City Council Packet - 08/25/1998
,fin y
CITY OF TIGARD
®REGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
AUGUST 250 1995
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
1:%admgo%ccpkt3.doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
"Revised 8-19-98
V}h:'x%:x<r?:#.,.£;': ~'..,'•'?.fl/.,+;> }•:a ; yii•::t'.r.,::it~ Fr''3::::~5:(;.':•+:: F:y,•:,.lfj/{k,:;.•,':+~'•,:•,'•.;: i
'::::3,.'•:},+, rqi?;;:: r. r<.?`::/..+f:3?::..r? F:r::'~i•:i: ~+:^,.`?~:%:'•:!i:5%; ~:::.+'•},ii ~:.%'.,:r:•'•i:
}N.Y^:/fJ n~{}.:l ~':r}f%::}::i:fti:%i:i//.}:v~:.}: i'F.2i$rJ:?.: i~.:'iii }i'>:} is r: r•}%~~fy'F+~;{::'%4i'.'r :iiif
CITY OF TIGARD
~{3 +}:,~i fi:i:;i{.J~/}y.~y}~~ eye.]][ •iyJ.:
.2 i~'•^:. •,.~.•.:,,.;?r}n .T;,L'M)II;:iR,C~::f:~ ~ri':: i:.Y.
[:i:f+:}!%::} sv,~i.ix1}l;%':''i' ;.•'.f?;;i~:iv:;::''.%r'::?i:i?i;+:<+f.;:5{:{:::iif%:'
ty K%w'!'li:#~+:•i.:%:i::Sr::it%#::+':::i::#::.#~i::r::: f.:
1G3.
{:.;f l
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
Ad^'"^- -a ae.._ V^..;.-. : 2ae_.,a J^ •a~,.r \/:_:a..,e,., /1. J..:a.......~ .,Lw.A aw Lw..
enayve as uec uca9u nuna~ ve e,ncee. eaa~~nuea itcne. veaeave a ~a~cu~.e ea eeveee~ we c..~..a... v..
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
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 25,1998- PAGE 1
AGENDA
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. This Executive Session is being held under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). As you are aware, all
discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing
from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives
of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not
disclose any information discussed during this session.
> TRAINING: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• city Attorney
> UPDATE: ATFALATI ORGANIZATION STATUS
• Topic Update by Administration Department
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
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - July 21, 1998.
3.2 Bid Award for the Construction of 91st Avenue - Local Contract
Review Board (LCRB).
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any
items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate
discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted
on those items which do not need discussion.
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 25,1998- PAGE 2
Y
4. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (FROM THE AUGUST 18, 1998 TIGARD
COUNCIL MEETING) - CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Continue Public Hearing
b. Staff Report: Community Development Department
c. Staff Recommendation
d. Council Questions
e. Close Public Hearing
f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98-
5. WETLANDS MITIGATION FEE-IN-LIEU (REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO
AUTHORIZE FEE-IN-LIEU PAYMENTS FOR WETLANDS MITIGATION WHEN
SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS WILL GO TOWARD OFFSETTING CITY FUNDS
IDENTIFIED FOR SUCH PROJECTS.)
Staff Report: Community Development Department
6. AESTHETICS REPORT ON REGULATION OF JURISDICTIONS
i Update: Community Development Department
7. COUNCIL GROUNDRULES
• Update: Administration Department
8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. 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. This Executive Session is being held under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h). As you are aware, all discussions within this
session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be
disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed
to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed
during this session.
11. ADJOURNMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 25,1998- PAGE 3
Agenda Item Ni 3
Meeting of 4aa,~tk
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoll
> Council Present: Councilors Ken Scheckla, Brian Moore, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Mayor
Jim Nicoli
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Legal
Counsel Tim Ramis; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; and Community
Development Director Jim Hendryx;
> TRAINING: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Tim Ramis, City Attorney, conducted a training session for the Council on conflicts of interest
and ethics. He distributed information for their review. He reviewed the history of the
Government Standards and Practices Commission (more commonly called the Ethics
Commission), mentioning its formation in 1974 along with a set of rules. He stated that in 1993
the state legislature responded to accusations of leaking information and other problems on the
Ethics Commission by writing rules for Committee investigative procedures.
Mr. Ramis commented that the Commission had the authority to publicize ethical breaches and
impose fines, giving it real power. He reviewed how the seven volunteer Commission members
were selected (four by the legislature and three by the governor) of which only four could be of
one political party.
Mr. Ramis read the definition of "public official" as given in ORS 224.0202(15), pointing out
that it was a very broad definition that included volunteers on boards and commissions. He
stated that the fundamental standard of behavior was that public officials were barred from using
or attempting to use public office for personal gain or to avoid financial detriment. He cited the
example of a Gresham Councilor currently under investigation for allegedly using his position
to intimidate staff over the permits he needed from the City in his business as an electrical
contractor. He reviewed the benefits public officials could receive, such as a salary, expense
account, limited honoraria for speaking engagements, and unsolicited awards.
Mr. Ramis pointed out that these rules applied also to the relatives of public officials, as defined
in the statute. He discussed the issue of public perception of a public official using his office for
private gain, even if it was untrue. He noted that the Gresham Councilor had followed the
advice of the City Attorney on handling the matter, but staff apparently interpreted his remarks
differently than he intended them.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the broad definition of "business." He commented that while technically
non-profit organizations were exempt, he did not recommend following a different set of rules
for non-profit businesses as for for-profit businesses.
Mr. Ramis mentioned that public officials or their relatives could not receive discounts on
purchases because of holding office, noting the long history in the U.S. of such actions. He
reviewed the issue of "gifts," including the definition, the $100 cap, and the exceptions
(campaign contributions, gifts from family members, and food, lodging and travel in
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 1
conjunction with official appearances). He explained the exemptions for "entertainment." He
suggested that Councilors keep a diary if they felt they would exceed the $250 cap. He
confirmed that with the food and beverage exemption, there was no limit on going out to dinner
as long as the purchaser consumed the meal also.
Mr. Ramis noted other prohibited actions. These included not soliciting or receiving
employment in return for official action, misuse of confidential information, and representing
paying clients before the public board of which the official is a member.
Councilor Scheckla asked how a public official could know whether or not a gift he received
was under $100. Mr. Ramis said that he/she ran the risk that that question would be answered
later during an investigation by the Ethics Commission. He cautioned the Council to be very
careful in such situation. He recommended asking for an opinion from the Ethics Commission.
He explained that they would not be protected legally without a written opinion (which took
four to six months to obtain) but a verbal inquiry could mitigate penalties and n>>blic ova±:.;if a
violation Occurred.
Mr. Ramis stated that the proper answer from a City Attorney, when asked by Councilors about
close call situations, was "This is what I think you should do but you had better call the Ethics
Commission." He emphasized that a City Attorney's advice would not insulate a public official
from a complaint.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the two step complaint process set up by the legislature to stop information
leaks and excessively long investigations: the initial staff investigation and the staff report to
the Commission. He said that at any point during the process the public official had the right to
submit information and evidence. He noted the potential outcomes of the staff report to the
Commission: dismissal of the case, continuation for more investigation, convening a hearing
before the Commission, or a negotiated settlement. He stated that an appeal went to the Court of
Appeals. However if the public official filed a complaint that the Commission was not
following its own rules, then the matter went to the Circuit Court. He mentioned the possible
fine of up to $1,000 and twice the amount of the pecuniary benefit.
Mr. Ramis reviewed conflicts of interest issues in quasi-judicial hearings. He said that the
fundamental rule was to set up a fair and impartial tribunal to hear cases involving the
application of land use law to specific situations. He explained the difference between "actual
conflict of interest" and "potential conflict of interest." In the first, there was a clear financial
benefit or conflict, and in the second there was the remote chance of financial benefit or conflict.
Mr. Ramis stated that in either case, public officials were required to declare conflicts of interest
for the record. He explained that a public official should step down from the case for actual
conflicts of interests but he/she could participate in the discussion and vote if it was a potential
conflict of interest. He advised using discretion in deciding whether or not to participate where
potential conflict of interests were involved, mentioning the public perception issue.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the exceptions to the conflict of interest rule. He said that under "the rule
of necessity," an official "conflicted out" could vote (but not engage in discussion), if needed, in
order for the hearings body to reach a decision. He advised using that rule only in the most
critical situations because the boundaries of the rule were not clear.
Mr. Ramis explained the "group membership exception." Public officials could participate in
matters affecting a group that they were part of, if their interest was not affected anymore than
any other member of the group, such as a Councilor voting on street repair for the street on
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 2
which he/she lived. He observed that, although Oregon did not have an appearance of
impropriety rule, it was important to be careful about the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Mr. Ramis reviewed the issue of personal bias. He pointed out that while personal bias did not
result in financial benefit to the decision maker, it was contrary to the impartial tribunal concept
because the decision maker's mind was already made up. He said that this was a matter of
personal integrity, as it was very difficult to prove.
Mr. Ramis explained how the prohibition against ex parte contacts contributed to creating an
impartial tribunal. He said that if ex parte contacts did occur, and they did not prejudice the
decision maker, he/she could still participate but he/she should declare for the record the content
of the conversation in order to allow others to respond to the information provided.
Mr. Ramis said that the same principle applied to site visits. If a public official made a site visit
and saw something of concern that could impact ills/11 l dcuibioii, LIC-1,
he/she saw that was of concern. However he/she did not have to give a "full dissertation" on the
visit. The objective was to allow the various parties to respond to the information presented to a
decision-making body that could impact its decision, regardless of how it was obtained.
Councilor Moore asked how this principle applied in a small town like Tigard where decision
makers might drive by a site every day without making a specific site visit. Mr. Ramis advised
declaring for the record any concerns or problems noticed during those daily drive-bys.
Councilor Scheckla asked for more information about the Pisano decision. Mr. Ramis explained
that the State Supreme Court's decision in the Pisano case during the 1970s set the concept that
local government hearing bodies held both legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings, and
that quasi-judicial hearings should be done as a court-type proceeding. He stated that the
concepts and principles of the Pisano case have since become incorporated into state law.
Councilor Scheckla asked if these ethics rules applied to Planning Commission members also.
Mr. Ramis said yes. Mr. Monahan noted the ethics training provided for staff. He mentioned a
draft document written on the use of government machinery, such as fax machines, phones,
computers, etc., which staff should be hearing back on.
> AGENDA REVIEW
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, distributed the proposed ordinance for the Community
Development Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Monahan clarified that the public hearing
on this issue was closed.
L Mr. Monahan reported that Ms. Wheatley filed the Council candidates' names for the November
r ballot with the Washington County Elections Office. In addition, Ms. Newton was preparing
the explanatory statements for the bond ballot measure due to the County by September 3.
> UPDATE: ATFALATI ORGANIZATION STATUS
Y
This item was discussed in the study session following the regular meeting.
> Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 3
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Councilors Scheckla, Moore, Hunt, Rohlf, and Mayor Nicoli were present.
1.4 Council Communications
Mayor Nicoli reported that he would present information tomorrow to the City Manager
regarding his and Councilor Moore's meeting with Bruce Ellis regarding the Festival of
the Baiioons.
Councilor Scheckla reported that the train broke down during the volunteer training
session for Train Day that he and Councilor Hunt attended.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Martha Bishop reviewed the background of the Downtown Committee, as she understood it.
She said that it was a committee coming out of the CIT. She asked if it was legal for the
Chamber to take over leadership of a CIT committee without notice to the CIT. She asked the
Council to direct the City Attorney to issue an opinion on the matter. She also asked for an
audit of expenditures accrued by the Downtown Business Association Committee. She stated
that she was a member of the Downtown Merchants Association, the CIT and the Chamber.
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council discussed this matter extensively last week based on a
different perception of what has happened with the Downtown Committee meetings. He said
that the Council decided to stay uninvolved at this point and allow the downtown business
people three.months to develop a grassroots group on their own; thus avoiding comments about
"City interference." He said that to the best of his knowledge the City gave no money to anyone
to form a political group.
Councilor Moore commented that the $50,000 allocated by the Council to the downtown was
intended for minor improvements, such as flower baskets or red rock along the railroad tracks.
He said that both he and staff made it clear at different meetings that the City was staying in the
background but would provide staff support as requested. He emphasized that the Council
wanted the downtown business people to develop a plan on their own and present it to the
Council as a plan that the downtown could rally around and support.
Ms. Bishop reiterated her concerns regarding the lack of meeting notice. She commented that
the recent Downtown Committee (convened by the CIT to develop a plan for downtown Tigard)
has been successful and growing in size until the Chamber convened its own meeting
improperly and without notice.
Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the committees. He said that he knew about the
Downtown Association committee but was unaware of a CIT downtown committee. Mr.
Monahan explained that several different groups were getting mixed up in this discussion. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 4
said that the only involvement of the CIT so far was that staff announced a meeting on the
downtown at one of the monthly CIT meetings; there was no formal CIT involvement.
Mr. Monahan said that in 1994 the Council allocated $50,000 to the Downtown Merchants
Association for beautification projects. Staff has placed a hold on the remaining $26,000
because the Association was no longer active. Staff was now waiting to see what happened with
this current downtown effort.
Mr. Monahan commented that the people from the Chamber Business Advocacy Committee
facilitated the first meeting but anyone involved in this current effort was involved as an
individual, not as a representative of the Chamber or other organizations. He reviewed the staff
work done to facilitate the meetings, including the initial outreach. He reported that staff has
spent money solely for mailings and refreshments with the funds coming out of the Community
Development Budget.
Councilor Scheckla asked how "Visioning" was involved. Mr. Monahan said that this process
was the follow through on the goals set by the Visioning Committee on the downtown. He
reiterated that staff was willing to provide resources and materials but the City wanted the
people themselves to come up with a plan to implement the vision.
Mayor Nicoli spoke to Council standing by its decision last week not to become involved and to
allow three months for the people work things out for themselves.
Councilor Moore concurred that the Council did not want to get involved with the downtown
business people's decision. He noted that in the past Council has had little success in pushing
its ideas on the downtown. Therefore, they were willing to hear the plan that the people
developed and supported as a group.
Mr. Monahan clarified that staff has not advocated any kind of form for this effort. Any
discussions of organization have all been from the group. He said that there were no legal issues
on process to discuss because the process was whatever the group chose to do.
Ms. Bishop spoke to Council taking a leadership role. She said that she was uncomfortable
working on a committee that was not legally established or with defined responsibilities. Mayor
Nicoli said that they were waiting for that organization to develop on its own downtown.
A citizen asked for clarification on several points. Mayor Nicoli confirmed that the Council did
not sponsor the downtown committee. He said that at this time, the City would provide staff
support to any committee forming down there. He stated that they would like to revisit the issue
in November following a report from the group. Councilor Moore commented that if a group
was making real progress, he would be willing to extend the deadline. Mr. Hendryx clarified
that the group he has been working with had selected the October date as a target date.
Councilor Moore stated that he envisioned the downtown people presenting a plan to the
Council that they could all support. He said that in the event that 80% of the downtown people
supported a plan, he would support that plan. He commented that he has had a goal for 10 years
to see something happen in the downtown.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 5
Councilor Rohlf said that if the downtown group got together in a peaceful fashion and
requested City help with a facilitator in developing the plan, he would consider that request. He
said that right now they were looking for things to gel enough to have something to work with.
Councilor Moore concurred. He spoke to one group and one plan eventually coming before
Council.
The citizen explained that there was not more than one committee currently meeting in the
downtown. He commented that they might end up with one committee that did not have 100%
broadbased support. Mayor Nicoli said that they would have to look at that. He reiterated that
they would revisit this issue in November. He stated that if nothing was happening at all, the
Council might do something.
Councilor Moore asked if it would bother the committee if a Councilor visited as an observer.
He explained that he stopped attending the meeting because he felt uncomfortable. The citizen
said that he did not iiiii ini~, i_a~ would a~ nroblam but suggested that the Councilor talk to
cause ' r______
Mark Leach.
Mr. Hendryx reported that the committee has organized and was going through the process of
adopting bylaws and forming a Board. Councilor Scheckla asked for information on the Board
was forming.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Scheckla asked if one contractor would do the project in Item 3.2 all at once,
including the Community Development Block Grant funding. Mr. Monahan said yes.
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Scheckla,
Moore, Hunt, Rohlf, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.")
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes -July 21,1998
3.2 Bid Award for the Construction of 91" Avenue - Local Contract Review Board
(LCRB).
4. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (FROM THE AUGUST 18, 1998, TIGARD COUNCIL
MEETING) - CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE
a. Mayor Nicoli noted that the public hearing has been closed.
b. Staff Report
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, stated that the Code amendment before the
Council incorporated all the changes that Council gave direction on at its previous July 28 and
August 18 meetings.
c. Staff Recommendation
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 6
d. Council Questions
e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing
f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 98-19
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 98-
19.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 98-19, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF TIGARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 18 IN ITS ENTIRETY, AMENDING
THE CODE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 83-52 TO REPEAL SECTION
6.3, ESTABLISHED AREAS, INCLUDING POLICY 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, AND
TMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINDINGS IN SECTION 6.4; DEVELOPING
RESIDENTIAL AREAS INCLUDING POLICY 6.4.1 AND iMPLElviE TATi^viT
STRATEGIES AND FINDINGS; AMENDING THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 3.2.3D, 3.2.5 & 3.5.3 TO ADD THE WORDING "CONSIDERATION OF"
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO REFERENCES OF DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND
AREA FOR GREEN-WAY (3.2.3D), OF ALL UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE 100
YEAR FLOODPLAIN, (3.2.5); AND DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE LAND
AREA FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING AND WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN 3.5.3 AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilor Rohlf suggested using hotlinks in the computer data to allow quick access of related
Code sections. Mr. Hendryx stated that his goal was to put the Community Development Code,
the Zoning Map, and the Comprehensive Plan Map on the Internet for home and business
access. He said that he could give an update on the project schedule in two weeks.
Motion passed by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.")
5. WETLANDS MITIGATION FEE-IN-LIEU-OF REQUEST
Mr. Hendryx mentioned the Council policy that allowed private developers to enhance wetlands
on public property to meet their mitigation requirements but assigned all maintenance and cost
to the developer. He presented Mr. Petrie's request to pay $20,000 to the City for use in a
current City project (Summer Creek Wetlands Enhancement Project [formerly known as the
Merestone Dam at 12151 project]) as part of meeting the DSL and Corps of Engineer mitigation
requirements for a project he was doing within the same watershed but outside the city limits.
Mr. Hendryx said that staff thought this was a good idea since the City already had a project
designed and budgeted that fit Mr. Petrie's mitigation requirements, and the $20,000 would
replace budgeted moneys from the Surface Water Management fund. He emphasized that they
would not agree to a fee-in-lieu-of request if the City did not already have a project ready to go
because then the City would be obligated to do the design work that the developer should be
doing to meet his mitigation requirements.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 7
Mr. Hendryx said that the risk to the City was minimal, should the Petrie project not be
approved, because the City would simply return the money to Mr. Petrie and have no further
obligation to complete the mitigation work required of Mr. Petrie.
Mayor Nicoli supported the concept but only if handled on a case-by-case basis. He agreed that
in this particular instance, the request provided a benefit to the citizens.
Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that accepting a fee-in-lieu-of wetland mitigation meant a
loss in wetlands within the watershed. He pointed out that the intent of wetland mitigation
requirements was to have no net loss in wetlands. He asked if the City would have a net loss if
they accepted this offer. Mr. Hendryx confirmed that the City was not adding more acreage to
the Summer Creek project but pointed out that the project would enhance wetlands on Summer
Creek, regardless of what happened with the Petrie project that lay outside the city limits.
The Council discussed the request. Councilor Rohlf said that he would support it but found the
concept shaky. Mayor Nicoli commented that he saw an opportunity to allocate the budgeted
monev to another stream project in the city.
Councilor Scheckla asked if staff expected to see similar requests in the future. Mr. Hendryx
mentioned that the applicant was present and available for questions. He reiterated that staff
would not recommend a request like this unless the City already had a project designed and
ready to go to which the funds could be applied. He said that the staff would not support putting
additional obligations on the City.
The Council agreed by consensus to support the request.
6. AESTHETICS REPORT ON REGULATION OF JURISDICTIONS
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the Council goal to address community aesthetics and the Council
direction for staff to investigate how other jurisdictions handled community aesthetics. He
mentioned the use of a formal Design Review Board (Beaverton, Wilsonville), design standards
(Hillsboro), an architectural review process (Tualatin), and staff review of development
standards (Gresham).
Mr. Hendryx noted that Tigard had design standards in it Code plus special design standards for
the Triangle. He mentioned the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force and the
Downtown Committee, each of which might develop design standards for its focus area. He
said that Council could wait to see what came out of these various planning efforts currently
underway or Council could direct him to proceed with further analysis and set up a separate
planning effort on community aesthetics to look at a more formalized design review process.
Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on whether or not they had separate design standards for
different areas. Mr. Hendryx said that they had design standards throughout the community and
different, more rigid standards to address a wider variety of design issues in the Triangle. He
said that he anticipated the Washington Square Task Force and Downtown Committee to
address design standards but he could not say if they would be compatible with the Triangle
standards; they were three individual areas.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1995 - PAGE 8
Councilor Hunt asked if there was a drawback to "planned inconsistency." Mr. Hendryx said
that the drawback was certainty for the development community. He commented that the
benefit was that each area was unique and that perhaps having different standards for each area
was appropriate.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned the former Tigard Design Review Board that was eliminated.
Mr. Hendryx said that, as he understood it, the Board was eliminated as part of an effort to
streamline the process and to have consistent standards incorporated into the Code. He stated
that they were not advocating reestablishing the Board. Mayor Nicoli commented that often
these Design Review Boards ended up practicing architecture instead of evaluating how a
proposal would fit into the neighborhood. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager,
confirmed that the Tigard Board had gotten into specific details on projects instead of focusing
on design criteria and neighborhood compatibility issues.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the Tualatin process involved negotiation between the owner and
the staff to reach a compromise on the design, a unique process.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern over having separate standards for different areas within the
city. Mayor Nicoli said that he had no Probiern wiiir idkiiis iinilKuc aicas in the ci±•~ -=d chaninoa
~ -r--
them differently. He said that changing the design review standards to do so, as they did in the
Triangle, was the best way.
Mr. Hendryx commented that he had anticipated that the use of the Triangle design standards as
development occurred in the Triangle would spur interest in evaluating design standards for the
whole city. However, Council's interest has driven this matter forward before they had many
examples in the Triangle. He reiterated Council's options: to wait and see what happened with
the Triangle and the various planning efforts (revisiting this in six months to a year), to direct
staff to develop administrative design standards for the entire city, or to go with a formal Board
review process.
Councilor Hunt favored the wait and see option. Councilor Moore stated that he did not favor a
formal Board review process. He spoke in support of developing different design standards
appropriate to the three unique areas in the city - the Triangle, the Downtown, and Washington
Square. He said that he would support staff looking at design standards to insure consistency in
the remainder of the city.
Ms. Newton mentioned that. Lake Oswego had different design standards for different parts of
the city. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that staff should look at design standards as a future planning
effort.
7. COUNCIL GROUND RULES
Mr. Monahan mentioned that Council held an extensive discussion on ground niles at their
June 2, 1998, meeting. He referenced several items in the packet, including Resolution 95-53,
the June 2 minutes, and the draft of the revised ground rules. He reviewed the summary memo
detailing the steps staff has taken since June 2 to implement the Council's direction, including a
Charter amendment on how to fill a vacancy in the Council President position. He mentioned
the removal negativity in the ground rules language.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the ground rules (Exhibit A). He noted the paragraph on Council/Mayor
roles, which utilized language suggested by Councilor Hunt.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 9
Councilor Hunt commented that the language gave the impression that the Council would meet
to 11 p.m. every night, which was not the case. Mr. Monahan suggested rewriting the sentence
to read that it was the Council's goal to adjourn prior to 11 p.m.
Mr. Monahan noted the definitions for business meeting, workshops, and study sessions,
including a description of the elements involved in each type of meeting. He mentioned in
particular the ability for any Councilor to call a point of order and request that discussion of a
study session item be moved to the regular session. In addition, if an item on the regular agenda
was discussed during a study session, the presiding officer was to recap the earlier discussion for
the regular meeting.
Mr. Monahan pointed out the clarification on when Executive Sessions could be held.
Councilor Hunt contended that, contrary to the statement in the ground rules, the Council did
sometimes take final action during Executive Sessions. The Council discussed the issue. Mr.
Ramis commented that it was important that the official action of any decision made during
Executive Session take place during open session. The Council agreed to eliminate the last
sentence of the Executive Session section.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the clarifications to the section on the interrelationships between
Councilors and appointed boards. Mayor Nicoii confirmed that it was his preference that the
Council make the committee appointments. Mr. Monahan noted the new section on Council
agendas and packet information, and the addition of regular review of the ground rules in July or
August.
Mr. Monahan mentioned Councilor Hunt's question regarding the statement that Budget cuts or
decreases equaled policy decisions. Councilor Hunt contended that the first sentence made no
sense. Councilor Moore concurred that it was confusing. Mr. Monahan explained that the
intent had probably been to make sure that any changes to any part of the budget were reviewed
within the context of the whole budget. Councilor Moore suggested retaining the first sentence
and eliminating the second.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the phrase "information that affects the Council."
Mr. Monahan explained that if he received information that affected Council, he sent it to
Council. But if someone said that Council needed to get into some issue, he determined whether
or not it was appropriate to send to Council.
Mr. Monahan will bring back revised Council ground rules for final Council consideration on
September 9, 1998.
8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Councilor Hunt reported that two members of the Space Committee have agreed to take the lead
in distributing information to the public.
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS
® STUDY SESSION
Mayor Nicoli convened the study session at 9:16 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 10
> OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (ODOT) LETTER
Mr. Monahan presented a letter received from Kay Van Sickle, ODOT Region 1 Manager,
regarding a disagreement ODOT had with the School District and Eagle Hardware over land
needed for the SW 72"d/217 intersection. He explained that this was a follow up to a meeting
held with Mr. Ramis and Mr. Hendryx. He pointed out that essentially Ms. Van Sickle was
telling the City that, in any application made by Eagle Hardware, ODOT expected the City to
require dedication of right-of-way to meet ODOT's needs. He said that he, Mr. Hendryx, and
Mr. Ramis have been discussing how best to respond.
Mayor Nicoli asked why would the City want to step in the middle of a fight between the State
and the School District. Mr. Ramis urged Council to respond because of the last sentence in the
letter. He characterized it as a self-serving letter intended to set up a future argument that the
City has not been cooperative.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the two parties could not agree on the sale of property and the
City was getting blamed for it. Mr. Monahan reported that ODOT refused to disclose their
purchase offers as a matter of policy and staff has not asked the School District for the
information. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that they did not know who was being unreasonable. He
' 0 1..,,.4 m~ff~r tl:~t ~niilrl nnmA lir fnrP tram and
presenting the appearance of having already made up their minds.
Mr. Monahan spoke to clarifying the misleading statements made in the letter regarding the I-
5/217 interchange and the City's role in it. He pointed out that the City adopted ODOT's
toolbox ideas into its Comprehensive Plan following the I-5/217 meetings. He said that staff
told ODOT at the meeting held prior to receipt of this letter that the language in the Code
required further study of that area before any dedication was made there. He emphasized that
the City sent their Code changes to ODOT for comment prior to adoption. Now they were stuck
with the language in the Code unless the City changed its Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Nicoli said that to him this letter was a slap in the face, and that Ms. Van Sickle has
stepped over the line. He spoke to talking with Tom Brian who could talk to Ms. Van Sickle's
boss and the head of the State Highway Department. He reiterated that he did not want the City
to get involved in this disagreement.
Counclior Moore asked if the State has roviewed the Eagle Hardware project, and if the State
has submitted to the City their plans for the design of the 72"d/217 intersection so they could
overlay it with any design plans coming into the City. Mr. Hendryx said that Eagle was in the
process of applying but has not submitted a complete application yet. He stated that ODOT had
the same opportunity as anyone else to make comments which staff would factor in. He said
that they have not received the final alignment plans for that intersection, despite requests by
staff and the City Attorney.
Mayor Nicoli commented that with Eagle Hardware in the process of making application, this
was an active land use issue. He held that this letter asked them in a roundabout fashion how
they would rule on it. He asked if legally they should have anything to do with the letter. Mr.
Ramis advised disclosing the conversations Council has had on the matter but held that they
were not precluded from responding to a state communication.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 11
Mr. Ramis mentioned the critical importance of including the concept of the potential legal
problems in their response. He suggested pointing out to ODOT that it was no solution for
ODOT, as a regional partner, to solve its land acquisition problems by directing local
governments to impose a condition that was unconstitutional. He said that he has prepared a
draft paragraph pointing out the Tigard hearing process, and mentioning that ODOT could
introduce a study showing rough proportionality.
Mr. Ramis explained that staff was advising the Council of a response they intended to make to
ODOT at a staff level. This matter did not involve the Council taking a position on an active
land use application. The Council agreed by consensus that they did not need to see the staff
letter before it went out.
> UPDATE: ATFALATI ORGANIZATION STATUS
Mr. Monahan reviewed the Mayor's report from two weeks ago. He mentioned that the intern
researching the steps required to form a recreation district wanted to know the status of Tigard's
Parks Master Plan. He said that he expected the Atfalati group to bring a report to Council in
September or October with the results of their research. He mentioned that the County has
already discussed this issue and might be willing to fund a portion of a professional feasibility
study conducted by the same consultant wHo did the coordinated study commissioned by
NIT
VV Q. 1.:.. J111u r,-,znnT1CP, to SB 122.
Councilor Hunt expressed his concerns with creating another layer of government for taxpayers
to pay for. He agreed that the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) was the envy
of the region but he was leery of turning control of Tigard parks over to someone else and the
City not being able to hold city events in its own parks.
Mayor Nicoli said that who controlled the parks and fields depended on the agreement. He
agreed that Beaverton did turn over the majority of its land to the District to maintain.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that a tax for a recreational district would be an additional tax on the
taxpayer, as the City would still collect its regular taxes. Councilor Rohlf commented that the
Visioning process revealed a strong feeling in support of a "watered down version" of THRPD.
He said that he did not know why they could not structure it to enhance City control rather than
to undermine it. He supported exploring ways to help Atfalati create a recreation district.
Councilor Moore commented that he did not want to give up control of the parks either but
pointed out that they have not yet seen a proposal. Councilor Hunt said that he wanted Council
discussion before they got too far down the road. Mayor Nicoli emphasized that Atfalati was
still putting together their proposal to bring to Council. He said that he thought it was
appropriate for Council to communicate its concerns and to ask Atfalati to address those
concerns in its proposal.
Councilor Scheckla asked why they could not wait until Atfalati brought its proposal forward.
For all they knew, they might like it. Mayor Nicoli said that Councilor Hunt wanted to talk
about it now.
Mayor Nicoli said that he agreed with Councilor Scheckla that they did not need to build
Atfalati's program for them but he also agreed with Councilor Hunt that it was appropriate for
Council to ask Atfalati to address its concerns with a recreation district. He explained that
Atfalati was currently researching maintenance and programming costs as well as how much
revenue they could get from different levels of taxes.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 12
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that all Atfalati needed in order to set up a district was a majority of
the votes of the County Commissioners, which they had. The next step was getting a charter
with taxing authority passed by the voters, which Atfalati anticipated doing in the year 2000.
He said that he thought they would be very open to dialog with the Council.
Councilor Scheckla asked if music groups would be allowed to perform in parks under a
recreation district. Mayor Nicoli said that they could ask them to address musical opportunities
in the parks. He commented that he did not want to get into discussions about who would
control parks, fields, and facilities at this time.
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern over membership fees and possibly shutting people out
from participating in district programs because they could not afford it.
Councilor Moore suggested that Council draft a letter at a work session to Atfalati expressing
their concerns. Then when Atfalati returned with its proposal, Council could see if they
addressed those concerns. Mr. Monahan suggested inviting Atfalati representatives to a work
session.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned that Atfalati would like the Council to take the lead role in developing
the irlPn of fnrminrr n rPrrantinn dictrirt NP PvnlninPri that the mninrity nfnPnn1P rlicrii z6nv
this issue have agreed that a recreation district would receive a more favorable reception from
the public if it came from a groundswell of people rather than from the City.
Councilor Hunt asked what areas was Atfalati considering. Mayor Nicoli said that they were
studying the school district boundaries but looking at it as three separate study areas - Tigard,
Tualatin, and Sherwood. He mentioned that Atfalati had every youth athletic group in Tigard
behind them. He noted their strategy in approaching the Council for political and/or financial
support. He reiterated his support of opening communication between the Council and Atfalati.
Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to consider whether they wanted this to be a City-driven
project or a citizen-driven project.
Councilor Scheckla asked if all the cities in the study had to buy into the project also. Mayor
Nicoli said no, but pointed out that that decision has not yet been made. He reviewed the
differing perceptions of the Tualatin and Sherwood Councils towards their own park systems
and recreation programs. He said that the cities could chose not to be part of the district, to join
the district at any time, or to set up their own districts.
Councilor Hunt said that he wanted to know whether a Tigard Recreation District would use a
continuing levy. He commented that it made little sense to set up a district that could be voted
down two years later.
Mayor Nicoli supported inviting the Atfalati representatives to a September or October work
session to discuss Council concerns. He commented that THRPD started out small but
gradually increased its levy as it proved itself to the voters. Councilor Hunt commented that his
view would change based on the program parameters of the recreation district. Mayor Nicoli
spoke to mentioning policy direction, which the Council would like Atfalati to consider, such as
the percentage mixes for programs oriented towards different age groups.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 13
The Council agreed by consensus to discuss their concerns with the Atfalati representatives at a
September or October work session.
> NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The Council discussed the volunteer contributions to youth athletics by a local doctor who
recently committed suicide.
The Council discussed the ramifications of the recent change in the Executive Director position
at Interfaith Outreach Services.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
111.1 ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m.
~lc~'uh e l~t~
Attest- Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
or, ity of Ti
Date: q - - cL 8
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\980825. D OC
e
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 1998 - PAGE 14
COIV MUNI°TY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 f4otice TT 9 215
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
*City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
°Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
•Accounts Payable Q
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
I, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thF1I'i garrl-T,)ala-t Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
o!!d ±oN n9n; nnhliehad at _ Ticrarc3 in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Tigard City Council Review Board M et-~
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
August 20,1998
Subscribed and sworn to before me this20th day of August,1998
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
i
CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
_ August 25,1998 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
* Discussion/Update Topics
- Community Aesthetics -A report on what other
communities are doing.
Review of Council Groundrules
* Public Hearings
- Conclude hearing and consider a proposed ordinance
to adopt an amended Community Development Code and
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
17179215 - Publish August 20, 1998.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, (19-A rv'~ yV'X OJ I I A begin first duly sworn, on oath,
dennq&- asp cav•
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s)
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated s copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
day of J V~~IiA~ , 19
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this a day of 2 , 19 ~g
sKI., otary Public for Oregon
Y CUhih I-':
My Commission Expires: O 3 - a~-A
OFFICIAL SEAL
i:ladmijo~altpost.doe DEBBIE R. ADS
NOTARY PUBUC43REGON
COMMISSION NO. 310788
MY COMMISSION EKPIRES MAR. 22, 2002
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 98 - 19
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 18 IN ITS ENTIRETY; AMENDING THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 83-52 TO REPEAL SECTIONS
63 - ESTABLISHED AREAS INCLUDING POLICIES 63.1, 63.2, 633 AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINDINGS AND SECTION
6.4 - DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL AREAS INCLUDING POLICY 6.4.1 AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND FINDINGS; AMENDING THE TIGARD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 3.2.3.D, 3.2.5 AND 3.5.3 TO ADD THE WORDING
"CONSIDERATION OF" IMIIZEDIATELY PRIOR TO REFERENCES OF DEDICATION
OF OPEN SPACE LAND AREA FOR GREENWAY (3.2.3.1)), OF ALL UNDEVELOPED
WAS l 'WXTW'W'WXTW TilZW 1 An-WV A D VT 11al I A TV 12 9 Gl A rl 1r%V1NTf' A TTON nr
SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE LAND AREA FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING AND
WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN (3.53) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to periodically revise the Community
Development Code to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard began a complete Development Code re-write in late 1996 to
streamline, simplify and clarify the Code as well as, address the Oregon Transportation Planning
Rule, Metro 2040 Growth Management Plan, the implications of Dolan vs. City of Tigard and the
Goal 5 Requirements of DLCD; and
WHEREAS, the City established a Code re-write Steering Committee with representation
comprised of private citizens, Metro and development interest groups to work through the
Development Code revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) structure reviewed the revisions on January
14, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a pubic hearing to consider the proposed changes
on June 15, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments on July
28, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTfON 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria including Statewide Planning
Goals 1 and 2; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.2
and 2.1.3; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 98 -)6i iAcitywidell-0Lord
Page 1 of 2 Dick B. 16dunA8 12:59 PM
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement is met because the City has followed its adopted
citizen involvement process with the Citizen Involvement Team structure and
held public hearings as listed above. These policies have been acknowledged as
consistent with LCDC Goal 1. Notice of all public hearings was provided in the
Tigard Times Newspaper which summarized the subject of the amendments.
Copies of the latest revisions have also been made available at least seven ('n
days prior to all public hearings held.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning is met because the City is legislatively amending the
Code and Plan Policies according to acknowledged plan procedures.
SECTION 2: The Community Development Code Chapter 18 shall be revised as shown in
Exhibit "A" and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "13"and the "attachment to Exhibit "B".
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective on November 26, 1998 after its passage by the
Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By 1 J O &A i MOUS vote of all Council members present er being read by
number and title only, this day of u S 1998.
h~c lc.>
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this OS - day of -14u 1998.
es Nicoli, Mayor
Ap oved as to form:
Attorney
V.?
Date
ORDINANCE NO. 98 - iAci"ide\or&cpa98-01..ord
Page 2 of 2 Dick B. 16-Jun-98 12:59 PM
EXHIBIT "B"-(See attachment to Exhibit "B" also)
1. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Sections 6.3 Established Residential Areas and 6.4
Developing Residential Areas as attached and as referenced as "Attachment to Exhibit
"B" are hereby repealed;
2. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.2.3.d, 3.2.5 and 3.5.3 are amended as follows with
new language underlined:
3.2.3.d. THE CONSIDERATION OF DEDICATION OF OPEN LAND AREA
FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING THE FLOODPLAIN* INCLUDING
PORTIONS AT A SUITABLE ELEVATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATHWAY
WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN* IN ACCORDANCE WrrTd TUP
ADOPTED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY PLAN.
3.2.5 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THE CONSIDERATION OF
' DEDICATION OF ALL UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE 100-
YEAR FLOODPLAIN PLUS SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND FOR
GREENWAY PURPOSES SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED FOR
RECREATION WITHIN THE PLAN.
3.5.3 THE CITY HAS DESIGNATED THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF
FANNO CREEK, ITS TRIBUTARIES, AND THE TUALATIN RIVER
AS GREENWAY, WHICH SHALL BE THE BACKBONE OF THE
OPEN' SPACE SYSTEM. WHERE LANDFILL AND/OR
DEVELOPMENT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THE
CONSIDERATION OF DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND
AREA FOR GREENWAY ADJOINING AND WITHIN THE
FLOODPLAIN.
iAcitywidelexhib.b
30-Apr-98 4:29 PM
ATTAMOM TO EXHIBIT °B" (Page 1 of 3)
ffe RE REPEALER)
6.3 ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
Findinas
• A major concern of the community is the viability of their established
residential areas and the effect on these areas from change and growth.
• Most of the City's residential areas are of high quality and are expected
to remain in their existing uses.
• There are many existing residential areas that border large tracts of
vacant, undeveloped land.
• In some instances, due to development, changing economies of supply and
demand and subsequent changes in land use designations, vacant areas might
not be developed in the same manner as the established residential areas.
In order to retain the character of these areas and minimize adverse impacts
of these areas, adequate standards need to be established for more intensive
residential uses that border established residential areas.
As urbanization takes place, `order vacant field- and i'11
~LLi.LUeS are
'OpZ-1. The result is a dense and use pattern and numbers of unrelated
types of adjoining land uses. Where these unrelated activities come
together, buffering, screening and transitional techniques can be utilized
to achieve a compatible relationship among uses.
• The intent of the plan is to use buffering, screening and transitional
techniques to:
1. Ensure that private spaces are protected;
2. Ensure that possible off -site•effects such as noise, glare lights and
dust, do not adversely affect adjoining land uses;
3. Preserve the character of established areas;
4. Lend visual interest and variety to the landscape;
S. Enhance community identity; and
6. Provide a transition between unrelated uses.
POLICIES
6.3.1 THE CITY SHALL DIRECT ITS LAND USE ACTIONS TOWARD THE MAINTENANCE AND
IMPROVEMENT OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY:
a. DESIGNATING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP THE
'ESTABLISHED AREAS' COMMITTED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE PLANNING AREA. WITHIN THE 'ESTABLISHED AREAS* NEW DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE OF THE SAME TYPE AND DENSITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
CHARACTER OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
6.3.2 IN THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE A
DENSITY TRANSITION WHEREBY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE ADJACENT
TO ESTABLISHED AREAS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
(Page 2 of
ff4 DE DEFERED)
1. THE DENSITY W'I'THIN 100 FEET OF EACH PROPERTY LINE S/HALL NOT EXCEED
254 OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
ADJACENT LAND UNLESS THERE IS AN INTERVENING ROAD (MAJOR COLLECTOR
OR ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT'-APPLY.
b. WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ABUTS AN EXISTING HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, THE HOUSING TYPES WITHIN 100 FEET SHALL BE COMPATIBLE
AS DEFINED BY THE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX IN CHAPTER 18.26 OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
6.3.3 IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL
-ESTABLISHED AREA,' A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT ESTABLISHED AR AS.
(Rev. Ord. 84-47; Ord. 84-25; Ord. 84-24)
IMPLEME4TATION STRATEGIES
1. The Development District Map shall indicate those areas which are already
'Established Areas.' Established areas are areas which have been determined
to be developed and are as set forth on the 'Development Standards Map.'
2. The Community Development Code shall include the above transitional,
buffering and screening requirements.
3. The transitional, buffering and screening requirements shall be implemented
through the design review process.
4. The City shall develop and adopt 'locational criteria' for the placement of
higher intensive uses.
5. Upon periodic plan review, the City shall maintain an updated map showing
'established' and 'developing" areas.
6.4 DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL AREAS
=indinas
• There are numerous areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area that are
largely vacant and will eventually be developed for various uses. Most of
these areas are along the outer edges of the City.
• Development techniques and types have changed; and not all of these changes
can be adopted to the existing rigid zoning ordinance standards.
POLICY
6.4.1 THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL 'DEVELOPING AREAS' (WHICH ARE NOT
DESIGNATED AS -ESTABLISHED AREAS-) ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND
ENCOURAGE FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE AREAS.
a
H-
J
m
H
CD
W
J
(Page 3 of 3)
• IMT'v_.D!P' :'ATIOPI i EGTES
1. The City shall establish locational criteria for higher intensity uses which
at a minimum addresses their proximity to collector(sj streets, public
transit, commercial areas and recreational facilities.
2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall include flexible development
standards for 'developing areas.'
3. Within the Planned Development section of the Tigard Community Development
Code:
a. Development will be prohibited on lands not classified as developable
as defined in OAR 660-07-140;
b. Twenty-five percent of the number of units which could be accommodated
on the undevelopable land may be transferred and placed on the
developable land; however
c. The transfer of the density shall be limited by 125% of the top of the
range of the residential plan classification on the developable
portions of the site.
4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall also provide for a Planned
Development process which encourages innovative design, more efficient use
of land, energy efficiency and r:•ore flexible development standards.
EXHIBIT
AGENDA ITEM #5.2
City of Tigard
Community Dcvebpment
S &pinq A %tter Community
WEmmm R N0U
CITY F TIA, OREGON
13125 SW Hail Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
(503) 639-4171
Fax 684-7297
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager bl
DATE: June 4, 1998
SUBJECT: 6/16/98 Revised Development Code Public-Hearing
As know, the code revision process has beergoirsg on. f9Loyer eighteen months.
The review has included a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from a
number of areas including: citizens, developers, the Home Builder's Association, Metro,
the Council and the Planning Commission. Meetings have been held with the CIT's and
work sessions have been held with the Planning Commission and City Council to review
the draft document. It is now time for the formal public hearing process. The Planning
Commission must hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City
Council. -The City Council will then review the code at a public hearing and make a
decision on what to adopt.
Update Draft
You have been provided with updated pages for the revised draft. Recent changes
since the joint Planning Commission/City Council work session include corrections of
typographical errors, a number of technical corrections incorporated by staff and
changes based on comments by the City Attomey's office. A copy of the City Attorney's
memo is attached. The changes, while large in number, are primarily technical and the
concepts and direction of previous review remains intact.
While staff and the consultant have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the
City Attorney's office, we have chosen not to include some of them. The most notable
items not included are as follows:
• EXHIBIT D
'O'DOtiNELL R.AIAIS CREW
CORRIGtL & BACHRACH, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 V.W. Hovt Strcvt
Pnrtland Oregon 97209
TELEPHONE: (303) 222-t¢02
FAX: (303) 243-2941
DATE: May 1, .1998
TO: "Dick Bewersdoff
Tigard Planning Department
FROM: James M. Coleman
City Attorney's Office '
RE: Review of Draft Development Code
At vour request I have reviewed selected sections of the Draft Development Code dated August 15,
1997. My review has been limited primarily to section 18.100 Introduction, 18.200 Administrative
Provisions, and 18.300 Land Use Decisions. At your instruction I have not done a review of the rest
of the Code. I have also included a few more general comments which relate to issues which have
arisen out of the Dolan decision and its aftermath. My comments will be made with reference to the
section numbers in the August 15 draft.
Inclusion of the legislative notes at the beginning of each of the primary sections is a very good idea.
As the process of consideration of this draft Code proceeds, I encourage you to continue to expand
and update these legislative notes, through the inclusion of direction given by the Planning
Commission and the Council concerning the meaning, intent, and purpose of individual sections of
the Code. The current state of the law allows the City the first opportunity to interpret provisions of
its own laws. subjected to limited review. ORS 197.329. I have found the existence of a "legislative"
history to be invaluable in defending the City's position in challenges to the Land Use Board of
Appeals, and the Court of Appeals. That legislative history generally takes form of staff reports and
the minutes of the meetings during which certain provisions are discussed through the adoption
process. Preservation of those reports, minutes, and the inclusion of specific legislative notes as a
stand alone document adopted contemporaneously with the adoption of the Development Code itself,
should prove invaluable in clarifying the meaning and intent of provisions which are contested in the
future.
18.1'_0.020
1 susmest the inclusion of the word "will" in the "Meaning of Common Words" section. The terms
"shall" and "mav' are given a mandatory and permissive role respectively. In my review I have seen
the word -will ;1 used in the text. A failure to define the meaning of the word "will" could lead to
ambiguity and interpretation difficulties. If there is intended to be a different operative effect through
the use of the words "will" and "shall," that intent should be expressed in a definition.
O'DONNGLL RAN11S CRO XI
COf.RIG,VN & BACHRACH
Memo re: Review of Draft Development Code
April 7, 1993
Paue 3
13.220.020.A.
This section contains a requirement that the zoning district map which is adopted as a part of this
revised Code is to be signed by the Mayor and the City Recorder. This signing requirement has been
a historical requirement, but it is not a necessary legal requirement. The map will be an exhibit to the
ordinance wlach adopts the Code and the Mayor will sign the ordinance. The only requirement is that
an official map is retained by the City Recorder and is identified as the map which showed the zoning
district boundaries at the time of adoption of this Code.
I S.230.070.B.
In the event that a stop order is issued under the provisions of this section, subsection B requires the
Director to schedule a hearing on the stop order no more the seven days after the notice is effective.
There is no legal requirement that a hearing be scheduled, unless it is requested. That qualification
can be included in this section at the beginning by adding the words "If requested," with the rest of
the section remaining the same.
13.320.010
Subsection A(3} makes reference to the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission. The
Boundary Commission goes out of existence on 12-31-98. Depending on the effective date of these
changes, this section should be amended to delete that reference and to conform to the changes in the
annexation process brought about by the changes in 1997 Or. Laws Ch. 516.
13.320.020.A.
In this section there is a reference to standards of approval contained in subsection 2. There is no
subsection 2 in this section. I believe the correct reference is to subsection B. Subsection B, creates
as an approval criteria that the application must comply with "the applicable comprehensive plan,
Latl implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied." The use of this language in the
riteria section forces the staff, on a case by case basis, to determine what policies and
re applicable in any given situation. For consistency, that determination should be made
have made this same comment on later approval criteria sections which contain similar
encourage you to do the difficult work now of clearly laying out the applicable decision
ria. If you feel that it is necessary to have some flexibility in the future in determining the
E-M
O'DONN!-LL P-MMIS CREW
CORRIGAN ~ C~ALHRACH
demo re: Review of Draft Development Code
April 7, 1993
Paue 5
18.330.030.B.
1 susmest the following change to the introductory language of this section:
`The Hearings Officer may impose conditions on the approval of a conditional use which
are found necessary to insure the use is compatible with otter uses in the vicinity, and that
the impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding uses and public facilities is minimized.
These conditions may include, but are not limited to the following;"
Again, the purpose is to focus on the impacts of the use in the review and approval progress.
§18.330.050
The requirement that a conditional use must comply with the requirements of this section should be
referenced as an additional approval standard in §18.330.030A_ That section already includes
subsection A4 which requires compfiance with the applicable requirements of the zoning district and
is duplicative of subsection A of this section. I suggest that an additional reference in § 18.330.030A
incorporate the requirements of this section, and that subsection A of this section be deleted because
it is redundant.
13.3=0.020
This section establishes the process for consideration and approval of planned developments.
Subsection B identifies three elements of the approval process; the overlav zone, the concept plan,
and the detailed development plan. Subsection C classifies the overlay zone as a Type III-PC
procedure using approval criteria contained in §18.350.100. There are no specific criteria to apply
to the concept plan. The detailed development plan is to be reviewed in a Type II procedure with the
approval criteria being that it is "substantially in compliance with the approved concept development
plan." The approval criteria in § 18.350.100 are extremely extensive and detailed in nature. These are
the criteria that are applied to the overlay zone decision.
I suggest that you eliminate the "concept plan" step in the "Elements of approval process" in
subsection B. As drafted there are no criteria for approval identified for the concept plan. The detailed
approval criteria in §13.350.100 are applied at the overlay approval stage. As a practical matter, the
detailed overlay zone approval becomes the zoning provision for the planned development: The
C-'KR16--VN & 13ACHR.aCH
Memo re: Review of Draft Development Code
April 7. 19xS
Pav e 7
18. A. 14.
The reference to the requirement that the approval comply with the requirements and regulations of
the underlying zone or variances is sufficient. The reference to the plan development provisions of
§ 13.350 is inconsistent with the provisions of §18.350.100A, which specifically says that the site
development review provisions are not applicable to plan development process. This inconsistency
should be clarified.
§ 13.370.010.C.2c.
In order to approve a variance, the Director must conclude that " the use proposed will be the same
as permitted under this title, and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is
reasonably possible while permitting some economic use of the land." The generally accepted
phrasing of the Constitutional restriction on a regulatory taking is that the regulation that is being
imposed must allow a reasonable economic use of the land. I suggest changing the word, "some" in
the current draft to the term "reasonable." This should simplify the analysis of what level of restriction
of use can be imposed through the denial-of a requested variance. I suggest in the legislative history
that accompanies this development Code, if that mechanism is used, some language be included which
makes reference to this approval criteria and the specific use of the term reasonable in the context of
adopting the Constitutional test as the test to be applied in this context
§ 13.330.020
This section makes no specific reference to any approval criteria for legislative amendments. It makes
reference to § 18.390.060 which in subsection G makes reference to criteria which it calls "decision
making considerations." Because § 18.380.030 has a specific subsection B which is identified as the
standards for making quit.;-judicial decisions, i suggest that a specific reference be made to
§ 18.390.060.G in this section for the purpose of clarification and consistency. From my review of this
Code. the only applicable criteria for legislative amendments are those in that reference section of
§ 18.390 060.G. To the extent that those provisions could be made any more specific, I make the
same comment as which was made earlier about the specificity of approval criteria.
§ 13.330.030. B.
The same comment about the specificity of the approval standards is made here as was made earlier,
particularly re`_arding subsection 1, and subsection 2. Subsection 3, the "change or mistake" standard.
Opt,,"`:\F.t.l RA. !ta CREW
COI:t:I6A.\ & BACHR.NC;H
Memo re: Review of Draft Development Code
April 7, 1993
Pale 9
13.390.040.G.
Subsection i of this section identifies those parties that have standing to appeal a Type II
administrative decision. If the suggestion to use the definition of party listed above is accepted, then
any party to the proceeding would have standing to appeal. The applicant will have participated
through the submission of the application, a person who actually participated in the decision making
process would also have the right to appeal. This approach would exclude those people who only
re.:eived written notice and did not choose to participate, and would also exclude and eliminate the
"adversely affected or aggrieved" group of people who may, or may not have participated. The
lan_7ua;e as written expands the class of individuals who would be entitled to an appeal right under
State law. The "adversely affected or aggrieved" group has a limited right to appeal to L[BA, if
statutory requirements are met. ORS 197.330(3). T suggest changing § 18.340.020.A.E in a similar
fashion.
13.390.050.C.3 and 4.
I su•Jgest that these two subsections be deleted and that a general section be put in §18.210.070
-Official Action," which would be a new subsection C and would read, "Notice: the failure of any
person to receive a mailed notice or the failure to post a notice shall not invalidate any action pursuant
to this chapter." The affidavit of mailing of notice and the affidavit of publication along with the list
of persons to whom the notice was mailed is sufficient to establish that the required notice was given.
The reason for including this language in the general section is that we do not then have to repeat the
language specifically under each of the hearing process subsections.
i S.390.050.D.6.
Subsection b of this section allows the review authority to take judicial notice. Since the review
authority is not a court, I suagest that we change that term to "official notice." We should also
include a requirement that if the review authority intends to take official notice of a fact that it may
do so. but it must announce its intention and allow the parties to the hearing to present evidence
concerninLy the fact.
Memo re: Review of Draft Development Code
April 7. 1998
Passe 1 1
Approval Standards, Adequacy of Services.
Durin- our defense of the City in the Qolan case, it became very clear that the Code. at that time,
didn't contain a clear approval standard that public facilities and services necessary to serve the
development must be available. I have briefly looked though sections 18.700 and 18.800 and still do
not find any clear specific requirement that adequate public facilities and services is a requirement for
approval of an application. I encourage you to develop some language which can be applied as an
approval criteria for each of the pePlnit types for which that conclusion is necessary, and included
it specifically as a criteria for approval for each of those types of applications.
Partitions
In the past, a common practice has been to condition a land partition upon the dedication of right-of-
way sufficient to meet the City standards for the adjoining public right-of-way. The Oregon Court
of Appeals has applied Dolan in this fact situation and made the continuation of that practice
problematic, unless the City can establish the rough proportionality between the impact of the
development and the -ight-of-way being required to be dedicated by the condition. Because a
partition of land has nc mediate impact on the City's public facilities systems, it is highly unlikely
that a sufficient justification can be generated in the partitioning process for the imposition *of the
dedication condition. It is more likely that the dedication requirement can be imposed as a result of
the application which allows the intensification of the use of the land. in whatever form that may be.
residential, commercial, or industrial. A generic condition of approval of a partition which looks to
the future, and identifies the requirement of a further City review may be helpful. The purpose of
the condition is to require the further review, specifically anticipating that at that time exactions
related to public rights-of-way and utilities will be considered and imposed. The conditions vviil serve
to put the applicant on notice of the City's intentions and probable future requirements. but not
require the property interest in the partition process.
Future Street Plains
A future street planning process can be a valuable tool in minimizing the ultimate cost to the public
of building public roads. The purpose of the future streets plan is to put all property owners on notice
or the City's intention to implement its transportation system and specific area plans through specific
right-of-way alignments, when those alignments become known. The Code currently contains the
"additional setback requirement section" § 13.730.040, which is a beginning of that process. What is
missing. is a map which shows the actual alignment of the streets which are identified in table
EXHIBIT
ClTYOFTIGARD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE [TITLE 181 UPDATE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The City of Tigard began a major development code update this last year (1996). After a
considerable amount of time and effort, a new "DRAFT" of the code has been compiled. The
underlying intent of the code update is to simplify the document and make it more user friendly
wherever possible.
The following list attempts to summarize the proposed changes. It does not include every
change proposed. Many changes relate to the entirely new format of the code. Please refer to
the "DRAFT' REVISED DEVELOPMENT CODE document for a complete picture of all
proposed changes.
Material bighilghted in the "DRAFT" revised development code is ReW language.
Material that is to be emitud is arced-out or sWketttrough.
EXAMPLES: EIRE, Gmitted Text
• Reorganization of sections, new code format and numbering system.
• New anc revised definitions. (18.120)
• New land use classification and land use tables. (18.130 & 18.500)
• New land use review process organized into Type I, II, 111 and IV decisions. (18.390)
• Detailed submittal requirements taken out of code and replaced with Director's lists that can
be changed only once a year.
• . New adjustment process to allow quicker and simpler variation from minor standards.
(18.37G)
• Ten (10) business day appeal period for land use decisions with no special call up
procedures. (18.390.040.G)
• No local appeal of Type III hearing decisions; appeal goes directly to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). (18.390.050.G)
• Revised buffering standards and matrix chart. (18.745.040)
• Provisions to determine nonconforming use status. (18.760.020)
• Added requirements to upgrade nonconforming uses with development additions.
(i 8.760.040.C.2)
• Totally revised parking standards with minimum and maximum requirements. (18.765)
CCMMUNI i ( DEVELOPMENT CODE (title 18) UPDATE ?age tot 2
SUMMARY Jr PRCPOSEO AMENDMENTS
E IBIT F
METRO REQUIREMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE
CITE! OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION/UPDATE
The City of Tigard began a review process to streamline its development code in late
1996. At the same time, the City chose to incorporate those METRO requirements of
the ME'P.FO Functiomd Plan that can be included at this point in time. Some of the
METRO Functional Plan Requirements are outside the scope of the development code
review. Currently, those include: congestion management, fish and wildlife protection,
water quality management and affordable housing, among others.
METRO REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
• Local Share Regional Housing Incorporates Minimum Density at
(minimum residential density) 80% of Maximum.
• Auxiliary Dwelling Units • Adds Accessory Dwelling Units
Subject to Standards.
• Regional Parking Policy Adds Maximum Ratios Wth Revised
(minimum and maximum ratios) Standards Compatible with METRO;
and
• Allows for Parking Adjustments.
• Prohibit 60,000 Square Foot Retail in • Limits Retail in the I-P Zone.
Employment Zones
• design Standards for Street • Provides for Street Connections;
Connectivity • No Cul-de-sac over 200 Feet;
• No more than 20 Dwelling Units per
Cul-de-sac;
• Requires Future Street Plan for
Developments within 660 Feet; and
• Pedestrian Connections Required at
no more than 330 Feet.
I:. CURPLW1C=00EMET.COM 16-Oft-97
f
AGENDA ITEM # 3 a
FOR AGENDA OF August 25, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for the construction of 91 st Avenue - Street, Drainage and Water
Improvements
PREPARED BY: Vannie Ng_yen V~l/ DEPT HEAD OK Gus' - Duenas CITY MGR OK Bill Monah
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of 91st Avenue - Street,
Drainage and Water Improvements ?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to D&D
Concrete & Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $237,630.04.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This project is a committed project that requires funding to be carried over from FY 1997-98. 91st Avenue
between Greenburg Road and Lincoln Street has been approved for CDBG funding effective July 1, 1997. The
width of the street is sub-standard and the pavement is in poor condition. Sidewalks and street lights are not
provided throughout the street. Drainage system is not adequate and located outside of the right of way. These
conditions create a safety problem for many local children walking to and from the school bus stop located at the
intersection of 91 st Avenue and Greenburg Road.
The scope of this project is to obtain additional right of way to widen the existing street of approximately 22'
wide to a 30' wide street, curb to curb. This will provide two - 11' lanes and one - 8' parking lane on the west
side of the street. Construction or reconstruction of the existing water and storm drain pipes, sidewalks, street
lights, standard driveways and curb ramps are also included. Reconstruction of the existing cast iron water pipes
with ductile iron pipes was not addressed in the original scope of work. However, it is the intention of Public
Works Department to utilize the opportunity of the street being removed to upgrade the existing water system at
the same time. The cost of upgrading the water system will be funded from the Water General fund. The
improved facilities will enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety.
The bid opening was conducted on August 12, 1998. The bid results are:
D&D Concrete & Utilities, Inc. Tualatin, OR $237,630.00
Benge Construction Co. Tualatin, OR $245,680.46
Kerr Contractors, Inc. Tualatin, OR $258,948.00
Eagle Elsner, Inc. Tigard, OR $278,017.50
Morse Bros. Sherwood, OR $316,042.00
Engineer's Estimate $266,519.00
includes $38,750 for upgrading of the water system and $198,880 for street and drainage
improvements.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CON IM-FEE STRATEGY
None
FISCAL NOTES
This project was originally funded in the amount of $190,000 in the FY 1997-98 with $166,800 in CDBG
funding and $23,200 in City funding and in-kind contribution. So far the City has spent $2,000 for right of way
acquisition leaving $188,000 in this fiscal year's project fund.
$188,000 will be used to fund the street and drainage improvements, the balance of $11,000 will be drawn from
FY 1998-99 Storm Drainage System Program. The water improvement will be funded from the Water General
fund.
heng\98cip\91 stlsum.doc
Agenda Item No. 3
Meeting of
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Cook Park Master Plan Design Contract
PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK ~ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The issue before the council is the bid award to Kampe Associates Inc. for providing engineering, design,
contract writing, contract administration and inspection services for the expansion of Cook Park for the amount
not to exceed $294,672.00.
Staff recommendation is that council award the contract to Kampe Associates.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Fifty-seven (57) requests for the RFP for the Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Design Project were requested
with three (3) proposals received. Interviews were held on Monday, 20 July 1998, of the three proposers.
Members of the interview panel included Vannie Nguyen (Engineering Manager), Dick Bewersdorff (Planning
Manager), John Roy (Property Manager), Dave Crisman (Tualatin Dills Parks & Recreation Operations
Manager), and Gary Stephens (Atfalati Park & Recreation District Representative). The proposers were Kampe
Associates, Kurahashi & Associates Inc., and Waker Associates Inc. Each proposer put together a team of
consultants from each of the disciplines that are necessary for the design of the master plan, i.e., architect, civil
engineer, landscape architect, wetland biologist, etc. It is the consensus of the interview panel that Kampe
Associates was the most qualified team based on their understanding and approach of the project, direct experience
with the park master plan , extensive experience and background with parks/recreation projects, and the ability of staff
to work with the team. Kampe Associates presented a better understanding of the complexities of a sports field design
in a flood plain, and were sensitive to the issues related to active and passive use of the park. Kampe Associates has
more experience in using volunteers for some aspects of a project like this rather than for just wetland enhancements
and tree planting.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Consider a contract with one of the other two proposers.
2. Reject all proposals and re-advertise for proposals.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL. AND ACTION COMIVIITTEE STRATEGY
Awarding this contract to Kampe Associates would help to achieve the council action plan for developing a
community wide partnership, developing and utilizing existing park facilities and properties, develop interest and
representation for non-athletic recreational needs, and educating partners/citizens regarding community
recreation needs and available facilities.
FISCAL NOTES
In the budget for FY 1998/99 $600,000.00 is identified for the Cook Park Expansion Project from which the
consultant fees would be paid. If the contract is awarded to Kampe Associates then there would be a period of
time in which the consultants, city staff, Atfalati representative, and Cook Park Task Force would meet to better
identify the scope of the project and actual costs related to the scope. The total dollar amount may very well
come in under the not to exceed $294,672.00, but we need to clarify the scope in order to achieve that reduction.
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 25.1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance Amending the Community Development Code in its entirety and
amendinja sections Comprehensive Plan, PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK / CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council adopt the ordinance reviewed at a public hearing July 28, 1998 with revisions as
outlined in the August 18, 1998 City Council meeting and the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan
as part of the process to update the Development Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance reviewed July 28, 1998 with the changes as agreed on by the City
Council at the August 18, 1998 meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council held a public hearing on the revised Development Code and Comprehensive Plan on July 28,
1998. The hearing was continued. The Council reviewed a summary of remaining issues at its August 18, 1998
meeting. Adoption of the ordinance should include those items changed as of the August 18, 1998 meeting.
The filing date to have the code adopted by Washington County is September 1, 1998.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDF,9ED
1. Do not amend the code and comp plan
2. Amend the code and plan as recommended by the Planning Commission
3. Make additional changes
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
While not directly addressing vision and task force goals and strategies, these amendments will respond to
vision direction relative to community aesthetics, increased density, infill and connectivity.
FISCAL NOTES
A streamlined code will save administration costs as well as applicant costs
i:\c itywidc\sum\cd825.sum
Dick B. 18-Aug-98
AGENDA ITEM # 5
FOR AGENDA OF August 25, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Wetlands Mitigation Fee-in-Lieu
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council authorize fee-in-lieu payment for wetlands mitigation?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council authorize fee-in-lieu payments for wetlands mitigation when such contributions
will go towards off-setting city funds identified for such projects.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City has completed the design work for the Summer Creek Wetlands Enhancement project and is in the
process of obtaining all necessary permits from the various regulatory agencies. Craig Petrie, developer of the
Autumn Crest project in Beaverton has requested to donate $20,700 towards the Simmer Creek project. The
donation would off-set his obligation for mitigating wetlands associated with his development that is located
along the upper reaches of Summer Creek.
The Summer Creek Wetlands Enhancement project is identified in the current Capital Improvement Plan and
totals approximately $280,000 for construction. Surface Water Management funds have been identified as a
funding source for this entire project. Petrie's contribution would be used to off-set $20,700 of the project cost.
Staff supports the concept of allowing the fee-in-lieu wetlands mitigation contribution when no additional
obligation or responsibility is imposed upon the city. This particular project has been designed and is under
review by the regulatory agencies. Should the project not receive approval, the contribution would be returned
to Mr. Petrie and the city would have no other obligation. He understands this and is willing to accept this
condition.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Reject donation offer.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Not applicable
FISCAL NOTES
The contribution of $20,700 would off-set Surface Water Management funds that have been identified as a
funding source for this entire project.
i Acitywide\sum\wetlds.doc
tROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. Nov. 28 1997 07:13AM P2
C
AK A, gUe
August 1C 1"S
Mr. James Hendryx
Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard Oregon 97223
Dear Jim,
Ite Autumn Crest project Y am working on is in need of additional mitigation in an
amount of .23 ages. I know that the City of Tigard is planninj on echancing the
wetland and riparhm area known as the Surnmw''Greek Dam project and am asking
that you consider a monetary donation toward your project which would take cam
of nay additional mitigation. The rule of thumb for enhancement is a ratio of
three to one; the area I would to cover is .69 am(3 times tine .23 acre). The Stato
of Oregon (DSL) has been using a figure ox S 30,00@/acra for creationtenhancemaent
of wttlands and so using those figures I calculate x would need to donate S 20,700.00
towards the Summer Creek Dan project. Would the City consider receiving
these funds to be used on your project?
Sincerely yours,
7 . /0 -e-'
Craig 43,
daytime pager 414-4461
't49~7: SW Canv 1-'pack Way Beaverton, Oregon 97007 0 503/690-0632
AGENDA ITEM # [o
FOR AGENDA OF Aumust 25, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Communi Aesthetics
PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Council set a goal to address community aesthetics. As noted, other jurisdictions have addressed this issue
through design standards and regulatory review processes. The issue before Council is whether such an
approach would meet Council's interest in addressing community aesthetics. It is staff's opinion that such an
approach would meet this need.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council direct staff to evaluate costs and timeline of implementing community design program. Portions could
be implemented through the downtown planning effort, Washington Square Regional Plan, and other planning
efforts.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council has expressed interest in how Tigard and other cities control design issues. Design processes
vary with each city. The commonalties are that each has a way to treat landscaping, buffering, screening and in
some cases building design.
Some cities include all of the above through special design review bodies. In others, either in whole or in part,
design issues are taken into account by code standards applied to each development. Some individual
developments put a greater commitment into design to exceed standards. In other developments, meeting the
minimum requirements can be an economic issue depending on the resources available to the applicant.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Community Aesthetics - Goal 41, strategy #1 - Balance development and aesthetic needs. Consider establishing
a site design review committee for developing properties.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable at this time.
is\citywide\sum\aesthtic.doc
+ Agenda Item N0.5
Meeting of
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx A)
DATE: August 13, 1998
SUBJECT: Community Design Approaches
The City Council has expressed interest in how Tigard and other cities control design issues.
Design processes vary with each city. The commonalties are that each has a way to treat
landscaping, buffering, screening and in some cases building design.
Some cities include all of the above through special design review bodies. In others, either in
whole or in part, design issues are taken into account by code standards applied to each
development. Some individual developments put a greater commitment into design to exceed
standards. In other developments, meeting the minimum requirements can be an economic issue
depending on the resources available to the applicant.
The following paragraphs summarize how some selected cities address design. These are
general descriptions of development code provisions in the various cities. The nuances of how
they are actually applied is difficult to determine by reading the codes.
Tigard
The City of Tigard controls design primarily by the implementation of design standards listed in the
development code. These include landscaping, screening and buffering along with others. With
some exceptions, like multi-family building offsets, building design standards exist only in the
Community Commercial zone and the Tigard Triangle. A Design Evaluation team of professionals,
paid for by applicants, reviews plans for alternatives to design standards in the Triangle.
Hillsboro
Hillsboro has more general development standards with minimums for landscaping and
arrangement of uses, structures, fences and walls. The city has a very detailed, thorough and
proscriptive set of design standards for those areas known as Station Community Planning Areas
near the light rail system.
AGENDA ITEM # r7
FOR AGENDA OF August 25, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council Groundrules
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSN BEFORE THE COUNCIL
On June 2, 1998, Council met with the City Manager to discuss the present council groundrules and process. A
number of suggestions were made for changes to the groundrules, meeting procedures, City Charter, and council
liaison to committee responsibilities. The City Manager has incorporated the Council input into a proposed
revision to the Resolution containing the Council Groundrules as well as a proposed resolution that describes
the role of a council member who serves as a liaison to a city task force or an intergovernmental group.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City council review the materials, discuss them with the City Manager, and determine if
the two proposed resolutions achieve the direction given by Council at the June 2, 1998 Special City Council
meeting. Revisions can be discussed and the two resolutions brought back for council action at a later council
meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Council periodically reviews the council rroundrules and Procedures to make sure that they reflect the
intent of Council and how Council wishes to conduct city business. The last revisions to the groundrules were
made in 1995 through Resolution 95-53. Council met on June 2, 1998 and discussed several concerns.
Recommendations were made to the City Manager who has incorporated the comments into two proposed
resolutions. In addition, other steps have already been taken to cant' out the Council's intent.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action leaving the existing groundrules in place.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
NA
FISCAL NOTES
NA
i:\cirywide\sumdot
0
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
June 2, 1998
1. Roll Call
> Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan
II. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL GROUND RULES AND PROCEDURES
Bill Monahan, City Manager, led the discussion on the Council ground rules and procedures.
He referenced his May 29 memo that listed seven points for Council consideration and
incorporated Councilor Hunt's comments regarding inconsistencies between the written
documents, past practices and present practice.
Mr. Monahan addressed the issue of who should appoint the Finance Officer: the Council, the
Mayor or the City Manager? He noted the applicable Charter, Code, and 1987 Board and
Committee workbooks sections which were inconsistent in listing who appointed the Finance
Officer. He reviewed the confusion that existed on exactly who was the Finance Officer, given
the changes in personnel and job titles over the years. He concluded that the Finance Director
was the Finance Officer. The Council discussed the pros and cons of sending a Charter
amendment to the people at this time to clarify this situation or to only change the Municipal
Code.
Mr. Monahan raised the first issue for consideration: the Council/Mayor role. Councilor Hunt
expressed his frustration with the lack of clear direction on what the role of a Councilor was in
working with committees as the Council representative. He cited the Cook Park Committee,
asking when his role as Council representative was over, now that the Committee has completed
its task and sent the matter on to the staff level (yet the committee was never officially
disbanded). He asked for clarification on what a Councilor's relationship was with staff in
regard to the Councilor as the Council liaison to a committee. He asked how much should he be
involved in the details of the WWSA in working with staff.
Mayor Nicoli commented that his management style was informal. He said that he believed that
any Councilor who saw a problem on a committee would bring it to the Council's attention for
discussion. He said that he was not opposed to giving clear written direction on a Councilor's
role and authority as the Council liaison when a committee was set up.
Councilor Rohlf spoke to implementing a formal ending to a committee when its task was done
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 1
or a discussion on what to do next. He commented that he depended heavily on the Council
Liaison to present the issues and controversies of a particular committee. He said that he would
rather have the Council Liaison hear the details from staff regarding his committee because
those details might trigger a red flag for the Councilor that they would not necessarily do for
staff, who looked at things from a different point of view.
Councilor Moore commented that he also depended on the Council Liaison to keep him
informed on specific committee issues, and to return to Council -if a decision or controversy
arose that required a decision by the Council as a whole.
The Council discussed adding an agenda item that allowed more in-depth Council Liaison
reports than the brief opportunity at the beginning of the meeting. They agreed that sometimes
deciding when to bring something back to Council was a matter of judgment in the individual
situation.
The Council discussed how to handle the formation and dispersion of a committee. They agreed
that Council should set a goal for each committee. Once the committee's task was done, then
the committee either be disbanded or the Council sets a new goal for the committee. Mr.
Monahan commented on the value of the Councilor's perspective as a member of the committee
on the staff work done after the committee completed has its charge.
The Council discussed what the role of a Councilor was in relation to the staff work done on the
committee's project, speaking to the Cook Park Committee's task in particular. They agreed to
reconvene a committee on an occasional basis, after its task was completed, in order to inform
the committee members on the progress of the project and to explain the reasons behind any
changes made by staff. Mr. Monahan commented that the Councilor became the City
spokesperson whom the committee members could call with questions regarding the staff work.
Councilor Hunt commented that a Councilor could tell a committee that he would recommend
the Committee's action to the Council but he could not make a commitment without talking to
the Council as a whole.
Mr. Monahan asked if the Council Liaison should also be the contact person with the media.
The Council discussed referring media people who wanted the City position on an issue to the
department manager or Councilor who knew the most about the issue. Mayor Nicoli said that he
felt comfortable referring the media to the person whom the Council put in charge of an
issue/committee.
The Council discussed the importance of being very clear on when a Councilor was expressing
his personal opinion and when he was giving the City Council's position. Councilor Rohlf
pointed out that the Mayor was the figurehead for the City and would be contacted most
frequently regarding the City's position on issues.
The Council returned to the discussion of a separate agenda item for the longer Council liaison
reports. They agreed to retain the agenda item for Council Communications/Liaison Reports at
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 2
the beginning of the meeting and to add a new agenda item just before Non-Agenda items for
the longer Council Liaison reports. Mr. Monahan said that staff could include a list of the
known committee assignments with that agenda item.
Mr. Monahan asked if the Council Liaison should also be the contact person for other
governmental bodies or leave it to staff. The Council agreed that staff should serve as the
contact point with other governmental agencies.
Councilor Rohlf mentioned that the primary person assigned by Council as the Council liaison
to a committee remained the City representative, even when another Councilor attended the
committee meeting.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the elements in the discussion that could be compiled into a guideline
for the responsibilities of the Council Liaison to a committee. These included the following:
• to participate in the committee's meetings;
v to represent the Council's position rather than his personal position;
to report to Council on the committee's activities
• to bring key issues to Council for direction before stating the Council position on a given
issue;
• to be the point of contact for the committee and the staff;
o to represent the committee with the media;
• to clarify to the committee (in conjunction with staff) what the future steps would be, once
the work was completed; and
• Other Councilors were invited to attend committee meetings but the voting and
spokesperson role remained with the designated representative.
Councilor Moore spoke to the issue of Council allowing staff to finish their staff reports before
asking them questions.
Councilor Moore asked what the Council's role was in relation to the day-to-day operations of
the City, what the staff's role was, and whether or not Council was making decisions that were
better left to the professional staff who had expertise. Mr. Monahan said that often staff brought
an issue to Council to get guidance on what particular direction to take.
The Council agreed that they should police themselves in their conversations with staff and back
off when they were getting into the details better left to the professional staff. They discussed
the City Manager's role in those situations.
The Council discussed staff presentations. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he had staff working on
making more concise and informative presentations. He said that staff expected the Council to
read the agenda packets to get the detailed information, as they would present only a brief
background, the key issues, and the decision Council needed to make.
Councilor Moore spoke to a staff summary that stated what the staff recommendation was and
the reasons behind it as opposed to a detailed history of the item. Mr. Monahan noted that the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 3
documentation was part of the record, given to Councilors for their information. He mentioned
the cover sheet which identified the issue, the decision, and the implications of the decision.
Mr. Monahan noted that they have discussed the Council/Mayor role, Council appointments,
and the role of the Council representative to a committee or intergovernmental agency board.
He raised the next issue of Conduct of Council meetings.
The Council agreed to maintain the current practice of rotating the voting order at each meeting
and keeping the voting order throughout the meeting.
The Council discussed how to handle Council discussion. They agreed to continue their current
informal practice of letting any Councilor talk when he wanted to with the Mayor prompting
discussion if necessary.
The Council discussed whether or not the Mayor was allowed to make a motion. Mr. Monahan
said that there was nothing in the written documentation prohibiting the Mayor from doing so.
Mayor Nicoli said that he had been advised by a former Mayor to make very few motions,
advice that he considered good advice because of public perceptioin.
Mr. Monahan reviewed language suggested by Councilor Hunt to clarify the responsibilities of
the Mayor or the Council President as the Presiding Officer, including a statement that the
Presiding Officer should not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor but
neither would he have any more or less authority than any other Councilor with regard to
conducting the business of the City. The Council agreed that the Mayor was an equal member
of the Council. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that while the Mayor had no more actual authority
than any other member of Council, he did have more apparent authority because of his position
as figurehead for the City.
The Council discussed who made the Commission, Board and Committee appointments: the
Mayor or the Council. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the City Attorney's opinion had been that
the Mayor appointed the person who would represent the Council on a task force but all other
appointments were done by the Council as a whole. The Council agreed that the inconsistencies
between the Charter, the Code, and the Rules of Council needed to be cleaned up. Mayor Nicoli
spoke for the Council voting on all appointments.
The Council agreed that Mr. Monahan should use Councilor Hunt's language on the
appointment process as he saw fit in drafting consistent language for the Charter, the Code, and
the Rules of Council, based upon the Council's discussion. They agreed that the Council made
i
the appointments. They agreed to put the Charter housekeeping amendments on the November
ballot.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the appointment process for the positions and committees listed in the
Charter. The Council agreed to keep the language specifying that the appointment and removal
of the Municipal Court Judge and the City Recorder was done by the Mayor with prior consent
of the majority of the Council. They agreed to change the language regarding the Library Board
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 4
appointments to be consistent with present practice: the Council was the appointing authority.
The Council agreed that the appointment or removal of the Finance Officer should fall under the
City Manager's jurisdiction. They agreed to change the City Attorney, the Building Appeals,
Board, the Planning Commission, and the Budget Committee to appointment by the Council.
The Council discussed the interview process described in the Council handbook and how it
worked with the appointment process. They agreed to retain the Mayor's Appointment
Advisory Council (the Mayor and one other Councilor) to do the Board and Commission
interviews. They agreed to change the language to state that the Advisory Council's
recommendation would be brought to the Council who would make the appointments.
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting.
Mr. Monahan mentioned the last two items: study session and workshop topics and Executive
Session topics. He noted that Executive Session topics were clearly outlined in the statute as to
what was appropriate. He recommended holding a training session by the City Attorney's office
to review the appropriate Executive Session topics to help the Council self-police their closed-
session discussions and avoid getting into open session discussion.
Councilor Rohlf asked if he could discuss the Executive Session topic of another governmental
committee in Tigard's Executive Session. Mr. Monahan said that matter should be handled on a
case-by-case basis in order to avoid harming the work of the other agency. He pointed out that
once that committee had completed their work, then the matter could be discussed in open
session.
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern with logistics of Executive Session, and the asking of the
public to leave the conference room for the Executive Session after the Council study session
has already started. Mr. Monahan said that he did not think that the public felt inconvenienced.
He spoke to the importance of allowing the public into the conference room for the study
sessions in order to avoid the appearance of "backroom politics."
Mr. Monahan explained that study sessions were the times before or after a meeting when the
Council and staff discussed things that were not Executive Session privilege. Workshops were
the second Council meeting of the month. He commented that he has blended the two
somewhat depending on which agenda had the time necessary for a given topic. He said that
staff used the workshop to bring items to Council that were not yet fully formed and for which
they needed further clarification or direction. In addition, he preferred to schedule discussions
with other governmental bodies during workshops.
Mr. Monahan explained that study sessions before the meeting were primarily for Executive
Session information which the Council needed to hear prior to that evening's meeting. He noted
that they have also used them to accommodate an attorney's schedule, to hear the City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 5
Attorney's advice on an item coming up or for Agenda Review. He mentioned that staff
expected the Council to call them before the meeting with questions on the agenda packet so
that they could get the information or make the appropriate person available at the meeting.
Mr. Monahan mentioned his understanding that the Council did not want to use the study
session for a proxy vote but to have the full topic discussion during the regular meeting.
Councilor Hunt spoke strongly in support of holding full discussions during the regular session.
He contended that the public saw these study session discussions in the conference room as
"backroom politicking." He held that the physical setting in the conference room was
uncomfortable for the public and not encouraging to their attendance.
The Council discussed when full discussion of a topic should occur. The Council agreed to set a
ground rule that in the pre-Council meeting study session, any Councilor could call a point of
order to stop discussion because he/she felt it was more appropriate to discuss the matter in the
Council session. The Council would cease the discussion and determine by majority Council
consent whether it was appropriate to continue the discussion or hold it for regular Council
session. During the Council session on the item, the City Manager or the Mayor would briefly
state the fact that the Council discussed the item in study session, and the key points of the
discussion.
Mr. Monahan commented that staff occasionally had to place an action item on a workshop
agenda but they always got Council's permission in advance, and they did not intend it to
become a routine practice.
Councilor Hunt noted some ground rules that were inappropriate for this particular Council.
The Council agreed that Mr. Monahan would edit the rules to remove the negativity from them.
The Council discussed when to hold a Council ground rules review for each new Council.
They agreed to schedule an annual ground rules review and revision at the July or August
workshop, and to review the rules at a study session for the benefit of new Councilors.
Mr. Monahan noted Councilor Hunt's suggestion to add a statement clarifying that in the Board
and Committee appointment process, the Council would follow an advertising process (as staff
presently did). Councilor Hunt explained that he raised the issue in order to correct the
statement that the Council asked the committees to make recommendations, which the Council
did not do. Mr. Monahan commented that Board and Committee recruitment was a process
rather than a Council ground rule.
r
The Council discussed their ability to work as a team for the benefit of the community.
III. Non-agenda items
Y
Mr. Monahan reported that staff received a letter from a citizen supporting Tigard using
Portland water as a result of the Oregonians recent article about Portland's proposal to use Bull
Run water as the region's water supply in future years. He pointed out that the article only
presented Portland's side of the issue. He noted an article last week in which Greg Knokes
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 6
e r
reported on the Consortium's meeting, and that Tigard was not the only community raising
questions about the cost and implementation of Portland's proposal.
Councilor Rohlf contended that Tigard was not doing a good job yet on public relations
regarding their water options. Mr. Monahan advised that Kevin Hanway of Tualatin Valley
Water District is making an effort for positive media coverage.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that Tigard has not agreed to Portland's proposal, as Portland
claimed. He mentioned that it was likely to take Portland 10 to 15 years to get the plant
designed and built, provided they could even get the environmental permits (which was not a
sure thing). He noted that although Tigard residents thought they have been drinking Bull Run
water for years, in fact they have only been drinking it for the last couple of years. Prior to that,
Tigard got water from out of the river.
Councilor Rohlf spoke to informing Tigard citizens that the City did not own any water rights
but was trying to obtain some. If they did not do this now, the opportunity would be gone
forever. He suggested emphasizing more strongly the fact that Portland fought other agencies
getting water from somewhere else because they would lose their low water rates which the
other agencies currently subsidized.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that the newspaper article cited Portland residents as opposing this
project because building a higher dam to accommodate the other jurisdictions would raise their
rates. These citizens favored letting other jurisdictions get their water from the Willamette
River because that would not raise their rates.
Mr. Monahan concurred with Councilor Rohlf that it was important to get their message across
to the public. He mentioned that the water meeting at the high school was staged with Portland
not letting Tigard staff talk, even though the people wanted to hear them.
Councilor Moore commented that the people who turned out on an issue were generally those
who opposed it. Consequently an agency rarely heard the favorable point of view, even though
the majority probably favored a project.
Councilor Scheckla asked about Wilsonville. Mr. Monahan said that he has instructed Mr.
Wegner to inform Wilsonville that if they wanted to hear about Tigard's plans, then they should
speak to the Tigard staff directly and not to Murray Smith & Associates, a consultant. Tigard
staff was willing to attend a Wilsonville Council meeting to discuss their water plans.
IV. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 p.m.
Attest: William A. Monahan, City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 7
Mayor, City of Tigard
Date:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGE 8
. 2
COUNCIL GROUNDRULES DISCUSSION ISSUES
+ Charter amendment to clarify that City Manager appoints Finance
Director.
+ Role of Council members with committee assignment:
♦ role of staff when involved with committee;
need to have formal ending of a committee assignment;
♦ liaison keeps Council informed on committee issues;
liaison returns to Council for decision or controversy.
• Add agenda item to allow more in-depth Council liaison reports.
• Committee will:
e► have a goal set by Council;
once the task is completed, committee will be disbanded; or
♦ Council sets a new goal for committee.
• Committees like the Cook Park Task Force:
♦ have a specific role;
could be reconvened on an occasional basis, after the task is
completed, in order to inform the committee members on the
progress of the project, and to
explain the reasons behind any changes made by staff.
will have the Council liaison as the spokesperson when committee
members could call with questions.
Staff will be the contact for the news media; however, the Councilor most knowledgeable
about an issue may also be contacted. Council members need to be careful to distinguish
when they are speaking for the City or when they are expressing personal opinions. It is
understood that the media is likely to contact the Mayor regarding the City position on
issues. Council also agreed that staff is the contact point with other organizations.
Council Groundrules Discussion Issues -
Page 1
+ A set of guidelines was compiled for Council participation as a Council
liaison to a committee:
♦ to participate in the committee's meetings;
♦ to represent the Council's position rather than his personal
position;
♦ to report to Council on the committee's activities;
♦ to bring key issues to Council for direction before stating the
Council position on a given issue;
♦ to be the point of contact for the committee and the staff;
to represent the committee with the media;
♦ to clarify to the committee (in conjunction with staff) what the
future steps would be, once the work was completed; and
♦ other Councilors were invited to attend committee meetings, but
the voting and spokesperson role remained with the designated
representative.
+ Staff presentations to Council will be more concise and informative. The
staff report in the agenda packets will present the details. Council is
encouraged to allow staff to complete the oral staff presentation before
questions are posed.
+ Council agreed to conduct meetings as they are presently. The practice of
rotating the voting order at each meeting will continue (maintaining the
same voting order throughout the meeting). Each Council member will
speak during deliberations when they wish, with the Mayor prompting
discussion, if necessary.
+ The Mayor may make motions.
+ Council clarified that the Council President and Mayor have the same
rights and privileges of a Councilor as all others. The Mayor is an equal
member of the Council, although he has apparent authority because of his
position as figurehead for the City.
Council Groundrules Discussion Issues -
Page 2
+ Council agreed that inconsistencies in the area of committee appointments
in the Charter, Municipal Code, and the Rules of Council need to be
cleaned up.
+ Council agreed to use Councilor Hunt's language on the appointment
process for revisions.
MADMIS ILB081198-1. DOC
Council Groundrules Discussion Issues -
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager
DATE: August 21, 1998
SUBJECT: Revised Council Groundrules
Attached is a Resolution to revise Resolution number 95-53 which last updated the
Council's Groundrules. I have also attached a copy of Resolution 95-53 and the earlier
version of the rules.
For your convenience, I have attempted to identify where the major changes have
occurred. I have not identified editorial changes or the places where outdated titles have
changed.
1. Council/Mayor Roles:
• Language submitted by Councilor Hunt, which was discussed at the
June 2, 1998, meeting, has been inserted.
2. Conduct of City Meetings:
• The section on roll call has been revised to add the words "voting order."
• Definitions of meeting types has been expanded to also include
"Executive Sessions."
• The definition of Business Meetings has been revised to note that only
the first Business Meeting is usually televised. Also, I have noted that
Business Meetings are open to the public.
• Workshop meeting - I have noted that they are open to the public. I
have also noted that Workshop Topics can include discussion with other
governmental units. Some clarifying language has been added to the
listing of appropriate topics for Workshop Meetings.
0 Study Sessions - A description of Study Sessions and the right of
Council members to call for a Point of Order regarding topics discussed
has been added.
Executive Sessions - A section on Executive Sessions has been
inserted which points out the limitation on topics eligible for discussion in
Executive Sessions.
c Policy regarding interrelationships between the City Council - A
reference has been deleted regarding suggestions from city boards for
candidates to be considered for appointments to vacancies. This
practice has not occurred in the past. I have also clarified that the
Mayors appointment committee interviews and "recommends" potential
board members. I also noted that Council members terms on the
appointment committee begin on January 1 and July 1 of each year. In
addition, reference is made to Resolution No. 95-60 which provides for
the procedure to Recruit and Appoint Board and Committee Members.
Finally, Council suggested that all appointments, including Council
Liaisons to Committees be made by the Council. Language has been
added to clarify this policy.
0 1 have added a new heading "Council Agendas and Packet Information"
and extracted four statements from the heading entitled
"communications between City Councilors, City Manager and staff." I
have also added a note about the responsibility of the City Manager to
schedule agenda items while attempting to maintain a balance to
agendas to allow for discussion of topics while meeting the 11:00 p.m.
adjournment time. I have also changed language-to eliminate negativity
and to clarify that Council has the right to make the final decisions which
could conflict with the staff recommendations.
0 1 have reordered the comments under "communications among
Councilors" and eliminated one statement.
m Under the final heading "general" I have added clarifying language and
a new section which notes that Council Groundrules will be submitted
for review by Council each year in either July or August.
Please compare the proposed Groundrules and those that have been in existence since
1995. If you have any further comments, we can discuss them at the August 25, 1998,
Council Meeting.
i\adm\ essica\correspo\reviccgr.doc
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION REVISING THE POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
COUNCIL GROUNDRULES CONCERNING CONDUCT OF CITY MEETINGS;
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CITY COUNCILORS, CITY MANAGER & STAFF;
COMMUNICATIONS AMONG COUNCILORS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
COMMUNITY/GENERAL PUBLIC; PLUS COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES IN
GENERAL (SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NOS. 95-53,94-35,81-114A, 77-91, AND
75-30)
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed Council Groundrules, including Council
agenda and meeting process on June 2 and August 25, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Council updated the procedures of operations and the manner in which
it is to conduct business; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to supersede previous resolutions in the
record as noted in the Resolution Title above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Council Groundrules described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED: This day of .1998.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
r
City Recorder - City of Tigard
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULES AND AGENDA PROCESS
The following information is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct of
City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains regulations that
govern Council meetings. The Groundrules describe the process followed by Council in
scheduling and conducting meetings.
Council/Mayor Roles
• The Mayor, or in the absence of the Mayor, the Council President, shall be the
Presiding Officer at all meetings. The Presiding Officer shall conduct all meetings,
preserve order, enforce the rules of the Council and determine the order and length \
of discussion on any matter before the Council, subject to these rules. The Presiding Officer may move, second, debate and vo nd a deprived of
any of the rights and privileges of a Councilor. Th Ma r shall sign all ordinances,
resolutions, contracts and other documents, except w ere authority to sign certain
contracts and other documents has been delegated to the City Manager and all
documents shall be attested to by the City Recorder. The Mayor shall appoint the
committees provided by the Rules of Council.
• In all other actions, decisions and other matters relating to the conduct of business
of the City, the Mayor or President shall have no more or less authority than any
other Council member. For the purposes of this written procedure any reference to
the Council (unless otherwise specifically noted to the contrary) will include the
Mayor, President and Council members.
Conduct of City Meetings
• Council will meet at least once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall be on
the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month.
• The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business" meetings;
the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are "Workshop" meetings
unless otherwise designated by the City Council.
• Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at 6:30 p.m.
at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth Tuesdays the
meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the Business meeting. On the
third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.
• Roll CaIl/Voting Order: The roll shall be called in alphabetical order by last name. At
each succeeding meeting at which a roll call vote is taken, the council person who
voted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Council person who
voted first during the preceding meeting shall vote second and so on in a rotating
fashion. It is the intent that the voting order remain fixed for each meeting and that a
1
different Council person shall vote last during each separate meeting for the duration
of the meeting.
• The Chair, or other members if the Chair fails to remember, shall call for a Point of
Order at or around 10 p.m. to review remaining items on the agenda with the
Council. The Council may reset or reschedule those items which it feels may not be
reached prior to th , regular time of adjournment. LL~
C.v~ VA u- l'S Z iS ff 11 ~LU~ t P Z~ n- l0
; ~journmenf shall be 11 p.m. unless extended by majority
• The regular ti ve~ofl
consent of all Council member then present. If not continued by majority consent,
then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the next scheduled meeting or the
meeting shall be continued to a special meeting on another date.
• Definitions - Meeting Types, Study Sessions and Executive Sessions:
> BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where
Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item
including consideration of ordinances, resolutions & conducting public
hearings. Business meetings are open to the public. The first business
meeting on each month is usually televised.
Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with a
study session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study
Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition below) which
also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business
meeting agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on
process. Study Sessions are open to the public.
All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of
Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain
circumstances and topics are limited to those defined by ORS 192.660.
The "Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council
Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning of
the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to
introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to refer
an issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later Council
meeting.
> WORKSHOPS MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings
where Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of
deliberating toward a final decision during the meeting. Workshop
meetings are not scheduled to be televised but are open to the public.
Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving
preliminary information and providing direction for further analysis and
staff information gathering for a later business meeting. Workshop topics
may also include discussions with standing boards and committees, as
well as other governmental units.
2
Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings Include:
Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine
whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether
to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda.
Educational Meetings: Council will review research information
presented by staff, consultants, or task forces - usually as a
process check; i.e. is the issue on the right "track"?
- Meet with individuals from City boards and committees or other
jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples:
other Councils, the School District, and other officials).
- Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information,
scheduling preferences, process checks.
> STUDY SESSIONS: Study Sessions precede or follow a Business
Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a
Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the
Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues
or on process. Information is also shared on items that are time
sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a
Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion"
because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to
discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is
raised, the City Council will discuss the Point of Order and determine
whether the "discussion" should continue on to be held during the Council
meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not
shall be determined by the majority vote of the Council members present.
If Council discusses a Co cil A n tac4pic in a Study Session prior to a
Council meeting, either th ity Manager will briefly state at the
introduction of the Agenda Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic
in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion.
> EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: Meetings conducted by the Council, City
Manager, and appropriate staff in a setting closed to the public for
deliberation on certain matters. Executive Sessions may be held during a
regular, special or emergency meeting after the presiding officer has
identified the authorization of ORS for holding the Executive Session.
Among the permitted topics are employment of a public officer,
deliberations with the persons designated by the Council to carry on labor
negotiations, deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real
property transactions, and to consult with legal counsel regarding current
litigation or litigation likely to be filed. E
3
Policy Regarding Interrelationships Between the City Council and Its Appointed
Commissions. Boards or Committees (hereinafter referred to as "Boards"1
• The Council shall follow the Procedure for Recruitment and Appointments to Boards
and Committees established in Resolution No. 95-60.
• Appointments to any committees not covered by Resolution No. 95-60 shall be
made following the procedure provided within the Resolution or Ordinance which
created the committee.
• Appointments to intergovernmental committees shall be made by Council Action.
• Appointments of Council members to internal City committees as the Council Liaison
shall be made by the City Council.
• It is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in the Cityscape, of the
occurrence of vacancies on City boards for the purpose of informing persons who
may be interested in appointment.
• Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on those
boards which provide for such non-city membership.
• The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment Advisory
Committee for the purpose of interviewing and recommending potential board
members. Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a
rotated basis for a term of six months. Terms shall begin January 1 and July 1.
Communications Between City Councilors. City Manager and Staff
V Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City Manager,
both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions.
• Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Manager, giving as
much information as possible to ensure a thorough response.
• In the absence of the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the
Assistant to the City Manager. In the absence of both the City Manager and the
Assistant to the City Manager, Councilors are encouraged to contact the Department
Head, realizing that the Department Head will discuss any such inquiries with the
City Manager.
C Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible disruption
of work, confusion on priorties, and limited scope of response.
4
NO!
Council Agendas and racket Information
• The City Manager will schedule agenda items while attempting to maintain balanced
agendas to allow for discussion of topics while meeting the established 11 p.m.
adjournment time.
• The City Manager will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the
agenda cycle deadlines.
• The agenda cycle calls for submittal of items 10 days in advance of a Council
meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, and handouts distributed at the start of
meetings, except Executive Sessions.
• Councilors and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and issues should be
presented fully in packets.
• Council is supportive of the role staff should play in offering professional
recommendations. Staff is aware of Council's right to make final decisions after
considering the staff recommendation, public input, the record and Council
deliberation on the matter.
Communications Among Councilors
• Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to contact the
City Manager about scheduling an item into the Tentative Agenda.
• Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally
considered only if continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate.
• Requests for legislative action of Council may be initiated by an individual Council
during a Council meeting. The City Manager will respond to the request consistent
with resources and priorities, or refer the question of scheduling to Council as a
whole.
Communications with Community/General Public
• Councilors and the General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off
dates. Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are handled and
how citizen input may be accomplished.
• "Official" communication should come through City Hall and be provided by the City
Manager. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual Councilors should
be referred to the City Manager or Councilors may ask the City Manager to look into
an issue.
• Official "press releases" are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting and to
advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the press. Press
releases are through the City Manager's Office.
5
General
• Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never simply
private citizens. Thus, Councilors are always treated by Administration as Council
Members.
• Information that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City Manager is to
decide on "gray areas," but too much information is preferable to too little.
a&.Z
• Budget cuts or increases equal. policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut "piece
meal" or "across the board," but rather should be made in service or program areas,
giving Staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining the anticipated impact of
the action.
• It is the policy of the Council that if Councilors are contacted regarding labor
relations during labor negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors
have no comment.
• Councilors and the City Manager agree to report and discuss any contact which
might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive Session.
• The Council Groundrules will be submitted for review by Council each year either in
the July or August Workshop Meeting. The Groundrules can be reviewed and
revised at any other time in the year when a specific issue or issues are identified
requiring action prior to the established review period.
1\adm\cathy\resexha.doc
6
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 95-53
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING
COUNCIL GROUNDRULES CONCERNING CONDUCT OF CITY MEETINGS;
INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS APPOINTED
BOARDS; COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CITY COUNCILORS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
& STAFF; COMMUNICATIONS AMONG COUNCILORS; COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
COMMUNITY/GENERAL PUBLIC; PLUS COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES IN GENERAL
(SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NOS. 94-35, 81-114A, 77-91, AND 75-30)
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed Council Groundrules,
including Council agenda and meeting process on August 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Council updated the procedures of operation and the
manner in which it is to conduct business; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to supersede previous
resolutions in the record as noted in the Resolution Title above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Council
Groundrules described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
PASSED: This 10"I day of ® 95.
2~Xr - City of Tigard
?,TTEST :
Citv Recorder - City of Tigard
~_CC ]3:~CdC 7v~C__ZDtS3~. _5
EXIRM nA"
CITY COUNCIL GROUNDRULBS AND AGENDA PROCESS
The following information is intended to assist with preparation for and the conduct
of City Council meetings. The City Charter, Article IV, Section 13, contains
regulations that govern Council meetings. The groundrules describe the process
followed by Council in scheduling and conducting meetings.
Conduct of City Meetings
® Council will meet at least once a month. Regularly scheduled meetings shall
be on the second, third, and fourth Tuesdays of each month.
® The Council meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are "Business"
meetings; the Council meetings on the third Tuesday of the month are
"Workshop" meetings unless otherwise designated by the City Council.
® Unless specifically noted otherwise, the meetings of Council shall begin at
6:30 p.m. at the established place of meeting. On the second and fourth
Tuesdays the meetings will begin with a Study Session following by the
Business meeting. On the third Tuesday, the Workshop meeting will begin at
6:30 p.m.
® Roll Call: The roll shall be called in alphabetical order by last name. At
each succeeding meeting at which a roll call vote is taken, the council person
who voted last during the previous meeting, shall vote first and the Council
person who voted first during the preceding meeting shall voted second and
so on in a rotating fashion. It is the intent that the voting order remain
fixed for each meeting and that a different Council person shall vote last
during each separate meeting for the duration of that meeting.
Page 1
OEM
® The Chair, or other members if the Chair fails to remember, shall call for a
Point of Order at or around 10 p.m. to review remaining items on the agenda
with the Council. The Council may reset or reschedule those items which it
feels may not be reached prior to the regular time of adjournment.
® The regular time of adjournment shall be 11 p.m. unless extended by
majority consent of all Council members then present. If not continued by
majority consent, then the meeting shall be adjourned to either the next
scheduled meeting or the meeting shall be continued to a special meeting on
another date.
® Definitions - Meeting Types:
> BUSINESS MEETINGS: Business meetings are regular meetings where
Council may deliberate toward a final decision on an agenda item
including consideration of ordinances, resolutions & conducting public
hearings. Business meetings are usually televised. (See Figure 1)
Business meetings are generally scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. with
a Study Session preceding the Business Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Study
Sessions are a workshop-type of meeting (see definition below) which
also provide an opportunity for the Council to review the business
meeting agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on
process. Study Sessions are open to the public.
All Council meetings are open to the public with the exception of
Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions can be called under certain
circumstances and topics are limited to those defined by ORS 192.660.
The "Visitor's Agenda" is a regular feature on the Council
Business meetings. This item will be placed near the beginning
of the Council Agenda to give citizens and visitors a chance to
introduce a topic to the City Council. Council may decide to
refer issue to staff and/or schedule the topic for a later Council
meeting.
Page 2
> WORKSHOP MEETING: Workshop meetings are regular meetings where
Council reviews and discusses agenda topics with no intent of
deliberating toward a final decision during the meeting. Workshop
meetings are not scheduled to be televised.
Workshop agenda items are generally topics which Council is receiving
preliminary information and providing direction for further analyses
and staff information gathering for a later business meeting.
Workshop topics may also include discussions with standing boards
and committees.
Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include:
Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine
whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and
whether to schedule as an item on a future agenda.
Educational Meetings - review research information presented by
staff, consultants, or task forces usually as a process check;
Le., on the right "track"?
Meet with individuals from other jurisdictions to discuss items
of common interest (examples: other Councils, the School
District, and other officials).
Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information,
scheduling preferences, process checks.
POLICY REGARDING INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS
APPOINTED COMMISSIONS BOARDS OR COMMITTEES (hereinafter referred to as
"Boards"
• It is Council policy to make known to the public, by notice in local
newspaper(s), of the occurrence of vacancies on its boards for the purpose
of informing persons who may be inte,ested in appointment.
• Council will entertain suggestions from each Board for candidates to be
considered for appointment to vacancies. It shall be the responsibility of
each Board to be aware of vacancies and to submit its suggestions to the
Council in a. timely fashion.
Page 3
® Council will entertain regular representation by persons outside the City on
those boards which provide for such non-city membership.
® The Mayor and one Council member will serve on the Mayor's Appointment
Advisory committee for the purpose of interviewing potential board members.
Council members will serve on this Committee with the Mayor on a rotated
basis for a term of six months.
Communications Between City Councilors. City Administrator and Staff
® Councilors are encouraged to maintain open communications with the City
Administrator, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions.
® Councilors are encouraged to direct inquiries thought the City Administrator,
giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response.
® In the absence of the City Administrator, Councilors are encouraged to
contact the Assistant-to the City Administrator. In the absence of both the
City Administrator and the Assistant to the City Administrator, Councilors are
encouraged to contact the Department Head, realizing that the Department
Head will discuss any such inquiries with the City Administrator.
® Contacts below the Department Head are discouraged due to the possible
disruption of work, confusion on priorities, and limited scope of response.
® The agenda cycle calls for submittal of items 10 days in advance of a
meeting. Add-ons are to be minimized, and handouts distributed at the start
of meetings, except Executive Sessions.
® Staff will schedule items allowing time for staff research and the agenda
cycle deadlines.
e Dc not assume staff is guilty until proven innocent.
Page 4
O Surprises should be avoided, especially If they appear Intended to embarrass
or discredit. Councilors and staff should prepare in advance of public
meetings and Issues presented in packets.
• Council is supportive of the role staff should play In offering professional
recommendations. Staff is aware of CounciPs right to make final decisions.
All recognize the need to respect the messenger.
Communications Among Councilors
• Add-on-Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and
generally considered only if continuing to a later agenda is not appropriate.
® Councilors are encouraged to suggest agenda topics at the bench or to
contact the City Administrator about scheduling an item Into the Teutative
Agenda.
• Requests for legislative action of Council may be initiated by an individual
Councilor during a Council meeting. The City Administrator will respond to
the request consistent with resources and priorities, or refer to Council as a
whole.
• Councilors try to avoid behavior which tends to embarrass or discredit, even
if unintentional.
Communications with Community/General Public
® Councilors and General Public are reminded of the Agenda cycle and cut-off
dates. Administrative staff is available to explain how public issues are
handled and how citizen input may be accomplished.
• "Official" communication should come through City Hall and be provided by
the Administrator. Direct submittal or inquiries to the Council or individual
Councilors should be referred to the Administrator, or Councilors may ask the
Administrator to look into an issue.
Page 5
® Official "press releases" are encouraged, both to assure accurate reporting
and to advise Council and Staff of the official position communicated to the
press. Press releases are through the Mayor's Office.
General
® Councilors are always Councilors in the eyes of the Administration, never
simply private citizens.
® Information that "affects" the Council should go to Council. The City
Administrator is to decide on "grey areas," but too much information is
preferable to too little.
® Budget cuts or increases mean policy decisions. Budgets will not be cut
"piece meal' or "across the board," but rather should be made in service or
program areas, giving Staff full opportunity to provide data clearly defining
impact.
® If Councilors are contacted regarding labor relations during labor
negotiations or conflict resolution proceedings, then Councilors have no
comment
® Councilors and the City Administrator agree to report and discuss any contact
which might affect labor relations with the entire Council in Executive
Session.
h.Uoginlcathytccground.rul
Page 6
. V
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 95-&C)
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR RECRUITMENT AND APPOINTMENTS
TO BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard wants to appoint interested citizens to
serve on various Boards and Committees; and
WHEREAS, Section 20 of the Tigard Charter gives the Mayor the authority
to appoint fellow Council members to internal committees which have
been formed by Council rule; and
WHEREAS, there are no rules in the Charter governing committees which
are created by an ordinance or resolution of Council, where prospective
appointees are from the community; and
WHEREAS, a written procedure for recruitment and interviewing
individuals for Board and Committee appointments would provide
consistency and minimize delays in filling vacancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section 1: Tigard City Council hereby adopts the following procedure
for recruitment, interviewing and appointments to the
Budget Committee, the Library Board, and the Planning
Commission.
1. Three months prior to the expiration of any term(s) on
the Library Board, Planning Commission or Budget
Committee, a recruitment notice shall appear in the
CityScape. In addition, any incumbent(s) eligible for
reappointment shall be contacted to determine their
interest in reappointment.
2. Individuals interested in being considered for
appointment to the Budget Committee, Planning
Commission, or Library Board shall submit a completed
"Citizen's Interest Application" by the deadline
submitted in the CityScape
3. The Mayor and Councilor serving on the Mayor's
Appointments Advisory Committee shall be contacted and
a time shall be scheduled to interview interested
individuals two (2) months prior to the expiration of
any term(s).
RESOLUTION NO. 952(0 D
Page 1
4. The staff liaison for the Board or Committee shall
review the applications submitted and make
recommendations to the Mayor's Appointments Advisory
Committee on those individuals to interview.
5. The Mayor and Councilor on the Mayor's Appointment
Advisory Committee shall review the applications and,
considering the recommendations of the staff liaison,
select those individuals to be interviewed. Any
incumbent(s) eligible for reappointment shall also be
interviewed.
6. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee shall make a
recommendation to the full City Council no more than
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any
term(s).
7. Individuals not selected for an interview or
individuals interviewed but not appointed shall be
notified in writing.
8. Individuals appointed or reappointed shall be notified
in writing at least twenty (20) days prior to the
expiration of the term to which they are appointed.
9. The staff liaison shall contact the newly appointed
Board or Commission member at least two (2) weeks prior
to the beginning of the term to schedule an
orientation. Reappointed members shall also be
contacted and provided an opportunity to discuss issues
of concern or interest with the staff liaison.
Section 2: Appointments of Council members to internal committees
wormed by Council rule shall be made by the Mayor.
PASSED: This 1`7 day of A/ 1995.
M - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
W
City Recorder - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 95-/.00
Page 2
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 98- 0
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING THE LIAISON
ROLE OF A COUNCIL MEMBER ASSIGNED TO A CITY APPOINTED TASK FORCE AND TO
INTERGOVERNMENTAL GROUPS.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard often appoints an individual member or Council to serve as the Council
Liaison to a City Appointed Task Force or to an Intergovernmental group; and
WHEREAS, no written guidelines are in place which provide direction to a Council member on what the
City Council expects his or her participation to involve; and
WHEREAS, a written set of guidelines for participation as a Council Liaison to a City Appointed Task
Force or Intergovernmental Group would provide for consistent involvement and enhance the effectiveness
of the Task Force or Intergovernmental Group process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby Adopts the following guidelines for Council member
participation as the liaison to City Appointed Task Forces and Intergovernmental
Groups:
1. The Council Liaison will participate in the meetings of the Task Force or
Intergovernmenal Group.
2. The Council Liaison will represent the position of the Tigard City Council rather
than his or her personal position in all meetings of the Task Force or
Intergovernmental Group.
3. The Council Liaison will regularly report the Task Force's or Intergovernmental
Group's activities to the full City Council.
4. The Council Liaison will bring key issues to the City Council to seek direction of
the full Council before stating the City Council's position on a key issue. A Council
Liaison may, at times, need to state "I will recommend this to Council" if he or she
does not have clear direction from the City Council.
5. The designated Council Liaison will be the City Council Point of Contact for the
Task Force members as well as the staff members assigned.
6. The Council Liaison will be the Council member responsible for Council media
contact on the Task Force or Intergovernmental Group's activites. In all cases,
RESOLUTION NO.98-_
Page 1
however; media representatives are first to be directed to City Administraton and
appropriate staff members for the City's positon.
7. The Council Liaison will coordinate with assigned City staff to determine when the
work of a City appointed Task Force is completed. - Future steps will be clarified
including presentation and implementation of the Task Force recommendation and
scheduling any needed follow-up meetings to report back to the former Task Force
members on the City progress toward implementation. The Task Force could be
assigned a new goal.
8. Other Council members are invited to attend Task Force or Intergovernmental
Group meetings, but the voting and spokesperson roles remain with the designated
Council Liaison.
PASSED: This day of 1998.
Mayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
i\adm\jessica\conrspoVespolcc.doc
RESOLUTION NO.98-_
Page 2
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan
DATE: August 21, 1998
SUBJECT: Revised Council Groundrules and Follow-up to City Council Special
Meeting of June 2, 1998
On June 2, 1998, Council met in a Special Meeting to discuss Council Groundrules and
Procedures. Several suggestions were made at that meeting, resulting in proposed
changes to Council Groundrules, development of New Policies and Procedures and other
actions to improve the conduct of Council meetings.
Several materials are attached to accomplish the direction given by Council. In order to
fully review the action proposed, I suggest that Council review the materials in the
following order:
1. Minutes of the Tigard City Council Special Meeting of June 2, 1998.
2. Council Groundrules discussion issues (these are the issues which I extracted
from the minutes).
3. Revised Council Groundrules memorandum dated August 21, 1998 (this is a
summary of the proposed changes made to Resolution No. 95-53 - the existing
Council Groundrules).
4. Draft Resolution No. 98- , to revise the City Council Groundrules and Agenda
Process.
5. Resolution No. 95-53 - the existing City Council Groundrules and Agenda Process.
6. Resolution No. 95-60 (the existing Resolution establishing our procedure for
recruitment and appointments to boards and committees).
7. A draft Resolution No. 98- , a Resolution establishing policy of the City Council
concerning the liaison role of a Council member assigned to a City Appointed Task
Force and to I ntergovem mental Groups.
I suggest that Council review the minutes and issues, then compare the revised Council
Groundrules to the existing Groundrules contained in Resolution No. 95-53. The new
draft for Groundrules also makes reference to Resolution No. 95-60, the Procedure for
Recruitment and Appointment to Boards and Committees.
A new Resolution has been prepared to incorporate the Council recommendations on the
Council Liaison Role.
Other steps have already been taken to carry out the direction given at the June 2, 1998,
meeting. For instance, a Charter Amendment has been prepared and reviewed by City
Council which would clarify the process to be used to fill a vacancy in the position of
Council President. In addition, the Charter Amendment clarifies the responsibility for
appointment of the Finance Director.
The Council Agendas have already been revised to add a new Agenda Topic for more
Council discussion of Council Liaison Reports. The Agenda Topic continues to appear
early in the agenda but also as a separate item right before Non-Agenda Topics.
New signs have been designed and purchased which are now in place in the Town Hall.
The signs advise the public that the City Council is either in Executive Session or in a
Study Meeting, open to the public. In the past, members of the public arriving after the
beginning of the Council Study Session or Executive Session, had no way of knowing
whether or not the Council discussion was open to the public.
There is a lot of material here and two Resolutions to consider. I suggest that during the
Agenda Topic entitled "Council Groundrules" we discuss the information provided herein
and discuss whether it completely addresses Council's concerns. Modifications can be
made to the materials and final action made at a later Council meeting.
i\admNessica\correspo\revc cg2.doc
Two
~asl~g
CITY OF TIGARD
i
CITY COUNCIL
TRAINING WORKSHOP
{
"Conflicts of Interest and Ethics"
Presented by Timothy V. Ramis
O'DONNELL RAMIS
CREW CORRIGAN &
BACHRACH, LLP
August 25, 1998
I. Oregon Government Standards and Practices Laws
A.' History
a
1. Oregon's ethics laws were enacted in 1974 by Ballot Title created our laws
(now ORS Chapter 244) administered by "Ethics Commission".
2. In 1993 the Commission's name changed to "Government Standards and
Practices Commission" (GSPC).
B. Government Standards and Practices Commission
1. Composition - The GSPC is made up of seven volunteers appointed for a
single four-year term.
2. Appointed by:
i. Four by Governor upon recommendation of Democratic and
Republican leaders of Oregon House and Senate,
ii. Three by Governor.
iii. Must be confirmed by Senate.
iv. No more than four from one political party.
C. Ethics laws apply to all "Public Officials" as defined in ORS 244.020(15).
"Public Official means any person who, when an alleged violation of this
chapter occurs, is serving the State of Oregon or any of its political
subdivisions or any other public body of the state as an officer, employee,
agent or otherwise, and irrespective of whether the person is compensated
for such services."
This means any person who serves the state, a county, city or special district,
including officers (i.e., mayor, council member, budget committee member),
employee (full and part-time), and volunteers (whether compensated or not).
Page 1
D. Code of Ethics is found at ORS 244.040 and applies to all "public officials".
1. Use of public office for personal gain - ORS 244.040(1)
"No public official shall use or attempt to use official position or office to
obtain financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment that would not
otherwise be available but for the public official's holding of the official
position or office, other than official salary, honoraria, except as prohibited
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, reimbursement of expenses or
? an unsolicited award for professional achievement for the public official or
the public official's relative, or for any business with which the public
official or a relative of the public official is associated."
2. Most importantly, public officials may not use or attempt to use their office
to obtain financial gain or to avoid a financial detriment.
Therefore, a public official cannot receive a financial favor because of their
position as a public official. Also, a public official cannot have a loan
forgiven or receive a greater price break on a purchase because the person
is a public official.
3. Public officials are eligible for:
L Official salary.
ii. Honoraria (limited).
iii. Reimbursement of expenses.
iv. Unsolicited award for professional achievement.
4. The limitations of this law applies to:
L Relatives of the public official. "Relatives" is defined by ORS
244.020(16) and includes:
a. Spouse of the public official.
b. Children of the public official.
C. Children of the public official's spouse.
Page 2
d. Brothers, sisters and parents of the public official or public
official's spouse.
ii. Business with which the public official or a relative of the public
official is associated.
5. Public officials cannot receive discounts on purchases merely because they
are public officials or relatives of public officials.
6. Soliciting or receiving gifts - ORS 244.040(2) limits the gifts a public
officials may solicit or receive. During any calendar year a public official
may not solicit or receives gifts:
L With an aggregate value of more than $100.
ii. From a single source reasonably known to have an interest in the
work of the City.
7. Definition of gift - ORS 244.020(8) defines "gift" as follows:
something of economic value given to a public official or the public
official's relative without valuable consideration of equivalent value,
including the full or partial forgiveness of indebtedness, which is not
extended to others who are not public officials on the sane terms and
conditions
8. "Gift" does not include:
L Campaign contributions as described in ORS chapter 260.
ii. Gifts from family members.
iii. Food, lodging and travel in conjunction with official appearances
subject to the requirements of ORS 244.060(6).
iv. Food and beverage consumed aiih the purchaser or provider.
V. Entertainment shared with the provider, where the value is less than
$100 per person on any single occasion and less than $250 in a
calendar year.
Page 3
9. Other prohibited actions are as follows:
i. Soliciting or receiving employment in return for official action -
ORS 244.040(3).
H. N isuse of confidential information - ORS 244.040(4).
iii. Offering gifts to public officials of more than $100 - ORS
j 244.040(5).
iv. Representing paying clients before public board of which person is
a member - ORS 244.040(6).
E. Declaration of potential conflicts of interest.
1. Potential conflicts - ORS 244.0200
"Potential conflict of interest means any action or any decision or
recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the
effect of which couldl to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the
person or the person's relative, or a business with which the person or the
person's relative is associated
2. Actual conflicts - ORS 244.020(1)
"Actual conflict of interest means any action or any decision or
recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the
effect of which would be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of
the person or the person's relative or any business with which the person
or a relative of the person is associated
3. How to declare conflicts.
4. Participation in decisions.
i. A public official may participate if there is a potential conflict.
ii. A public official may not participate if there is an actual conflict.
Page 4
U. Requesting an Opinion From the Government Standards and Practices Commission
A. Anyone can request an official opinion. 'This- is valuable if someone is uncertain
whether or not they are likely to violate a rule. It is advisable to request an opinion
before doing a questionable act or accepting a gift that one is unsure of.
B. The Executive Director can issue informal staff opinions. Informal opinions are
usually oral. Please note that an informal opinion does not provide legal protection
if later a complaint is filed and the GSPC finds a violation existed.
I C. A formal opinion. A formal opinion could take four to six months to get. The
benefits of a formal opinion is that if the advice is followed, one is shielded from
liability from ORS 244 - ORS 244.280(3).
D. Complaints filed against you. The GSPC will only investigate written complaints. A
written complaint will initiate a formal process. The formal process could take as
little as ninety days, but up to several months.
1. Preliminary review phase. The preliminary review must be completed in
ninety days. At the end of that period, the GSPC must either cause the
charges to be investigated further or dismiss the case. The preliminary review
phase is confidential. However, once this phase has been completed all
information must be made available to the public.
2. Investigative phase. If during the preliminary review phase, the GSPC finds
cause to investigate the case further, the investigative phase begins. The
GSPC usually makes its determinations within 120 days.
3. At the end of the investigate phase, the GSPC may:
i. Dismiss the case.
ii. Continue the investigation for up to thirty days.
iii. Proceed to a contested case hearing (if this is the chosen route, the
public official may appear before the GSPC or transfer the case to
circuit court)
iv. Seek a negotiated settlement.
V. Take other appropriate action.
4. Decisions of the GSPC may be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Page, 5
E. Penalties.
Fines and forfeitures. Fines can be up to $1,000 for each violation. Also, if the GSPC
finds that the public official gained personally by the violation, the GSPC may require •
the official to forfeit twice the amount gained.
HI. Quasi-Judicial Hearing Context
Every applicant is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. In the course of a particular
proceeding, certain situations may arise that challenge the ability of the hearings body to
i make a decision in an impartial and uninterested manner. These situations include ex parte
contacts, site visits, conflicts of interest, and bias. This addendum will discuss how to
identify when these situations arise and examine the procedural requirements that should
be followed to avoid having a decision reversed or remanded on appeal. (See, Pagano v.
Board of Washington County Commissioners)
The decision-maker must be "free of personal interest or bias". An applicant may
i
challenge a hearing body's ability to make an impartial decision because of ex parte
contacts, site visits, conflicts of interest and personal bias.
A. Ex parte contacts.
What are they? Ex parte contacts are those contacts by a party on a fact in issue
under circumstances which do not involve all parties to the proceeding. Note the
three essential elements; unless all three are present, you have not been involved
in an ex parte contact. Ex parte contacts can be made oaa11y, when the other side
is not present, or they can be in the form of written information that the other side
does not receive.
Although it is important for public officials to communicate with their constituents, .
ex-parte communications should be discouraged in favor of the public hearing
process. If ex parte contacts do occur, they do not necessarily invalidate the
impartial hearings procedure. The procedure outlined below is designed to ensure
that a record is made to establish that the hearing process and the members of the
hearing body were not biased.
What should you do? The most important thing to remember is this: If an ex parte
contact occurs, put it on the record at the very next hearing on the matter, before
any testimony is received and before any other proceedings on the matter take
place. DESCRIBE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTACT and ANNOUNCE
THE RIGHT OF INTERESTED PERSONS TO REBUT THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE COMMUNICATION. This must be done as early as possible during the
proceedings, at the first hearing after the contact occurs. The court of appeals has
Page 6
held that failure to make such disclosures are not simply procedural errors, but can
result in remand of the case to the City.
B. Site visits.
At the beginning of each quasi-judicial hearing, the Chairman asks if any
Commissioner/Councilor has visited the site of the proposal. Why?
Closely associated with ex parte contacts, the issue of site visits is important
because a Commissioner/Councilor may have had an opportunity to gain
! information outside of the public hearing which may or may not otherwise be part
of the record. Since the decision must be based on the evidence in the record, it
becomes important that the visit, and any information gained which does not
appear in the record, MUST BE PUT ON THE RECORD IF THE DECISION IS
TO BE VALID. The key to solving the problem created by a site visit is to MAKE
A DISCLOSURE. As always, the disclosure should be made as early in the
process as possible so as to afford the applicant or other interested parties a chance
to rebut the evidence is necessary.
C. Conflicts of interest.
Generally, conflicts of interest are defined as situations in which you, as a public
official deliberating in a quasi-judicial proceeding, have an actual or potential
financial interest in the matter before you. One of the bills passed by the
legislature in the 1993 session makes changes to the way we make declarations of
uc~ aau yvioildd! wtuiicts of interest. A new definition of "actual conflict" has
been added. Furthermore, the definition of "potential conflict of interest" has also
been modified to be broader.
- Q ctL 1 and Potential Conflicts: An actual conflict of interest is now defined as one
that "would" be to the private pecuniary benefit of the public official, a relative of
the public official, or a business with which the public official is associated. A
potential conflict of interest is one that "could" be to the private pecuniary
benefit of the public official, a relative of the public official, or a business with
which the public official is associated.
What should you do? The statute describes rules for public officials who have
actual or potential conflicts of interest. Commissioners/Councilors must
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE potential and actual conflicts of interest, and in the
case of an ACTUAL CONFLICT, MUST REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING
IN DEBATE ON THE ISSUE OR FROM VOTING ON THE ISSUE.
Page 7
There is an exception to the voting restriction if a public official's vote is necessary
to meet a requirement of a minimum number of votes to take official action. In
this situation, the official is eligible. to vote, but still may not participate in any
discussion or debate on the issue. We do not recommend utilizing this exception
because it creates an appearance of impropriety when a Commissioner/Councilor
votes on an issue that would provide a financial benefit to the
Commissioner/Councilor or a relative of the Commissioner/Councilor.
To recapitulate the new conflict of interest defuutions and requirements: A
situation that could provide private pecuniary benefit is a potential conflict of
.i interest. The public official must only publicly announce the potential conflict
prior to participating in debate and voting on the issue. In contrast, situation that
would provide private pecuniary benefit is an actual conflict of interest. The
public official must publicly announce the actual conflict, refrain from debate
and not vote on the issue.
It is important to remember that even the appearance of an actual or potential
conflict of interest is what counts. You need not actually believe you are in a
conflict of interest situation to give rise to your duty to disclose it as discussed
above. IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND, MAKE THE
DISCLOSURE. Again, the reason this is important is that we are required to
provide an impartial tribunal for deciding the quasi-judicial matters which come
before us.
D. Personal bias.
Personal bias exists when a Commissioner/Councilor is prevented from rendering
a fair judgment in a matter because of an acquaintance or relationship with
someone or something involved in the case. Personal bias differs from conflicts
of interest because there is no potential for financial gain, but only the existence
of a relationship.
In situations where there is even the appearance of potential bias, you must
DISCLOSE the nature of the bias and state whether or not in your opinion it
requires disqualification. There is no requirement of disqualification in situations
involving simple bias, but Commissioners/Councilors should disqualify themselves
if the bias prevents them from being fair and impartial in the matter.
tvr/acrn/90024/conflictinterestttr 1(8/25/98)
Page 8
Tualatin
Tualatin has an Architectural Review consisting of architectural features and public facilities. This
covers all new buildings and major additions except single family homes. Most projects receive
staff review with commercial buildings 50,000 square feet and larger, industrial buildings 150,000
square feet or larger and multi-family housing of 100 units and above going directly to an
Architectural Review Board. With the exception of applicability to architecture, most other
standards are similar to Tigard. There appears to be less specificity regarding buffering and
screening.
Gresham
Gresham, generally, has development code standards that are evaluated during project review by
staff. This includes landscaping, buffering and screening standards. The proposed new Tigard
development code has standards that are very similar in content and organization to that of
Gresham. Additional standards in Gresham relate to transit and light rail facilities. Standards to
avoid long, monotonous walls on multi-family buildings (similar to Tigard) and siding are also
reviewed.
Wilsonville
Wilsonville has a Development Review Board that reviews all quasi-judicial land use applications.
This groups reviews and conditions projects relative to development code standards.
Beaverton
Beaverton has long had a Design Review Board. Its work applies to all new buildings and major
remolding except for single family dwellings. It emphasizes architectural and landscaping review
along with the review of location, size, shape, height and visual harmony. Type I and II actions
include repainting on existing buildings, revisions of windows and doors, adding building area and
removal of trees. Type III actions require a public hearing by the Board with review of standards
relating to surroundings, interrelationships among buildings, preservation of trees and vegetation,
and the quality, location, size and design of walls, fences, berms, etc.
Conclusion
Council set a goal to address community aesthetics. As noted, other jurisdictions have addressed
this issue through design standards and regulatory review processes. The issue before Council is
whether such an approach would meet Council's interest in addressing community aesthetics. It is
staffs opinion that such an approach would meet this need.
iAcurpln\dick\desigrev.mem
~`tti~, SQSSYYI
re® Department of Transportation
Region 1
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Govemor 123 NW Flanders
Portland, OR 97209-4037
(503) 731-8200
August 19, 1998 FAX (503) 731-8259
AUG 21 1998 FILE CODE:
William A. Monahan , -
City Administrator
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Monahan
As you know, The Oregon Department of Transportation has been working for several years
to address the transportation needs in the 1-5/Hwy 2171Kruse Way area. We have been
urged by the jurisdictions and elected officials in the area to make this the key transportation
improvement in this part of, if not the entire, Metropolitan Area. We have invested
considerable amounts of time and money in redesigning the project to increase its
effectiveness and to be able to phase its construction due to increasingly tight financial
constraints. The Department remains committed to completing the project. Throughout we
have assumed the support of the City of Tigard for the project.
Working toward that solution, ODOT has been attempting to purchase some needed right of
way from the Tigard School District. This is an effort to protect key parcels for a future
phase of construction, and to minimize the costs of the right of way by purchasing vacant
land before it is developed, which saves scarce transportation dollars for construction of this
project or others.
The School District does not want to sell ODOT the needed land. We made several offers to
purchase the property with each offer countered by a higher demand and finally a request to
cease attempting to purchase. While ODOT did withdraw its offers to purchase, we did not
in any way drop our interest in reconstructing the 72nd Ave/Hwy 217 portion of the phased
1-5/217/Kruse Way project. Now, we understand Eagle Hardware has submitted application
materials for a proposed development on the Phil Lewis School property. ODOT still needs
a portion of this property for eventual reconstruction of the 72nd Ave/Hwy 217 Interchange,
including the Hunziker-Hampton connection.
We have seen two draft site plans for this development, and have identified conflicts with
each. Both site plans intend to use the portion of the site ODOT will need in the future for
reconstruction of the interchange. Furthermore, the site plans include a driveway access
opposite Hampton Street, which would conflict with or preclude the extension of Hampton to
connect with Hunziker.
Form 734-1850(1/98)