kitywidc\m=Vazdec.sum dick05104/98 2:14 PM Jill •g Agenda Item No. - tida. -e- I f~t$ Meeting of--518L MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director T RE: Washington Square Regional Center Task Force List DATE: May 7, 1998 As per City Council's request, Tigard staff contacted potential task force members. Most of the people on the list indicated great interest in participating on the task force. Only the representative from Multnomah County did not show interest in the task force. Staff is therefore recommending that one member be replaced with a representative from Spieker properties. Spieker properties owns a significant amount of property in the Washington Square area and therefore should be involved in the task force. The following task members represent local interests in the Washington Square Area: Crescent Grove Cemetery • Dr. Gene Davis • Steve Perry, local property owner • Nimbus Business Center • Norris Beggs & Simpson (Lincoln Center) • Metzger Elementary Orland Development • Washington Square Mall • Metzger CPO • City of Tigard Mayor City of Tigard City Council member • Tualatin Valley Economic Development • Spieker properties The majority of the members on the task force represent Tigard's interests, in addition to Washington Square area interests. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION 140.98- A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER TASK FORCE WHEREAS, METRO identified Washington Square as a Regional Center as part of the Functional Plan; and WHEREAS, The City received a grant for the completion of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan; and WHER~F AS, The scope of work called for the creation of a Washington Square Task Force; and WHEREAS, The attached list of Task Force members represent both local and regional interests; and WHEREAS, The majority of the members on the Task Force represent Tigard's interests; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the Council confirms the appointments listed on Attachment "A" to THE WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER TASK FORCE Section PASSED: This day of '1998. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard I %CIT VADEIWASHBO Doc RESOLUTION NO. 98- Page 1 AttachmenL "A" WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN POTENTIAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS April 20, 1998 NAME INTEREST ADDRESS TEL/FAX 1. Evelyn Beaverton City Council Member PO Box 4755 Beaverton, Tel. 526-2347 Brzezinski 97076 Fax.526-2479 2. Rex ° u; holder Executive Director, Bicycle 1 117 SW Washington St. Tel. 226-0676 FRO Transportation Alliance (BTA) Portland, OR 97207 Fax. 226-0498 (Bicycle Advocacy) 3. Bill Buckley Tualatin Valley Economic 10200 SW Nimbus Ave., Tel. 620-1142 Development Suite G-3 Tigard, OR Fax 624-0641 97223 4. Charles Cameron County Administrator, 155 N. 1st Ave. Mail Tel. 648-8685 Washington County Stop 21 Fax. 693-4545 Hillsboro, 97124 5. Ruth Croft Crescent Grove Cemetery & 6060 SW 68th Ct. Tel. 245-0240 Mausoleum (Local business) Tigard, 97223 Fax. 620-1264 6. Dr. Gene Davis Retired veterinarian Foreign Mission Tel. 246-5862 (Development interest) 10875 SW 89th Tigard , OR 97223 7. Jillian Detweiler Commissioner's Assistant, 1221 SW 5th Ave. Room Tel. 823-4321 Commissioner Charles Hales, 210 Portland, OR 97204 Fax. 823-4040 City of Portland 8. Cliff E ler Metzger property owner Tel. 246-5423 9. Dan Heagarty Chair, Fans of Fanno Creek PO Box 25835 Portland, Tel. 236-6663 (Watershed advocacy) 97225 Fax. 223-2701 10. Denise Jackson Nimbus Business Commuters; 8920 SW Gemini Dr. Tel. 672-7800 Building Manager, Spieker Beaverton, 97208 Fax. 672-7050 Properties (Business/ trans ortation association) 11. Beth Johnston Associate Vice President, Norris 10300 SW Greenburg Tel. 452-5900 Beggs & Simpson; Project Rd. Fax. 244-4400 Manager, Lincoln Center(Local Tigard, 97223 businesses 12. Jon Kvistad Presiding Officer, Metro Council 600 NE Grand Ave. Tel. 797-1549 (District #3) Portland, 97232 or 590-3282 Fax. 797-1799 13. Dan McFarling President, Association of Oregon 20585 SW Cheshire Ct. Tel. 642-4077 Rail and Transit Advocates Aloha, 97007 (AORTA) (Commuter rail) 14. Ed McVicker Principal, Metzger Elementary 10255 SW 90th Ave. Tel. 684-2300 School Tigard, 97223 Fax.246-9803 1 NAIWIE INTEREST ADDRESS TEUF4AX 15. Lyndon Musolf Principal, Lyn Musolf & 5480 SW Dover Lp. Tel. 768-5103 Associates (Affordable housing) Portland, 97225 16. Adele Newton President, Washington County 7700 SW Alden St. Tel. 244-1934 League of Women Voters (Civic Portland, 97223 interest 17. Jim Nicoli Mayor, City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tel. 639-4171 Tigard, 97223 Fax.684-7297 18. Nawzad Othman President, OTAK (represents 17355 Booties Ferry Rd. Tel. 635-3618 Orland Development) Lake Oswego, 97035 Fax. 635-5395 19. Spieker To be appointed Properties Representative 20. Jack Reardon Manager, Washington Square 9585 SW Washington Tel. 639-8860 Mall (Local businesses) Square Rd. Fax.620-5612 Tigard, 97223 21. Bob Rohlf City Council Member 12340 SW North Dakota Tel. (W) 684- Tigard 97223 8709 22. Ted Spence Tigard Citizen 10430 SW 66th Ave. Tel. 245-1549 Tigard, OR 9723 23. Rick Saito President, Group McKenzie 0690 SW Bancroft St. Tel. 224-9560 (Architectural consulting for Portland, 97201 Fax, 228-1285 Lincoln Center 24. Karen Wagner Executive Director, STOP 15405 SW 116th Ave. Tel. 624-6083 (Transportation Advocacy) 202-B Tigard, 97224 25. Pat Whiting Chair, Metzger Park Community 8122 SW Spruce St. Tel. 246-7172 Participation Organization (CPO) Tigard 97223 (Alt. Mike Donovan, Chair, Metzger Park Board) 26. Nick Wilson Planning Commission Member 12573 SW Winterlake Tel. 224-5238 Dr. Tigard OR 97223 Fax. 224-5239 2 CUY r q C, 13.0 4.010 5 (21 Title 13 LOCAL IM-PROVEMENTS* Chapters: 13.04 General Procedures Chapter 13.04 GENERAL PROCEDURES Sections: 13.04.010 Definitions. 13.04.020 Initiation of local improvement district. 13.04.030 Fees--Report and recommendation--Resolution. 13.04.040 District formation--Public hearing-- Ordinance. 13.04.050 Improvements--Final plan and specifications--Resolution accepting. 13.04.055 Public hearing on final plans and specifications. 13.04.060 Assessment--Notice and public hearing-- Ordinance. 13.04.070 Finance and closure. 13.04.080 Administration. 13.04.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (a) "Local improvement" means: (1) The grading, graveling, paving or other sur- facing of any street, or opening, laying out, widening, ex- tending, altering, changing the grade of or constructing any street; (2) The construction or reconstruction of sidewalks; (3) The installation of street lights; (4) The installation of underground wiring or re- lated equipment; (5) The reconstruction or repair of any street im- provement mentioned in this subsection; (6) The construction, reconstruction or repair of any sanitary or storm sewer or water main; (7) The acquisition, establishment, construction or reconstruction of any off-street motor vehicle parking fa- cility; * For statutory provisions providing that statutes concerning assessment provisions shall not apply when a city charter or ordinance provides otherwise, see ORS 223.399. 16 2 (Tigard 8/15/86) 13.04.020 (8) The construction, reconstruction, alteration, relocation or repair of any flood-control dike, dam, flood- way or drainage facility; (9) The construction, reconstruction, installation and equipping of a park, playground or neighborhood facili- ty; (10) Any other local improvement for which an as- sessment may be made on the property specially benefited. (b) "Local improvement district" means the property which is to be assessed for the cost or part of the cost of local improvement and the property on which the local im- provement is located. (c) "Lot" means lot, block or parcel of land. (d) "Owner" means the owner of the title to real prop- erty, or the contract purchaser of real property, of record as shown on the last available complete assessment roll in the office of county assessor. (e) "Preassessment" means a method of assessing prop- erties for local improvement districts prior to construction of the project, based upon the engineer's estimate (either the city or consulting engineer). (Ord. 85-40 53, 1985). 13.04.020 Initiation of local improvement district. (a) Initiation of District Formation Process. (1) The making of the local improvement and the local improvement district formation process may be initi- ated in one of the following ways: (A) The council may declare an emergency to exist. (B) The council may initiate the formation of the district and the making of the improvement on its own motion. (C) The property owners owning at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the local improvement may by written petition request the council to form the dis- trict and make the improvement. (2) The community development director shall pre- pare a preliminary evaluation report. The report shall: (A) Identify known factors which support the formation of the district and improvement and known factors which make the district and improvement not feasible or not in the public interest; (B) Recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial. (3) The community development director shall submit the preliminary evaluation report to the council when the recommendation is for approval or for approval with condi- tions. (4) The council may request on its own motion to have a preliminary evaluation report brought to it for ac- tion when the recommendation is for denial. (b) Resolution to Prepare Preliminary Engineer's Re- port. 163 (Tigard 2/86) 13.04.030 (1) The council shall consider the preliminary evaluation report. A public hearing is not required. (2) Based on the preliminary evaluation report, the council shall: (A) Direct staff to terminate work on the pro- posed district and improvement; or (B) Adopt a resolution directing staff to pre- pare a preliminary engineer's report. (3) The resolution directing that a preliminary engineer's report be prepared may include alternatives that the council intends for staff to consider. (Ord. 85-40 §4, 1985). 13 04 030 Fees--Report and recommendat-*on--Resolution. (a) Fees. The council may adopt a fee schedule for the preparation of the preliminary engineer's report. The fee schedule shall apply to applications initiated under Section 13. 04.020 (a) (1) (C) . The city shall not commence preparation of the report until the fee is paid to the city. (b) Preliminary Engineer's Report. (1) The community development director shall have a preliminary engineer's report prepared. The report shall: (A) Include the scope of the work, location of the proposed improvements, financial information, the pro- posed district boundaries, estimated costs, and other rele- vant information which go to the feasibility of the proposed improvement and the district. If it is determined that it is necessary to enter onto property within the proposed district for surveying or other engineering purposes, the preliminary engineer's report shall include an adequate description of the properties to be entered upon and a de- tailed description of the work to be done on the properties. (B) Recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial. (2) As an alternative to procedures outlined in subsection (b) (1) of this section, the community development director may authorize entry upon any property within the proposed district pursuant to and for the purpose outlined in ORS 223.010. Within a reasonable time after the entry upon the land, the community development director shall report to the council on the results of the entry. (c) Project Priorities. The city by rule may establish standards for prioritizing projects. (d) Recommendation to Council. (1) The community development director shall pre- pare a report to the council. The report shall be composed of two elements: (A) The project feasibiliry based on the pre- liminary engineer's report; and (B) The recommended project priority based on the standards for prioritizing projects. 164 (Tigard 11/15/86) 13.04.040 (2) The recommendation to the council shall be to form the district and to make the improvement or not to form the district and not to make the improvement. (e) Resolution of Intention. (1) The council shall receive the community devel- opment director's recommendation. The council shall consid- er the recommendation and shall decide whether to declare its intention to form the district and to make the public improvements. No public hearing shall be required. (2) The resolution of intention shall: (A) Describe the general nature, location and extent of the proposed local improvement and of the proposed local improvement district; (B) Declare the council's intention to make the improvement; (C) Indicate the method and manner of carrying out the improvement; (D) Contain an estimate of the probable total cost of the improvement; (E) Indicate the method of assessment to be used to arrive at a fair apportionment of the whole or any por- tion of the cost of the improvement to the properties spe- cially benefited; (F) Set a public hearing on the improvement; and (G) Direct that notice be given of the proposed improvement and of the public hearin5. (3) The resolution of intention may include alter- native proposals relating to a proposed local improvement; provided, however, that all of the information required for a particular local improvement shall be included for each alternative proposal. (Ord. 86-37 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-21 §1, 1986; Ord. 85-40 55, 1985). 13.04.040 District formation--Public hearing--Ordinance. (a) Alternative Procedures. (1) The council may form an improvement district and initiate and construct a local improvement without pub- lishing or mailing notice to the owners of specifically ben- efited property and without holding a public hearing on the matter when all of the owners of the specifically benefited and assessed property have signed a peti*i_on which has been directed and presented to the council requesting the im- provement and formation of the district and the petitioners have signed a waiver of the right to remonstrate against the formation of the district and against the method for the spread of the assessment. (2) The council shall publish notice, give individ- ual mailed notice and hold a public hearing in all situa- tions where less than all of the owners have requested the improvement. 165 (Tigard 11/15/86) 13.04.040 (b) Notice of Hearing. (1) The community development director shall give at least ten days' notice to the property owners within the proposed district of the public hearing on the formation of the district and the local improvement by: (A) Publication in a newspaper of general circu- lation within the city. There shall be only one publication required; and (B) Mailing a copy of the notice by first-class mail to the owner(s) of each lot affected by the proposed improvement. (2) The notice shall contain: (A) A general description of the proposed local improvement and the property to be specially benefited thereby. The description of property need not be by metes 165-1 (Tigard 11/15/86) 13.04.040 and bounds but shall be such that an average person can de- termine from it the general location of the property; (B) An estimate of the total cost of the im- provement and the portion anticipated to be paid for by°spe- cial assessments; (C) The date, time and place of the public hear- ing; (D) A statement of a place where preliminary project design and other additional information concerning the improvement is available to the public; and (E) A statement that the purpose of the hearing is to hear remonstrances and that in order to be considered all written and oral remonstrances must be received by the close of the hearing; (F) Any other information the council may direct to be included. (3) Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to mailing of notice shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the local improvement proceedings. (c) Hearing Procedure. (1) The council shall hold a public hearing and shall consider oral and written testimony. (2) The council may order the improvement to be made and the district to be formed as provided by this chapter. (3) An order to form the district and to make an improvement shall be made by ordinance within ninety days after the date of the final hearing. (d) Decision to Make Improvement and Form District. (1) Remonstrances. (A) The council shall not proceed with the formation of the district and the making of the improvement when the property owners owning two-thirds of the property area within this district to be specially assessed remon- strate against the improvement. This provision shall not apply in case of an emergency or to sidewalks as provided by the Charter. (B) All remonstrances shall be filed with the city recorder by the close of the initial public hearing. Thereafter, no remonstrance shall be considered except from persons receiving new notice. In situations where new no- tice is given, remonstrances shall be filed by the close of the public hearing for which new notice was given. (C) In the case of multiple owners of a partic- ular parcel of land, each remonstrating owner shall be counted as a fraction of a vote to the extent of their in- terest in the property. (D) Any person acting as an attorney or agent with power to act in signing a remonstrance shall, in ad- dition to describing the property affected, file with the remonstrance a copy in writing of the authority to represent the owner of the property. 166 (Tigard 4/15/87) 13.04.050 (E) A remonstrance may be withdrawn any time up until the close of the hearing for the purpose of consider- ing remonstrances. (2) Council Discretion Not to Form District. The council may decide not to proceed with the formation of the district and the making of the improvement when the petition has been signed by less than one-half of the benefited prop- erty owners, the district is deemed to be untimely or not in the best interests of the city. (e) Modification to Scope of Improvement or District. (1) Based on testimony at the hearing, the council may make modifications to the scope of the improvement or the district boundary. (2) A new resolution of intent shall be adopted, new estimates made and a new individual notice mailed to the owners within the proposed district when the scope of the improvement is modified so that the assessment is likely to increase on one or more properties. A new hearing shall be held. (3) A new resolution of intent shall not be re- quired when properties are added or deleted from the pro- posed district and it is not likely to increase the assess- ment on one or more properties within the boundaries of the initial proposed district. The hearing shall be reopened when the proposed district is enlarged to include additional properties when the owners have not made a specific request in writing to be included within the district when the as- sessment will not be increased on other properties, individ- ual notice shall be mailed only to the newly included prop- erty owners and the hearing shall be limited to testimony from the owners of the newly included properties. Ten days shall be given for remonstrance. All remonstrances from the newly included property shall be filed in writing with the city recorder or withdrawn by the close of the reopened hearing. (f) Formation of District. The council shall provide for the establishment of the local improvement district and making of the improvement by the adoption of an ordinance to form the district. (Ord. 87-13 §1, 1987; Ord. 85-40 §6, 1985). 13.04.050 Improvements--Final plan and specifications-- Resolution accepting. (a) The plans and specifications and improvements may be made in whole or in part by the city, by another governmental agency, by contract or by any combina- tion thereof. (b) The community development director shall: (1) Cause the necessary rights-of-way and easements to be acquired and the improvements to be made in accordance with the terms of the ordinance to form the district; and (2) Cause final plans and specifications to be pre- pared and filed. 167 (Tigard 4/15/87) 13.04.055--13.04.060 (A) Unless stated otherwise in the final plan and specifications, all technical requirements for the pro- posed improvements, such as curb heights, overlay thicknesses, etc., shall be those on file with the city engineer as the approved requirements for all construction within the city. (B) A description of all necessary rights-of-way and easements shall be included in the final plan and speci- fications. Easements may be acquired for any necessary public use within the district and may include easements for access to properties that would otherwise have no public access or would have inadequate public access. (c) The contract bid process shall be in accordance with the city's purchasing rules. (d) The resolution accepting the final report which may include sections on the improvement, finance and legal summaries. (Ord. 86-21 §§3 and 4, 1986; Ord. 85-40 §7, 1985). 13.04.055 Public hearing on final plans and specifi- cations. (a) when city council deems it in the best in- terest of the public, or when a material defect in the preliminary plans and specifications of the local improve- ment district has been found, a public hearing on the final plans and specifications may be called. The council may cure defects, or delete portions of the plans which have been declared void or set aside for any reason, and make necessary additions to the information in subsection (b)(1) of Section 13.04.030, the preliminary engineer's report. (b) The notice of public hearing shall follow subsec- tion (b) of Section 13.04.040. (c) Hearing Procedure. The city council shall consider oral and written testimony. (Ord. 86-21 §2, 1986: Ord. 85-40 §7.1, 1985). 13.04.060 Assessment--Notice and public hearing-- Ordinance. (a) Costs and Expenses. (1) The costs and expenses of local improvements that may be assessed against the property specially bene- fited by the improvement shall include, but not be limited to: (A) The costs of any necessary property, right- of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings: (B) Engineering and survey costs; If (C) The costs of construction and installation of improvements; (D) The costs of preliminary studies, and re- ports of usable work done on previous proposals within the proposed district boundary which were not paid by the dis- trict because the proposal was abandoned; (E) Advertising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, con- tracts, equipment, inspection and assessment costs; 168 (Tigard 8/15/86) 13.04.060 (F) Financing costs including interest charges; (G) Attorney's fees; and (H) Any other necessary expenses; (I) The costs of all administrative expenses, including legal fees, expended on a previously instituted improvement within the district boundary, where the previous improvement was abandoned, delayed by litigation or otherwise not completed as planned. (b) Method of Assessment--Types of Assessment. (1) The council in adopting a method of assessment of the costs of any local improvement may: (A) Use any reasonable method of determining the extent of the local improvement district consistent with the benefits derived; and (B) Use any reasonable method of apportioning the sum to be assessed between the properties determined to be specially benefited. (2) The council may use either a preassessment pro- cedure or a final assessment procedure. Preassessment be- gins at the formation stage and assessments are based on the estimated costs. Final assessment begins after the project is completed and is based on actual costs. (3) As an alternative to a preassessment procedure, the council may contract for indebtedness sufficient to cover the costs and expenses of the proposed local improvement. Upon the completion of the improvement, the benefited prop- erty owners will be finally assessed proportionate to the benefits derived from the improvement, and these assessments will be used to repay the indebtedness and the interest on the indebtedness. The final assessments under this pro- cedure shall be eligible for payment in installments, as outlined in subsection (b) of Section 13.04.070 below. The final assessments under this section shall be entered in the city's lien docket and shall become a lien on the assessed property, as outlined in subsection (a) of Section 13.04.080 below. The liens created by these assessments may be placed as security for any indebtedness incurred by the city to cover the costs of the proposed improvement. (c) Assessment Procedure. (1) The community development director shall: (A) Ascertain the preassessment, final assess- ment or deficit assessment as directed by the council; (B) Prepare the proposed assessments for each lot within the improvement district; (C) File the assessments with the finance direc- tor; and !D) Submit the assessmentc to the council in the form of an assessment resolution. (2) The counr,4.1 shall review the proposed assess- ments and may make modifications. The council sra1) e.dopt an assessment resolution and shall direct thaw notice of. 169 (Tigard 8/15/86) 13.04.070 proposed assessments to be given and that a public hearing shall be held to consider objections. (3) Notice of the proposed assessments shall be given at least ten days prior ':o the hearing and it shall be mailed or personally delivered to the owner(s) of each prop- erty to be assessed or if personal service cannot be had, then by publication once .i week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The notice shall contain the following information: (A) The name of the owner, the ds-scription of the property assessed, the total estimated or actual project cost assessed against bEnefited property and the amount of the assessment against the described property; (B) A date and time by which written objections to the proposed assessment stating specifically the grounds for objection must be received and the date, time and place of a public hearing at which the council will consider writ- ten objections; and (C) A statement that the assessment in the no- tice or as it may be modified by the council will be levied by the council after the hearing and that the assessment then will be charged against the property and be immediately payable in full or in installments, if applicable. (4) Supplementary notice of the proposed assessment and public hearing on it, in form and content to be deter- mined by the finance director, may also be published or posted by the finance director. (5) Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to mailing of notice shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the assessment proceedings, but there shall be no foreclosure or legal action to collect until notice has been given by personal service upon the property owner or, if personal service cannot be had, then by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. (6) The council shall hold the puuiic hearing on the proposed assessments to consider those objections filed in writing and may adopt, correct, modify or revise the pro- posed assessments. The council shall determine the amount of assessment to be charged against each lot within the lo- cal improvement district according to the special and pecu- liar benefits accruing thereto from the improvement. (7) The council shall spread the assessment by ordinance. (Ord. 86-21 5§5 and 6, 1986; Ord. 85-40 §8, 1985). 13.04.070 Finance and closure. (a) Notice of Assess- ment. (1) The finance director shall send notice by 169a (Tigard 8/15/86) 13.04.070 first-class mail within ten days after the effective date of the ordinance spreading the assessment. (2) The notice shall state the following: (A) The effective date of the ordinance levying the assessment, the name of the owner of the property as- sessed, the amount of the specific assessment and a descrip- tion of the property assessed; (B) A statement that an application may be filed to pay the assessment in installments in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.04.050(b); (C) A statement that the entire amount of the assessment, less any part for which application to pay in installments is made, is due within thirty days of the date of the notice and, if unpaid on that date, will accrue in- terest and subject the property to foreclosure. (3) Supplementary notice of assessment, in form and content to be determined by the finance director, may also be published or posted by the finance director. (b) Installment Payments. (1) The owner of any property assessed for an im- provement in the sum of twenty-five dollars or more, at any time within `en days after notice of such assessment is first given, may file with the finance director a written application to pay in installments. (2) No application shall be received and filed if the amount remaining unpaid upon such assessment together with the unpaid balance of any previous assessments for im- provements against the same property.equals or exceeds double the assessed valuation of the property, as shown on the last county tax roll. (3) The written application shall: (A) State that the applicant and property owner does waive all irregularities or defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to cause the improvement to be constructed or made for which the assessment is levied and in the apportionment of the cost; and (B) State that the applicant or property owner understands the terms and conditions of the city's payment policies including the penalties for nonpayment. (4) The council may adopt rules regarding the fi- nancing of improvements, assumption of payments resulting from a transfer of ownership, interest rates and service charges for late payments. (5) The council by resolution shall declare a pay- ment due and payable after one year of delinquency, and the ' entire balance shall become immediately due. The resolution shall give the name of the owner then in default in the pay- ment of the sums due, either principal or interest, together with a description of the property upon which the sums are owning and declaring the whole sum, both principal and inter- est, due and payable at once. The finance director is then directed to proceed at once to collect all unpaid 169-1 (Tigard 2/86) 13.04.070 installments and to enforce collection thereof, with all penalties added thereto, in the same manner as described in subsection (a)(2)(c) of this section. (6) Wherever the owner of property changes through the sale or transfer of land, or the division of land, the total assessment balance plus interest may be assumed sub- ject to the conditions as set forth in Ordinance No. 85-12. (c) DcficiL Assessments. (1) The council may make a deficit assessment for additional costs when the initial assessment was based on estimated costs and the actual cost exceeds the estimated cost. (2) The community development director shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 13.04.060. (3) The deficit assessment shall be in the same proportional share as the initial assessment. (4) The deficit assessment shall be spread by ordi- nance. (5) The finance director shall enter the deficit ® assessment on the city's lien docket as an increase in the property owner's original assessment. (d) Rebates and Credits. (1) The community development director shall, if the final cost is less than the estimate: (A) Ascertain the total amount of excess assess- ment; (B) Prepare the proposed credit amounts for each lot within the improvement district using the method of as- sessment adopted by the council in Section 13.04.060(c)(6); (C) File the credit amounts with the finance director; and (D) Submit the credit amounts to the council in the form of an ordinance. (2) The council shall declare the excess assessment by ordinance. (3) The finance director shall rebate or credit the over-assessment according to the following process: (A) In the event there is an outstanding balance due, a credit shall be entered into the city lien docket as an adjustment to the property owner's assessment lien ac- count. (B) In the event the original assessment has been paid in full, the current property owner shall be enti- tled to a cash refund of the excess amount paid. (e) Reassessments. (1) The council may make a new assessment or reas- sessment in the manner provided by this subsection when: (A) The council is in doubt as to the validity of all or a part of such assessment by reason of such de- fects in procedure; or 169-2 (Tigard 2/86) 11111111MI~Mim 1111110 13.04.070 (B) All or a part of any assessment has been or is declared void or set aside for any reason or its enforce- ment is refused by a court having jurisdiction. (2) Basis for Amount and Method of Reassessment. (A) The reassessment shall be based upon the special and peculiar benefit of the improvement to the re- spActive lots at the time of the original making of the im- provement. (B) The amount of the reassessment shall not be limited to the amount of the original assessment, but the property embraced in the reassessment shall be limited to property embraced in the original assessment except that property on which the original assessment was paid in full shall not be included in the reassessment. (C) Interest from the date of delinquency of the original assessment may be added by the council to the re- assessment in cases where the property was included in the original assessment, but such interest shall not apply to any portion of the reassessment that exceeds the amount of the original assessment. (D) The reassessment shall be made in an equita- ble manner as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time the improvement was made, but the council may adopt a different plan of apportioning benefits or ex- clude portions of the district when in its judgment it is essential to secure an equitable assessment. (E) Credit shall be allowed on the new assess- ment for all payments made on the original assessment. (3) Effect of Reassessment. The reassessment shall be legally binding except that reassessment shall not be made in case of any improvement where in a remonstrance sufficient in law to defeat it has been duly filed prior to the making of the improvement. (4) Procedure. (A) The reassessment shall be initiated by adop- tion of a resolution which: (i.) Designates the improvement as to which a reassessment is contemplated; (ii) Describes the boundaries of the district that the council contemplates for the reassessment; and (iii) Directs the finance director to prepare a proposed reassessment upon the property included within the district and subject to reassessment. (B) Upon passage of the reassessment resolution, the finance director shall prepare the proposed reassessment and file it in the office of the city recorder. (C) The finance director shall give notice of the reassessment by not less than four successive publica- tions in a newspaper published in the city and, if there is no newspaper published in the city, in a newspaper to be designated by the council. 169-3 (Tigard 2/86) 13.04.070 (D) The notice shall state: (i) The proposed reassessment is on file in the office of the city recorder; (ii) The date of the passage of the resolution authorizing it; (iii) The boundaries of the district or a statement of the property affected by the proposed reassessment; and (iv) The date, time and place where the coun- cil will hear and consider objections to the proposed reas- sessment by any party aggrieved thereby. (E) The finance director shall mail within five days after the first date of publication of notice to the owner of each lot affected, a copy of the notice of the pro- posed reassessment as provided in paragraph (D) of this sub- division together with a statement of the amount proposed to be charged against the lot. (F) Any person having an interest in the affect- ed property may, within ten days from the day of the last insertion of the printed notice, file in writing with the recorder objections against the proposed reassessment. (G) The council shall hear and determine all objections filed under paragraph (E) of this subdivision. The council may continue the hearing to correct, modify or revise the proposed assessment or set it aside and order a new proposed assessment. A change which results in an in- crease in the amount proposed to be charged against any property shall require: (i) New published notice for not less than two successive insertions in a newspaper as provided by par- agraphs (C) and (D) of this subdivision; and (ii) New individual notice as provided under paragraph (E) of this subdivision to the owners of property against which the amount of assessment is proposed to be increased. (H) In situations where paragraph (G) of this subdivision applies, the council shall not take action until at least five days after the dat...: of the last publication. (5) Reassessment Ordina!_ce--Lien Docket Entry-- Crediting Prior Payments. (A) The reassessment shall be by ordinance. (B) The reassessment shall be entered into the city's lien docket. (C) All provisions for bonding and paying by installments shall be applicable and such city liens shall be enforced and collected in the manner provided for col- lection of liens for an original improvement. (D) All sums paid upon the former assessment or any previous assessment shall be credited to the property on account of which it was paid and as of the date of payment. 164-4 (Tigard 2/86) 13.0.030 (f) Abandonment of Proceedings. (1) The council shall have full power and authority to abandon and rescind proceedings for local improvements made pursuant to this chapter at any time prior to the full completion of the improvements. (2) Liens which have been assessed upon any proper- ty under the provisions of this chapter shall be cancelled and payments made on the improvements shall be refunded to the person or the person's assigns or successors, paying the same. (g) Curative Provisions. (1) No improvement assessment shall be rendered invalid by a failure to: (A) Provide all of the information required to be in any city engineer's or other report, the resolution of intention, the assessment ordinance, reassessment, the city lien docket or notice required to be mailed, published or posted; (B) Give in any report, in the proposed assess- ment, in the assessment ordinance, in the lien docket or elsewhere in the proceedings, the name of the owner of any lot, tract or parcel of land or the name of any person hav- ing a lien upon or interest therein, or by a mistake in the name of any such person having a lien upon or interest in such property, or by reason of any error, mistake, delay, omission, irregularity or other act, jurisdictional or oth- erwise, in any of the proceedings or steps specified in this paragraph; (C) The council shall have the power and author- ity to remedy and to correct all matters by suitable action and proceedings. (2) Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to notice shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the proceedings. (Ord. 85-40 §9, 1985) 13.04.080 Administration. (a) Entry In City Lien Docket. (1) The finance director shall enter in the city lien docket: (A) A statement of the amounts assessed on each particular lot, parcel of land or portion thereof; (B) A description of the improvement; 1 (C) The name of the owner(s); and r (D) The date of the assessment ordinance. (2) Upon entry into the lien docket, the amount entered shall become a lien on the respective lots, parcels of land or portions thereof which have been assessed for the improvement. (3) All assessment liens of the city shall be super- ior and prior to all other liens and encumbrances on the property. 169-5 (Tigard 2/86) • 13.04.080 (b) Filing of Resolution and Ordinance. (1) The finance director shall file a copy of the ordinance to form the district establishing the local improve- ment district and the ordinance spreading the assessment with the director of records and elections of Washington County. (2) Failure to file the resolution or ordinance shall not invalidate or affect any proceedings in connection with the local improvement district and shall not impose any liability on the city or any official, officer or employee of the city. (c) Segregation of Liens. (1) A lien against the real property in favor of the city may be segregated on application by the owner(s) subject to satisfying the provisions of this section and the rules adopted by the council. (2) Applications shall be made to the finance di- rector and shall include: (A) A legal description of each tract to be seg- regated; (B) The names of the owner of the tracts and the name of each person who will own each parcel should the segregation be approved; and (C) A certificate from the county assessor show- ing the assessed valuation of each tract as of January 1st of the year in which the segregation is requested, if avail- able; otherwise, as of January 1st of the preceding year. (3) No segregation shall be made unless each part of the original tract of land after the segregation has a true cash value, as determined from the certificate of the assessor, of one hundred twenty percent or more of the amount of the lien as to each segregated tract concerned. (4) The finance director shall compute a segrega- tion of the lien against the real property on the same basis as it was originally computed and apportioned and shall re- cord the segregation in the lien docket. (5) A segregation for the purpose of a lease shall remain the primary obligation of the property owner. (d) Application of Chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all future local improvement dis- tricts and to the extent further actions or proceedings may be required, to all existing districts. (e) Authority to Adopt Rules. The council may adopt rules it deems necessary to carry out the formation of local improvement districts and the making of local improvements. (Ord. 85-40 §10, 1985). 169-6 (Tigard 2/86) 1111i'lla, "'1111111, Jim- 04121 06:44 1998 FROM: 5032211171 T0: 2432944 PAGE: 1 APR-21 98 05:40 FROM:HARPER RIGHELLIS INC 5032211171 T0:2432944 PAGE:01f01 v r `L.J CL I l--Y~~.~ CGS ,~J~ arpe.r "Wig.hellis, Inc. N ORC-01 CLIENT COPY For Your fnferr:tnoon All 21, i996 To: Douglas V. Van Dyk, Tarlow Jrodan & Schrader [Fax: 598-7373] Hobert S. Ball, Ball Janik LLF [Fax: 295-1058] Jeffrey H. Keeney, Tonkin Torp LLP [Fax: 972-3725] N c: Charles E. Corrigan, O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach [Fax: 243-29441 From: Tony Righellis, Harper Houf Righellis, Inc. 'K •l LL Re: Dartmouth Street Local Improvement bistrict - Request For Wetlands Information In order to provide a more accurate assessment roll for the Net Developable Area Method, I need to include the best possible wetlands information. I have the information that all of you have provided s on paper, but I would appreciate if each of you would direct to me that same information on computer file that is readable by Autoll Release 14 in PC format. W Please feel free to give me information not only for your client's property, but any and all property n within the LID where you believe you have the best information. In the case of developed parcels I am looking for the pre-development condition wetland boundaries. The files can be delivered to me on 3.5" disks or by e-mail at tony@hrcivii.com. a If I could receive the information by May 1, 1998 that would be appreciated. CID o APR 2 4 1998 in O U N v1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Ulm TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: Additional Material - Dartmouth LID Hearing for May 12, 1998, Agenda Item No. 7 Enclosed is the following information received this afternoon for the Dartmouth matter scheduled for tomorrow night's Council agenda: • Letter dated May 11, 1998 from Robert S. Bali to the Mayor and Council • Letter dated May 11, 1998 from Gordon E. Davis -io the Mayor and Council • Facsimile transmission from Charley F. Corrigan to Wayne Lowry and William A. Monahan Concerning the LID Assessment Roll Comparison. I:ADM\CATHYI000NCILIDARTMEM 1.DOC 0DONNELL RHMIS ET HL- 503-243-2944 May 11.98 15:20 No.005 P.01/03 O'DOINNlELL RAMIS CREW CORRIs;'AN & BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hays Strad Portland, Orogon 97209 TELF.P'NONS; (503) 2734402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 TLUIS 11my TO METW%" oFF1C& E&CSIMILF, TRUWSMISSIONCOMER 51JE Z TI 115 COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNh r FRIV7LZOND AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN7 iCtNDFD ONLY FOR Tills U5E OF THE tNDMDUAI.OR I N ITY NAMFb BELOW. IF THE. REAMR OF THIS MUSAGE IS NOT TIM INTENDEU itr-zPIdNT, OR THI4 EMPLOYEE OR AOrNT RESPONS101.8 TO DELIVER IT TO TIIS INf MIAD RECIPIENT, YOU ARE IIEMBY NOTIpILD nIAT ANY D%srMENATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION is STRICTLY PROIDOnw. IF YOU IIAVB RL'CuiVF.D THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMUDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TZIXPHONII AND RMUN 77M OJUOINAI. M88SA= TO US AT TIM ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE: US- POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU- DATE: May 11, 1998 CLIENT NO.: 90032-01 TO: Wayne Lowry City of Tigard FAX 684-7297 Phone 639-4171 TO: William A. Monahan City of Tigard FAX 684-7297 Phone 639-4171 FROM: Charles E. Corrigan FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Letter and enclosure re City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID COMMENTS: PAGE(S) TO FOLI.OW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALI, OF THE PAGES, PLEASE. CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Fran Chandler AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED AN ORIGINAL ISAVAILABLEUPONREQUEST: _ 000NNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 May 11,98 15:'--)0 No.005 P.02/03 O'DONNELL RAIdiIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP JEFF H. IIACHRACII ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1 7 3 9 N.W. Hoyt Suess 1 al N. Grant, Suite 202 D. DAN1L'L CHANDLER ¢ t Ponisrd. allson 9730 Canby, Orsgon 99013 DOMINIC O. COLLUTTA• 0 TELEPHONE: (S03) 266.1149 CHARI.FS 9.CORRIGAN* TB1.t►110N1i3 (30222-403 STEPI IFN F. CREW PAX', M) 243.2%4 e MARTIN C. DOLAN VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONV Firs Jndesandent Place WILIJAM IL GAAR ► ASI 91PLY TO fQWnAMD OFFICU 1220 Main Street, Suite 151 Q. FRANK IiAMMOND• Vancouver, Washington 98660.2961 MAI CO1.M JOI INSON• TELEPHONE; (360) 699.1289 MARIAN C)IY ADPtAS ER=J. May 11,1998 J1,v1:(36a) .9221 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS W)t.LIAM J. STAI.NAKF.R JAMBS M. COLEMAN ANDREW H. STAMP rpcclALCWUN"I. BARTON J. WACHSTETER ALSO ADMrrMT) TO PRACTICII IN WASHIMaWN • • AI W ADMITTED TO PRACTIC9 IN CAUFORN1A ALSO ADMIT 1111 TO PRACTICH IN WA61IINGTON AND MONTANA ]]Y FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL Wayne Lowry Finance Director City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard/Dartmouth LID Assessment Roll Comparison Dear Wayne: Enclosed find the latest version of Tony Righellis' assesment comparison sheet, revised to add a column reflecting the latest numbers ho came up with as a result of the wetlands information received from the property owners. Thought you might be interested. Sincerely ours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc Encl. cc w/encl. by flax: William A. Monahan ODONNELL RHMIS ET HL 503-X43- 944 r4ay 11,90^ 15:21 No .005 P.03i03 05/11 (17:12 1Onn FROM: 6032211171 TO: 2432944 PAGE: 1 J mAY-11.VO 07:05 FROM:HnRPIR RIGHELLTS 1140 5032211171 TD:243?944 PAGE101 3 t e r (303) 221-1 171 FAX - 1 $ e 1 1 1 F, I n c. (503) 221-1131 PH. y og p$ p m~ s 9.' o yaA~ o P~j ca P p .y: o o y o '1s' ~w 0 0 0 r ~ n ~ on r 4, y = N r v a ~ o o p .v a ei w p o® p p to w v w ® w Sri 1o 1o 0 1 c o1 ~n M M m p I t I ~ ~ ~ ffi 8 g ~ S o p P `a - a± p Qpq p o P ypQ~ P P p >v a ~Ly: !g¢ N 3 b$ r 14 it a M • ~8$ 8~6k8 r~81a8~ rl8~s~s btm~ 888 pp~ mm q tl a O Q O V U M r Y N r® r O w a V N b M® O D f~ ' L4 GORDON E. DAVIS ` 1035 NW. HOYT STREET PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 5031 221-5306 FAX 5031827-3477 E-MAIL hoyt®teleport.com I f i PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 11, 1998 PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTING STRATEGIC PLANNING The Honorable Mayor Jim Nicolas Members of the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Dartmouth LID Dear Mayor Nicolal and Members of the Council: On behalf of Waremart, Inc., I would like to provide two additional comments for the Council's consideration as you make your decision on the LID formula. The Righellis formula more appropriately accounts for development as It has occurred than the R.A. Wright formula in two significant ways. Traffic Generation By using traffic generation in the calculation, the Righellis formula recognizes that regardless of exactly where I commercial buildings are constructed on a particular property, those buildings receive an access benefit from Dartmouth. With the Cub Foods Center, Waremart could well argue that using traffic generation as a factor is unfair since i only the Office Max building is within the LID area. Because the Waremart property now goes well beyond the LID boundary and since the majority of the shopping center's buildings lie outside the LID area, it would be unfair to calculate traffic impact on the parking lot and water treatment pond, both of which are in the LID area. Certainly the water treatment pond does not generate traffic nor does the parking lot itself. It is Cub Foods, Petsmart and ultimately the other major retail use that will be adjacent to Petsmart that generate traffic. The Righellis formula takes this Into account and Waremart recognizes the fairness of this approach. i The Honorable Mayor Jim Nicolal Cicy Council Members of the city of City or Tigard May 11, 1998 Page 2 High Value Pads Mr. Van Dyk argues that the R.A. Wright formula ?s based on the Idea that the highest value properties occur along the street frontage and that they should therefore receive the highest assessment. He argues that this Is the only fair way to assess the property and that the R.A. Wright formula is the best way to do so. He argued In the hearing that Waremart and Costco on their developed properties and Waremart on Its remaining undeveloped land would yet develop many "high value pads" along the Dartmouth frontage. The Costco representatives can better speak to their plans, but their approved development plan and their actual construction do not account for any pads along their frontage nor anywhere else on their property. On the Cub Foods Center property, Office Max is It! There will not be any more retail buildings within the LID area. Once the remaining building adjacent to Petsmart Is completed, the center is finished. With regard to Waremart's undeveloped property west of Red Rock Creek, the property is not big or deep enough to develop "high value" buildings along the street front and "lower value" buildings behind as Mr. Van Dyk would suggest. All buildings constructed on the site will have the same approximate relationship to Dartmouth. The middle or back 150 feet of those buildings will be no less valuable than the front 150 feet. The value of each building Is not dependent on Its frontage but simply on the fact that It exists on Dartmouth. The Righellis formula correctly accounts for this without creating artificial and arbitrary 150-foot "zones of value." However, Waremart could argue that the Righellis formula actually overstates the value of commercial _ development within the LID area since In the case of the Cub Foods Center, neither the water treatment pond nor the existing parking lot are or will be developed for commercial purposes. However, by treating all commercial land within the LID equally, the Righellis formula recognizes that how the property is actually constructed, does not and will not equate to a differential value. I hope that this additional clarification is helpful to the Council. incerely, Gordon E. Davis BALL JANIK LLP A T T U R N E Y S ONE MAIN PLACE 101 Sotm iwesT MAIN STREET. SurrE 1100 PORTLAND, OREcoN 97204-3219 ROBERT S. BALL TELEPHONE 503-228-2525 rball@bjllp.com FACSIMILE 503.295.1058 May 11, 1998 FMrT-;3 ~ MAY 1.1 1998 BY MESSENGER The Honorable Mayor Jim Nicolai Members of the Tigard City Council Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Dartmouth Street LID Gentlemen: On behalf of Waremart, Inc., we have a few additional comments based upon the April 14, 1998 hearing on this matter. 1. Effect of LID Boundary. The Council should recognize that the Martins' fundamental complaint is about the LID boundary rather than the assessment formula. They are critical of the fact that parts of the Waremart and Costco properties, and other lands owned by unrelated parties, benefit from the Dartmouth Street improvements but are outside the LID boundary. They are arguing for the R.A. Wright formula as a device to correct what they perceive to be an inequitable boundary. The City Council has no choice but to accept the existing boundary. The Martins have already challenged the LID and lost. The issue now is much more limited: the City must determine the relative benefit to the land within the LID boundaries. The Martins have urged that the existence of Waremart and Costco improvements outside the boundaries justify adoption of the R.A. Wright zone method of assessment. It is interesting tc note that the R.A. Wright assessment method would establish a 450 foot benefit line (3 zones of 150 feet each), making it completely irrelevant that the boundary excludes some )f the Waremart and Costco improvements, which are more than 450 feet from Dartmouth Street. The Martins, more than Waremart, are preoccupied with lands outside the boundary in devising a formula to apply within the boundary. POInI ND. OREGON WAsmvwwom D.C. SALEM, OREGON 0164661.01 BALL JANIK LLP The Honorable Mayor Jim Nicolai City Council Members of the City of Tigard May 11, 1998 Page 2 2. R.A. Wright Formula is Arbitrary. All of the land within the LID boundary benefits from the Dartmouth Street improvements. This was implicit in, and legally required for, the setting of the boundary. This is also recognized in the Harper Righellis assessment proposal. The R.A. Wright methodology, on the other hand, would not assess all of the land within the boundary. It would exclude all lands beyond 450 feet from Dartmouth Street even though such lands are clearly benefited by the improvements. If all of the lands within the boundary are benefited, the City cannot adopt an assessment method that does not assess some of the benefited land. In addition, the idea that relative benefit is reflected by 150 feet strips of land in 1:2 and 1:3 ratios defies common sense and is unsupported by any evidence in the record. The number and width of these strips are arbitrary, and the idea that the prime development sites on large parcels (distant from the roadway) have less value than parking areas is simply wrong. The R.A. Wright formula does not have any current relevance in determining benefits from the Dartmouth Street improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, & ~ " I T /~Ia Robert S. Ball RSB/ew For Distribution to all Members of the Tigard City Council: Mr. Paul Hunt Mr. Brian Moore Mr. Bob Rohlf Mr. Ken Scheckla cc: Mr. Charles E. Corrigan, Esq. Mr. Tony Righellis Mr. Douglas Van Dyk, Esq. Mr. Jeffrey Keeney, Esq. Mr. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Mr. Gordon E. Davis Mr. Paul Simmons oi6466a.01 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City RecordeOIL/ DATE: May 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Dartmouth LID Public Hearing - Document Submittals Attached is information received since the last hearing session on the Dartmouth LID matter. The hearing is noted as Item No. 7 on the May 12, 1998, City Council Agenda. I:WDM\CATHY\COUNCIL\DARTMEM.C ')C Tonki nn on lorp up ATTORNEYS 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 503-221-1440 JEFFREY H. KEENEY 503-802-2025 FAX 503-972-3725 jeffk@tonkon.com May 5, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. William A. ivlonal-ian City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Dartmouth Road LID Assessment Dear Mr. Monahan: Over the last few days, Cathie Stahl of Costco Wholesale Corporation and Wayne Lowry have been reviewing the status of ownership with respect to Tax Lot 2004. They have now determined that Tax Lot 2004 is owned by the City of Tigard, :iot Costco Wholesale Corporation. "Tax Lot 2004 was deeded to the City shortly after Costco's acquisition of the larger parcel. As such, Tax Lot 2004 should be excluded from Costco's share of the LID. Do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Since ly, , fr H. eney JHK/mmd cc: Ms. Cathie Stahl (via facsimile) Mr. Jack S. Frank " Mr. Richard J. Olin it Mr. Charles Corrigan " Mr. Robert Ball " Mr. Douglas Van Dyk " 00264 1 /00042/206999 v01 ~ RECE I` - May 8, 1998 MAY ;0 cI City of Tigard • ID ® 13125 SW Hall Blvd • s Tigard OR 97224 Re: Dartmouth LID Our File No. 44708/26799 Dear Mayor Nicoli & Council Members: r~ yr ~4 r ^I ~s+"4S' ~~~GL•i ~ t,3 '~aa ~ 3 Since so much time has passed, we thought it might be helpful, on behalf of the Martins to briefly restate the key points regarding the decision presently before you. `~~Y~'v~pYIG jxs ,;lj ! c ~.y~ s ti t t 'z The zone method of assessment was adopted in 1984 and readopted in 1988. It is reflected in the adopted ordinances and the council minutes. ' . M 5 v`? ■ Most of the Waremart and Costco parcels (except the parking lots are 's outside the boundaries of the LID. Yet quite obviously the entire parcels (especially the stores themselves) benefit from the Dartmouth roadway. In light of this fact, the zone method is the fairest method of assessment. ■ When Waremart purchased its interest, it did so believing the zone methou was the adopted method of assessment. (Exhibit 16: Letter from Randy Wooley to Planmark). mrm tam "J3 It is good public policy (and the policy is codified in the reassessment statute, t~o?o "a ORS 223.415) to stay the course when making a reassessment. Thus, the assessment should be made "as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time the local improvement was made [and should be changed when] essential to secure an equitable assessment." (Id.) yeridyk~g2jslaw:coiri ■ "To go from project inception in 1984 to February 1998 based upon one philosophy of benefit and then change the method of benefit calculation is unheard of.... In all the LID projects I was involved in we used a general rule of never changing the assessment philosophy." (Kent W. Cox- experience with over 40 LID'S). . 1 „ S~ 4 i J l f 77 A Tolal Qualily Management Organlcation r ` S t P ` j 16799 052 DVD 11r.docln#1105108198-2j ;S L ,?g t i} cy err TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 2 ■ In 1984, the City's attorney was Adrianne Brockman (now with the City of Portland). In 1992, she wrote that the "frontage" method is the most common method of assessing for street improvements, that the "zone" method is also used for street improvements, but that the "area" method is most often used with drainage districts. (In fact, the zone method is a combination of the frontage method and the area method). ■ The LID properties will continue to develop near the roadway as the number of "pads" (like Office Max) increase. "Pads" will command a higher price than the properties farther from the roadway. Thus, the properties with greater frontage will receive "benefit", commensurate with assessments, under the zone method. ■ If the area method is adopted, the Martins will 'near 42.6% of the cost of the LID (approximately). The Martins gross assessment will be about $2 million. Waremart's gross assessment will be about $1 million. Martin's net assessment (assessment less payment for right-of-way) will be about $1.3 million. Waremart, on the other hand, is hardly "out of pocket" at all, since its net assessment will be less than $100,000. ■ The R.A. Wright formula takes proper account of the oddly shaped parcels of land, the benefits of visibility and access, and the fact that everyone understood that someday properties outside the boundary would eventually benefit from Dartmouth. (Remember, conversion from residential to commercial zoning was prohibited until Dartmouth was constructed). ■ At the time of formation of the LID, three owner occupied residences were within the boundaries of the LID--Vasey, Hedgepeth-Stewart, and the Martins. Under the area method, only the Martin residence, which is still the family residence, will be assessed. 26799 052 DVD ltr doc4mJU05/08/98-1J' TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 3 ■ "It is wrong to take the gross area of a wetland and subtract it from the area of a parcel and then define the balance as property that can develop.... All wetlands, in their form and configuration, do not impact development potential equally." (Jerry M. Palmer, Alpha Engineering) And beyond that, Costco refused an offer to purchase its wetland for $1 million. Thank you for your continued consideration of these important issues. Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER Douglas Van Dyk cc Gordon R. Martin Robert Ball, Esq. Charles R. Corrigan, Esq. Jeff Keeney, Esq. 26799 052 DVD hr.doc1mJ1105108/98-2j i May 8, 1998 City of Tigard r 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97224 e, ~ e Re: Dartmouth LID Our File No. 44708/26799 Dear Mayor Nicoli & Council Members: Since so much time has passed, we thought it might be helpful, on behalf of the Martins, to briefly restate the key points regarding the decision presently before you. DOUGLAS V. VAN DYK The zone method of assessment was adopted in 1984 and readopted in 1988. It is reflected in the adopted ordinances and the council minutes. Most of the Waremart and Costco parcels (except the parking lots) are outside the boundaries of the LID. Yet quite obviously the entire parcels (especially the stores themselves) benefit from the Dartmouth roadway. In light of this fact, the zone method is the fairest method of assessment. When Waremart purchased its interest. it did so believing the zone method was the adopted method of assessment. (Exhibit 16: Letter from Randy Wooley to Planmark). PO nox 210669 PORTIAND, OREGON 47281 SW 598 7373 , r ~ o It is good public policy (and the policy is codified in the reassessment statute, SOJMM ORS 223.415) to stay the course when making a reassessment. Thus, the assessment should be made "as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time Lhe local improvement was made. ...[and should be email: changed when] essential to secure an equitable assessment." (Id.) vandyk@tjslaw.com ■ "To go from project inception in 1984 to February 1998 based upon one philosophy of benefit and then change the method of benefit calculation is unheard of.... In all the LID projects I was involved in We used a general rule of never changing the assessment philosophy." (Kent W. Cox- experience with over 40 LID's). .I lirlu!(hruhn I1,71hl~t'117irrt(h;•,uri=utrrrrr _r,-7v u;_ 1 U'1) 11r,h,c rnrl n; ON I)N._y TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of "figard May 8, 1998 Page 2 In 1984, the City's attorney was Adrianne Brockman (now with the City of Portland). In 1992, she wrote that the "frontage" method is the most common method of assessing for street improvements, that the "zone" mcthod is also used for street improvements, but that the "area" method is most often used with drainage districts. (Iii fact, the zone method is a combination of the frontage method and the area method). The LID properties will continue to develop near the roadway as the number of "pads" (like Office Max) increase. "Pads" will command a higher price than the properties farther from the roadway. Thus, the properties with greater frontage will receive "benefit", commensurate with assessments, under the zone method. If the area method is adopted, the Martins will bear 42.6% of the cost of the LID (approximately). The Martins gross assessment will be about $2 million. Waremart's gross assessment will be about $1 million. Martin's net assessment (assessment less payment for right-of-way) will be about $1.3 million. Waremart. on the other hand, is hardly "out of pocket" at all. since its net assessment will be less than $100,000. ■ The R.A. Wright formula takes proper account of the oddly shaped parcels of land, the benefits of visibility and access, and the fact that everyone understood that someday properties outside the boundary would eventually benefit from Dartmouth. (Remember, conversion from residential to commercial zoning was prohibited until Dartmouth was constructed). At the time of formation of the LID, three owner occupied residences were within the boundaries of the LID--Vasey, Hedgepeth-Stewart, and the Martins. Under the area method, only the Martin residence, which is still the family residence, will be assessed. gram= TARLOW,.JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 3 "It is wrong to take the gross area of a wetland and subtract it from the area of a parcel and then define the balance as property that can develop.... Ail wetlands, in their form and configuration, do not impact development potential equally." (Jerry M. Palmer, Alpha Engineering) And beyond that, Costco refused an offer to purchase its wetland for $1 million. Thank you for your continued consideration of these important issues. ' Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER Douglas V. Van Dyk cc Gordon R. Martin Robert Ball, Esq. Charles R. Corrigan. Esq. Jeff Keeney. Esq. _ 6 "77 j _ 111 D Itr JUC nql 0 OR 9R..! ' May 8, 1998 City of Tigard ® ® 1312 SW Hall Blvd o Tigard OR 97224 o. ~ o Re: Dartmouth LID Our File No. 44708/26799 Dear Mayor Nicoli & Council Members: Since so much time has passed, we thought it might be helpful, on behalf of the Martins, to briefly restate the key points regarding the decision presently before you. DOUGLAS V. VAN DYK The zone method of assessment was adopted in 1984 and readopted in 1988. It is reflected in the adopted ordinances and the council minutes. ■ Most of the Waremart and Costco parcels (except the parking lots) are outside the boundaries of the LID. Yet quite obviously the entire parcels (especially the stores themselves) benefit from the Dartmouth roadway. In light of this fact, the zone method is the fairest method of assessment. When Waremart purchased its interest, it did so believing the zone method was the adopted method of assessment. (Exhibit 16: Letter from Randy Wooley to Planmark). VO Sox 210669 PORTLAND, OREGON 97291 503 MM ro=` ~ a It is good public policy (and the policy is codified in the reassessment statute, 5037070 ORS 223.415) to stay the course when making a reassessment. Thus, the assessment should be made "as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time the local improvement was made (and should be cmail: changed when] essential to secure an equitable assessment." (Id.) vandyk®tjslaw.com ® "To go from project inception in 1984 to February 1998 based upon one philosophy of benefit and then change the method of benefit calculation . is unheard of. . . . In all the LID projects I was involved in we used a general rule of never changim, the assessment philosophy." (Kent W. Cox- experience with over 40 LID'S). :I 1rNUllhrdlin ilunr~•nrrruUr¢,r1r1_urinn :n'7o nj: /)I 1' lrr,6a' m11 05 IN r~. Y o , TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADIER. City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 2 m In 1984, the City's attorney was Adrianne Brockman (now with the City of Portland). In 1992, she wrote that the "frontage" method is the most common method of assessing for street improvements, that the "zone" method is also used for street improvements, but that the "area" method is most often used with drainage districts. (In fact, the zone method is a combination of the frontage method and the area method). The LID properties will continue to develop near the roadway as the number of "pads" (like Office Max) increase. "Pads" will command a higher price than the properties farther from the roadway. Thus, the properties with greater frontage will receive "benefit", commensurate with assessments, under the zone method. ■ If the area method is adopted, the Martins will bear 42.6% of the cost of the LID (approximately). The Martins gross assessment will be about $2 million. Waremart's gross assessment will be about $1 million. Martin's net assessment (assessment less payment for right-of-way) will be about $1.3 million. Waremart, on the other hand, is hardly "out of pocket" at all, since its net assessment will be less than $100,000. The R.A. Wright formula takes proper account of the oddly shaped parcels of land, the benefits of visibility and access, and the fact that everyone understood that someday properties outside the boundary would eventually benefit from Dartmouth. (Remember, conversion from residential to commercial zoning was prohibited until Dartmouth was constructed). At the time of formation of the LID, three owner occupied residences were within the boundaries of the LID--Vasey, Hedgepeth-Stewart, and the Martins. Under the area method, only the Martin residence, which is still the family residence, will be assessed. r t :15-79 I U 2 DID fir doc roll 05 OR 9N-:/' WARM TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 3 ■ "It is wrong to take the gross area of a wetland and subtract it from the area of a parcel and then define the balance as property that can develop.... All wetlands, in their form and configuration, do not impact development potential equally." (Jerry M. Palmer, Alpha Engineering) And beyond that, Costco refused an offer to purchase its wetland for $1 million. Thank you for your continued consideration of these important issues. Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER Douglas V. Van Dyk cc Gordon R. Martin Robert Ball, Esq. Charles R. Corrigan. Esq. Jeff Keeney, Esq. '6-99 11j_ N D ll♦ doc mll 0: II,Y U8- INN May 8, 1998 City of Tigard • o ® 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97224 ! e ~ D Re: Dartmouth LID Our File No. 44708/26799 Dear Mayor Nicoli & Council Members: Since so much time has passed, we thought it might be helpful, on behalf of the Martins, to briefly restate the key points regarding the decision presently before DOUGLAS V. VAN DYx you. ■ The zone method of assessment was adopted in 1984 and readopted in 1988. It is reflected in the adopted ordinances and the council minutes. ■ Most of the Waremart and Costco parcels (except the parking lots) are outside the boundaries of the LID. Yet quite obviously the entire parcels (especially the stores themselves) benefit from the Dartmouth roadway. In light of this fact, the zone method is the fairest method of assessment. ■ When Waremart purchased its interest. it did so believing the zone method was the adopted method of assessment. (Exhibit 16: Letter from Randy Wooley to Planrr_ark). PO BOX Zi0W PORTLAND, 0U,GONV=1 m It is good public policy (and the policy is codified in the reassessment statute, soassa7M ORS 223.=115) to stay the course when making a reassessment. Thus, the assessment should be made "as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time the local improvement was made [and should be email: changed when] essential to secure an equitable assessment." (Id.) vandykCtjslaw.com "To go from project inception in 1984 to February 1998 based upon one philosophy of benefit and then change the method of benefit calculation is unheard of. . . . In all the LID projects I was involved in we used a general rule of never chap-•in,, the assessment philosophy." (Kent W. Cox- experience with over 40 LID's). :I TuRt; (hatlirti• llundt.•rrtrnr Ur.~ur~r_dlirr: 0i' 0I'll In/11).5 as 1~~ Ell TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 2 In 1984, the City's attorney was Adrianne Brockman (now with the City of Portland). In 1992, she wrote that the "frontage" method is the most common method of assessing for street improvements, that the "zone" method is also used for street improvements, but that the "area" method is most often used with drainage districts. (In fact, the zone method is a combination of the frontage method and the area method). ■ The LID properties will continue to develop near the roadway as the number of "pads" (like Office Max) increase. "Pads" will command a higher price than the properties farther from the roadway. Thus. the properties with greater frontage will receive "benefit", commensurate with assessments, under the zone method. If the area method is adopted, the Martins will bear 42.6% of the cost of the LID (approximately). The Martins gross assessment will be about $2 million. Waremart's gross assessment will be about $1 million. Martin's net assessment (assessment less payment for right-of-way) will be about $1.3 million. Waremart, on the other hand, is hardly "out of pocket" at all, since its net assessment will be less than $100,000. The R.A. Wright formula takes proper account of the oddly shaped parcels of land, the benefits of visibility and access, and the fact that everyone understood that someday properties outside the boundary would eventually benefit from Dartmouth. (Remember, conversion from residential to commercial zoning was prohibited until Dartmouth was constructed). At the time of formation of the LID, three owner occupied residences were within the boundaries of the LID--Vasev, Hedgepeth-Stewart, and the Martins. Under the area method, only the Martin residence, which is still the family residence, will be assessed. 'fl OJ: DID Jlr J,,, "I// Ili IN 99._1' TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 3 "It is wrong to take the gross area of a wetland and subtract it from the area of a parcel and then define the balance as property that can develop.... All wetlands, in their form and configuration, do not impact development potential equally." (Jerry M. Palmer, Alpha Engineering) And beyond that, Costco refused an offer to purchase its wetland for $1 million. Thank you for your continued consideration of these important issues. Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN SCHRADER Douglas V. Van Dyk cc Gordon R. Martin Robert Ball, Esq. Charles R. Corrigan, Esq. Jeff Keeney, Esq. ./i'TJ ~iJ: !~(!)lir ./uc• Hill ~)j q.Y 'J.Y-_'/ May 8, 1998 I p ~..l t~' v1 d dbard • ® ® 13125 SW Hall Blvd a Tigard OR 97224 Re: Dartmouth LID Our File No. 4+708/26799 Dear Mayor Nicoli & Council Members: Since so much time has passed, we thought it might be helpful, on behalf of the Martins, to briefly restate the key points regarding the decision presently before you. DOUGLAS V. VAN DYK ■ The zone method of assessment was adopted in 1984 and readopted in 1988. It is reflected in the adopted ordinances and the council minutes. ■ Most of the Waremart and Costco parcels (except the parking lots) are outside the boundaries of the LID. Yet quite obviously the entire parcels (especially the stores themselves) benefit from the Dartmouth roadway. In light of this fact, the zone method is the fairest method of assessment. ■ When Waremart purchased its interest, it did so believing the zone method was the adopted method of assessment. (Exhibit 16: Letter from Randy Wooley to Planmark). PO BOX 23OW POR77ANA OUGON 9=1 mf~ ■ It is good public policy (and the policy is codified in the reassessment statute, 503487070 ORS 223.41 j) to stay the course when making a reassessment. Thus, the assessment should be made "as nearly as may be in accordance with the law in force at the time the local improvement was made (and should be email: changed when] essential to secure an equitable assessment." (Id.) vandyk@tjslaw.com ■ "To go from project inception in 1984 to February 1998 based upon one philosophy of benefit and then change the method of benefit calculation is unheard of.... In all the LID projects I was involved in we used a general rule of never changing the assessment philosophy." (Kent W. Cox- experience with over 40 LID'S). A rotallhntltm.l/am{twnrntlh,Q(tm_.uWn .r,-9 1) n5: 0 I7I hr Inc mil 05 08 1t.1•._t TARLOW JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 2 In 1984, the City's attorney was Adrianne Brockman (now with the City of Portland). In 1992, she wrote that the "frontage" method is the most common method of assessing for street improvements, that the "zone" method is also used for street improvements, but that the "area" method is most often used with drainage districts. (In fact, the zone method is a combination of the frontage method and the area method). The LID properties will continue to develop near the roadway as the number of "pads" (like Office Max) increase. "Pads" will command a higher price than the properties farther from the roadway. Tht•s, the properties with greater frontage will receive "benefit", commensurate with assessments, under the zone method. ■ If the area method is adopted, the Martins will bear 42.6% of the cost of the LID (approximately). The Martins gross assessment will be about $2 million. Waremart's gross assessment will be about $1 million. Martin's net assessment (assessment less payment for right-of-way) will be about $1.3 million. Waremart, on the other hand, is hardly "out of pocket" at all, since its net assessment will be less than $100,000. ■ The R.A. Wright formula takes proper account of the oddly shaped parcels of land, the benefits of visibility and access, and the fact that everyone understood that someday properties outside the boundary would eventually benefit from Dartmouth. (Remember, conversion from residential to commercial zoning was prohibited until Dartmouth was constructed). At the time of formation of the LID, three owner occupied residences were within the boundaries of the LID--Vasey, Hedgepeth-Stewart, and the Martins. Under the area method, only the Martin residence, which is still the family residence, will be assessed. '6-P) nj: [AV lrr doc ugl 03 0S 7.v.:r j~ 11 TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER City of Tigard May 8, 1998 Page 3 ■ "It is wrong to take the gross area of a wetland and subtract it from the area of a parcel and then define the balance as property that can develop.... All wetlands, in their form and configuration, do not impact development potential equally." (Jerry M. Palmer, Alpha Engineering) And beyond that, Costco refused an offer to purchase its wetland for $1 million. Thank you for your continued consideration of these important issues. Very truly yours, TARLOW, JORDAN & SCHRADER Douglas V. Van Dyk cc Gordon R. Martin Robert Ball, Esq. Charles R. Corrigan, Esq. Jeff Keeney, Esq. '6-9; 05 'D ID hrr hwnyl 05 OS 93--'t r O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 D. DANIEL CHANDLER Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 DOMINIC G. COLLETCA'• TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• TELEPHONE: (503) 2224402 STEPHEN F. CREW FAX: (503) 243-2944 MARTIN C DOLAN VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE' First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 451 G. FRANK HAMMOND* Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON' TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX: (360) 699-7221 T. CHAD PLASTER c May 6, 1998 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS WILLIAM J. STALNAKER JAMES M. COLEMAN ANDREW H. STAMP SPECIAL COUNSEL BARTON J. WACHSTETER • ALSO ADMrrrED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON % ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON AND MONTANA Mr. James Nicoli Mayor City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RI';: Dartmouth Local Improvement District/Assessment Formula Hearing Dear Mayor Nicoli: Enclosed find the following documents which are being submitted for the record in the Dartmouth Local Improvement District Assessment Hearing: 1. Letter of September 23, 1987, from Charles Corrigan to Douglas Van Dyk transmitting City Engineer's memo regarding Dartmouth LID traffic issues. 2. Letter of December 5, 1994, from Charles Corrigan to Dartmouth LID property owners (hereinafter "Property Owners") regarding meeting to discuss LID issues. 3. Letter of January 25, 1994 (should be 1995), from Charles Corrigan to Property Owners transmitting information regarding meeting scheduled for January 26, 1994. 4. Letter of January 30, 1995, from Douglass Hamilton to Property Owners and The City regarding mediation. 5. Letter of February 28, 1995, from Douglass Hamilton to Property Owners and The City regarding mediation. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP Mr. James Nicoli May 6, 1998 Page 2 6. Letter of March 23, 1995, from Charles Corrigan to Gordon S. Martin regarding qualification for Bancroft Bonding. 7. Letter of April 18, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Property Owners regarding acceptance of the "Pollock Jury Award," with Property Owners' responses attached. 8. Letter of May 16, 1995, to Ed Christensen from William Monahan regarding "global" settlement of Tigard Triangle issues. 9. Memo from Randy Wooley to Chuck Corrigan dated May 24, 1995, regarding meeting with Ed Christensen on LID assessment issues. 10. Draft letter dated July 10, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Randy Wooley. 11. Letter dated July 12, 1995, to Ed Christensen from Charles Corrigan regarding draft letter to Mr. Christensen. 12. Letter of July 14, 1995, from Ed Christensen to Randy Wooley. 13. Letter of August 14, 1995, from Charles Corrigan to Ed Christensen transmitting draft agreement. 14. Letter dated August 24, 1995, from Charles Corrigan to Ed Christensen re Tigard Triangle Agreement. 15. Fax memo from Ed Christensen to Chuck Corrigan dated September 28, 1995, regarding Tigard Triangle Agreement. 16. Memo from Gordon S. Martin to Charles Corrigan regarding LID assessments and transmitting a signed copy of the Tigard Triangle Agreement. 17. Letter dated May 1, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to the Property Owners regarding LID issues. 18. Letter dated May 10, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Property Owners regarding mediation. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN b BACHRACH, LLP Mr. James Nicoli May 6, 1998 Page 3 19. Letter dated May 13, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Property Owners regarding "secret ballot" process and mediation. 20. Letter dated June 10, 1996, from Gordon S. Martin and Gordon R. Martin to Mayor Nicoli regarding assessment issues and transmitting an additional seven-page memo on the same topic. 21. Letter dated June 12, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to Property Owners regarding mediation. 22. Letter dated June 20, 1996, to Charles Corrigan from Robert Ball regarding mediation and assessment methodology. 23. Letter dated June 26, 1996, from James Larpenteur, Jr., to Charles Corrigan regarding mediation and assessment methodology. 24. Letter dated June 28, 1996, from Charles Corrigan to the Property Owners regarding mediation. 25. Letter dated June 28, 1996, from Jeffrey Keeney to Charles Corrigan regarding mediation. 26. Letter dated July 18, 1996, to Chuck Corrigan from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin regarding mediation. 27. Letter dated July 23, 1996, to Charles Corrigan from Robert Ball regarding mediation. 28. Letter dated July 24, 1996, to Chuck Corrigan from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin regarding mediation. 29. Letter dated August 2, 1996, to Chuck Corrigan from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin regarding mediation and assessment methodology. 30. Letter dated August 13, 1996, to Gordon S. Martin, Jr. from Charles Corrigan responding to the Martins' letter of August 2, 1996. 31. Letter dated August 16, 1996, to Chuck Corrigan from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin regarding various 1 10 issues. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP Mr. James Nicoli May 6, 1998 Page 4 32. Letter dated August 19, 1996, from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Margin to Chuck Corrigan regarding the assessment formula. 33. Letter dated August 19, 1996, to Chuck Corrigan from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin regarding the assessment formula. 34. Letter dated October 22, 1996, from William A. Monahan to Tony Righellis regarding preparation of assessment formula. Si e 7 ly, Charles . orrigan CEC/mcm cc w/enclosures Ms. Kathy Wheatley, City of Tigard (Hand Delivered) cc w/out enclosures Robert Ball (via facsimile and surface mail) Jeff Keeney (via facsimile and surface mail) Doug Van Dyk (via facsimile and surface mail) Joe Willis (via facsimile and surface mail) III! sm • O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT Sc CREW MARK P. O'OONNELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW. CANDY OFFICE TIMOTHY V RAMIS SALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1$1 N GRANT. SUITE 202 KENNETH M. ELLIOTT CANBY. OREGON 97013 STEPHEN- F CREW 1727 N.W. HOYT STREET IS031 266.1149 CHARLES E CORRIGAN' PORTLAND. OREGON 97209 KENNETH H FOX 15031222-4402 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT JEFF BACHRACH MARGARETC HAND STEPHANY WATSON PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE SHARON L. WILLIAMS MICHAEL REDDEN OF COUNSEL • ALSO ADMITTEO TO PRACTICE y` IN STATE OF WASHINGTON 3 September 23, 1987 Mr. Douglas V. Van Dyk Attorney at Law Pacific First Federal Building 851 S.W. 6th Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97204 Dear Doug: As requested, enclosed please find a copy of the Tigard City Engineer's memo to the City Council regarding Dartmouth LID traffic issues. Very truly yours, O'DONNELL, RAMIS, ELLIOTT & CREW Charles E. Corrigan CEC:dd Enclosure i Y n J ti J J MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and Council September 18, 1987 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer h1.~{j'~ SUBJECT: Dartmouth Street LID On August 10, 1987, the City Council held a public hearing on the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District. At that hearing, attorneys representing the Martin family provided oral testimony and two volumes of written_ testimony. This memo is in response to engineering issues raised in the Martins' testimony. History In 1983, the City adopted a comprehensive plan which included a transportation map. The transportation map calls for a street connection between the Haines interchange of Interstate 5 and Pacific Highway (99W) near 78th Avenue. In 1984, the Dartmouth LID was created for the purpose of constructing the street connection in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. . In 1985, a traffic engineering study was commissioned by the Martins. That study raised questions about the adequacy of the City's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. As a result, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested that the City provide additional traffic engineering analysis to show that the comprehensive plan transportation map provided adequate internal circulation within the Tigard Triangle and that the resulting traffic would not overload the adjoining State highways. In late 1985, the City retained Associated Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc. (ATEP) to prepare the traffic engineering report as requested by ODOT. The ATEP study was closely coordinated with ODOT. •ODOT and the Metropolitan Service District provided regional transportation and traffic analysis which were adopted into the ATEP report. In addition, the. Martins and their traffic engineer provided a great deal of input regarding various assumptions used in preparing the ATEP report; this data was considered by ATEP and ODOT. The ATEP report concludes that the existing comprehensive plan does provide a street system adequate to accommodate the traffic volumes which we can expect from development of the Triangle in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The report does, however, recommend that an additional roadway access to the Triangle be created. The report- recommends that determination of the appropriate route for this additional access be coordinated with studies being conducted by ODOT regarding interchange improvements on Highway 217. Page 1 We have been coordinating with ODOT to implement the study of additional access to the Triangle. Our discussions with ODOT have indicated that ODOT does riot oppose the proposed Dartmouth LID project. ATEP Report The primary purpose of the ATEP report was to identify roadway improvements which will be required within the Tigard Triangle as development occurs. The report defines the ultimate roadway widths and intersection improvements which will be required. In addition, the report identifies possible staging of improvements, assuming that development will occur over a number of years. In targeting dates for the interim improvements, the ATEP report assumes that development within the Triangle will occur at the rates projected by the Metropolitan Service District. Having identified the ultimate improvement needs, we are able to plan for the ultimate development and to provide the necessary improvements and right-of-way as development occurs. This does not mean that all roadways need to be immediately developed to the ultimate widths. As development occurs, we_ would expect to obtain and preserve the necessary rights-of-way so that additional pavement widths and intersection improvements may occur when warranted by increased traffic volumes. The additional improvements will be provided in part by developers and in part by the City, systems development charges paid as development occurs. This approach to staged development is used throughout the City. If development occurs rapidly in the Triangle, then the funding for the improvements would also be provided early and the improvements would be made within the next few years. On the other hand, should development occur at a slower rate, then improvements would be deferred until actually required by resulting development. In this way, improvements are matched to actual need and the City is not burdened with the maintenance of unneeded roadway improvements. The Martins and their consultants have questioned many of the assumptions and the details of the technical analysis of the ATEP report. Many of the questions relate to the rate of development. There is no way to know for certain the rate at which development will occur nor the densities of development which will actually occur. Development is subject to many factors beyond our control, primarily economic factors. In my opinion, the timing of development is not critical as long as we have a system in place to provide the additional traffic capacity as development occurs. It appears to me that the comprehensive plan, along with our site development review process, does provide for the required facilities. The ATEP report provides the data necessary to anticipate the facilities needed at various points of development and to reserve the necessary rights-of-way for future roadway improvements. Therefore, I am not concerned that there are differences among the various traffic engineering professionals regarding their assumptions as to the timing of development within the Tigard Triangle. The Mar,t:.ns and their consultants have also raised questions regarding the rates of traffic generation and density of future development assumed by the ATEP report. Most of these questions have been raised earlier and were discussed in detail with ATEP and ODOT during the preparation of the ATEP report. During preparation of the ATEP report, I reviewed the material Page 2 w submitted by the Martins and their consultants. From my review, I concluded that, were we to re-iise the ATEP report to incorporate all of the assumptions suggested by the Martins, that the conclusions as to the facilities ultimately needed in the Triancle would not change significantly; i.e., that the numbers of traffic lanes required on the various roadways and the locations of signalized intersections would not change. In the materials submitted, there is considerable discussion of buildout conditions. ATEP assumed that buildout of the Triangle, (i.e., full development) will not mean that all properties within the Triangle are redeveloped to their maximum allowed density. This is a reasonable assumption. Some of the properties within the Triangle area are already developed and redevelopment of these properties is unlikely for many years. Also, many developers choose to develop their land at less than the maximum density; some developers find that additional parking areas or additional landscaping suits their needs better than development of the land to its maximum density. Therefore, I conclude that the existing comprehensive plan is an adequate traffic plan for the Tigard Triangle when combined with the implementation recommendations of the ATEP report. Comprehensive Plan Change The Martins have suggested an alternative roadway alignment different from the patterns shown in the comprehensive plan. To implement the plan-suggested by the Martins would require a change in the City's comprehensive plan. To date, the Martins have not formally requested a comprehensive plan change nor have we heard any request for a comprehensive plan change from any other parties. The Martins are suggesting that a route is needed in the Triangle to carry through traffic between Interstate 5 and Highway 217. Existing regional transportation planning does not envision such a route, Instead, the regional plans endeavor to keep through traffic on the major regional highways so that City streets can be used to serve the traffic of the local area. I can find no reason why Tigard's comprehensive plan should be revised to provide a route for regional traffic through the Tigard Triangle. After ODOT studies are completed on t;ie possible revisions to Highway 217 interchange access, the City may wish to initiate comprehensive plan map changes to reflect the recommendations coming from the ODOT studies. In my opinion, construction of the proposed Dartmouth Street project does not in any way prevent the City from later revising its comprehensive plan, if necessary, to accommodate a revised or additional access point to Highway 217. The proposed Dartmouth Street LID is consistent with Tigard's comprehensive plan and I cr.n find no justification for delaying the construction of this roadway as proposed, Points of Agreement As documented in the written material submitted by the Martins (Exhibits 30, 31, and 32) there are some important points of general agreement among the engineering parties involved. We all agree that the Haines interchange on Interstate 5 is a logical connection to the Triangle. Arid we all agree that Page 3 it is appropriate that a new access be constructed at Highway 99W opposite 78th Avenue. Thus, we agree that the access points which would be provided by the Dartmouth project are logical and appropriate access points for the long term development of the Triangle. We also agree that the City and ODOT should jointly participate in the planning for south access to the Triangle in conjunction with current studies by ODOT of Highway 217 interchanges, As previously stated. I do not feel that construction of Dartmouth Street needs to await the completion of these studies. The alignment of Dartmouth Street as proposed can accommodate potential revisions to the south Triangle access without major revisions to Dartmouth Street. South Access Study ODOT is currently beginning a study of future interchange revisions along Highway 217 from Highway 99W to Interstate 5. As part of this study work, ODOT will be looking at potential revisions to the 72nd Avenue interchange and at potential revisions to the Highway 217 access to the Tigard Triangle. The review of revised interchange plans will necessitate review also of the impacts on existing City streets such as Hunziker Street, 72nd Avenue, and Hampton Street. The City will be involved in these•ODOT studies both formally and informally. On an informal basis, the City has a good working relationship with ODOT in traffic planning for our area. On a formal basis, the City will be involved in the ODOT studies through a technical advisory z~,mmittee to be established by ODOT and through the public hearing process which ODOT will conduct before adopting the plan for the Highway 217 interchange improvements. We have discussed with OODT the need to cuordinate their study with City review of a possible additional access point to the Tigard Triangle from the south. ODOT has indicated a strong willingness to work with the City on these studies. The City has budgeted funds for additional traffic engineering analysis of south Triangle access if needed. Depending on the alternatives developed during the ODOT study, the questions of south access to the Triangle may be resolved by the ODOT study. If not, the City could request that ODOT or its consultants provide the additional work necessary to complete planning for south access to the Tigard Triangle. Or, if appropriate, the City could commission a separate study to supplement the ODOT work. The best way for the City to participate will be determined during the course of the MOT study. City staff has been and will continue to be in frequent communication with the ODOT staff to assure that planning needs for the Tigard Triangle are closely coordinated with the ODOT planning. Interim Improvements Versus Ultimate Development The Dartmouth LID proposes to build a three-lane roadway along with drainage and utility improvements to allow development of the adjoining properties. The ATEP study suggests that, at ultimate development, a wider roadway will be required with additional intersection improvemen4_. As previously discussed, the additional right-of-way and funding for additional improvements will be provided as development occurs along Dartmouth Street. The timing of the additional improvements will be coordinated with the timing of property development. This staging of development is not unusual and provides a way Page 4 for utilizing our existing funding sources to best provide for roadway needs as they occur. ODOT Permit The City will need to obtain approval from ODOT for construction of the Dartmouth Street access to Highway 99W. Our discussions with OODT indicate that the ATEP study has provided sufficient data to allow an access permit to be issued. In conjunction with the per•rit, ODOT may require an agreement with the City to assure completion of planning for additional access to the Triangle and that future additional intersection improvements will be undertaken by the City as development occurs. Since this coordination is in the best interests of both ODOT and the City, I foresee no problems in developing a mutually acceptable agreement. Such an agreement is currently being drafted by the ODOT staff and should be available for Council review soon. Coordination of Roadway Design and Site Development The Martins have suggested that roadway design should not be finalized until design is completed for development of all adjoining properties. While such coordination might be nice, it does not appear to be a practical procedure. It would require that all property owners be prepared to develop at the same time and it would require that all property owners' plans be fully coordinated and that all property owners be in full agreement as to the details of development within the area. Such a procedure would be very unusual. Typically, property developer's plans ~4re very closely coordinated with econornic and market factors. As a result, developers frequently revise their plans, sometimes even after construction has begun. Developers are reluctant to begin detailed planning until they are assured that roadway access and utilities will be provided to their site. Therefore, in the typical situation, the roadway is already in place before development occurs. The Dartmouth Street improvement will be designed to adequately provide access for future development along the roadway. However, the grades of the roadway are largely determined by the need to match the grades of existing roadways, especially Highway 99W, 72nd Avenue, and the Interstate 5 interchange access. Martin Conclusions The written testimony submitted on behalf of the Martins included "Conclusions" on pages 4 - 8 of Volume I. In response, I have the following observations: 1, 2, and 3 - South Access. The studies have recommended that we plan for an additional access to the Tigard Triangle. As previously discussed, the City is prepared to work with ODOT in planning for possible additional south access to the Tigard Triangle. Location and funding for a new south access route, if appropriate, will be determined as a result of those studies. 4 - Development Density Restrictions. Considerable additional development can occur within the Triangle before an additional access route is required. ODOT has retained a consultant to proceed with the south access studies and the City has budgeted monies to participate in those studies as necessary. There Page 5 is no reason to believe at this time that Triangle developmenL will occur so rapidly as to require the additional accesq route before the studies can be completed. Therefore, the suggestion that ':he City legislate limitations on development density seems premature. 5.1. - Connection to Highway 217. The Martins are promoting a roadway for through traffic between I-5 and Highway 217. Such a roadway is not consistent with the Tigard comprehensive plan nor with the Regional Transportation Plan. As previously discussed, I feel that it is not appropriate for the City to plan for nor to encourage through traffic between Interstate 5 and 217 to utilize City streets. 5.2 - Built-In Obsolesence. As previously discussed, additional traffic lanes will be provided as development occurs. Through the site development review process, the City can acquire and preserve most of the needed right-of-way as development occurs. 5.3 - Grades. As previously discussed, the roadway grades are largely determined by the need to match grades of existing roadways. However, the need to establish the roadway grade at an elevation that best affords an opportunity for access to adjoining sites is one of the engineering design elements that is being incorporated in the roadway design. This is a very common aspect of civil engineering design. 5.4 - Preserve Right-of-Way to Highway 217. The property between the proposed Dartmouth Street and Highway 217 and west of 72nd Avenue is largely controlled by the Martin family. They are in as good a position to preserve future roadway corridors as the City would be. 5.5 - Contrast With Washington Square. Simply counting the number of traffic. lanes exiting an area does not tell us the traffic capacity of those exits. The capacity of a traffic lane is dependent on the type of intersection control and signal timing. Traffic signal timing is based on a number of factors, including the numbers of lanes and the volumes of traffic on the cross streets. Since the future new access route to the Triangle has not yet been determined, we cannot determine how many traffic lanes it will provide. In addition, it is not valid to compare Washington Square directly with the Tigard Triangle. Development within Washington Square is almost entirely retail commercial, whereas the expected development of the Tigard Triangle would be a mixture of uses, including retail commercial, offices, residential, and other uses. As a result, a greater percentage of trips generated within the Triangle may remain within the Triangle. Also, as suggested by the ATEP study, there may be other ways to reduce peak hour traffic in the Triangle, such as working with employers to vary working hours, providing carpooling for large employers, and similar demand management techniques. 6 - Traffic Engineering Assumptions. As previously discussed, based on my review, the alternative assumptions suggested by the Martins would not significantly revise the ATEP conclusions regarding the roadway facilities needed for the Triangle and at ultimate development. 7 - Legal Considerations. Legal questions will be addressed by the City AtL•orney. Page 6 aniffah5NOM ? Recommendations After having reviewed the comments and objections put forth by the Martins over the past several months, I can find no engineering justification for delaying construction of the Dartmouth Street project. Therefore, I recommend that the Council proceed with the Dartmouth Street LID pruject as originally proposed in 1984. br/0889D s Page 7 Ell v DONNELL RAMIS CR6W CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202. PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH (503) 266-2149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA** TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW GARY FIRESTONE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE G. FRANK !L' 4M CINn* MA.LCOLM E. JOHNSON MALCOLM E. JOHNSON* First Independent Place WILLIAM A. MONAHAN 1220 Main Street, Suite 510 MARK P. O'DONNELL Vancouver, Washington 99660-2964 TIMOTHY V.RAMIS December 5, 1994 (206) 699-7287 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER FAX: (206) 696-2051 TY K. WYMAN BY FAX AND MAIL JAMES M. COLEMAN • ALSO AOMfTTm TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON Sp w C__1 AOMfrT!D TO PRACTICE IN CAWORNN ONLY Mr. Paul A. Simmons Mr. John Wilson Waremart The Holland, Inc. P.O. Box 12909 109 W. 17th St. Salem, Oregon 97309 Vancouver, WA 98660 Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke & Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Booth 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 1600 Pioneer Tower 1211 SW 5th Ave. 888 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223-8604 - Re: Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Consistent with my telephone conversations with each of you, I am writing to confirm your willingness to get together to discuss the Citv of Tigard Dartmouth Local Improvement District. Although it might be wishful thinking, I would hope that it is possible for us to get together sometime during the next two weeks. Please note on the enclosed calendar pages which blocks of time you have available and fax those pages back to us tomorrow. If we cannot coordinate a meeting at this time, we will do bur best to get something scheduled in January. O'DONNELL RAMIS CRE~'q CORRIGAN & BACHRACH May 25, 1994 Page 2 Pseasa lacy free to give me a call if you have any questions in the interim. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fw cc: Randy Wooley William A. Monahan P.S. to Gordon Martin: I have also enclosed a proposed extension of the existing permit of entry for your review and signature. Thanks. EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PERMIT OF ENTRY DEADLINE TO JUNE 30, 1995, HEREBY APPROVED: DATED this day December, 1994. Gordon R. Martin \XX 4 fl 3 W 3i LL 9l 5l til EL ZL ll ~ 3i 016 8 L 9 5 t~ 17S IHJ nHl 03M301N0!V Nf1S OTONNELL RAMTS CRr.iq CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L BUSCH (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA** TELEPHONE: (503) 222.4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F CREW GARY F. FIRESTONE* PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE G. FRANK HAMMOND* MALCOLM E. JOHNSON MALCOLM E. JOHNSON* First Independent Place MARX P. OTONNELL 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 WILLIAM J.STALNAKER January 25, 1994 (206) 699-7287 TY X. WYMAN FAX:(206) 696-2051 BY FAX AND MAIL JAMES M. COLEMAN • ALSO ADIAMW TO P0.1CD(Il W WASHWGTON Spftw C-A ADMIT= TO PRACTICE W CWPORNIA ONLY Mr. Paul A. Simmons Mr. John Wilson Waremart The Holland, Inc. P.O. Box 12909 109 W. 17th St. Salem, Oregon 97309 Vancouver, WA 98660 Jeffrey H. Keeney, Esq. Donald Joe Willis, Esq. Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke & Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Booth 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 1600 Pioneer Tower 1211 SW 5th Ave. 888 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. 12265 SW 72nd Ave. Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Attached are a couple of pieces of information that might be useful at our meeting on January 26th. As mentioned in my letter of January 16th, the City has made tentative arrangements with a mediator to provide assistance in helping resolve outstanding issues, if such a process is agreeable to you. Attached is a brief biography of Doug Hamilton, an experienced mediator who has worked in a variety of complex commercial matters. Doug will be introduced at our meeting and will be available to explain how mediation might assist in this situation, and answer any questions. Also attached is a very preliminary, rough draft summarizing the Dartmouth LID costs. There have been no discussions regarding the acquisition of the remaining right of way, but just so as to come up with a working total we have plugged in values consistent with those returned by the jury in the Pollock/Carpenter condemnation case. While all of the numbers in this summary are subject to O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH January 25, 1995 Page 2 refinement (or are, no better than best guess estimates at this time), this information might be at least a starting point for certain aspects of our discussion. Sinc r ly yours Ch es E. Corrigan CEC/ fw Encl. cc w/encl.: Randy Wooley Doug Hamilton ~'~'iW~iW - - l~Yl~w.,,r_ •rYi WAlIYM t . . Han- tonM ~ 'icv )DOUGLASS M. HAMILTON ~i} p Until January 1, 1992 when For ten years Doug served he founded his dispute as an elected delegate to the lli resolution fmm, Douglass M. House of Delegates of the Hamilton was a litigation American Bar Association and partner at Miller. Nash, is a Lifc Fellow of the Wicner, Hager & Carlscn after American Bar Foundation. He _ serving as Deputy General holds appointments by the Counsel and Secretary for Oregon Supreme Court as a Portland General Corporation Circuit Judge Pro Tom and from 1987 to 1989. Doug was Reference Judge. Doug a litigation partner at Bullivant, graduated from the University Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass do of Missouri where he earned a Hoffman from 1969 to 1986. Bachelor of Arts and Juris ' Prior to entering into practice Doctor degrees. he served as law cleric for Orcgoo Suprcmc Court Justico Doug was a contributing Ralph M. Holman. editor to the 1991 Federal Bar Association, Federal Court Doug has been active in Hcrrdbook, was chairman of both the Oregon State Bar and the Business Litigation Multnomah Bar Association. Committee, Civil Practice and For the state bar he zz"ed on Court Procedures Committee of the 13oard of Governors, Board the Oregon Association of of Bar Examiners, Bar Defense Counsel. He also co- Examination Board of Review, founded Lawyers for Ad Hoc Committee on Democratic Reform for which Proposed Evidence Rubs, he led two delegations to Environmental Law Committee observe and report on the first and chairman of the New free elections in the Laws m Committee for the Yugoslavian republics of state bar. For the Multnomah Croatia sad Bosnia and Bar Association, Doug served Herzegovina, in 1990. Cs president, direcior and Judicial Selection Committee Doug lives in Portland with member wad as chairman of ;ho bis wife, Nancy, and their four Membership Committee, children. Wominating Committee and Legal Internship Committee. Jill r DARTMOUTH L.I.D. COSTS January 25, 1995 Approximate costs thru December 31, 1994: Construction $1,093,000 DRAF Right of way 404,000 For Discussion Purposes only Legal 183,000 Engineering 236,000 Financing 157,000 Administration 104,000 (includes wetlands work) Total thru 1994 $2,177,000 Potential additional costs: Jury award to Pollock $ 232,000 (paid 1-20-95) Pollock attorney fees 195,000 (amount requested) Additional right of way required: Waremart 736,000* Martin 423,000* Parcel C-1 87,000- Additional finance costs 90,000 (thru June 1995) Wetlands monitoring 25,000 (required by permit) Potential total cost $3,965,000 Plus additional legal, administration, and finance costs until the LID is closed. Notes: -Estimates of additional right-of-way costs are based on payment at the rates determined by the Pollock jury. The above costs are approximate based on the data available at this time. Costs will be refined at the time of final LID assessment based on a detailed, review of all costs since 1984. i O'DONNELL RAMIS Ck- V CORRIGAN & BACHRACH • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 2214402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE FACSTINTLE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DATE: January 25, 1995 CLIENT NO.: 90032-01 TO: Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. TO: Mr. Paul A. Simmons FAX 620-1842 FAX 503-588-5657 Phone 620-2477 Phone 503-588-3426 TO: Mr. Randy Wooley TO: Mr. Jeffrey H. Keeney FAX 684-7297 FAX 274-8779 Phone 639-4171 Phone 221-1440 TO: Mr. John Wilson TO: Mr. Donald Joe Willis FAX 206-694-9114 FAX 796-2900 Phone 206-694-1521 Phone 222-9981 TO: Mr. Douglass M. Hamilton FAX .226-2801 Phone 226-2800 FROM: Charles E. Corrigan FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Letter re Dartmouth LID meeting PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. .I YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Fran Wernreken, Legal Assistant AN ORIGINAL IS BEING MAILED: AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST: Hm11i.1t n1VMecliation &Arbitration January 30, 1995 To: All Participants ~j (See Attached Mediation Roster) v'1119, GR Re: Tigard Dartmouth LID Mediation As a follow-up to the January 26, 1995 meeting, I enclose a copy of the Mediation Roster so each of you will have a record of who was present at the meeting and who is receiving this letter. Pursuant to the authority I received from you at the meeting, I will proceed to meet with each of your groups separately. The meetings will be private and all communications will be confidential. At the conclusion of the meetings, I will make a preliminary assessment about the prospects of achieving a negotiated global resolution through continued mediated negotiations. I will report back to the group before the middle of February, assuming I can get everyone's cooperation. As I advised you, my time is charged at $200 per hour. It is apparent to me now that my time involvement in concluding the meetings and reporting back will exceed the 10 hours currently budgeted. I keep my commitment to Tigard to complete the meetings without additional cost. If the parties decide to go forward with the mediation, the time above 10 hours will be carried forward. I have met briefly with Jack Graves and John Wilson (Burgerville) and should be able to conduct a follow-up with them by phone. Gordon Davis (Waremart and Cub Foods) and I will meet today. Gordon Martin promised to call me after he has had an opportunity to talk with his father. We hope to schedule a conference call including his father soon. Joe Willis agreed to call me after he talks with his clients. I spoke with Jeff Keeney (Costco) on Friday. I will meet Costco officials next week. Chuck Corrigan has promised to make City officials available as necessary. Last week I circulated to you a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement we will use to invoke the protections of ORS 36.205. To elidence my promise to maintain confidentiality, I Paclose with this letter an originally signed copy of the Confidentiality Agreement to give you assurances that we can talk frankly and candidly. When we meet, I will get everyone's signature on a single copy of the agreement and will circulate a copy for everyone's file. Your commitment to the LQCdand 2 3 hone X03.226.2300 1 503.226.2301 Tigard Dartmouth L1) Mediation January 30, 1995 Page 2 mediation process is always entirely voluntary. You may withdraw at any time. If anyone withdraws from the process, they may do so by simply advising me and I will let the others know. I challenge everyone to give serious thought about how we may build consensus to get this matter resolved. I do not want to discourage or limit the exercise of imagination and creative ideas, but everyone needs to be realisnc. It will help me to serve all participants if everyone is open and frank with me about what they are will.ng to do (and not do) to bring this matter to resolution. Please do not overstate actual needs. Because we have only a short time to meet together, I will be taking what yc,,i tell me at face value and will basing my assessment on what you tell me. I will not compromise anyone's negotiating position by disclosures to me that reveal that there are differences in what you want from what you need. I am delighted to have t'ze opportunity to work with you. I am committed to work hard to move toward bringing an end to what has been a long ordeal for all of you. Please do not hesitaee to call if you have any questions or concerns of any kind. Very truly yours, 1 losEnclosures Hm-,Aton_N/Ie&a6o1i &Abitnc don CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT RE: Tigard Dartmouth LID Mediation In order to promote communication among the parties and the mediator and to facilitate settlement of the dispute, all parties agree that the mediator has no liability for any act or omission in connection with the mediation, and further agree as follows: 1. All statements made during the course of the mediation are privileged, are made without prejudice to any party's legal position, and are non-discoverable and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal proceeding. 2. The privileged character of any information is not altered by disclosure to the mediator. Disclosure of any records, reports, or other documents received or prepared by the mediator cannot be compelled. The mediator shall not be compelled to disclose or testify in any proceedings as to (i) any records, reports, or other documents received or prepared by-the mediator or (ii) information disclosed or representations made in the course of the mediation or otherwise communicated to the mediator in co'nfiderrce. 3. No aspect of the mediation shall be relied upon or introduced as evidence in any arbitral, judicial, or other proceeding. 4. Since the parties are disclosing sensitive information in reliance upon this agreement of confidentiality, any breach of this agreement would cause irreparable injury for which monetary damages would be inadequate. Consequently, any party to this agreement may obtain an injunction to prevent disclosure of any such confidential information in violation of this agreement. 5. Any party breaching this agreement shall be liable for and indemnify the non-breaching parties and the mediator for all costs, expenses, liabilities, and fees, including attorneys' fees, which may be incurred as a result of such breach. 6. Oregon Revised Statutes section 36.205 shall apply to this mediation, which provides as follows: 1. If there is a written agreement between any parties to a dispute that mediation communications will be confidential, then all memoranda, work products and other material contained in the case files of a mediator or mediation program are confidential. Any communication made in or in connection with such mediation which relates to the controversy being mediated, whether made to the mediator or a party, or to any other person if made at a mediation session, is confidential. However, a mediated agreement shall not be confidential unless the parties otherwise agree in writing. 2. Confidential materials and communications are not subject to disclosure in any judicial or administrative proceeding except: (a) When all parties to the mediation agree, in writing, to waive the confidentiality. (b) hi a subsequent action between the mediator and a party to the mediation for damages arising out of the mediation; or (c) Statements, memoranda, materials and other tangible evidence, otherwise subject to discovery, that were not prepared specifically for use in and actually used in the mediation. 3. When there is a written agreement as described in this section, the mediator may not be compelled to testify in any proceeding, unless all parties to the mediation and the mediator agree in writing. (1989 c. 718 sxtion 23) Commencing J 30, 199 d d by eac f the persons whose signatures appear below. Mediator Participants: IT V1.ON 3 M~D~TI.ON p~T0~ M-~p~TlON ROSTER Mediator: pl~oale File I`Ia~ne: Mediation Tate: ~ - ~~dress ,Vile ~ulnbV* party pat..tiC1pa It Re reset~led a 1 _ r ~ ,GOO PIA rc x. Z e S- 5 Z v 5$~~700 t~1d- a 'i ''t/ dN 0 Pdt'~Eff Cam{ 17901 act. Gc~ Sf~' ~aj~ paw. C,4y CA tJ ~p~~cih4t ~NC• ~~~Cpt1V2 ~ ~3LTI~T1p1~ ,iv~D~'TI ~L°~~'T~ ~~YATYON ~dSTE~ Mediator: phone 'File Mailing Ad es ~ File l`himber: 3 Pam' ~ i o ci wit Re resented e ~,2 _ ~~cso P p ~ r rr G ,o 7 f ~v ~ ru r Hamilton Mediztion CXArb1t;l it ion February 28, 1995 Charles E. Corrigan Gordon Martin O'Donnell Ramis Crew 12265 SW 72nd Ave. *0.1 41 Corrigan & Bachrach Tigard, OR 972236 .9, 1727 NW Hoyt St. Portland, OR 97209 Paul Simmons PO Box 12909 Gordon Davis Salem, OR 97309 1020 SW Taylor, Suite 555 Portland, OR 97205 D. Joe Willis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Jack C. Graves 1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1800 109 W. 17th St. Portland, OR 97204 Vancouver, WA 98660 John T. Wilson Jeffrey Keeney 109 West 17t1h. Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Vancouver, LVA 98660 r.Marmaduke & Booth 888 SW 5th, Suite 1600 Randy Wooley Portland, OR 97204-2099 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Dartmouth LID Mediation Gentlemen: When we met on January 26 I promised to get back to you as close to the middle of February r.s possible to report to you on my impressions of confidential meetings I had with each parry and give you my recommendations regarding possible further mediated negotiations. Unfortunately, one of the parties was unable to meet with me until very recently, and, hence, I have not been able to report to you until now. IV Columbia Suite 1880 Portland, OR 97258 pbone 503 226.2800 fax 503.226.2801 Emmi" Tigard Dartmouth LID February 28, 1995 Page 2 My Impressions I received strong cooperation and candor from everyone with whom I spoke. Everyone appeared to trust the confidentiality of the mediation process. Discussion of the particular issues borhering you was frank. People feel quite strongly about their positions, but appeared to be realistic at the reality that everyone would need to compromise if there was going to be a negotiated settlement. My overall impression is that a negotiated settlement is a possibility, but the negotiations will' be difficult. All of the parties seem to be motivated to resolve the ter. vhv:ously, my Rmited conversations with you did riot cnabie me to discover a your respective negotiating limits or to identify specific trade-offs that will be necessary if a settlement is to be reached. But I am encouraged about the prospects of settlement if everyone remains realistic and continues to work with me to find a solution. I am doubtful, without continuation of mediated negotiations, that a settlement will occur without litigation being filed first. Recommendations I recommend that you continue with the mediation and that you authorize and direct me to work aggressively with the parties, and subgroups of the parties to work toward building a consensus basis for funding the LID. I propose that we all push in the next 30 days to build a framework for settlement. An important factor to you in your decision as to whether or not to go 1Va YV x4111 VC cost. f1J yVU know, L oj.i C:e4 to l.Urlifrl;.. tc the WC%1:. A 11dV% u'1111' to this point in exchange for a $2,000 payment from the city of Tigard in the event parties elected not to go forward with the mediation. My efforts to date have involved more the 20 hours and your decision to go forward would involve carrying forward the balance of time I have spent to date. In addition to the time expended thus far I would expect at a minimum another 30 or 40 hours of mediator time to get this matter to a position where it could be finally documented. To cover the balance owing and that projected level of time I will need a retainer of $10,000. Because Tigard has paid the first 52,000, I would suggest that the parties each pay $2,000 as follows: Waremart/Cub 52,000; Costco 52,000; Martins 52,000; Pollocks $2,000; and BurgerVille $2,000. t Tigard Dartmouth LID February 28, 1995 Page 3 If these five parties want to go forward I would ask that you immediately fax to me conformation that you want to go forward and your commitment to pay the above suggested retainer. Please do not send any checks to me at this point. If any of the parties' evidence that they do not want to go forward or that they do not plan to participate in the funding effort, I will let you know as soon as I know. If all parties are on board, I will invite you to send me your retainer checks. Because my recommendation of going forward with the mediation involves my own continued involvement, I do want to provide an opportunity for the parties to get together to discuss this matter outside of my presence if they think that would be usci!ai. In such event, I would ask you to call Chuck Corrigan at 222-4-402. At my request, Chuck said that he would be happy to coordinate communications among you and plan for a meeting if that is necessary. If everyone decides to go forward with the mediation, as stated above, it is my plan to work aggressively to have the fundamental structure of a negotiated resolution put together within the next 30 days. If that is going to be possible I will need substantial cooperation from each of you. Please call .n-- to discuss any concerns or share any comments you have. So that we can know, where everyone stands on this matter, I would appreciate you faxing me your response by the end of this week. Very truly yours, iuvi:ias ' 1. 1 am, lLon O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Gran4 Suite 202 PAMELA J BEERY Portland. Oregon 97.109 Canby. Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE: (203) 222 4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* PAX (sa3) 243 2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE* First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PI-ASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Stree4 Suite 570 G. FRANK HAMMOND• Vancouver. Washington 98660-2964 MAL.COL.M JOHNSON' TELEPHONE (360) 699-7287 MARK F. O'DONNEI.L FAX: (360) 696-2051 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS March 23, 1995 WILLIAM J. STALNAKEEt TY K. WYMAN JA.bE; M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COMM ALSO ADMRTBD TO PRACTICE IN WASMINGTON • • ADMMM TO PRACTXX tN CAUFORMA ONLY Gordon S. Martin 12265 SW 2nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth LID Dear Gordon: As agreed, we have been doing some research on the City's Bancroft bonding ordinances to determine if the County assessments on your family's property might prevent the City from bonding the LID assessments. While the City code as it now exists could present such problems, both I and the City's Finance Director would be comfortable recommending to the City Council that, given the circumstances here involved, the ordinance be amended to address your situation. My suggestion is that if the property owners can put together a proposed assessment package for the Council's consideration, that proposal and the bonding issue be submitted to the Council at the same time. Please let me know if you have any additional observations or questions, and I would be most interested in knowing if it looks like the property owners will soon be presenting a joint proposal to the City. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fw cc: William Monahan Wayn. Lowry Randy Wooley Yom kill I- RIS-'ENSEN NGINEER.ING . e April 18, 1995 JO: 95-106.01 Mr. John Alexander Mr. Kenneth M. Montgomery Alexander's Restaurant P.O. Box 991 11700 SW Pacific Highway Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Don Pollock Mr. Jack C. Graves Northland Homes, Inc. The Holland CompanyBurgerville USA 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 109 W 27th Street Portland, OR 97221 Vancouver, WA 98660 Mr. Paul Simmons Mr. Jackie Frank V.P. Retail Development Costco Wholesale Corporation Waremart/CUB 10809 120th Avenue, NE P.O. Box 12909 Kirkland, WA 98033 Salem, OR 97301 Mr. Gordon R. Martin Mr. Donald and Ms. Louise Stewart P.O. Box 740 11990 SW 72nd Avenue Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Gordon S. Martin John T. Wilson 12265 SW 72nd Avenue The Holland, Inc.Burgerville USA Tigard, OR 97223 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 SUBJECT: DARTMOUTH ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) NOTICE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLLOCK JURY AWARD Dear Property Owners and Representatives: In accordance with our March 22, 1995 meeting, I met with Randy Wooley of the City of Tigard and Charles Corrigan of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and Bachrach immediately after being approved to perform the final LID assessment calculations. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to finalize the costs for the LID and to end the legal disputes concerning this project. The City's main concern in regards to finalizing the cost of the LID and the legal concerns of the City is receiving notification from the LID participants that the Pollock jury award for the LID right-of-way acquisition is acceptable. The jury determined that the value of the property adjacent to general commercial areas was S7.50/sf and to commercial professional business districts, $6.00/sf., plus interest as determined. Obviously, if anyone jisputes the jury award, this will result in a continuation of the appeal process regarding the LID and the attorney fees. Given that the possibility of overturning or significantly charging the jury's decision is remote, proceeding with appeals is like throwing 7000 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 2zo Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598-1866 Fax (503) 598-1868 money away. In addition, a great deal of time needed for the next LID will be expended. Below I have left a signature block for recognizing the jury award as stated above. If you recognize that stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies best interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the City. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall "Red Rock Creek" Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Friday, May 5, 1995 at 3:0Q-p•m• Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: Randy Wooley Charles Corrigan Jeffrey H. Keeney Uwe accept the January 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth LID right-of- way acquisition adjacent to general commercial areas of $7.50/sf. and to commercial professional business districts, $6.001sf, plus interest as determined. Y N Y N John Alexander Gordon R. Martin Y N t w Y N Burgerville USA Gordon S. Martin Y N Y N Price/Costco Who;esale Company Kenneth M. Montgomery Y N Y N CUBAVaremart Don Pollock Y N Donald Stewart Louise Stewart MORE From GQF.DIDIN R. f ltl F'>~0;:"r.c G~:; lr,-1 :?512 Apr. 23 1995 11 :03AM Poo looney away. In addition, a great deal of timo needed for the next LID will be expendr.d. Below I have left a signature bluck for recognizing the jut'y award as stated above. Ifyotu recognize that slopping the legal train froth rolling is in your individual or companies bc,..,t interest, please xign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response i7xck to me at your earliest convenience so that f may give the responsus ter 1110 city. Your cunc•t rrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the );gal fleas which- I and still attempting to resolve Nvith the City. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Ifail "Reef Rock Creck." Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on 17,ridgy, 114rcy 5 1995 at 3:OU4).m. Please: attend or have your legal representative at that sleeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issuo. Sincerely, CHRISTL•NSFN }✓NC~lNIs1:1ZIl~I(J, INC. Ed Gilistellsell, P.E. President CC: Randy Woolc:y gall {.'hrrlrs Corr'1v Jcmi-cy 13. ICc~cnry 11we ac,ccpt the Jammly 20, 1005 jury valuations 6or the Dartmouth 1,117 right-of- \Vay acquisition adjacent: to general comrnercinl areas of $7.50/sf. and to Commercial proti;ssional business districts, $6.00/sf., plus interest as determined. Y---.N John Alcxatlder - -1`3 Gordon R. Martin Y N Burgcrvillc USA _......_.._-__Y _N Gordon S. Martin Y N Y _N. Kcnnctl: ]1I. Mrantl;c~merY Y N • CU1"slWarcmart N 17nr1 Pollee%k Y ra 1)oilald Stemirl Louise Sti:--wilt l. J UL -i'.~'~~ l j:.3•t FF:U?1 ~or,_!;n U._, r r ail rkr F'.U! -l;5 r " a i SCAT i ~C ✓ 9 ~1 s IBM April 18,1995- 30:95-106.01 Mr. John Alexander Mr. Kenneth M. Montgomery Alexander's Restaurant P.O. Box 991 11700 Stay Pacific Highway Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Don Pollock Mr. Jack C. Graves Northland Homes, Inc. The Holland Company/Burgerville USA 1834 SW 58th Avenues Suite 202 109 W 27th Street Portland, OR 97221 Vancouver, WA 98660 Mr. Paul Simmons Mr. Jackie Prank V.P. Retail Development Cosfco Wholesale Corporation Waremart/CUB 10809 120th Avenue, 'INT P.O. Box 12909 Kirkland, WA 93033 Salem, OR 97301 Mr. Gordon R. Martin Mr. Donald *and Ms. Louise Stewart P.O. Box 740 11990 SW 72nd Avenue Gicneden Beach; OR 97388 Tigard, OR 97223 Mr. Gordon S. Martin Mr. John T. Wilson 12265 SW 72nd Avenuc The Holland, Inc./Bu g~erville USA Tigard, OR 97223 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, NVA 98660 SUBJMCT: DARTMOUTH ROAD LOCAL LMPROVEME1tiT DISTRICT (LID) NOTICE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLLOCK JURY AWARD Dear Property Owners and Representatives: In accordance with our March 22, 1995 meeting, I met with Randy Wooley of the City of Tigard and Charles Corrigan of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and Bachrach immediately after being approved to perform the final LID assessment calculations. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to finalize the costs for the LID and to end the legal disputes concerning this project. The City's main concern in regards to finalizing the cost of the LID and the legal concerns of the City is receiving notifirwinn frnrn the LID p2rticipanta that tho Pollock jury award for the LID right-of-way acquisition is acceptable. The jury determined that the value of the property adjacent to general commercial areas was 57.50/sf, and to commercial professional business districts, $6.00/sf., plus interest as deiermined. Obviously, if anyone disputes the jury award, this will result in a continuation of the appeal process regarding the LTD and the attorney fees. Given that the possibility of overturnine or fluxu60nnt.1 nh-6we, tt.,, j-7'4 %.tnutuivrt ty : moth, p,"vt ov%jai j with appe s 1s like throwing 7ooo S.W. Hampton Street. Suite izo Fortiand. Oregon 97223 (503) 598-t866 Fax (50))50-%868 s rim FF.UrI ! r J.,:, U;r, - ' money away. In addition, a. great deal of time nccdcd for the ncm LID will be expended. Below I have left a signature blpck for remerniring theiiiry an,1rd no otat.d ebo~ o. If J.,.. «wgpdcc enat stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies besf interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may give the' responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate acceptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the City. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall ",Red Rock Creek" Cond'erence room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Fla May 5.1995 at 3:00 v.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. ! Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. t President i cc: Randy Wooley j Charles Corrigan Jeffrey H. Keeney Uwe accept the January 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Dartmouth LID right-of- way acquisition adjacent to general ? commercial areas of 57.501sf. and to commercial professional business districts, } 56.00/sf., plus interest as determined. X N Y N John Alexander Gordon 3Z_ Martin .j 1 X N Y~ Burgerville USA Gordon S. Martin Y N N Price/Cos )6 Who esale Company Ke.xncth M. Montgomery CUB/Waremart ' Don Po,,ock Donald Stewart Louise Stewart i l s TOTAL P-03 JUN-16-1995 03t1? C RISTENSEN EhuiUIK1NG P.02 ~a-s -rENsEN April 18, 1995 JO: 9Z-106,01 Mr. John Alexander Mr. Kenneth M. Mont-ornery Alexander's Restaurant P.O. Box 991 11700 SW Pacific Highway Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Tl gard, OR 97223 Mr. Don Pollock NO. Jack C. Graves Nor"and Homes, Inc. The Holland Company/Burgerville TJSA 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202 109 W 27th Street Portland, OR 97221 Vancouver, WA 98660 Mr. Paul Simmons Mr. Jackie Frank V.F. Retail Development Costco Wholesale Corporation WaremartlCUB 10809 120th avenue, NB P.O. Box 12909 Kirkland, WA 98033 Salem, OR 97301 Nfr. Gordon R. Martin Nfr. Donald and Mt;. Louise Stewart ? P.O. Box 740 11990 SW 72nd Avenue Gleneden Beach, OR 97368 Tigard, OR 97223 i Mr. Gordon S. Martin Mr. John T. Wilson 12265 SW 72nd Avenue The Holland, Iric.Burgerville USA Tigard, OR 97223 109 West 17th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 1 j SUBJECT: )DARTMOUTH ROAD LOCAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) i NOVICE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLLOCK .TURY AWARD Dear Property Owners and Representatives: Th accordance with our March 22, 1995 meeting, I mct with Randy Wooley of the City of s [ igard and Charles Corrigan of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan and Bachrach immediately after being approved to perform the final LID assessment calculations. The purpose of the i meeting was to discuss ways to finalize the costs for the LLD and to end the legal disputes concerning this project. The City's main Concern in regards to finalizing the cost of the LID and the legal concerns ofthe City is receiving notification from the L.;D participants that the Pollock jury award for the LID right-of-way acquisition is acceptable. The jury determined that the value of the property adjacent to general commercial areas was 57.50/sf and to commercial professional business districts, $6.001sf., plus interest as determined. 1 Obviously, if anyone disputes the jury award, this will result in a continuation of the appeal process regarding the LID and the attorney Fees. Givcn that the possibility of overturning or sigrificantly changing the jury's decisinn is remote, proceeding with appeals is like throwing i ii 7000 S.W. Nampcen Street, Suite s=o Portland, Orcgon 9722; (so)) 598.1366 Fax (S03) 5901-te6o t t • JU4-1G-199S WS la CHRISTGNSEN ENG/UIKiNG P.03 t money away. In addition, a great deal of time needed for the ncxt LJD will be expended. Blow I have left a signature block for recognizing the jury award as stated above. it you rccognize'that stopping the legal train from rolling is in your individual or companies best interest, please sign in the space provided, then fax or mail your response back to me at your earliest convenience so that I may give the responses to the city. Your concurrence on this item does indicate a.~aeptance of the final figure for the legal fees which I am still attempting to resolve with the city. We have scheduled a meeting at the Tigard City Hall "Red Rock Creep' Conference room to present the "Assessment Formula" on Friday. May 5. 1995 at 3,00R.m. Please attend or have your legal representative at that meeting. We look forward to a resolution of this issue. Sincerely, GISTEN5EN ENGINEERING, INC. f ' Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: Randy Wooley Charles Corrigan re$rey H. Keeney I/we accept the January 20, 1995 jury valuations for the Oartmouth LID right-_of- way acquisition adjacent to general commercial areas of $7.50/sf and to commercial professional business districts, S6.00lsf., plush interest as determined. i Y N Y N John Alex r Gordon R. Martin H _ Y N _ Y N Bur ervW U A Gordon S. Martin (-Y) N Y N Prsc Costco Wholesale Co pany ' Kenneth M. Montgomery _ Y N _ Y N CU8/waremart Don Pollock Y N Donald Stewart ~ Louise Stewart • TOTAL P.03 DON POLLOCK INVESTMENTS 1834 S.W. 58th Avenue Suite 202 Portland,, Oregon 97221 (503) 292-4`73 77 ??pri_1 24, 1995 . . FAX (503) 292-4862 Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97223 Dear Ed: Reference your letter of April 18, 1995 sent to me by fax. I am willing to accept the jury award with interest as soon as the City dismisses its appeal of that matter.. Based on advice of my attorneys,I cannot accept the.benefit of that verdict without jeopardizing my right to cross appeal which we have-filed after the City appealed. Once the City has dismissed its appeal, I will concur to accepting the figures that the jury returned plus the appropriate interest and obviously the fees that the.judge'will award. As you may or may not know, the court has now conducted the attorney fee hearing and has set most of the award. My attorney' is preparing the final documents on that at this time and should have them into the judge in short order. I have not heard from him what the total final figure will be but it is at least close to the total dollar figure that was requested. Please let me know if the City is willing to dismiss its appeal so we can keep this matter moving forward. Thanks. Sincerely~,1 DonaJ.d E Pollock cc: John Alexander Jack Graves Jackie Frank Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Kenneth. M. Montgomery Pau-. Simmons Donald and Mrs. Louise Stewart John T. Wilson v~ NCi May 16, 1995 .l Mr. Ed Christensen MA" 17 1995 CITY OF T I G Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 220 OREGON Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Ed: As agreed at the conclusion of our meeting on May 8, 1995, 1 am getting back to you to report on the City Council's reaction to your client's latest proposal for the "global" settlement we are all hoping for on Tigard Triangle issues. As anticipated, the Council sees insurmountable legal and political obstacles to adding what we have termed during our discussions the "small" property owners into the assessment formula at this time. Similarly, the Council does not feel that it would be consistent with the City's obligations to the taxpayers to reach into the general fund to pay expenses (legal fees or others) which, by ordinance, are required to be attributed to the improvement district. As we discussed, the Council's hope in getting the property owners together to agree upon an assessment formula, a process to which the City contributed staff time and effort and seed money, remains alive. It appears that you have successfully devised such a formula which could be implemented in relatively short order. (That is assuming, of course, that the "small" property owners are not included. Were they to be included, it is a virtual certainty that the assessment process would be challenged and likely end up in the courts for who knows how long.) It is also worth pointing out that the City has contributed approximately $300,000 cf its own funds to this LID for work outside of the district boundaries funds that initially were to be assessed against the property owners. The Council was also informed of the interest in possibly forming a second improvement district in the Triangle to get some additional improvements constructed. If you think I or Randy Wooley could be helpful in relaying any particulars to the Council for its consideration, we would be glad to assist in any way we can. It would seem easier to focus on the issues surrounding the possible formation of a second district if attention and resources weren't being diverted to address disputes related to wrapping up the initial project. Sin , Miliem A. Monahan City Administrator JM=meyWwzten.ft2 c: Randy Wooley Chuck Corriqan 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 , RECEIVED 13125 S.W. HALL BLVD. ITY OF MAY 2 6 1995 TIGARD, OR 97223 TI I~ & BA'CMACH (503) 639-4171 OREGON TO: FRO DQ. OG/ / D ! MESSAGE ~u C n 5~`~s1 /pr~~-1 /~Clv~j<~ y~~lirl.~s •~Gx G~ourr~ J2Gi5id.~ ~`~~v~ ~`i Gk,/sr~~ 7~-- Q55~°ssr~~dr~ ~Y"D/•~~/y! S6~~u~4~ Q.S~ ~/S l~for~2y. •7~r' s~/I UQi/li~L1, SIGNED DATE 5 / Z5~ /957 REPLY SIGNED DATE l PLEASE RETURN ORIGINAL COPY WITH REPLY. KEEP PINK COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS. FILED C"UST OF APPEALS. ( ~Le 6e ac~'~ ; rvl rtu> , F 6 8 2 G 1986 STATE COUAT ADMINISTRATOR B' Depctdr 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 3 4 CORDON It, MARTIN and S GORDON S. MARTIN, JR., Appellants, a 7 v, 8 CITY OP TIGARA, MAYOR PROTEM KEN SCHECKLA, COUNCILOR JOHN COOK, COUNCILOR TOM HRIAN, 9 and COUNCILOR IMA SCOTT, 10 Respondents. 11 12 (84--0517Cj CA A33250) 13 Appeal from circuit Court, Washington County. 14 Holger M. Pihl, Jr., Judge. 15 Argued and submitted October 7, 1985. 16 G. Kenneth Shiroishi, Portland, argued the cause for 17 appellants, With him on the briefs was Dunn, Carney, Alien, Higgins & Tongue, Portland. 18 Kenneth M. Elliott, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. on the brief were Timothy V. Ramis, and 19 O'Donnell, Ramis, Elliott a Crew, Portland. 20 Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, pro tempore, and.Joseph, 21 Chief Judge, and Van Hoomissen, Judge. PER'CURIAM 22 / &ggessMeat held void; remanded for further proceedings not 23 inconsistent with this opinion. 24 _ 2~-5;:- FILED: February 26, 1986 1 . t PER CURIAM 2 Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment on a writ-of review brought to challenge the city's formation of a local 4 improvement district (LID) for the construction of a public 3 street and the city's assessments levied for that purpose. We d find no merit to plaintiffs' particular challenges to the 7 formation of the LID. The parties conoede, however, that a $ portion of-the planned improvement) is not within the legal 9 boundaries of the LID and that, therefore, the cost of 10 constructing that portion cannot lawfully be included in the 71 assessment. We agree. See ORS 223.389. .12 When a deFect in an LID assessment occurs, the city 13 council may reassess kor up to the full cost of the improvement 14 within the district. ORS 223.4101 Heritage Square Dev. y. Citr 15 of San~y;''5B Or_App- 4`d3*, 493•, '648• P2d `i3171 rein 293 Or 693, 18 653 P2d 998E 1982).`' 1e th~refore"se'' aside Ehe• 0C14inal~ 17 0ssessment aka void ar~d remand. 18 Assessment held void; remanded for further proceedings 19 not inconsistent with this opinion. 20 21 22 23 24 1 ill Mll 0 1 • 4 1 FOOTNOTE 2 3 i 4 Specifically, that portion involves the section of 5 S.W. Dartmouth Street betwean.S.W. 68th and S.W. 69th Avenues. 6 The defect was discovered by the court, not by the parties. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 _ 2 DRAFT July 10, 1995 JO: 95-106.01 Mr. Randy Wooley City of Tigard - Department of Public Works 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Dartmouth Street LID Dear Randy: We have completed the assessment evaluations for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District (LID), with the agreement of all the LID participants on how the final costs for the assessments are to be spread to each parcel given a preliminary valuation of the amount of the assessments to date of $4.16 million (t), Unfortunately, there are certain clarifications which must be made prior to a complete agreement on the outstanding issues. The representatives from Burgerville have stated that they do not feel they receive any benefit from the LID and therefore should not be saddled with any costs for the LID. Separate concerns have been expressed by Don Pollock and the Martins which I believe can be resolved as discussed below. In turn, some of the other:LID participants know that nonparticipants along Dartmouth Street have benefitted significantly by the LID, without paying their fair share. However, in the interest of good faith in dealing with the ongoing transportations needs along Dartmouth Street, the majority of the LID participants are willing to forgo placing any "conditions" on what and who goes into the final assessments for the LID other than is being presented herein. At issue, Don Pollock has stated that he will not participate in the finalization of the LID assessments until the appeals regarding the City of Tigard's lawsuit with him are dropped. In that venue and pursuant to your, Bill Monahan and Chuck Corrigan's previous conversations with me regarding this matter, attached are letters with signatures from Cub Foods, the Martins and Costco, which indicate an acceptance of the Pollock jury award value for the Dartmouth right-of- way acquisition. This letter was formulated pursuant to our previous meetings and discussions in which it was understood that if we were to get the LID participants to agree on the right-of-way valuation, the City would discontinue the legal appeals regarding the Pollock Case. Conversely, the Martins have stated that they will not accept the final assessments unless the City Council recommends that the value of their property insufficient to bond for their assessment. As you are aware, their property is currently under a farm deferral. As such, they current property assessment is not high enough to cover the amount of the bonds for the Dartmouth LID. In order for them to agree to their assessment, they need the City Council to agree to a pro-rated valuation of their parcels, in an amount which is adequate to cover their portion of the assessment bonds. Finally, it is our understanding that you have requested the City's accountant to prepare the final accounting for the cost of the Dartmouth LID. The formulae we have prepared for determining how the LID costs are spread are setup in a manner such that, when the final accounting for.assessment is determined, we can plug that figure into our spreadsheet and tabulate the cost of the LID for each participant. The assessments are computed based upon the aggregate LID costs which are spread automatically to each participant when input. It is fairly accurate to say that the process for completing the Dartmouth LID is now in the City's hands. Should you require any further assistance in this manner, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc: Bill Monahan, City of Tigard Charles Corrigan, O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach Gordon Davis, Cub Foods Jackie Frank, Costco Wholesale Corporation Jeff Keeney, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock, Don Pollock Enterprises Paul Simmons, Cub Foods John Wilson, Burgerville O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW • CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street ISI N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARY. L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA°° FA:: TELEPHONE: (433) 222 4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN° ;Sa3) 24-z9aa STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE' First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street. Suite 570 G. FRANK HAMMOND* Vancouver, Washington 98660.2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON" TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX (360) 696-2051 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS July 12, 1995 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER TY K. WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COLR4SHL ' A= ADMn 'FZ TO PRAcncz IN WASHINMON ALSO ADWITP.D TO t xAcncE W GV.IFORMA TRANSl&TTRD VIA FACSD411LE Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering, Inc. Suite 220 7000 S.W. Hampton Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Ed: Enclosed is a draft of the letter we discussed the other day. Let me know if you would like to see any changes before I put it in final form and send it to you. Also, let me know if you would like me to send the property owners a copy of this letter, or if I should just send it to you, with you doing the circulation of the copies. Thanks. Sincerely' yours, Charles E. Corrigan 1 EC/mcln Piclosure c,:: Randy Wooley (w/o enclosure) O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) :56-1149 3) 2224402 DOMINIC G. COLLErrA'• TELEPHONE: ( CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE* First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFSCE 1220 Main Street Suite 570 G. FRANK HAMMOND* Vancouver, Washington 98560-2964 MALCOLM JOHNSON* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX (360) 696-20SI TIMOTHY V. RAMIS July 11, 1995 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER TY K. WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN DRAFT SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL • A= ADMITIW TO PUCrICE IN WASH114, ON FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY AISO ADMrrMO TO PMCnCE IN CALIFORNIA Mr. Ed Christensen ^hristensen Engineering, Inc. '7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 220 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Ed: I am writing to confirm our discussion with Randy Wooley and Bill Monahan on July 10, 1995, concerning completion of the Dartmouth LID as follows: • Bancroft Bonding for the Martin Assessment: I will prepare for the city Council's consideration an ordinance that would allow bancroft bonding of an LID assessment without regard to the subject property's tax-assessed value. • _Martin and Waremart Acquisitions: Our firm's real estate department will prepare a draft of the documentation necessary for the City to acquire the Martin and Waremart right-of-way property. You will provide the proposed dollar figures to plug into those agreements. The City will not pay cash for the properties, but will reduce the LID assessments against the property remaining in Martin and Waremart ownership by the purchase price. • Pollock Appeals: As soon as the Martin and Waremart right-of-way properties are purchased, the City will dismiss the appeals it has filed in the Pollock cases (and Mr. Pollock dismiss his cross-appeal). ® You remain in charge of securing the property owners' unanimous consent to an assessment formula. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Mr. Ed Christensen July 11, 1995 Page 2 s My firm will work on the documentation necessary to insure that, assuming we do achieve unanimous approval of an assessment formula, we can document and memorialize such an agreement sufficient to insure the City that it will not later be re-visited with challenges to that formula or other aspects of the LID. Assuming that we can meet our tentative deadline of discussing the Bancroft ordinance with the City Council by the end of the month, and get that ordinance on the Council's agenda for the meeting scheduled for August 8th (assuming, of course, that the Council is so inclined), it would seem that we should be able to proceed very soon thereafter with the acquisition of the Martin and Waremart properties. By then we should have most, if not all, of the costs needed to plug into your assessment formula to calculate the individual assessment amounts. We should also have been able to develop the process and paperwork necessary to memorialize the property owners' consent to those assessments. Please let me know if you think any of the above needs to be revised or expanded to appropriately reflect our conversation. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc NGINEERXN'G fuly JOY95- ~106901 J~~ 1~ 19g~ Mr. Randy Wooley City of Tigard - Department of Public Works 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Subject: Dartmouth Street LID Project Completion Dear Randy: We have completed the assessment evaluations for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District (LID), and mediated an agreement among all LID participants except BurgerviIle, on how the final costs for the assessments are to be spread to each parcel, given a preliminary cost of the project to date of $4.16 million However, there are certain additional clarifications which must be made prior to a complete agreement on the outstanding issues. Separate concerns have been expressed by Don Pollock and the Martins which I believe can be ,resolved as discussed below. In turn, some of the other LID participants know that nonparticipants along Dartmouth Street have benefitted significantly by the LID, without paying their fair share. Nevertheless, in the interest of good faith in dealing with the ongoing transportations needs along Dartmouth Street, the majority of the LID participants are willing to forgo placing any "conditions" on what and who goes into the final assessment agreements for the LID, other than is being presented herein. The representatives from BurgerviIle have stated that they do not believe they receive any benefit from the LID and therefore should not be saddled with any costs for the LID. When they purchased their parcel, they believed they would be able to access Highway 99 from the existing driveway located approximately 100 feet east of the Dartmouth intersection. During their site review process, staff from both ODOT and the City of Tigard recommended against the continued use of the current access off Highway 99. Instead, they were only allowed a single right-in, right-out access otFDartmoutli, coupled with a daunting obstacle course which customers from Highway 99 must go through to get to their lone access point. Given that S5% of their business is from a drop in customer base, they argue that the single restricted access they have been allowed will not be adequate for their business needs, and therefore, they derive "no benefit" from the Dartmouth LID. At issue with Don Pollock is the Pact that lie will not participate in the finalization of the LID assessments until the appeals regarding the City ofTigard's lawsuit with him are dropped. In that venue and pursuant my previous conversation with you, Bill Monahan, and Chuck Corrigan 7000 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite zzo Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 598-1866 Fax (503) 598-1868 regarding this matter, attached are letters with signatures from Cub Foods, the Martins, and Costco, which indicate an acceptance of the Pollock jury award value for the Dartmouth right-of- way acquisition. This letter was formulated pursuant to our previous meetings and discussions in which it-was understood that if we were to get the LID participants to agree on the right-of-way valuation, the City would discontinue the legal appeals regarding the Pollock Case. I understand, Chuck Corrigan is working un Line legalities of dropping the appeals, based upon the enclosed letters which he has in his possession. The Martin's acceptance of the final assessments is based on the assumption that the City Council will recommend that the value of their property is sufficient to bond for their assessment. As you are aware, their property is currently under a farm deferral. As such, their current property assessment is not high enough to cover the amount of the bonds for the Dartmouth LID. The Martins are agreeing to their assessment with the understanding that, the City Council will make a determination that the true valuation of their parcels is adequate to cover their portion of the assessment bonds. On the related Dartmouth transportation issues, it has become painfully apparent according to the City's :raffc consultant DKS, that the existing and currently contemplated improvements to Dartmouth Road will not be adequate to service the commercial/professional businesses within the Tigard Triangle. The DKS "Tigard Triangle Update Study," dated May 1995, stated that with the buildout of the Triangle, all of the portals surrounding the Triangle will be at an unacceptable level of service; even with a modified comprehensive plan. Because the movement of traffic through the Triangle is critical to the welfare of the commercial/professional -businesses and residences within it, it is more crucial than ever that the City of Tigard work with the Triangle community and ODOT to solve the transportation needs of the Triangle. Since there is concern over the additional transportation requirements for the existing and proposed business/commercial and residential community, staffs recommendation to the Council regarding the resolution of the problems herein specified is important. It is significant that the Triangle business/commercial and residential community to know that the Council is committed to disentangling the Triangle transportation problems. The Council's resolve to these concerns will have an impact on the success of this attempt to resolve the Dartmouth LID project through its completion and beyond. As ,DKS pointed out, traffic problems will continue to worsen. However, solutions do exist, and if the City Council commits themselves to solving the transportation problems in the Triangle, and all will benefit. Obviously, the transportation needs of the Triangle cannot be solved without another portal in and out of it, coupled with the implementation of other improvements to the Triangle transportation system, with funding through a second LID or other means of Financing. As a goodwill gesture, these issues must be addressed by the Council to assure the success of the business/commercial and residential community of the Triangle and the completion of this current LID. Finally, it is our understanding that you have requested the City's accountant to prepare the final accounting for the cost of the Dartmouth LID. The formula we have prepared for determining how the LID costs are spread are set up in a manner so that, when the final accounting is performed, we can plug that figure into our spreadsheet and tabulate the cost of the LID for each participant. This can be performed at any time upon your request. Should you require any further assistance in this matter, please call Lis. Sincerely, CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING, INC. Ed Christensen, P.E. President cc:. Monahan, City of Tigard harles Corrigan, O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach Gordon Davis, Cub Foods Jackie Frank, Costco Wholesale Corporation Jeff Keeney, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth Gordon R. Martin Gordon S. Martin Don Pollock, Don Pollock Enterprises Paul Simmons, Cub Foods John Wilson, Burgerville 3 • "v'DONNELL RZA.MIS CREV* CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATPORNBYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street ISI N. Grant. Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK I.. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (M) 2224402 TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COL LE'TTA" FAX: (503) 243-2944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• STEPHEN F CREW VANCOU'IER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIREBYL'1NE• Fast Independent Place 14TILLLAM E. GAAR n LASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street. Suite 570 G. FRANK HAMMOND' Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MAL.COL.M JOHNSON* TELEPHON& (36o) 699-7287 MARK P.O'DONNELI. Wu (360) 696-ZOSI TIMOTHY V. RAMIS August 14, 1995 WILLIAM J. STAL MAKER TY K. WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL • ALSO Amn7w To PRACTICE W W/SHWCM ALSO AMTM TO t'RACTIM IN CALMMIA BY FAX Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 220 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Dartmouth LID Dear Ed: In follow-up to this morning's meeting, enclosed find a very rough first draft of the document that we discussed. I need to make a variety of revisions to this document so that it will read more clearly, but I wanted to get it to you as soon as possible so you would have an idea as to its general format. Please get me your proposed language as soon as possible, and I will put it in along with the other changes and additions that I will be making. I will then get you the revised version of the draft, and will send one to the mayor as well. Hopefully, by the end of the day tomorrow, we will have a working draft to review with the City Council, Sin a yours, Charles E. Co CEC/fwc(Encl.) cc w/encl.: Randy Wooley (BY FAX) AGREEMENT For Discussion Purposes Only The parties to this Agreement are The Holland, Inc./Burgerville; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Waremart, Inc.; Gordon Martin, Sr., Donald E. Pollock, Julia Gail Pollock and Richard L. Carpenter (collectively the "Property Owners") and the City of Tigard ('City"). RECITALS 1. In 1984 the City formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District ("LID") for the purpose of constructing a roadway within the area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Highway 217 and Highway 99W. 2. The Property Owners own property within the boundaries of the LID. 3. The roadway has been constructed and opened for use. 4. Pursuant to the ordinance establishing the LID, the City intends to assess the costs of the LID against the Property Owners' real property located within the LID boundaries. 5. The Property Owners have agreed amongst themselves as to how the cost of the LID should be apportioned amongst the Property Owners. 6. To complete the LID the City must acquire ownership of the right-of-way from Gordon Martin, Sr., and Waremart. 7. In condemnation litigation (the "Pollock Litigation"), the City has acquired ownership of the right of way property previously owned by Donald Pollack, Julia Pollack and Richard Carpenter. The jury verdict rendered in those consolidated cases established a valuation which Gordon Martin, Sr. and Waremart will accept as just compensation for the right-of-way property to be acquired by the City. 8. The City has appealed the judgment rendered in the Pollock Litigation, and Pollock has filed a cross-appeal. 9. The City and the Property Owners wish to resolve all outstanding matters necessary for closure of the LID. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that the LID costs, which have not been finally calculated, shall be assessed against the Property Owners' property within the LID in the percentages set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. Page 1 - AGREEMENT 2. Martin and Waremart agree to convey their right-of-way property to the City payment consistent with the valuation established in the Pollock Litigation. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challenge the validity or other aspect of the LID, administratively, judicially, or otherwise. 4. Pollock agrees to dismiss the appeal from the Pollock Litigation. 5. City agrees to amend its bancroft bonding ordinance to remove the limitation on bancroft bonding based upon the assessed value of the subject real property. 6. City'agrees to dismiss its appeal of the judgment rendered in Pollock Litigation. 7. City agrees (Ed Christensen to propose language regarding City's support(?) for future roadway irnprovements in the Tigard Triangle]. DATED this _ day of August, 1995. THE HOLLAND, INC./BURGERVILLE BY Title COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION By Title WAREMART, INC. L r BY Title s , Gordon Martin, Sr. Page 2 - AGREEMENT Donald E. Pollock Julia Gail Pollock Richard L. Carpenter Q%orc %=Xtemp2%dartrnouL&Sr(fwc) Page 3 - AGREEMENT - OTONNELL RAMIS CREW' • ' CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK I.. BUSCH TELEPHONE (503) 266.1149 DOMWIC G. COLT MA•• TELEPHONE: (303) 222 402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (303) 243.2944 STEPHEN F. CRER' VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE GARY F. FIRESTONE* First Independent Place WILLIAM E. GAAR r[MASE RM%Y TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Maim Street, Suite 570 G. FRANKHAMMOND• - Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 MAL.COL.M JOHNSON' TELEPHONE: (36o) 699-7287 MARK P. O'DONNELL FAX (360) 696-2051 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS August 24, 1995 WIL. A.M J. STAL.NAKER TY K. WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNM • ALSO I-MM LED TO MAC= IN WASHIN=N ALSO ADWr= TO MACTM IN CALL-MP IA BY FAX Mr. Ed Christensen Christensen Engineering 7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 220 Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Triangle Agreement Dear Ed: The City has had an opportunity to go over your proposed revisions to the Tigard Triangle Agreement. Enclosed is the latest version of that agreement, with your suggested changes, with one small change which we can discuss if you would like. Let me know if you feel that the enclosed version of the agreement is appropriate for circulation amongst the property owners, and if you would like me to take care of that. Since urs, Charles E. 4CorriUn CEC/fwc(Encl.) cc w/encl.: Randy Wooley (BY FAX) AGREENEN The parties to this Agreement are The Holland, Inc./Burgerville; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Waremart, Inc.; Gordon R. Martin, Sr., Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Donald E. Pollock, Julia Gail Pollock and Richard L. Carpenter (collectively the "Property Owners") and the City of Tigard ("City"). RECITALS 1. In 1984 the City formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District ("LID") for the purpose of constructing a roadway known as Dartmouth Street within the area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Highway 217 and Highway 99W (the "Tigard Triangle"). 2. The Property Owners own property within the boundaries of the LID ("the LID Properties"). 3. Dartmouth Street has been constructed and is open for use. 4. Pursuant to the City's ordinances establishing and controlling the LID, the City intends to assess all the costs of the LID against the LID Properties. 5. The Property Owners have agreed amongst themselves as to how the costs of the LID should be assessed against the LID Properties. 6. To complete the LID the City must acquire ownership of the Dartmouth Street right-of-way from Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart. 7. In condemnation litigation (the "Pollock Litigation"), the City acquired ownership of the right-of-way property previously owned by Donald Pollack, Julia Pollack and Richard Carpenter ("Pollock"). The jury verdict rendered in the Pollock Litigation established property valuations which Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart have agreed to accept as just compensation for the right-of-way property to be acquired from them by the City. 8. The City appealed the judgment rendered in the Pollock Litigation, and Pollock filed a cross-appeal. Both the City's appeal and Pollock's cross-appeal have been voluntarily dismissed. 9. The City and the Property Owners wish to resolve all outstanding matters necessary for the completion and final assessment of the LID. Page 1 - AGREEMENT Emil NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that the LID costs of approximately 4.2 million dollars shall be assessed against the LID Properties in the percentages set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart, Inc., agree to convey their Dartmouth Street right-of-way property to the City for payment consistent with the valuations established in the Pollock Litigation, including interest as agreed upon by the City, Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart, Inc. consistent with the interest applicable to the award in the Pollock Litigation. The City's payment for the right-of-way property shall be in the total sum of $ to Gordon R. Martin, Sr., with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995, and a total sum to Waremart, Inc. of $ with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challenge the validity or other aspect of the LID, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, and waive all irregularities and defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the LID proceedings, including but not limited to, the apportionment and determination of the actual cost of the LID. '-qyi ing the r- Py orfnrmc the 4. The City agrees to amend its ordinances to remove the limitation on bancroft bonding based upon the assessed value of the subject real property. 5. The City agrees as follows: a. To participate in preparing and supporting a study of options to resolve the Tigard Triangle's transportation problems at the desired level of development as requested by the Tigard Triangle community and as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to assure their acceptance; b. To promote to the necessary jurisdictional and highway officials consideration of an additional portal in and out of the Tigard Triangle to service the business interests of the Tigard Triangle community and consideration of an interim ramping system from northbound Highway 217 to Dartmouth Street; re5,kof-p( C. To support the completion of the Dartmouth Street tr sportation system improvements (including item b, above) with the City s support through a second LID or other funding mechanism. The Ci 's support for a second LID is based upon an understanding that all property owners t"~ 2 included in that LID waZE voluntary-pet / Page 2 - AGREEMENT d. To advocate support of The Holland, Inc./Burgerville's temporary right- in/right-out driveway connection to Highway 99W to ODOT; e. To advocate within the I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan process Alternative 7, including tool box measures, which provides the maximum level of service practicable for the Tigard Triangle and the _ surrounding subareas. 6. The Property Owners agree that this Agreement is binding on their successors and assigns. 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, such that all the parties' signatures need not appear on the same document for a signing party to be bound by the Agreement's terms. DATED this _ day of 1995. THE HOLLAND, INC./BURGERVILLE COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION By By Title Title WAREMART, INC. By Title Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Donald E. Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Richard L. Carpenter Julia Gail Pollock C: b rcc\ceclt=p2\dmvaout. agt(fwc) 8/24/95 Page 3 - AGREEMENT .09128 08:47 1995 FROM: TO: Goo PAGE: 1 SEP-28-1995 08:31 CHRISTENSEN ENS/VIKING P.01 0 JO: 95-tam-c~J DATE: _9/2 g~95 TO: G'.src~cK Caro, w-,~! FROM: EDWARD K. CHRISTENSEN $,AX NTTMRRRs 7- *'-s - 294'4 NVMHER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 COMMENTS: FED Tp4-1A ~ro~,u e i rr14 7r.~+FM' r 1<"AIa c&L OF % rtr--,19 Agr _ 44 /+'r .~1 ~th+~ 5 ~i~AJ 17 Gyie/ ♦ / ~,c.I 1t9oN As rare A x X. JB t .eE X1-r-6jEJ9 . 'rz Sri aEd T . J • C.4c.c. /~l~ ~1J ~'/tx/T /1~.P:b /~S ,~1/~Q/Ylc,/~r . i 7000 S.W. Hampton Street. Suite zzo Portland, Oregon 97223 (50;) S98-,866 Fax (503) 598•t868 i 09123 08:47 1995 FROM: TO: 030 PAGE: 2 I III SEP-20-1995 08:31 CHRISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.02 NOW, THEREFORB, in t:onsideration of the mutual oarcnants herein, tho City and the Property Owners agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that the LID costs of approximately 4.2 million dollars shall be assassed against the LID Propertica in the perserdagcs set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waromart, Ind., agree to convey their Dartmouth Street right-of-way property to the Ciry for paymept =sistent with the valuations established in the Pollock Litigation, including interest as agreed upon by the City, Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremnrt. Inc. consistent with the interest applicably to the award in the Pollock Litigation. The City's pgrnent for the right-of-way property shall be in the b7W sum of $ to Gordon R, Martin, Sr., wiih an additional per diem amount of S accruing as of , 1995, and a total sum to Warwuut, Inc. of S with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challcn g- c the validity or other azpwl of zho L7D, adminlstsatively, judicially, or otherwise, and waive all irregularities and defects, jurisdictional or atherwise, in the LTD proceedings, including but not limited to, the apportionment and determination of the actual cost of the , action:2 agreed- -5; beiaw. 4. The City agrees to amend its ordinances to remove the limitation on baneroft bonding bassi upon tho assessed-value of the subject real property, 5. The City Agrees as follows: a. To participate in preparing and supporting a study of options to resolve the Tigard Triangle's tmnspxtation problems at the deairod loyel of doyelapn=t As requested by the Tigard Triangle community and as required by the. Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT') to amure their acceptance; b. To promote to the nommry jurWictionsal and highway officials consideration of an additional portal in and out of the Tigard Triangle to service the bu4ness inwi gists of the Tigard Triangle community and consideration of an interim ramping system from northbound Highway 217 to Dartmouth Street, C. To support the completion of the Dartmouth Street transpomtion system improvements (t;cluding item b, above) with the City's support through a aecond LTD or other funding meebanism. T s for a aecand LLD is based upon an undcratxAng AU vapory owner ncluded in that LLD aluntary Page 2 - AGREEMENT rte;! 7 69!28 08:48 1995 FH10M: T0: 000 PAGE: 3 ' SEP-20-1995 08:32 CHRISTENSEN ENG/VIKING P.03 / ;;i i e. To vdvvextz support of The Holland, Inc lBurgervit]e'a temporary right. itUrigM•out driveway connection to Highway 99W to ODOT; f. To adv=ate within the I-SfHighway 217 Subarea TYansportadon Pisa process Altcrnatiuz 7, including tool box measures, which proYidea the maximum level of service practicable for the 71gard Triangle and the surrounding subareas, 61 The Property Owners agree that this AgrEement is binding on their successors and assigns. _ 7. This Agreement may bC executed in counwp,arts, such that all the partics, signatures need not appear on the same document for A signing party to be bound by the Agrtemcnt'a terms. DA7W this _ day of , 1995, THE 14OUAND, INC./BUROERVILL13 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION By By Title Tide WAREMART, INC. By Title Gordon R. Martin, Sr. Donald B. Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Page 3 - A©REEMEW TOTAL P.03 C ONNELL RAL`-11S CREW C:ORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETPA'• TELEPHONE: (303) 2~ 4302 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• PA?~. (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLPASP RIMY TO POMAND OFFICE: 1220 Main Street. Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660.2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND• TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L_ JARRARD May 1, 1996 MALCOLM JOHNSON' MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SPECIAL COUNSEL. ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON • • ALSO ADMrMO TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Laipenteur, Jr. Mr. Gordon R. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: As agreed, I am writing in furtherance of those issues discussed at our meeting on April 25th. Cost/Credit Calculations Costs Wayne Lowry, the City's Finance Director, and Ed Christensen's staff are in agreement that as of April 30, 1996, the total cost of project stood at $4,184,632. This figure includes: (1) approximately $40,000 representing interest on the sums that the City has posted with court Q'D0NNELL RAM IS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH May 1, 1996 Page 2 in the Pollock litigation, but which have not been withdrawn and, (2) is based upon the assumption that the Martin and Waremart right-of-way will be purchased by the City at rates consistent with those awarded by the jury in the Pollock condemnation trial, with interest. See "Credits" below. Credits "Credits" as here used denotes amounts remaining to be paid by the City, either in cash or as an offset to a property owners' LID assessment. Thus, the following figures do not include the sums that have already been paid into court in the Pollock litigation, some of which have been withdrawn and some of which remain with the court. Martin Waremart Pollock Right-of-way acquisition, Right-of-way acquisition, Interest on sums posted principal: $413,497 principal: $708,097 with the court but not yet withdrawn.' $40,000 Interest at 9% from June 3, Interest at 9 % from June 3, 1993 through April 30, 1993 through April 30, Attorney fee and expense 1996: $145,409 1996: $249,007 award: Principal: $195,000 Total: $558,906 Total: $957,104 Interest from May 24, 1995 through April 30, 1996: $16,376 I Total $251,376 ` The inclusion of this sum is consistent with the City's agreement that to the extent there is a rational basis to include a cost within the LED, and to the extent that such a cost is agreed to unanimously by the affected property owners, it is acceptable to the City. 7 O'DONNELL RAMS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH May 1, 1996 Page 3 If these numbers don't jibe with what any of you have, would you please call Wayne Lowry (639-4171) so that we can get any confusion cleared up. Secret Ballot Process It was agreed that the property owners would submit, in strict confidence, a figure representing the percentage not the dollar amount) of the total, gross costs of the LID that they were willing to be assessed. This percentage figure will not take into account the credit to which any particular property owner might be entitled. I believe it was agreed that Burgerville would not be included in this process, such that its ultimate assessment would remain somewhere in the range established by the Christensen and Martin assessment formulas, i.e, $13,202 to $14,746. Judge LaMar is out of town until April 10th. That being the case, I contacted Multnomah County District Court Judge Henry Kantor and he said he would be glad to help. Just to limit the imposition we are placing on Judge Kantor, he will be asked to transmit to me the total percentage figure, and I will then circulate it to everyone. While everyone's individual percentage figure will remain confidential if the total as calculated by Judge Kantor is less than 100%, I assvrne that it is a given that if the number is 100% or more, we will be divulging the figures so that everyone's assessment can be calculated. If the total is more than 100 the first step in the calculations will be to reduce everyone's percentage contribution pro rata so the total does equal 100%. Mediation It was agreed that the property owners will give mediation at try. The City will not be a part icipant in that process. Being mediation, the process will not be binding. The cost of tiie mediation will be added to the total cost of the project. Although the group consensus was to go with a mediator who has experience in negotiations, as opposed to an engineer who would focus on assessment formula issues, Rob Bail has suggested that it would make sense to use someone who is familiar with local improvement districts. Rob has offered Larry Brisbee, Tim Sercombe a_nd Clark Balfour for consideration. Each of these attorneys has significant experience in municipal finance matters. Please notify me a soon as possible (1) which of these individuals would be acceptable to you and/or (2) who O'DONNELL RAMS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH May 1, 1996 Page 4 i you would propose to serve as mediator. If we do not get immediate agreement on Messrs. Brisbee, Sercombe or Balfour, I anticipate compiling a list of all suggested mediators and circulating it to see if we can get some quick consensus and move on with this aspect of the process. Right-of-Way Acquisition In that Waremart and the Martins have agreed to go ahead with the City's acquisition of their right-of-way, regardless of success on the "global" settlement, I will have Dominic Colletta contact Gordon Martin, Jr. and Rob Ball as soon as possible to get those acquisitions moving. IF YOU TAKE EXCEPTION TO ANYTHING IN THIS LETTER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW Ili99VIEDIATELY. Thanks. rel yours, S7/1 / Charles E. Corrigan I CEC/fwc I Encl. ~j cAo=kcccltigard Vnmting2.10 cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Dom Colletta May 1, 1996 The Honorable Henry Kantor District Court Judge Multnomah County Courthouse 1021 SW 4th Ave. " Portland, OR 97204 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Lnprovement District Dear Judge Kantor: I represent Consistent with Chuck Corrigan's letter to you of May 1, 1996, is/are willing to pay % of the total cost of the City of Tigard Dartmouth Local Improvement District. It is understood that you will add all of the property owners' "percentage" figures and provide that sum to Chuck Corrigan, who will then circulate that figure to all of the interested parties. Each individual party's submission to you will remain confidential if the aggregate of those figures is less than 100 If the total is 100 % or greater, we have agreed that you will provide the total figure and the individual percentage figures to Chuck Corrigan. This letter is submitted to you within the course and scope of ongoing settlement discussions and is not only confidential, to the extent discussed above, but shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any nature, unless this process is successful such that the figures would become public to the extent necessary to calculate and spread the LID assessments. Thank you. Sincerely yours, c: \o rc0cockti;ord\kantor. frtn(fwc) c ONNELL RA-MIS CREW C:ORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 18l N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266.1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE: (sal) 4402 944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN' FAX: (SOJ) 243.2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 DENISE L. JARRARD May 1, 1996 MALCOLMJOHNSON* MARK P. O'DONNELL JAMES M. COLEMAN TIMOTHY V. RAMIS SUSAN J. WIDDER WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SPECIAL COUNSEL ALSO ADMnTED TO FFLAMC£ IN WASHINCTON ALSO AOMrMD TO PMCnCE IN CALWOMIA The Honorable Henry Kantor District Court Judge Multnomah County Courthouse 1021 SW 4th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear Judge Kantor: As discussed during our telephone conversation of April 30, 1996, I and my office represent the City of Tigard. The City is working with four owners of property located within what is known as the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District. The total cost of that project will be somewhere over $4 million, and the City is working with the benefited property owners to determine if they can come to a mutual agreement as to which portion of that cost each of them will bear, as opposed to proceeding via the more traditional (and time consuming, and expensive) City- imposed assessment determination process. You have ag-P.ed to receive from each of the property owners a letter indicating the percentage not dollar amount) of the total cost of the LID that each owner is willing to have assessed against that owner's property. You will then total those percentages and provide the total sum to me, which I will then circulate to all interested parties. You will not divulge to anyone the individual percentage figures, unless they total 100% or more, in which case you will transmit to me both the total figure and the individual percentage numbers submitted to you by each property owner. O'DONNELL RAbtIS CREW ~ CORRIGAN & BACHRACH The Honorable Henry Kantor May 1, 1996 Page 2 Attached to this letter is a form letter that I have asked the property owners to use, or to base their own letters upon. Thank you very much for your willingness to assist in this important matter. e y yours, U Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc Encl. cc: Mayor Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Dom Colletta Paul Simmons Gordon Davis Donald Pollock Gordon Martin Ed Christensen Jeff Keeney Rob Ball Joe Willis Jim Larpenteur oil ABR Incorporated 12265 S.W. 72nd Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97223-8604 SIECEIVEI) Phone: (503) 620-2477 FaxNoice mail (503) 620-1842 AUG 19 1996 j TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: 3/14/96 TIME: 3:00 P.M. TO: O'Donnell Ramis / Charles Corrigan CITY, STATE, COUNTRY: Portland Oregon TELEPHONE ( 503) 243-2994 PLEASE CONFIRM AT (503) 620-2477 PAGES: 2 (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) SUBJECT: Dartmouth LID Settlement Agreement SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Dear Chuck: Both my father and I are in agreement with the March 12, 1996 Dartmouth Settlement agreement. The individual property assessments represented in Exhibit 1 are also acceptable. Our Gross Assessment on Exhibit 1 is $843,406.00, with a R.O.W. value of $518,240.00 being credited against our Gross Assessment, which will result in a Net Assessment of $325,166.00. We also understand that these numbers will fluctuate slightly to reflect exact calculations for interest. We will eventually be conveying the R.O.W. to the City which will not only require a ' conveyance from my father, Gordon R. Martin, but also a conveyance from uncle, Robert H. Martin and my self Gordon S. Martin. This conveyance is necessary since both of us are contract interest holders on tax lot 101 Map 2S 1 1 BA. My father, Gordon R. Martin is the sole owner of R.O.W. on tax lot 100 Map 2S 1 1 BA. Please take this into account during the drafting of the transfer documents. If you have any question please call. FROM: GORDON S. MARTIN qijgv AlTi~r.GAY.I.L-i1W Jl The parties to this Agreement are The Holland, Inc./Burgerville; Costco Wholesale Corporation; Waremart, Inc.; Gordon R. Martin, Sr., Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Donald E. Pollock, Julia Gail Pollock and Richard L. Carpenter (collectively the "Property Owners") and the City of Tigard ("City"). RECITALS 1. In 1984 the City formed the Dartmouth Local Improvement District ("LID") for the purpose of constructing a roadway known as Dartmouth Street within the area bounded by the 1-5 Freeway, Highway 217 and High wiy 99W (the "Tigard Triangle"). 2. The Property Owners own property within the boundaries of the LID ("the LID Properties"). 3. Dartmouth Street has been constructed and is open for use. 4. Pursuant to the City's ordinances establishing and controlling the LID, the City intends to assess all the costs of the LID against the LID Properties. 5. The Property Owners have agreed amongst themselves as to how the costs of the LID should be assessed against the LID Properties. 6. To complete the LID the City must acquire ownership of the Dartmouth Street right-of-way from Gordon R. Martin, Sr., and Waremart. 7. In condemnation litigation (the "Pollock Litigation"), the City acquired ownership of the right-of-way property previously owned by Donald Pollack, Julia Pollack and Richard Carpenter ("Pollock"). The jury verdict rendered in the Pollock Litigation established property valuations which Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart have agreed to accept as just compensation for the right-of-way property to be acquired from them by the City. 8. The Pity appealed the judgment rendered in the Pollock Litigation, and Pollock filed a cross-appeal. Both the City's appeal and Pollock's cross-appeal have been voluntarily dismissed. 9. The City and the Property Owners wish to resolve all outstanding matters necessary for the completion and final assessment of the LID. Page 1 - AGREE SENT IN NOW, T.IIER MORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the City and the Property Owners agree as follows: I." The Property Owners agree that the LID costs of approximately 4.2 million dollars shall be assessed against the LID Properties in the percentages set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto, which is incorporated by this reference. 2. Gordon R. Martin, Sr. and Waremart, Inc., agree to convey their Dartmouth Street right-of-way property to the City for payment consistent with the valuations established in the Pollock litigation, including interest as agreed upon by the City, Gordon R. Martin, Sr;, and Waremart, Inc. consistent with the interest applicable to the award in the Pollock Litigation. The City's payment for the right-of-way property shall be in the total sum of $ to Gordon R. Martin, Sr., with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995, and a total sum to Waremart, Inc. of $ with an additional per diem amount of $ accruing as of , 1995. 3. The Property Owners agree that they will not further challenge the validity or other aspect of the LID, administratively, judicially, or otherwise, and waive all. irregularities and defects, jurisdictional or otherwise, in the LID proceedings, including but not limited to, the apportionment and determination of the actual cost of the LID. 4. The City agrees to amend its ordinances to remove the limitation on bancroft bonding based upon the assessed value of the subject real property. 5. The City agrees as follows: a. To participate in preparing and supporting a study of options to resolve the Tigard Triangle's transportation problems at the desired. level: of development as requested by the Tigard Triangle community and as required by the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to assure their acceptance; b. To promote to the necessary jurisdictional and highway officials consideration of an additional portal in and out of the Tigard Triangle to service the business interests of the Tigard Triangle community and consideration of an interim ramping system from northbound Highway 217 to Dartmouth Street; C. To support the completion of the Dartmouth Street transportation system improvements (including item b, above) with the City's support through a second LID or other funding mechanism. The City's support for a second LID is based upon an understanding that all property owners included in that LID would be voluntary participants or would have signed applicable non-remonstrance agreements; d. To advocate support of The Holland, Inc.Burgerville's temporarysight- Page 2 - AGREEMENT oil ' i inhiJ3ht• out driveway connection to Highway 99W to ODOTi C. To advocato withtn the r-S/Righwny 217 Subarea Transportation Plan proma Altornativo 7, {ttoluding tool box mcnsuros, which jptovidc3 thq if maximum loves of corvloo praatiaablo for the Tigard Trituiglo and the surrounding subareas, 6. The Pfoperty Ownern agreo that this Agmornerit is binding on tholL• succossors and sss{gnsr 7. This Agreement may be oxeauted In eauntorparts, such that all the, pavilea' signatures geed not 'appear on the eanso document for a o{gning party to by bound by tho Agreement's terms. DATED Oils i day of ► 1495. THB HOLLANP, INC./DURGBRVIL.LB COSTCO WROLMALB CORPORAVON 73y--•-- - - By_------- TIOB Title i WAR.EMART. !NC .1 Title C3o1'~14t1 R. Martin, ,Sr. I Y~u,tu{d J3, YbIlo~tc ©ordvjl S, :Mart n, Jr, t rdchard L.' Carp enc Julia Gall Pollock ~ C4%Ow,t\ON%jjAA d\dRMmul.sjr(ty) I~1419J Pap 3 - AQRR1lN 13NT • )ONNELL RAIMIS CI LE\V CORRIGAN & BACHRi~CH JEFF H. 13ACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT IAN/ CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD M1 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant. Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266.1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA" TELEPHONE: ( 222.44Q2 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN' FAX: (503) 2 243) 43.2443 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 MALCOLMJOHNSON* May 10 1995 MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS JAMES M. COLEMAN WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL. COUNSEL A= ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASH WMN ALSO ADMITTED TO PRAC= IN CALIFORNIA BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAX LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Since sending out my letter of May 1st, which included a suggestion as to possible mediators for this case, I have had communications with some of you. Based on those conversations, and the lack of objections from the rest of you, I have concluded that it would be acceptable to all to have Clark Balfour serve as the mediator in this case. I have talked to Clark, and it is obvious that he is both quaiif ed to work on this matter and enthusiastic to do so. What's more, the hourly rate he would charge for his services ($135 per hour), and his initial impression as to how long it would take to either get this matter resolved, or determine that it was unresolvable, indicates that his total fee (which will be added to the LID costs) will likely be less than the amount quoted by Doug Hamilton when we started this process last year. OPONNELL RANI1S CREW IORRICAN & BACHRACH May 10, 1996 Page 2 I think the best way to get Clark up to speed as fast as possible is to have a group meeting where each property owner (or the property owner's representative) could give his perspective on the issues at hand. That would also give Clark the opportunity to ask any questions he might have and to best decide how he would want to proceed from that point on. Given that the "secret ballot" process still might be successful, we should let that process run its course before we get together with Clark. Based on a suggestion made by Gordon Davis in his recent memo, objections to which have not been lodged, this will establish May 15th as the deadline for submitting the secret ballots. I trust we would then have an answer from Judge Kantor no later than Friday, May 17th. If I do not hear anything to the contrary by noon, Monday May 13th, I will have my staff start setting up a meeting to take place sometime during the week of May 20th. Of course, should the secret ballot procedure work, such a meeting will not be necessary. IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE PROPOSALS, PLEASE VOICE THEM IMMEDIATELY. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc(Encl.) c:la rcclcec%tigardtmeetingZ.lt4 cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Dom Colietta Clark Balfour FAX/MAILING LIST Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Jeffrey I-1. Keeney Donald Joe Willis Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke James A. Larpenteur, Jr. & Booth Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 1600 Pioneer Tower 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 888 SW 5th Ave. 1211 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 FAX:274-8779 FAX: 796-2900 PHONE:221-1440 PHONE: 222-9981 Ed Christensen Robert S. Ball Christensen Engineering Ball Janik & Novack 7000 SW Hampton Street Suite 100 Suite 220 101 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97204 FAX: 598-1868 FAX: 295-1058 PHONE: 598-1866 PHONE: 228-2525 Paul Simmons Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Waremart 12165 SW 72nd Ave. P.O. Box 12909 Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Salem, Oregon 97309 FAX: 620-1842 FAX: 503-588-5657 PHONE: 620-2477 PHONE: 503-588-3426 Donald Pollock Gordon Davis 1834 SW 58th Ave. #202 P.O. Box 8774 Portland, Oregon 97221 Portland, OR 97207 FAX: 292-4862 FAX: 227-7221 PHONE: 292-4373 PHONE: 248-1185 William A. Monahan Wayne Lowry City Administrator Finance Director City of Tigard City of Tigard IM25 S.W. Hall Blvd. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 FAX: 684-7297 FAX: 684-7297 PHONE: 639-4171 PHONE: 639-4171 Mayor Jim Nicoli Clark I. Balfour Nicoli Engineering Cable Huston Benedict & Haagensen P.O. Box 23784 1001 SW 5th Ave., Ste 200 Tigard, OR 97281 Portland, OR 97204 FA.X: 684-3636 FAX: 222-3176 PHONE: 620-2086 PHONE: 224-3092 c:\orc6cec\ti Qord\meeting2. is t(fwc) JEFF H. BACHRACH ATrowvEYS +r LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD L727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. SEERY Portland, Oregon 9Y_'09 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA'• " TELEPHONE: (503) 2224402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEFHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLLAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND` TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 MALCOLM JOHNSON- May 13, 1996 MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS JAMES NI. COLEMAN WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL BY FACSEVf]LE and FIRST CLASS MAIL ALSO ADMIT= TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA SEE ATTACHED 1VIAILING/FA_X LIST TO. Jeffrey H. Keeney Paul Simmons Donald Joe Willis Ed Christensen James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Donald Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Gordon Davis Robert S. Ball Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: I have not heard much of anything about the status of matters from the property owners' perspective for some time. As you know, both the "secret ballot" process and the mediation that we have previously discussed have not gone forward. The Tigard City Council is meeting this Tuesday, June 11, 1996, and may have this topic on their Executive Session agenda. If you have any information that you could share with me that you think it is important for the Council to be aware of, please let me know. Thank you. Sinc&ely: yours, Ctarles E. Corrigan CEC/mcm cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoll Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Dom Colletta Clark Balfour 06.1`11 13:36/ 1996 FROM: 501 88,1 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 2 0S/11196 14:10 -x309 7297 CITY OF TIGARD :1TY ATTORNEY U002/012 06/11/95 11:22 1&503 U20 2086 NICOLI £NG,,Inc. CITY OF TICAIW Q002 ABR Ynco po1ated. 12265 S.W. 72nd Averse T*nd, t7rrgon 9722M604 Phone: (503) 624-2477 FaxlVoice mail (503) 620-1342 Juzrs 10, 1996 ?.favor Tim Nicca Nicoli Fx9incerilig P.O. Boa 23784 Tigard:, OR 97281 Rs: Review and kmztib~arian of the ,flssessn'}emt Pracxss for rise tJatbmotttlx LID Honorable Mayor N=li, The Mallins bane given careful con -ideration to all of the various aspects of the Dartmouth LID and have sec forth in acts letter and rile enclosed do=Me= Titled -DartmAurh UD Azmz~ Comments and. Supparti3.-, Fasts." pez em LID inforznatiozt, observations, and conclumons for your consjderation. Making the comparison between the two most seasonable assessment forrmlas (which is an bbegal Part of our araanrr =ts) =gWxed rec&3 a U D boundaries which dddayed the presentation of this letter and enclosed dr,cnt ne (A) The ology Used in the assesmem formok adopted by the City of Tigard in 1984. (Ordinance 84-18) spreazis the beneft from Dartmouth Street (if it were a straight sze>rt) to the iadivijdlaal Fa x4s within the LID in the most equitable way possl'ble considering the varic y of specmlw=d benefim exch.parcel has relative to the Street. Althougl, the methodology employed in the existb3g unadjusted Ordiuant`e 84-18 Foffiula has great merit in spreading assessment accordwg to be>oefrt~ it fags short m ac=,mting for the advantage to property assessed on a sgaare foot basis which is on the inside of a curved smeeL The Cb=st== A.d•1u=d O=diaanra 54-18 Formula was fo"atrmd exactly the sarne as the wdsting imadjusted Orditra= 84--18 Foramla., except that it is based on a bean' H= assess=e Tit with aqu=ez= frr proFerty depth by zones. This eliminates the advantage to property on the inside of a curved, MIME being assessed on a square foot basis- Thu unfair adv=wge was the only aspect ofthc fnmmla amtbodology to Martins protested m their remonstta against the asscssmcats levied by Ordinance 84.18. There were however, other roamers that were contested that have -ql=e bcen resolved. if Dartmouth Street was swaj& the unadjusted Ordin<a= 94-19 Formala and the Cbristansen Adjusted. 84-18 Fornulla mould yield Tile sang assessmew for each parcel m the LID- pill 06/.11 13:36 1996 FiJOM: 503 684 i'2W T0: 2473 PAGE: 3 06111196 14:10 '2503. 7297 CITY OF TIGARD + 'ITY ATTORNEY 19003/012 06/11/96 11:22 V503 020 2086 NICOLI ENG- Inc. CITY OF TIG,4RD 0003 i 3 Honorable Mayor NiO 3li JW= 10, 1956 page :j (C) Ware mart and Coslso have been re=iVMg benefit from Dartanouth Street for several ycais, atd have used up most of tt avallable trafrm CVacity provided by eae street Before the Martins out Mr Pollo&- can tffly bent t f wa the street they must guaratxe additional, cag=ty hnptov=c= to Dart'inomb. The Martm 8t=pted to alloy these reV=W additi=21, .%mpx0vea=rs amongst al1 the mouth UD p2Z~ thlCugh a SecoDd UD, So both the Martins and. Mr. Pollock would not be unfairly btttd d WittL campleti ig all. the improveserns by themselves. War== objecMd to this approach and igsisted on closing tb-- first Without conditions. The Martins conceded to Wm-=art's pow nitdCr the assun47tian d= the C&istcnsen Adjas-tcd 84'18 Forma wand be used to allocate assessments and dhat tTthcr cagpaCl'#y 1mtplovem 05315 to Duftwulh would be implemented up= closing of the Lm. (D) Now that the Martins have compromised on not requiring the additional capacity improvrncats in be part of the fast IM ettl ms Ware a= is now c angina their i agreetn= to using the Qmstmscn Adjusted 8¢18 Fb=nla. T121s has been done by Promoting asses farmu]as tbat completely omit and disxugard generally accepted assessmcnt procedures that in one way or anog= always consider street fr=ag and propery location m relarionsbig to the stye---L Furthemnore, thew fo=malas deviate even farther from proper finds of assesment by presupposing development MOUM and type before it is committed ro occur- The effigy of these unsupportable assessment fortrald5 is to =nsfer cost to the Martms. It so.Cms that Warenort supportcd the Chrt-tensen Adjusted Ord=n= 84-18 1 cmmh urml they det=m=zd tlutt then assessmeat did aan suit there. lUs decision appears to coiadde with Future Shop deddfng not m pumbase the Wax== property- No one is showing Vby the C ht i'ma'm Adjusted 84-18 Fommla is biased or tmfaa- h= d, promotion of uns ipportable foamulas bas co=xmced whkh serves to create confxrsion in the an-reat settlement process. This provides false cYcuses for sraYran; the settlexn= process all over again It is the Maxtins position. based ou the cow above mid the supporting sta:temeats !u the codosed doaxnextt that ft Ch*istemsea FAgineming Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula, WWch is forma-Itcd the same as the entry approved C.lly of Tigard's Assess,=eat Ordim= 84-18, is by far the most supportable and fair method of allocating assessmeut acardiag to becfu4 derl•red fm m Darmumth Street Not only was d= Chrictenscu Adjusted S4r18 Fcnnula prepared mailer coammission of the C ky of Turd, t wa_s also amhori2ad and endomed by all tare major Darttaowh LID par=pants as was mdadmg, land outside the LID that was within 450 fc*t of the Dartwuth P•OW_ 1 13:37 1996 FROM: 503 BFI: 7297 70: 2473 PAGE: 4 06111196 14:11 V503 1 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTOR,N'EY 4004/012 05111196 11:23 • 1.503 azo 2088 NICOLI ENG..Inc. fit CITY OF TIGARD Q004 Honorable A+fayw NImli 1M20 10, 1996 page 3 The Maztins intend to vigorously support the said Christanum .Adjus-tad Ordmian= 84-18 Fonmatla and the a5=SsMe s it produces until it can be factually prov= to dls 2n that it is not the most equitable was to allocue assessments under the ov=all cxrc mmstan= and =stramts of the Dartmouth LID. The developmenr of an adjusted 84-18 assessment fo7rmWa and satisfiCtLOn of the points of settled bas transpired over tb-- last year and it is now concluded- Tho cost of further cousid=26ou of as assesses frsrumia should not be iixurred since we have completed the process and have developed the proper folmmla_ Ccrtafnly, no new process should be undrataken.III th;, parucipz*s) who have cbanged their binds and no longer agree wx& the Christen= Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 FomaL-4 have factually proven that the Formula is not a supportable and fair way to a7lou ate aesessmcuts. The Martins believe that after the City of Tigard realistically evatu2ars its options concerning assessmig for Dartmrnnli, it will dew that it has only three viable clwices: (1) It can proc=d with irapl on of the odsting unadjusted Ordinance 84-18 Asses=eut Formula without 2 This gives ua6 r advaaaage to Waremart over the other participants in i s of the Dartmouth save, and to both Costro and Warem= in terms of their developed land which is outside $e LID boundaries, but within 450 feet of Dartmouth. (2) Ix can amend the existing una,ddjasted Ordinance 94-18 assessmctat fiorr.xU to include for assessment cakulat m that land developed by Costco and Ware:m which is outside the LID boundaries, but wi bjn 450 fed of the edge of the Dartmouth Ri;of-Of Way. This inclusion would have xelahvely ittrie dollar asses signmWance and could provide a legal type re:tnonstranm al-.Mme-111 (3) It tau =end the exMng ordinarze 84-18 so it h2cludes the Chxistemm F.ta•s formula adjustments to provide a fair division of assessment through c==. role coasiderabwn, and tlen eitber inch a exclude land outside the LID botmLides as described above T71c Martins mVpan prang fbr Council consideration the assessments as allow by the C brzT=5t= Engmeenng Adjusted l_lrrt=n= 84-18 Formmla to nxinde the above said land cx tsidc the LID bouL1aai= and the poinns of setlment that have been agreed to at one time or der. 06111 13:37 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 5 06111196 14:12 TPS03 7297 CITY OF TIG.ARD ;TTY ATTORNEY 16005/012 06/11/96 11:23 2`503 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. CITY OF TIGARD 0005 Smoralale Mayor Nicoll SIM 10, 1996 pge 4 If the city is concerned with the possffiMW of a dmEex ge to inclltdiaa land aumda ibe 1JD, it is the Martins ree+ aeutiatiorl that the CbdSWMsea A&psted City Of Tigazd Ordiamace 84-18 Fwrnala be applied anly to the area within the district ualem all par cipants waive their rigbts to Z=ansaxtc cm its issm Vrxy trxly y0=1 Gordon ?'Z Nlarft Gordon S. Martin CC: Jeffrey Fl. Keeney Donald Pollock DomId Jae Willis Co don Davis Jams A Iatpenrenr, 7r_ W Liam A Maaaban Robert S. Ball Pzd Simmons Ed Cb risD=sea Cxark L Balfour 06,1.11 13:38 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 6 08/11/96 14:12 x`505( • 7297 CITY OF TIGARD + ;ITY ATTORNEY 10008/012 06/11/96 11:24 $500 620 Z086 NICOLI E,NG.,I¢c. CITY OF TIGARD ®006 Air reviewing 6& disci s v-rm of our April 2S, 1M. meeting of the Dartiaouth LID paitic p= s reqnagred by Mayor Nicoll, it bass became apparett to the Umtim that . gang agre== from all part= at %b e saute tune may be difflcalt. Comq)lainls am being voiced against being assessed for legal fees cm, ad by the acti= of others Wh2lC im the process of objecting to u faiE=- However; try legal fames would have bees avoided is the past and can be avoided in ffie fiz i , if the parocipa= k=udlng the qty of Tigard bad been, wrling to work and wM work To c== urfa n ess whenever 1L is procbmiod and de mstrafed as =Amg. For ==Vle, it was •poimted out in late 1992 and early 1993, that $3.00 per foot was uaidy low is rem,aa;< to mart prices and the Pollock property. This was because ma=aw parcels such as Pollocks' with s ly less than 4S0 Ret of depth frcm Darttnouth that provide R. ght-Of-Way (ROW), pay a smaller relative parr of each i icremcnW inure is RAW cost than do dl c deep= parcels. This results m the ==w pav:)d having a smaller affsetttng "wash effect' from higber ROW prices than the d=xr parcels- This made establishing q fair market price for ROB" IDllch more huprJrt3r[t for fairness to the Pollock parcel tlmn for the Martna or Warm= pa=ls. We do not believe the LID participants recpgilze or appreciate the ewrm s amount of research, calcWzd= and consensus buildtr g that w,.s done by Cluistenseg En=eerjag, to get the serdemeut agreement to its y== level of =mplctiozL Since all of the participants aI ow dr= or another dltd g The last several mo=b,- have ag=d t4 all the critical elexxie= nccessary to complete the agrerm= it is agate than we are apparently in the process of abandoam; the pry ttlat has been accomplished toward settlement regarding an assessmenn fommla and hnpmving maffic capacities- 71K progress was the resalt of profound evaluation of equitable solutions rather ihtu oratorical rh I The Martins arc m the process of rcsigntimg dmmseives to miser saga of the LID and property owners on their own being for=d to wastcWy spend hundreds of thousands of dollar mom an t =y aYtctwc:p fees which could be avoided by resuming cur recent past ha-depth, hunt.-st cooperalion. (Which means to avoid, the cost of >mph aMm=y frees, the property owners m= truly believe W what they advocate and be ready to cblge w'ctat: thty advocate when prayed facts which mal= ahem inwardly know ttcy have been wrong as to what s fair.) Sind all of the IM participants are finanx=l1y stzong. none wtll forgo du= principles of equity without a struggle- Tab=, tbesc will be no setd== rust is not wither the fl3mework of what they all canside to be woximble sort equitable. All of which makes for tlr- l e cexv heron that we deal vnih facts if we are to mach a settkm=r- Fuzzdicsm+ore, evezynw involved with respotmIulhy to pay for tht cost of the Datinouth LID sbouW remember that whoever reraoonstraes against the assessment the 1 06111 13:38 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 FO: 2473 PAGE: 7 08111198 14:13 '$503 4 7297 CITY OF TIGA.RD CITY ATTOR\'EY IM007/012 08/11/96 11:24 12503 620 2089 NICOLI EN1G..Inc. CITY OF TIGARD F~j007 city levies after tor, oppoituaity to use Bancroft fiuanoi expires will Lose that d& unless try prevail m bavmg the aMMSM= Set aside for u- court aetzam,. In attimopfMg to zeducc tbeir assesstuem calculated by the Ordinance 84-48 formula as adjusted for ftm=ge benefit by CIrlstensea Eb rir+ which they previously agreed was fait, ono of the participants has broagli farward a totally uns :Tporw)le method of a a+t which s1f4 a malar portion of their assessmenst to other participants. That method is to siruply calculate the total acreage of each major grouping of partic#=±s in, the LID and fl= dea=niue each group's share of the total LID com ou a simple pro- rated pacentAge basis. On the srtrfa.cc this may seem reasonable. In fact, the result would be perfectly reasonable under certain conditions. For example, if-Dart=urh were a straight mad and all participants bad equal depth, iectaiWilar, unrestricted access, street fronting lots and there was no advznraae or cost associated with beiaa at the =d of the street, thew a simple pro-raced basis of total area would be fair because the amdh,ons an equal and as emoted, all property would have the same asses per sq=m foot for each lineal foot of street f orrr ge. In fact, if applied to the conditions of The above example both the City of Tigard's unadjusted Orddbmnce 84-18 Formula and the Chdstc::~ Adjusted Ordinance 94^18 Forauula would t>~:sttIt in identical assessments to that of the simple pro-rated of total area approach- So why did the original engineer for the LID ;o d oa h the trouble of dividing the land into three zones and limiting assessm+?r w property within a distat= of 450 feet ftm Dartmoat[0 why do =6-=ers and appraises bother with cemerline frcritege wf= they could simply take the ant of each tax lot and assess it a simple pro-r= area share of total co%-9 The answer is obvious and simple, property with ftentage has match greater value than property whho t frontage. Therefore, the more frontage to a desirable thing the more benc9t- Thus, we bane the cez=ies' old practice of assigning benefit valve on the basis of h ntdagQe and chstame from it, regardless of 'der it is fvro=ge to all ocraa, a lakes a river, or a road- Pta ssional, appraisers uphold the fa that beneft ina=ses with closeness to de=able fat Male to be self ovidem and beyond dispute. Thus, to advance arguments to the contrary is to disregard am age old acxxptcd practice and tact whisu' has also recently beea proven to c= with xegands to the Dartraou h Frontage when Office Max paid. $21-00 a foot to obtain im premium t1v~~tre.. . It is our opition that reaching an agreement as to agents by means of a °=et ballot is an exercise is fun7iy Sod is not an appmpri;= approadL To acauately calculate bcnc& to each, tax lot which is Ys*7m-ed by law, za assessment fa ula is requn-ed which cam bin and employs as a r m. the z= pert ent criteria used and Ickrowle,4--ed by professional appraisers to d ine beneft from a roadway This csiLeBa nu = briude: (a) the amoum of road fi=rage in relation to land area, and (b) the diR-taa of the land to the zoaAway. Without first establishing and agreeing to such a formula, (which they earlier did by agreeing to the r-IZistensen Adjusted ordman= 84-18 Foaurla) some; L$) pamcV= .have proposed simple and 2 W l 1 1 1 3::i 1 1-498 FROM: 503 684 ,'297 T0: 2473 PAGE: a 061111196 14:13 V503 3 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORIiFY Q008i012 06/11/96 11:25 12503 920 2088 NICOLI ENG..Inc. CITY OF TIGARD 0008 sap€' &iaUy appealnig asst ideas Willw It Mud to ovmn &==s or application wod mbi&.y. Thz approach by- Its =b=,c= nature caaot be cqx:cftd to provide a *mnla ntffm=fly to vah(Hy assign bearft assesses m each of the tax lots in. the LID, an of which have dsf nt shapes herd axe Iocaud is d lose= relatiombips to the Dartmouth Roadway. Since Options gad otter complexities of tax lot ownership makes consolidation of t'ax lots impossili]e: at this time, not being able to V::al&y Sept= and assign. b=.-fit a to individual tax lots renclecs an assessment xnctbod suggestion such as one based simply on Natal arcs and/or projected tza c volumes, imposale to apply and therefore useless to consider. Neverdeless, since it has been recently proposed that assess=c= be based on Dural area and/or prajectcd traffic volumes, we addr= the following, comments to tbas' Proposal: (1) As explained above, any Darmwath asses- t proposal that by its nature assigns one assessment amount to a graUP of tax lots is U=1nka. y self =validating by not being capable of rationally allocating beset between individual tax lots as required by law. Someone may suggest that this problem cm be ovexwme by: (a) malting a total area approach division of cast between the Inam four ownembip gnoupaggs wAmut ra-,rd to Dartmouth's relative location, then. (b) apply the C bism== Adjusted Ordinance 84-18 Formula or some oth~ vaLd assessaimt method Wbacb does consider the road's relative location to allocate bit to ea& group's bulividmi mx lots. Our reply would be d urt using the result of a kaowal impropa division of cost as the basis for aMIyitig a proper method of asdguiag benefit, compotmds the problem: by unnsfcim ing the pxc>per inediod into as mvaW one by definibom It also begs the question of why wasn't a proper method sash as the OrdbA= 84-18 Formula adiusted by Chwftsan E gg for road cmva=e used on all the LID property from the beg~~? Of cotttse a#xe ax>szvea to the last won is that the eotal a= approach seemed a way m reassign a pigpen mclhod's asses to the advamage of its advocatics. (2) A teas! area and/or traffic volume appr=h cempletely disregards the two most ialpor= determiners of value Owe&) used by professional appraisen of commmr,W property in a given loses in relation to a roadway. These, as satted above, are: (a) dl a amp of road frontage is relation rA land area., and (b) the distance of the land to tbr. roadway. (3) To over=me defvi=1= of a total area approach, ccnMrU= frontage is tLbt , into consideration and land is commonly divided hart zones xelaird directly to the distance from the roadway, with the zone Sutbest ftom the roadway baving a d=nt1dc aIlyr lower asse:sv== rate than ft rani bronring the xoadway. 3 Jill 0•;,/11 13:40 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 9 08/11/98 14:14 '$50J 1 7297 CITY OF TIG.UW CITY ATTO%,EY [A 009/012 09/11/98 11:28 '$503 820 2098 NICOLI E.iG.,Inc. CITY OF TIGARD Q009 s ti (4) If a road is being bWU by an IM in a co l like Dartrmouth's, that reduce the amlomot of service roads new for me parcel is comparison with a. second parcel, and also ROW is required frcan the Ent pared; these is a doable beneft to the Erse parcel resalfixig from the ccnft=zd= %t is: (a) bdmg paid for R®W,• and (b) saving an eonstracaom of service roads- rn ar t=4 the second p=cd hm to prov¢de land and pay all. consauction costs fb r tim sn-dce roads for ft b uUdhgp whHe aim p2rds ly pgFing for the above dew double bewft to the foist pzral. This is part of the reason why It is n to have "a bene& from c!<a ves" egna>izationc factor is the unadjusted Ordm=ce Sri-IS l+'v=uia as the Owi nsen A4jasted Orditaa= 84-18 Formula has In r . (5) A projected tra.ffi,c volume approach to assssmeat has aU the defici=6as of a total area approach phis it has the patentlal to aSSYSS the Property receiving Able gsea = dollar benefit the lowest asses. This is bC== a stoic which sells high cost R ms Such as furtuntre and appliances g=eraxe many tares the profit per lap of say a fast food ra b=ant. Also, a feather complicating factor is that low traffi c Zcnaw= gain. b=fit from exposure IQ traffic of higher U?-Ta: gencrat=- Furdx=orc~ 1'' ff iC vob= prujectlow are only "best eStll~aIL'S" and it i5 not uncommon for them to be SL-pufficandy wrong- Due to the fast tUt the aSSeSSm- fotmilla and ag menr pro=ss fbr which Cbfzt==n F--gine_ ipg was retained by all LID participants to camel lew is now no longer accepte l by all LID participants, d3e Martins sot no alumnadve occept to refer 1 to Ilse assent Rmnzla that has been approved by the City of Tigard. Mx. Coroiigm ' has on uameroas occasions maRtgaed that the assessment formula which ww adopted by the Tigard City Council by Orfflmu= 8418 iu 1984, and =Vkwed by the Stain AppcHaft Court in 1986, is still the valid asses a xlh=ce as the court idendBed defect has bsru com ecsed. olorwcver, the Dotins' position is drat after Em,diaig the boundary defect the cara=t stopped short of addressing onset- a sses=ent mMs sash as the need for a "curve correction factor.) The e;dsr g unadjusted 4rdhm= WIS ftmala assesses on a pece per ware foot basis related to the distatsce f co m the edge of the Dart nauttz. of it-rf--way. The assessed area is divided into fame zosaes.. The OA" zone enends 150 feet fr aaa DarimAlI[h with an. assessment rage of tfrtee tangs the `C' zone. The "B" zone c=cr >;tss ISO feet to 300 $mt flan Dartmouth with WA asses rate of two times the rare of the "C" zoate. The "C' zone czteuds 300 f1Cet to 430 fret f t m Damn s. Tbus, a $1.00 "C' zme assessment per square foam would rrimm the "B' zOW assessment Was $2.00 and the "A" zone was $3.00. By peme'e of the total of ibe three zmnes, the "C" zone is 16.67%, tine zone is 3333`x, Md. the 'A' robe is SO%. 4 Mill 11 13:40 1998 FROM: 503 684 72A7 TO: 2473 PACE: 10 06/11/96 14:14 %2500' A 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CIn ATTOPU EY 1p 010/01: 06111196 11:27 =500 620 2086 NICOLI ENG.,Irc. CITY OF TIGARD Q010 The unadjusted Ordiln= $4-18 Assdssta= Foranlia as presctily formulated results in factually fable, lower road frontage costs per square foot and otter benefits for land on the inside of the Da o iawth curve, such as the saving on ser doe road costs described above- The Caen Adusmd Ordhw= 89-18 Famwa partially correct33 ft these =-ve cry add. If Dar=wmh was a straight road, the two fomulas would give klendcal results. This is because the C'1uis6ense i Adjusted, Ordmaare 84--18 Faanah e$NbIishes a =tzlme IM=d foot cost and allocates that cost to individual tax lots by dividing it betw= ZL1Dtr5 whine extend from each ed,;e of the right-of-way. Tbgze zones have 1hr. identicO depdL and asses== nolbs as those of the unadjusted Ordinance 84-18 descrbed above. Also, the Chdst== Adjusted Ordinance 8448 Fo=ak in keeping with the unad7ltsted Ordinance 8¢18 Fotnznla provides in cf Uxt si=hx zoi weighted "err ts" ag last the per lineal foot centerline charges, for. (1) the area det*+)w*ed by a lime drawn at a 45 degree angle through the zones at the intersection of ants .'1g and required fw= public roads, and (Z) the amom3E of land not owned by IM assoCiued participant which is outside the LID boundari= and within. 450 feet of the right-of-way edge. The above is why there is no diffevmce between the two formulas in terms of results wh= both are applied to the same saaigbr acad.. However, on a amed road fhe Christensen. Adjusted OrdiAa= 84-18 Formula adjusts for the geometric fact that land of a given depth on the imsirl of a curve has more road frontage per square foot tl?= land of the e'''~,s~~m= depth on t~ outside of the carve- Simply expressed, the Christ== Adimsted Ctd a= 84-18 Formula p'rerisely offsets the above st~'!s ICd geometric fact and assesses all land in each zone area an evening amount per square foot for each lineal foot of centerlbe frontage. This sq>aare four z-rlp asse,Smenr equalt7atioa for each ]soeal foot of road framagc tends to compensate for the advantages to land on the inside of a curve as well as can reasonably be expected from aW p=cisay defmcd assessment firMULL The ]ins accept the Omsteus= Adjusted Ordi et 84-18 Formula because it mcludos the Chnsumse 1 adjustaies t for road curvamm and believe k to be the most workable ;md ealllitable fw awfl- able for the Darrmourh LID. It is of infor>aarive sipffitarace that the X-eseat Martin Family owned Dartmouth Froata„e is only 1525 of the total fro=ge whole the Ware= assocized ft stage is two and one-balf ties that am=t at 38.9%. The total land area for both Wmvmarc and the Idaxtius is viitaally the =me. The sc cc==euds would not be complete without a strLement about the nigbnare each of the pardcipamts sbare in relation to t3v* wetlands. The eff= of these wedatds on development and the cost of mitigwiag or moviIIe tb= is nor necessarEy propordonal to their size, rather the effect and cost is related to shape and locz:ion an the proq=ty to be developed_ It is the lufa~s judgment that we should try to agree on a sCJ11cnient wi houx atrerapting to comparadvely consider and quaorj~y in dollars our individual S 06!11 13:41 1996 FROM: 503 684 7297 i0: 2473 PAGE: 11 06111196 14:15 V507 4 7297 CITY OF TIGARD ~ CITY ATTORAKEY W011/012 06/11/96 11:27 $50.. 620 2086 •NICOI.I E G-Inc. CITY OF TIQtRD 14011 wetland effc= znd C03L b=rew the are too c=gfl= and nut fuuy de=mh1t cl. if Svc bring wetlands faro the forlmiL- , we can probably Ieg=dely dens ibzCvcr on our relarive wetland effects and costs_ For e7jizzple„ Wbrcm= dirougu a= cr,,du It =:I= for wetlands appears to believe it has true Iaxgw probleor tact the Slattim famly believe thek wed-and problem is and will be mush mars costly ad difficult to xewlvr than was Warematts. Both Cosmo, and Wareraatt have developed lmd beyond the existing LID bo ees. Such developed laud whirls is withtu 450 feet of tlxe edge of rice paw Right-of Way has beta mxhided in the application of the Chdst=sm Adjusted ordbw= WIS Formula, to the Dalrtutouth TM- Also, land optioned to the Martins wlxich is outside the LID but within 450 feet of die Duuwuth ROW bas been inahuled. Alm= all of this additional land which was aiagmal y excluded firm a by the existi$g mmdjusmd Ordinance 8-18 Formula is iu the "C' zone which as d above has orte-~ the assessment rare of the sum of the "A" plus °`R" plus `C" zones. Theseffore, the effect would not be of major signi-9rance if tWs additiowl land outside the LID was =laded from the applicattau of the Christ=en Adjustedl. Ordimuo= 84- 18 Forirxla so it would apply to the exacx legal boundaries of the LID- The reswr of =eluding the lands outside the LID and using the Chnstcns= Adjusted Ordina= 84- 18 FoQ' miU would be to emulate exactly dw unadjusted ordinance 84-18 assessment method and boundaries ez~t for >he adffmicdc cnoae d= descrand above which is required to egm1hze charges for road frontage bed associated with, za LID with a carved road. 'This approach may be the easiest and mast direct solution for the city of Tigard to the assesm t problem. In t~s of the Ordinance 84-18 as adjusted for ftat d e benefit by Chnstemen meeting, exahzd=g- land outside the LID boundaries would reduce the Waremart assessment most {$61,128). Costco would also have a redxic ton 1$13,088}. To amipensate for t= reductions, the Martins, assessment would be h=eased most ($4.8,713), and the Pollock property assessra=t would flux se (4,23,195). Me c=bnsions is the previous three saatem= axe based on the A a °rs^xxir Faamula camparis= tables on page 7. 6 t~/11 13:41 1995 FROM: 503 684 7297 TO: 2473 PAGE: 12 06/11/96 14:16 '050: 3 7297 CITY OF TIGARD CITY ATTORNEY 10012/012 08/1196 11:28 V504 620 2086 NICOLI LNG..Inc. CITY OF TICARD 012 ''`(BothFasmnlas. de Linn outside the 13D bovadaay for Conw, Waramum. and. Mardn optioned Xvperty) Partieipaz>t CIlristensea % of Cbffance % cf Di&x=ce Adjusted Project 84^18 Project Baw= 84-18 Formula Fonnalas Fammila Nf2rtion*** $900,301 21.51 1,042,905 24.91 142,604 Waremart North $1,573,081 37.57 1,322,490 3159 (250,591) Warema= S_(Maxti33) $67,833 1.62 98,159 2.11 20,326 Waremart Total--` $1,640,915 3920 1,410„649 33.70 (234,260 Costw*** $959,976 2293 1,422,509 .24.43 62,533 Pollock North $280,788 6.71 291,445 6.96 10,657 PoUock S. (Maxtia) $398,499 9.52 410.833 9.81 12„334 Pollock Total- $679,287 16.23 702,27$ 16.78 22,991 BAr9E'0me* * Sa 693 .,14 7,831 _19 2.138 Total Bold Only*** $4,186,172 100.00 4,186,172 100.00 -4-• *(Both Formulas not old k land o>rudde the LID bomAixy for Costco, Wa=nart, and Marlin opdor=d properly) Partitcip=t Chnsmusca % of Qrdim> o of Difference Adjusted Project 84-18 Project Bdween 84-18 Formla Formulas ForM3ta M2Lrtim*** $949,014 22.67 1,M CI 25.89 134,657 Waremart North $1,508,283 36.03 1,285,534 30.71 ('222,749) Wan== S_0dartin) $71,304 1.71 91,605 2.19 20,101 Waremart Total $3,579,787 37.74 1,377,139 32.90 0,42,645) Cosboa' $945,888 22.62 999,169 23.87 52,281 Pollock Norf. $295.981 7.07 302,837 7-23 6,856 Pollock S. (Martin) $408,531 9.76 415,219 9.92 6,718 Pollock Total-t-* $714,432 26.83 7738,05E 17.15 13,574 Banr xvt'iie**s S M1 14 8_137 .19 21136 Total Bold Only- 54,180,172 10000 4,186,172, 100_00 -0- 7 DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregoe 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE: (503) 222.4402 TELEPHONE (503) 26& 1149 DOMINIC G. COLT MA•* PAX; (503) 243-2944 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Place GARY F. FIRESTONE. PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OMCE 1220 Main Street, Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G. FRANK HAMMOND` TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 Y.ENNETH D. HELM FAX (360) 699-7221 MALCOLM JOHNSON. June 12, 1996 MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAM1S JAMES M. COLEMAN WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSL L • ALSO AOMmEO TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CAUFORNIA BY FAX and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAX LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Robert S. Ball Paul Simmons Ed Christensen Donald Pollock Gordon Davis Re: City of TigardiDartmouth Local -Improvement District Gentlemen: By their letter of June 10, 1996, the Martins have confirmed that they do not intend to participate in the secret ballot process. It is unclear whether they, and, for that matter, the other property owners, are at this point willing to proceed with mediation. Clark Balfour, an attorney with extensive municipal finance (and, specifically, local improvement district) experience, has been selected to serve as a mediator, if there is to be mediation. He reports that he is generally available during the first two weeks of July. If the parties proceed with mediation, and if that process is unsuccessful, the City Council will request that the mediator make a recommendation as to the assessment formula to be adopted by the City. Piease let me know if you are interested in giving mediation a try. The City will establish its own formula unless all affected property owners have signed on to the mediation process within 5 days from the date of this letter. Please get your responses to me and we will in turn let you know which path this process is going to take. 0*1)ONNELL RAi`IIS CINi%V CORRIGAN & BACHRACH June 12, 1996 Page 2 On related issues, the City Council has affmned that (1) my office is to proceed with the acquisition of the Martin and Waremart right-of-way property at the "Pollock" rates; (2) the City's Bancroft Bonding ordinance is to be amended as previously discussed; and (3) the City's appeal in the Pollock case is to be dismissed, on the understanding that the cross-appeal will also be dismissed, with no appellate costs or fees to either party. Sincerely you s, V ~ Charles E. Corrigan CEC/fwc c.lorcclcccl Up rd 1u,cain g3. 1t6 cc by fax and mail: Jim Nicoli Wayne Lowry Bill Monahan Clark Balfour a FAX/MAILING LIST Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Jeffrey H. Keeney Donald Joe Willis Tonkon Torp Galen Marmaduke James A. Larpenteur, Jr. & Booth Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt 1600 Pioneer Tower 1600-1800 Pacwest Center 888 5W 5th Ave. 1211 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 FAX:274-8779 FAX: 796-2900 PHONE:221-1440 PHONE: 222-9981 Ed Christensen Robert S. Ball Christensen Engineering Ball Janik & Novack 7000 5W Hampton Street Suite 100 Suite 220 101 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97204 FAX: 598-1868 FAX: 295-1058 PHONE: 598-1866 PHONE: 228-2525 Paul Simmons Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Waremart 12265 SW 72nd Ave. P.O. Box 12909 Tigard, OR 97223-8604 Salem, Oregon 97309 FAX: 620-1842 FAX: 503-588-5657 PHONE: 620-2477 PHONE: 503-588-3426 Donald Pollock Gordon Davis 1834 SW 58th Ave. #202 P.O. Box 8774 Portland, Oregon 97221 Portland, OR 97207 FAX: 292-4862 FAX: 227-7221 PHONE: 292-4373 PHONE: 248-1185 William A. Monahan Wayne Lowry City Administrator Finance Director City of Tigard City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97223 FAX: 684-7297 FAX: 684-7297 PHONE: 639-4171 PHONE: 639-4171 Mayor Jim Nicoli Clark 1. Balfour Nicol Enghieering Cable Huston Benedict & Haagens6n P.O. Box 23784 1001 SW 5th Ave., Ste 200 Tigard, OR 97281 Portland, OR 97204 FAX: 684-3636 FAX: 222-3176 PHONE: 620-2086 PHONE: 224-3092 c: A o rc c \c ec l t i g a rA nee tin g2. Is t(fwc) 06/20 12:1; 1096 FROM: 5032952023 TO: 2473 PAGE: 2 S'LINT Bti•:BALL J:aNIK LLP -20-96 ;12:4.3P.V BALL JANIK U 2473 ;ar 2/ 5 BALL JANIK i.LP A T •j' U K N A Y S s ONM Mnuv PLAC.Y. tot S-M-P_ST MAW STR= SUhr. 1100 PORIIAM, OmtrW 97204-3219 RomYTS. BAu 7m-Enww,503-228-2.525 rball@biitp.aom f A S" E 5001-295-1068 June 20, 19% BY TELECOPIER Mr. Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 RE: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Street LID Dear Chuck: This letter responds on behalf of Waremart, Inc. to the June 10, 1996 letter and memorandum from Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin to Mayor Nicoli. Although the Martin letter is confusing in many respects, we are responding to what we believe to be its central points. 1. As you know, Waremart has been, and remains, willing to participate both in a secret ballot process and in a mediation to seek to resolve the issue of the most appropriate assessment forLuila for the Dartmouth Street LID, We are confident that a full, dispassionate discussion of the issues will lead to an assessment formula which is very different from that advocated by the Martins. 2. The Martins contend that the methodology used in Ordinance 84-18 (1 think they should be referring to 84-14), with modiucations, should or must be used as the basis for a formula. When developed as a pre-assessment recommendation approzirnately 12 years ago, a forma la based upon lineal front footage and "depth zones' made sense. As discussed below, !he formula does not make sense today. Moreover, from a legal standpoint, the a formula which was recommended in 1984 was merely a recommendation based upon pre- assessment factors known at drat time. It has no legal standing today. ' oo97zsn.oa Puurtnrn, oFWC4 + W,--4WC mn, D.C. SAWN. CW3-Amy 06/24 12:15 1996 FROM: 5032952023 TO: 2173 PAGE: 3 S6T BY:B.ALL J4NlK U1F -20-96 ;32:45PM BALI. JANIK U 2473 ;T 3/ 5 BALL f ANI K L.LP Mr. Charles E. Corrigan June 20, 1995 Page 2 3. The Martins appear to urge that because they must make finther improvements to Dartmouth Street, their proportionate share of the Dartmouth Street LID should be reduced. There is no legal or arguable support for that view. Only the Martins are responsible for whatever conditions were imposed by the City on the Martins' development approval. As they acknowledge, the Martins attempted to rcgLii a other property owners to approve a second LID in order to secure the Martins' approval of the Dartmouth Street LID. They claim they have relinquished that position to their disadvantage. The position was always completely inappropriate and without merit. 4. Waremart's view has consistently been that the formula proposed by the Martins was unfair. Waremart was at one time prepared to acquiesce in an unfair formula in order to resolve all issues with finality, The parties were unable to reach agreement, and Waremart now asks that a fair formula be developed. Waremart has proposed an allocation base upon the net developable acreages of each of the properties within the LID. To our knowledge, only the Martins object to this allocation method. They appear to object based solely upon the cost to them of losing the unique advantages provided by the lineal frontage approach. It should not be surprising that the Martins' property has the smallest lineal footage on Dartmouth Street in relation to its gross area. 5. The Martin formula assumes that properties would be developed in patterns in which the greatest value would be attributed to land nearest Dartmouth Street. This may have been a reasonable belief in 1984, but is inconsistent with the way the affected properties are actually being developed. The anchor tenants are not located on the front of development parcels. They are located toward do. rear, and the frontage areas are used for access, parking, and smaller development pads. It is evident from a review of development patterns that receding "depth zones" cannot be used to measure the benefits of improvements to Dartmouth Street. Because the properties are not frontage-dependent, lineal frontage should not be used to assess relative benefit. 6. The Martins contend there are only "three viable choices" for an acceptable formula, none of which would be based on net developable acreage. The, fail to recognize that the determination of relative benefit should take into account actual benefit, not merely eoretical benefit. The assessment method proposed by Waremart is based upon the following reasoning: a. The best evidence of how properties are benefi2ted by a street is how the properties are actualiy developed based upon access to the street. 0099256.02 06/20 12:15 1996 FROM: 5032952023 TO: 2473 PAGE: 4 siN'r BY:BALL. JitNIK LLP -20-96 ;12:46PM BALL. JANIK Ll 2473 ;h 4/ 5 BAIL JANIK LI.P Mr. Charles E. Corrigan June 20, 1996 Page 3 b. The wetlands areas within the properties should be subtracted from gross acreages in order to nwasure the net developable acreages (i.e., usable areas) that are actuatly benefitted. (I-he cost of individual wetlands mitigation, which has nothing to do with the creation of Dartmouth Street, is completely irrelevant). C. Because the development patterns do not reflect any greater benefit based on proximity to the street, all of the usable acreage within each parcel should be viewed as receiving approximately equal benefit. d. The net developable acreage of each property in relation to the net developable acreage of each other property is the best indicator in these circumstances of relative benefit. 7. Although the relative benefit to the properties may ultimately be measurable based upon traffic volumes, the traffic volumes pttribuwble to the Martins; project are merely forecasts, and the Pollock property has not even received development approval. We agree with the Martins that this approach is currently too speculative to be used as a basis for assessment. Attached is an approximate formula for assessment of the properties based upon their respective net developable acreages. Waretmart requests that the City use this as the basis for assessment of properties within the Dartmouth Street LID. Sincerely, 6~ff W Robert S. Ball RSB/ew Enclosure cc: all by fat: Paul A. Simmons (w/encl.) James I'Arpenteur, Jr. (w/encl.) Gordon E. Davis (w/o encl.) Jeff:rey H. Keeney (w/encl.) William A. Monohan (w/encl.) Ed Christen.°en (w/encl.) Gordon S. Martin., Jr. (w/encl.) Donald Pollock (wlencl.) Donald Joe Willis (w/encl.) oas~~se.aa ~n ow, ,n ttt~bsan ~oylack 4,186,1'IO mowa~Ll~o~tctiti~omp Coetco Wares 14$60 •~t001,192> 652,419 ~6 1~4 918 a lane s9, a99G 1,675,587 t,4$5,180~ 60 487,414 ,c957,1Q5? 16'~g9 67.13ac C4 p13as~,tlo~~°s~sala 558,7 4017 7~g,482 23 ac 1QQAQ°lo tQ~ 9% 7,4t0 .3 O20.65ac 6.85uc ~ss @~ssesamsot fcedat 29~'~ 4,1,86,1'!0 0I,esslzsg 1696ac 34.16% 14,652 ~,dQ1,192> s ~lst gstst~tTe$ a3tassaula 22.44aG 2526°/o 426,990 chi Z,1g4 7 sable ~ 33.a3°la 1287,665 cA85,1$0> sIwDov l r Ot~elopablss 436 1,057 727 <957,1Q4' <'.48,Z91~ ~,~,6<:52 e►9bc~fT1L 1,399, ~A 334p561 o e ~,~t <s58,9Q~' ~7,4Z7 pcrea; 40 ~ ~ -of-Nay ~red5ts l 41WWgseno escts prap ~ of o JOIN fzvm ~acwilh~ %'e $232,261 °a to tlueebenefit mn 65 paid w a it a ti a~ spctad Pollack; ttk as elap~le ppertY cl: '33a by foota8e form e, v{UhdrawoL ~e pollock d athet ;xndev a di s cnpEO°aicS ate a (3019 uuBVdsu8SB~oadg0 S,>ine 161,500 paid by sc►nal°v~ noun issued pe~Qs) Dis sties acY is 86A6, ' 65 and 8252,915 • if iti . as Speced 2. 3) 25 ft dahc 1p° an ~ B d co ozt~ o.edleN+° 1°3A SCOT ~S5232 for vv eAlands tn~ ° 9256 a1,aj3itlla. aca va an De~°c josh audElmbu~ 3 Total am ui~ . to dedacbon ill pCCaiitllo• val~' 2)12 ~ ou1~, 69%, tuy pad' n bo tehk"aad to tha Ow le a~eago afterav alf F cordanc° been da°e)' be"teu 1~a oats. L u~ a &VO ul b °n the net dcvetaaan ~ aCGflrdan d flu d actual delinez~ ho dm~ X 40 of tli+e Pr°perty all from o F° ~landfiUandts ~ l,asndtaf'v ate 45,254 sf allpaU ernptaatabut10,000 of c 5. 5 plat a'8owdeveloped p ,~~,ds (eatam ad to be vacate and 6 Acto£e~& ded~anf°r.1) 1S.of-way asses co -ow). ever4►s Bgw ance %4-11 acrea68 e30 ft,20thc ratan ,3 acres. tiaw rn Includ*s banal lanclS pal is apptO'`~ rn eafButSa late% cG ~ca N C ~T - 06120 12:14 1996 FROM: 5032952023 TO: 2473 ?AGE: 1 st~T BY : B.ALI.. JA,N I K LLP 20-96 ;12 : 45PJi ; BALL JAN I K L 2473 5 BALL JAN-1K LE A T T a R N B Y S ONS MAN PLACE 101 Smmwzrr MAm Srams. Surrs 1100 PoxrLmD, Ommox 97204.3214 To-En vs 503-228-IM FAcsa= 503 2951058 TELRECOPY MANS-MES ON FORM Date: June 20, 1996 Send To: Charles E. Corrigan, Esq. Company: O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach From: Robert S. Ball Client No: 4992.001 Telecopy No: 243-2944 Verification No: 222-4402 Operator: ew Number of pages transmitted (including cover sheet): Comments: CONFEDENTIAL M NOTICE THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRWILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NEITHER. THE INTENDED RECIPIENT PIOR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE DOCUMENT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU MAY NOT READ, DISSEMINATE, COPY OR DISTRIBUTE THIS INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION r.N tRROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. Please ma (503)228-2s2s if this tasnittal is kcompTgle or unreadable. 0084147.01 111111 NMI IBM 0F3; 26 i 14 1 996 FROk!: SCH.'iABc 'Pi NA- Ii 6 SON TO: 2473 PAGE: 2 ~i }i tav} r..... x-st.. -tr}}at a.x t: Waa}.ar}y tt tt }its :MSx •.sa4t:a>:}aafy to l:x s-xsx+h - x.. •.:4 s: t. aN at Hxa.-.aay as Yaa yt+4 as }:xa• s. III :x+i K v sa fyst ~:x is 'r xt-t :t4 ..s v •:-mss}.e • JUN-26-'96 15:18 ID IWABE WILLIAMSOrI TEL N0:503-796 10 t17s7,-P@2 &MW 7*yy p~tr BEr PAC M-15T CENMR, SUITES 1600.1500 1~~/ ~d 7 iJlV 1211 SCUT rw ST FIFM AVENUE o PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 7 5 j Al Jl 'PI1.I_M LONE: 543 222-9981 It PAX, 503 796.290011 = 2X: 650.6861360 ! P.C ATTOANIIYS AT 1.AW JOM S A. IA8PSN18UX J& June 26, 1996 Charles E. Corrigan O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach Attorneys at Law 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Dear chuck: This is to confirm that our clients, Don Pollock and Dick Carpenter, are amenable to mediation provided that all affected property owners have signed on to the mediation process as you suggest. On behalf of our clients, we must respectfully disagree with certain elements of the analysis provided to mayor Nicoli by ABR Incorporated under its letter to the Mayor dated June 10, 1996. Tho accoccmont formula propocod (not adoptod) by tho city of Tigard in 1984 dealt with largely undeveloped property with no known uses. Most of the existing uses at that time were temporary. That might have been a fair way to go in 1984. However, the actual land use picture has significantly changed. Substantial portions of the property fronting Dartmouth Street have been developed and their uses are now known. Each of those users accumulated additional property blocks outside of the 450 ft. perimeter of the 1984 proposed LID area and combined those blocks with property inside the 1984 proposed LID area for a single use. Such additional property forms an integral part of the total use of the owner's property fronting Dartmouth Street. At no time have I heard any objection from those owners about the inclusion of property outside the 450 ft. perimeter being included in the computations for LID assessment purposes. Our clients have no objections to the addition to the block of their property fronting Dartmouth street those portions of their property which also exceed the 450 ft. perimeter down to Elmhurst Street for purposes of being included in the assessment computations so long as the entire property block of all owners PORTIANA 1!4771.8 VA14G'OUVlyR WAJi9A:'O'T~011 OR806m . WAaFiiHaMN • WASMNOTON • DISTWCT OF COLUMBIA 3m 222-Mi 206 aa-1h1 360 0 .7151 X2 OWN& t/6E040/100177/)AU642347.1) Bill 06126 14:45 1996 FROM: SCHWABE WILLIAMSON TO: 2473 PAGE: 3 ti.. Na. N.a ♦1.•Y.•N. ,•ky a - . • a • . • . N •N.tY.•N.tH..' JUN-26-'96 15:19 ID: IWABE WILLlIAMSOM,TEL NO:503-70,6 :0 N 9757 P03 l~ Charles E. Corrigan June 26, 1996 Page 2 of property fronting Dartmouth Street are included in the assessment formula. Inclusion of all such integrated property fronting Dartmouth Street is eminently fair because our clients and ABR May appropriate their properties to a dingle use thereby subjecting all their property to access off of Dartmouth Street. obviously, I am not talking about other properties they own in the Tigard Triangle - only the properties abutting Dartmouth ~ Street regardless of size. If the entire parcel might benefit from Dartmouth Street and it is within the power of the owner to include all of it in a single development, then it is fair to include that property in the assessment formula as an integrated whole. To that point, I think we are in accord with the ABR position - at least one of them. Where we differ with the ABA position is in its continued adherence to the three-zone concept, with diminishing responsibility depending on which zone land is located, embodied in the 1984 proposed formula. Now that we have actual single use applications for portions of the property fronting Dartmouth Street, and potential single use applications for the balance of the properties, which properties exceed in acreage the properties, included in the 1984 three-zone concept, the facts have changed. There may have been justification for the zone concept under a multiple use of parcels scenario. There is no basis in law or in fact for suggesting a single tract of property committed to a single use should be divided into parcels and valued in segments depending upon how far away the parcels are from Dartmouth Street. Our clients have the potential to commit their property to a single use. Likewise, does ABR. That either would choose to develop those property for multi-use purposes does not detract from the fairness cf assessing LID responsibility on the basis of how their property would benefit from Dartmouth Street now. To assume that only the first 150 ft. of property fronting the street is more valuable then the property behind it when the entire property behind it as well as the first 150 ft. all benefit to the same extent from the street improvement just is not reality. Accordingly, our clients object to any continued application of the diminishing zones concept in a 1996 formula for assessing LID responsibility under the existing fact situation. The cornerstone of the LID assessment formula should be bared on the net usable acreage involved in the reepeotivo parcels. We emphasize the word "useable.tl Wetlands should be excluded from the acreage computation. The amount of wetlands accorded to the Pollock-carpenter property is a very conservative estimate. An actual survey of the wetlands would reveal much more wetlands to be excluded. SCHWA 3R WaUWS N A WYATT (12/64=10027J/JAU642197.1) 06/26 1't:45 1996 FROM: SCHWABE VVILLIAMSON TO: 2473 PAGE: 4 w.. N..M..*.... I—-- ...µ..a.......w..w......•..... w...............i.......... .w..w..-w.._-..i...i.........1....i r.:w:. • . ~ • JUN-26-'96 15:20 ID iWABE W l LL l AMSCr! TEL NO c 593-796 ig 47 4 I; F I Charles B. Corrigan June 26, 1996 Page 3 Our clients would adhere to previous agreements reached with l respect to the Burgerville property and the LID assessments to be j made with respect thereto. inclusion of the amount of footage fronting Dartmouth Street as a basis for formulating the LID assessment should be negligible if at all. The entire property of each owner receives the same relative benefit from Dartmouth Street (but for differences in the width of the street) regardless of the amount of frontages in this instance. Any utilization of peak hour traffic generation is unacceptable. There are no accurate peak hour traffic counts. Without knowing what uses will be made of the undeveloped property, there is no way of computing who contributes what to traffic generation. Different property uses affect traffic patterns differently. There is no rational basis for utilizing this factor in arriving at LID assessment allocation. i 1 We maintain that the Allocation Formula Based on Developable Acreage proposed under Table 2 by Gordon Davis dated May 6, 1996, is a reasonable basis for allocating LID assessment responsibility among the adjoining landowners. There are several distinguishing factors that we maintain should be considersd in arriving at the Pollock- Carpenter LID assessment should the parties fail to agree on the methodology for developing an LID assessment formula: a) Our clients' ability to develop their property is seriously impeded by reason of Waremart and Costco having used up most of the available traffic capacity provided by Dartmouth Street. b) Dartmouth Street, in front of our client's property, is only a three-lane road whereas the other parcels enjoy the benefits of a five--lane road. Even though the participants paid for the additional lane, an element of additional value exists with respect to having a five-lane road accessing the property as opposed to a three-lane road accessing property. Our client requested the City to install the extra lanes, and agreed to pay for it, but the City refused because its plan at that time was to downzone our clients, property. Further, the cost of expansion of the street will be :such greater on our clients than it was on the other participants because the street lights, hydrants, utilities, and curbs are in place now and will have to be moved. c) Table 2 assumes that 70th Street will be vacated and the 19,000 square feet of street is included as part of our clients' net usable acreage. There is no assurance that 70th &-t4wAsa VAuL. msom A WYArr (181680W100=1AL662397.1) L IN! 14:46 1996 FROM: SCH'NABE WILLIAMSON i0: 2473 PAGE: 5 • - JUN-26-'96 15:29 IJ 1WRBE WILLIAMSON TEL X10:503-79h l0 9?5? P05 I~ Charles E. Corrigan June 26, 1996 Page 4 street will be vacated and it ought not be included in our clients' net usable acreage. d) our clients don't feel that Burgerville is paying their fair share of the LID assessment. Hopefully, this matter can be resolved by mediation. nc ely, mes A. Larpen r, J . JAL:dtg cc: Attached fax distribution list. I Scnwaee W a WrArr auscoaa+toarrsnu+.n 06/26 14:,F7 1996 FROM: SCHPIAHE WILLIAMoON TO: 2,173 PAGE: 6 JUN-26-196 15:21 ID iWABE WILLIANSON TEL NQ:503-796 30 I ODLINNELL RANTS ET AL 503-243-2944 4757 P06 I Jun 12,96 9:11 NO-009 P-04104 i f~ i3d i~~Sl9 ham A o 3" MW Sib Am IMINO Pamen Cow oPWthod. ok 9Ut4 1211 SW VAXtJ7"?V PfttWW, OR 9=4 1~IB1a11 1.1 VAM chdommim Robon 8• awl SUito 220 xfgm~ft awl $ & Tea Tnd• OR 97M 101 ~ 1 NL FIX®NE? a FAX: nd, U&I Paul aimd 0. boxn 129M 1 B' MardAft Jr. SAIM:, OrAM 973W . 9= PAXi SPAR: M1842 MoNM- PEON& J U4 rMW S Ave. > Gordoo Davis MOM 2&24" IKAXI am?= MON& 246 -ilk WLIfiem A. MocaMn- ri► Cy tmiw ~ S.W. Hall M23 J312 Blvd. Cky of "'Ord~ OR N p Hall ' ft It,= MO 004171 FAXt -`Tm PROXM 9' mayor Jim Nl~ 1 CIA* X. lifb9r N$WU 0. Bow 01~ 1 FAX + 8 ~ 1'BYi~lYRt VA$► I74 PROM. 061:;6 14:43 1996 FROM: SCHWABE WILLIAMSON TO: 7j PAGE' 1 JUN-26-196 15:17 ID AWABE W I LL I AMSON TEL H A? 563-796 30 F- a►ctivc T CMRO& KX=14*1 o6 yy 0 Lill W" w9 r ~wnt 00418 • "nAKA 0=01" MU-M & W4WT 79"980Ne So 1 011 . WJ61 = INMW . 4E1 A40i31w ATTakHRYL AT LAW F'ACsixXLE 'i'R $tiBITT24L Please notify the Recipient x1mediately I DATE I June 26, 1995 TO I Charles B. Corrigan .COXPA= s O•Donnell Ramis i FAX BTUXBBR 4 243-2944 $UBI2m88 NM ER E 222-4402 FROM Y James A. Larpenteur, Jr. COTS s Via Fax Only X Also Via First Class Mail CONF'IDENTIAbITY NOTICE Documents included in this facsimile transmission may contain privileged or confidential information intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information by other than the. intended recipient is strictly prohibited.. If you recaive this transmission in error, please call us immediately to arrange for return of the document at our cost. 1XFQRTAM if you do not receive all of the pages indicated, please call us as soon as possible at (503) 796-2110. Our FAX: (303) 796-2900 (Ounifax 98, Group 111) (24 hours). Thank y u, I Fax ope ato , A?MHR OF PAGIB BRING TRANOMITTED (inciuding this chest) s ¢ Time of Transmittals CliOnt/Xattera 60060 100272 rvxrr.+rro saArs~.e vnl~w++su e+A,amavmN OPMOW . WAS WOTON. WASUD47 Na DtS VX a!QQI 'AMA ~ asw+, xa a:srn, x>a masd Boa •le~ C. DONNELL RANIIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Portland. Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L. BUSCH TELEPHONE. (S03) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLT MA•• TELEPHONE; (503) 222 4so2 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN• FAX: (503) 243.2944 STEPHEN F. CREW VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE PAUL C. ELSNER First Independent Pace GARY F. FIRESTONE' PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE 1220 Main Street Suite 570 WILLIAM E. GAAR Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 G FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE: (360) 699-7287 KENNETH D. HELM FAX: (360) 699-7221 MALCOLM JOHNSON' June 28, 1996 MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS JAMES M. COLEMAN WILLIAM J. STALNAKER SUSAN J. WIDDER SPECIAL COUNSEL. ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA DICTATED FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY BY FACSEVI LE and FIRST CLASS MAIL SEE ATTACHED MAILING/FAX LIST TO: Jeffrey H. Keeney Paul Simmons Donald Joe W His Ed Christensen James A. Larpenteur, Jr. Donald Pollock Gordon S. Martin, Jr. Gordon Davis Robert S. Ball Re: City of Tigard/Dartmouth Local Improvement District Gentlemen: Jim Larpenteur's letter to me of June 26, 1996, states that his clients are amenable to proceeding with mediation. I received a similar indication from Waremart, through Rob Ball, in his letter of June 20, 1996. Because I did not receive unanimous approval for proceeding with mediation within the five-day period established in my letter of June 12, 1996, the City has started the process of retaining a consultant to develop an assessment formula. If, at this point, Costco and the Martins join in requesting mediation, I would certainly relay the fact that all involved are now willing to so 1 June 28, 1996 Page 2 proceed. I do not know whether that would affect the City's decision to go ahead in establishing its "own" proposed formula. If and how the to-be-retained consultant might solicit further input from the affected property owners remains to be seen. Certainly all relevant materials submitted to date will be included in the working file that we give to the consultant as he begins the project. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Corrigan CEC/mcm cc by fax and mail: Mayor Jim Nicoli Mr. Wayne Lowry Mr. William A. Monahan Dominic Colletta, Esq.