Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/23/1999 C ffY F TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23,1999 COUNCIL MEETING LL NOT E TELEVISED 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639,4171 MD (503) 684-2772 s Revised 2/19199 `fir ~ t. 4,>« ~b a~!"" ••~r CITY OF TIGARD j 4L" r Yi~/.1.~4 G;, fa.'4C>,~~pTy' ~•n p` fCA:-"'A 'h C'~5' Saa• ^'1 C C Y ltd "'t][3)yR:r 4.? ...[[[[4444' 1,ely ',$4 j'W~+,'y~W'^ ~Ua Ck•'tt 1 t hi lt~i Ifl'1t. PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitors Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 6842772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23,1999 - PAGE 1 e TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23,1999 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. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > DISCUSSION: PROPOSED BUILDING FEE INCREASE > DISCUSSION: EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roil Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 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 - January 12 and 19,1999 3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings of an Approximately 28,643 Square Foot Portion of Detour Easement Along SW 135th Avenue, South of the Summer Creek Apartments - Resolution No. 99-11, 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Tigard and the City of Durham for Pavement Striping Services 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for the Construction of the Police Department Building Remodel to Payne Construction, Inc. 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid for Construction of Pavilion and Picnic Shelter at Cook Park to Robert Gray Partners COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23,1999 - PAGE 2 • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS ST IPULATING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HOUSING, AMENDING THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR DANGEROUS STRUCTURES a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony: ® Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 89. 02- 9:00 PM 5. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM o Staff Report: Community Development Department o Council Discussion/Questions s Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- `Ja 9:15 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING - 69th AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department C. Public Testimony: ® Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Direct staff that the improvements be made in accordance with the Resolution of Intent, or with modifications, and direct that an ordinance be prepared to form the District. 10:10 PM 7. CONSIDER SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE TRANSFER (Miller's Sanitary Service, Inc. to USA Waste of Oregon, Inc., dba Miller's Sanitary Services.) • Staff Report: Administration Department • Council Discussion/Questions Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99--(23 COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23, 'I999 - PAGE 3 10:25 PM 8. CONSIDER AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE THE MO.'71' CURRENT GRADING CODE AND LIABILITY LANGUAGE FROM THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Discussion/Questions • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99. 10:30 PM 9. CONSIDER WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT • Staff Report: Community Development Department • Council Discussion/Questions • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99- CJ5 10:45 PM 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10:50 PM 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:55 PM 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 11:10 PM 13. ADJOURNMENT I:WDM\CATH` \CCA1990126.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23,1999 - PAGE 4 ' M N Agenda Item No. Meeting of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council ]Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst, to the City Manager Liz Newton; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; Building Official David Scott; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 7:30 p.m. > DISCUSSION: PROPOSED BUILDING FEE INCREASE David Scott, Building Official, reviewed the concerns raised by the Council at the previous meeting regarding the proposed building fee increases. He explained that the City Council decided what the appropriate reserve level of building and electrical funds should be. He mentioned that the average range of reserves was nine to twelve months. He suggested a six- month reserve (plus or minus) as the appropriate level for Tigard. Mr. Scott mentioned the Council concerns of phasing in the fees and comparing fees to other jurisdictions. Mr. Scott noted the Council concern that the fees charged for the larger jobs subsidized the smaller jobs. He said that this occurred primarily in the building permit and plan review fees. He explained how the use of the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) fee table built this subsidy into the system. Mr. Scott said that every jurisdiction he knew of in the western states used the ICBO's fee tables as a template; it was an industry standard with which people were familiar. He described three options: departing from the ICBO template and looking at a method to provide greater economics of scale and lowering the unit cost of permits for the larger jobs or including a general fund subsidy or increasing the fees for the smaller jobs. He expressed concern about increasing the fees for smaller jobs. Mr. Scott reviewed the four options for phasing in the fee increases for building & mechanical, plumbing, and electrical fees using a series of overheads. He explained the two methods of increasing fees: large increases every several years or annual increases proportionate to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 1 incremental increases in costs. He pointed out that Options A and C split their total large percentage increases over two years with a small annual increase for the years following. He noted that staff used the annual 4% increase solely for the purposes of this analysis. He said that Options B and D showed the initial fee increases occurring during a one-year period. Mr. Scott reviewed graphs illustrating the impacts of the various options on the Department's ability to provide services and to build reserves. He pointed out that implementing 4% annual increases without the initial large fee increases left the City without the ability to cover the cost of providing services. He said that Option A took two to three years before covering the costs of providing services and starting to build a reserve while Option B took two to three years to build a five- to six-month reserve. He said that Option C took them to a six-month reserve over several years while Option D built to a 12-month reserve. Mr. Scott recommended Option C for the building and mechanical fees (increasing fees by 102% to meet the 1994 ICBO fee table over two years). He recommended Option C for the plumbing fees (a 54% increase over two years). He recommended Option A for the electrical program (a 7% increase building to a six month reserve after five years). Mr. Scott referenced the chart comparing the four Tigard options with the fees charged by Tualatin, Sherwood, Portland, Lake Oswego, and Beaverton. He commented that Portland would look at Tigard's actions during their current review of their building and mechanical fees. He said that Beaverton intended to review its fees within the next two years. He explained that Tualatin and Sherwood could not increase their building and mechanical funds, as they did not have the dedicated fund required by the Oregon Administrative Rules. Mr. Scott explained that Beaverton's significantly higher mechanical fees came from their attempt to have the mechanical permit fees cover the costs of processing the mechanical applications, instead of subsidizing those costs through the building fees (an inherent part of using the Uniform Mechanical Code fee schedule). He pointed out that doing something similar for Tigard involved a very large fee increase. Mr. Scott referenced a list of individual applications illustrating the impacts that the four options would have had on the 22 cases. Councilor Patton thanked Mr. Scott for his answers to her questions. She said that she felt comfortable with the staff recommendations. Mayor Nicoli asked if the Homebuilders have responded to the proposed fee increases. Mr. { Scott reported the concerns expressed to him by the Homebuilders' Government Affairs Director. He said that they were not concerned so much with the dollar amount of the fee increases as they were about fundamental policy issues. He explained that the Homebuilders felt strongly that the City should use general fund moneys to subsidize a certain percentage of the operating costs of the building program, instead of the development community paying for the program through their fees. He said that they have not yet articulated what that percentage s should be. Councilor Moore asked for verification that the Homebuilders wanted the existing citizens of the City of Tigard to help fund development. He pointed out that, without development, the City would not need to operate the building program. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 2 Mr. Scott mentioned an issue raised by the Mayor that the Building Department provided certain services to the overall constituency for which it did not charge fees. He listed as examples applications from potential developers who did not develop and enforcement of community livability according to the codes. He said that, in a sense, the development community and homeowners doing little jobs did subsidize the City's ability to provide those services, as the Building Department was exclusively supported by fees. He stated that he has not done an analysis on what the level of subsidy would need to be. Mayor Nicoli said that this was a legitimate issue for the development community, paying the full costs for the Building Department when the Department had extra duties not tied to building permits. He asked how large a percentage of the Department's resources were involved in those extra duties. Mr. Scott said that staff could track their interactions with customers to categorize those actions related or not related to building permit applications. He said that he would estimate 10% to 15% but had no evidence to support that estimate. He mentioned that the Homebuilders hoped that Tigard would formalize a policy to usf- general fund dollars to subsidize the Building Department at the end of every fiscal year. Councilor Scheckla asked if other communities in the area tapecd into the general fun: to subsidize permit activities. Mr. Scott said that he did not know, but he did not think so. He said that he would check into it. Mr. Scott reported that the Homebuilders believed that a three-month reserve level was adequate. He disagreed, stating three months was not a prudent level. He pointed out, with reference to the larger jobs subsidizing smaller jobs, that a general-fund subsidy could also subsidize the costs of the smaller jobs. Mr. Scott said that the Associated Building Contractors indicated their preference for a six- to twelve-month reserve and advocated higher mechanical fees to address the issue of mechanical fees subsidizing building fees. He said that, while he did not recommend it, this group indicated that they would not be opposed to the significant fees increases required to address that perceived inequity. He mentioned that the electrical contractors had been concerned with a 20% increase but have not indicated a concern with the recommended 7% increase. Councilor Hunt asked why Mr. Scott did not support increasing the mechanical fees so that each area carried its own weight. Mr. Scott said that he preferred to use the Uniform Mechanical Code fee schedule, a widely published document with which people were familiar. The Council discussed the general fund subsidy. They agreed to direct staff to do an informal review of the percentage of time spent on non-building permit related activities and to revisit the issue in a year. > DISCUSSION: EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD This item was moved to Agenda Item 11, Non-Agenda Items. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7: p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 3 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton & Scheckla were present. 1.4 Council Communications Councilor Patton mentioned that she attended the League of Oregon Cities elected officials workshop last Saturday. She urged the other Councilors to attend for an update. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Bill Monahan, City Manager, listed the discussion of the Murray Blvd extension, the Corvallis Water Treatment Plant Tour, a discussion of some proposed legislation, information on TVCA, and a report on the recent meeting of the Water Task Force as non- agenda items. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. ( voted "yes. 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: January 12 and 19,1999 3.2 Initiate Vacation Proceedings of an Approximately 28,645 Square Foot Portion of Detour Easement Along SW 135th Avenue, South of the Summer Creek Apartments - Resolution No. 99-11 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Tigard and the City of Durham for Pavement Striping Services 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for the Construction of the Police Department Building Remodel to Payne Construction, Inc. 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid for Construction of Pavilion and Picnic Shelter at Cook Park to Robert Gray Partners 4. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS STIPULATING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HOUSING, AMENDING THE DANGEROUS CUILDING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR DANGEROUS STRUCTURES a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report David Scott, Building Official, reviewed the recommendations of the Community Housing Task Force using a series of overheads. He referenced the underlying criteria used by the Task Force in deliberations and decisionmaking: the program should be equitable to all the property owners and residents of Tigard, and its provisions should be limited to those necessary to provide a minimum standard of safety, sanitation and inhabitability. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 4 Mr. Scott stated that the Task Force felt tl at adoption of the program implementation policies was critical to the consensus achieved by the group with regard to the proposed ordinance that created the property maintenance provisions for existing houses. He described the inspection program as reactive to complaints or referrals as opposed to a proactive program with scheduled inspections. He noted that the policy to allow anyone to make a referral (with the names protected to the extent allowed by law) in conjunction with the policy not to allow anonymous referrals protected against both frivolaus complaints and actions taken against the complainant. Mr. Scott pointed out that the program procedures focused on compliance rather than enforcement. He reviewed the program staffing requirement of one inspector and required resources and the program costs of $70,040 (including $10,000 for the emergency assistance fund), appropriated from the general fund. He said that this year's budget already set aside $10,000 from the general fund for the emergency program. He explained that they rescheduled the implementation date from April 1 to May 3 to accommodate his leaving the City while still providing a good start to the program. Mr. Scott emphasized that this was not a beautification code but a maintenance code intended to bring properties into compliance with the minimum standards. He mentioned that any penalties collected through the civil infractions process went to the general fund. Mr. Scott reviewed the Task Force findings with regard to the Council concerns expressed at the last meeting. The Council concerns included the inclusion of owner-occupied buildings, the exemption of social-care facilities, and a reactive versus proactive program. He said that the Task Force felt that the program should apply to all dwellings regardless of ownership, as the intent of the program was to mitigate the effects of blight and deterioration of the neighborhoods. He reiterated the Task Force's emphasis on equity: owner-occupied homes should have to meet the same standards as rental units. Mr. Scott noted that the social-care facility stakeholders on the Task Force opposed inclusion of these already regulated group living facilities but the Task Force did recommend their inclusion. He mentioned that the Task Force did recommend excluding institutional occupancies, such as hospitals or nursing care facilities, as uses beyond the scope of the ordinance. He pointed out the ordinance language that gave precedence to the State regulations over the local regulations in areas of conflict. Mr. Scott reviewed the Council goals for the program as mitigating the health and safety problems in existing housing and preventing deterioration of properties not currently at sub- standard levels. He reported that the Task Force found that the better option within the context of those goals was a reactive program as opposed to a proactive one. He mentioned the Task Force concern that a proactive program was unnecessarily invasive to properties that did not have problems. Mr. Scott reviewed the costs associated with a proactive inspection program for buildings with five or more units that were 25-years old. He noted that such a program would cost twice as much during the first five years as a reactive program. He mentioned Task Force concerns with funding a proactive program without penalizing the property owners who did not have a problem. Mr. Scott mentioned the Code section dealing with dangerous and derelict buildings. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council supported that section of the proposed ordinance based on the previous briefing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 5 Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the enforcement process. Mr. Scott explained that the program would use the civil infraction process already established in the Code with the infractions going before the municipal court judge for judgment and penalty assessment. Mr. Scott reviewed the Task Force members at Councilor Scheckla's request. These included Sharon Fleming-Barrette, Oregon Apartment Association; Sheila Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing; Sally Parks, Metro Multifamily Association; DeeDee Straighton, Board of Realtors; Emily Skeeterly, Multifamily Housing Council; Paul Allig, Oregon Legal Services; Susan Wilson, Washington County Services Director; Councilor Scheckla; and Cecilia, a local apartment resident and advocate. He mentioned the staff support from Jim Coleman, City Attorney, and Eric McMullen, TVF&R Deputy Fire Marshall. c. Public Testimony Sharon Fleming-Barrette, Oregon Apartment Association, expressed her appreciation for the invitation to participate. She referenced her written testimony submitted a month ago. She emphasized her association's concern that the housing program apply to all residential housing in Tigard, both rental- and owner-occupied. She pointed out that the Task Force did a credible job in creating a process that allowed property owners plenty of opportunity to comply with the standards prior to going before a judge. She mentioned the discussion of a reactive versus a proactive program, including a look at what other cities have done. She cited the controversy arising from proactive programs, such as the one in Seattle. Ms. Fleming-Barrette stated that the Task Force concluded that many different housing segments could argue, along with the social-care facilities, that they complied with other regulations and thus should be exempt. She said that the Task Force believed that residential social-care facilities needed to be included, and that doing so did not place an undue burden on them. She asked the Council to adopt the ordinances as recommended by the Task Force. e Sheila Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, concurred with Ms. Fleming- Barrette's review of the consensus built on the Task Force to address a variety of issues. She commented that the Task Force was a diverse group deliberately brought together in order to build a program acceptable to all key stakeholders. She said that she had sufficient confidence in Tigard's willingness to address the problem that she could support a reactive program. She mentioned the Task Force's concern regarding public education for the tenants and landlords on the intent and use of this program to create an environment to handle these issues in a non-legal way. Ms. Fink stated that she did not believe the program was onerous to any property owner, as it focused on the fundamental issues of safety and health. She expressed their appreciation for the time the City devoted to this project. She suggested reviewing the program in a year to see if adjustments needed to be made. June Sulfrich, President of the Washington County Chapter of Adult Care Providers of Oregon, noted that Tigard had 39 adult foster care homes within its area of interest serving just under 200 seniors, and one nursing home/residential care facility. She said that their main concern was the impact of the additional regulations on the small businesses of adult foster care (usually caring for five adults per home). She noted that adult foster care homes were the third most heavily regulated community care facility. She stated that the industry did not believe these regulations were necessary nor did its existing regulatory agencies. She argued that if CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 6 foster care hom--s were included, then nursing homes should be included also. She supported the staff recommendation that State regulations take precedence over local regulations but pointed out that the providers still had to spend time learning the city regulations. s Councilor Scheckla spoke to the time and effort put in by the Task Force for over a year to create these documents. He concurred with Ms. Fleming-Barrette's comments as reflective of the Task Force as a whole. He mentioned the process used to reach consensus. He indicated that he did not think that the program would impose extra regulations on the social care facilities. He supported revisiting the document in a year to address any areas that did not appear to work. He thanked the Task Force members and Mr. Scott for their work in bringing this project to fruition. d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Scott recommended adoption of the ordinance and resolution. e. Council Questions Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on why the Task Force did not include the "I" occupancies. Ms. Fleming-Barrette stated that the Task Force considered this issue at length. She indicated that the Task Force concluded that they did not need to include the "I" occupancies because the Fire Marshall's office and the other regulatory bodies provided adequate inspection for this classification. She mentioned that the Task Force had been uncertain whether or not adequate inspection occurred for the social-care facilities below "I" occupancies, and therefore, included them to insure that all residential tenants and occupants had the same protection. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-02 Mayor Nicoli stated that he opposed several aspects of this program. He said that adoption of the ordinance sent the wrong message to the single-family homes in this community (a segment of the community that did not exhibit the problems addressed by the program). He maintained that it was a waste of staff time and effort to include them in the ordinance. He pointed out that the original issue that led the Council to establish the Task Force had been the significantly substandard multifamily apartment complexes in the City associated with drug trafficking and a high-crime rate. Mayor Nicoli spoke to spending whatever money it took to focus on that particular problem and not to divert City resources to these other areas that were not a problem. He emphasized his interest in helping the low income people who traditionally took a great deal of abuse from certain types of landlords. He said that he would rather be more proactive than reactive and go after this problem. He said that, under this program, these situations would still exist in five years. He disagreed that an evaluation of the program's effectiveness in one year would tell them if they have addressed that problem. Mayor Nicoli recommended tying the reference to "I" occupancy to a certain edition of the Building Code, as the Code changed the definition every three years. He recommended sending appeals of the housing inspector's assessments to the City Appeals Board, an existing Board that heard appeals of the staff's application of the Building Code. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 7 Councilor Moore mentioned that the Mayor raised these points at the last meeting. He said that while he understood the Mayor's perspective, he was confident that the ordinance would accomplish the Mayor's intent. He noted that the referrals could come from any agency in the City that noticed a problem, including police and fire. If the City received an inordinate number of calls involving one site, he was certain that the staff would deal with it appropriately. He commented that the Task Force discussed the issues and developed solid answers. He supported reviewing the program in one year for possible adjustments. Councilor Moore supported the ordinance as written, with the Mayor's recommendation to reference a specific Building Code edition. Councilor Patton stated that she also appreciated the Mayor's remarks. She said that she felt that the Task Force's approach to the issue and inclusion of single-family homes would not make it onerous to the owner-occupied homes. She concurred with the Mayor's recommendation regarding the "I" occupancies. She said that she saw enough flexibility written into the program to allow tenants to complain about situations with which they have had to put up with for years. She supported revisiting the program in a year to insure that it did address the problems that triggered development of the program in the first place. Councilor Hunt stated that he, too, did not think that owner-occupied homes should be included but he was willing to move forward with the program. He expressed concern that the program was reactive instead of proactive, citing the tenant who would not complain because he or she feared eviction or other action from a vindictive landlord. Councilor Hunt asked if the program, as written, restricted an inspector to looking at the specific unit in the complaint or if the inspector could look at other apartments in the complex without a specific complaint. Mr. Scott explained that staff responded to the specificity of the complaint or referral. If the complaint referenced one unit, then the inspector look at that unit, although he could note the condition of the common areas at that time. If the complaint referenced the entire property, then the inspector looked at the entire property. Mr. Scott mentioned a currently troubled property (for which he expected to receive numerous additional complaints and referrals) that might serve as a model for handling troubled properties. He said that the Task Fprce had not wanted to burden the property owners who had some individual (but not property wide) problems with an inspection program beyond the specific problems to be addressed. He commented that, with the generous referral process, the program had the capacity to deal with collective issues at troubled properties. Mr. Scott confirmed that an inability to VVect other units not mentioned in a referral could be an issue. He confirmed that nothing precluded submitting a referral for the whole complex. He reviewed the process that required contact with the property owner prior to any inspection based upon referral in order to allow the owner the opportunity to bring the property into compliance through voluntary action. He commented that the process for bringing a large troubled complex into compliance was involved, expensive, and would require creative team effort. He reiterated that they hoped to see compliance rather than enforcement. He pointed out that the civil infraction process included a per-day, per-violation penalty which could add up significantly over time. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he thought that the overall good of the program outweighed his areas of concern. He suggested reviewing the program in six months to see if they needed to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 8 hire an additional inspector to handle the work. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that staff would bring periodic updates to the Council. He suggested bringing the Task Force together only for the annual review. Mr. Scott suggested other methods of staffing the program, including increasing the current program intern's hours and utilizing the building inspectors when possible or appropriate (but without compromising the Department's service to the developers). Councilor Scheckla stated that the Task Force decided to look at the entire city, including the areas that would annex in the future. He said that they recognized that Tigard did not have the same housing problems as Portland did but they wanted to give their Police Department a tool to use in keeping Tigard as a livable city for the future. He reiterated that the Task Force had not wanted to discriminate against anyone, noting the various interest groups providing input. He supported giving the program a try for a year, and then revisiting it to make any necessary adjustments. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, for the adoption of Ordinance No. 99-02. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-02, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS STIPULATING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HOUSING, AMENDING THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR DERELICT STRUCTURES Mr. Scott suggested adding language after the term "I" occupancy to read "as defined in the 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code" (which was based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code). Mr. Coleman noted that Mr. Scott's suggested language went into Section 14.16.030. He suggested adding another sentence "This ordinance shall be effective on May 3, 1999" to the appropriate section in Exhibit A. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to amend the ordinance to include the language as recommended by the City Attorney. Motion approved by a majority roil-call vote of the Councilors present. (Councilors Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Patton voted "yes." Mayor Nicoli voted "no".) 5. CONSIDER ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM Motion by Councilor Lunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 12. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING CITY POLICIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROGRAM. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINU'T'ES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 9 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") • Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break. • Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, indicated that they had problems with the written notice for this hearing. He recommended that Council hear testimony tonight and continue the hearing to March 9 to allow staff to reissue the written notice. He said that if Council directed staff to return with the ordinance on March 9, they would do so. Otherwise staff would bring the ordinance to a future meeting. Councilor Moore declared that he has been working as the PGE representative on this LID with DeHaas and Associates. He said that it would not affect his decision on the project. c. Public Testimony PROPONENTS • Steve Kolberg, 6969 SW Hampton, said that he owned Tax Lot 3000 on the corner of SW 69th and Hampton. He stated that he paid for full half-street improvements of SW 69th near Hampton when he developed his property in 1996, as well as for the street trees and landscaping. He stated that the $15,746 potentially assessed against his property would be a hardship, given that he ran a small building and had fixed rents. He mentioned that, in his reading of the preliminary engineering report, he found that only $3,500 of his assessment went towards the improvements while the remainder was for the Beveland Street extension. He pointed out that his building stood a full block away from Beveland. He asked the City to restructure the LID so that the City participated in some way in order to alleviate some of the project costs. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Kolberg had a specific dollar amount in mind for the City's participation. Mr. Kolberg said no, he did not. • Greg Specht, 15400 SW Millikan Way, reiterated their support for the formation of the LID and their concerns about the Beveland extension. He asked when the City would inform them of the dollar amount it might consider contributing towards the Beveland extension. He indicated that he also did not have a specific dollar amount in mind but he did not think that the LID should include the acquisition or relocation costs. He spoke to including only the costs of the infrastructure. He asked if there would be an opportunity to resolve this question before closure of the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli indicated that it should be resolved before then. Mr. Specht stated that they did not believe that the Beveland extension was significant in creating the benefit of the LID to the area, commenting that it was a "johnny-come-lately" addition. He suggested pushing the extension off to a later date, should the value of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 10 exchange be found inequitable for the City or for those who ended up paying for it. He commented that there probably was a place where all the parties would say just get on with it. Councilor Hunt asked if those who did not receive written notification were present tonight. He mentioned possibly getting further along in the process tonight if those parties waived the notice issue. Mr. Duenas said that he knew of one person present who did not receive written notification. o Tim Roth, 12600 SW 72nd Avenue, said that, although he could live without the Beveland extension, he believed that the City had an obligation to do it at this time under the adopted Tigard Triangle Plan. If Council chose not to do it now, he argued that they should then erase it from the plan. Mr. Roth commented that Mr. DeHaas has been excellent to work with and commended the City for hiring his firm to handle this LID. He said that Mr. DeHaas directed him to the City and staff for answers to some of his questions. He asked for clarification on several procedural points. Mr. Hendryx explained that the City made assessments against the property after completion of the project, and all costs were in. He confirmed that the Council did have the legal authority to change the assessment methodology. Mr. Roth asked if citizens had the right to object to any changes in the assessment method. Mr. Hendryx said that citizens could address the Council regarding the assessment methodology at the public hearing at the end of the assessment to try to persuade the Council to their viewpoint. He mentioned that citizens could not remonstrate against the formation of the district at that time. Mayor Nicoli asked if it was staff's intent to set the assessment formula before construction started. Mr. Duenas said that the Resolution of Intent set the formula and the ordinance reiterated it. Mr. Hendryx explained that typically a Council did not change the assessment formula once it was set, although they did have the right to do so. He cited the changes that occurred in the Dartmouth LID over the 14 year time period that led to changing the assessment methodology. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the Council never acted on the methodology proposed by the staff and consultant for the Dartmouth LID prior to construction. He commented that Council intended to set the assessment methodology for LIDs prior to construction in order to avoid the Dartmouth LID situation. Mr. Roth noted the City's policy to not allow building occupancy until the offsite improvements were made. He asked what happened to those projects constructed at the same time as the LID improvements, if they were completed on time and the LID completion was delayed. Mayor Nicoli noted that the requirement for building occupancy was a staff requirement, not a City ordinance. Mr. Coleman explained that the conditions attached to the land-use approval controlled the situation. If a condition specified no occupancy until the improvements were in, then the developer needed to do something to comply with the conditions of his approval. Councilor Moore commented that the intent of the condition was to insure that the improvements were completed. He said that an LID in progress indicated that the improvements would be done. Mr. Hendryx concurred. He said that he believed that the conditions of the Specht development addressed this issue by building in sufficient flexibility with regard to the timing. He said that staff would do the same for any other developer. He reiterated that, as long as the improvement was assured, staff would be as flexible as they could be with the language as written. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Mr. Roth talk with Specht Development. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 11 rm Mr. Roth said that he has not yet received anything in writing from staff in response to his request on amendments to the conditions of his SDR approval to address this issue. Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Roth went ahead and did the improvements slated for the LID on his own (in order to gain occupancy of his building), would he be credited for those improvements in his LID assessment. Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas and Associates, said that he would hope that they would move forward with the LID to construct the improvements referenced in Mr. Roth's SDR approval. He commented that if the LID constructed those improvements, then Mr. Roth would be relieved of those requirements. Mayor Nicoli indicated his discomfort with a situation where Mr. Roth agreed to the LID, thus losing control of the improvements, and then the City delayed his occupancy of the building. Mr. Coleman said that the director had the responsibility to interpret and apply the conditions. He suggested that Mr. Roth discuss his concerns with Mr. Hendryx and Mr. Duenas, as Council could not answer his question tonight. He indicated that if Mr. Roth needed to change his conditions, there was a process for doing so but it was not the LID process. Mayor Nicoli disagreed that staff could not provide a direct answer. Mr. Hendryx stated that he would provide a direct answer regarding his interpretation but he needed to review the application and specific conditions first. Mr. Duenas pointed out that Mr. Roth's application was still in the review process. Councilor Moore said that he was satisfied that staff would provide Mr. Roth with an answer before the final hearing. Mr. Roth expressed his concern that the acquisition and finalization of the Beveland extension portion of the LID could delay the LID completion for 10 to 12 years. Mr. Duenas explained that staff has set the appraisal process in motion and would proceed with the acquisition. He agreed that they would need to return to Council, should something cause a major delay, but he held that they should be able to acquire the property in a timely manner. He said that they preferred to avoid condemnation as an option for obtaining the property. Mayor Nicoli explained that condemnation allowed the City to take immediate possession of property, noting that it was a Council decision, not a staff decision. Mr. Roth asked if the City would include condemnation as an option to take the Beveland property, if they approved the Beveland extension. Mayor Nicoli said yes, but explained that they preferred to negotiate a fair price with condemnation only as a last resort. He mentioned that the City could do the main improvement first and follow it up with the Beveland extension if necessary. Mr. Duenas stated that he preferred doing the Beveland extension at the same time as the main improvements, but conceded that they could do them separately if necessary. Mayor Nicoli explained how condemnation worked. He said that, while determining the price of the property could take years in court to settle, the judge could grant immediate possession to the City. Mr. Roth disagreed with Mr. DeHaas' assessment methodology for undergrounding power, prone and cable TV based on square footage. He suggested using the City's current method of assessment for the undergrounding of overhead utilities, a frontage exposure method. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Roth had 4 dollar amount he thought would be fair as the City's contribution to offset the Beveland expenses. Mr. Roth mentioned the acquisition value of the property. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 12 OPPONENTS o Dave Smith, Attorney at Law, 6975 SW Sandburg, stated that he represented the two private residential landowners in the LID. He referenced his letter to Gus Duenas. He commented that his clients did not object to the LID, rather they were concerned about the assessment formula. He mentioned that he had raised "a red flag" regarding the notice requirements for the meeting held last week before the notice of it was published in the Tigard Times. He indicated that his clients did not think it necessary to continue the hearing into March, unless the Council felt it should for reasons other than the noticing issue. Mr. Smith pointed out that the traffic impacts of many of the uses permitted outright in the MUE zone were significantly higher than the 10-trips-per-day assigned to single-family residences. He said that that was indicative of what they saw as unfair to these properties in the 50/50 assessment methodology, especially for the corner lot with more street frontage. He pointed out that the assessment for the corner lot was around $24,000 for street improvements. He conceded that this was not a disproportionate assessment for lots of a similar size in the LID but it was disproportionate with reference to the intensity of the uses. Mr. Smith said that they did not propose that the City change its assessment formula. He proposed that the City defer the assessment of the traffic assessment on these properties until such time as the use changed from single family to a higher use of the land. He said that this would relieve the residential owners of a burden commensurate with the burden of office and commercial developments. Mr. Smith commented that the water supply to the two homes was adequate. He said that he was uncertain whether the water improvements had any relationship to these properties, and questioned whether they should not be assessed for the water improvements. Mayor Nicoli explained that the only improvements to the water system were fire hydrants. Mr. Smith said that, in that case, he would change their position. Mayor Nicoli commented that, since the testimony of one of the property owners two weeks ago, the Council has been trying to find a way to offset the costs. He mentioned a hypothetical amount of $200,000 as a City contribution to reduce the assessment proportionately for everyone. He stated that the staff has done considerable groundwork to find ways to reduce the assessments in light of the disproportionate numbers coming out of the Beveland extension. ® Mark Dana, Precision Digital Imaging, 12585 SW 68th, stated that the only part of this LID that he opposed was the Beveland extension (which bordered one side of his property). He pointed out that his current access would have to be moved, as it was too close to the new intersection. He explained how moving that access to Beveland would seriously degrade his ability to attract and negotiate traffic out of his parking lot. He stated that he objected to having his access to SW 68`h Avenue removed. He said that he recently discussed this with Mr. DeHaas who reviewed the situation and believed that they could find a solution to accommodate his concerns. Mr. Dana indicated that he was one of the parties who did not receive written notice. He presented a letter outlining his concerns with the LID. He mentioned that he and Mr. Roth bought these two adjacent properties with the intention of cooperative access, including an easement for Mr. Roth to cross Mr. Dana's property to reach SW 68 . He noted that the Beveland extension obliterated Mr. Roth's access to SW 69`h. He explained the logistical problems with the weekly delivery trucks if he lost his access to SW 68th. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 13 Mr. Dana described the need to reconstruct portions of his parking lot, no matter what access was provided. He commented that this was an additional cost not included in the assessments to date. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Dana would remonstrate against the project if he did not get all seven of the items on his list. Mr. Dana said that he was not prepared to answer that question at this time, as he only learned of this meeting on Sunday morning. He commented that he had faith that Mr. DeHaas would make every effort to find an acceptable solution. He reiterated the importance of retaining his access to SW 68`'' Mr. Dana asked how would a postponement of the Beveland extension affect the assessments. Mayor Nicoli explained the steps taken by the City to avoid a situation similar to the Dartmouth LID. He pointed out that they could not prevent someone from taking the City to court but they were trying to address these issues of concern to the LID participants. He conceded that it was possible that the Council might postpone the Beveland extension and proceed with the original LID. He asserted that that scenario was unlikely, as once the Council made the commitment to extend Beveland, the project would happen (even if the Council had to come up with more funding). Mr. Dana stated for the record that, as a party not fully notified as the process went along, he did not object to moving the proceedings forward this evening. Councilor Scheckla asked what the replacement value was for the 25 arbor vitae Mr. Dana listed under Item 5 in his memo. Mr. Dana said that the replacement value was around $750. He explained that the purpose of the arbor vitae had been to provide screening for the residences. With the Beveland extension, he would plant something more appropriate that would allow for visibility of the traffic traveling on SW 68 and cars emerging from his parking lot. Bonnie Owens, 12525 SW 681h, said that neither the tenants nor the building owner, Dr. Pierce, wanted their office building removed for the Beveland extension. She stated that no one has contacted Dr. Pierce regarding sale of his property but he did want to negotiate with the City once the appraisal was in. She expressed concern at the discussion of condemnation and immediate possession. Mr. Coleman explained that condemnation occurred only if the parties could not reach agreement on a price. He emphasized that there was a process involved before the situation got to the point where the City could take immediate possession. Mayor Nicoli said that the Council had the right to condemn but rarely used it. He stated that they were not threatening anyone. Councilor Moore pointed out that condemnation included relocation costs for the existing tenants. i a Mayor Nicoli reviewed the process leading to condemnation. He emphasized that the only reason the Council discussed condemnation was the concern of other individuals over what could happen if the property owner tried to drag out the process for several years. Ms. Owens commented that Dr. Pierce wanted to resolve this situation also. Mayor Nicoli stated that staff has already begun the acquisition process but was not yet at the point where they would officially approach Dr. Pierce to discuss the sale of his property. Ms. Owens noted that Dr. Pierce did want a fair price for his land. She asked what did "immediate CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 14 possession" mean to the property owner, if the process ever got to that point. Mr. Coleman stated that a possession was done in an orderly fashion in accordance with the Federal Relocation Act provisions. Ms. Owens asked if Dr. Pierce had any say in the price, in the event of condemnation. Mr. Coleman explained that the property owner was entitled to just compensation under the Constitution. He said that immediate possession simply meant that the City would be able to use the property for its project. He emphasized that, if the two parties could not agree, then the price was detennined through the court system. Ms. Owens asked if the $200,000 mentioned as the City contribution was the price the City thought it might cost to purchase the building. Mayor Nicoli said no. Ms. Owens confirmed to Mr. Hendryx that she understood that she, a tenant, would not be charged any assessment. She explained that she came on Dr. Pierce's behalf because evenings were his primary work time as a counselor. Councilor Moore asked if staff could provide Ms. Owens with a contact at the City for Dr. Pierce. Mr. Duenas noted that Mr. DeHaas has spoken with Dr. Pierce. He explained that staff did not want to approach Dr. Pierce until they knew whether or not the LID would include the Beveland extension. He mentioned that the appraisal was not yet complete either. Councilor Moore noted Mr. Corliss' letter for the record. Mr. Coleman recommended that Council continue the hearing unless it was absolutely sure that everybody who did not get notice has waived the notice problem. He said that the notice problem was a fatal flaw. Mr. DeHaas addressed the comments raised during the public testimony. He commented that he felt that the most important part of the LID was coming up with the right assessment formula in the beginning to avoid changes later down the road. He said that, because of the varied improvements on this project, they concluded that no single assessment method would be fair. Therefore, they developed eight assessment methods to insure equity. Mr. DeHaas said that Mr. Kolberg's property had only two of the eight assessments made against it: undergrounding the utilities and ancillary improvements. He explained that the ancillary improvements included the expenses of the Beveland extension, installation of a catch basin, and replacement of a pedestrian ramp on the corner. Mr. DeHaas mentioned Mr. Roth's suggestion to assess the undergrounding on a front footage basis instead of on an area basis. He explained that, given the hodgepodge of utilities in the area, they concluded that area basis was the best choice. Mr. DeHaas stated that they made no assessment on the Jones and Snyder residential properties for water. He explained that, except for fire hydrants, there were no water costs in this LID because the Tualatin Valley Water District agreed to install and pay for the new water line in Beveland. He commented that he heard Mr. Smith's objection as not objecting to the Beveland extension but rather to his clients being assessed for the right-of-way costs. He mentioned that the informal informational meetings he held for the neighborhood did not require notice in the paper. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 15 Mr. DeHaas mentioned the concern about the assessments on the single family residences. He stated that he thought it important that the method be uniform. He described state procedures that would help those two properties, if the owners qualified. He said that the City's Finance Director has also allowed the assessment to be spread out over 20 years instead of the normal 10 years. Mr. DeHaas said that, based on his review of his staff's suggestion to move Mr. Dana's access from SW 68`h to the Beveland extension, he did not think that it was correct. He agreed that they did need to move the access and to do some work on Mr. Dana's and Mr. Roth's parking lots but believed that they could find a practical and acceptable solution. Councilor Moore asked why Beveland Street jogged at SW 69`h Avenue. Mr. DeHaas said that the problem was that Beveland from 70`h to the west was offset. If they brought Beveland straight through, they would end up with an inefficient gap between the Dana and Roth properties. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the issues before Council. These included a City contribution to the project, building occupancy in the event of LID delayed completion, and continuing the hearing due to noticing problems. Councilor Hunt commented that he thought everyone was pretty much in agreement. He suggested having staff work with the property owners and return with a proposal on March 9 that resolved the small problems yet to be ironed out. Mayor Nicoli asked the other Councilors what their positions were on the City contributing money to the LID. Councilor Moore commented that he had never intended to saddle the total expense of the Beveland extension on the LID participants because he knew it would be high, due to the existing building. He said that he favored City participation as an LID member. He mentioned the $200,000 as a starting point for discussion between staff and the other LID members of what was an acceptable amount. He stated that he saw some advantage to the LID partners in doing the Beveland extension at this time. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Council should be discussing a dollar amount at this time. Mr. Coleman said that City participation was an option for an LID, and therefore a discussion of the City's contribution was appropriate at this time. Mayor Nicoli commented that the City struggled for years before finally achieving a plan for the Tigard Triangle. He pointed out that four of the five Councilors present voted for that plan (which included the Beveland Street extension). He said that, although the City has rarely contributed money to an LID in the past, he agreed that this situation called for a break with tradition. He said that he would support a $200,000 contribution by the City to relieve the n hardship on the other participants. He stated that he did not intend the City's contribution to „ offset the whole cost. He asserted his belief that the Triangle plan would turn the area into a positive business and living environment in Tigard. Councilor Patton stated that she thought it was reasonable for the City to contribute money in this particular situation. She said that she was comfortable moving forward with the Beveland extension as long as the City seriously considered contributing. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Moore's and Councilor Patton's comments. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 16 Mr. Monahan asked for direction regarding the information Council wanted staff to pull together. The Council agreed that staff would report back on March 2 with the requested information. Councilor Hunt requested a discussion at the March 2 meeting. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Moore, to continue the public hearing on the SW 69u' LID to March 9,1999. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") Mr. Coleman explained that anyone intending to remonstrate against the formation of the LID had to do so in writing prior to the close of the hearing on March 9. He stated that none of the correspondence so far received, in his opinion, qualified as remonstrances. Mayor Nicoli suggested including that information on the re-notice. 7. CONSIDER SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE TRANSFER (Miller's Sanitary Service, Inc. to USA Waste of Oregon, Inc., dba Miller's Sanitary Services.) Mayor Nicoli noted that staff updated the Council on this issue last week. Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, stated that Tom Miller, the current owner and operator of Miller Sanitary Service, contacted the City on January 11 to request transfer of his franchise to USA Waste of Oregon, Inc. She explained that Council's task tonight was to determine what appropriate conditions to attach to the transfer request. She said that, under their Code, the Council needed to authorize the transfer because the applicant met the Code conditions. She referenced the ordinance attached to the staff report with the list of staff conditions. She commented that the conditions contained nothing that the City did not require of other franchise holders. Joe Kasson, Waste Management, expressed his company's interest in working with the City to provide this service. He commented that all of the Miller employees would stay on, except for Mr. Miller who was retiring. Tom Miller, Miller Sanitary Service, commented that this was a difficult decision for him but one he made for family reasons. Dean Campher, Waste Management, mentioned that his family had 40 years of solid waste experience in the Portland market. He stated that he was the company's contact person to facilitate the transitions of other companies into their company. He said that the conditions of transfer were acceptable. Councilor Hunt asked if Waste Management would continue to move forward with the co- mingling program. Mr. Camphor said that they were supportive of any action, such as co- mingling, which made it easier for the customer and increased recycling participation. Councilor Hunt expressed the Council's appreciation to Mr. Miller for his cooperation with the City over the years with regard to solid waste management issues. Councilor Patton asked if customers would notice any difference as a result of the transition. Mr. Camphor confirmed that customers would receive the same level of response to concerns as CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 17 they did from Miller's. He mentioned a different billing format due to a different computer system. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-03. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.04 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL, CODE TO TRANSFER MILLER'S SANITARY SERVICE, INC., FRANCHISE TO USA WASTE OF OREGON, INC., DBA MILLER'S SANITARY SERVICES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. CONSIDER AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE THE MOST CURRENT GRADING CODE AND LIABILITY LANGUAGE FROM THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Mr. Scott stated that there were no substantive changes in any of the requirements as a result of adopting this ordinance. He explained that this simply updated the Code references to the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. Mayor Nicoli asked if the language in Section 14.04.030 reduced or increased the liability. Mr. Scott explained that the Code language protected the City staff with regard to discretionary decisions made appropriately under the Code. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99- 04. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-04, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE THE MOST CURRENT GRADING CODE AND LIABILITY LANGUAGE FROM THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Hunt expressed the Council's appreciation of Mr. Scott's excellent work for the City. 9. CONSIDER WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF TIGARD FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner, referenced a map showing the annexations to the City since 1993 that lay within the boundaries of the Tigard Water District. She explained that staff recently realized that the City should have withdrawn those annexations from the Tigard Water District at the time of their annexations to the City. She confirmed that this was a housekeeping measure to clean up the paperwork. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 18 i Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99- 05. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-05, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING THAT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ANNEXED TO THE CITY ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 11. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. 11.1 TVCA Mr. Monahan distributed the information. He mentioned the issues of TVCA being more accountable in its accounting practices, reducing the number of channels dedicated to it if it was not going to use all of them, and MACC possibly filling those channels with non-public access programming. Councilor Scheckla requested the Council to submit input to him before the March 3 MACC Board meeting. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council would discuss dropping their financial support of TVCA prior to a contract agreement. Mr. Monahan suggested waiting to see if MACC responded to the issues raised by the Advisory Committee. He said that he doubted MACC could respond by July 1 because of the large number of issues raised. Councilor Scheckla commented that he did not support giving TVCA any funding unless they changed their ways. Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling a discussion of TVCA on March 16. Councilor Scheckla suggested inviting a TVCA representative to answer questions. Mayor Nicoli spoke to giving TVCA a year to address the problems in their organization before deciding whether or not to pull out of it. Councilor Hunt stated that he saw no harm in discussing what the MACC Board had to say about TVCA at their March meeting. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that TVCA and MACC were two separate issues. 11.2 Corvallis Water Plant Tour Councilors Moore, Hunt, Patton and Scheckla each indicated that he/she would ride the bus down for the tour. Mayor Nicoli said that he would meet them down there. Councilor Scheckla asked to return to Tigard by 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 19 11.3 Tri-Met legislation Mr. Monahan reported that Gary Firestone of the City Attorney's office brought to staff's attention today a piece of legislation to increase the population limit for a city withdrawing from Tri-Met from 10,000 to 15,000. He asked if the Council wanted to join the group behind this and try to push the number even higher. Mayor Nicoli asked what it would take for a County to withdraw from Tri-Met. Mr. Coleman said that there were no specific provisions dealing with counties but the District Board could amend the District boundaries or citizens could initiate a petition to amend the boundaries (with a vote by the entire District). Mayor Nicoli reported on the discussion at the Washington County Coordinating Council of this question of whether or not Washington County should withdraw from Tri-Met. He said the mayors indicated their dissatisfaction with the Tri-Met service in their cities, and their support to opt out of the District if Tri-Met did not make changes to address the cities' concerns. He said that one of the biggest issues was Tri-Met asking for 100% of the region's transportation dollars for mass transit, leaving nothing for the roads. He mentioned another issue of concern to the rural cities, that Tri-Met wanted to put buses on roads in their communities that were not design to handle that type of waiting traffic. Mayor Nicoli indicated that the WCCCA wanted Washington County Commissioner Tom Brian and Mayor Rob Drake of Beaverton (the Washington County representative on JPACT) to advise Tri-Met to be less aggressive about their funding request. He pointed out that Tri-Met returned only 50 cents on the dollar to the County for every tax dollar pulled out of the County to fund their bus operations to serve 3% of the population. He emphasized that more of the regional transportation dollars needed to come to the cities to address the needs of the 97% of the citizens who did not use mass transit. He commented that Commissioner Brian would prefer to represent the Washington County cities as a whole in conveying the cities' concerns to Tri- Met. Mr. Monahan spoke to following this avenue over becoming involved with the legislation to increase the city population limit. The Council agreed by consensus. 11.4 Water Task Force Mr. Monahan reported that 24 of the 35 members of the Water Advisory Task Force attended the meeting last Thursday. He said that they intended to meet every Thursday. He mentioned a suggestion by Craig Dirksen of having a facilitator run the meetings instead of a chairperson in order to allow all Task Force members the opportunity to participate in the discussion. He presented the options staff developed to address this request. Mr. Monahan said that they could use a trained citizen facilitator, but most of their citizen facilitators were on the Task Force. He said that they could hire a paid professional facilitator, mentioning Lenny Borer in particular, but noted that could cost between $2,600 to $3,000. He mentioned another option of trading facilitators with Washington County. I The Council discussed the suggestion of using a facilitator over a chairperson. Mayor Nicoli suggested Paul Phillips as the facilitator. Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the facilitator be strong enough to control the meeting, given the controversial nature of the topic. He did not support using a citizen facilitator. Councilor Moore suggested finding a facilitator who did not CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 20 live in the city and who had no vested interest in the outcome. Mr. Monahan said that Ms. Newton highly recommended Mr. Borer. Councilor Hunt suggested asking Mr. Borer to facilitate the next meeting so staff could evaluate his ability to handle the situation and make a recommendation to Council on his suitability as the facilitator for the Water Advisory Task Force. The Council agreed by consensus with Councilor Hunt's suggestion. 11.5 Murray Blvd Extension Mr. Monahan noted that Mr. Duenas found the Urban Planning Area Agreement from 1986 and its 1991 ratification, in which Tigard, Beaverton, and Washington County agreed on the Murray Blvd. connection. Mr. Duenas distributed information, including a map showing how wide the road would be and where it would connect. Mr. Duenas explained that the request from Beaverton for Tigard's support of this extension came as a result of Beaverton's application with Metro for Federal funds to do the extension. He noted that Beaverton and Washington County each have agreed to provide half the local- match funds. He stated that the 1986 Urban Planning Area agreement focused on the Murray Blvd. extension as a very important regional project. Mr. Monahan referenced page 7 listing the stipulations about the connections and what improvements had to be made. Mr. Duenas referenced the 1991 Memo of Understanding which stated that the extension would not go through until the Beef Bend-Elsner Road connection went through. He indicated that, according to the MSTIP 3 schedule, the design for the $25 million Beef Bend-Elsner Road connection was underway with construction anticipated for 2000 to 2001. He reviewed the other connections and improvements that both the County and Tigard were doing in the area to provide other connections through Tigard. He said that he was certain that the Beef Bend-Elsner Road connection would be completed prior to the Murray Blvd extension. He reiterated that the past agreements demonstrated the importance of this extension to the region. Councilor Hunt asked what would happen with the narrow road between where Elsner Road cut off to Beef Bend and where Bull Mountain came into Beef Bend. Councilor Moore said that they were going to do cuts and fills on that road to even it out. Councilor Hunt expressed his concern that this connection would send more traffic onto Gaarde than presently anticipated. He spoke to purchasing sufficient right-of-way to allow for a five- lane road in the future, similar to the right of way purchased for Durham Road. Mr. Duenas pointed out that the 20-year projection for this road indicated that three lanes were sufficient to accommodate the traffic. Councilor Moore commented that the cemetery on Gaarde presented the biggest concern to acquiring right of way. Mayor Nicoli said that he had no problem with purchasing right of way for five lanes on Gaarde, although he agreed with staff that they needed only a three-lane facility for the next 20 years. Councilor Hunt pointed out that discussions to widen Durham have already started, and the City widened it to three lanes only eight years ago. He reiterated the importance of purchasing more right of way than that necessary for a three-lane road. Mr. Duenas explained that the attraction of the town center changed the traffic pattern in way not anticipated in the 1986 agreement. Mayor Nicoli concurred. He pointed out that Tigard CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 21 t traffic cut through Beaverton just as Beaverton traffic cut through Tigard. He held that this was a community-wide issue and an excellent project that would help the road system in the city. Councilor Moore asked if supporting the Murray Blvd. extension put Tigard in a better position to receiving funding for future Walnut or Gaarde improvements. Mr. Duenas commented that one of the Tigard projects for which staff applied for Federal funds ranked higher than this Murray Blvd. extension because Greenburg Road fed into a regional center at Washington Square. Mayor Nicoli said that if Tigard supported a project important to Beaverton, then Beaverton would support Tigard's top two projects. Councilor Moore said that he could support Beaverton's request, commenting that the more connections they provided, the more they spread the traffic out. Councilor Hunt said that he would support it, provided the City purchased sufficient right of way for Gaarde. Councilor Moore said that he had no problem with getting right of way for five lanes in the future but he thought that there would be problems doing so because of the cemetery. Councilor Scheckla stated that he would only support this if other traffic barriers were taken down. Councilor Patton said that she would support it as a good connection. She agreed with Councilor Hunt that a lot of traffic would come down Gaarde from this extension, and hoped that the Beef Bend-Elsner Road connection came first to alleviate some of that burden. She supported purchasing right of way for five lanes also. Mayor Nicoli asked if anyone had objections to the current wording of the letter staff prepared for his signature indicating the Council's support of this project. Councilor Scheckla requested that the letter indicate that the Council did not unanimously support the request. Mr. Duenas said that he would revise it. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff had names for the Transportation Task Force on the bond issue. Mr. Monahan said that he would get a draft list to Council following further staff input on possible names. Mr. Duenas pointed out that there were two Transportation Task Forces: one on the bond issue and one to guide the Transportation System Plan through the process to adoption. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Duenas if he had adequate staff to handle the variety of projects currently assigned to his department, mentioning the extensive work required for the bond issue in particular. Mr. Monahan said that, in the past, staff has contracted out the projects to various design professionals, once they identified the projects. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:52 p. Atte Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ayor, C~~itrry of Tigar Date: `4)131 qg IAADM\CATHY\CCMW90223. DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 1999 22 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 3 3 2 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ® Tigard, Oregon 97223 0 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit •Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti garA-Tri al at in mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti na rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Tigard City Council Review Board toe i ncq 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: February 18,1999 ka 1~ - Subscribed and sworn to ore me this 8t1, day of February, 1999 COW- Notary blic for Oregon My Commission Expires: 4 - _M C.0`aP;ii~a!C);! EX {G, / inn , My AFFIDAVIT _ T6 _fol46avntig highlights are published for.your information. Full 639-4171.3125 SW Hail agendas may be'obtai .fromothe rby i calling y Recorder, Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW 6 30 P ITY AR MEETING ` Fcbraary L - TOWN HALL TIGARD C HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON * Public Hearing - Community Housing Code * Public Hearing - To Hear Remonstrances - 69th Avenue Local Im- I provement District * . Water District Withdrawal (Related to annexation of property to the , City of Tigard) Codes) to reflect most . i pdate Title 14 (Building * Review ordinance tot 4 recent revisions to State codes :Executive Session 'I'T4332 - Publish February 18, 1999. i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 6840360 Notice TT 9 3 3 5 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard a ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard ,Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 ° ❑ Duplicate Aff Ida arrev ,Mwiahv; _I 'hn8ld0r hVh..Y:Cj 3/r z v.2.' 41 D Accounts Payable tips is f12 49 f40 Y fob `18 784 2.'1 A8(Qn < r - ' 43 Sgverfon 99 ' < AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION rest6{gvAs@; Y ` t>~~~~. 22 r a2,r {.5:10 8erakotf7 Croolcs4.FugA,B` STATE OF OREGON, ) ")Wson2S if COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' 3AA~,(60), kroania' ?s!.';_T°rrw►t 18 . 1es 4 Gabel 6, VVl39r4 ~t~ i3 ~ ;Y. I, Kath r Snyder +2,B6ydCo4 SafrisMVQht. i16--73 13 17 '&.-18 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T i as rd -Ti, a 1 a t i n mimes a . 12 18` 13 13, ` 12-88 a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 1At~N (~1 nger 9 :Brautlgcnn 8, mow 7:-SY+aley and 193.020; published at Ti garA in the [ Z Bowden,t, Godtrey.MaddOno Mw aforesaid county and state; that the ( r 14 Dunn 12 Proposed 69th AV ].o.a 1 TmnrnvP_ T7 i Gt _ add 5 q ,Gl90ytp,2 Dyett 211' 2, Day' Lornb Reber. Sandeno~. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the 91 entire issue of said newspaper for DU successive and a!!n 19 22 . 14-di' ' Fjo consecutive in the following issues: 14 10 14 1e-48 fM#ay 1~b.18 . hio rci of Dallas 51 s'p m W id February 18 , 1999 atmc.,Canby 7:1 m t1::r~' , fob. 23 4 rd,at,7uala~ 7iTS p m , ~ PQC:eotingL•adors: M lhtou0h mtFob-.16 ;Bro Qecsgu• firms only) 1 G . PIs Avp' ct L A Jvw . ck Conno9y,,Conby ' 12 229'19,1:: Rturell..MoMinnvmo .12:22318,6 . Subscribed and sworn to ore me this uary, 1 ;Bahler; r, 1$1 tb;ia i Ail" Nota ubliC for Oregon - NOTA!'Y PuaLIC•ORkGQN ce~s.rlssiora .,o. nzn~1 4 My Commission Expires: rya ns-s is, 20'01 AFFIDAVIT COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 312 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising °City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. °Ti ga rd , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 0 ❑ Duplicate Affidavit *Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. I, Kath)z Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTitlard-Tua1 at-in Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti Qarrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the \Tigard Park City Council -Puhli c H ari ncjSvst•em Plaster Plan 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: February 11,1999 Subscribed and sworn to fore me this1l'th clay of February, 1999 r- - M OFFiCiAL SEAL ' ROSIN A. BtJRGESS Nota ublic for Oregon NOTARY PUPLIC-OREGON 062071 My Commission Expires: C JtzSl,)N r p; 4 ~S!U^~ EXPIRES MAY 16, ?00' AFFIDAVIT The followitg wa1l:Eae udnsx~tii by the Tigard City Council on Tues- &,y, Felfartmry 23;1999, of P/.301p,M., at the Tigard Civic Center -Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd-Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public.hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules an4 procedures:of the City Council. Further information may be obtained from DUANE ROBERTS in the Planning ! Division at 13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: On February 1, 1999, the Planni " Commission reviewed a proposal. from City Staff and received public teTtimony to adopt the Tig-rd Park System Master Plan (a comprehensive n eds assessment and long range plan for meeting the community's park ~nd recreation needs) and the Woodard . Park Master Plan. At this meeting the.City Council will review the Plan, ning Commission's recommendion and take further public testimony prior to making a decision. M312 -Publish February 11, 19149. W COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9323 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising e City of Tigard • 13 Tearsheet Notice 13125 St-] Hall Blvd. e Ti ga.r. d, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit .Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 1, Kathy Snydp r being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theTj gard-T ,a l ati n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti q~arr3 in the aforesaid county and state; that the Public Hearing/Tigard Plater n; st k7; + Ovals a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for TIM successive and consecutive in the following issues: February 4,11,1999 Subscribed and sworn to b ore me this ua ry , 19 9 9_ - n~~-I^.IAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS Nota ub is for Oregon iINoTARN F UBLIC-OREGON r,C11111SSI0N NO 062071 My Commission Expires: EXPIRES MAY 16.2001 AFFIDAVIT The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Tues- day, Febrnary 23, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hail; 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony are invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of the City Council. Further information may be obtained from JULIA HAJDUK in the Planning Division at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC HEARINGS: > TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWALS < The City Council will review a recommendation from City Staff and receive public testimony on the withdrawal of properties annexed into the City after 1993 from the Tigard Water District. The City of Tigard withdrew from the water district in 1993. Subsequent properties that were annexed should have been withdrawn to insure taxation was correctly dis- persed. This process will capture properties that were not withdrawn at the time of annexation. The location of the properties to be withdrawn are citywide. T0323 - Publish February 4, 11, 1999. s Agenda Item No.~ Meeting of c;k- -2-'-QI Aii k CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable M yor and City Council FROM: David Scott, uilding Official DATE: February 11, 1999 SUBJECT: Proposed Building Fee Increase Pursuant to the discussion at the 1/19/99 work session and subsequent comments from the Mayor and Councilor Patton, I have revised and expanded the analysis of the proposed fee increases for building regulatory services. This memo addresses the issues raised. Additionally, the following is attached: o Projected fund reserve levels for several fee increase options • Discussion of service cost recovery in each of the options for the 22 cases previously presented • A jurisdictional comparison Appropriate Reserve Level: There is no industry standard reserve level which serves as a benchmark. The purpose of a reserve is to allow the City to continue to provide services during a short to medium term downturn in activity. It is preferable to utilize a reserve to maintain current staff levels in such a circumstance than to initiate lay- offs. This is because of the time involved in public sector hiring and training. If we were to lay-off staff and then experience an upswing in activity, it is difficult to respond quickly enough to secure the necessary human resources toward providing a high level of service. Contract help is often over-tapped in such a scenario, as the upturn promotes competition between jurisdictions for human resources. It can take up to six months or longer to obtain the necessary Council approval for positions, initiate a recruitment, screen candidates and select and train new staff. Certainly, it is important to review this type of situation carefully to ensure that lay-off decisions are made when appropriate. Reserves also enable the City to respond quickly when there is a sudden increase in activity. Reserves can be used to pay for contract help (if available) and to justify additional staffing or program enhancements. As shown on the attached jurisdictional comparison, target reserve levels in neighboring jurisdictions vary +rom a low of 4 months to a high of 24 months. Phase-in of increases: Attached are reserve level projections for several fee increase scenarios. Scenarios include a two-year phase-in approach. Large job subsidy of smaller jobs: This issue is true primarily with regard to building permit and plan review fees. There are a certain minimum number of activities that must be done to provide services for any permit, large or small. Larger projects will require more activities. However, economies of scale on the very largest projects often reveal that fees are more than adequate to cover related expenses. Conversely, fees for the very smallest projects do not cover costs. The building fee schedule promulgated by ICBO provides for this economy of scale by lowering the unit cost of a permit as project valuation increases. This format is consistent in the various versions of the ICBO building fee schedules published over the years. All jurisdictions in our comparison use an ICBO fee schedule for building permits. In fact, in Oregon, it is industry standard to use the ICBO format. Therefore, this "subsidy" is built in to the system. To mitigate this problem, we would have to revise the fee schedule from the ICBO model by providing further unit cost reduction for the larger projects. To compensate for this, we would need to increase the unit cost for projects of smaller valuation. Jurisdictional Comparison: The attached comparison provides information on what other jurisdictions currently charge, when current fees were adopted and what plans for future increases are proposed. Recommendation: Option C for building, mechanical and plumbing. Option A for electrical and limited energy. Miscellaneous fees as originally proposed. =Mimi INCREASE OPTIONS OPTION A: Building and Mechanical: 42.5% first year, 42.5% second year, 4% per year thereafter (85% increase over 2 years to level between the 1991 and 1994 UBC) Plumbing: 22.5% first year, 22.5% second year, 4% per year thereafter Electrical: 7% first year, 4% per year thereafter OPTION B: Building and Mechanical: 85% first year, 4% per year thereafter (85% increase first year to level between the 1991 and 1994 UBC) Plumbing: 45% first year, 4% per year thereafter Electrical: 10% first year, 4% per year thereafter OPTION C: Building and Mechanical: 51 % first year, 51 % second year, 4% per year thereafter (102% increase over 2 years to 1994 UBC) Plumbing: 27% first year, 27% second year, 4% per year thereafter Electrical: 16% first year; 4% per year thereafter OPTION D: Building and Mechanical: 102% first year, 4% per year thereafter (102% increase first year to 1994 UBC) Plumbing: 54% first year, 4% per year thereafter Electrical: 20% first year, 4% per year thereafter ..•.ullJ11~1.L 1 vii~ii JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON Lake Oswego Beaverton Tigard A Tigard B Tigard C Tigard D Tualatin Sherwood Portland o +42.5185% +85 +511102 +102 +28% +102 + 45 /o BLDG Same Same 1979 1979 4126195 2/1198 10195 +511102 +102 to +175 + 180 to +200 +42.5185% +85 67 to) +117 +33 (resid) EC Same same ( (10195) M I1 (1979) (1979) +resid Can't compare Can't compare comm'I comm'I 5127192 211198 +22.5145% +45 +27154 +54 +13 to +39 +33 to +175 +10 PLMS Same +67 res (10195) (11112196) (214158) Can't compare comm'I 211198 +10 +16 +20 -9 to +23 -34 to -9 +7 ELEC NA Same +79 to 214198 +122 1016198 10195 +50 +50 +50 +50 -33 +8 LIMITED NA Same +30 30 1016198 10195 Buildin Building: 214198 ENERGY 2 ears 9 -12 months Building: Building: g 5 months 6 months 1 year (have 15 months) (have > 1 none RESERVE NA, not on NA for bldglmechlplm 4 months TARGET dedicated (not on dedicated year) Electrical: Electrical: Electrical: Electrical: fund 7 months 9 months 11 months 1 ear fund 18 mo for electrical No laps Review within 4°!° increase 4% increase 4% increase 4% Under study p next 2 years each year each year each year increase PLANS thereafter thereafter thereafter thereafter FUTURE 15'/e soon Dedicated omfund COMPARISON IS TO CURRENT ,ND 1994 ABLES (STAGGER 2o TIG A = BETWEEN 199 YEARS) TIG B ° 1994 TAB 1991 AND 1994 TABLES TIG C TABLES (STAGGER YEARS) FIG D =1994 TABLES COST RECOVERY COMPARISON CASE CURRENT OPTIONS A & E OPTIONS C & D 1 30% 56% 56% 2 27% 54% 54% 3 54% 77% 83% 4 69% 95% 103% 5 16% 45% 45% 6 49% 92% 101% 7- BLDG 82% 152% 166% 7- MECH 11% 21% 23% 7- PLMB 72% 100% 107% 7- ELC 155% 166% 166% 8- BLDG 59% 109% 121% 8- MECH 25% 47% 55% 8- PLMB 64% 92% 98% 8- ELC 90% 102% 102% 9 52% 97% 107% 10 81% 150% 164% 11 9% 15% 17% 12 26% 28% 28% 13 35% 38% 38% 14 65% 96% 96% 15 0% 97% 97% 16 27%-73% 90% 90% 17 0% 91% 91% 18 0% 100% 100% 19 0% 107% 107% 20 0% 95% 95% 21 0% 83% 83% 22 45% 101% 101% CASE 1: Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 3 fixtures at a house. CASE 2: Permit and inspection service for a minor residential alteration. CASE 3: Permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 7 fixtures in a tenant improvement CASE 4: Plan review, permit and inspection service for a plumbing permit for 11 fixtures and related water and sewer lines for a commercial building. CASE 5: Over the counter plan review, permit and inspection service for a mechanical permit for one rooftop unit on a commercial bldg. CASE 6: Permit and inspection service for a building permit for a small office building. CASE 7: Various services for several permits for a major restaurant remodel. CASE 8: Complete service for a new dwelling. CASE 9: Plan review service for a commercial addition. CASE 10: Plan review service for a new day care building. CASE 11: Mechanical plan review service for a large commercial alteration. CASE 12: Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 4 circuits in a commercial alteration. CASE 13: Permit and inspection service for an electrical permit for 2 circuits in a dwelling. CASE 14: Inspection service for a public sewer connection permit. CASE 15: Complete service for a change of address. CASE 16: Reinspection beyond code allowed inspections. CASE 17: Complete service for phasing occupancy on a multi-building project. CASE 18: Complete service for processing a temporary certificate of occupancy. CASE 19: Record retrieval service not related to active permit. CASE 20: Plan review extension service. CASE 21: Permit extension service. CASE 22: Manufactured dwelling installation ELECTRIC. 14 12 6 _ - = 4 4~/otYR BEGIN 00101 _ _ - r _ O~ OPTION A _ OpT1ON B _ - " - 04105 05106 0 OPTION G _ - - 03104 02103 ~OpTION O _ _ - " - _ 01102 _ _ _ - 00!01 -2 g9t00 98199 FISCAL YEAR _4 firrrrr T TT('rr itESER~E gplA gv11.D1NG _ _ _ _ - 15 - - 5 10 - 1 tl -5 A5 .22 BEGIN 00101 _ _ _ - _ ~„OpT1ON A _ _ _ - 20 Op-t1O14 B 05106 ~OpTIONC 04105 -25 03104 OP31ON 0 _ _ _ _ - ' Jam" - 01!02 02(03 _ _ _ - - ' OQ(01 -30 - 99100 R g8(99 FISCAL STN T ~ ~ j j~~~~ -35 Y Agenda item No._aL.._.® Meeting of a - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Fvlayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Library Director Melinda Sisson; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; City Attorney Jim Coleman; City Engineer Gus Duenas; and Deputy City Recorder Jessica Gomez. > The Council and Executive Staff participated in a photo session. > The City Recorder swore in Councilors Scheckla and Patton and Mayor Nicoli. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, correspondence exempt from public inspection, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Rol! Call Councilors Hunt, Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Patton, and Scheckla were present. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli asked the City Manager to put on the agenda for next week an issue relating to the reimbursement of legal fees for Rogers Machinery. Bill Monahan, City Manager, noted a request from Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, to advise the Council on public information on the water issue. 2. OATH OF OFFICE (Terms of Office: January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2002) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 1 The Municipal Court Judge administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Nicoli, and to Councilors Ken Scheckla and Joyce Patton. 3. SPECIAL. RECOGNITION - BOB ROHLF Mayor Nicoli thanked Councilor Bob Rohlf for his years of service on the Council and other committees in dealing with difficult issues. He presented him with a Distinguished Service Certificate and other gifts. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA Eric Hand, Public Works Department, reviewed the projects completed by Eagle Scouts Seth Davenport and Dale Miller. He showed slides of Mr. Miller's project to clear out the overgrown water detention pond at SW 108`x' and SW Titan, replant it with native vegetation, and install bat boxes for natural insect control. He explained that Mr. Davenport coordinated 26-plus volunteers to fill over 500 sandbags for emergency use, stored at the Canterbury site. He expressed the staff s pleasure in working with the Scouts in accomplishing projects for the City that might not otherwise get done. Mayor Nicoli presented a certificate and lapel pin to each Eagle Scout and thanked them on behalf of the Council for considering the City for their projects. e The Council heard Agenda Item No. 5, State of the City Address, at this time. Mayor Nicoli introduced Curtis Tigard, a member of the family for whom the City was named. o Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Court, recommended reading the editorial in the Tigard Times this week regarding the water issue, stating that it drained all the emotion out of the water issue. He spoke to the importance of making the decision on Tigard's water source based on facts interpreted through discussion rather than on emotion. He argued that this complicated issue needed a complete and impartial study of the facts so that the decision could be based upon the scientific, engineering, and economic facts. Mr. Mahon contended that the group, "Citizens for Safe Water," based their appeal upon emotion and worked to distort and present partial information to scare and intimidate the citizens of Tigard. He asked where were their facts to support their position on the safety of the water. He argued that this group was more afraid of their fellow citizens and the processes of a representative government than even of the Willamette River. He stated that this group appeared to be a small, but vocal group, that has already decided what they believe is best for the citizens of Tigard. Mr. Mahon noted the change to the City Charter proposed by the Citizens for Safe Water, saying that it targeted a single purpose on a single issue and, in the process, reduced the City's bargaining power with the City of Portland on one of the options. He observed that they were working against their own proposal. He stated that, of the people he has talked to, 97% wanted the Council to make a decision based upon the facts, not emotion, and 85% said that they did not know enough about the issue to make a decision themselves at this time. 98% believed that Tigard needed a permanent supply of water. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 2 Mr. Mahon expressed his discomfort with the term "City officials." He said that it was important for the citizens of Tigard to know that these "City officials" were people who would have to live with the decision they made, just like anyone else in the community. Mr. Mahon asked the Council to do the job they were elected to do. He asked them to keep in mind, as the evening proceeded, that the outcome of the process was not known, and that the City Charter should be a framework for a government, not a document dictating individual policies. He asked the Council to stay the course. The Council heard Agenda Item No. 7, Election of Council President, at this time. (See Item No. 7 below.) 5. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS Mayor Nicoli presented his State of the City Address. He discussed the annual goals set by the Council at their December meeting. He mentioned that this year the City would pay off the 10- year road bonds used to complete a variety of road improvement projects several years ago. One of the top three priorities this year was to address the transportation issues and to upgrade City streets. The Council decided to institute the same process used 10 years ago to successfully pass the road bond. They would establish a task force to identify appropriate projects for a new road bond (a two-year process). Mayor Nicoli said that another'top priority was water. He noted that for the past 30 years, Tigard and its partners have had no permanent source of water; they bought surplus water from the surrounding jurisdictions. He said that the City now knew that in approximately 4 to 10 years, the excess water would disappear and Tigard would have mandatory shortages. He mentioned that the Council has worked hard on this issue for the past four years, and staff was now evaluating the two options available to Tigard. He said that Council hoped to make a decision on the matter in three or four months. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council would appoint an advisory Task Force with both business and residential representatives supporting one option or the other to study the long-term water issue in detail. He referred the Council's in-depth study over the past four years of the issues involved. He explained that the issue was not as simple as just stating "we prefer to drink Bull Run water" or "we prefer to drink Willamette River water." Mayor Nicoli said that another top priority was the request by a non-profit group that the City look into the possibility of forming a recreational district and participate on a task force to study its feasibility for Tigard. He mentioned that the group proposed forming a stand-alone taxing district, similar to Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District. He pointed out that the City no longer had sufficient recreational facilities for youth or adult sports, and they needed to make some decisions about how to address this situation. Mayor Nicoli said that the Council would appoint Council members to that Task Force which would make a recommendation to the Council. If the Council saw fit, then they would make a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners who had the authority to establish the district. He noted the group's intention to propose a charter for the district and take it to a vote in two years. He commented that he saw this direction as .a plus for the City. Mayor Nicoli described another goal of developing a policy on handling island annexations. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 3 a reviewed the past history of the delays and obstacles blocking the City's attempt to resolve this issue. He commented that, with the discontinuation of the Boundary Commission and the settling of several ballot measures, the Council intended to look at the Walnut Island within the next two years and make the tough decisions necessary to deal with it. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the desire of citizens for a better-defined downtown core to serve as a focal point for the City. He said that Council would work with a group of business and property owners, formed at Council's request, to develop a long-term plan for the downtown core. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the Parks Master Plan was nearly completed, after years of work by staff, citizens and consultants. He said that it would come to Council for review and final adoption following Planning Commission review. . Mayor Nicoli thanked the employees of the City of Tigard for the effort and work they gave to the City. He observed that the Council gave them more work than they could get done in an eight-hour day. He emphasized the Council's appreciation for the excellent work done by the City staff. Mayor Nicoli thanked the volunteers who gave their time to the City, either through the Library volunteer program or the City Departments' volunteer program, noting that they accomplished many things for the City that normally would not get addressed. Mayor Nicoli challenged the Council, as they began the last year of this millennium, to look forward to the year 2000 and to set up a task force to look at doing something special to recognize the new millennium. Mayor Nicoli thanked the Councilors for their good work over the past year. He mentioned the cooperation of each Councilor as a member of a team dealing with the difficult issues that came before them. He asked them to continue in their efforts and commitment to the city. 6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mr. Monahan presented his Executive Summary of the past year (See attached). He reviewed the accomplishments of the City departments, noting the achievements of the volunteer program also. On behalf of the City staff and himself, he thanked the community and the Council for their support. The Council heard Agenda Item No. 4, Visitors Comment, at this time. 7. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT (TO SERVE FROM JANUARY 12, 1999 TO DECEMBER 31, 2000) Councilor Hunt announced that he did not wish to be a candidate for the Council President a position. The Council voted by ballot. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, announced that Councilor Brian Moore was the new Council President. i 8. DISCUSS TASK FORCE CONCERNING A PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT Mr. Monahan mentioned Atfalati's presentation to the Council in October on creating a recreation district. He noted that the Council had indicated an interest in participating on a task force and in who would serve on it from the community. He referenced a January 4 memo from Dave Nicoli asking for Council approval of the task force members as submitted. He explained that the Council needed to decide whether it wanted to create a City-sponsored task force or CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 4 simply participate in an Atfalati task force. In addition, the Council needed to decide whether to name one or two Councilors. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Nicoli recommended that the Council appoint one Councilor as well as Public Works Director Ed Wegner who, in the past, has been involved in league activities and maintenance issues. He noted that Mr. Nicoli also asked the Council to approve a $15,000 contribution to participate in the funding for consultant services to assist the task force. Mr. Monahan commented that if other jurisdictions, such as Tualatin or Sherwood, wanted to participate, he thought that they would create their own task force through Atfalati, and that the individual task force representatives would then interact. Mayor Nicoli reported on his conversation with Dave Nicoli on this matter. He said that Mr. Nicoli would like the Council to let this be a stand-alone group, with City representatives appointed to the task force. He stated that Mr. Nicoli was also asking the City to administer the $15,000 and the matching County funds in contracting with a consultant. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council decide tonight whether or not it wanted to appoint a Councilor to the Task Force. However, he said it might be best to wait until next week to decide on which specific Councilor would serve during the overall discussion on Council appointments to the various boards and committees. Councilor Scheckla asked if the other jurisdictions could contribute to the $15,000 if they chose to participate. Mayor Nicoli explained that the $15,000 covered Tigard's portion of the study. If the other jurisdictions wanted to participate, they would have to contribute additional funds to fund their portions of the study. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the candidates who were not appointed to the Planning Commission and Budget Committee. He suggested asking if any of them were interested in participating on this task force. Mayor Nicoli commented that he thought that Atfalati would be open to any additional people suggested by the City. He pointed out that Atfalati's request was for direct representation from the staff and/or Council to represent the City's position. He noted that these would all be public meetings that anyone could attend. Councilor Hunt pointed out that Mr. Nicoli's letter did not speak to the task force studying the feasibility of forming a parks and recreation district but rather stated that they would form one. He stated that he had understood that the $15,000 was to go toward a feasibility study. He indicated that he wanted that changed before he would vote to approve the funding. Mayor Nicoli explained that this group did not have the authority to form a district; the County had final control and then the voters. He stated that this would be a feasibility study to help the group make a recommendation to the Council who would in turn make a recommendation to the County. Mr. Monahan described how staff could clarify that issue through a letter to Atfalati { explaining the Council's action. Councilor Hunt stated that he was concerned that the people serving on the task force understand that they were investigating whether or not to form a district, and that they were not 1f actually forming the district. Mr. Monahan said that they could hope that that was explained to i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 5 them when they made their commitment. He suggested that the City representatives clarify the Council's reasons for participating and contributing $15,000. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that Atfalati learned through its study of the legal procedures that it did not have the right to form a district on its own. Councilor Hunt stated that he was reluctant to vote on the list without knowing who represented what interest and what their qualifications were. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not anticipate voting on the list at all, as Atfalati was simply asking for names. Councilor Moore recommended that the task force be an Atfalati task force, not a City task force, and that the City appoint a City representative. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at asking Mr. Wegner to add yet another task to his workload unless he wanted to do this. Mr. Monahan suggested appointing a representative from the Public Works Department, either Mr. Wegner or his designee. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reviewed the procedure used by Atfalati to develop the list of names. He explained that a group of seven people, including himself and Dave Nicoli, met to identify the various interest groups and geographic areas in the city that might be interested in working on this task force, and to develop this list with 40 names. He -said that they held two separate meetings at City Hall and invited all 40 candidates. It was explained that the task force was to study the options on whether or not to foam a parks and recreation district. He mentioned that almost all of the 40 attended one of the two meetings. He said that he could explain who represented what interest. Councilor Scheckla said that he did not have a problem with the list but he wanted to add more names, mentioning an individual who had run a parks and recreation district in another state. Mr. Wegner said that there was no set number for the candidate list but they were thinking of 20 people for the task force. He said that he was sure that the committee would want someone with that kind of expertise on the task force. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to form an Atfalati i ask Force (this is not a City of Tigard Task Force), to have a Councilor and a Public Works representative serve on the Task Force, and to approve the $15,000 expenditure for the study. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Councilors Hunt, Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Patton, and Scheckla voting "yes.") 9. WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION (WCCCA) REPRESENTATIVE Councilor Moore suggested discussing agenda items 9 and 10 when the Council discussed the Council appointments to the various task forces. Mr. Monahan explained that they needed to select representatives to the WCCCA because their first meeting of the year was Thursday, January 21. He explained that, in the past, a Councilor has served as the primary representative and he has served as the secondary representative. Mr. Monahan briefed the Council on how this organization worked (per former Councilor Rohlf's description). He said that the regular Board of Directors met quarterly (composed of representatives from each of the participating agencies) while the Executive Board met monthly. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 6 He explained that at the January 21 meeting, the Board would decide who would serve on the Executive Board. He commented that the Council needed to decide whether or not the primary representative should vie for a position on the Executive Board. Mr. Monahan explained that the reason why this was important was because of the critical issue of upgrading capital facilities for communication purposes. Last year, the WCCCA membership did not approve going out for a bond but this year they would look at it again. He said that the Board discussed appointing a subcommittee with representatives from Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and others to do a Phase 2 analysis. He said that he could serve as either the primary or secondary representative with a Councilor as the other representative. He recommended trying for a position on the Executive Board and getting involved in the Phase 2 analysis. The Council discussed the matter. They agreed to appoint a primary representative at this meeting and discuss the secondary representative when they discussed the other task forces. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to appoint Bill Monahan, City Manager, as the primary representative to WCCCA. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Councilors Hunt, Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Patton, and Scheckla voting "yes.") Councilor Moore asked about the WCCCA Budget Committee. Mr. Monahan explained that there was an opportunity for Tigard to appoint a citizen representative to this Committee, although they have not had one for the last few years. He said that Bob Rohlf has indicated an interest in serving as the citizen representative, if the Council wanted to appoint one. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to ask Bob Rohlf to fill the position on the WCCCA Budget Committee. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Councilors Hunt, Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Patton, and Scheckla voting "yes.") 10. WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL TASK FORCE The Council agreed to postpone this discussion to their meeting next week. Councilor Moore asked if Bob Rohlf intended to continue his involvement in the Task Force. Mr. Monahan said that the Council needed to decide whether the Council representative was a Councilor or a non- Council member who represented the Council. He mentioned that Mr. Rohlf could also attend the meetings as a citizen and give input. Councilor Moore expressed concern at a new representative having a full comprehension of what has been going on. Councilor Scheckla supported a Councilor as the Council representative. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Rohlf how close the Task Force was to completing its work. Mr. Rohlf said that, according to the consultants, they should finish in six months on schedule. He stated that he would still be interested in attending the meetings (and willing to advise the Council representative) but he did think that a Councilor should represent the City's interests. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 7 11. REVIEW OF BALLOT TITLE - CITIZENS FOR SAFE WATER INITIATIVE Two challenges to the Ballot Title for Citizens for Safe Water Initiative were filed with the City Recorder. When a challenge to an initiative ballot title is received, Tigard Municipal Code Section 1. 12.030 provides that the City Council shall review the title and measure to be initiated or referred, hear arguments, if any, and certify to the city elections officer a title fdr the measure which meets the requirements of ORS 250.305 and 250.039. The review shall be the first and final review, and shall be conducted expeditiously to insure the orderly and timely circulation of the petition or conduct of the election at which the measure is to be submitted to the electors. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the limitations on the discussion this evening. He said that there would be no discussion on the Constitutional issues, as they had no relevancy to the Council's decision which must be made in accordance with the City's ordinances. He emphasized that the issue tonight was simply the challenge to the ballot title. He proposed hearing from only the two challengers, Mr. Scheiderich and Mr. Hansen. He said that he would allow another member of the Intergovernmental Water Board to present Mr. Scheiderich's position. STAFF REPORT Jim Coleman, City Attorney, explained that the City's Code provided the opportunity for people, when an initiative petition was filed, to challenge before the City Council a ballot title prepared by the City Attorney's office. He said that the Code was specific and mirrored State law in focusing the proceedings on whether or not the ballot title complied with the requirements of ORS 250.035. He referenced his memo dated January 5, 1999, which described the process and the statutory requirements. Mr. Coleman reviewed the statutory requirements for the ballot question, title and summary. Mr. Coleman stated that his memo responded to the issues raised by Mr. Scheiderich in his challenge. He explained that Mr. Hansen's challenge came "at the last minute" and was a means for Mr. Hansen to guarantee a right to party status in the proceedings. He emphasized staying focused on the issue of whether or not the ballot title complied with the requirements of State law. e Bev Fronde, Tigard Water District Board and Intergovernmental Water Board, representing Mr. Scheiderich, asked to add some words to the amended ballot title: "Tigard now utilizes water rights in three wells but obtains most of its drinking water under contracts with other providers using other sources." Jim Hansen, Citizens for Safe Water, distributed a memo to the Council from his attorney summarizing their legal arguments. The memo from Mr. Hansen's attorney was submitted to the City Recorder to be made part of the record. Mr. Hansen suggested that Mr. Scheiderich's comments, as presented by Ms. Froude, not be allowed, as they were not submitted by the December 30 deadline. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Coleman if the document presented by Mr. Hansen should be considered, as it was presented to Council after the appeal period. He asked if the document raised any new issues, and if Mr. Coleman needed time to review the letter. Mr. Coleman asked for a ten-minute recess to read the letter and decide whether or not he needed more time to research the issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. for a break. m Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Mr. Coleman reviewed the January 12 memo from Mr. Meek to Mr. Hansen. He said that the first three paragraphs of the seven paragraphs were very similar to the points he covered in his January 5 memo but that the last four paragraphs dealt with the Constitutional issues that were not under discussion tonight. Mr. Hansen noted that the City Attorney's memo did address the Constitutionality issue. Mr. Hansen reviewed the process of the initiative he filed on behalf of the Citizens for Safe Water. He stated that he agreed with the changes that the City Attorney made to the caption and the question but he challenged the addition of the sentence in the summary "The measure prevents the use of Willamette River water as a secondary or emergency source of drinking water, if prior voter approval has not been received." He argued that this sentence simply confused the issue, as it was obvious that the statement that the City would not use Willamette River as a drinking water source at all included that it could not be used as a secondary or emergency source. Mr. Hansen read from the City Attorney's January 5 memo regarding the Oregon Supreme Court's refusal to speculate on the impact of a measure when the title was in substantial compliance with the law. He held that the motive for adding the final sentence was political or to scare citizens signing the petition. He said that the City would have the same emergency water sources it had now, if the ballot measure passed. Mr. Hansen mentioned that the Tigard City Attorney has reviewed the ballot title and found it in compliance with State law. Mr. Hansen addressed Mr. Scheiderich's comments (see December 30, 1998 letter). He held that it was not clear why the ballot title needed to mention "the city's contractual obligations with other cities and the Tigard Water District to jointly plan for and agree on capital improvements for a common source of water supply." He said that those contracts included termination provisions. Mr. Hansen asserted that there was nothing in "the intergovernmental agreement between Tigard and the Tigard Water District obligating Tigard to use Willamette River water or to defer to water supply choices made by other governments entities." He held that the language about capital improvements was vague and allowed Tigard to withhold consent to the plans of others by asserting that doing so was in the best interests of the water customers within the original district and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all the residents and property owners in the district with a clean, economical water supply. Mr. Hansen argued that the ballot title was not insufficient in that "it omitted any mention of the City's existing contractual obligation to purchase water from Portland and Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD)." He referenced the City Attorney's memo indicating that the water supply contracts had termination clauses. He said that the asserted existing contractual . obligations were not inconsistent with the Drinking Water Choice Act. He spoke against wasting any of the few words allowed for the ballot title on identifying contracts that were not inconsistent with the proposed measure. Mr. Hansen disagreed that "the ballot title was unfair in that it misled Tigard voters to believe CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 9 that they would be entitled to approve a source of water for the City of Tigard, when in fact, by prior contractual agreement, the City has agreed to make that choice only as a joint exercise with certain other cities and with the Tigard Water District." He stated that their legal staff saw nothing in any contract that prevented Tigard from choosing its future water supply source. He held that even if such an obligation existed, the Tigard voters were entitled to enact legislative measures, even such measures as caused the City to breach existing contracts. He said that the City's contracting partners could then pursue the ordinary legal remedies for breach of contract. Mr. Hansen disagreed that the ballot title "also misled Tigard voters to believe that Tigard could unilaterally change the terms of its water supply contracts with the City of Portland and TV WD." He held that the ballot title stated nothing that could reasonably lead a Tigard voter to so believe. He reiterated that the contracts were not inconsistent with the Drinking Water Choice Act and had termination clauses that could be timely exercised. Mr. Hansen asked if Mr. Coleman included the legislative versus administrative issue and the impairment contract issue in the Constitutional issues. Mr. Coleman said yes. Mr. Hansen stated that the proposed Drinking Water Choice Act laid down the rule of conduct or course of policy for the guidance of the Tigard city officers. He reiterated that the City Elections Officer and the City Attorney have approved the ballot title in its present form. Mr. Hansen addressed the issue of the advisory vote. He said that the Council had no legal authority to withhold from certification of a ballot title on that basis. He held that none of Mr. Scheiderich's arguments had any merit and were only a frivolous attempt to slow down the initiative process and prevent the citizens from having a say as to their drinking water source. He stated that the only reason any one would want to stop their initiative would be because they were trying to do something that the majority of the people did not want. Mr. Hansen argued that the City Attorney's suggested added text for the summary was speculation, citing the Supreme Court ruling. He stated that the ballot title should be approved as submitted by the City Attorney, except for the deletion of the last sentence in the summary. He asked that the record be left open for 10 days to allow responses to the Council's action. Mayor Nicoli mentioned to Mr. Scheiderich the ground rule that the issues of Constitutionality were not to be discussed this evening. Bill Scheiderich stated that although he has served on the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) for five years and was currently the chair, he made the challenge as a Tigard voter. He stated that he did not consider the time that he has spent on the Board as frivolous. He noted that much of the IWB's discussions centered on the fact that the only water source that Tigard owned was four wells, only, three of which were operating. These provided a minuscule amount of the water demanded by the City, and therefore, the City relied upon wholesale water purchases from other providers, such as the City of Portland. He mentioned that while Portland generally used Bull Run water, they also used the South Shore wellfields, and therefore their supply was not the "pure" supply that proponents of the Bull Run water said it was. Mr. Scheiderich stated that Tigard relied on its contracts with the TVWD to purchase up to 6 mgd of Tigard's demand: He pointed out that the contract did not limit TVWD's source for the water that it sent to Tigard. He noted that TVWD currently used the Trask River and Bull Run as its water sources but has expressed interest in the Willamette River as an additional supply source. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 10 Mr. Scheiderich stated that nothing in the contract limited TVWD's option of choosing Willamette River water as a source for the water it supplied to Tigard. He argued that without those sources, Tigard would not have the means to supply drinking water demands, winter or summer. He contended that Tigard either had to find ownership rights and a source of water or remain dependent upon wholesale contracts. Mr. Scheiderich pointed out that the water sold by these other water districts was "surplus" water, the water available after its own residents' needs were met. He contended that if surplus water became unavailable, then Tigard would be left without a source of water. He stated that he philosophically disagreed with limiting Tigard's choices regarding its water supply source. Mr. Coleman reminded Mr. Scheiderich to stay focused on why the ballot title did or did not comply with the requirements of the statute. Mr. Coleman noted that since Mr. Scheiderich arrived later in the meeting, Mr. Scheiderich might have missed the instructions at the beginning of the hearing about parameters of t .,Frimony. Mr. Scheiderich said that his point was that the 175 words were not much to explain the effects of the measure. He argued that, according to the statute, the summary did have to state an effect; it could not say nothing simply because the Oregon Supreme Court refused to speculate on the effects. He mentioned the 500-word neutral explanatory statement written for the voters pamphlet, and the possibility of Tigard allowing a citizen forum in the City newsletter to debate the issue, noting that the City could not spend money to advocate for a measure. Mr. Scheiderich explained that he was giving this background information regarding Tigard's need for a definite source of water because it was what drove the IWB's discussions for years and because Tigard has spent considerable public money to investigate these other sources. He contended that the ballot title, as written by the City Attorney, said nothing about that process or about the fact that Tigard did have contracts or that the termination clauses were not immediate. He argued that the measure would certainly have an effect on those contracts and Tigard's intergovernmental agreement with its partner jurisdictions. Mr. Scheiderich argued that to put a measure on the ballot that gave Tigard citizens the impression that they themselves could decide whether or not the Willamette was an appropriate drinking source ignored the IGA and contracts and the fact that Tigard presently did not own its own source of water. He contended that to limit the choice of source to purchase rights was not good business. He stated that without this information in the ballot title, the voters would not have the information necessary to make an intelligent decision.. Councilor Moore asked Mr. Coleman for clarification on what the Council was to do in response to Mr. Hansen's challenge of the ballot summary. Mr. Coleman said that the challenge process was designed to allow people from various perspectives to examine a ballot title and raise issues with regard to whether or not it complied with State law. He stated that it was not the Council's job to rule for or against a challenge but to determine whether or not the title met the requirements under the Tigard Code. He mentioned that the Council could certify the ballot title as written or change it or write its own version. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 11 Los Councilor Hunt asked what the purpose of the last sentence was. Mr. Coleman explained that the last sentence in the summary (stating that passage of this measure would prohibit the City from using the Willamette River as a source of drinking water for secondary and emergency purposes) was in there because that was a real and critical effect of the measure. He said that he felt that it was important for the citizens to clearly understand this. Councilor Scheckla asked if perhaps, Mr. Coleman was overselling his point. Mr. Coleman said that was for the Council to decide. Councilor Moore suggested deleting the last sentence and modifying the second line in the summary to read "primary, secondary or emergency source." He agreed with the importance of clarifying to the voters that this was an absolute prohibition against using the Willamette River as a source of drinking water for Tigard. Councilor Patton concurred with Councilor Moore's suggestion. She read the City Attorney's suggested language with respect to the existing agreements. She stated that she believed thk. was an important clarification of the ballot title because, even if they did not know what the specific effects might be, the fact was that passage of the measure would have a significant impact on their contractual agreements with other jurisdictions. Mayor Nicoli said that he supported both suggestions. Councilor Hunt asked what Mr. Hansen's changes to these suggested changes were, noting that Mr. Hansen's opinion did not bind the Council. Councilor Moore asked if the additional language in the summary would put them over the word' limit. Mr.. Coleman said no. Councilor Moore suggested substituting the phrase "may impact" for "will impact." Mr. Coleman stated that he was convinced that the measure would definitely impact the contracts, including the agreement with the IWB. Mr. Hansen asked to delete the last sentence of the City Attorney's suggested additional language regarding the contracts: "The consequence of exercising the rights to terminate are unknown at this time." Mr. Coleman said that it was up to Council whether or not to include the line that Mr. Hansen requested be deleted. He said that it was a statement of the obvious, intended to clarify for the voters that they did not know what the consequences would be. Councilor Hunt supported leaving it out. Councilor Patton stated that she felt the first sentences were strong enough to support its deletion. The Council discussed Mr. Hansen's request to leave the record open for 10 days. Mr. Coleman reviewed the Council's options. Mayor Nicoli suggested leaving the record open five days for responses to the Council's decision, allowing the City Attorney a few days to review any responses, and handling the matter in two weeks at their Council meeting. With the resolution of the language questions, Mr. Hansen asked to finish this matter tonight. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 12 'L Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to amend the summary to delete as currently written, the last sentence which reads "The measure prevents the use of Willamette River water as a secondary or emergency source of drinking water if prior voter approval has not been received" and instead to insert the words in the first sentence which will change the first sentence to read "This measure will add a new Section 51 to the City Charter that will prevent the City from using aay water from the Willamette River as a primary, secondary or emergency drinking water source for its citizens" and then the remainder of that sentence remains the same; and in addition, that we add an additional two sentences to the summary which state "This measure will impact existing agreements relating to water supply between the City and o0er jurisdictions. Each agreement contains a termination provision that will a: dw the City to end the relationship if necessary." Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Councilors Hunt, Moore, Mayor Nicoli, Patton, and Scheckla voting "yes.") 12. COUNCIL, LIAISON REPORTS: None. 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 13.1 Announcements Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reminded the Council that both the City of Portland and the WWSA engineers were making presentations of their proposals to the Intergovernmental Water Board tomorrow night at 7 p.m. in the Water Building. He stated that staff invited the City Councils of Tigard, King City and Durham and the Tigard Water District Board to hear the presentations. He mentioned another opportunity to hear the Portland and WWSA proposals at the Wilsonville City Council on January 21. Mr. Wegner announced that at the January 26 Council meeting, he and Mr. Lowry would present a preliminary report discussing a comparison of the two options against the three primary criteria of tap water quality, certainty of supply, and cost of service/estimated cost of project. Mr. Wegner noted the two public open house forums scheduled for Thursday, February 28, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and on a Wednesday evening from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. He said that they would use the same process they used for the open houses held this summer. He announced the dates for the public tours of the Joint Water Commission, February 20 and 27 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. He said that they have scheduled an elected officials tour of the City of Corvallis treatment plant on the Willamette River for March 6. i ' Mr. Wegner presented a list staff developed at the Mayor's request of prospective members for a water advisory committee to look at the two proposals in detail. He said that he did not think that the Council wanted all these people but they were names that fit the criteria, and the Council could pick and choose. Mr. Monahan emphasized that this was a preliminary list to get the Council thinking about whom should be on the committee. Mayor Nicoli said that they would discuss this at their meeting next week. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 13 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:14 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder r, City of Tigar Date: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1999 - PAGE 14 Agenda Rem No.- ._o / TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of ~3 •e'!q WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. 2. WORKSHOP MEETING Call to Order Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Council Present: Councilors Patton, Mayor Nicoli, Hunt, Scheckla, and Moore Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; City Attorney Tim Ramis; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; and Library Director Melinda Sisson. Council Communications & Liaison Reports Mayor Nicoli reviewed the situation with the legal challenge to the TIF fees in Washington County. He said that while they won at the circuit court, the case has been appealed to the Court of Appeals. He reported that at the last meeting of the Washington County Coordinating Committee, the mayors discussed splitting the costs of the defense of this case because it affected a countywide ordinance from which all cities received substantial funds. He mentioned that the Washington County legal counsel informed the mayors that the TIF funds could be used to pay the legal costs. Councilor Hunt asked if they could distribute the money until such time as the case was decided and then repay it if necessary. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, indicated that it took filing a second case to require repayment of money collected. Mayor Nicoli commented that the other part of this case, depending on how the court decision was rendered, might also affect City development ordinances. That was why they decided to defend it aggressively. Mr. Ramis mentioned that the circuit court judge, who ruled in their favor agreed completely with their analysis that the principles of Dolan did not apply to a tax. He explained that the TIF fee was a tax voted in by the people. e Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 1 now 3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) UPDATES Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, distributed materials to the Council on CIT attendance. She noted that they averaged 35 people per meeting with a low of 8 (in June and September when school functions conflicted). She commented that she believed that attendance was agenda driven. Ms. Newton reported that they used their first January meeting to plan for the coming year and to review the current format. She reviewed what the City primarily used the CITs for information sharing, citizen education, and citizen input. She mentioned that the members present felt that the CIT format worked well for information sharing during the general session, and that they benefited from the educational presentations but preferred the use of real-world examples in the future. Ms. Newton noted that the citizens have asked that staff use a two-meeting approach in requesting citizen input so that citizens could be prepared at the second meeting to give good input regarding the issue staff raised at the first meeting. She cited the meetings held on the CIP as evidence of that strategy working well. She mentioned that the citizens brought up topics of interest to themselves that they really wanted to work through, such as significant trees and neighborhood meetings. She said that the citizens felt that it was fair for the City to request a commitment from the citizens to work an issue of concern prior to assigning staff resources, citing the failure of the significant trees issue and the success of the neighborhood meetings issue. Ms. Newton reviewed the suggestions and/or concerns mentioned by the CIT members regarding the current format. This included too many issues per meeting for the breakout sessions, assigning a city-wide issue to the general session instead of to a breakout session, the need for the CIT members to take responsibility to report to Council on their actions, the use of the CIT meetings as a "safe harbor forum" for citizens intimidated by the more formal Council meetings, and suggestions for future topics. Ms. Newton reviewed the staff changes to the format in response to the citizen suggestions. She said that staff would review topic ideas at the end of the general session to see what the citizens wanted to schedule. She described how they would change the one-on-one process to better utilize staff resources and time, including an announcement in the Cityscape announcing where people would attend and a description of those staff members' areas of responsibility. Ms. Newton said that the citizens accepted the City's decision not to use the CITs as the forum i for the water discussion because that issue affected a broader constituency than simply the citizens of Tigard. She commented that the citizens wanted to know what other avenues were available to them for topics that staff felt was not appropriate for the CITs. { Councilor Hunt mentioned that when the City switched from the NPOs to the CITs, there had been considerable resistance from the NPOs who feared that it would turn into a staff driven meeting as opposed to a citizen-driven meeting. He questioned whether or not that was exactly what has happened. He felt that without the water issue, the attendance last year would have been cut in half. He mentioned the regular attendance of a few core people but pointed out that most came if the agenda covered an issue of significance to them personally. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 2 Ms. Newton concurred with Councilor Hunt that the active NPOs had a good attendance that represented the different geographic areas. She pointed out that the NPOs dealt solely with land use issues and did not cover the variety of topics scheduled for CITs. Bill Monahan, City Manager, concurred that citizens might only attend one or two meetings a year to hear topics of particular interest to them but pointed out that they were reaching more people with the CITs than with the NPOs, citing the people attending the January meeting who had not attended any meeting before. Councilor Hunt said that what the CITs have turned out to be was not what he had envisioned them becoming when they switched from the NPOs. Sterling Marsh, CIT Facilitator, commented that when they started, the meetings were driven more by the facilitators than staff. However over time, as they needed staff resources to answer citizen questions, the CITs became more institutionalized. He pointed out that information sharing has consistently been part of the CIT process, commenting that occasionally they solved their own problems or realized the problem was insurmountable to begin with. He stated that he thought that the CITs worked reasonably well because it has brought more people into dealing with the City without having to come to the formal Council meetings. Councilor Scheckla commented that the NPOs were established with the specific task of helping the City adopt the Comprehensive Plan, and they knew when they had accomplished that goal. He said that the CITs were not set up to deal with a specific issue, and there was no closure on the issues they did deal with, which might discourage continuous participation. Councilor Patton conceded the point but held that there was nothing wrong with people attending an occasional CIT meeting over the course of the year when a topic of particular interest to them was scheduled. She said that one of the advantages of the CITs was the informal forum where people could get the information they needed. She stated that she did not think that the purpose of the CITs should be to maintain a certain level of attendance to insure that a certain constituency attended from meeting to meeting but held that there was value in knowing that there were sufficient people in attendance to warrant the staff time needed to work the meeting. Ms. Newton mentioned several criticisms leveled by citizens against the more formal NPO process, including lack of standing for non-designated NPO members attending a meeting and attendance requirement for members. She said that they purposely set up the CITs differently so that there would not be any quorum or membership attendance requirements. She agreed with Councilor Hunt, commenting that she had not thought she would have the kind of time commitment to the CITs that she currently had. Councilor Hunt questioned how much of the CIT was set up for the City to disseminate information and educate citizens as opposed to garnering citizen input. Ms. Newton reiterated the citizen suggestion that staff prepare the citizens beforehand regarding issues that staff wanted input on in order to generate good input at the next meeting. She spoke to staff having to think things through further in advance than two weeks before the CIT meeting. Ms. Newton asked for Council input on whether to go in the direction suggested by the citizens or to revamp the program further in response to Councilor Hunt's concerns. Councilor Hunt suggested that staff inform the CIT facilitators of the Council discussion and get their input on what direction to take. Mr. Monahan suggested that staff keep up the pressure on getting the citizens to tell them what issues they wanted to talk about, and present only one or two informational items per month. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 3 Ms. Newton suggested structuring the meetings to allow more citizen input. She mentioned possibly canceling a meeting if they did not get a commitment from the citizens regarding an issue raised by the citizens or there were not sufficient agenda items to warrant a meeting. Councilor Patton commented that it was important to give citizens plenty of warning if the City was asking for input on an issue. She spoke to the City taking seriously those issues raised by the citizens and following through on them. She expressed discomfort with using the CITs predominantly as a forum for staff to get information on an issue. Councilor Hunt concurred. 4. REPORT FROM BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY APPLICATIONS Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed the charge that the Council gave to the Budget Subcommittee it created on November 17 (members George Burgess, Gene Famstrom, Joyce Patton, Bill Monahan, and Wayne Lowry). The Committee was to streamline the social agency funding application and the process for evaluating those applications. He reported that the Subcommittee met on January 7, reduced the 10-page application to four pages, and created a revised process for social agency evaluations and a suggested process to allow more Council input on the arts and events applications. Mr. Lowry reviewed the changes to the application, noting that they focused on retaining the meaningful information for decision making. Councilor Hunt suggested adding "(including the City of Tigard)" to Item 5, page 2, to insure that the City was included with "other governmental agencies." Mr. Monahan mentioned the page that showed what the percentage basis of the local government contribution was in comparison to other revenue sources, and page 4, listing the names and addresses of the current Board of Directors. Councilor Hunt expressed concern that some people might have difficulty fitting their balance sheet into the condensed financial format given on page 3. Mr. Lowry explained that this was a standard format that should work for everyone. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the three issues that he wanted information on regarding the non-profits: 1) who controlled the selection process for the Board of Directors? 2) What were the lengths of service of the current Board members? 3), How often did the Board receive financial reports? Councilor Hunt asked if the Subcommittee would review the social agency applications and make a recommendation to the Budget Committee as a whole. Mr. Lowry reviewed the six steps of the revised evaluation process, including the Subcommittee making a recommendation on budget allocations to the City Manager who included it in the budget presented to the Budget Committee. Mr. Lowry mentioned that he had on file the non-profit documentation required by the City, including the bylaws, audited financial reports, articles of incorporation, and 501C(3) documentation. He pointed out that those documents would indicate the Board selection process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 4 Councilor Hunt spoke against splitting the funds between the social agencies and the arts and events without returning to the Budget Committee, since the Budget Committee had determined last year that they would not split the funding. Mr. Lowry explained that the Subcommittee had thought that the Council wanted to be more involved with the arts and events side because those were more community oriented and the Council dealt with them throughout the year. He said that in order to have two different groups evaluating two different types of requests, the Subcommittee thought that there needed to be a target funding level. Councilor Patton concurred. Mayor Nicoli asked staff to find out if Craig Dirksen still wanted to serve on the Budget Committee so that the Council would know whether to interview for two or three positions. Mr. Lowry commented that if the Council agreed to follow this process, it could be ratified at the first Budget Committee meeting. Councilor Hunt stated that he agreed with the proposed process but he was reluctant to unilaterally change a Budget Committee decision. Gene Farnstrom, Budget Committee, said that he was satisfied with the proposed revised process. He commented that his biggest concerns were getting a standard for the social agencies and segregating the arts/events requests from the social agency requests because they were not getting good information on the arts/events requests. He held that the arts/events were more a "community involvement thing" and did not require the same scrutiny as social agency requests. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to move forward with the streamlined application and the revised evaluation process. The Council asked staff to look into the legality of appointing alternate Budget Committee members. • Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. for a break. • Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 5. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE AND STAFF REPORT REGARDING DANGEROUS AND DERELICT BUILDINGS 5.1 Community Housing Task Force Report David Scott, Building Official, introduced Paul Alig, Oregon Legal Services, a Housing Task Force member. He presented his report using a slide presentation. He mentioned the charge to the Task Force to investigate how comprehensive should a housing inspection program be in Tigard and whether the City should take a proactive or reactive approach. He reviewed the questions used by the Task Force to determine the parameters of a program. He noted the criteria used by the Task Force to measure all decisions against: the program should be equitable for all property owners and residents of Tigard (both single-family and multi-family), and the provisions of the ordinance should be limited to those necessary to provide for minimum standards of safety, sanitation and inhabitability. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 5 Mr. Scott presented the Task Force recommendations: o The Council adopt the proposed ordinance that specified the minimum standards and used the existing civil infraction process in place for code enforcement as its enforcing mechanism; and The Council adopt the proposed resolution stipulating program implementation policies. Mr. Scott mentioned that the different stakeholders on the Task Force achieved consensus on the entire package. Mr. Scott reviewed the administrative polices proposed in the resolution. He said that inspections would be performed on a complaint or referral basis only (no anonymous complaints but the names would be protected to the extent allowed by law). He mentioned the provisions allowing property owners an opportunity to comply without going through the formal enforcement process. He noted the recommendation for one inspector at this point, mentioning that the Council already approved in this budget funding to hire another inspector. Mr. Scott explained the policy to establish a relocation plan with the County and other agencies as a strategy to assist occupants displaced as a result of enforcement efforts. He stated that the emergency policy included an appropriation of $10,000 as a means of helping occupants in an emergency situation where the responsible landowner was not responding in a timely manner. He said that the $70,000 cost of the program would come out of the general fund, and the program would be implemented on April 1 with a public hearing scheduled for February 9, 1999. Mr. Scott reviewed the social care facility issue. He explained that the Task Force included group living homes already regulated by state and federal licensing agencies in response to their criteria of equity. He said that the Task Force was concerned that other types of housing would try for exemptions if any exceptions were allowed. He mentioned that the focus of the City ordinance was on physical plant concerns, not the care quality concerns already regulated by other agencies. Councilor Patton asked for clarification on the General Accounting Official (GAO) testimony included in the report regarding the care of individuals residing in the homes and the apparent intent of the resolution to deal with physical plant concerns. Mr. Allig said that he included the GAO study to show that the State looked at the care concerns and did not focus on the maintenance issues. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that the Task Force intended to put these policies in place, and then if they were not working after a period of time, the various interest groups had the burden of proof to show that they needed adjustment. Mr. Scott confirmed to Councilor Moore that the policies dealt solely with the physical plant standards of sanitation, safety, and inhabitability, and did not address care issues. He said that the only exception in the ordinance was for institutions, such as the classic nursing home, which the Task Force felt was beyond the scope of an ordinance dealing with residential uses. He mentioned a concern of the social care constituency that the ordinance not conflict with State and Federal licensing regulations. He said that the City Attorney crafted language to give precedence to the licensing rules over the City ordinance. Mr. Scott mentioned another finding of the Task Force that local responsiveness could be an important part of an overall regulatory framework for residential social care facilities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 6 Mr. Scott reviewed the occupant displacement issue, noting that they did not want to create another bad situation in the process of solving another. He mentioned the emergency fund intended to help with this issue, noting that it did not require a supplemental budget. He said that, as he understood it, the tenant/landlord law did provide some protection to tenants who were given "no cause" notices by their landlords. Councilor Moore mentioned the excellent job done on the report. He asked why the Task Force did not want to be proactive. Mr. Scott said that the Task Force was concerned at the expense of a proactive program to inspect all units. They felt that it would require a licensing fee and thus penalize those who had no problems. Councilor Hunt noted that the ordinance did not mention any police involvement. Mr. Scott said that the police department was one of the groups that the Task Force expected would make referrals of situations needing inspection. Councilor Hunt asked if there was any discussion on the fines. Mr. Scott said that the City's civil infraction ordinance stipulated $250 as the maximum penalty per day at the discretion of the hearings officer. He explained that the penalty could be applied for each day the property owner was out of compliance, and thus a fine could become significant over time. He said that the Task Force did discuss fines extensively, especially as a possible funding mechanism. Councilor Hunt asked why 14.16.18 required certain doors to be openable from the inside without a key. He agreed with Councilor Moore that the Task Force did a fine job. Mr. Scott said that that was classic language in housing ordinances and building codes. It was intended to address the concern that people could be trapped in a house on fire if they could not find their key. The Council discussed the issue. Mr. Scott said that he would look into it more for the next meeting. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that this document did not set out a program from which the City would get revenue. He said that it was a document for the entire community. Councilor Patton asked for clarification regarding the changes to the ordinance suggested by Sheilah Greenlaw-Fink, a Housing Task Force member, in her letter proposing that the City commit to replacing any housing units lost due to the housing code in such a manner that the current residents were protected. Mr. Scott said that the Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) were concerned at the potential impacts of demolition resulting from enforcing the housing code which might reduce the gross number of units in town within a certain rent range. He said that he could look into that if Council wanted. Councilor Hunt expressed his reluctance to make such a commitment because it could put the City in a spot of spending a lot of money to replace a building that it had to condemn. The Council discussed the issue. Councilor Moore mentioned opportunities for the City to work with developers on the options available for types of housing benefiting the community. Mr. Scott mentioned opportunities for agencies like CPAH to salvage a building. He said that these were sensitive issues that needed to be dealt with in the coming months. Mr. Alig commented that the Task Force had been concerned as to whether or not this relocation issue was within their charge, and to some extent, backed off from it. He said that as a tenant advocate, he saw the Task Force recommendation as a good start. Mr. Scott mentioned that the City of Portland did budget funds for relocating individuals but reiterated that this proposed policy did not do so, other than the $10,000 for emergencies. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 7 Mayor Nicoli stated that he saw no need to include single-family residences in this ordinance, as they had no problem with them in Tigard. He pointed out that they established this Task Force to look at housing issues in Tigard in response to the problems on Bonita Road and Villa La Paz (before rehabilitation). He said that he did not see a matter of equity but a matter of dealing with an existing problem in their community that they needed to respond to. Mayor Nicoli said that he supported a proactive program that inspected every multifarmily or single family rental unit every five years. He contended that this ordinance, while fine in and of itself, would not solve the problem that led to the establishment of the Task Force. He spoke to the Council aggressively going after the slumlords in town. He reiterated that he did not think that the ordinance had any business including single-family owner occupied homes. Councilor Moore said that he had no problem with adjusting the ordinance to accommodate the Mayor's concern. He indicated that he had wanted a proactive program but did feel that the expense as described by Mr. Scott was a significant consideration. He spoke to implementing the ordinance with a review in a year or so to see if they wanted to make any changes. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the policies required documentation of any complaint, it could not be anonymous. He emphasized that the Task Force had not wanted to discriminate against anybody, single family or not, because there could be a derelict building out there and they would have not tools to deal with it. He disagreed with eliminating a type of housing before allowing the ordinance a chance to work. Councilor Moore postulated a situation where something in a home was detrimental to the health and well being of the children. He said that he thought it was the duty of a citizen to report that situation the same as reporting child abuse. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that people using this ordinance in that fashion was not what brought them to this point. The slumlords not maintaining apartment complexes was the problem that they needed to deal with. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that single-family, owner-occupied residences and social care facilities were not problems in Tigard, and he did not want them included in the ordinance. He said that if they became problems, then they could add them at that time. He suggested starting out with a goal of inspecting all multifamily units in the City over a certain period of time. He mentioned a commitment from Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue to assist the City in conducting field inspections of apartment complexes. Mayor Nicoli said that his goal, when the Task Force was set up, was to deal with the immediate serious problem in the City and to go after the slumlords. He emphasized that that should be the focus of the program, not single family owner occupied residences or social care residential facilities. He argued that including those facilities was taking on too much responsibility when they knew there were no problems there, and deflecting attention from the real problems. Councilor Scheckla said that the Mayor made a good point but cited the various constituencies comprising the Task Force. All Task Force members made compromises in order to reach agreement on this ordinance. He held that the Council not adopting their recommendation meant that the Task Force wasted its time and effort in developing a document that would stand up in the long term and handle whatever situation arose. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mayor Nicoli said that they used that same approach in developing the old zoning ordinance. It was supposed to address every situation and stand up for the long term but the City adopted a new Code last year because the previous Code proved too cumbersome and unworkable. Councilor Scheckla stated that in this document the Task Force simplified what was in other housing codes. He spoke to giving it a chance for a year. Mayor Nicoli said that he wanted to go after the problem now, not dilute their effort by including homes that they knew were not a problem. He reiterated that he did not see a need for a citywide ordinance. He commented that he did not think that it would sit well with people if the City adopted an ordinance that allowed the government to come into any house in town and pull an inspection. Councilor Scheckla said that that was not the intent of the document. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that that was what the document said. Councilor Scheckla disagreed. Councilor Moore commented that he understood both points. He said that while he would like to see a more aggressive program also, he would also like to try this ordinance for a year, given that it was developed by a group of well-qualified people with more knowledge about the situation than he had. He said that if it was not working, then they could revisit the proactive approach. Mayor Nicoli asked how they would analyze whether or not the ordinance was working. Councilor Moore said that if, a year from now, nothing was happening in an area known to be a problem, then they knew that it was not doing what they wanted it to do. If it was not working, then they needed to look at adjusting the policy for a more proactive approach. Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Moore that this ordinance could be used to get at the problem areas. He supported implementing it Councilor Patton said that she did not see how giving this ordinance a chance would eliminate the City's ability to get to the problem areas. She noted that they could be addressed through referrals, as it was obvious to many that there was a problem. She agreed with the Mayor that there was not necessarily a need to address single-family, owner-occupied residences in the ordinance. She spoke to including single-family rentals. Mayor Nicoli commented that he had never thought that the Task Force would include single- family, owner-occupied homes when the issue that drove the establishment of the Task Force had been the situation with the multifamily units on Bonita. Councilors Moore and Hunt indicated that they would be willing to identify non-owner occupied single-family buildings. Mr. Scott said that staff remained neutral on this issue. He mentioned the concerns of the Task Force members representing single-family landlords that they would be required to fix up their rental units while next door; an owner-occupied unit could look just as bad and the owner not be required to fix it up. Mayor Nicoli commented that they were overlooking one basic thing: the owner living in his rundown house chose to live that way. He spoke to a government agency helping the renters who had no choice because their landlord would not fix the problem. Councilor Scheckla stated that the Task Force discussed all these issues. He reiterated that the various interest groups compromised to create this document. He spoke against the Council eliminating single-family, owner-occupied housing when the Task Force voted as a unit to put it in. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 9 Councilor Moore asked for more time to review the document and to hear the public testimony at the public hearing. Mr. Monahan said that staff could inform the appropriate people of the Council discussion so they could provide input at the public hearing. Mr. Ramis commented that the discussion was good in that it brought out the Council's issues but he cautioned the Council to avoid deliberation and decision at this time. Councilor Scheckla argued that a proactive program would take more money than $70,000 to implement and would add another layer of government. He reiterated that the Task Force wasted its time if the Council did not accept the recommendation. Councilor Hunt pointed out that just bringing a recommendation to the Council for approval did not mean that the Council could not change the recommendation if it wanted to. 5.2 Dangerous and Derelict Buildings Mr. Scott reported that staff proposed eliminating the existing chapter on dangerous buildings and moving the provisions to the Housing Code. He presented the staff recommendation to create a new class of buildings (derelict buildings) in order to allow the City to proactively work towards abating nuisances in town that (under the current code) they could not doing any about until they became dangerous. He reviewed the definition of "derelict." He. said that a•building boarded up on the City's order would not be considered derelict just because it was boarded up. Mr. Ramis said that he discussed this matter with Jim Coleman, the attorney working with Mr. Scott. This change would give the City more teeth to deal with some of these situations. 6. REVIEW DRAFT RESOLUTOIN THAT OPPOSES LEGISLATION CREATING A NEW STATE BOARD TO REGULATE BUILDING CODE ACTIVITIES IN THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA Mr. Scott explained that the state legislature established a task force to address concerns related to the provision of building regulatory service in the Tri-County area. He said that the results of the Task Force was a legislative concept to create a new Board in the state building codes division to have oversight, broad rule making authority, and fee assessing authority. He mentioned that the Task Force industry representatives all voted for the proposal while the local government representatives all voted against it. Mr. Scott said that staff has been working with the League of Oregon Cities and general contractor constituents concerned about how far the concept went. He said that the local governments were proposing an alternative proposal to bind local governments to address the legitimate concerns raised by the subcontractors through an intergovernmental agreement in order to avoid an expansion of the state bureaucracy. Mr. Scott said that hopefully all the municipalities in the tri-county area would adopt this resolution, and it would be presented as part of their commitment to be accountable to the stakeholders. He noted that the resolution opposed the other legislation and supported an intergovernmental agreement and the draft legislation requiring all those with building programs delegated by the state to be signatories to an intergovernmental agreement. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 10 Councilor Hunt asked Mayor Nicoli for his opinion as a member of the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not completely agree with what the Task Force sent to the legislative nor did he support Mr. Scott's suggestion. He held that it would not be possible to get 27 separate jurisdictions to agree on an intergovernmental agreement regarding building regulations, citing the five to ten years it took for Tigard and Washington County (just two jurisdictions) to reach an IGA on providing urban services, including building permits. Mayor Nicoli explained that the Task Force's proposed agency would handle issuing permits and distribute the fees back to the appropriate city from one location, as opposed to contractors having to get permits at several different offices, and sometimes misunderstanding which agency had jurisdiction over the home he was working on. He mentioned that the concerns driving this was lowering the costs passed through to the homeowner and the hassle to the subcontractors who were trying to provide a service. Mayor Nicoli said that the Task Force had felt that a solution had to be mandated by the state legislature because the 27 jurisdictions would not be able to reach agreement in a timely fashion, if ever. He said that while he agreed that a state mandate was needed, he disagreed with the amount of authority the Task Force was giving to the permit issuance center. He mentioned that there were already mechanisms in place that got close to what was needed, such as Tigard's issuance of bulk permits over the phone. Councilor Moore commented that he would hate to see another layer of government, questioning when it would stop. Mayor Nicoli concurred, stating that that was why he did not like either proposal at this time. Councilor Moore said that an IGA made .more sense to him and he would be willing to give that a shot. Mayor Nicoli questioned how long it would take 27 jurisdictions to reach agreement. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that this legislature was driving this issue. He said that the Task Force did agree to the bulk of the proposal with only a small minority feeling that it went too far. He mentioned that they all agreed that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. He reiterated that he did not think that an IGA would work because any one jurisdiction could kill it. Councilor Hunt asked what the contractors would lose if nothing was done. Mayor Nicoli said that the contractors felt that this proposal would save them considerable time, especially when dealing with bulk permits. He cited an example of a company replacing water heaters which had to identify which of a list of addresses fell in which jurisdiction in order to obtain the permit from the proper agency, a time consuming process. He mentioned another issue discussed of jurisdictions requiring inspections that were not necessary. Councilor Hunt asked if the proposal took choice away from Tigard and gave it to the state. Mayor Nicoli said no, because the City would still have its own code enforcement program. He mentioned another difficulty in having 27 different interpretations of the Uniform Building Code. He explained that the UBC was intended originally to eliminate the different codes that each jurisdiction had prior to 1970 and to provide for a code applied uniformly in all jurisdictions. He said that even the building officials on the Task Force agreed that there was a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 11 problem with a uniform application of the Code. He mentioned that those officials also said that they could live with one agency mandating how the Code would be applied uniformly, even if they did not agree with it. Mayor Nicoli recommended sending a letter to their state representative and the League stating what they liked and did not like about what the Task Force did. The Council discussed the matter and agreed that the Mayor would draft a letter for Council review. Councilor Patton expressed her discomfort with a resolution that opposed legislation when they.did not know what that legislation was really saying. She commented that, based on her experience in negotiating IGAs, she doubted that an IGA would be a successful way to go. 7. REPORT ON PROPOSED INCREASE IN BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND RELATED FEES Mayor Nicoli mentioned that he wanted to discuss Agenda Item 7 in depth with staff based on some surprising information he was given by a contractor regarding a comparison between Tigard's fee structure and other cities' fees. Councilor Patton said that she had some questions also and would fax them to staff. The Council discussed when to re-schedule this item. A gentleman in the audience asked when fee increases would take effect. Mr. Scott said that the staff recommendation was at least 30 days from the Council action in order to give notice to the constituents. Mr. Monahan suggested that they schedule the discussion for the February 23 study session and the action item for the March 23 regular meeting (at which time they would also do the engineering fees). Mr. Scott said that he would be out of state on March 23. Mayor Nicoli said that he would give the information he was given to staff for their review. He commented that they sometimes asked their Building Department to do things beyond what they collected fees for, and expressed concern that they not ask those paying for building permits to pay for those other services whose funding should come out of the general fund. Mr. Scott stated that he had intended to inform the Council during his report this evening that he discovered a mistake in his spreadsheet and the cost increase was not actually as high as it appeared in the report. 8. REPORT ON TUALATIN RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE The Council agreed by consensus to approve the staff recommendation to authorize up to $7,000 of Greenspaces funds to be spent towards the additional costs of completing detailed engineering calculations on the existing railroad bridge and completion of conceptual design plans for a pedestrian bridge. 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS The Council discussed when to re-schedule this item. Councilor Moore mentioned three additional Task Forces: Transportation, Downtown, and the Budget Subcommittee. Mr. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 12 y. Monahan asked the Council to let staff know if they no longer wanted to serve as the liaison to a particular committee. Councilor Moore suggested deleting the Development Code Steering Committee (as their work was completed) and the Hwy 99W Task Force (as he considered that a dead issue). Mr. Monahan suggested revamping the Council Liaison's role on that Hwy 99W Task Force to being the point person in working with ODOT and staff. Mayor Nicoli suggested that he and Councilor Hunt met to winnow down the candidates for the Water Advisory Board to 20 or 30 people, and that Councilor Moore put together a list of candidates for the Transportation Task Force, and whittle it down for presentation to the Council. Councilor Moore asked staff to provide a list of citizens who helped on the previous bond measure plus potential names from the Visioning process. 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:44 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:18 p.m. Oat~eA-, /U W Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder yor, City of TigYff Date: 0~~0?3 i i i i i f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1999 - PAGE 13 AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of: lrebruary 23- 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSI /AGENDA TITLE: Initiation of Vacation proceedings for an approxim~ttely$,64square foot portion o .detour easement along SW 135`' Avenue. south of the Summer Creek Apartments PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Haiduk DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE M COUNCIL Should the City Council initiate Vacation proceedings involving an approximately 28,645 square foot portion of detour easement along SW 135th Avenue, south of the Summer Creek Apartments? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting the attached Resolution which sets a formal public hearing date on the vacation for April 13, 1999. INFORMATION SLT_lyt_M_ARY In the City vacation process of streets, easements and other public dedicated areas, the City Council begins the process by passing a Resolution to schedule a formal public hearing to consider such requests. The Bowen Real Estate group is requesting that the City Council initiate Vacation proceedings for a detour easement along SW 135th Avenue. In 1989, a twenty (20)-foot slope and detour easement was granted (Document Easement 89-20392) for the construction of SW 135th Avenue. Now that the construction of SW 135th Avenue is finished, the slope and detour easement is no longer needed. Generally, when easements of this nature are required, there is language in the recording document stating that the easement can be deleted upon completion, however there is no mention of that in this easement recording document. The slope easement and a portion of the detour easement were vacated previously for the property to the south by Ordinance No. 87-03. The applicant is requesting that the remaining portion of the detour easement be vacated since it has served its purpose in aiding the construction of SW 135th Avenue. The applicant would also like to remove the appearance of a conflict between the easements and their existing development. Appropriate agencies shall be contacted for comments prior to developing a report for Council consideration. Attachments: Attachment 1- (Petition Requesting Initiation for Vacation) Attachment 2 - (Resolution Initiating Vacation) Exhibit A - (Legal Description) Exhibit B -(Site Plan) OTHER i T ERNAT CONSIDERED Take no action at this time. FISCAL NOTES There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this request as all fees have been paid by the applicant. 2123/99 Council Initiation of SW 135 Detour Easement Vacation Proceedings i:\curpln\julia\vacl35th.sum Julia PH 8-Feb-99 1 r 111:10 R(~~~]~j N q ! Bowen Financial Services Corp. AL ESTATE ATTACHMENT 9 Bowen Development Company Bowen Property Management Co. ❑C7o GROUP Accrt"HanagdmantO,gani=dor.• December 4, 1998 qDEN~-JWE ? 1998 Gus Duenas CITY OF TIGA D City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Summer Creek Apartments - 13456 SW Hawks Beard Road Dear Mr. Duenas: In accordance with your letter of October 27, 1998, concerning the "detour easement" identified therein, a copy of which accompanies this letter, on behalf of Summer Creek, LLC I hereby request that the City of Tigard vacate the detour easement. I enclose our check in the amount of $1530 to pay the required fee. All correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to my attention. Thank you again for your assistance. is , avid R. son General Counsel s 14 121 S.W. Morrison Suite 1000 Portland, Oregon 97204 ® (503) 274-8400 voice 111 (503) 274-4685 fax E ATTACHMENT 1 Continued October 27, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON To the parties on the attached list: The City of Tigard is the beneficiary of that certain Street Dedication dated April 25, 1989, and recorded May 5, 1989, in the Washington County records at Recorder's Fee No. 89-20392 (the "Street Dedication"). Page 4 of Exhibit A to the Street Dedication describes a "detour easement" across a strip of land described therein which includes a portion of the land owned by Summer Creek, LLC and on which has been constructed the Summer Creek Apartments. We understand Summer Creek, LLC is in the process of obtaining a loan from the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and that the loan will be secured by the Summer Creek Apartments, a portion of which is affected by the detour easement. I am the City Engineer for the City of Tigard. I have reviewed the facts surrounding the described "detour easement" and I have concluded that the City has no continuing interest in the rights granted by that easement. The correct method by which the City can release its interest in that dedicated easement is through the vacation process, ORS 271.080- 271.230. The City Council is the decision-maker in that process. Upon receipt of a request to do so and the required fee, I will forward on to the City Council a recommendation that the public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation and that the Council vacate the dedicated easement. If I receive such a request no later than December 31, 1998, during the period of time that the request is being processed and considered by the Council, the City agrees that (i) it will not seek to enforce or otherwise use the detour easement in any manner and (ii) it will not transfer or in any manner convey the detour easement to any other party. Sincerely, a AGUSTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. City Engineer Attachment c: William A. Monahan, City Manager Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager James M. Coleman, City Attorney's Office 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF February 23. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Intergovernmental Agreement between Ci of Tigard and City of Durham for Pavement Striping Services PREPARED BY: Michael Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve an agreement allowing the City of Tigard to include specific pavement striping work for the City of Durham in Tigard's 1998-1999 Pavement Striping Program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute this agreement (See attached copy). INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Durham needs to stripe two streets in Durham (Ellman Lane and Rivendell Drive). The City Administrator of Durham has requested the City of Tigard to incorporate this specific pavement striping into the City of Tigard's 1998-1999 Pavement Striping Program. The Engineering Department has prepared contract documents and specifications for citywide pavement striping that will be advertised for bids in February of 1999, with selection of a contractor expected by March, and completion of all work not later than May 15, 1999. Durham has agreed to compensate Tigard for the work performed in Durham measured on a lineal foot basis at unit prices as stated in the contract with the successful low bidder. Compensation shall also include a pro-rated portion of the mobilization and traffic control costs. The Engineer's estimate for the requested work is not to exceed $2,000 without amendment to the agreement. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the agreement. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES The pavement striping services for the City of Durham would be included in Tigard's Pavement Striping Program subject to reimbursement to Tigard in accordance with the attached agreement. 1AENGWIKEWDURHAMMOC AGREEMENT FOR PAVEMENT STRIPING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1999, and continuing through the 30th day of June, 1999, by and between the City of Tigard ("TIGARD"), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, and the City of Durham ("DURHAM"), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. WHEREAS, Durham wishes to contract with Tigard to provide specific pavement striping services during the 1998-1999 fiscal year. WHEREAS, Tigard has prepared contract documents and specifications for citywide pavement striping that will be advertised for bids in February of 1999, with selection of a contractor expected by March of 1999, and completion of all work not later than May 15, 1999. WHEREAS, Tigard is willing to incorporate the specific pavement striping as requested by Durham into Tigard's 1998-1999 Pavement Striping Program. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND COVENANTS HEREIN CONTAINED, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Tigard shall provide all of the contract administration and installation inspection necessary to have a combination of temporary paint or high quality permanent pavement markings with reflectorized markers placed on two streets in Durham (Ellman Lane & Rivendell Drive). 2. Durham shall compensate Tigard for the work performed measured on a lineal foot basis at unit prices as stated in the contract with the successful low bidder. Compensation shall also include a pro-rated portion of the mobilization and traffic control costs. The Engineer's estimate for the requested work is not to exceed $2,000 without amendment to this agreement. 3. Tigard shall bill Durham within 15 days of project completion, and Durham shall forward payment to Tigard within 30 days after receipt of the invoice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY OF TIGARD has caused this agreement to be executed by the City Manager and the CITY OF DURHAM has caused this agreement to be executed by the City Administrator. CITY OF TIGARD CITY OF DURHAM B r,~ vr1 By: I" ~fg C 1 Manager City Administrator 1 AENGW IKE W DURHA M.AGR AGENDA ITEM # t'i FOR AGENDA OF February 23. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Construction Contract for Police Building Remodel B PREPARED BY: G. Berry DEPT HEAD OK G CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for construction of the Police Building Remodel and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder, Payne Construction Inc. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February, 9, 1999, bids were opened as follows: Payne Construction Inc., Portland, OR $181,000 Industrial Advantage, Lake Oswego, OR $189,000 DGS General Construction, Woodburn OR $204,666 Silicon Forest Industries, Inc., Wilsonville OR $215,042 Architect's estimate $180,000 The low bidder has not been awarded a previous project with the City; references have been requested. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n N FISCAL NOTES The project is funded as a general capital improvement project. I:kl1ywid63UM\0d.dx t• m Agenda Item No. Meeting of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bid Award for Construction of Pavilion and Picnic Shelter at Cook Park PREPARED BY: John Roy DEPT HEAD OK 19~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before the Council is the bid award to the lowest responsible bidder, Robert Gray Partners, for the bid amount of $150,097.00. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council award the bid to Robert Gray Partners in the bid amount of $150,097.00 for the construction of a multi-use Pavilion and Picnic Shelter at Cook Park. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council directed staff in the fall of 1998 to proceed with the implementation of the Cook Park Master Plan for Expansion. The Master Plan called for the construction of a multi-use pavilion and picnic shelter as part of the first phase for development. Staff went out to bid for the project on December 3&, 1998, with bid closing on 19 January, 1999. There were 12 bids received for this project with the lowest bid being presented by Robert Gray Partners for the amount of $150.097.00, and the highest bid being $249,789.00. Please see the attached addenda for the complete bid results. The engineers estimate for this project was $213,000.00. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Reject the lowest responsible bid and award the bid to one of the other bidders. Reject all bids and readvertise for new bids. Reject all bids and give staff further direction. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COM IITI'EE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES The amount of $150,097.00 will be taken from the FY 98/99 Cook Park Expansion account, 52-6400-754.022, of which $600,000.00 is allocated. COOK PARK PICNIC SHELTER & GAZEBO BID SCHEDULE COMPARISON Engg1=es Jp Hnwgy L*Aar Andenan 2KG First Russel Op. Rd mrt Grey Combidars Control Enteg"ya POM 5llboo Forest Comraaoa GR Mcnan Ceersdee MlctearWz rfc Condniclson 60100 Plonle Stw tw Moblltrallon 6.000 2,049 5,000 800.00 500 6,004 3,400 6,000 12,600 2,086 8,100, 9,315.133 20,500 CtaaraadGrub 1,000 1,594 2,000 2,520.00 1.000 575 2,000 9,990 1,365 200, 50400 6,250 Erotio Camtral 500 228 700 2,333.00 8,615 700 1,230 1,040 8,050 2,1ab 1,750 2,00X00 4,000 Gr2ding.Inckiding Stdpp(ng Complete 1,000 1,040 1,000 2.432.00 1,DDD 5,175 10,000 0,150 4,135 3,900 10,770.48 5,750 Eledtic8awirm Owpfels 42,2131) 23,571 10,751 17XGA6 10.2N 30,500 10,869 5,0(30 10,730 18,443 20.000 15,467.90 0,274 4Na10rS0MceComplete 22,0013 16,171 6,664 21.6fom 1&801 17,500 15,379 21,000 10.510 12,885 20,000 28,841.25 6,284 Siam Drainage C npbl8 6,200 1,883 2,Ua t2,645.00 Vag 2,500 1,220 a,00o 7,505 4,602 8,000 7,15ROG 10,8913 CorfampelhwayCompluto 1,700 1,504 4700 2.200.00 3,858 1,500 2,892 2,500 3,e80 3,428 4,000 4,09282 8,250 oeselgn, Fsbrlc W and lnerWirion 44,000 27,415 39AM 3915MOD 28,985 38,000 99,006 58,000 3e.42A 44,381 60,000 54,0611.68 97,189 Cleat up and Ground Raftration 1,200 104 2,300 5,000.913 2,755 700 360 2.000 9M 41385 1.000 1 1666 8,500 h+Dtcu 77.141 OH Q Fee 7,716 ToWmcurAPionkftata 123,600 84,658 72,783 108,019.00 83,571 101x400 81104 112,500 117,415 98,621 126,860 130,250.53 111,861 Ganbo IlelohTizaliore 2,500 2,100 5,0D0 400.a0 500 8,000 4,500 5,600 12,300 2,437 6,40D 0,109.68 17,807 ClawandRub 2,400 1,444 2,000 4,100.30 310110 1,725 5,000 3.1150 4,537 1o,400 s,Don.00 10,000 EruebnCanlml 500 110 700 1,432.90 8,206 700 1,380 5011 3990 207 2.000 1,0(30.00 4,000 Grading, Ilexud111g Wpping CoWwa 3,800 960 10,000 31204,x(313 0,500 25,300 10,000 7.470 15,819 20,D00 2.5,385.00 5,T30 Eteoddr.Sa ice Cmplets 11,000 9,624 5.840 8,500.01) 8,620 6,500 10,013 15,000 16,210 11,000 1010130 111759.90 11,784 Wclzr5gn&zComp1Me 3.300 2.744 3„3x2 5,656.0 15,801 300 200 4,000 4,960 3,907 7,000 7.x47.02 4,674 Blom! Dratnege Comple:ie 10,2013 3103 036 11,340.00 7,112 5,300 9,545 0.000 0,940 11,657 7,000 7,810:60 5.2X0 Cow. P0thymicompiate 2,900 2,-W 2,706 3,500.00 3,526 4X00 7,492 2;500 8,105 5,907 9,000 6A7024 6.200 De3ign, Febeou*n mad Installallon 51 X00 33,810 60,060 22,8U.00 47,642 58.000 61629 47000 32,550 95,061 44,000 34A ZGB 02,983 Clem up and Ground PAcloretbn 1,500 3.075 3,5DD 5,000.00 2,758 700 am 3.D00 31600 2.1107 1,000 1,80@.1;'4 9,300 "1)w 393,910 OH 3 Poe 5,931 TdtalAmorall Gawbo a9,190 95,241 99,545 68,398.313 94,627 98,400 124,384 100,000 97,576 131,023 1 MAN 110.181.04 13T.M Total Picnic $halter &G=mbo 212,000 150,097 172,309 172,905.30 178,204 195,900 208,248 212,500 214,950 228,644 MAO 240,411.82 2451,780 { AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 23, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code to create pronerty maintenance provisions stipulating minimum standards for housing amending the dangerous building code and adding provisions for dangerous structures.. PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK LAA-- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code to create property maintenance provisions stipulating minimum standards for housing, amending the dangerous building code and adding provisions for dangerous structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending Title 14. INFORMATION SUMMARY Housing Code: In July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community. The Council appointed representatives from the rental housing industry and tenant advocates to the Task Force. The Council gave the Task Force the charge of studying the issues and recommending a Community Housing Program. The Task Force determined that a property maintenance code which provides for minimum standards of safety, health, sanitation and habitability will mitigate the deterioration of housing in Tigard. See the Task Force's report for a full discussion of the Task Force's work and findings. Dangerous Buildings: (This portion of the ordinance is a staff recommendation outside of the work of the Task Force) Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code currently contains provisions for abating dangerous buildings. This ordinance proposes to locate those provisions in the same chapter as the housing code, under the title "Property Maintenance Regulations." The proposed ordinance makes minor revisions to the existing dangerous buildings code to clarify and consolidate definitions. Additionally, changes are proposed to clarify notice and enforcement mechanisms, pursuant to the advice of the City Attorney. The scope and intent of the existing provisions is unchanged. Mill I Derelict Buildings: (This portion of the ordinance is a staff recommendation outside of the work of the Task Force, except as it pertains to residential structures) The ordinance proposes to create derelict buildings as a new classification of building subject to enforcement by the City. Generally, a derelict building is a wholly unoccupied (50% unoccupied for residential buildings) building which has been ordered vacant by the Building Official, has been given a notice of civil infraction, is unsecured, is boarded or has, while vacant, had a nuisance declared by the City. The proposed ordinance gives the City the ability to abate these type of situations. Currently the City can only abate these situations if the building becomes dangerous according to the dangerous buildings code. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact directly associated with adoption of the ordinance. There are fiscal implications related to program policies which are discussed in the summary for the accompanying resolution. I: I citywidels=1223chord.doc. CITY OF TIGA►RD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: David Scot~,Building Official DATE: February 11, 1999 SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Community Housing Code At the January 19, 1999, worksession, the Council heard the report of the Community Housing Task Force and discussed the Task Force's recommendations. Several issues regarding program scope and implementation were discussed, including: • Should owner occupied units be included within the scope of the ordinance? o Should "Social Care Facilities" be included within the scope of the ordinance? • Is a pro-active program of inspections preferable to the recommended complaint and referral program? Members of the Task Force and other interested parties have been notified of these discussion items and invited to attend the meeting. Attached is the written testimony received to date. Members of the Task Force will be at the hearing to provide testimony on these issues. Attached is a program cost analysis which was performed for the Task Force when it was considering the issue of a pro-active vs. reactive program. This option addressed a proposal to inspect proactively only those buildings containing more than 5 units which are also 25 years or older and adding units to the list as they become 25 years old. Thereafter, units would be inspected only based upon a complaint or referral. This option spread the initial inspections over a five-year period. The analysis shows program costs for this option for the 2nd - 5th years are approximately double those recommended as a result of increased staff and materials costs. Thereafter program costs are the same as recommended. Inclusion of all rental property in a pro- active program would significantly increase program costs because two or three inspectors would be required, depending upon program details. Additionally, the Task Force report distributed for the 1/19 worksession contains detailed information regarding the Task Force's findings relating to the issues listed above. PROGRAM OPTION B Assumptions: • Reactive inspections • Inspect every unit in a building containing at least 5 units that is at least 25 years old. Reactive in these units thereafter. Inspect units as they become 25 years old. • Inspector can do 660 inspections/year • Spread initial inspections over 5 year period • Need 1.24 FTE first year (820 inspections) - use 1 FTE • Need 1.7 FTE next 4 years (1,125 inspections) - use 2 FTE • need .8 FTE next 17 years (530 inspections) - use 1 FTE Unit Costs: • 1 FTE Housing Inspector $50,000 O 1 Vehicle $18,000 • 1 Work-station set-up $4,000 • Forms, documents $2,500 • Other (gas, training, etc) $2,000 • Legal $9,000 Total Costs: • First year $85,500 • second year $145,000 • 3rd - 5th year $125,000 • next 17 years $63,500 Note: no inflation factor included i:\bldg\sucw\contmbous\misc\prgoptb.doc 4110 N.E. 122 nd. Suite 101 ¢ e Portland, Oregon 97230 ~eg®n Apartment` Association, .d nco (503)254-4723 Fax 254-4821 http;//www.orapt.org January 25, 1999 Mayor James Nicoll City Council of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Community Housing Program Honorable Mayor Nicoli and Council Members: I was an active participant in the process of drafting the proposal before you. Over a period of thirteen months we met and discussed the proposed solution to handle deteriorating housing stock in the City of Tigard. In our studies we discovered that the problem is exactly as stated. Deteriorating housing stock. Not deteriorating RENTAL housing stock, but all housing stock. We spent considerable time addressing the needs of the community to maintain the inventory of housing in all categories as well as the rights and responsibilities of property owners, both homeowners and rental owners. The group felt, and I strongly endorse, that deteriorating housing is just that. Who lives in thQ property should not change the City's reaction to the problem. If the property is being allowed to deteriorate to the point that it is creating a hazard for neighbors and for the community at large, we will now have a solution. There are many steps to the process proposed. Property owners will all have the right to cure any defect in their property and avoid penalties. This proposed ordinance is designed to provide positive input to owners in providing necessary maintenance to the property they own. The exempting of social care facilities was also studied at great length. Again, I and others on the committee, felt strongly that there needs to be an even playing field in the housing industry. If we begin to exempt one segment, where do we stop? The social care facilities argue that they are already heavily regulated beyond the level described in this proposal. I suggest that all facets of housing are strongly regulated already and that no one segment should be exempt solely on that basis. If they are already complying with more restrictive regulations, complying with this proposal should add no burden. They would already be in compliance. Serving Rental Owners Since 1927 u Mayor James Nicoll January 25, 1999 Page Two The idea of proactive enforcement of the housing code received a great deal of our attention. There was strong feeling regarding the rights of residents to receive the protection of the City. The consensus of the group was, however, that such protection should be triggered by the resident's (or someone else acting in their interest) request for assistance, not by what could easily appear to be strong-arm tactics of government. We carefully crafted this proposal to assist those in need to be able to easily access help. We gave great latitude to the City in the program to "discover" other items that may exist when inspecting at the request of either a tenant or someone on the tenant's behalf or simply any person reporting a suspected condition that might be dangerous. Many municipalities have passed proactive inspection programs thinking they will solve the problem. Rather than create a positive partnership for the improvement of their cities and neighborhoods they have fostered an attitude of us vs. them. Setting up a proactive, mandatory inspection program creates ill will between the parties and actually slows down compliance through anger and inaction. You only have to look to the City of Seattle to see how well received the proactive program was. The tenants and the landlords of the city united to sue the city for their mandatory tactics and attitudes. Allow the City of Tigard to attempt a positive solution. Pass the proposal as presented from the Community Housing Task Force and give it a chance to work. Many of us have already expressed the desire and the commitment to revisit the results in a year and evaluate the outcome of our hard work. Please afford us that opportunity. Thank you for the opportunity of being heard here tonight. Sharon Fleming-Barrett Legislative Consultant W V NG lyl tjNf)ERLYI ~ Thy pfogram sho and uld be eauit~able for all d residents ~f ~~g~'r property owners rovisions of the ordinance to ~ Specefiic p Id be 1,1 mited to those nrds of shoo in'mum stand provide i0f m safety, sanitation and habitab"Ity R ECOMME~IDA1°I OON NS Adopt the proposed ordinance creating property maintenance provisions for existing housing Adopt the proposed resolution stipulating program implementation policies RECOMMENUANTIONb de will be enforced and 9 The co when a inspections perform ed only when . complaint or referral is re allowed o Self-referral by inspectors is when obvious violations are observed mous • Anyone can complain - no aname complain ts allowed (complainants protected to extent allowed by law) IL L) uN6 FEE U VVI MEN Specific complaint and investigation procedures designed to allow property owners the opportunity to Comply outside of the "formal" enforcerY►e cuss to tenant ac process, while ensuring the program and timely program response as MUM. AT ON R'ECOMMENU Staff program with one inspector and required resources Establish "relocation plan" with the County and other agencies • Appropriate $10,000 for an emergency fund to provide for temporary housing and/or immediate repairs in emergency situations R ECOMMam ENDA T 1 (0 N z"5" *Support all program costs from the general fund (approximately "70K) • Apply any penalties collected from the Civil Infractions'process to the general fund Implement program 5/3/99 Mau IL mill code m~,m d~ dcAl ~ N►atn~~~a'~C~ Will provide IOT'men► „Cede lOn 140t ISSUES TAgyCFORCE ACCEPT ENDATI~N " RECOMM NsPolloomR - occ'upIED EXEM PTA ~CIAL CARE lul-TIES •EXEM PRoACTppOGPvkM OCCU --.MOM f intent O\N GS of the g and d because of bllgh Include , effects hould be ttlate the s ~ t®m g cede on ne d®ned, the progra hborh r aban . g ®~ne etertoratl®n alsc mea `Sance d led can and a nu r occup vacant a le-fa~l~ 0 C~wne lings are rental sing inlmurn re duel es to a e~,a'n ~ r the de app1i t rnee$ c an ovine It : If a co dl®rd rnus a then aye ® ~~u y d the fan terror issue. d also h hide e~ et sbou fling an ire standards ~h~ on the d duu elleng s s ~h'ch eccupte tandard e issues , et these standards can bay le I~v~ng w to can to one dwellings nhab~tah occupied ers oner ° an expo d oth se chaldren . cond1tions dlass FSOCIAL CAE Au"" I L I T I E II mum R Defined generally as group living facilities Most of these facilities are regulated bandy exist:ng state and federal licensir~g funding programs Social Care Facility stakeholders opposed to inclusion in program Jul I cA~~ F A SO commends r~ ,,"cie o'V askFoCce s Pan6es ~ ~ccup 0 t,~stit~ationa code exem'Pted .iGensin9 in bfilding that 0 Cede indicates S~~,ilF,090sed when talke Pddressed reCedencboth vutes and rules aY items are cede Samoa -won P'CIL11"'IES S()CIAL cARt: and the scope of this original charge of • Institutional uses anbey e type of ordinance uirements far the Task Force to ev e~s'dent ai uses the maintenance of rest Of for Ti%.Ifard to include at types ~ It is equitable idential uses v~~thin th other eX sting res ardless of ordinance, re 9 regulatory mechanisms CIS-ITS S CIA will not conflict with -Tigard ordinance , therejore, inclusion quirements of different licensing re additior+allayer laer does not addrather a complimetary y regulation, but be an ImPoltant Local responsiven ~~e ..all regulation 0 on er~t of the for a quick, non.. comp roviding . licensed jacivifiales, nCesOlut1On of'ssues confrontat' WON low., U-j Nm Urs, Y RO ~ ~ tb and • • to is tp rn~tiga in r®grarn lpr the us►ng, p , . s are s g°a° ►st ►n b® ®nd►t►°n • ® spun Ms that eX _ tandard ° si~►tar prpb1e ere subs revert not sa~e~ r°pert 1es wb nc , s goal Is to ~ 0 are np those tier, Cpu • rppert°as Whr°h g at p . • ®us • ~ urt rr►n pns rom °°Cu °bv° • 1°n~ JPle , nS ~Gt j °p_ andard a► p r►se 1 sub st and pro bte~s Current ~ °nd1°ate ben pr® ,~ed ~ s ,al does not be perkpr but that ►nsp invasive b nti~ied e°essar ~ Of are ►de s are unn pbleMs • inspe°t1Qn not have PT e future rpaGt►va ,vb;cb d° ; program ar reseed pse pr°p the , it tb see tb eXpand t►ins pan be add the need to '►ve ►nspe° ® ssue p rp..apt ilow the PROGRAM OPTION B Assumptions: • Reactive inspections • Inspect every unit in a building containing at least 5 units that is at least 25 years old. Reactive in these units thereafter. Inspect units as they become 25 years old. • Inspector can do 660 inspections/year • Spread initial inspections over 5 year period • Need 1.24 FTE first year (820 inspections) - use 1 FTE • Need 1.7 FTE next 4 years (1,125 inspections) - use 2 FTE • need .8. FTE next 17 years (530 inspections) - use 1 FTE Unit Costs: • 1 FTE Housing Inspector $50,000 • 1 Vehicle $18,000 • 1Work-station set-up $4,000 • Forms, documents $2,500 • Other (gas, training, etc) $2,000 • Legal $9,000 Total Costs: • Firs: year $85,500 • second year $145,000 • 3rd - 5th year $125,000 • next 17 years $63,500 Note: no inflation factor included is \bldg\sucw\conunlwus\misc\prgoplb.doc DANGEROUS AINND UEKELICT B IJiLDIIVG Not part of Task Force work Proposed ordinance locates all provisions regarding existing buildings in one chapter *Dangerous buildings provisions unchanged • New class of buildings - "Derelict" buildings CIT'E' OF TIGARD, OREGON AffWAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and s Ty: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous laces, a copy of Ordinance , q -1 -0s Iq )4 Number (s) - z a " p which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated' lt." 23. f q9' copy(s) of said grdinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ r day of mtl , 19 CO 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Q~ !z q""~ ) I I FW W Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of OFFICIAL SEAL t~ CONNIE MARTIN NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 055532 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 07, 2000 My Commission Expires: O ZaO-0 is\adm%jokWpwt.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99-02- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS STIPULATING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HOUSING, AMENDING THE DANGEROUS BUILDING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR DERELICT STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, in July 1997, the Tigard City Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to.address growing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and the desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community; and WHEREAS, the Task Force was comprised of individuals representing the various stakeholders involved in this issue; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has reached consensus that a property maintenance (housing) code should be adopted in Tigard to establish minimum standards for safety, health, sanitation and habitability in Tigard residences and that the code shown in Exhibit "A" provides reasonable standards; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has reached consensus that, in the interest of equity, the property maintenance code shall apply to all residences in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council reviewed the report of the Task Force on January 19, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Task Force regarding the adoption of a property maintenance code which applies to all residences in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council believes that the Property Maintenance Code shown in Exhibit "A" will provide reasonable standards toward mitigating the deterioration of housing in Tigard; and WHEREAS, Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code contains provision for dangerous buildings; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to maintain provisions for dangerous buildings by incorporating them into the Property Maintenance Code; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council wishes to mitigate and abate the negative community effects of derelict structures; and WHEREAS, the Property Maintenance Code shown in Exhibit "A' contains provisions which will allow the City to mitigate and abate the negative community effects of derelict structures; ORDINANCE No. 99- 02 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 16 of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended by replacing it in its entirety with the Chapter 16 as shown in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The ordinance shall be effective on May 3, 1998. PASSED: By n22~otl Ny vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this a Brd day of '1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde r~ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 99 s Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: Ci A orney 2 Date iAcigTAW rdinanc.dot I II I ORDINANCE No. 99-ja2- Page 2 Wall MINE III! EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 99- Chapter 14.16 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS Sections: PART 1 - GENERAL 14.16.010 Chapter Title. 14.16.020 Purpose. 14.16.030 Scope. 14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18. 14.16.050 Use of Summary Headings. 14.16.060 Definitions, Generally. 14.16.070 Definitions. ' PART2-STANDARDS 14.16.080 Housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally. 14.16.090 Display of Address Number. 14.16.100 Accessory Structures. 14.16.110 Roofs. 14.16.120 Chimneys. 14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members. 14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces. 14.16.150 Stairs and Porches. 14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails. 14.16.170 Windows. 14.16.180 Doors. 14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings. 14.16.200 Interior Dampness. 14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage. 14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation. 14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities. 14.16.240 Kitchen Facilities. 14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities. 14.16.260 Heating Equipment and Facilities. 14.16.270 Electric System, Outlets, and Lighting. 14.16.280 Sleeping Room Requirements. 14.16.290 Overcrowding. 14.16.300 Emergency Exits. 14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors. 14.16.320 Hazardous Materials. 14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment. 14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures. 14.16.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Housing Units. PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES 14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally. 14.16.370 Derelict Structures. 14.16.350 Dangerous Structures. PART 4 - ENFORCEli4ENT 14.16.355 Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure. 14.16.390 Statement of Actions Required. 14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy. 14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures. 14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry. 14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures. 14.16.440 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation. 14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy. 14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited. 14.16.470 Violations. PART 1- GENERAL 14.16.010 Chapter Title. This Chapter shall be known as "Property Maintenance Regulations," and is referred to herein as "this Chapter." 14.16.020 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of Tigard citizens, to prevent deterioration of existing housing, and to contribute to vital neighborhoods by: 1. Establishing and enforcing minimum standards for residential structures regarding basic equipment, facilities, sanitation, fire safety, and maintenance. 2. Regulating and abating dangerous and derelict buildings. 14.16.030 Scope, Conflict with State Law. This provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all property in the City except as otherwise excluded by law; however, the provisions of this Chapter do not apply to Group "I" occupancies as classified by the 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. In the event that a provision of this Chapter conflicts with a licensing requirement of the Oregon State Department of Human Resources, the state licensing requirements shall be followed. In areas where the Oregon State Department of Human Resources does not regulate through its licensing process, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18. Any alterations to buildings, or changes of their use, which may be a result of the enforcement of this Chapter shall be done in accordance with applicable Sections of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Tigard. 14.16.050 Use of Summary Headings. This Chapter makes use of summary headings (in bold face type) on chapters, sections, and subsections to assist the reader in navigating the document. In the event of a conflict in meaning between the bold heading and the following plain text, the meaning of the plain text shall apply. 14.16.060 Definitions, Generally. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this Chapter. Words used in the singular include the plural and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the masculine. "And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply. "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply singly or in combination. Terms, words, phrases and their derivatives used, but not specifically defined in this Chapter, either shall have the meanings defined in Titles 14 or 18, or if not defined, shall have their commonly accepted meanings. If a conflict exists between a definition in Title 14 and 18, the definitions in this Chapter shall apply to actions taken pursuant to this Chapter. 14.16.070 Definitions. The definition of words with specific meaning in this Chapter are as follows: 1. Abatement of a nuisance. The act of removing, repairing, or taking other steps as may be necessary in order to remove a nuisance. 2. Accessory Structure. Any. structure not intended for human occupancy which is located on residential property. Accessory structures may be attached to or detached from the residential structure. Examples of accessory structures include: garages, carports, sheds, and other non-dwelling buildings; decks, awnings, heat pumps, fences, trellises, flag poles, tanks, towers, exterior stairs and walkways, and other exterior structures on the property. 3. Apartment House. See Dwelling Classifications. 4. Approved. Meets the standards set forth by applicable provisions of the Tigard City Code including any applicable regulations for electric, plumbing, building, or other sets of standards included by reference in this Chapter. 5. Basement. The usable portion of a building which is below the main entrance story and is partly or completely below grade. 6. Boarded. Secured against entry by apparatus which is visible off the premises and is not both lawful and customary to install on occupied structures. 7. Building. Any structure used or intended to be used for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. 8. Building, Existing. A building constructed and legally occupied prior to the adoption of this Chapter, and one for which a building permit has been lawfully issued and has not been revoked or lapsed due to inactivity. 9. Building Official. The Building Official, or authorized representative, charged with the enforcement and administration of this Chapter. 10. Ceiling Height. The clear distance between the floor and the ceiling directly above it. 11. Court. A space, open and unobstructed to the sky, located at or above grade level on a lot and bounded on three or more sides by walls of a building. 12. Dangerous Building. See Dangerous Structure. 13. Dangerous Structure. Any structure which has any of the conditions or defects described in Section 14.16.380. 14. Derelict Building. Any structure which has any of the conditions or defects described in Section 14.16.370(A) 15. Duplex. See Dwelling Classifications, "Two-Family Dwelling. " 16. Dwelling. Any structure containing dwelling units, including all dwelling classifications covered by this Chapter. 17. Dwelling Classifications. Types of dwellings covered by this Chapter include: a. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An additional dwelling unit within a detached single- family dwelling, subject to the provisions of Title 18. b. Single-Family Dwelling. A structure containing one dwelling unit, including adult foster care homes. c. Two-Family Dwelling. A structure containing two dwelling units, also known as a "duplex. " d. Apartment House. Any building or portion of a building containing three or more dwelling units, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let, or hired out to be occupied for residential laving purposes. e. Hotel. Any structure containing dwelling units that are intended, designed, or used for renting or hiring out for sleeping purposes by residents on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. f. Motel. For purposes of this Chapter, a motel shall be defined the same as a hotel. g. Single-Room Occupancy Housing Unit. A one-room dwelling unit in a hotel providing sleeping, cooking, and living facilities for one or two persons in which some or all sanitary or cooking facilities (toilet, lavatory, bathtub or shower, kitchen sink, or cooking equipment) may be shared with other dwelling units. h. Social Care Facilities. Any building or portion of a building , which is designed, built, rented, leased, let, hared out or otherwise occupied for group residential living purposes, which is not an apartment house, single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling. Such facilities include but are not limited to, retirement facilities, assisted living facilities, residential care facilities, half-way houses, youth shelters, homeless shelters and other group living residential facilities. L Manufactured Dwelling. The term "manufactured dwelling" includes the following types of single-family dwellings: (1) Residential Trailer. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed before January 1, 1962. (2) Mobile Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed between January 1, 1962, and June 15, 1976, and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction. (3) Manufactured Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public . highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards and regulations. Manufactured Dwelling does not include any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. 18. Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms that are occupied by, or in the case of an unoccupied structure or portion of a structure, are designed or intended to be occupied by, one person or by a family or group living together as a single housekeeping unit that includes facilities for living and sleeping and, unless exempted by this Chapter in Sections 14.16.230 and 14.16.240, also includes facilities for cooking, eating, and sanitation. 19. Exit. (Means of Egress.) A continuous, unobstructed means of escape to a public way, as defined in the building code in effect in the City. 20. Exterior Property Area. The sections of residential property which are outside the exterior walls and roof of the dwelling. 21. Extermination. The elimination of insects, rodents, vermin or other pests at or about the affected building. 22. Floor Area. The area of clear floor space in a room exclusive of fixed or built-in cabinets or appliances. 23. Habitable Room (Space). Habitable room or space is a structure for living, sleeping, s. eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas are not considered habitable space. 24. Hazardous Materials. Materials defined by the current fire code adopted by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District as hazardous. 25. Hotel. See Dwelling Classifications. 26. Human Habitation. The use of any residential structure or portion of the structure in which any person remains for continuous periods of two hours or more or for periods which will amount to four or more hours out of 24 hours in one day. 27. Immediate Danger. Any condition posing a direct immediate threat to human life, health, or safety. 28. Infestation. The presence within or around a dwelling of insects, rodents, vermin or other pests to a degree that is harmful to the dwelling or its occupants. 29. Inspection. The examination of a property by a person authorized by law for the purpose of evaluating its condition as provided by this Chapter. 30. Inspector. An authorized representative of the Building Official whose primary function is the inspection of properties and the enforcement of this Chapter. 31. Interested Party. Any person or entity that possesses any legal or equitable interest of record in a property including but not limited to the holder of any lien or encumbrance of record on the property. 32. Kitchen. A room used or designed to be used for the preparation of food. 33. Lavatory. A fixed wash basin connected to hot and cold running water and the building drain and used primarily for personal hygiene. 34. Maintenance. The work of keeping property in proper condition to perpetuate its use. 35. Manufactured Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 36. Motel. See Dwelling Classifications. 37. Occupancy. The lawful purpose for which a building or part of a building is used or intended to be used. 38. Occupant. Any person (including an owner or operator) using a building, or any part of a building, for its lawful, intended use. 39. Occupied. Used for an occupancy. 40. Operator. Any person who has charge, care or control of a building or part of a building in which dwelling units are let or offered for occupancy. 41. Outdoor area. All parts of property that are exposed to the weather including the exterior of structures built for human occupancy. This includes, but is not limited to; open and accessible porches, carports, garages, and decks; accessory structures, and any outdoor storage structure. 42. Owner. The person whose name and address is listed as the owner of the property by the County Tax Assessor in the County Assessment and Taxation records. 43. Plumbing or Plumbing Fixtures. Plumbing or plumbing fixtures mean any water heating facilities, water pipes, vent pipes, garbage or disposal units, waste lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes-washing machines 'or other similar equipment, catch basins, drains, vents, or other similarly supplied fixtures, together with all connection to water, gas, sewer, or vent lines. 44. Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property, from property line to property line. 45. Public right of way. Any sidewalk, planting strip, alley, street, or pathway, improved or unimproved, that is dedicated to public use. 46. Repair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing structure for the purpose of its maintenance. 47. Resident. Any person (including owner or operator) hiring or occupying a room or dwelling unit for living or sleeping purposes. 48. Residential Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property used or in the case of unoccupied property intended to be used for residential purposes including any residential structure, dwelling, or dwelling unit as defined in this chapter and any mixed-use structures which have one or more dwelling units. Hotels that are used exclusively for transient occupancy, as defined in this Chapter, are excluded from this definition of residential property. 49. Residential Rental Property. Any property within the City on which exist one or more dwelling units which are not occupied as the principal residence of the owner. 50. Residential Structure. Any building or other improvement or structure containing one or more dwelling units as well as any accessory structure. This includes any dwelling as defined in this Chapter. 51. Shall. As used in this Chapter, is mandatory. r. 52. Single-Family Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 53. Single-Room Occupancy Housing Unit. See Dwelling Classifications. 54. Sink. A fixed basin connected to hot and cold running water and a drainage system and primarily used for the preparation of food and the washing of cooking and eating utensils. 55. Sleeping Room. Any room designed, built, or intended to be used as a 1? ~droom as well as any other room used for sleeping purposes. 56. Smoke Alarm or Detector. An approved detection device for products of combustion other than heat that is either a single station device or intended for use in conjunction with a central control panel and which plainly identifies the testing agency that inspected or approved the device. 57. Structure. That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece or work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, including but not limited to buildings. 58.. Substandard. In violation of any of the minimum requirements as set out in this Chapter. 59. Supplied. Installed, furnished or provided by the owner or operator. 60. Swimming Pool. An artificial basin, chamber, or tank constructed of impervious material, having a depth of 18 inches or more, and used or intended to be used for swimming, diving, or recreational bathing. 61. Toilet. A flushable plumbing fixture connected to running water and a drainage system and used for the disposal of human waste. 62. Toilet Compartment. A room containing only a toilet or only a toilet and lavatory. 63. Transient Occupancy. Occupancy of a dwelling unit in a hotel where the following conditions are met: a. Occupancy is charged on a daily basis and is not collected more than.six days in advance; b. The lodging operator provides maid and linen ser-lice daily or every two days as part of the regularly charged cost of occupancy; c. The period of occupancy does not exceed 30 days; and d. If the occupancy exceeds five days, the resident has a business address or a residence other than at the hotel. 64. Two-Family Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 65. Unoccupied. Not used for occupancy. 66. Unsecured. Any structure in which doors, windows, or apertures are open or broken so as to allow access by unauthorized persons. 67. Ward. An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, and located between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is situated. PART 2 - STANDARDS 14.16.080 housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally. No owner shall maintain or permit to be maintained any residential property which does not comply with the requirements of this Chapter. All residential property shall be maintained to the building code requirements in effect at the time of construction, alteration, or repair and shall meet the minimum requirements described in this chapter. 14.16.090 Display of Address Number. Address numbers posted shall be the same as the number listed on the County Assessment and Taxation Records for the property. All dwellings shall have address numbers posted in a conspicuous place so they may be read from the listed street or public way. Units within apartment houses shall be clearly numbered or lettered. 14.16.100 Accessory Structures. All accessory structures on residential property shall be maintained structurally safe and sound and in good repair. Exterior steps and walkways shall be maintained free of unsafe obstructions or hazardous conditions. 14.16.110 Roofs. The roof shall be structurally sound, tight, and have no defects which might admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rainwater from causing dampness in the walls or interior portion of the building and shall channel rainwater into approved receivers. 14.16.120 Chimneys. Every masonry, metal, or other chimney shall remain adequately supported and free from III! PIPPIN 11, obstructions and shall be maintained in a condition which ensures there will be no leakage or back- up of noxious gases. Every chimney shall be reasonably plumb. Loose bricks or blocks shall be rebonded. Loose or missing mortar shall be replaced. Unused openings into the interior of the structure must be permanently sealed using approved materials. 14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members. A. Foundation elements shall adequately support the building and shall be free of rot, crumbling elements, or similar deterioration. B. The supporting structural members in every dwelling shall be maintained structurally sound, showing no evidence of deterioration or decay which would substantially impair their ability to carry imposed loads. 14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces. A. Every exterior wall and weather-exposed exterior surface or attachment shall be free of holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers and any other conditions which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portions of the walls or the occupied spaces of the building. B. All exterior wood surfaces shall be made substantially impervious to the adverse effects of weather by periodic application of an approved protective coating of weather-resistant preservative, and be maintained in good condition. Wood used in construction of permanent structures and located nearer than six inches to earth shall be treated wood or wood having a natural resistance to decay. C. Exterior metal surfaces shall be protected from rust and corrosion. D. Every section of exterior brick, stone, masonry, or other veneer shall be maintained structurally sound and be adequately supported and tied back to its supporting structure. 14.16.150 Stairs and Porches. Every stair, porch, and attachment to stairs or porches shall be so constructed as to be safe to use and capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair, including replacement as necessary of flooring, treads, risers, and stringers that evidence excessive wear and are broken, warped, or loose. 14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails. Every handrail and guardrail shall be firmly fastened, and shall be maintained in good condition, capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected, and meet the following requirements: 1. Handrails and guardrails required by building codes at the time of construction shall be maintained or, if removed, shall be replaced. 2. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, exterior stairs of more than three risers which are designed and intended to be used as part of the regular access to the dwelling unit shall have handrails. Interior stairs of more than three risers that connect between floors with habitable rooms shall have handrails. When required handrails are installed they shall have a minimum height of 30 inches and maximum height of 38 inches, measured vertically from the nosing of the treads. They shall be continuous the full length of the stairs and shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. 3. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, porches, balconies or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall have guardrails at least 36 inches high. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall have guardrails no less than 34 inches in height measured vertically from the nosing of the tread. When required guardrails are installed, they shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which will not allow passage of an object 4 inches or more in diameter. 14.16.170 Windows. A. Every habitable room shall have at least one window facing directly to an exterior yard or court or shall be provided with approved artificial light. Except where approved artificial light is provided, the minimum total glass area for each habitable room shall be 6.8 percent of the room's floor area, except for basement rooms where the minimum shall be 5 percent. These exceptions to the current code shall not apply where any occupancy has been changed or increased contrary to the provisions of this Chapter. B. Every habitable room shall have at least one window that.can be easily opened or another approved device to adequately ventilate the room. Except where another approved ventilation device is provided, the total openable window area in every habitable room shall be equal to at least one-fortieth of the area of the room. Windows required for secondary escape purposes in sleeping rooms must also meet the requirements outlined in Subsection 14.16.170(D). C. Every bathroom and toilet compartment shall comply with the light, and ventilation requirements for habitable rooms as required by Subsections 14.16.170(A) and (B), except that no window shall be required in bathrooms or toilet compartments equipped with an approved ventilation system. D. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a sill height of no more than 44 inches above the floor or above an approved, permanently installed step. The step must not exceed 12 inches in height and must extend the full width of the window. The top surface of the step must be a minimum of six feet from the ceiling above the step. E. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a minimum net clear opening at least 20 inches wide, at least 22 inches high, and, if constructed after July 1, 1974, at least five square feet in area. F. Every window required for ventilation or emergency escape shall be capable of being easily opened and held open by window hardware. Any installed storm windows on windows required for emergency escape must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. G. All windows within 10 feet of the exterior grade that open must be able to be securely latched from the inside as well as be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. This same requirement shall apply to all openable windows that face other locations that are easily accessible from the outside, such as balconies or fire escapes, regardless of height from the exterior grade. H. Every window shall be substantially weather-tight, shall be kept in sound condition and repair for its intended use, and shall comply with the following: 1. Every window sash shall be fully supplied with glass window panes or an approved substitute without open cracks and holes. 2. Every window sash shall be in good condition and fit weather-tight within its frames. 3. Every window frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible and to substantially exclude wind from entering the dwelling. 14.16.180 Doors. A. Every dwelling or dwelling unit shall have at least one door leading to an exterior yard or court, or in the case of a two-family dwelling or apartment, to an exterior yard or court or to an approved exit. All such doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. All screen doors and storm doors must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. B. In hotels and apartment houses, exit doors in common corridors or other common passageways shall be openable from the inside with one hand in a single motion, such as pressing a bar or turning a knob, without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. C. Every door to the exterior of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with a lock designed to discourage unwanted entry and to permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. D. Every exterior door shall comply with the following: 1. Every exterior door, door hinge, door lock, and strike plate shall be maintained in good condition. 2. Every exterior door when closed, shall fit reasonably well within its frame and be weather-tight. 3. Every door frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible, and to substantially exclude wind from entering the dwelling. E. Every interior door and door frame shall be maintained in a sound condition for its intended purpose with the door fitting within the door frame. 14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings. A. Every interior wall, floor, ceiling, and cabinet shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and structurally sound condition, free of large holes and serious cracks, loose plaster or wallpaper, flaking or scaling paint, to permit the interior wall, floor, ceiling and cabinet to be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Every toilet compartment, bathroom, and kitchen floor surface shall be constructed and maintained to be substantially impervious to water and to permit the floor to be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 14.16.200 Interior Dampness. Every dwelling, including basements, and crawl spaces shall be maintained reasonably free from dampness to prevent conditions conducive to decay, mold growth, or deterioration of the structure. 14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage. Every dwelling shall be kept free from insect and rodent infestation, and where insects and rodents are found, they shall be promptly exterminated. After extermination, proper precautions shall be taken to prevent reinfestation. 14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation. { The interior of every dwelling shall be constructed in a safe and structurally sound condition to permit the interior to be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. The interior of every dwelling shall be free from accumulation of rubbish or garbage which is affording a breeding ground for insects and rodents, producing dangerous or offensive gases, odors and bacteria, or other unsanitary conditions, or a fire hazard. 14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities. A. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, every dwelling unit shall contain within its walls in safe and sanitary working condition: 1. A toilet located in a room that is separate from the habitable rooms and that allows privacy; 2. A lavatory basin; and 3. A bathtub or shower located in a room that allows privacy. B. In hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories, or baths are not provided, there shall be on each floor at least one toilet, one lavatory, and one bathtub or shower each provided at the rate of one for every twelve residents or fraction of twelve residents. Required toilets, bathtubs, and showers shall be in a room, or rooms, that allow privacy. C. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this section for hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories or baths are not provided, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special and individual reason makes the requirements of this section impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent of this section and that such modification does not result in the provision of inadequate bathroom facilities in the dwelling. 14.16.740 'Kitchen Facilities. A. Every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen sink apart from the lavatory basin required under Section 14.16.230, with the exception of single-room occupancy housing units which shall comply with Subsection 14.16.350(B) and social care facilities complying with Subsection 14.16.240(C). B. Except as otherwise provided for in Subsections 14.16.240(C) and 14.16.350(B) and (C), every dwelling.unit shall have approved service connections for refrigeration and cooking appliances. C. Social care facilities may be provided with a community kitchen with facilities for cooking, { refrigeration, and washing utensils. t a 14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities. A. Every plumbing fixture or device shall be properly connected to a pdolic or an approved private water system and to a public or an approved private sewer system. B. All required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and showers shall be supplied with both hot and cold running water. Every dwelling shall be supplied with water heating facilities adequate for each dwelling unit which are installed in an approved mariner, properly maintained, and properly connected with hot water lines to all required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and showers. Water heating facilities shall be capable of heating water enough to permit an adequate amount of water to be drawn at every required facility at a temperature of at least 120 degrees at any time needed. C. In every dwelling all plumbing or plumbing fixtures shall be: 1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in good working order; 2. Kept free from obstructions, leaks, and defects; 3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed; and 4. Installed and maintained so-as to prevent structural deterioration or health hazards. D. All plumbing repairs and installations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Plumbing Code adopted by the City. 14.16.260 Beating Equipment and ]Facilities. A. All heating equipment, including that used for cooking, water heating, dwelling heat, and clothes drying shall be: 1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in safe condition and good working order, 2. Free from leaks and obstructions and kept functioning properly so as to be free from fire, health, and accident hazards; and 3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed. B. Every dwelling shall have a heating facility capable of maintaining a room temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a point 3 feet from the floor in all habitable rooms. 1. Portable heating devices may not be used to meet the dwelling heat requirements of this Chapter. + 2. No inverted or open flame fuel burning heater shall be permitted. All heating devices or + appliances shall be of an approved type. + + 1 14.16.270 Electrical System, Outlets, and Lighting. A. Every dwelling shall be connected to an approved source of electric power. Every electric outlet and fixture shall be maintained and safely connected to an approved electrical system. The electrical system shall not constitute a hazard to the occupants of the building by reason of inadequate service, improper fusing, improper wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or similar reasons. E. In addition to other electrical system components that may be used to meet cooking, refrigeration, and heating requirements listed elsewhere in this Chapter, the following outlets and lighting fixtures are required: 1. Every habitable room shall contain at least two operable electric outlets or one outlet and one operable electric light fixture. 2. Every toilet compartment or bathroom shall contain at least one supplied and operable electric light fixture and one outlet. Every laundry, furnace room, and all similar non- habitable spaces located in a dwelling shall have one supplied electric light fixture available at all times. 3. Every public hallway, corridor, and stairway in apartment houses, hotels and social care facilities shall be adequately lighted at all times with an average intensity of illumination of at least one foot candle at principal points such as angles and intersections of corridors and passageways, stairways, landings of stairways, landings of stairs and exit doorways, and at least 1/2-foot candle at other points. Measurement of illumination shall be taken at points not more than 4 feet above the floor. 14.16.280 Sleeping Room Requirements. Every room used for sleeping purposes: 1. Shall be a habitable room as defined in this Chapter; and 2. Shall have natural or approved artificial light, ventilation, and windows or other means for escape purposes as required by this Chapter. 14.16.290 Overcrowding. No dwelling unit shall be permitted to be overcrowded. A dwelling unit shall be considered overcrowded if there are more residents than one plus one additional resident for every 150 square feet of floor area of the habitable rooms in the dwelling unit. 14.16.300 Emergency Exits. A. Every sleeping room shall have at least one operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue that is openable from the inside to a full clear opening without the use of special knowledge, effort, or separate tools. Windows used to meet this requirement shall meet the size and sill height requirements described in 14.16.170(D). All below grade windows used to meet this requirement shall have a window well the full width of the window, constructed of permanent materials with a 3 foot clearance measured perpendicular to the outside wall. The bottom of the well may not be more than 44 inches below grade. B. Required exit doors and other exits shall be free of encumbrances or obstructions that block access to the exit. C. All doorways, windows and any device used in connection with the means of escape shall be maintained in good working order and repair. D. In addition to other exit requirements, in hotels and apartment houses: 1. All fire escapes shall be kept in good order and repair- 2. Every fire escape or stairway, stair platform, corridor or passageway which may be one of the regular means of emergency exit from the building shall be kept free of encumbrances or obstructions of any kind. 3. Where doors to stair enclosures are required by City code to be self-closing, the self closing device shall be maintained in good working order and it shall be unlawful to wedge or prop the doors open. 4. Windows leading to fire escapes shall be secured against unwanted entry with approved devices which permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge, effort or tool. 5. Where necessary to indicate the direction of egress, every apartment house and hotel shall have directional signs in place, visible throughout common passageways, that indicate the way to exit doors and fire escapes. Emergency exit doors and windows shall be clearly labeled for their intended use. 14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors. Smoke alarms and detectors shall be required to be maintained as was required at the time of construction of the dwelling. Notwithstanding the provisions of the requirement at the time of construction, a single station smoke alarm or detector shall be located in all buildings where a room or area therein is designated for sleeping purposes either as a primary use or use on a casual basis. A single station smoke alarm or detector shall be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms and on each additional story of the dwelling, including basements and attics with habitable space. All alarms and detectors shall be approved, shall comply with all applicable laws, shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and shall be operable. 14.16.320 Hazardous Materials. A. When paint is applied to any surface of a residential structure, it shall be lead-free. B. Residential property shall be free of dangerous levels of hazardous materials, contamination by toxic chemicals, or other circumstances that would render the property unsafe. C. No residential property shall be used as a place for the storage and handling of highly combustible or explosive materials or any articles which may be dangerous or detrimental to life or health. No residential property shall be used for the storage or sale of paints, varnishes or oils used in the making of paints and varnishes, except as needed to maintain the dwelling. D. Residential property shall be kept free of friable asbestos. 14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment. In addition to other requirements for the maintenance of facilities and equipment described in this Chapter: 1. All required facilities in every dwelling shall be constructed and maintained to properly and safely perform their intended function. 2. All non-required facilities or equipment present in a dwelling shall be maintained to prevent structural damage to the building or hazards of health, sanitation, or fire. 14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures. Each swimming pool not totally enclosed by a structure shall be enclosed by a substantial fence at least 4 feet in height and equipped with a self-closing and latching gate except where bordered by a wall of an adjacent structure at least 4 feet in height. No swimming pool shall be nearer than 3 feet from any lot line, and no enclosing fence or wall shall be constructed nearer than 3 feet to the outer walls of the swimming pool, but in no case shall the distance between the pool and the lot line or wall be closer than allowed by Title 18. The lot line shall be as defined in Title 18 of City code. 14.16.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Housing Units. In addition to meeting requirements for residential structures defined elsewhere in this Chapter, hotels containing single-room occupancy housing units shall comply with the following: 1. Either a community kitchen with facilities for cooking, refrigeration, and washing utensils i shall be provided on each floor, or each individual single-room occupancy housing unit shall have facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils. In addition, facilities for community garbage storage or disposal shall be provided on each floor. 2. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this sub- section where each individual single-room occupancy housing unit is not provided with facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special and individual reason makes the requirements of this section impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent of this section and that such modification does not result in the provision of inadequate cooking, refrigeration and utensil washing facilities for the single-room occupancy housing units. 3. Where cooking units are provided in individual single-room occupancy housing units, they shall conform to the requirements set forth below. a. All appliances shall be hard-wired and on separate circuits or have single dedicated connections; b. All cooking appliances shall be fixed and permanent, except microwave ovens; c. The Mechanical Specialty Code, as adopted by Chapter 14.04 shall be used for setting standards for cooking appliances. Cabinets over cooking surfaces shall be 30 inches above the cooking surface, except that this distance may be reduced to 24 inches when a heat shield with 1 inch airspace and extending at least 6 inches horizontally on either side of the cooking appliance is provided. Cooking appliances shall be located with at least a 6-inch clear space in all directions from the perimeter of the cooking element or burner; d. All cooking appliances shall be installed so as to provide a minimum clear work space in front of the appliance of 24 inches. PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES 14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally. No property shall contain any dangerous or derelict structure as described in this chapter. All such buildings or structures shall be repaired or demolished. 14.16.370 Derelict Structures. A. A derelict structure is any unoccupied non-residential building, structure, or portion thereof that meets any of the following criteria or any residential building which is at least 50% unoccupied and meets any of the following criteria: 1. Has been ordered vacated by the Building Official pursuant to Chapter 1.16 and Section 14.16.385, 14.16.390 and 14.16.400; or, 2. Has been issued a notice of infraction by the Code Enforcement Officer pursuant to Section 1.16.120; or, 3. Is unsecured; or, 4. Is boarded unless the boarding is required by the Building Official; or, mmoi 5. Has, while vacant, had a nuisance declared by the City on the property upon which it is located. B. Any property which has been declared by.the Building Official to include a derelict structure shall be considered in violation of this Chapter until: 1. The structure has been lawfully occupied; or, 2. The structure has been demolished and the lot cleared and graded after approval is issued by the City, with final inspection and approval by the Building Official, or, 3. The owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that the property is free of all conditions causing its status as a derelict structure. 14.16.380 Dangerous Structures. A. Any structure which has any or all of the following conditions or defects to the extent that life, health, property, or safety of the public or the structure's occupants are endangered, shall be deemed to be a dangerous structure, declared a nuisance, and such condition or defects shall be abated pursuant to Section 14.16.410 and Chapter 1.16 of the City Code. B. High loads. Whenever the stress in any materials, member, or portion of a structure, due to all dead and live loads, is more than 1-1/2 times the working stress or stresses allowed in Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location. C. Weakened or unstable structural members or appendages. 1. Whenever any portion of a structure has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood, or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location; or 2. Whenever appendages including parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuaries, or other appendages or structural members which are supported by, attached to, or part of a building, and which are in a deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain the design loads which are specified in Chapter 14.04. D. Buckled or leaning walls, structural members. Whenever the exterior walls or other vertical structural members list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third of the base. E. Vulnerability to earthquakes, high winds. 1. Whenever any portion of a structure is wrecked, warped, buckled, or has settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction; or 2. Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance, or ornamentation of the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one half of that specified in Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location without exceeding the working stresses permitted in Chapter 14.04 for such buildings. F. Insufficient strength or fire resistance. Whenever any structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances: 1. Has in any non-supporting part, member, or portion, less than 50 percent of the strength or the fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law for a newly constructed building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location; or 2. Has in any supporting part, member, or portion less than 66 percent of the strength or the fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location. G. Risk of failure or collapse. I . Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become disabled or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property; or 2. Whenever the structure, or any portion thereof, is likely to partially or completely collapse as a result of any cause, including but not limited to: a. Dilapidation, deterioration, or decay; b. Faulty construction; C. The removal, movement, or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such structure; or d. The deterioration, decay, or inadequacy of its foundation. i H. Excessive damage or deterioration. Whenever the structure exclusive of the foundation: i 1. Shows 33 percent or more damage or deterioration of its supporting member or members; 2. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its non-supporting members; or 3. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its enclosing or outside wall coverings. I. Demolition remnants on site. Whenever any portion of a structure, including unfilled excavations, remains on a site for more than 30 days after the demolition or destruction of the structure; J. Fire hazard. Whenever any structure is a fire hazard as a result of any cause, including but not limited to: Dilapidated condition, deterioration, or damage; inadequate exits; lack of sufficient fire-resistive construction; or faulty electric wiring, gas connections, or heating apparatus. K. Other hazards to health, safety, or public welfare. 1. Whenever, for any reason, the structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is lawfully constructed or currently is being used; or 2. Whenever a structure is structurally unsafe or is otherwise hazardous to human life, including but not limited to whenever a structure constitutes a hazard to health, safety, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, unsanitary conditions, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment. L. Public nuisance. 1. Whenever any structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence; or 2. Whenever the structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or flood or any other cause, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become: a. An attractive nuisance, or b. A harbor for vagrants or criminals. M. Chronic dereliction. Whenever a derelict structure, as defined in this Chapter, remains unoccupied for a period in excess of 6 months or period less than 6 months when the structure or portion thereof constitutes an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public. N. Violations of codes, laws. Whenever any structure has been constructed, exists, or is maintained in violation of any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to such structure provided by the building regulations of this City, as specified in Chapter 14.04 or any law or ordinance of this State or City relating to the condition, location, or structure or buildings. PART 4 - ENFORCEMENT 14.16.385 Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure. When the Building Official determines that a structure is a derelict or dangerous structure notice of infraction shall be given to the owner pursuant to City Code Chapter 1.16. Additional notice to other affected persons may be given at the discretion of the Building Official. In addition to the notice required by Chapter 1. 16, the Building Official shall give the statement of actions required to cure or remedy the condition and, if necessary, the order to vacate described in § 14.16.390 and r 14.16.400. 14.16.390 Statement of Actions Required. A. Notice of the statement of action shall be given in conjunction with the notice of infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.16. B. The statement of the action required to cure or remedy a condition giving rise to classification of a structure as derelict or dangerous shall include the following: 1. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be repaired, the statement shall require that all required permits be secured and the work physically commenced within such time from the date of the statement and completed within such time as the building official shall detemine is reasonable under all of the circumstances. 2. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be vacated, the statement shall order that the building or structure shall be vacated within a time certain from the date of the statement as determined by the building official to be reasonable. 3. If the building official has determined that (a) the building or structure is vacant, (b) that building or structure is structurally sound and does not present a fire hazard, and (c) the building or structure has presented or is likely to present a danger to individuals who may enter the building or structure even though they are unauthorized to do so, the statement shall require that the building or structure be secured against unauthorized entry by means which may include but are not limited to the boarding up of doors and windows. 4. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be demolished, the statement shall order that the building be vacated within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable from the date of the statement; that all required permits be secured from the date of the statement, and that the demolition be completed within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable. 5. Statements advising that if any required repair or demolition work (without vacation also • being required) is not commenced within the time specified, the building official will order the building vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy until the work is completed, and may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof against the property or its owners. 14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy. A. Posting Notice. In conjunction with an order to vacate, a notice shall be posted at or upon each exit of the building and shall be in substantially the following form: DO NOT ENTER UNSAFE TO OCCUPY It is a violation of Chapter 14.16 of the City Code to occupy this building or to remove or deface this notice. Building Official City of Tigard B. Compliance. 1. Upon an order to vacate and the posting of an unsafe building notice, no person shall remain in or enter any building which has been so posted, except that entry may be made to repair, demolish or remove such building under permit. 2. No person shall remove or deface any such notice after it is posted until the required repairs, demolition or removal have been completed and a certificate of occupancy issued pursuant to the provisions of the building code ordinance, codified in Chapter 14.04 of this code. 14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures. All structures or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the Building Official to be dangerous as defined in this Chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance with the procedures specified herein. If the Building Official determines that a structure is dangerous, as defined by this Chapter, the Building Official may commence proceedings to cause the repair, vacation or demolition of the structure. 14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry. A. Inspections. All buildings, structures, or other improvements regulated by this Chapter and all construction work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official. B. Right of Entry. Whenever the Building Official has reasonable cause to suspect a violation of any provision of this Chapter exists or when necessary to investigate an application for or revocation of any approval under any of the procedures described in this title, the Building Official may enter on any site or into any structure for the purpose of investigation, provided that no premises shall be entered without first obtaining the consent of the owner or person in control of the premises if other than the owner, or by obtaining a search warrant. C. Search Warrant. If consent cannot be obtained, the Building Official shall secure a search warrant from the City's municipal court before further attempts to gain entry, and shall have recourse to every other remedy provided by law to secure entry. 14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures. Requested inspections that are not part of the City's code enforcement program will be made as soon as practical after payment to the Building Official of the fee specified by resolution of the City Council. 14.16.440 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation. A. If a notice of violation of sections 14.16.080 through 14.16.350 or 14.16.360 through 14.16.380 has been issued, and if the affected dwelling unit(s) is or becomes vacant, it shall be unlawful to reoccupy or permit re-occupancy of the unit(s) for residential purposes until the necessary permits are obtained, corrections made, and permit inspection approvals given. B. Notwithstanding Subsection 14.16.440 (A), the Building Official may permit re-occupancy of the dwelling unit if in the Building Official's opinion, all fire and life safety hazards have been rectified. 14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy. When a property has an illegal residential occupancy, including but not limited to occupancy of tents, campers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or other structures or spaces not intended for permanent residential use or occupancy or spaces constructed or converted without permit, the use shall be abated or the structure brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building of the same occupancy. 14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any person lawfully engaged in: 1. The work of repairing, vacating, warehousing, or demolishing any structure pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; 2. The abatement of a nuisance pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; or Chapter 1.16. 3. The perfonnance of any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work as authorized by this Chapter or directed pursuant to it. 14.16.470 Violations. A. A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed according to the procedures in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1.16 of this Code. B. Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. C. A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. D. If a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this Chapter. i:/bidt/davWcorto*"n Veowrcil/fordi799.doe CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99-D3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.04, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO TRANSFER MILLER SANITARY SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE TO U.S.A. WASTE OF OREGON, INC., D.B.A. MILLER'S SANITARY SERVICES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on January 11, 1999, Thomas Miller, President of Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. (franchise Area II) gave the City notice of the pending sale of his business to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon, Inc. and requested transfer of his solid waste franchise to that company; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1999, the Tigard City Council considered the matter of solid waste transfer to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon, Inc. d.b.a. Miller's Sanitary Services under the provisions of Tigard Muncipal Code Section 11.04.080 A; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1999, the Tigard City Council found that the transferee met all applicable requirements met by the original franchisees and found it in the best interest of the solid waste customers in the solid waste franchise "Area II" to attach conditions appropriate to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with TMC 11.04. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. franchise in Area II is hereby transferred to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon, d.b.a. Miller's Sanitary Services. This change will be codified in TMC Section 11.04.040, B, 2, and is hereby amended to read as follows [note: language to be deleted is shown as stricken and language to be added is underlined]: "Area II. Miller. Sanitaff SeFvise, Ins., 4:hemas Miller-, Pr s d@** U.S.A. Waste of Oregon. Inc d.b.a. Miller's Sanitary Services. 5150 S.W. Alger Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97005;" SECTION 2: To protect the customers in franchise Area II, the Tigard City Council attaches the following conditions to the franchise to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with TM[C 11.04 and administrative rules promolgated under the authority of 11.04.160. a. Customer service - the City of Tigard's Service Standards for solid waste collection will be followed. This includes but is not limited to: Customer calls received by 1:00 PM must be returned the same day, unless prevented by force of nature; Customer calls received after 1:00 PM must be returned by noon of the following business day, unless prevented by force of nature; and Customer complaints shall be responded to promptly. ORDINANCE No. 99-03 Page 1 It is recognized that these conditions may be modified should the City's Service Standards be amended. The amendment process is addressed in TMC Section 11.04.160. b. Uniformity of service - level, type and quality of service required by the City will be provided by the franchisee in accordance with the the requirements in the Tigard Municipal Code and administrative rules promulgated under authority of TMC Section 11.04.160. c. Responsibility for Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. 1999 financial operations reporting - franchisee will present a 12-month, complete 1999 financial report to the City by March 1". 2000. This will include the period of time that Area II was .franchised to Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that it is necessary that the provisions of this ordinance become effective at the time of sale of Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the City Council, signature by the Mayor and the sale of Miller Sanitary Service, Inc. to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon is effected. PASSED: By Un&fiMNAS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ~-day of 1999. G2.~~~JL(+2~ Catherine Wheatley, City Record APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 19 J Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: C Attorney 2 Date s i:bitywid6ordinanc.aot ORDINANCE No. 99703 Page 2 K, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- 04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFERENCE THE MOST CURRENT GRADING CODE AND LIABIILTY LANGUAGE FROM THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code Title 14, "Buildings and Construction" provides regulations for building and construction; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 36, effective September 9, 1995, grants municipalities who have assumed local building inspection programs concurrent jurisdiction to administer any specialty code or building requirement adopted by the state without adoption of the codes through local ordinance; and WHEREAS, the state building code allows local jurisdictions to adopt the appendix chapter regarding excavation and grading; and WHEREAS, the state does not adopt Section 104.2.6 of the Uniform Building Code regarding liability, but the City has adopted this section; and WHEREAS, effective October 1, 1998, the state updated from the 1994 Uniform Building Code to the 1997 Uniform Building Code; and WHEREAS, the appropriate and current codes should be referenced in Title 14; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that Title 14 currently adopts the grading regulations and liability language of the 1994 Uniform Building Code and; WHEREAS, Tigard desires to continue to regulate grading and excavations and to continue to adopt the liability language in the Uniform Building Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 14, Section 14.04.030 (a)(2) is amended to read as follows: Appendix Chapter A33 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, regarding Excavation and Grading, including the recognized standards for Appendix Chapter 33 listed in Part IV of Chapter 35 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. SECTION 2: Title 14, Section 14.04.030 (a)(3) is amended to read as follows: Section 104.2.6 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, regarding Liability. ORDINANCE No. 99-01 Page I SECTION: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U1?C1,tj1(11utkSvote of all uncil members present after being read by number and title only, thi 61,~ day of G 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of WS Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: Cityttey Date 1 AC I TY W I D MO RM29TI T 14. D OC ORDINANCE No. 99-- Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- M AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING THAT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ANNEXED TO THE CITY ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard withdrew from the Tigard Water District on March 23, 1993; and WHEREAS, since that time, the City has annexed certain properties that were within the Tigard Water District; and WHEREAS, property within the Tigard Water District annexed into the City after March 23, 1993, must be withdrawn from that Water District to insure the proper entity receives the taxes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2), the City is liable to the District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance, the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of withdrawal of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District on February 23,1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the Tigard Water District is in the best interest of the Cityof.Tigard; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the District by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The properties located in the Tigard Water District which have been annexed by the City of Tigard and Final Order by the Metro Area Boundary commission after the City withdrew from the Tigard Water District on March 23, 1993, are hereby withdrawn from the Tigard Water District. SECTION 2: Legal descriptions and maps of the properties to be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 27 and incorporated herein. SECTION 3: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 1999. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council. PASSED: By 1.~71Li Ylt h1Du S vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1999. + Catherine Wheatley, City Recor 1 ~ { APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this V day of GC 99. J~ s Nicoli, Mayor + Approved as to form: i i Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 99 _ Tigard Water District Withdrawls from 3/23/93 to 12/31/98 Page 1 of I i:\citywide\ord\wdwithdr.ord.doc Julia H. 11-Feb.-99 CITY OF TIGARD WA'I DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission ~ Final Order No. 3/73 ZCA No. Z-ODO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA That portion of land located in the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of that parcel described in document number 87-42382 to Mark S. and Jill S. Link in Washington County deed records and being South 89°43130 West, 1334.21 feet from the East quarter corner of Section 4; thence North 0054129" East by the east line of said Link tract and extension thereof 675 feet to the northwest corner that parcel dedicated to the public as right-of-way as described in document number 92-56438, Washington County deed records; thence South 88°29110" East by the north line of said•dedicated parcel and extension thereof 132.77 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel dedicated to the public as right-of-way as described in document number 92-56439, Washington County deed records; thence South 0054129" West by the east line of said dedicated parcel and the east line of parcels 1 and 2 described in Book 1001•Page 386 to Gary W. Barker and Mary L. Barker in Washington County deed records, 671 feet to the south line of the northeast quarter of Section 4; thence South 69°43'30" West by the south line of the northeast quarter section 132.79 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA eTIGAhRID~' 01 f „w • z , ' c S.W ,~rrr T Ur .~oee . 1 w°, { i•0O isr . 1 • i r 23-78 . 1 ~ 1 r CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 33 ZCA No. 93_-O 0 O/ EXHIBIT 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of THE AREA Beginning at a point on the east line of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette 'Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, 660 feet South of the quarter section corner of the North side of said section; thence West and parallel with the north section line 1164 feet to the point; ' thence South and parallel with the east line of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, 1090 feet more or less, to the southwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Walter C. Baker and Irene R. Baker in Book 983 on Page 105 in said County's deed records, said point being on the north right-of-way line of S.W. Bull Mountain Road and being THE TRUE POINT CE BEGINNING; thence North . along • said Baker's west boundary line a distance of 274 feet to the Northwest corner of said Baker's tract; thence East along the north boundary line of said Baker's tract a distance of 120 feet to the northeast corner of said Baker tract; thence South along the east line of said Baker tract a distance of 266 feet more thence less Westtalong said right of way linee120 said Bull Mountain Road; feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA j:;; i -Y: . ( ~::KQ fr ~1s i:{A :Qf• x ii d7?. :?aft' ::s Jill. CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL. Boundary Commission "11BIT 3 Final Order No.32-WX ZCA W 93 - 0009 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: .Beginning at a point on the North boundary line of Section 9, S 891' 50' 01" W a distance of 660.21 feet from the northeast corner thereof, said point being the northeast corner of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in Deed Book 284 page 35 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S 89° 50' 01" W along the north line of said deed, a distance of 300.00 feet, to the northwest corner of said deed; thence S 00° 02' 08" E along the west line of said deed and the extension there of a distance of 1937 feet to the southerly right-of-way of S.W. Bull Mountain Road (CR # A-147 1/2) ; thence N 850 55' 05" E along said southerly right-of-way a distance of 553.74 feet to the east line extended of the tract conveyed to Willard J. Strickler, et ux in deed recorded in Deed Book 392 page 612 of Washington County Deed Records; thence North along the extension of said deed a distance of 40.15 feet to the northerly right--of-way of Bull Mountain Road; thence S 85° 55f 05" W along said right-of-way a distance of 190.00 feet to the southeast corner of said tract conveyed to Robert S. and Julia S. Ball in deed recorded in Deed Book 1093 page 378 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 00° 01' 52" W, along the easterly line of said tract, a distance of 292.92 feet to the northeast corner of said tract and the east line of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in deed recorded in Deed Book 269 page 199 Washington County Deed Records; thence N 00° 01' 52" W along said east line a distance of 396.76 feet, to the northeast corner of said tract; thence S 890 501 01" W, along the north line of said tract, a distance of 63.00 feet to the northwest corner of said tract and the east line of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in deed recorded in Deed Book 284 page 35 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 00° 01' 52" W, along said east line, a distance of 1202.44 feet to point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA - - i - _ - _ SITE - ` - r.......... •AL WM ww f CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. .356 7 EXHIBIT 4 ZCA NO. s-otio$ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Five parcels in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter, Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington county, state of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1: Beginning a the northwest comer of Lot 28 HANDY ACRES; thence N 89033'58" W a distance of 150.06 feet; thence S 00042'48" W a distance of 319.91 feet; thence N 89°38'47" W a distance of 100.09 feet; thence N 47024'35" W a distance of 89.29 feet; thence N 00043'10" E a distance of 99.45 feet; thence N 42°03'21" E a distance of 25.33 feet; thence N 00°43'10' E a distance of 140.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 2100. Parcel 2: Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 29 HANDY ACRES; thence S 89°33'58" W a distance of 139.92 feet; thence S 00042148" W a distance of 319.98 feet; thence S 89038'47' E a distance of 139.78 feet; thence N 00044'19" E a distance of 320.18 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 2102. Parcel 3: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 28 HANDY ACRES; thence N 00°43'10" E a distance of 50.01 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Fern Street; thence N 89033,58- E along said north right-of-way, a distance of 339.98 feet; thence S 00044'19" W, leaving said north right-of-way, a distance of 50.01 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Fern Street and the northeast corner of Lot 29 HANDY ACRES; thence S 89033'58" E, along said south right-of-way, 340.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Portion of SW Fern Street. Parcel 4: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 27 HANDY ACRES, thence S 00°43' W along the westerly boundary of said Lot, a distance of 638.92 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Lot 27; thence N 89043'36" E along the southerly boundary of said Lot, a distance of 170.07 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of said Lot; thence continuing N 89043'36" E along the southerly boundary of Lot 28 a distance of 50.00 feet to a point; thence N 00°43' E, 174.77 feet to a point; thence S 89043'36" W, 163.08 feet to a point; thence N 00043' E, 464.31 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 27; thence West along the northerly line of Lot 27, 57.00 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of said Lot 27 and the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 1900. Parcel 5: Beginning at a point which bears S 00054'W, 423.51 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 32, according to the duly filed plat of HANDY ACRES, in the City of Tigard, filed October 29, 1945, in Plat Book 10, Page 31, in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 4, T2S, R1 W, W.M., Records of Washington County, Oregon; thence along the east line of said Lot 32, S 00054' W, 115.41 feet to an iron rod; thence S 88001' W, 182.15 feet to an iron rod on the west line of said Lot 32, said iron rod being on the east right-of-way line of SW 135th Avenue; thence N 00043 E, 115.40 feet along the west line of said Lot 32 to and iron rod; thence N 88001' E, 182.52 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 3200. EXHIBIT 4 (Oontinued) VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA w ...r Sao ZOO ..ewe 100 IEOI •••r 1=„ 3700 401 AlC -W 3 AtC ` .silt !2 . 17 16 µ ,HAfc , 1 0 s R ..r W a Y . S.W. _ M WALNUT LANE ` i ceoo ~ W 900 y W 3300•~31~' 300 ' coop 3700 OR /SSESSYE I400 16 H ~ U 7 W -/fC NOT REIYW I.fllc _ a W II • ~I`.A 11 p.~( l ® £ Q = 2E 4/1C OTHER 51-84, r>~ 3 _ _ 6 i 6100 w 6100 20 q , 700 r 1000 s M„ soK 1 x. 6 i • 4~ to 21 ~ . 3500 ~fK .sa.r S.W. c'O°12c), coo 3 R Q>S Y, 7 3 AlC -v 1 3300 t 25.3 c :400 o : CT.' :7I1 a 1_ 4600 1300 1200• W I • 1100 24 1400 .41 K .0= -.a 1/K }J J G . H 7 n. 1d 6600 6700 4400 4300 1 _ 10 11 tz - 3 3400 < zs z6 3 3 1 a/.G -85 cn rw •.ry. 32 $W STREET 1;.:lfF ~ Sv"<LL: '4JY•~li ':~CL.%+!`.•JY^ 1700 .n ..r.u.• .;.r ''7 %ru. K .2a00..rs.•la -7500 33 ff! K 70 AISQ7: 2100 aA-t ' -ST C 1 ` i 4. . 500 1;:;v IZn{ 'hy .2300 1 ~ ':A: Y•~'.y ,.il:;£nv?C~:MYN'K Y7~ Z -8 v •.L{~.•,.~, T:h Q C I }r'""N:~.% L; _ _ 3100 ` ¢ 1 frt.<: {.i:.~ 2600 25 27 : 7100 3 4 744C 2300 _ ~ y • r` I 2200 I gig K - - - LUJr- LM Ac 200 3 K{•. 1 111, K • - <z I I 2000 2 . - 4. K 1 3 k «.fK f a.f M ..C 7 N la. H ~ 'vt:~.d:.v. ,100 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 355Y ZCA No. 9S- oao6 E EXHIBIT T ' .5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of Section: 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of the John L. Hicklin D.L.C.; thence N 25001'42" W a distance of 427.51 feet along the westerly line of said D.L.C.; thence N 87007'25" E a distance of 90.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 25 ° 13' 15" W a distance of 180.67 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence N 87016'45" E, along said south right-of-way, a distance 'of 89.90 feet; thence S 25004'45" E a distance of 180.22 feet; thence S 87107'25" W a distance of 89.32 feet' to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA t y a W. -ERR Ot -STREET ` `t :1111 ' i ~ M ' _ i 1 300 ' I ; • C p' I • 10t J J14 J<4 I s < - pi,ar I u • it ^ 1' p 1 1 ~ L 1 t 4 I 23-74 I a Fps "a = i I ~ ~v uA • - r R = a1o 0 - 31 tol =:{.otjC a F. ~ i`soo r •'``Qp' a Tr.- !V +oo~ i-:.": ,1. f.•fj_y. " a. • t p ~0\a' Ir 40 - ;.a,: ;ems >4•a _ ~ <„o ~ . 23-78 . fn „>o TIGA' D raooe .400 f tatq Z 2100 C a-F„cr<• a0 s as ~ I. ==0° eo asz ~ ';too 313 r.. u S.NG uoo ' • ~ •as Q« atoe ~L <ooo toe <zoo aoa• t„~ 3% 54 Y CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No.3y5y ZCA No. 9--5004 EXHIBIT 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA •A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears N 87046' E a distance of 200 feet from the southwest corner of HUMBOLT CREEK ESTATES; thence N 00039' E a -distance of 179.10 feet; thence S 89058' E a distance of 83.45 feet; thence S 00039' W a distance of 175.79 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 87046: W along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 83.56 to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA W ~ 2= • W fYe• ~ i,m LOO r G • S - rr ` N • iy . i ` ~ ~21C~~~~"ERROL~ - STREET % TIGAR_D .1 4 , 23--"78 .ZW • y f90I 1 . `Y . MOJ • Parcel B t ANNE f ' ST _ AQ3EA TO BE IT. _ 2 4 ANNEXED r s••o 1 J CI'T'Y OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No.. Es`y E3CI•IIBIT 7 ZCA No. 95-0000. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 3, T2S, R1W, W.M., Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the center line of said Section 3, being the centerline intersection of SW Fonner Street and SW 115th Avenue: thence N 00°53' E a distance of 462 feet. to a point in the centerline of said Fonner Street; thence N 87°46' E a distance of 115 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, also on said centerline; thence from said True Point of Beginning N 00053' E 332.35 feet, more or less, to a point; thence S 87°46' W 115 feet to a point on the southern boundary of the plat of WALNUT GROVE (Lot 12); thence N 55 045'02" E, along said southerly boundary 290 feet, more or less, to a point being 100 feet perpendicular with the west boundary of the plat of HUMBOLT CREEK ESTATES; thence S 00059' W 460 feet, more or less, to the northerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence N 87046' E along said northerly right-of-way, 100 feet; thence S 00053' W 40.06 feet to the southerly right-of-way; thence S 87046' W along said southerly right-of-way 212.3 feet; thence N 00053' E 20 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA z W Ai • _ F' W aaoo O d n aC. •r ~Z~~ "ERStOL~ STREETI TIGAR_D t ~~p 75 t .mp • m a.W • Z fJ.a , . 23-78 7 b c.-~:•r rr.J t w .o* uw e..oa w "eke 2 a 1 :'~'w*..w •QNNE _ 5T. ` _ • •j "y,~ a~cao a,a i:« 2 4 M l a- ~ Y .ela mac. • - - two 1 J 1 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. ,3S,sy EXHIBIT 8= ZCANo.95-Oboe, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The South 98 feet (appro)imately .22 acres) of the following described property:. Beginning at a point in the centerline of Fonner Road (C.R. No. 495), said point being S 00053' W 2216.8 feet and N 87046' E 723.4 feet from the north quarter section corner of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; thence continuing N 87046' E 98 feet to a point; thence S 021000'30" E 336.54 feet to an iron pipe; thence S 87046' W 98 feet to an iron pipe; thence N 02000'30" W 336.54 feet to the point of beginning'of this description, EXCEPTING that portion of land lying within the right-of-way limits of said County Road No. 495. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA FOR •SSESSUEN7 PURPC 00 NOT REl7 ON FOR ur 1100 .6300 n"a~ -21. is.•. ...•«ti ` }-A 6200 F •1 w ~ fi ix00 _ 3 N = 1300 ,H0 .u. w e.•a• Si ..0 til t+~Y~s.•. srar SOS Jkc~ . .0,50.00 JOAC. 0 4E- sT. 110 x300 •2200 2101 .1600 2000• 1500 1E00 ' Flof t600 ' = AREA TO BE .s~~c es.... e.az.. o.sos LeU. e.au -fe~c : ,ao.c w"•• 4 ANNEXED 24pp - 2 GOO 1 ua.. J 23 M4 .s w 41 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. _ye EXHIBIT 9 ZCANo.95'-0005' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Flange 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe in the southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut Street, which iron pipe bears South 0046' West 1056 feet, South 77°50' West 603.1 feet and South 0046' West 12.05 feet from the 1 /4 corner in the north line of said Section 3, T2S, R 1 W, W.M. From said Point of Beginning; thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut Street, South 0046'* West 523.79 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 77°50' West 144 feet; thence North 4005' West 364.92 feet; thence North 871026' East 118 feet; thence North 3005'.West 169.55 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of said SW Walnut Street; thence North 781039' East along said southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut' Street, 66.46 feet to the Place of Beginning. INCLUDING that portion of SW Walnut Street adjacent to the above described property and that portion of SW Walnut Street extending East 167.6 feet, more or less from the easterly line extended of said property, to the City Limits line of the City of Tigard as per Boundary Commission Proposal No. 3459: VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 9th a ~~a~ a i ~~'w~ TIGARD 2 8 C A R M E' N 4_ r s COLRMER SigEET • P' rA R K~ nfR" STREET. ' CITE' OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 104 11Bf ZCA No. 9S ooo3 ~EXPr`" 1® LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon described as follows: Beginning at the West one-quarter Corner of Section 4, T 2 S, •R 1 W of the Willamette Meridian thence N 89° 43' 30" E a distance'of 100.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N 89° 43130" E a distance of 300.00 feet to the west line of Lot 18 Handy Acres; 'thence N 000 42' 55" E a distance of 200 feet; thence S-89* 43' 30" W a distance of 250 feet thence N 00° 43' 00" 435.76 feet to the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence S 890 37' 00" W, along said southright-of-way, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence S 00° 43' a distance of 635.67 feet to the true point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA KTIGARD to 9 11 6 Z 5 8 12 1 7 0 H A N D Y - r- I o 1 1l ~ ..o 1 sYl w< K 2t f` f 23 20 24 19 wm 17 18 ' A iC R £ S W ~vf- I J W } a,O.wti:.~C z ,~~`e~ AREA TO BE °m ANNEXED CITY OF TIGAIRID WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. -539 ZCA No. 95--OWi f . URI1' 1 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA THAT PORTION OF LOT 19 COLE'S' ACRES, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 152.5 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 150 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO RONALD J. TEMPLETON, ET UX BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 1965 IN BOOK 542, PAGE 516 RECORDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY; 'THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TEMPLETON PARCEL 152.5 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TEMPLETON PARCEL, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 19; THENCE NORTH 150 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA ~~,yF... ...m~. ..GAdADE 7: ••r STREET . ~ NfAAiI j , v wc` \ Jww s' .am fae a00 ~tY ' 23-78 aJ 23-78 F. s,m O ~ om -74 N IN E R' U R Y Z e,, -TIG RD P/ tr a - ~i CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 2"6 411131T 1 2 ZCA No. 9S-oOoy Parcel 1: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, described as follows: Beginning at a point S 000 26' 00" W a distance of 20.00 feet of the Northeast corner of the Northwest one,-Quarter of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range 1 West; thence S 000 26' 00" W, 640.00 feet to the initial point of the Subdivision Plat of Shadow Hills as recorded in Book 42 Page 41 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 41' 00" W, along the north line of said Subdivision, a distance of 346.50 feet to the Southwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 94023801 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 26' 00" Er along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 230.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of the property described in Fee Number 94023802 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S.89° 41' 00" W, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 131.75 feet to the East right-of-way of a private road and the southwest corner of said-Fee Number; thence N 00° 26100"E, along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 86.50 feet to the northwest corner of said Fee. Number; thence S 89° 34' 00" E, along the north line of said Fee Number, a distance of 131.75 feet to the west line of Fee Number 94023801; thence N 00° 26' 00" E, along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 136.67 feet to the Southeast corner of the property described in Book 1027 Page 371 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 89° 34' 00" W, along the south line of said deed, a distance of 85.93 feet to the southwest corner of said deed and the east right-of-way of a private road and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said curve with a radius of 65.00 feet a delta of 24° 39' 36", and a length of 27.98 feet to a point of tangency being on the west line of said deed; thence N 00° 26' 00" E, along the west line of said deed, a distance of 160.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said deed and a point on the south right-of-way of County Road 411; thence N 89° 41' 00" E, along said south right-of-way, a distance of 7 feet more or less to a angle point in said south right-of-way; thence S 00° 00' 00" W a distance of 9.9 feet; thence N 89° 41' 00".E . along the said right-of-way, a distance of 182.82 feet to the angle point in said right-of-way; thence N 00° 00' 00" E, along said right-of-way, a distance 9.9 feet to an angle point; thence N 890 41' 00" E,. along said right-of-way, a distance of 236.5 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2; A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: N Beginning at a point on the north line of said Section, which bears South 89039 West 990 feet from the quarter section corner on said north line, said point being the northeast comer of that tract of land conveyed to Katherine Kilgore Gunther, by deed recorded in Book 175, Page 89, Washington County Deed Records, and the northwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to volette F. Howard, by deed recorded in Book 403, Page 297, 'J Washington County Deed Records; thence South 0°44' West, along the east line of said Gunther tract 20 feet to the south right-of-way line of SW Gaarde Street and the True -I Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 0°44' West along said east line 640 feet to the southeast corner thereof and the southwest corner of said Howard tract, said pant being on the north line of the subdivision plat of SHADOW HILLS; thence East along the south line of said Howard tract, 198 feet to the southeast comer thereof, thence continuing along said north line, plat of SHADOW HILLS, North 89°41' East 132 feet to a pant; thence North 0°26' East a distance of 640 feet to said south line SW Gaarde Street, thence South 89041' West along said right-of-way line, 132 feet; thence South 0026' West a distance of 230 feet to a pant..said pant being the southwest comer of that tract of land conveyed to Richard Leroy Furman, et ux, by deed recorded in Book 866, Page 658, Washington County Deed Records; thence West along the south line of said Furman tract, 158 feet and the southeast corner thereof; thence North 0044' East, 230 feet to said south right-of-way line. SW Gaarde Street; thence West along said line, 40 feet to the Point of Beginning EXHIBIT 12 ( taeaea~ed) VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA as 4 =Cc 04AIX r• 100• H`I Up 1" 14 x T T AAME T T T T STREET 1000 ;1(:::: 'F~'-:•::. I 1100 ~f3eo7:=y' aoo wo goo :loo o:oo~~'~?%''ri:. ~::r.:;.::.' .n. • txnc .>.r :;:dike Jat6 wsK K tA.~, . ! ' !200 AREA TO BIf" r:;: ~.MK .HK ::IMO:: ANNEXE(? IC W.. Parcel 1 1 I NM b00 IWO '300 ti" - Parcel 2 ( 2200. 2a00 it- to. - i {;ice>: :c..y~~? oo'•' 6000 6100 a70^ "00 .100 4000 ]soot' 100 x 3300 .4 3-00 •a as - _ Slucr e' a2 i2 sago is o zs fd :a 30 ^vs i aooo a.. K 3 co`9 , S.W. !ACFARLANO' h `CLOUD 3I ` Cn,- uv •T - 00 , T3a0 l~ aaOl .300 atop a " 5' - 2!004 loss a t.ao0 N00 ' 300 f •!200 31 21 20 A 4 • TIGAR®- X17 ,a 32 1 1y ~ •T)O0 " r•• I -6 Q t 27 t _ Tt I~i 6W 6700 ]300 T• Co ]7 •64W _ « C 7p0a i s. a a400 S 10 'S.00 7 r w.•. to. '1~ 177 7a ! ~ Z 1 't 3000 ~ ] _ { 6700 h S.W. wrLOk, /3]oa u 6600 i 7000 00~ ~ ]s0o s0c au. s n I Icso 12 ]f v rcroxcow, } al sz sm Armemor r R - 43 to oo "4JCac~ T ~I13 h M a0 = r01I a•-..e sct -0 rove .rm 23 / i STREET R A. IGARC 2s 1 CITY OF TICARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. ~XHQ~1'R' 3 ZCA No. S-o®o( LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter of section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the east line of the Northwest one-quarter of said Section 3, said point bearing N 00° 46' 0011 E a distance of 517.34 feet from the center of said Section 3; thence N 00° 46' 0011 E, along the east line of said Northwest one-quarter of said section 3,'a distance of 1129.66 feet to the northerly right- of-way of S.W. Walnut Street; thence S 780 35' 11 W, along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 430.65 feet; thence S 000 46' 0011 W, parallel with the east line of the Northwest one-quarter of said Section 3, a distance of 1044.70 feet; thence N 890 571 4611 E, parallel with the south line of said Northwest one-quarter of Section 3, a distance of 421.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 10.52 Acres, VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA r sw 1' ^ 1 a,,, T(GARD lit t AREA TO BE ANNEXED ` -it -78 C~ A R ! M E ( N -r' W-L CAVI SrncEr r. ti : 3 T -fK i. • ~y FCMt[_R_ fTREiTi j~ 25 1 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No.: 4/Q / EXHIBIT 14 ZCA No. ,W-Oo/! t LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon Also described as Lot 7 Inverness described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of lot 7 Inverness, recorded in Book 29 Page 32 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 860 20f 00" W,' along the north line of Inverness, a distance of 100.64 feet to the northwest corner of said lot 7; thence S 00° 08' 07" W, along the east line of said lot 7, a distance of 185.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 7; thence S 890 51' 53" E, along the south line of lot 7 inverness, a distance of 116.33 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 7 and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said curve with a radius of 2949.37 feet, a delta of 3" 40' 50" and a length of, 189.46 feet-to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA BULL = a l S.W. MOUNTAIN °rlGP~! ,p R® E s, • Y •s' •`e ; faoo"4400 a000 r w + •i. w ~j,•r. ,,~y AREA TO U ANNEXED 2000 QQ ANNEXED "00 44 W %i ,r = 23-78. + ••n°°• • i~y, ao~ f .ao s ~ `.,,Saoo ~ . ~ _ _ ~ z7oo trop ~ ' 7oao piwo • w i V ! _ 43 R R 00 a.OpR~` i N • M J 41 U ilsoo • iiao ::oo 'E7006` r I,oa = "Tt t At o a.oo 'aaoo~ i ~ 1 ICA• . / 3100 44 aso F51 \ a p ` C9C~ ~ • r ` 3~ tsao~M f.. v xao w' ~c rb i G~ •-/sl3rooti:.. a `O/ E saoo ....r +..j 1 1100 w 11!<J tl: as 3700 7.p0 J I m .r c Syr 1 s ' .0 C~ - as ~s~ r SSW I a Iwo ♦ q' J 3~ ts T :u~ ~ x ! 3 3400 a4 tyl r"o 20 N-, SSW Ell ~ N • '<6 yi 7100 S~ t J ,e j IT Z . .Soo 4ti , rwo 93 • a •s.ao a 2I , , .aoo 12 boo„ fC • ` t N n as r•z,\~(~ Cry T7 i s'~..~ ~r ,/E//~~v\\r~.i: • sf • •N ,7 ~ :w..• .v, yl~=~~, y.•\ri.:: .00 1 ''Y E000 ti t • ,t31G t ~i7 ? M ~ i ~ CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL _ Boundary Commission Final order No. 7s ~E~CI0BIT IS ZCA No. 9 -oooy LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of section 10, Township 2 Sout,?. Range 2 East, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: Beginning at the Northwest corner of subdivision plat of Helm Heights recorded in Book 78 Pages 47 & 48 of, the Washington County Subdivision Records, also being the southwest corner of the deed described in Fee No. 92013124 of. the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 02' 00" E, along the west line of said Fee No. and the. east line of the Subdivision of Aspen Ridge recorded in Book 84 Pages 15-18*of the Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 446.00 feet.to the Northwest corner of said Fee No. and the center line of S.W. Bull Mountain Road; thence N 840 21' 00" E, along said centerline, a distance of 408.97 feet to the extension of the east-line of the property described in, Fee No. 77-- 21372 of the Washington•County Deed Records; thence S 000 01' 00" E, along the east line of said Fee No., a distance of 188.58 feet to the southeast corner of said Fee No:; thence S '8910 49' 00"- W, along the south line of said Fee No., a•distance of 94.24 feet to the east line of property described in Fee No. 93089967 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S 00° 02' 00" W, along the east line of said Fee No., a distance of 296.38 feet to the north line of Helm Heights; thence S 89a 49' 00" W, along said north line, a distance of 312_89 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA w.M t a t SHAD ig WILL Sf. i STREET ■ 6 1 .2't 1 y rw t /„L!■`• re rr..r:u. rrr•bek■%r` _ S xi+ • 41 .u ~ , t S^r ' ~o AREA TO BE ■ ANNEXED set COURT I ,h wr ..u r a ~ AI 7IGARD P I 6K 11E-CREST t.t u. 4 ' • r w • r.r +s f6N r r " f.'f ■S.K r v ~ 4i C : CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. E H1131T 16 ~ ZCANo. 1FGA1. MOFTffAM A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range i West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon , more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Northwest one-quarter and said Northeast one- quarter being marked with a %-Inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L P.L.S. 1989". thence N 88013'49" W, 357.28 feet along the north boundary of said Northwest one- quarter to the northwest comer of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73654, Washington County Deed Records; thence S 01037'01" W, 382.43 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73654 to the southwest corner thereof and said southwest corner being a point on the north boundary line of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded 'in Deed Document 93-73653; thence N 88016'29" W, 93 feet along the north boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73653 to the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-73653; thence S 01037'01" W. 315 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73653 to the southwest corner of said.Deed Document 93-73653; thence S 88 ° 16'29" E, 446.70 feet along said south boundary to the east line of said Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, said Section 9; thence N 01053'29" E, 697.15 feet along said east line to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA Parcel 1 eoX t .at.trw, fit F. `c"t X4 AREA TO BE ANNEXED 23 74 ~ ; r ~ I 23-713 A z - - I TlGARD . h i 23274 o~ t ~M rA CITY OF TIGARID WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL _ Boundary Commission Final Order No. -176 EXH I B I1' 17 ZCA No.-9g-o __J1 f LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a part of that certain tract of land conveyed to Dale K. Varner, et ux, as described in Deed Book 286, Page 750, Deed Records, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning on the west line of said tract described in Book 286, Page 750, -which bears S 89050'30" W, 1318.30 feet along the Northerly line of said Section 9 and S 00004'30" E, 678.24 feet along the west line of that tract described in Book 286, Page 750, as monumented from the Northeast corner of Section 9; thence continuing along said west line, S 00004'30" E, 140 feet; thence leaving said west line, East 333.59 feet, more or less, to a %-inch iron rod; thence North parallel to the east line of said describe tract, 140 feet to a %-inch iron rod; thence West, 334.43 feet, more or less, to the Place of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA ta- tit Kl Y.rl -74 TIGARD i I Parcel 2 j v I _ I•. O uo s 'I 23 7 I v C ~ ~74411 I ~ CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3607 EXHIBIT ' ZCA No. -0003 !__~jj LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Parcel l: A tract of land located In the Northwest one-quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 21 HANDY ACRES as recorded in Book 10, Page 31 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 88043'30" E a distance of 170.00 feet to the southeast comer of said Lot 21; thence N 00000'00" W a distance of 905.30 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 21, HANDY ACRES and the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way to a point which is 50 feet from said east line (when measured at right angles); thence S 00000'00" E, parallel with and 50 feet from said east line, a distance of 539.50 feet; thence S 88043'30" W a distance of 120.00 feet; thence S 00000'00' E a distance of 370.30 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel 2., A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter o Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 20 HANDY ACRES as recorded in Book 10, Page 31 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 00°43'00" W a distance of 889.6 feet to the southeast comer of said Lot 20; thence S 89°43'30" W a distance of 340.0 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 19 HANDY ACRES, thence N 00043' E a distance of 346 feet, thence S 89017'00" E a distance of 140.25 feet; thence N' 00041' E a distance of 225.69 feet; thence S 89017' E a distance of 144.72 feet; thence N 00043' E a distance of 297 feet to the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence Northeasterly along said south right-of-way along a curve to the right with a radius of 333.12 feet and a length of 61.3 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel 3: A tract of land in Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning a the northwest corner of Lot 19, HANDY ACRES, a plat of record; thence along the arc of a 383.75 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 07°59'23", a distance of 53.51 feet (long chord bears N 69057'53" E, 53.47 feet) to the True Point of Beginning; thence S 41051 '11" E, 133.41 feet; thence S 89017' E, 144.72 feet to the southeast corner of .a tract conveyed to Paul Hansen, et ux, by deed, recorded January 12, 1973, Book 905. Page 139; thence N 00043' E, 297 feet to the southerly right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence Southwesterly along the southerly line of S.W. Fern Street and along the arc of a 333.12 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 21005'20", a distance of 122.61 feet (the long chord bears S 48021'03" W, 121.92 feet); thence along the arc of a 383.75 foot radius curve to the right, through the central angle of 28001'12", a distance of 187.67 feet (the long chord bears S 51057'35' W, 185.80 feet) to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel 4: A tract in the Northwest one-quarter, Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Lot 12, HANDY ACRES. r /f•>YfP/fssMl'7Jh'.ri°y" 2rs"ls~'vr/'~^.r~rs~'~ N . BONNEVILLE POWER I ADMINISTRATION . IIII.I.r II.. 111 I M~ !ry MIIV !a« IIY' h Nw ltM !IM ww rte. ~ 1A I-Al /raw' . I• ~u tc. W~ I.w ~ I 3AIMG NOISN3oS1i t~ tl 1 11~ t U 1/ N 11 ~ Itl• ,1 .1 1~•t ~ ~ R Vv T ~ fllY 11 I11 x ([~f~ c & i C 8q 8 t 15 . ~S t~ Y >S ~`AOOD. }S 1 Kw r! I LL S f I f Drs « = rr« i. rv/ \ ! h. sr 0 ±.:a•: NO F~., ~.ti+~ M 'O ;~r:..;'..~;},;nqhid,~{,',,.'KS,'':•S,.'Gri•,}y`~•~d:~: vx; wy ~ t :}r...\:'~Y.3 i.},~,~`fi}.a.Ra •.,c..:''3%:3fb:;. :•`::.+.R 4'''ff~ I ley ii~{. e~ s.::•,•:: III fall h azz, ~x~'' i;l~i,f ~{i'~''•. 't\ `,'^•?z~,::y;.:?,.:`~. 3 sip xvYt`~}'iti:•r'~;F(y},J:ri}\:.'V}4w{•v<F,::: VIII. ~ t ti, m O N a R+ a <:.'~:r`rr:•,:;:~':^••'~••~2n;;~r~: yb:'k'•r••`4.•~or•:r~;. LY: :'N.}:f~~?;.a+.;,}.. ,.Irj;~S;' ~ M`....•4•'S.'4.',~'t,~s~ht:n:••: }r'C~C.,,;e:;t•:. i,oki'..~.,' a{°i\3:}»~c:Sr .i.lna'!!'+` [T1 t,~ ~ w yr ro ~ R rn ,b?},.i (J 1 11 1l xrak~ $i~fY• ti '$riti;" ;~~:r~..:m~i:.~ u;, ~titi~\,•CA• ~ 3,•~ •Eb•,3~•;~•niF:.:>'A,'>,.x?}t}•':: r~kn r~:<i is ux4~ •'a?;,~'^'~S'~.;y : `a:}i`?:,, r ? •`:r::> •i,.; )r:; ~:•\,'•`•ch x3;, , , ;5,:£•~,4~:~`. ' J]'~~ ~Y'o,. 4'}}!k•`•RE:i`%1$.::?}.if;',:};:x:'::~.v..'i:'+.: 2{.L:ivi:nY,\•:v. .v tiN »~I Rg a Y h~i h~ ~ in ' L U? .rw• au unr " 4 Sl! N F }f I+ s R 8 . R co R W L _ rw r co 4 a y i I 4 + x iiiiiiiiii'iE;~~: IN CITY Om TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. -NS? ZCA No. 9'6- Bg20 EXHIBIT 19 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the NE 1 /4 of the NE 1 /4 of Section 3, T2S, R1 W, Willamette Meridian Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 13 of Cottonwood Place as recorded in Book 21 Page 30 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence along the boundary of said lot the following courses; thence north 89 degrees 21' E a distance of 100 feet; thence 00 degrees 10' west a distance of 160.12 feet; thence north 75 degrees 05' west a distance of 52.82 feet; thence south 89 degrees 36' 30" west a distance of 49.15 feet; thence north 00 degrees 10' east a distance of 150.00 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA /O iizsoa • ' to it srh ._T'~ 7 f. ? .'~,11 WDESDAL N ' .y N~~ V _ ]100 S ~ = 7740 41 JJ• 4100 Vn J 7400 7• zz &1 Ir 'z s 07 T T r ~N W O O D 17om 14 •r 2 1 1 >t 11 sS.W. JOHNSON STREETI "07 I N 1717 1714 "17 1700 44W 1100 1r; 1101 ^N "04 I ~i to `f' L E r N 1 H 23-78 " • 4.400' 0. ~I"--~~••• 7 4'` 1700 14~ AREA TO BE- 7 w• 1>~ ANNEXED .-3 ~ lea ~ ~ ` ` ~ y f . -i r row :r Acky nwlro7c7 ONLY oo war wcv aw FOR .wr arwcw uac i T IGA a 2S I S" MAP is 1 Sao ' CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission JL- Final Order No. 36.5$ EXHIBIT 20 J1 zCANo. 96-0006 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Parcel 1 Lots 17, 18 and the south 100 feet of lots 19 and 20,. Cale s Acres, Washington County, Oregon Parcel 2: Beginning at the northeast comer of the northwest 1/4 of Sec. 10 T2S R1 W W.M., thence south 89 degrees 41' west 426.5 feet, thence south 0 degrees 26' west 20.0 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described. Thence continuing south 0 degrees 26' west 160.38 feet to the point of a curve to the right (having a radius of 65.0 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 45'35") thence along the arc of said curve 39.43 feet, thence south 35 degrees 11' 35" west 32.92 feet to the point of a curve to the left (having a radius of 120.0 feet and a central angel or 34 degrees 4.5'35") thence along the arc of said curve 72.80 feet, thence south O degrees 26' west 344.54 feet, thence south 89 degrees 41' west 50.0 feet, thence north 0 degrees 26' east 348.65 feet to the point of a curve to the right (having a radius of 170.0 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 103.13 feet, thence north 35 degrees 11' 35" east 32.92 feet to the point of a curve to the left (having a radius of a 15.0 feet and a central angel of 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 9.10 feet, thence north 0 degrees 26' east 160.0 feet thence north 89 degrees 41' east 50.0 feet to the point of beginning. Containing .76 acres more or less. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA STREET vl~ _ t _ 23_7 I_ _ ly AREA TO 13E . ~ ANNEXED 3\\74 .r.RUUo -nGAR _ F L A E~ CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission • Final Order No. 3$ /,j EXHIBIT 1 ZCA No. 97-c oof _jl LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land located in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-Quarter of section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the- initial point of the plat CARMEN PARK; thence S 00046'W a distance of 492.34 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Fortner Street; thence N 89057' E a distance of 401 feet to the west right-of-way of County Road 495; thence N 00046' E a distance of 100 feet;, thence Westerly a distance of 205 feet; thence N 00°46' E a distance of 194 feet; thence Easterly 205 feet to the west right-of-way of County Rd. 495; thence N 001046 E, 168.80 feet, more or less; thence N 87046' E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N 00046' E a distance of 34.54 feet, thence S 89057' W a distance of 421 feet to a point on the east line of Lot 8, CARMEN PARK; thence S 00046'W a distance of 17.34 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: Beginning at the initial point of the plat CARMEN PARK; thence S 00046' W a distance of 492.34 feet to the north right-of-way-of SW Fortner Street and the True Point of Beginning: thence S 00046' W a distance of 40.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street, thence N 89057' E. along said south right-of-way,a distance of 441.00 feet to the east right-of-way of County Rd 495; thence N 00°46' E along said east right-of-way a distance of 504.33 feet to the north right-of-way of County Rd 495; thence S 87°46' W along said north line, a distance of 40.05 feet to the west line of said County Rd., thence S 00046' W along said west right-of-way, a distance of 462.80 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 89046'W. along said north line, a distance of 401 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA aw r o y ;3 ~ 1 era ; TIGARD ~ } r-r~' -mot _ --'•1 23-7 a L ia~ a p i 1 rrrrr. ~..m I f6 CL A Ix R M* r• m CARMEN sTF T +4'~ 5 W ~ am• tam ~ [•ea ' am ! [u•- 1 nw [.w tam . R :a+: + to 4 II lC i AREA TO BE ; ANNEXED uoo- A 3 y if ~ - i IG • .fee a•o0 a•ea f iJ 1 VaC Q•e Ir df t•! j. 1 , L. • . art f1 1 . CITY OF 'T'IGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3 XZ 7X =1=EXHIBIT 122 ZCANo.97-OOO2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A parcel of land in the SW Y4 of the NW Y of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of Section 3, located North 000 28' East 355.44 feet from the West % comer of Section 3; thence North 890 51' East along the Westerly extension of the North line and the North line of CANOGA PARK, a recorded subdivision in Washington County, 601.4 feet, more or less, to the Southwest comer of Lot 11, FYRESTONE, a recorded subdivision in Washington County; thence North 000 28'30" East 305.88 feet to the South line of CURL ACRES, a recorded subdivision in Washington County; thence along the Southerly line of said plat, South 891 31'30" West 417.22 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, CURL ACRES; thence along the West line of said Lot 1, North 0011 28'30" West 150 feet more or less to the centerline of SW Walnut Street; thence South 620 20'20" West 44.97 feet; thence South 000 28'30" East 150 feet more or less to the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, CURL ACRES; thence South 620 20'20" West 158.20 feet to a point on the West line of Section 3; thence South 000 28'00" West 209.71 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA LA R F? A Er: -74-~A FL C ,T *m AREA TO BE ``x 1^ ANNEXED ca c-3 _I S•W LANSS nee t • 3a0 3XO = t: 1 , 2348 r7 jc'ly r Al ALBERTA' STREET •1. r •1331 1 Ibe ~ ttl! 3tll lY0 M 134 ~ Yl3 I~161 i',.,, , Yl CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL. Boundary Commission E X H 1131 T 23 ~ Final Order No. 3i'7S ZCA No. 97- o~-j~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A parcel of land in the Northwest quarter of Section 10. Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County. Oregon, being a portion of that certain tract of land described in Book 403, Page 2137, Washington County Deed Records', and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line thereof, that is 40.0 feet East of the northwest comer of said tract of land; thence South 00044' West parallel with the west line of the above said tract of land, 250.0 feet to a point; thence East parallel with the north line of the above said tract 158.0 feet to the west line of that certain strip of land described in Book 430, Page 3042, Washington County Deed Records; thence Notch 00044' East along the west line of the said strip of land 103 feet to a point; thence West 118.0 feet to a point; thence North 00044' East 147.0 feet to the north line of the above said tract of land; thence West along the said north line 40.0 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCLUDING that portion in SW Gaarde Street (County Road No. 411). Footnotes: 1. Beginning 40 rods West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Mange 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, it being the northwest corner of tract of land sold to McFarland, containing 10 acres; thence running West 20 rods; thence South 40 rods; thence East 20 rods to the southwest corner of said McFarland tract; thence North to the FMace of Beginning. 2. Beginning at a point 40 rods West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Flange 1 West, Willamette Meridian, it being the Northwest corner of tract of land sold to McFarland; running thence West 132; thence South 40 rods; thence East 132 feet to the Southwest corner of said McFarland tract; thence North to the Place of Beginning, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 01 T, T S.W. t T T AAROE T T 1 1 1 •:M• Ma - ru - tooo Saco 0300 1-90 1300 coo zM LJfK .J•K' V,K :Js.,- ..JC Jf.C = JJ•C i 78 23-78 7 j • AREA TO BE - - ANNE)tE~S j 1200 - aoo JrAa 1100 23-78 SEX Mu I :100 S I low 23-78 1100 ra+ 300^• 2 I l LJ..c moo .Jne .Jf.re ' I LfILC t • _ I r001*- 600••• ;.JZ+c .sfJc 2200 I • 2300 23-78 Jf.a JJ.e r ' loo Tao / I .JJ•G _ ..SfLG _ 1 ««111 K ' L aOCO ~ - { ~ S= Sim 01 •200 4100 320., 3700 3400 aS a. t _ 4=3 to rl A > t7 ri 27 `t_o S.W. \ MCFARLANO• - - TIGI~R~ a0r aro0 a ebt CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission ® Final Order No. 3 ff ?6 EXH 113IT 24 _J] ZCA No. 99- ooo/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 3 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of County Road No. 495 which point bears N 00053' W a distance of 462 feet and N 87046' E a distance of 491 feet from the iron pipe set at the accepted center of Section 3; thence S 00053' W a distance of 20.03 feet to the south right-of-way of said County Road and the True Point of Beginning; thence N 87046' E a distance of 179.5 feet; thence S 00053' W a distance of 493.0 feet; thence N 89053' W a distance of 353.5 feet, more or less; thence N 00053' E a distance of 455.07 feet to the south right-of-way of said County Road No. 495; thence N 87047' E a distance of 80.11 feet; thence S 00053' W a distance of 250.13 feet; thence S 89053, E a distance of 94.0 feet; thence N 00053' E a distance of 233.83 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA c- Z 23 - X78 u 1 1 aeo _ i1: 3 ^ ^ i l_!•U Y1 :I '4141 Z~,. . J 1 . i•.:' 6"?0 ^G'ax , 1501 3500 . e I: ,.,e f t 1100 r: . !200 F _ AJ.c _ S 1300 K0/ r~ W 1~ - 1^ ' 150< - 1302 m ecn Y^ 77 - I ..c J.n' 1.ae 41300 4.100 i.c..ii • r r ~ ~ H i i t ••r S it . _ ~S~ -,[•FON y _ 1 - ' '::v..~.4`:+ v. . 1600 •'_\hv='- •i100 ..5:•i::;Tir,4`.: P~ Ie00 IT01 •2500 2200 `1101 i a.c l.a000 y: .JO.c 1 come r>{ 410 3-78"Y' i2- ` AREA TO BE aec0 ; ~_.J.... ANNEXED ? -I CO 23- 74 z :4arw:;~•qtr,~^:}:t`;4?;~t~•g.'.<:;^•.c;;r,;: ~act,^r•;: SEL Zi / CITY OF TIGARD WATER ]DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 2r-8 7 =EXHIBIT 25 ZCA No. 98-yool __Jj LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 4 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at an iron rod on the south line of said Northeast quarter which bears South 89 018' West, 1068.9 feet from the quarter corner on the east line of said Section 4 and running thence North 01 ° 16' West, 325.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 01 ° 16' West, 331.10 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 934 from which an iron rod bears South 01 ° 16' East, 30.0 feet; thence along said centerline South 89 022' West, 132.65 feet, from which an iron bears South 01 ° 16' East, 30.0 feet; thence leaving said centerline South 01116' East, 331.25 feet; thence North 89 ° 19' East, 132.68 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 43-j SVU MARIE CT. • • ; %r 'Soo LY 1 r 100 ^ tyi ` ..Y/ "1 • ~ lcoo- ;loco = ~ 7 ° a 2100 2700 1100' 12T. " 1300 MOO in l az I'a 3 =IY 3 1 i 1 r c:bt \ r7 WALN UT - - 3000 Soo I. Iwl 3ao0 1 <aoo 394 [j y300_':: 00 3401 .Ira, 3000 1 •trar I y 3M 3102' .Jra. :•..rrx Jra,. I.Ia d ' rJx JJJIe m F• 111 1 330< . W .rrac S A 23 -78 100 3101 ~x 31 .w 3100 % 1 t# Coo-. i Sol J,k 1 \ r4 \ ,t, c 4200 3100 = L rb J OM'N•Y'• - - CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3$99 ZCA No-18700o2 EXH191T 26 _~Jj LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northwest one quarter of Section 3 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 8, CARMEN PARK as recorded in Book 23, Page 23 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 00 ° 10'00" W a distance of 216.98 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Carmen Street; thence N 89050'00" E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 91.68 feet to the east boundary of said CARMEN PARK; thence S 00037'00" E, along said boundary, a distance of 217.0 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 8; thence S 89050'00" W, along the south line of said Lot 8, a distance of 88.72 feet to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA Jilt 17 ri: 16 il1 I' 12 Y7~ s 600 , - 4z I SA CARMEN _ EET. 6 ` ..•ra - 17 7660 i100.•(.'Cj S700 ] 000 zsao 2,00 zt00 e.k r •rW - IS -6000 K O V :4z 1 1 s z ] a ~ s , 6 a T ;t,•Wx%~: s'... 900 <0]0 ]aao -01 23-78 frll_. r4. .t li.e. J7.< . 1 .,01 a2C0 a]00 1 ( Jlae uc u. s w y a. FONN ER STREET, set 12 1 ]c 1 CITY OF TICARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. J 3gg2. EXHIBIT 27 ZCA No. 98_ owy LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and the North- west quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located North 110 feet from the initial point according to the duly recorded plat of ARLINGTON RIDGE, recorded on June 29, 1994, in Plat Book 91, Page 33, Record of the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence Easterly 321.80 feet, more or less, to a point; thence South 110 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 43, according to the duly recorded plat of SHADOW HILLS NO. 2, recorded on September 25, 1985, in Plat Book 59, Page 28, Records of the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence South 88°47'09" East along the north line of the plats of SHADOW HILLS NO. 2 and SHADOW HILLS 342.50 feet, more or less, to a point; thence North 00044' East 330 feet to a point; thence West 317.50 feet; thence North 00044' East 310 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street; thence Westerly along said right- of-way 215.42 feet, more or less; thence South 00005' West 180 feet; thence West 135 feet to the east line of the plat of ARLINGTON RIDGE; thence South along the east line of ARLINGTON RIDGE 350 feet, more or less to the Point of Beginning. INCLUDING that portion of SW Gaarde Road located North of and adjacent to the above described property. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 2S 1 1OBB GAARDE 2S 1 10BA u e 3 z .cr .ti i■f. c1e110E w • t S. W . A M E S LANE % -'78 3 78 r_ 1 as .w .a~ .aou .wo - 16 .4 .4 a. ao G ' ~N _ AREA TO SE y ANNEXED - 23-78 zs-Te a■ a. a. , o■ ; - S.W. ■ CHANDLERod' DRIVE-," AREATO BE ■ ar Ea vi rY _ ANNEXED M s Al W t. SW. OUCHLLY ■COUR7 Nciuttap0 ° _Z}TIGARD L L s a AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF February 23. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution establishing city policies for the administration of the Community Housing Pro am. PREPARED BY: David Scotto DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City establish the policies shown in Exhibit "A" for the administration of the Community Housing Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution shown in Exhibit "A." INFORMATION SUMMARY In July 1997, the Council formed the Community Housing Task Force to address groWing community concern regarding the deterioration of some of the existing housing stock in Tigard and a desire to mitigate deterioration and prevent it from increasing in the community. The Council appointed representatives from the rental housing industry and tenant advocates to the Task Force. The Council gave the Task Force the charge of studying the issues and recommending a Community Housing Program. The Task Force determined that a property maintenance code which provides for minimum standards of safety, health, sanitation and habitability will mitigate the deterioration of housing in Tigard. The Task Force also developed program policies and procedures for implementing the program. See the Task Force's report for a full discussion of the Task Force's work and findings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL NOTES Program costs are estimated at $70,000 per year. Unknown revenue will be derived from fines and penalties. L Icitywidels=1223chres.doc AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 23-1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing,, for the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District project PREPARED BY: Vannie I uy4 DEPT HEAD OK :Gus D6uen~as - CITY MGR OK: Bill Monah ^ arf ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNNIL Shall the City Council conduct a public hearing for the improvements of the 69°i Avenue Local Improvement District? STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. The staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider oral and written testimony from the citizens regarding improvements in the proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District. 2. Staff further recommends that the City Council (after receiving and considering testimony at the public hearing) order the improvements to be made in accordance with the Resolution of Intent, or with modifications, and direct the preparation of an ordinance to form the district. INFORMATION SUMMARY In mid-1998, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to 690' Avenue and other local streets located in the immediate vicinity. In October 1998, the City Council approved a resolution directing its staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineering report for the proposed district. In the Council meeting on February 9, 1999, the Council approved the Preliminary Engineering Report and declared its intention to form the district and make the public improvements. The Resolution of Intent No. 99-10 approved by the Council in that meeting included the following streets in the improvements: C SW 69' Ave between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right- of-way of SW Dartmouth Street. O SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68"' Avenue and SW 70"' Avenue. i ® SW Franklin Street between SW 68"' Avenue and SW 69"' Avenue. ® SW Beveland Street between SW 68' Avenue and SW 70"' Avenue. • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69" Avenue and SW 70' Avenue (south side only). The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, lighting, undergrounding power-telephone-TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. The preliminary estimate of the improvements is $1,228,000. Notice of hearing was mailed to the owners of each lot affected by the improvements on February 11, 1999. The notice will be published in the Tigard Times on February 18, 1999. In addition, the staff will conduct an informal public meeting on February 17, 1999 to address any questions related to the proposed improvements, assessment method and formulation of the district boundary. The purpose of the hearing is to consider oral and written testimony from the citizens, which must be received by the Council by the close of the hearing. Formation of the district and construction of the improvements cannot proceed when the property owners owning two-thirds of the property area within the proposed district remonstrate against the improvements. Attached to this item summary are the following documents: - Vicinity map. - Project location map indicated the proposed streets to be improved. - Proposed LID boundary map. - Resolution of Intent No. 99-10. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - Order the improvements to be made and the district to be formed with modification to the district boundary. - Reject the improvements and reject the formation of the district. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION C01MUTTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL N TE This project will be funded from the FY 1998-99 SW 69' Avenue Local Improvement District fund. iAeng\99cip\89t \sum2.doc 1i ~b tp 4n- n by ~ ~ Yf p 6 h m ~ ' ~d~' ~ P~ FANNY 2 gtgR6'K`' QQ' s 4CppWALD o RD GAARDE 6pN1TA BULL µWNTNN R9 DUB 3 Ql ~p Ro MVER BEEF ~ p'~ ~+z 6814°1 EIAWMEMNG qv0 13125 v 9mr ago 111,111 "1! J!"ll Illili~ 3AV H199 Zr A 7- 02 0 W 3Ad H1S9 i.2 3AV H169 z o to x a i, a a N W 3AV WOL ~ F- r N N 4 z n W if $ c 4 N aei~ 7 J O. -C.= z o m z wig z a~ W J 3Ad ONZL Dartmouth Street ati . Z-/D Soundar' Ma ~ p ::TE ipiTG67{ r'b. r . :;it;yTiiR:{ .Y.R'vlydlM.: i.......... : ;arc q a r oa co iia:• ri;;a: p =FrqStreet h TTyy✓✓~~.yy ..T. :.YX'..................... tt KK ~~yy~~~~•.'.T.': 71:p}??•; u t Scole:l D =2 0 o seap is : . z:' mod LID Boundo ry CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- / 0 A RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTEN'.l ION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO IMPROVE 69TH AVENUE AND CERTAIN OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: • SW 69' Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68' Avenue and SW 70' Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68'" Avenue and SW 69' Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69& Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69m Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a preliminary evaluation report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting of October 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, the preliminary evaluation report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID, heard the pros and cons about the proposed LID, and provided an opportunity for input by the initiators of the LID and other property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 98-52 authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided additional guidance since the meeting on October 13, 1998 to extend the LID boundary south to Hampton Street, and to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69d'Avenue to 68' Avenue to satisfy the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has retained the firth of DeHaas and Associates, Inc. to prepare the preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has completed the preliminary engineering report, which includes extension of the LID boundary to Hampton Street and the extension of Beveland Street from 69d' Avenue to 68 b Avenue; and RESOLUTION NO. 99-Lo Page 1 WHEREAS, the preliminary engineering report recommends that City Council proceed with the formation of the LID as proposed in the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby declares the intention to form a local improvement district (LID) to improve the following streets within the Tigard Triangle in the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Ehnhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) SECTION 2: The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, lighting, undergrounding power-telephone-TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Basic construction will be procured in accordance with City of Tigard construction contract procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (sewer, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City Forces. SECTION 3: The estimate of probable total costs of the improvements is $1,228,005.00. SECTION 4: The methods of assessment shall be as follow: a. Street and Water Quality Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis 50% of costs on an Area Basis b. Storm Drain and Detention Improvements 100% of costs on an Area Basis c. 5anij= Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis d. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis N e. ,sidewalk Improvement 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis f. Street Trees and Barkdust 100% of costeq on an Area Basis g. Undergrounding Power. Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis RESOLUTION NO. 99- Page 2 h. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis: 1) Right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. 2) Add catch basin and lateral at NW corner of 69th and Hampton. 3) Reconstruct wheelchair ramp at NW corner of 69th and Hampton, if deemed necessary'. 4) Street Lighting SECTION 5: The public hearing to hear remonstrances shall be conducted during the City Council meeting on February 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. S19CTION 6: Proper notice shall be given regarding the time and date of the public hearing to hear remonstrances. This notice should include the streets in the proposed LID and a brief description of the proposed public improvements. PASSED: This day of r-"2VZ,(t-1t1V- 1999. e~Wor - City of Tigard ATTEST: reztAL~!A-P- - City Recorder - City of Tigard I..VAyw6deVRA3Wo 0uUcn of InterN to Form 69" Amnue LID RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 3 i FEB-19-1999 09:28 503 626 8903 P.01/02 • v.~'`C~'sz' SPECHT Date: 2/19/99 To: City of Tigard Fag: 503-684-7297 Bill Monahan, Wayne Lowry, Gus Duenas, Vannie Nguyen CC: Stoel Rives LLP o Steven L. Pfeiffer 1 Faye: 503-220-2480 Greg Specht From: Todd R. Sbwffer Phone: 503-646-2202 Vice President Fax: 503-626-8903 Pages: 2 (including rover) Subject: 691° Avenue LID - Revised letter Enclosed please find a revised copy of the letter sent to you yesterday. Please note that the only change is to the last sentence of the second paragraph. We would like to resolve the Beveland Extension matter in a mutually agreeable manner prior to the Council meeting on February 23rd. Please let me know when you are available to meet. r 3 C1voM Thy.eM199t DroJesu - Yad4Ti~J Iriandd,ZO'iil.9aa 1 FEB-19-1999 09:28 503 626 8903 P.02/02 SPEC SPECHT PROPERTIES SPF.CHT DEVHIOPMFN'i' 15400 5.W. Milliken Way - 13cavenon, OR 97006 February 19, 1999 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-13903 Mi. Bill Monahan Via: Fncnimile 684-7297 City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69" Avenue LID Dear Bill: As you know, i am both concerned and disappointed regarding the proposed addition of the Beveland Extension from 691" to 681s Avenue (the "Beveland Extension'j to the LTD which we initiated last summer. You heard our testimony in front of the City Council on February 9", and received a copy of our letter to Ms. Vannic Nguyen regarding this matter. In summary, we L*,lieve that the 49% increase in the total LTD costs, arising solely from the Bevelmd Extension, is not only preposterous due to its cost, and the allocation of such costs to the Speeht Property, but also provides very limited benefit to the City of Tigard. We continue to support the LID, albeit without the Beveland Extension costs being allocated to our property. However, due to the outrageously excessive cost of the Beveland Extension, we have no choice but to remonstrate against the LID in the event that the LID allocates the Beveland Extension costs to our property. If the City chooses to proceed with the Beveland Extension as part of the LID, we ask that the City either fund the additional Extension costs, or assess those properties which will benefit from the Extension, namely Mr. Tim Roth's properties. Furthermore, our Counsel has brought to our attention that if we wish to remonstrate against the LID, we must do so prior to the "close of the initial public meeting" (Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.040.(d).(1).(A).), which will take place on February 23". Therefore, we ask that the City remove the Beveland Extension from the LID prior to public testimony, or in any case prior to the conclusion of the public testimony, in order to permit us to withdraw our remonstration prior to the close of the initial public meeting. If no such accommodation can be made, the entire LID would be in jeopardy if two-thirds of the property area within the LID district remonstrate. Therefore, we were pleased to hear Mr. Gus Duenas suggest, at the LID Neighborhood Meeting on lFebn wy 17', that the City is contemplating paying the costs associated with the acquisition of LID right-of-way, estimated in the Preliminary Engineering Report to be $330,000. We certainly would like to resolve this matter in a mutually agreeable manner prior to the February 231 City Council meeting, and thus are agreeable to this proposal. Pieasc contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1 Todd R. Sheaffcr Vice President c: Wayne Lowry, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Gus Duenas & Vannie Nguyen, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) StevePfeiffer, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht cruoed yMj~cU1199~ tau - kdONiyera tiuKdeloo~: 02/19/99 13:00 '503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD I~ 001 EE##E###E#E#E##EE#E##E#EE#E #E# ACTIVITY REPORT EEE EEEE#EEESE#E##EEEEE####EEEE TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 2695 CONNECTION TEL 5036391471 CONNECTION ID CITY OF TIGARD START TIME 02/19 12:59 USAGE TIME 01'07 PAGES 2 RESULT OK FEB-19-1993 09128 503 626 6903 P.01/02 Date; 2119/99 To: City of Tiprd Fax: 503-684-7297 Bill Monalnan, Wayne Lowry, Gu3 Memo, Vannic Ngttysn CC: Stod Rim LLP r ~ Steven L, Pfeiffer Fax: 503-220-2480 Greg Spec ht From: Todd R. Shaeffer Phone: 503-646-2202 Vices President Fax: 503-626-8303 Pages: 2 (including cover) Subject: 69' Avenue LID - Rimed 9eiYer Enclosed please find a revised copy of the letter sent to you yesterday. Please note that the only change is to the last sentence of the second paragraph. We would like,o resolve the Beveland Extension matter in a mutually agreeable manner prior to the Council meeting on February 23rd. Please let me know when you are available to meet. t ' FEB-23-1999 1438 503 626 8903 P.01/01 ' At-OKI ~I SPA. CHT SPEC HT PROPERTIES SP1:.C1.1T DF.VELOPWNT 1 WO S.W. M114kan Way • Beavenori, OR 47006 February 23, 1999 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-8903 Mr. Gus Duenas Via: Facsimile 6B+7 97 City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69'' LID Dear Gus: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. At the conclusion of our meeting, you asked me to notify you regarding what portion of the LID costs the City should bear in order to ensure Specht Development, Ine.'s ("Specht") support of Vie LID. Please let me provide you with two alternatives ths'& would carry the support of Specht: 1. Extension of Develand: Should the City choose to accept responsibility for the LTD costs associated with the acquisition of the right-of-way (the "ROW"), Specht will support the payment of the street improvement costs by the LID participants, for the extension of Beveland from 691" to 68' Avenue (the "Beveland Extension"). DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has estimated in the Preliminary Engineering Report that the ROW acquisition costs would total $330,000. 2. Original LID Scope: Should the City determine that the cost of the ROW acquisition is excessive, Specht will agree to support the LTD proposed in the Preliminary Engineering Report, sans the Beveland Extension. Please note that Alternative One represents substantial movement and compromise on the part of Specirt. As you know from our testimony on October 13, 1998 and February 9, 1999, Specht has not previously supported the Beveland Extension. However, should the City decide that the Beveland Extension is worth up to $330,000 (cost of ROW acquisition) in City funds, Specht will agree to bear it's pro rata share of the Beveland Extension street improvement costs. Should the City determine that the Beveland Extension's benefits do not match the ROW acquisition costs, we propose that the City remove the Beveland Extension from the LID (Alternative Two). Again, we continue to support the LID, so long as the LTD participants are not unduly burdened with the ROW acquisition costs. We believe that the originally proposed LID, which would result in full street improvements, are of great value to the City and the LID participants. Please contact me should you have any further comments or questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President, c: Bill Monahan, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Speeht G GtS lbc~A CL s 0A, eyn C-t~~ ?W) February 17, 1999 2'L \ Tigard City Council 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: 69 h Ave LID Dear Council Members: I received the enclosed copy of the Specht Development letter dated February 5, 1999 and I totally agree with their objection. I have never been a fan of Beveland connecting from 72nd to 68th let alone have to be a party to paying for that improvement and the land acquisition involved. I see no benefit to adding that cost to the LID except to save the City the direct cost if they want to proceed with that connection. I will be out of town when you hold the public hearing so please consider this a formal objection to the plan of including acquiring and developing Beveland between 68th and 70'x. The remainder of the plan is acceptable as it pertains to the Landmark Ford pWperty and the land my wife and I own personally. im Corliss 9750 SW Inez Tigard, Oregon 97224 FEE-05-1999 07:48 SPE HT PROPERTIES 503 626 1@903 P.01.03 SPI-KHT SPECHT PROPEI.'1IES SPECHT DEvLLOPMENT 15.100 S. V. Millikan Way • 6Caverton, OR 97006 10.1/646-2/02 r:m 501/62-0-8903 February 5, 1999 Ms. Vannie T. Nguyen, P.E. Via: Facsimile 684-7297 Engineering; Manager City of Tigard 137 25 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69th Avenue LED Dear Ms. Nguyen: I am writing to you in response to our phone conversation on Wednesday, January 27th regarding the 69th Avenue LID (the "L ID"). As we discussed, Specht Development, Inc. ("Specht") snong;ly disagrees with the City's decision to include the extension of Develand from 69 Avenue to 68th Avenue (the "Extension'). We expressed our position on this matter to City Council on October 13, 1998 at the City Council's Business Meeting, and again to Gus Duenas, City Engineer, and Marlin De Haas, De Haas and Associates (the engineer hired by the City to prepare the Preliminary Engineering Report), at the LID Neighborhood Meeting on January 14, 1999. It is important that you be aware that we thought the Extension issue had been resolved at the October 13th City Council Business Meeting. At that meeting the Extension was trot to be included in the scope of the Preliminary Engineering Report ("Report'). According to Mr. Dumas, the City Council made the decision to include the Extension within the LID during Executive Session, which was not open to the public, on Dcc:ember 15, 1998. Specht was not made aware of the City's consideration of this matter nor their intention to include the Extension in the Retort until informed by Mr. Duenas at the Neighborhood Meeting on January 14th, and it is very disappointing to us that this substantial change was not conveyed to our firm earlier. We continue to strongly believe that the Extension should not be included within this LID. The following is a summary of the reasons for our position which I have already discussed with you, Mr Duenas, and Mr De Haas: 1. The Extension was not part of the LID improvements proposed in the Petition to create the LID that was submitted to the City. 2. lVe do not believe that the Extension benefits any of the potential LID participants, except for those whose land must be acquired (at a substantial cost) in order to construct the Extension. Cnrodd PeoSeerA~•rJq lrCiw4 - T~Ad1TFp~ud rim~l~~t:(YCi~ .4w FEE-05-1999 0 7.*-tE SPEC= HT PROPERTIES 503 6--b- 61903 P. 021.1- 93 • his. Nguyen, Ciry of Tigard RE: 69~h Avenue LID Dale., February s, 1999 Page 2 3. According to the Report prepared by Mr. De Hass., the estimated cost for acquiring the Extension ROW is $330,000. Furthermore, if one assumes that the improvements to the 220 foot Extension cost $350 per linear foot, the total Extension cost would be $407,000, or $1,850 per linear foot. The Report estimates the total cost for the LID to be $1,228,005. The estimated total cost for the LID, prior to the addition of the estimated Extension cost, is $821,005. Therefore, acquiring and improving the Extension ROW accounts for an increase in the estimated total LID costs of more than 49°/,. This increase is obscene. 4. At the City Council Business Meeting on October 13th, Greg Specht, Speeht Development, Inc., stated that he was willing to refund the City the cost for preparation of the Report in the event that the City Council chose to commission the Report as contemplated, and the LID was not thereafter supported by Specht's properties. At that time, W. Specht was acting in good faith, believing that the scope of the LID had been agreed upon. Given this financial commitment, the City had an obli~hon to notify and discuss with Specht that it was considering modifying the scope of the Report. No such notification was given to Specht until die Neighborhood Meeting on January 14th. 5. An argu scat can be made that SpechCs Conditions of Approval (SDR 98-12 PC) do not include any requirement for Specht to improve this section of Beveland Street (68th to 691t Avenue). It seems inappropriate for the City to now include such extremely costly Extension costs within the LTD that was proposed for the mutual benefit of the City and the LID property owners. 6. In the event that the City believes that the Extension benefits the City, the City or the immediately affected property owners, excluding Specht, should pay the cost of the Extension. Hypothetically speaking, if Beveland Street was planned to extend several additional blocks, and such ROW would need to be acquired for a fee, we believe that it would be quite clear to all panics that it was unfair to burden the LID participants with the cost of acquiring the ROW necessary for extending a road for the benefit of the City as a whole. Therefore, we maintain that it is unfair to require the potential participants of this LID to pay for the Extension acquisition and construction costs, and that the City should bear such costs, not the LID participants. Given the above, we strongly urge the City to remove the addition of the Bevcland Street Extension from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue from the LID scope. The LTD participants should not shoulder the exorbitant costs of such improvements in order to benefit the City as a whole and, snore singularly, those { property owners who would benefit by payments for the acquisition of their ROW, funded by other LID + participants. This is especially true when such property owners would otherwise be required to dedicate to the City, without monetary compensation, the Beveland Street ROW in the future (just as Specht was { conditioned in its SDR approval) as part of the City-mandated conditions of approval for any future development. j Specht has acted in good faith. We have agreed in principal to the other improvements and the methods f of cost allocation proposed by Mr. De Haas. We voluntarily committed to refund the City for the cost of the Preliminary Engineering Report under "normal" circumstances. This proposed Extension is far from C'lradd Pro)*=%19-TA Nmkmi • T Wd%rwxd oi=sk%aY174.mu ffA011i FEE-05-1999 07:40 SPECHT PROPERTIES 503 6-26 6903 P.03.03 Ms. Nguyen, City of 79gard RE: 691h Avcnuc LID Uatc: February 3. 1999 Pap- 3 normal. Specht stated its clear objections regardhig the Extonsion to the City Cowicil at the Business Meeting on October 13th. This is too valuable of a project for the City to risk over the relatively insignificant, yet excessively costly extension of Reveland Street. Ms. Nguyen, we would be pleased to meet with you to resolve these matters. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best Regards, SPEECHTDEVELOPMENT, INC. D Todd R. Sheaffcr Vice President c: Mayor Jim Nicoli, City of Tigard (fax: 684-3636) Councilor Paul Hunt, City of Tigard (fax: 620-8759) Councilor Brian Moore, City of Tigard, (fax: 603-0461) CouncilorJoyce Patton, City of Tigard, (fax: 590-0371) Councilor Ken Scheckla, City of Tigard, (fax 639-5697) Bill Monahan, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Jim Hendryx. City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Gus Duenas, City of Tigard (tax: 684-7297) Marlin De Haas, Dc Haas & Assoc., Inc. (fax: 6824018) Jim Corliss, Landmark Ford (fax. 598-8368) Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Associates (fax: 968-1674) Steve Pfeiffer, Stool hives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht H 7 H q~ i C Kw7d {~aen~iwe frolmu.11~N1Typ~A *Iaj1.`/.'O'11w6w TOTHL P.03 BOB rn 0 rV1 EX ■ ;,>/2,3 l qq Popp AdWoAt Digital Imaging ~~J-Ae~,c-n To: Tigard City Council Re: Concerns and Objections regarding proposed 69th Avenue construction LID I am Mark Dana, owner of Tax Lot 9700 (#28 on the LID list). My business has been located at this site for two and one half years. We receive a fair amount of visiting traffic from customers, vendors, couriers and delivery trucks. Approximately two-thirds of our traffic comes from the Haines Street exits of 1-5 and about one-third comes from Hwy 217 and 72nd Avenue. Our address is on 68th Avenue and our parking lot access is from 68th Avenue at the NE corner of the lot. This access would be directly adjacent to the newly created intersection and would therefore be in violation of current codes. I have seen a set of plans that show my site receiving access from the new Beveland Street extension at halfway between 69th and 68th Avenues. While this is advantageous for our visitors from 72nd Avenue, it becomes a source of confusion and a nuisance for the majority of our visitors and employees coming from 1-5. Our business sign is located on 68th Avenue about 120 feet south of the new intersection and would therefore be around the corner from our access. The issues I foresee are: 1) Our address is 68th Avenue but one version of the plan calls for access from Beveland Street only. I would object to having my 68th Avenue access removed. If we accept Beveland Street access only, visitors from 1-5 would need to turn right onto Beveland and position themselves to make a quick left within about 80 feet in order to enter the parking lot. This could cause problems if there are many people waiting on Beveland to turn onto 68th Avenue. This likelihood is great as 68th Avenue traffic becomes quite busy in the near future due to significant traffic increases related to current and future building projects occurring south of Hampton Street as you know. Under this scenario, I would expect to be compensated to have an additional sign erected near the new Beveland access point. 2) If my 68th Avenue access is to be retained, it would need to be moved southward to the required minimum distance (or preferably more) from the new intersection. This new 68th Avenue access would require the City to re-locate current utility junction boxes and my business mail box as well as to reconstruct a portion of my parking lot to allow gently slop- ing access from street grade to parking lot grade. (This could potentially cause traffic accidents, though, as southbound 68th Avenue traffic begins to slow and signal for a turn-in to my access. A vehicle waiting on Beveland to turn either direction onto 68th Avenue may intrepret this as an intention to turn onto Beveland and pull out in front of one my visi- tors or employees.) 3) Nothing has yet been addressed to mitigate the impact of this new intersection upon my existing parking lot leading to my current approach. Of course, the city would change current approach concrete to standard sidewalk. However, my parking lot is graded and paved on a gradual slope to sidewalk level. Obviously, this is not acceptable or desirable. Vehicles looking for an exit could easily mistake this as access to 68th Avenue and would damage their vehicles as well as potentially create a hazard for sidewalk pedestrians who are not prepared to see a vehicle emerge at this point. Therefore, no matter how new access is provided, I would expect the City of Tigard to reconstruct much of the northern 25 feet of my lot to convert its use from access to parking at a level below street grade like the surrounding parking area. Since I recently had this parking lot professionally re-sealed last summer, I would also expect the City to re-seal any new asphalt portion(s) of my parking lot within a hvo year time period in order to return it to its current condition. Page 1 of 2 12585 SW 68th Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 620.9229 Fax (503) 624-7477 Jj Page 2 of 2 4) The current proposed extension of Beveland Street jogs southward approximately 15 feet at 69th Avenue so that it becomes adjacent to Tax Lot 9700 and 9800. Since one plan provides a single access to my Tax Lot 9700 and Mr. Roth's Tax Lot 9800 from Beveland, it would force visiting traffic to turn quickly and sharply to the left or right to get to the main entrances of the two buildings on these lots. This situation is an additional nuisance and can cause accidents. Why not keep Beveland heading straight east-west at 69th? This would provide a cleaner street design and would also allow room for Improved access Into Tax Lots 9700 and 9800. 5) Related construction under any plan would almost certainly destroy my plantings of 25 arbovitae at the north edge of my Tax Lot 9700. In that event, I would expect to be compensated accordingly. 6) My business receives regular shipments from various companies using semi-trailers. Currently, these large trucks enter from 68th Avenue and park wham ttie new Beveland access would be, and leave via 69th Avenue. None of the new approach scenarios discussed here would allow the kind of access or manueverability or temporary parking these rigs require. 7) Finally, can you confirm that the current assessments will not increase in the future? If the additional extension of Beveland Street between 69th and 68th Avenues is postponed, how will this affect assessments now and in the future? And if this extension does not occur, can you confirm that this would reduce the current assessments? In summary, I object to the existence of the section of Beveland Street between 69th and 68th Avenues as it degrades the quality of access to my site and to the site adjacent to mine. It also creates hazards and public nuisances no matter how new access is resolved. My objection remains even if Beveland Street is realigned northward to match the rest of Beveland. I would have made these items known earlier, but have not received meeting notices. The plans show my address Incorrectly, and the City's engineering department did not have me on their mailing list until this day. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, A44,</_ Mark Dana 12585 SW 68th Ave. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 620.9229 Fax (503) 624-7477 69th AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION f r... i rrrrr AI I ~ ~ Iryn f ~ I i Qr. L IW/ I I ~ 81AYwr~/~eI Y.. M_e ~ A ~ p~ ~ ~ Y !/.Wry d I/Or I tiw I~ NOS wiwgP I1+// ~W v Ja A lM. I I q .A• i ~ i _ _ -.j. -._s:. tea.' - j_s- / AA M IHIP^ ~ I I.r. M .r O.i . rte. PROPOSED IMPRO VEMEJ ~ A I STREE7 L9' WAM? OU4LffY A. r~ .rL t• lliN ' ._.._.._.._.._1 S)WTARY SE7►£R I _ - WA MR SIDEWALK STREET TREES & HARKDUS7 UNDERGROUND POWER. 7ELL Aft'IU tRY 1.VP9011E.HEN75 _ _ - = I LL. i i -11 IT DAVID B. SMITH ATToRNF.yAT LAW 6975 S.W aadbarRoad, Suite 130 D Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503)624-9352 Fax (503)624-2735 February 22, 1999 FEB 2 3 1999 Mr. Gus Duenas City Engineer CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 By FAX: 684-7227 Re: Proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District Dear Mr. Duenas: On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. lack Snyder, and Mr. and Mrs. Cecil ]ones, please enter the following remonstrance to formation of the proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District. The Jones and Snyders are the owners of, and reside at, 12170 and 12190 SW 69th Avenue, respectively. Both properties are within the proposed LID. Based on the Preliminary Summary of Assessment Costs, the Snyders and Jones will be assessed 514,300 and $23,SOO in Street and Street Development Costs, respectively, and $2400 each in Water Costs. Both types of cost assessments are unfair and based on flawed methodology. Street and Street Development Costs Street improvements are assessed on the basis of 50% of the costs on a frontage basis, and 506 of the costs on an area basis. Thus, all the costs are based upon the size of the properties rather than the street usage of the properties. This results in grossly disproportionate burdens on the tones and Snyders, the only single family residential properties in the proposed LID. As you know, the entire area in question is zoned MUE by the 'City. In that zone, a wide variety of commercial and residential uses are permitted outright. One residential use so permitted is a pre-existing detached single family dwelling. The Washington County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance sets 10.0 trips per day as the traffic impact of that use. In comparison to the other uses permitted in the MUE district, this is a minuscule traffic impact. For example, offices generate over 12 tips per thousand gross square feet (TGSF-), day care facilities generate 67 trips per TGSF, eating and drinking establishments generate 100 trips per TGSF, and commercial lodging facilities generate 8.7 trips per TGSF. I should note that the existing new car sales establishment in the proposed LID generates 47.52 tips per TGSF. Every other use permitted in the MUE zone has traffic at: lot. uy•. NL lVI IIey dl Law, tlua aad JU28; 1-eD-22-99 4:42PM; Page 2/3 , s' impacts that dwarf the impacts produced by the ]ones and Snyders. Even where the Jones and Snyders derive some special benefit from the street improvements, that special benefit correlates with with use of the streets (traffic impacts) rather than street frontage and area. Street frontage and area bear no relationship to the special benefits. It is well established that government assessments on landowners are fair and just only if based on special benefits conferred on landowners. Norwood v. Baker, 172 US 269, 299 (1898) (legislative body may not, even when taxing, assess property for street improvements by the front foot for a fixed sum when the sum is in excess of benefits derived). In this case, we urge the City to change the method of assessment of properties within the LID, and to predicate that assessment on traffic impacts. In the alternative, if the City deems this impractical, we urge the City to exempt these two single-family residential properties - the only such properties in the district - from the street improvement assessment altogether. Their special benefits, based on traffic impacts, are so small in comparison to other uses in the MUE district as to make that exemption far more fair than the current method of assessment. Finally, the Jones and Synders join with Specht Properties in objecting to inclusion of the Beveland extension (from 68th to 69th Avenues) in the LID assessment calculus. We agree that the extension affords no special benefits to existing LID participants except those over which the extension will run. In particular, the extension affords no special benefit to the Jones and Snyders. Mater Costs The Jones' and Snyder's residential properties also each are assessed $2400 in Water Costs. Both properties currently are adequately served by City water. No improvement to the City's water system by the LID will afford any benefit to them, much less a special benefit. The improvements proposed are "Water Main Improvements on an Area Basis." Even if future development in the area will require improvements to the water main, it is that development that will cause those improvements. Existing residential use of city water should not be taxed to support overall system expansion to benefit future development. We respectfully urge the Synders and the Jones be exempted from the y Water Costs of the LID assessment. Notice I noted that the public notice in the Tigard Times, which I received on February 18, indicated that there would be a public meeting on the LID at City Hall on February 17, as well as the too public hearing before the City Council on February 23. My review of the Tigard Times issues of February 4 and it shows no notice of the February 17 meeting. My clients advise me they did not receive individual written notice of the meeting, and only learned of it from a neighboring landowner after the fact. I conclude the City°s notice process of this LID adoption thus is flawed and inadequate. Please place this letter before the City Council for its hearing on the LID on February 23. very truly yours, David B. Smith Attorney for Jack and Ella Snyder, Cecil and Donna Jones cc: Jack and Ella Snyder Cecil and Donna Jones 9903-001 ATR . ' S~e~ o Lp Feb. 11, 1999 Mayor and City Council -6 City of Tigard 6 u 5 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 DUYn /a3IC44 pC C C RE: 690i Street L.I.D. Honorable Mayor and Distinguished City Council: I must open this letter by stating that I apologize for not attending the City Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1999. I was of the understanding that the reason for the 690i Street L.I.D. issue, being on the evening agenda, was for the Council to review the project Engineer's report and to determine whether or not the project should be given approval to continue to a public hearing. I understood that the topic would not be open to public comments or testimony and that the time for those comments would be during the Feb. 23`d Council meeting. However, after watching the television broadcast of the Council meeting I felt a need to offer a response toward the comments made regarding the L.I.D, and more specifically the extension of Beveland from 690i to 68th. First, I need to stress the point that I am not pushing for the Beveland extension from 69`' to 680i, nor do I have any emotion about the extension from 70th to 69 h. I simply need to stress the importance that the City of Tigard is not above their own Community Development Codes. The fact of the matter is the Development Code states that SW Beveland is to become a through street as a part of the master transportation plan of the Tigard Triangle. In order to implement this plan the City has a couple of options; 1) to require the owner/developer of the land, that the extension impacts, to dedicate (since the street does not currently exist on paper) the necessary land and perform the street improves at the time that the owner/developer decides to improve their property. 2) or to form a Limited Improvement District to secure the property and perform the improvements. I really don't need to tell you this since you already have a great deal of knowledge regarding your options. I do feel the need to stress that both of these options are readily available to you now and it would not be appropriate for the City to exercise one and not the other, knowing that their very own Development Code states that the extension is required. Secondly, Specht Development spoke on the financial impact that the Beveland to 68 h extension will have on their assessed valuation of the L.I.D. My first thought was, what is the consideration of the financial impact on Specht as a result of the L.I.D. in relationship to the cost to develop without the LI.D. *I thought I heard Specht mention that his percentage of the L.I.D., based on total land impacted, was approx. 50%. The cost of the L.I.D. (69 h to 680' extension included) was stated at approx. $1,200.000.00 making Specht's portion at approx. $600,000.00. The cost without the 690i to 680' extension was estimated at $860,000 or $430.00 to Specht. rs ..Lit *Without the L.I.D. Specht would have been required to perform the off-site improvements. Based on the off-site improvements that I performed in 1997, for 1801n. ft. of a "1/2-Street" on SW 69`h, I calculated a conservative dollar per In. ft. cost of $370.00 (again this was two years ago). My ofd site cost included: permits, engineering, perform. bond, extending the sewer and storm lines, under-grounding the overhead utility lines, street grading, street catch basin, street paving, and street lighting. Cost not included in those calculations were maintenance bonding, extending the main water line and the water quality treatment facility required for the storm extension along SW 69th, which would `_v required costs as a result of Specht's project and are included in the L.I.D. assessment calculations. Specht's 69`h street frontage is estimated at 1,320 ft. and Beveland extension between 70'h and 69`h is an additional 225 ft. for a total of 1,545 In. ft. of (1/2-Street) ofd site improvements. The total cost for a "1/2- Street", should it not be included in an L.I.D., based on 1,545 In. ft. at $370/ft. equals $571,650.00. It should be noted that there would be additional costs for a maintenance bond, water main extension, and water quality facility for the street storm, which was not included in the $571,650.00 estimate, however, they are all included in the total calculations of the L.I.D. In addition, I believe it is very important to note that the City has always been very conservative about vacating streets and by their acknowledgement and acceptance to vacate SW Franklin from 69`h to 70`h, and virtually trading Specht Development for the extension of Beveland from 69`h to 70`h, has saved Specht Development the value of having to dedicate the area Beveland incorporated within their property. This estimated value would calculate at 13,500 sq.ft. (225'x60') by a conservative land value of$10.00/s.f. or $135,000.00. Further, by allowing the vacation of Franklin this has saved the '/2-Street improvements of that frontage, and in this case the savings would be a full-Street, again another 225 In. ft. at something greater than $370.00/ln. ft. or greater than $83,250.00. In summary, I would like to state that from the couple of review ;neetings that I have had with Marlin DeHaas, it appears that he has created a fair assessment schedule and I do not believe Specht Development has been treated unfairly even with the extension of Beveland to 680'. As a matter of fact, without the extension to 680h, it would appear that Specht Development would be passing a considerable amount of cost to construct his'/2-Street improvements to other property assessments through the L.I.D. This is certainly an issue of fairness to everyone impacted by the proposed L.I.D. improvements. I must say that I can understand why Specht Development would be concerned about the added cost, since the previous Council meeting did not endorse the extension to 68h, however, Specht Development is an extremely professional and experienced developer and I can only believe that if they truly looked at the cost they would agree that the assessment schedule is fair. In addition, they would acknowledge the exchange of dedicating Beveland for vacating Franklin and be thankful for the savings. Bottom line, the extension to 68`h should be approved (or eliminated from the Triangle Standards) and Specht should not be given additional "financial considerations" to aid his L.I.D. assessments unless the same "financial considerations" are given to the other property owners. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to express my view on this issue and will apologize if this letter and it's contents are out of line. V Re t 1 J oth J . 02/19/99 12:09 x`503 684 7297 CITY OF TIGARD IM001 a*a ACTIVITY REPORT a*a TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 2691 CONNECTION TEL 222 CONNECTION ID CITY ATTORNEY START TIME 02/19 12:07 USAGE TIME 01'30 PAGES 2 RESULT OK i ~o .--2m 1V D Feb. 11, 1999 Mayor and City Council 9 City of Tigard 5 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Or. 97223 •~13Y/` 1a3~~frt too G RE: 69¢' Street L.I.D. Honorable Mayor and Distinguished City Council: I must open this letter by stating that I apologize for not attending the City Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1999. I was ofthe understanding that the reason for the 69d Street L.I.D. issue, being on the evening agenda, was for the Council to review the project Engineer's report and to determine ' whether or not the project should be given approval to continue to a public hearing. I understood that the topic would not be open to public comments or testimony and that the time for those comments would be during the Feb. 23 d Council meeting. However, after watching the television broadcast of the Couaicil meeting I felt a need to offer a response toward the comments made regarding the LLD, and more specifically the extension ofBeveland from 69 h to 68th. First, I need to stress the point that I am not pushing for the Beveland extension fr om 691b to 68d', nor do I have any emotion about the extension from 7& to 69*. I simply need to stress the importance that the City of Tigard is not above their own Community Development Codes. The fact of the matter is the Development Code states that SW Beveland is to become a through street as a part of the master transportation plan of the Tigard Triangle. In order to implement this plan the City has a couple of options; 1) to require the owner/developer of the land, that the extension impacts, to dedicate (since the street does not currently exist on paper) the necessary laA and perform the street improves at the time that the owner/developer decides to improve their pro1erty. 2) or to form a Limited Improvement District to secure the property and perform the AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 02/23/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Safi Waste Franchise Transfer Re uest - Miller Soft.M Service Inc. PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK t"_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Determine appropriate conditions to attach to the franchise transfer request to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with the TMC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt ordinance, attached, to transfer franchise and attach conditions addressing issues discovered during reference check process. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 11, 1999, the City was notified by Tom Miller, owner of Miller's Sanitary Service, Inc., of the pending sale of his business to U.S.A. Waste of Oregon, Inc. Attached is a map of franchised areas in Tigard. Currently, Miller's serves the following customer base in Tigard: Residential 2,328 Multi-family 16 Commercial 148 A brochure from Waste Management/U.S.A. Waste of Oregon, Inc. is attached. TRANSFER AUTHORITY: The City's code provides for the transfer of franchises in TMC Chapter 11.04.080. The code states: ➢ franchise holder (Miller's) may transfer his franchise with 60 days prior written notice of intent and the written approval of City Council; ➢ Council cannot unreasonably withhold consent; ➢ Council will approve the transfer if the transferee (USA Waste) meets all applicable requirements met by the original franchise holders; and ➢ Council may attach whatever conditions it deems appropriate to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with the City's code. TRANSFEREE CONDITIONS: USA Waste meets all code requirements for a solid waste franchise with the following clarifications. Reference check results with surrounding jurisdictions are highlighted below and are the basis for staff's recommended conditions for franchise transfer. r A CUSTOMER SERVICE: USA Waste was reported to have a poor track record in responding to customer complaints and being responsive to customer questions. Complaints in surrounding jurisdictions centered on a lack of timely response, inadequate response and failure to respond to customers. D VXrFORMITY OF SERVICE: USA Waste provided service at times that was not uniform with the direction given by the jurisdiction A 1999 FINANCIAL REPORTS. It has been difficult, unless addressed at the time of franchise transfer, to obtain the financial reports from the leaving franchise holder CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE: Following are staff recommended conditions, which are appropriate to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with the City's code. Following recommended conditions already exist in TMC Chapter 11.04 and in the administrative rules for solid waste management. CUSTOMER SERVICE - the City of Tigard's Service Standards for solid waste collection will be followed. This includes but is not limited to: ➢ Customer calls received by 1:00 PM must be returned the same day, unless prevented by force of nature; Customer calls received after 1:00 PM must be returned by noon of the following business day, unless prevented by force of nature; and ➢ Customer complaints shall be responded to promptly. It is recognized that these conditions may be modified should the City's Service Standards be amended. The amendment process is set out in TMC Section 11.04.160. UNIFORMITY OF SERVICE - level, type and quality of service required by the City will be provided by the franchisee in accordance with the requirements in the TMC and administrative rules promulgated under authority of Section 11.04.160. RESPONSIBILITY FOR MILLER SANITARY SERVICE. INC. 1999 FINANCIAL OPERATIONS REPORTING - franchisee will present a 12-month, complete 1999 financial report to the City by March 1". 2000. This will include the period of time that Area II was franchised to Miner Sanitary Service, Inc. TIMING OF COUNCIL ACTION: Council must take action on this transfer request no later than March 12, 1999 to be in compliance with TMC requirements. This date is 60 days after receipt of Miller's request. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Attach no conditions. Modify recommended conditions. c VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Solid waste collection is not addressed in the City's Vision. 7 FISCAL NOTES Franchise fee of 3% of gross cash receipts will continue to be paid by the new franchise holder. No change in revenue is anticipated due to the transfer. The City of .1 T I G A R D SOLID WASTE 4 FRANCHISE S E R V f C E AREAS ~ r Exhibit "A" 1 Ord. 91- ® Service I A r e o j Boundary t ( t ~ d•.il t • ~ 1 I / / 1 Si Silal dote a ■y ryresea- ff ltlis, tae0i ltl 1, It. Cit, r 1 f N tiSara atilitiaS HaSrt- t - ,lit lal arstatiu Strtr• 1 r CIS) sal l.are.S1t l.,ar- T) " !ties Itr 11 e Itra ` • u , It ialeaaaa It 1t 1 .nl 11 .I I:U..al N 0 R ! H tetla ital aa11u t ietutrelat:.e Nle . a de to .sl 11 1 Vf.~4.~t ~,(i ; :1.•,; ~ to. C: 1, 7 .1 islet 7.i sail (Ilrlelatl Bill t+ 111- Nt- 1~ ~.7 k• ~d --b i 71 s gg- Management - 4 ow "oo 0, vi-0 io F#6maa..arid:Businesses in Communities Across the Country. Team ' C O L L E C T i O N ongoing operations. But our commitment goes much further: aste Management is , r We work toward taking environmental initiatives today that will led by an exceptional rite Management's commitment to the customer begins a vast collection network. Nationwide, the emphasis have the most positive future impact on the communities in management group wit with h which we live and work. proven leadership abilities p of our collection business is on commercial and industrial strong operational and solid waste. In man treas, we ' y R E C Y C L I N G financial track records, and integrate the collection r"- j extensive industry and disposal C ur recycling programs include curbside collection of experience. Throughout operations, Y recyclable materials from residential customers, as well as the company, people with directing waste t oR)PadFrota;J~lhu+y,E=1DeFrares commercial and industrial collection. We also broker the sale of diverse experience and _ to our own ; g recycled materials in bulk to the end- industry knowledge reflect landfills. We 3 f users cif such materials. At y Waste Management's commitment to building our business on 't t E also work to _ Waste Management, we trust, service and commitment. j keep decision i . ` t seek to develop 1 making and 6 John E. Drury, Chief Executive Officer, brings to Waste T recycling programs l controls at Management more than 40 years of industry experience, includingrt 1 that complement a „ p { regional and local - four years at USA Waste as chairman of the board and CEO and responsible, _ 1 levels, making us more -i _ 21 years at Browning-Ferris Industries. Providing leadership ; comprehensive responsive and more _ through several executive positions, including president and chief and cost-effective _ con xntive at the Dint of service. This restionsibilit , in plan to manage the operating officer, he spearheaded hundreds of acquisitions to help • ~ the hands of individuals with decades of operating entire waste stream. build BFI from a $100 million operation into a $3 billion r% r, experience, enhances our ability to offer low-cost, high- i company and USA Waste from $160 million to $3.3 billion. His q ° quality collection services to every customer, regardless of keen sense for improving profitability through performance is a size-from the one-cubic-yard container user to the 45- cornerstone of Waste Management's corporate strategy. cubic-yard rolloff container customer. Rodney R. Proto, President and Chief Operating Officer, is the L A N D F 1 L L S former president and chief operating officer of Sanifill, Inc., which merged with USA Waste in 1996. He then served as l president and chief operating officer of USA Waste. His career ith the largest network of landfills in the industry, Waste Management's expertise in the management and n spans more than 20 years in the waste industry, including expansion of disposal facilities is evident in both the quality positions as president of Browning-Ferris Industries Europe, Inc. and capacity of its sites across the country. By maintaining' and chairman of BFI Overseas. His reputation for astute centralized control of landfill I. management decisions and his in-depth experience with growing k' operations at the 'k organizations are key contributors to Waste Management's corporate level, we continued success. ensure adhtrence - T R A N S F E R Earl E. DeFrates, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial to proper a, _ Officer, provided financial leadership to USA Waste from its C procedures in mproving the process of transporting waste between inception in 1990. Ile brings more than 20 years of experience in permit collection and disposal is another area where Waste chief financial officer roles, including positions with Acadiana processes, Management's expertise and experience benefit the customer. Energy and Texas International Company. Under his guidance, regulatory We work diligently to minimize transportation costs through the new Waste Management will continue to develop and compliance, improved equipment utilization and other operational maintain a financial position of strength and integrity. - ~ L CUnitruction and - - efficiencies. 1 i Relationships That Work E " 7 ' r i t~n 1~ C 1 ~I T l -Z I L L r _,f T '~+u ~.,e 11 t~ i 1'ti~l 91 r- '-ir a- \Lth.uu.r L,rnr.l,rn,r 17r~~~rn t - ti°~T~ Y r r n 1 7x i 311y W tvl \I.r.l .l \l.lirl' I'.IIImlt rlli,r 7 r } r { _ 1 \1r.nl.i \Lncl.m.l I:Itrvlc Ll,ul. ~f. tl \rl..rn.•1, Al.r.,,nlul.cn~ rrlnllt'rnrlnt,r f } In„rnl,i \lrrlrrc,ln ut11 17.r) rrt,1 I. 7~ 2 V 1 31 tY t 1 tl Y ) In- fr AIn111,- t r I rnnc„ct t',~nnr.n.ut \11,.1„11q~i Ii\,1, -~rrt[~r- e `rn ra( t .1~ Itt-Lnt,u"r r i a 11-ml I t.111 b tl1 T>•1,1~ ~ ~~-Y~tj"{tr-' :1 t ~ ~ 5 1~1.1r1.1 ,ri \t~rnl.ln.i \ 1r~ani 1 s' r'• ~ i~ -r' d~ j' Z t i~ t r Yt~ ~11rn11 c1 y cki.i,kj AC.i.llin~,tr~n E~. ~t f ,rt r i r t~3 Y y~ 171 f _t I I, 11,1.1 \ 1.1.1.1 ;t \'ir_1111.r Y r 1 ` } r ` tr fi k f. rrr ,n"i.r \ctt I I11111"I , i, rrn:in I t't \ nll 1111, Iliirrli. A~~tt ll,tl. r' ~ ! I,~t,11.111,1 A:rrah l .1n,1n1,i l .nt,1,{,1 Ar,idiPAI,t,1 MCXI,1~ i" i ~li rl p ~ ~ to s i L ' ~ I~~ {~.1n.,1~ ~)Irirr I'u~;i"trr 1:1~tr ira TC 5ft {SI! I Kcntu, { r l l,llr,IiII, - r d ~.1 7~,Tr J. 1 ~ f~r TI ~ P ! ~o}~< < S ~t~~ ~ ~t v~ 1 r WASTE MANAGEMENT kEE f1 I l i t v r l l nl.l r it 1. - 'I t ~L nu 1 JJ r es 9 r CkFC AGENDA ITEM # k FOR AGENDA OF Februar"23,1999- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY r-: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code to reference the most current ing code and 1i ili Ian a e from the 1997 Uniform Buildin Coda. t rad k; . PREPARED BY: David Scott DEPT BEAD OK CITY MGR OK _ F- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL L Should the City Council amend Title 14 to reference the most current grading code and liability language from the 1997 Uniform Building Code necessary for the continued administration of the building inspection program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached ordinance amending Title 14. C` INFORMATION SUMMARY Section 1: Currently, Title 14 adopts Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code regulating grading on private property. Effective October 1, 1995, the State adopted the 1997 Uniform Building Code. State law provides that local municipalities are given concurrent authority to enforce codes which the State adopts. Therefore, our ordinance need not be amended each time the F State changes codes. However, the State does not adopt Appendix Chapter 33, but provides for 4 local adoption. Appendix Chapter 33 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code is identical to the current 1994 chapter. This ordinance simply updates local reference from the 1994 to the1997 edition. t ,i Section 2: The State also does not adopt Section 104.2.6. of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, but provides for local adoption. Tigard currently adopts this section. This section is unchanged in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code. This ordinance simply updates local reference from the 1994 to the f 1997 edition. 3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED F None,. F FISCAL NOTES No fiscal impact. F 5\citywide\sum\223tit14.doc € 1 E j c. AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of. February 23. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE: Tigard Water District Withdrawals PREPARED BY: Julia Powell HWduk DEPT HEAD OK A& CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the City Council withdraw properties previously annexed into the City of Tigard from the Tigard Water District? STAFF 'COMMENDATION Adopt the attached Ordinance withdrawing properties annexed into the City of Tigard after the City withdrew from the Tigard Water District from said water district. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard withdrew from the Tigard Water District March 23, 1993. Since that date, properties annexed into the City of Tigard should have been withdrawn from the Tigard Water District upon annexation. It was brought to Staff's attention that this had not been occurring. This process is intended to capture all the properties annexed into the City after the City of Tigard withdrew from the water district. All future annexations will simultaneously withdraw property from the Tigard Water District. Attached is an Ordinance withdrawing the properties from the Tigard Water District along with legal descriptions and maps of the annexed properties. Attachments: Ordinance Exhibits 1-27 OTHER AL T'ERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action at this time. FISCAL NOTES There is no fiscal impact because the properties have already been assessed for City of Tigard property taxes; however, because more property will be within the City of Tigard (as opposed to the Tigard Water District), the City has more ownership of the water system. 2/23/99 Council Initiation of Tigard Water District Withdrawals i:\curpln\julia\annex\wdwithdmwals.sum Julia P.H. 11-Feb-99 77- i \4fl-LU ' r 8 0 1 ® n+aRr - C woo4we o, - R4+IW, s, ' p ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -ss f 3 2 FOWLER Z3 `6 / ~L SOH 1 +h N p P / 5~ \ ,a t et 3 r l u x Z_- I Y F ~ n , r n 4 tp' '1 w [ 1 1': 31 1 7I ~r 11 TTT i C' ~ E t, , n I E ANNEXATIONS 1993-9995 ANNEXATIONS 1996- PRESENT AP 1:Rl 1--~~~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- M AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD DECLARING THAT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ANNEXED TO THE CITY ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard withdrew from the Tigard Water District on March 23, 1993; and WHEREAS, since that time, the City has annexed certain properties that were within the Tigard Water District; and WHEREAS, property within the Tigard Water District annexed into the City after March 23, 1993, must be withdrawn from that Water District to insure the proper entity receives the taxes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2), the City is liable to the District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance, the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of withdrawal of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District on February 23, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the Tigard Water District is in the best interest of the City o Tigard; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the District by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The properties located in the Tigard Water District which have been annexed by the City of Tigard and Final Order by the Metro Area Boundary commission after the City withdrew from the Tigard Water District on March 23, 1993, are hereby withdrawn from the Tigard Water District. SECTION 2: Legal descriptions and maps of the properties to be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 27 and incorporated herein. SECTION 3: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water District shall be July. 1, 1999. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council. PASSED: By Lkn Lt iit M vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 31 day of'1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recor APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thi'22)t day of 99. s Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: A i Attorney 2 2~~ Date ORDINANCE No. 99- Tigard Water District Withdrawls from 3/23/93 to 12/31/98 Page I of I i:\citywide\ord\wdwithdr.ord.doc Julia H. 11-Feb.-99 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3/73 EXHIBIT T ' 1 ZCA No. ;t-®007 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA That portion of land located in the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of that parcel described in document number 87-42382 to Mark S. and Jill S. Link in Washington County deed records and being South 89043130" West, 1334.21 feet from the East quarter corner of Section 4; thence North 0054129" East by the east line of said Link tract and extension thereof 675 feet to the northwest corner that parcel dedicated to the public as right-of-way as described in document number 92-56438, Washington County deed records; thence South 88°29110" East by the north line of said dedicated parcel and extension thereof 132.77 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel dedicated to the public as right-of-way as described in document number 92-56439, Washington County deed records; thence South 0054'29" West by the east line of said dedicated parcel and the east line of parcels 1 and 2 described in Book 1001- Page 386 to Gary W. Barker and Mary L. Barker in Washington County deed records, 671 feet to the south line of the northeast quarter of Section 4; thence South 89043130" West by the south line of the northeast quarter section 132.79 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 00 z noo ~ ~ _ u 3 1/+ _TIGARD` YP UME (I •u ia7 ew • - - 00 eoe = 3 - .w = lace` r W U~ • c i. W Nrr- T - _ t' ,>a 23-78 !1 -t CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. • ZCA No.93-Add`: EXHIBIT T ' 2 i EGAE DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Beginning at a point on the east line of the Northwest quarter of Section Wash 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette c ior~eridian,of theingon County, Oregon, 660 feet South of the quarter corner North side of said section; thence West and parallel with the north section line 1164 feet to the point; - thence South and parallel with the east line of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, 1090 feet more or less, to the southwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to Walter C. Baker and Irene R. Baker in Book 983 on Page 105 in said County's deed records, said point being on the north right-of-way line of S.W. Bull Mountain Road and being THE TRUE PonM OF BEGGING; thence North • along - said Baker's west boundary line a distance of 274 feet to the Northwest corner of said Baker's tract; thence East along the north boundary line of said Baker's tract a distance of 120 feet to the northeast corner of said Baker tract; thence South along the east line of said Baker tract a distance of 266 feet in Road more thencesWestt along said right of way li ee120 said Bull Mount feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA s.:: ' " a: 2 ( _.KQ,,..... s+K n K' ..t' . . . ' 01 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission EXHIBIT 3 ~ Final Order No. 3230 X ZCA No. 93 _ pogo Z LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: .Beginning at a point on the North boundary line of Section 9, S 89 50' 01" W a distance of 660.21 feet from the northeast corner thereof, said point being the northeast corner of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in Deed Book 284 page 35 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S 890 50' 01" W along the north line of said deed, a distance of 300.00 feet, to the northwest corner of said deed; thence S 000 021 08" E along the west line of said deed and the extension there of a distance of 1937 feet to the southerly right-of-way of S.W. Bull Mountain Road (CR # A-147 1/2); thence N 850 55' 05" E along said southerly right-of--way a distance of 553.74 feet to the east line extended of the tract conveyed to Willard J. Strickler, et ux in deed recorded in Deed Book 392 page 612 of Washington County Deed Records; thence North along the extension of said deed a distance of 40.15 feet to the northerly right-of-way of Bull Mountain Road; thence S 85° 551 05" W along said right-of-way a distance of 190.00 feet to the southeast corner of said tract conveyed to Robert S. and Julia S. Ball in deed recorded in Deed Book 1093 page 378 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 011 52" W, along the easterly line of said tract, a distance of 292.92 feet to the northeast corner of said tract and the east line of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in deed recorded in Deed Book 289 page 199 Washington County Deed Records; thence N 00° 011 52" W along said east line a distance of 396.76 feet, to the northeast corner of said tract; thence S 891 50' 01" W, along the north line of said tract, a distance of 63.00 feet to the northwest corner of said tract and the east line of the tract conveyed to Manley B. and Georgia M. Strayer in deed recorded in Deed Book 284 page 35 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 011 52" W, along said east line, a distance of 1202.44 feet to point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA _ _ - SITE - - x' K - & W - ..r........... VAL F CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No..3156 7 $ EXHIBIT 4 ZCANo.-IL-000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Five parcels in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter, Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington county, state of Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Parcel . Beginning a the northwest comer of Lot 28 HANDY ACRES, thence N 89°33'58" W a distance of 150.06 feet; thence S 00042'48' W a distance of 319.91 feet; thence N 89038'47' W a distance of 100.09 feet; thence N 47024'35" W a distance of 89.29 feet; thence N 00043'10" E a distance of 99.45 feet; thence N 42003'21" E a distance of 25.33 feet; thence N 00043'10' E a distance of 140.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 2100. Parcel 2: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 29 HANDY ACRES, thence S 89003'58" W a distance of 139.92 feet; thence S 00042'48" W a distance of 319.98 feet; thence S 89038'47" E a distance of 139.78 feet, thence N 00044'19" E a distance of 320.18 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 2102. Parcel 3: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 28 HANDY ACRES; thence N 00043'10' E a distance of 50.01 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Fern Street; thence N 89033'158" E along said north right-of-way, a distance of 339.98 febt; thence S 00044'19" W, leaving said north right-of-way, a distance of 50.01 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Fern Street and the northeast corner of Lot 29 HANDY ACRES; thence S 89°33'58' E, along said south right-of-way, 340.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Portion of SW Fern Street. Parcel 4: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 27 HANDY ACRES; thence S 00°43' W along the westerly boundary of said Lot, a distance of 638.92 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Lot 27; thence N 89143'36' E along the southerly boundary of said Lot, a distance of 170.07 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of said Lot; thence continuing N 89043'36" E along the southerly boundary of Lot 28 a distance of 50.00 feet to a point; thence N 00043' E, 174.77 feet to a point; thence S 89043'36" W, 163.08 feet to a point; thence N 00043' E, 464.31 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 27; thence West along the northerly line of Lot 27, 57.00 feet, more or less, to the northwest comer of said Lot 27 and the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 1900. Parcel 5: 0 H Beginning at a point which bears S 00054' W, 423.51 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 32, according to the duly filed plat of HANDY ACRES, in the City of Tigard, filed October 29, 1945, in Plat Book 10, Page 31, in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 4, 0 T2S, R1 W, W.M., Records of Washington County, Oregon; thence along the east line of -i said Lot 32, S 00054' W, 115.41 feet to an iron rod, thence S 88°01' W. 182.15 feet to an iron rod on the west line of said Lot 32, said iron rod being on the east right-of-way line of SW 135th Avenue; thence N 00°43 E, 115.40 feet along the west line of said Lot 32 to and iron rod; thence N 88001' E, 182.52 feet to the Point of Beginning. Tax Lot 3200. EX HIBI 4 (Continue) VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 30o too .«•wc eoo ..leu ~ tlOl = 00 5700 Sit 5t 401 +A1C 1aC A<C ~O.N7 F 17 06 14- Y }.rn w w • iJ lff N \ S.W. WALNUT LANE ; f•+ 3 •~+w 1.100 60o N 700 Ii00 10 6Is0 Z 11 MC AJC L I 3T00 OR ASSESSYE 7 IAJ SE AP 1"• 1 _ 8 /1 W ' ■IG"~i 4® • M ` 4AC NOT RELY ii V^ •K (`fir i 3100 ' 1 hr ~ ~ . M .r \ s :6100 ~ 20 ' N) 0 i 700 + I 1000 6 AOC J. AC w.. s147 F to I 3c00 ti too - x6300 • W. AC 7 2,•I• .ex[+ N+ 22C) Fes-. R O>S Y 7 j i s r? • + . T. MI.) c.oo co K7 • 6700 I « fr r.Jt 4500 .600 6 -6 • 1300 1200• M'~ 1 1100 24 5 / 1400 ,II K .d X JO K - 6600 6700 4400 4300 1 e - to - 11 C 3 'n 25 26 1 5.. ° 3400 En 3 « ..4c _85 ::}z>?z:> STREET = 32 ~'%ah;2:usitivit.; 2`>,`<i:-:A}:'C- ~c.:x£'S.:Y:ic•~~'}. 1700 a Ls 13rA y uJ K £ :.k:}'R sf•. r',:?: p g ..sue .70 o G t7oo , zlooz1o2 L-%: 11x 33 Ar.e 'AlY.c x Jas 1 L 00 ''7 0.::• LL~ti' SC. 700 :;ti'.''"~ .Y Ga o W :L I :tai - 6;: _2300 RL+trxe;'•::.•!'j::g3 i::.:::.: Y:.`?M'Sc:;'•::5':~S?~: :fti Q Z t <z < Y- r . .1 • yt • `\,'i_`: :.•42: f :;:i~ 4'''L _ _ 3100 1 :lj '\\~.h .L-\ ! k:y ';2~ 2600 ~ 1 .IIC ~ 25 27 •..•Y?` rJ :tSt,yy$,}\i-? f <iv;<8L?'},.;ti;>.; 5>: 6_ `t\ :;c::" . 7100 3 2300 . y . '~v~-`f<•• I 2200 [H 4G .aw_ 3000 l!, Ac I 24 C xy$ i;; ' 2700 S ~'}E~'i I JS K ~ . w. ; 4 31 ( 2600 .r.rw. ..r r . 8 `~n^ppixmy8';eK'~:N .r r v. ..r r .awt 4190 SIF4 741 Ol K F• 1 j . CITY OF TIGARID WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL, Boundary Commission Final Order No..355 y EXHIBIT 5 ZCA No.-IS--670 .-04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of the John L. Hicklin D.L.C.; thence N 25101'42" W a distance of 427.51 feet along the westerly line of said O.L.C.; thence N 87007'25" E a distance of 90.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 25013'15" W a distance of 180.67 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Fortner Street; thence N 87016'45" E, along said south right-of-way, a distance of 89.90 feet; thence S 25004'45" E a distance of 180.22 feet; thence S 87007'25" W a distance of 89.32 feet' to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA s ti SW. -ERROL + - -STREET too T :K ar o taco .sc ° low H 7f Cam. ua I ' F v 14 awsm MO 23-74 • T wi ':Yti t¢ a tooo i+oe • QA i sooo 40 to 23-7 .m: ~ a. :a r Cy , TIGARD 23 2 94 ' al00 ►►►pppa1yi.a°o „r - p2; 30 ' • Sao • ,a 1. CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 353'Y/ ZCA No.-IL-_0004 EXHIBIT 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA .A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears N 87°46' E a distance of 200 feet from the southwest corner of HUMBOLT CREEK ESTATES; thence N 00°39' E a distance of 179.10 feet; thence S 89058' E a distance of 83.45 feet; thence S 00139' W a distance of 175.79 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence S 871046: W along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 83.56 to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA W - 1 o W food ~ .•oo Moo ~ fIGA _ ~ awo ~ ~ - smo ~ Y'I r S~ .rc F .PJO ~ N r ~ . ~ 1 Y f • rr f i • i V . r i2Mt"`°"•L`RRO~' STREETt ;zr 23- -78 .ALL._ ~ Ifd 't b.T KttWM.m f fOY 1 i.r• r • O Y~ Am Q.. fNf •f . r. .ANNE" - ST _ s 'w° AREA TO BE 2 a v ANNEXED . 1 uoo 1 J ~7 CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No..35~5'y E7 ZCANo. 9S-oooe, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 3, T2S, R1 W, W.M., Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the center line of said Section 3, being the centerline intersection of SW Fonner Street and SW 115th Avenue: thence N 00053' E a distance of 462 feet-to a point in the centerline of said Fonner Street; thence N 87°46' E a distance of 115 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, also on said centerline; thence from said True Point of Beginning N 00053' E 332.35 feet, more or less, to a, point; thence S 87046' W 115 feet to a point on the southern boundary of the plat of WALNUT GROVE (Lot 12); thence N 55045'02" E, along said southerly boundary 290 feet, more or less, to a point being 100 feet perpendicular with the west boundary of the plat of HUMBOLT CREEK ESTATES; thence S 00°59' W 460 feet, more or less, to the northerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence N 87046' E along said northerly right-of-way, 100 feet; thence S 00053' W 40.06 feet to the southerly right-of-way; thence S 87046' W along said southerly right-of-way 212.3 feet; thence N 00053' E 20 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 4t ~ i ~ ,ooo K ' W ay O x ~ -:,••;,,x~•~••~•`ERfiO~ STREETt TIGARD yoo a• a+•o • i• ' 23-,78 - N b Kt\ a M• rr C ~ ~ • ° y y aos Goa \fo, . -a . 5T. arx. s . - t tsoo ~ J CITY OF'I'IGARID WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3S,$-y EXHIB11 I ZCA No. 9S:Ob LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The South 98 feet (approximately .22 acres) of the following described property:. Beginning at a point in the centerline of Fonner Road (C.R. No. 495), said point being S 00°53' W 2216.8 feet and N 87046' E 723.4 feet from the north quarter section corner of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon; thence continuing N 87°46' E 98 feet to a point; thence S 02000'30" E 336.54 feet to an iron pipe; thence S 87046' W 98 feet to an iron pipe; thence N 02000'30" W 336.54 feet to the point of beginning of this description, EXCEPTING that portion of land lying within the right-of-way limits of said County Road No. 495. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA a . ~r . ^yu._ , - 5 ; n ..r FOR ASSESSMENT PURPC 00 1107 RELY ON FOR as 1100 E5300 90Q ae•••w~ J..,,p . iyr. r«.... 3200 F• •'•11 w: ~ s 4 Stn^= { ISOO • Ia01 'i o .sue... g or! tr.,r O LI I•- ISO ISOt 1502 ~a 100m acn ~M A` ? 2 ! } S PICO cr) ONNE - ST.w , 2200 2000 1900 1600 AREA TO B E 230e es.,.. o1 O1- V?.- sass. a•ss, .luec aaoac 1wr. 2 4 ANNEXED ' 2600 ( ; .~{~1'::S• ...e. ~ usac t~ 1700 23 ►4 CITE' OF TIGARID WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. _ye ~EICHIBIT 9 ZCA No. 9.S 0003' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe in the southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut Street, which iron pipe bears South 0°46' West 1056 feet, South 77050' West 603.1 feet and South 0046' West 12.05 feet from the 1 /4 corner in the north line of said Section 3, T2S, R 1 W, W.M. From said Point of Beginning; thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut Street, South 0046' West 523.79 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 77050' West 144 feet; thence North 4005' West 364.92 feet; thence North 87026' East 118 feet; thence North 3005'-West 169.55 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of said SW Walnut Street; thence North 78 039' East along said southerly right-of-way line of SW Walnut* Street, 66.46 feet to the Place of Beginning. INCLUDING that portion of SW Walnut Street adjacent to the above described property and that portion of SW Walnut Street extending East.167.6 feet, more or less from the easterly line extended of said property, to the City Limits line of the City of Tigard as per Boundary Commission Proposal No. 3459. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 'nGAR rx } 2 78 smecT • P A R j K' , w ~ 7---+,~~~w SM rL OMNFR lT/IEET. . 1 1 w v:. w CI'T'Y GE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 1930 U1131r a ZCA No. ?r- ooo3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northwest one-quarter of section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon described as follows: Beginning at the West one-quarter Corner of Section 4, T 2 S, •R 1 W of the Willamette Meridian thence N 89° 43' 30" E a distance'of 100.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N 89° 43'30" E a distance of 300.00 feet to the west line of Lot 18 Handy Acres; thence N 000 42' 5511 E a distance of 200 feet; thence S 890 43' 30" W a distance of 250 feet thence N 00° 43' 00" 435.76 feet to the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence S 89° 37' 0011 W, along said southright-of-way, a distance of 50.00 feet; thence S 00° 43' a distance of 635.67 feet to the true point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA TIGARD to 9 5 12 Z ` a t5 H A N D Y . F v7 z a :00 1 1 ~t1,Q' 1 1 1 11 1 S.W W M 1 re.K 21 23 tiM1 20 'n 24 1 r~~, 17 ; 10 A I~ R wm $ _j f J }S' I W < I z AREATOBE m r MdNEXSO i CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. X39 ZCA No. 93 owc f EXA-AA~A'A" A I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA THAT PORTION OF LOT 19 COLE'S-ACRES, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGJN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 152.5 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 150 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO RONALD J. TEMPLETON, ET UX BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 1965 IN BOOK 542, PAGE 516 RECORDS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY; `THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TEMPLETON PARCEL 152.5 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TEMPLETON PARCEL, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 19; THENCE NORTH 150 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA ~s+rR ......,k- _.cnna9E T: STREET • Q 1' 'L3 78 23-78 - c ; < N -74 ~ 10 IN E R' y U R Y IG RD ~ a< s f ~ ~ 3 { 1!q _ • r ' , , p ~3 I'll t 1 ~~r CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 276 -111131T O Z ZCA No. 95-ooo7, Parcel 1: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Of THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, described as follows: Beginning at a point s 000 26' 00" W a distance of 20.00 feet of the Northeast corner of the Northwest one-Quarter of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range 1 West; thence S 00° 261 00" W, 640.00 feet to the Initial point of the Subdivision Plat of Shadow Hills as recorded in Book 42 Page 41 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89° 41' 00" W, along the north line of said Subdivision, a distance of 346.50 feet to the Southwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 94023801 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 26' 00" along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 230.00 feet to the Southeast Corner of the property described in Fee Number 94023802 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S 89° 41' 00" W, along the south lire of said Fee Number, a distance of 131.75 feet to the East right-of-way of a private road and the southwest corner of said-Fee Number; thence N 00° 26100"E, along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 86.50 feet to the northwest corner of said Fee. Number; thence S 89° 341 00" E, along the north line of said Fee Number, a distance of 131.75 feet to the west line of Fee Number 94023801; thence N 000 261 00" E, along the west line of said Fee Number, a distance of 136.67 feet to the Southeast corner of the property described in Book 1027 Page 371 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 896 341 00" W, along the south line of said deed, a distance of 85.93 feet to the southwest corner of said deed and the east right-of-way of a private road and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said curve with a radius of 65.00 feet a delta of 240 39' 36", and a length of 27.98 feet to a point of tangency being on the west line of said deed; thence N 00° 26' 00" E, along the west line of said deed, a distance of 160.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said deed and a point on the south right-of-way of County Road 411; thence N 89° 411 00" E, along said south right-of-way, a distance of 7 feet more or less to a angle point in said south right-of-way; thence S 000 001 00" W a distance of 9.9 feet; thence N 89° 41' 00".E , along the said right-of-way, a distance of 182.82 feet to the angle point in said right-of-way; thence N 000 001 00" E, along said right-of-way, a distance 9.9 feet to an angle point; thence N 89° 41' 00" E,. along said right-of-way, a distance of 236.5 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quart ~r of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, ca described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Section, which bears South 89039 West E-4 990 feet from the quarter section corner an said north line, said point being the northeast ! corner of that tract of land conveyed to Katherine Kilgore Gunther, by deed recorded in Book 175, Page 89, Washington County Deed Records, and the northwest corner of that tract of land conveyed to volette F. Howard, by deed recorded in Book 403, Page 297, Washington County Deed Records; thence South O°44' West, along the east line of said W Gunther tract 20 feet to the south right-of-way line of SW Gaarde Street and the True a Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 0°44' West along said east line 640 feet to the southeast corner thereof and the southwest corner of said Howard tract, said point being on the north line of the subdivision plat of SHADOW HILLS; thence East along the south line of said Howard tract, 198 feet to the southeast corner thereof; thence continuing along said north line, plat of SHADOW HILLS, North 89041' East 132 feet to a point; thence North 0026' East a distance of 640 feet to said south line SW Gaarde Street; thence South 89041' West along said right-of-way line, 132 feet; thence South 0026' West a distance of 230 feet to a po'snt..said point being the southwest comer Of that tract of land conveyed to Richard Leroy Furman, et ux, by deed recorded in Book 866, Page 658, Washington County Deed Records; thence West along the south line of said Furman tract, 158 feet and the southeast corner thereof; thence North 0044' East, 230 fact to said south right-of-way line. SW Gaarde street; thence West along said line, 40 feet to the Point of Beginning, I EXH~~/°°~' 3 (Continued) VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA Sea: 2s 1 =cc ALE r• maO ty K(, 6uf3w r • AAROE -r r T T STREET . I aaoo woo }isooti•:•=l{ Tam 9300 aao :seo. :;Sao:::: ,.:.:t•.•=:: h; :ti LxK v:~:•::+t JAW TO 13 ANNEXED f=r: .L 1E M.. 3~ Parcel 1 ~ 1 lo.a ~ ~ = O° two - ioo .-S;•~-- ~ ftfK :l 1600 JJK t• f~ . t ~ •:lI/rL Cw ~ .••~Yt ..'~.1} rte. ' Parcel 2 k waa aoo 2200. 2700 L•' } -•-sa ~ ~ < .NK JJK i "0 Too JJK. :•N :::Yl::.: t2~00w'~r 00'Y 6000 1}00 a]OM .200 t00 f0o0 7100100 24 3300 4• 3.00 a3 .a - _ _ TrrtT c w _ {300 24 = 21 29 ` ]ar0r..0~~ L 21. - 30 -r m2yo S.W. 2 McFARLANO i sl wr .r 00 ]11 4401 .300 .coo < • x1200 ._~4400 .eoo 600 f Coe- 20 3{ LA A z ~ TIMI6AR® ~ A • 4 ~ 33 32 6~ •t x700 " w.. , w L /670~f7i - - w 2} au SrOO 3700 _ L N 77 a 300 3WO"• 56 , ~ K C awo _ a ar 6 r t : s6ao i Saoo m 74 s y (n 6a02 D «t6oo -L • s 3000 c 7 - 6rao S.W. th. WILO(yO ~33W 13 r i OQ y t 2500 Is, 11N0 {600 7'000 is uar 12 - 76 W < NCr021 Ooa'• 31 3t 1100w f VJ{r>1fJT Ofem4m03MI.tl' 13 5 TrgO}.4T. U ~ ~I''a1FC{emu t «t M 1011 Y-00 Sac ua► <•r I0t0 6th is 1 66c STREETt IGARC ]s 1 who 2S 1 INS CITY OF TIIGARD WATER DIS'T'RICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. YYS/ EXHIBIT 13~ ZCANo.-~of LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter of section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the east line of the Northwest one-quarter of said Section 3, said point bearing N 000 461 00" E a distance of 517.34 feet from the center of said Section 3; thence N 000 46' 0011 E, along the east line of said Northwest one-quarter of said section 3, a distance of 1129.66 feet to the northerly right- of-way of S.W. Walnut Street; thence S 780 35' 11 W, along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 430.65 feet; thence S 00° 461 0011 W, parallel with the east line of the. Northwest one-quarter of said Section 3, a distance of 1044.70 fet; thence N 890 57' 4611 E, parallel with the south line of said Northwest one-quarter of Section 3, a distance of 421.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 10.52 Acres, VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA TIGARD AREA TO BE J ANNEXED r r v, r -78 1 'mss n 1 M 1 E 2 a w GIRMEN a-rNEEr SMUT- CrrY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Bounda-uy Commission Final Order No. 3 V a I EXFU BIIT ! 4 ZCA No. 9y Vol/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon Also described as Lot 7 Inverness described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of lot 7 Inverness, recorded in Book 29 Page 32 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 86° 20' 00" W,• along the north line of Inverness, a distance of 100.64 feet to the northwest corner of said lot 7; thence S 000 08' 0711 W, along the east line of said lot 7, a distance of 185.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 7; thence S 890 51' 53" E, along the south line of lot 7 inverness, a distance of 116.33 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 7 and a point on a curve to the left; thence along said curve with a radius of 2949.37 feet, a delta of 30 40' 50" and a length of- 189.46 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 0UC t MOUNTAIN y- b S.W. ts+t ! j/~ tARD r n 1'O NwC r. x{300• 9000 • N y ir.C A` ;K~:'~.7^p 4400 -n 45 GTO 6! f200 / r = 23 78 SanMq~ MINEXiA j %s .r a aws Saoo• J ,nom,. ~ !0.3 •a y t r' a ! ~ etoo « «r • 4=i to~ • zwo W z• V~• : jars ~ .a•so ~ • aYS'ss" Sroop 3 43 W so pURTd3 . t.i ~ iiYJO • ~ m tt00 , r + 3 3'ao _ N.c ~t froo , troo 33000 T • SCI"`- ♦ asoo Y •r r ~ d fit/ asoo' s•oo 7 41 2300 S. 1100 3•.c 5; saws qC~ N s~ ' 4/ a . T ,I I• w ` two J p ...•wr. `S 40 ! ,.°•.•os /i [ •.300 i• .4 rr .Q - aM0 ' 1300 t. _ S r 3s Z♦ 14 two i i '3 fa>0 ,h r 3400 a• 30 eoo r•400 .soo t .yr !°z ar }f ctss yy asoo D is •r of rw0 s; a`r . 05 / `1r 113 4000 ;too 'wo lr f is • ' 1• Y~ rt ♦ .r1 rA00 0••J~ • 6a00ti i CITY OF TIGARH WATER DISTRICT WI'I H DRAWAL _ Boundary Commission -1 1BIT 0 Final Order No. 7s S j ZCA No. - ?4V-LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon: Beginning at the Northwest corner of subdivision plat of Helm Heights recorded in Book 78 Pages 47 & 48 of•the Washington County Subdivision Records,also being the southwest corner of the deed described in Fee No. 92013124 of. the Washington County Deed Records; thence N 000 02' 00" E, along the crest line of said Fee No. and the, east line of the Subdivision of Aspen Ridge recorded in Book 84 Pages 15-18•of the Washington County Subdivision Records, a distance of 446.00 feet.to the Northwest corner of said Fee No. and the center line of S.W. Bull Mountain Road; thence N 840 21' 00" E, along said centerline, a distance of 408.97 feet to the extension of the east-line of the property described in+Fee No. 77- 21372 of the Washington* County Deed Records; thence S 000 01' 00" E, along the east line of said Fee No., a distance of 188.58 feet to the southeast corner of. said Fee No:; thence S 890 491. 00"-W, along the south line of said Fee No., a.distance of 94.24 feet to the east line of property described in Fee No. 93089967 of the Washington County Deed Records; thence S 000 021 00" W, along the east line of said Fee No,, a distance of 296.38 feet to the north line of Helm Heights; thence S 890 49' 1 W, along said north line, a distance of 312.89 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA SHAD ; 'BILL ' 2'r / y+ w O 4Y + L X! 'S • ......rrrrr. srrAoN-'t- . . t:'t. t"' r 1 r- AREA TO BE 11111 D`?~•' ~f• caTo ANNEXED •M r MAR Y - - ~ ' 4ti c % 4 L S r3.K RsPLN r ; r ~ w , rw cf c CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3516 ~ (HIBIT 1 ZCANo. -ooo! LEGAL PTION OF THE AAA A tract of land located in the Northwest one•quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon , more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest one-quarter and said Northeast one- quarter being marked with a %winch iron rod with yellow plastic cap inscribed "G & L P.L.S. 1989'. thence N 88 ° 13'49" W, 357.28 feet along the north boundary of said Northwest one- quarter to the northwest comer of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73654, Washington County Deed Records; thence S 01 °37'01' W, 382.43 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73654 to the southwest corner thereof and said southwest corner being a point on the north boundary line of that tract of land described in Deed to James R. Schultz and Madeline E. Schultz and recorded in Deed Document 93-73653; thence N 88016'29" W, 93 feet along the north boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73653 to the west boundary of said Deed Document 93-73653; thence S 01 037'01' W, 315 feet along the west boundary of said Deed Document 93- 73653 to the southwest corner of said.Deed Document 93-73653; thence S 88 ° 16'29" E, 446.70 feet along said south boundary to the east line of said Northwest one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, said Section 9; thence N 01 053'29" E, 697.15 feet along said east line to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA Parcel 1 AREA TO BE ANNEXED 23 74 cn ' 23-78 L "N ~ M~ I I yTIGARD 4, M 'I I l 23;74 - • w CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL BoundarY Commission Final Order No. -3-5-n E EXHIBIT 17 ZJ:] zCANo.96-0 , LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Northeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter, Section 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a part of that certain tract of land conveyed to Dale K. Varner, et ux, as described in Deed Book 286, Page 750, Deed Records, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning on the west line of said tract described in Book 286, Page 750, -which bears S 89050`30" W, 1318.30 feet along the Northerly line of said Section 9 and S 00004'30" E, 678.24 feet along the west line of that tract described in Book 286, Page 750, as monumented from the Northeast corner of Section 9; thence continuing along said west line, S 00°04'30" E, 140 feet; thence leaving said west line, East 333.59 feet, more or less, to a %-inch iron rod; thence North parallel to the east line of said describe tract, 140 feet to a 6/e-inch iron rod; thence West, 334.43 feet, more or less, to the Place of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA i N4 j =1 00 -74 TIGARD 3-7 Parcel 2 - I _ i J. c 2-3 . Q) Y 2 74- I CITY OF TIGA.RID WA'T'ER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3+07 EXHIBIT 'Ai ZCA No. 6 - 000 L . LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Parcel 1: A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 21 HANDY ACRES as recorded in Book 10, Page 31 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 88043'30" E a distance of 170.00 feet to the southeast comer of said Lot 21; thence N 00000'00" W a distance of 905.30 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 21, HANDY ACRES and the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street, thence Northwesterly along said right-of-way to a point which is 50 feet from said east line (when measured at right angles); thence S 00000'00" E, parallel with and 50 feet from said east line, a distance of 539.50 feet; thence S 88043'30" W a distance of 120.00 feet; thence S 00000'00" E a distance of 370.30 feet, more or less, to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: A tract of land located in the Northwest one-quarter o Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 20 HANDY ACRES as recorded in Book 10, Page 31 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 00043'00" W a distance of 889.6 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 20; thence S 89043'30" W a distance of 340.0 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 19 HANDY ACRES; thence N 00043' E a distance of 346 feet; thence S 89°17'00" E a distance of 140.25 feet; thence N 00041' E a distance of 225.69 feet; thence S 89°17' E a distance of 144.72 feet; thence N 00043' E a distance of 297 feet to the south right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street; thence Northeasterly along said south right-of-way along a curve to the right with a radius of 333.12 feet and a length of 61.3 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel A tract of land in Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as folio;as: Beginning a the northwest corner of Lot 19, HANDY ACRES, a plat of record; thence along the arc of a 383.75 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 07059'23", a distance of 53.51 feet (long chord bears N 69057'53" E. 53.47 feet) to the True Point of Beginning; thence S 41 °51'11" E, 133.41 feet; thence S 89017' E, 144.72 feet to the southeast corner of .a tract conveyed to Paul Hansen, et ux, by deed, recorded January 12, 1973, Book 905, Page 139; thence N 00043' E, 297 feet to the southerly right-of-way of S.W. Fern Street, thence Southwesterly along the southerly line of S.W. Fern Street and along the, arc of a 333.12 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 21005'20", a distance of 122.61 feet (the long chord bears S 48°21'03' W. 121.92 feet); thence along the arc of a 383.75 foot radius curve to the right, through the central angle of 28°01'12", a distance of 187.67 feet (the long chord bears S 51057'35" W, 185.80 feat) to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel 4: A tract in the Northwest one-quarter, Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Lot 12, HANDY ACRES. /iss~//».sr~^~s'si~iiirriys~v~ia-ii.►ssrrii- f auN' N• 1 ' BONNEVILLE POWER a ADMINISTRATION 4 C TI g y4 ! n.. 'Q g Y2S A .•w a A _ ~ 2S■ , N!; 1 h E w•1. b la.w NIS' L S H I R E e 8 i un M,1 ~ ~ OItO4QHIM MSR, KNy~ M NggM Y tl" 3A190 NOISN30SV 4• ; t~5 j°r axti 8i of r ' t .u' B u lJ r ran _f rii "g \N ` ti ' ILLSFIF o s t r * 6 a D It ' , V r,• 1~ IQ SC ► h' ar 1, N zz 6j „v..K•:.d}\•.:•{.F{.$:'i'r'• ~•ri+f}:iji^::+: ~:ts,f+{}+ i • ' la -ft Ytl .r '00.. KN , :ia w•u„'WS.,:?.:3..:r,. ..,,u,....{,+~..d..,{t, v ..E£,n4k,''~i:.:C•i7~wC){ti\•.1.~s)~.. ti ...0.. \ gg- a Fn ;>.{•:>f ~ Itr rig+Il ~ •c II+~~i1t}i~~l~lrfl I( N n ~ D-- -~3a~^ :i1llaCz <'<»i;=i4;{;::»<. r( Ul 'hf, : ~ ` k`~•,~~:<~~i~t~.~".... Z m t o ~llj,~,i., ti 3 N w il.... o m. t„-li Lbr IY ~ 4~ S N },{f;n$}4+}Y.~:kJ~~:v~>>:<.1ff:ti\ti.<<:•4:v,.~~~}'~i:'4~Yi:~.,.i^M`~~C:3;~\+ z 1"rl. Ng a;- k} m ~ .,y Y. •rKC`••~r{~ j}r;,n: Y.:c:{c};;~': =Em ~.:}}•,u•.; S., •.;a;R;y" ;•a.r,,;,~.•.;,r,..~.f}: • .vaC:~a sP\: r..}: ~ ::•h;\ \.:.{.+;.Y.v,.}}^C??>L~:v:i•,>,:~'.+,{.~..:{,:~•,:;.+,' , n1.1~•:\'k:?:ii?{•~ n+:$n}}}'•ti~,v}i:\:fj'r~}\~+fY}~{}ti}\,}~'2•1,,,+C;iv.;a. r N 4 ~ _ }Ni UT I- -,..w+ .,N• I t4 v urrY n - • e/1• N 'N h h - w r + `i h L . Iw 1• ~ 4 • . Y fix ~N. ti ~ 1 z CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3,659 EXHIBIT 1!___Jl ZCA No. 2A- DpoS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the NE 1 /4 of the NE 1 /4 of Section 3, T2S, R 1 W, Willamette Meridian Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 13 of Cottonwood Place as recorded in Book 21 Page 30 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence along the boundary of said lot the following courses; thence north 89 degrees 21' E a distance of 100 feet; thence 00 degrees 10' west a distance of 160.12 feet; thence north 75 degrees 05' west a distance of 52.82 feet; thence south 89 degrees 36' 30" west a distance of 49.15 feet; thence north 00 degrees 10' east a distance of 150.00 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA C YID z"` A SYL' /p rl3sod a ' to CLYDESOAL • •r' ` Woo 3-W iron ~f i. 1 17 nw nor nn•" rn~ na C O T T ,O Nll F O O D ql = noa IN + " = S.W. JOHNSON STREET+ .soo aoo roo 17+2 pa _x nos - ~ nos I ?mi :~Y: n.s hw 197 _ a not na 2 M0, 1 H v 23 78 x - : mr n . . q-M "W ..AREATO BE^" - ' ANNEXED -a ioa auss"BT ""M orLr ..H .o wor .wow fae .wr Orw[o us[ ' Y TIG 3 t' Zs I J S[[ ru is 1 7.0 y CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 36.579 EXHI13Ig 2® ZCAN.. 96-00o6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Parcel 1 Lots 17.18 and the south 100 feet of lots 19 and 20, Coles Acres, Washington County, Oregon Parcel 2: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northwest 1/4 of Sec. 10 T2S R1W W.M., thence south 89 degrees 41' west 426.5 feet, thence south 0 degrees 26' west 20.0 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described. Thence continuing south O degrees 26' west 160.38 feet to the point of a curve to the right (having a radius of 65.0 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 39.43 feet, thence south 35 degrees 11' 35" west 32.92 feet to the point of a curve to the left (having a radius of 120.0 feet and a central angel or 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 72.80 feet, thence south 0 degrees 26' west 344.54 feet, thence south 89 degrees 41' west 50.0 feet, thence north O degrees 26' east 348.65 feet to the point of a curve to the right (having a radius of 170.0 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 103.13 feet, thence north 35 degrees 11' 35" east 32.92 feet to the point of a curve to the left (having a radius of a 15.0 feet and a central angel of 34 degrees 45' 35") thence along the arc of said curve 9.10 feet, thence north O degrees 26' east 160.0 feet thence north 89 degrees 41' east 50.0 feet to the point of beginning. Containing .76 acres more or less. VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA Ir • . 4AARO STREET -7_ 23-7 c TIGARD H 1 f . z _ !U I s S I API F _ •L A E . 1TKtT. •TIi ART ~ ' • M O ~ - of CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission • Final Order No. 38 13 EXHIBIT 2L ___Jj ZCA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land located in the southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the initial point of the plat CARMEN PARK: thence S 00046' W a distance of 492.34 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Former Street; thence N 89°57' E a distance of 401 feet to the west right-of-way of County Road 495: thence N 00046' E a distance of 100 feet; - thence Westerly a distance of 205 feet; thence N 00046' E a distance of 194 feet; thence Easterly 205 feet to the west right-of-way of County Rd. 495; thence N 00046 E, 168.80 feet, more or less: thence N 87046' E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence N 00046' E a distance of 34.54 feet; thence S 89057' W a distance of 421 feet to a point on the east line of Lot 8, CARMEN PARK; thence S 00046'W a distance of 17.34 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: Beginning at the initial point of the plat CARMEN PARK; thence S 00046' W a distance of 492.34 feet to the north right-of-way.of SW Fonner Street and the True Point of Beginning: thence S 00046' W a distance of 40.00 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW Fonner Street; thence N 89057' E, along said south right-of-way, a distance of 441.00 feet to the east right-of-way of County Rd 495; thence N 00046' E along said east right-of-way a distance of 504.33 feet to the north right-of-way of County Rd 495; thence S 87046' W along said north line, a distance of 40.05 feet to the west line of said County Rd.; thence S 00046' W along said west right-of-way, a distance of 462.80 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Fortner Street; thence S 89046'W, along said north line. a distance of 401 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP Of THE AREA TiGARD errrr C, A R M 1r I N S W CARMEN •~m' STREE ~ amo t,m i ,.ao ' nw ? wo- 1 ma ..oo ueo t f r•`~ 1~ ~ ~I ~ •i ~K• AREA TO BE ' . ANNEXED I ; 3 t a r i 5 W ,.i. Zti • E2. ..e.. CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No..3-X2.7x E H E IT E®~ zCA No. 97- oooti LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A parcel of land in the SW % of the NW % of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of Section 3, located North 000 28' East 355.44 feet from the West % comer of Section 3; thence North 89° 51' East along the Westerly extension of the North line and the North line of CANOGA PARK, a recorded subdivision in Washington County, 601.4 feet, more or less, to the Southwest comer of Lot 11, FYRESTONE, a recorded subdivision in Washington County; thence North 000 28'30" East 305.88 feet to the South line of CURL ACRES, a recorded subdivision in Washington County; thence along the Southerly line of said plat, South 890 31'30" West 417.22 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, CURL ACRES; thence along the West line of said Lot 1, North 001 28'30" West 150 feet more or less to the centerline of SW Walnut Street; thence South 620 20'20" West 44.97 feet; thence South 000 28'30" East 150 feet more or less to the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, CURL ACRES; thence South 6211 20'20" West 158.20 feet to a point on the West line of Section 3; thence South 000 28'00" West 209.71 feet to the point of beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA L A i RRA E). -74 ; 'a ~t tmW ' w. ' W 23-78 _ _ TIGARD~irr c ~3 f r PPI AREA TO BE ANNEXE? *K"`Y: z =r 'Sw , r. 23 78 Iv T . IC_Lf,I N O G'.".1 .cc --Tr-;•, S. Vt. ALBERTA STREET ~ • 1 • YI r •,L•a I f109 M00 \ 3°• ■f) ,..,p ] ,IN l•,y , i. ~ tttlll , ri A. 1 JfY'. CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission E .13 Final Order No. 3875 ___Jj ZCA No. 77- 03 00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A parcel of land in the Northwest quarter of Section 10. Township 2 South, Range i West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being a portion of that certain tract of land described in Book 403, Page 297, Washington County Deed Records', and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line thereof, that is 40.0 feet East of the northwest comer of said tract of land; thence South 00044' West parallel with the west line of the above said tract of land, 250.0 feet to a point; thence East parallel with the north line of the above said tract 158.0 feet to the west line of that certain strip *of land described in Book 430, Page 3042, Washington County Deed Records, thence North 00044' East along the west line of the said strip of land 103 feet to a point; thence West 118.0 feet to a point; thence North 00044' East 147.0 feet to the north line of the above said tract of land; thence West along the said north line 40.0 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCLUDING that portion in SW Gaards Street (County Road No. 411). Footnotes- Beginning 40 rods West of the Northeast comer of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, It being the northwest comer of tract of land sold to McFarland, containing 10 acres; thence running West 20 rods; thence South 40 rods; thence Fast 20 rods to the southwest corner of said McFarland tract; thence North to the Place of Beginning. 2. Beginning at a point 40 rods West of the Northeast carrier of the Northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 1 Wes4 Willamette Meridian, it being the Northwest comer of tract of land sold to McFarland; running thence West 132; thence South 40 rods; thence East 132 feet to the Southwest comer of said McFarland tract; thence North to the Place of Beginning, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA T, T S.W. - 1 T * AARDE T T . zo00 nroo nsoo naoo 1100 e00 :00 !S!K .F/K Rf.lC :.11.C A1.C Jl.C = ,J1.C I 78 3 78 smo "EA TO fit _ q{/WNf.XEt) i M l .........'-0ri.'?• 1200 _ • 400 1 riii» .u" ~ Jf1e I a 23 -78 41 ,EZ M.. 2100 2-3-78 rnoo n 300 - 2s 1 root I ; u1a . I,OO l7LC 500 1coz 400 ' -.JJ+C sr.e 2200 2300 23-78 I .1l.~ 11JC ,0o too KS0110 5,00 . 01 •200 4100 4000 1,o', 1700 7400 ' a3 •4 ~ _ •3 • . I.~~Y 2 21 23 2f 0 2e .5 H A > ri 44 -cast l" S.W. MCFARLANO• TlG/ARD ~4, s. r~ - ,1. •ann 1 4F~ 3100 ..w 5~-: e C CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 3 9 26 1E EXHIBIT 24 ZCA No.-2& 000/ _jj LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 3 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of County Road No. 495 which point bears N 00053' W a distance of 462 feet and N 871D46' E a distance of 491 feet from the iron pipe set at the accepted center of Section 3; thence S 00°53' W a distance of 20.03 feet to the south right-of-way of said County Road and the True Point of Beginning; thence N 87046' E a distance of 179.5 feet; thence S 00053' W a distance of 493.0 feet; thence N 89053' W a distance of 353.5 feet, more or less; thence N 00053' E a distance of 455.07 feet to the south right-of-way of said County Road No. 495; thence N 87047' E a distance of 80.11 feet; thence S 00053'W a distance of 250.13 feet; thence S 89053' E a distance of 94.0 feet; thence N 00053' E a distance of 233.83 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA c_ 2 7r 23-178 25 o rl 390 ~ « •0n "•.oc = / « . • fi: 7v. 9 L2V Y '1 1 s /L 'b •.~+i.~ / (-3300 4,•~'•Q3y 131701 1100 5 3200 F• « .r J4 ,i. Jl'•. ..r•..<... 4~^; 3 _ N 1300• rl<OI ' ae• J.w a... r 3 Q 1 W 1- - - 1• ' 1304 '1702 ' 9300 0] ~ ik J-• l~ _s:_xoo= 1~3 n C.,r ri 1 ' ' - • Ioxa\•Sah~S2. ; 11100 1900 1ro1 1900 ,2300 '2200 x2101 [cvr R~ .f4K .y •4. ?fK S 1 ~ 200 } AREA TO BE i ANNEXED Scs 1 , CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. 38 7 No._ ~8_oooy E25 1A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land in the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, Section 4 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at an iron rod on the south line of said Northeast quarter which bears South 89,018' West, 1068.9 feet from the quarter corner on the east line of said Section 4 and running thence North 01 ° 16' West, 325.0 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 01 ° 16' West, 331.10 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 934 from which an iron rod bears South 01 ° 16' East, 30.0 feet; thence along said centerline South 89 ° 22' West, 132.65 feet, from which an iron bears South 01 ° 16' East, 30.0 feet; thence leaving said centerline South 01 ° 16' East, 331.25 feet; thence North 89 119' East, 132.68 feet to the True Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA •s-1'z Sow MARIE CT. 2500 t r 1 fOp ry _ i by .,Y/ IL00~ X1000 e. _ =670 ft 6, ' ~TOO 2700 010 . I t00 12"l. ~ 2Uf 3 2 1]00 .=1fW WALNUT 3`000 ao oo I saol Sco i I 3700 3900 .aoo war •..ft i• ! ll _ l y 3604 3'ct Jr.4. 1rf LU I a 3 m p_ I 1 1 x 1 -.n - lffc Z N.: 23-78 ~'/ie ~ ~ I 3~ 3600 I s _sot not "Zoa 3100 1 A4 ? ; - •r4 - /.Of 1 I CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL, Boundary Commission Final Order No. 398, 1 ZCA No. EXHIBIT 26 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northwest one quarter of Section 3 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 8, CARMEN PARK as recorded in Book 23, Page 23 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence N 00010'00" W a distance of 216.98 feet to the north right-of-way of SW Carmen Street; thence N 89050,00" E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 91.68 feet to the east boundary of said CARMEN PARK; thence S 00037'00" E, along said boundary, a distance of 217.0 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 8; thence S 89050'00" W, along the south line of said Lot 8, a distance of 88.72 feet to the Point of Beginning. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA ~:Ia IT i 1 I=_ i_ Iz S_ s :600_ ~Z.~- a, N At 12 : ~2C0 -74 c SUy~ CARMEN EE- sl 3000 2900 2100 2t00 76JO w 2]00 2400 5100#:;J: 3700 ppZ: !y 1l 1~ P too 3100 • - M 'AOllat .~w< 'IwITI«101.TJ •4 Q ; 3 L<O« ]300-• _ 40d 2 c ] <m .ftx. 4•y 23-78 rn as+ra i~•o 3po 3ruo ' ]a0o Jt•< . 1 4101 4200 4304 STr_. 4 1 _I 1 Jt•c ~ ..4•e s W - FONNER ~ STREET= • SEX w♦ 2.S 1 3G ! 1 I CITY OF TIGARD WATER DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL Boundary Commission Final Order No. Y3:992- EXH I B 1 T 27 ZCA No.-_ooo5e LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA A tract of land situated in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and the North- west quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 10 Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located North 110 feet from the initial point according to the duly recorded plat of ARLINGTON RIDGE, recorded on June 29, 1994, in Plat Book 91, Page 33, Record of the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence Easterly 321.80 feet, more or less, to a point; thence South 110 feet to a point on the north line of Lot 43, according to the duly recorded plat of SHADOW HILLS NO. 2, recorded on September 25, 1985, in Plat Book 59, Page 28, Records of the County of Washington and State of Oregon; thence South 88047'09" East along the north line of the plats of SHADOW HILLS NO. 2 and SHADOW HILLS 342.50 feet, more or less, to a point; thence North 00044' East 330 feet to a point; thence West 317.50 feet; thence North 00044' East 310 feet to the south right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street; thence Westerly along said right- of-way 215.42 feet, more or less; thence South 00005' West 180 feet; thence West 135 feet to the east line of the plat of ARLINGTON RIDGE; thence South along the east line of ARLINGTON RIDGE 350 feet, more or less to the Point of Beginning. INCLUDING that portion of SW Gaarde Road located North of and adjacent to the above described property. VICINITY MAP OF THE AREA 2S 1 1 OBB GAARDE ; f Z • SM t GAMOE • r t ' s. W. AMES LA NE+ 7/[ ° • 78 00 23 78 1 1~ ea L u m r I ' ~N K AREA TO BE r` - - • -.aoa noo ,;J uFi ANNEXED = - 23 78 21 D- S.W.+ CHANDLER DRIVE :ieo a aaea „ao 0o f 3 AREA TO BE _ •j r ANNEXED y zs-~e am r+o x i A M 5 _ Io SW. DUQdLLY ,COURT .•'r`t~ S n H ~ Al O V1«a,. Fir I r SMf, f McFARlANO IGA E H x 2 E t I sv - trrcay~ r --l ^ o I /t~ Yj TVCA CONTRACT AND SERVICE ISSUES On March 3, the MACC Board will be meeting to discuss concerns and issues related to Public Education and Government (PEG) Access services currently provided by TVCA. Following is a list of issues and concerns identified by Councilor Scheckla, our MACC Commissioner and Liz Newton, the MACC Alternate. Please let Councilor Scheckla or Liz know if you concur with the issues raised or have additional concerns you would like presented to the full MACC Board. ➢ Accounting Practices Programming No need for 10 channels, reduced to 6. How will TVCA fill those channels? ➢ Government Programming What plans does TVCA have to do outreach to governments to air other meetings/events/activities? ➢ Nonprofit/Independent Wasn't the initial intent to become independent? How is TVCA moving towards independence? ➢ Cost Efficiency If TVCA is not independent of MACC, would it be more cost effective for TVCA to become part of MACC? ➢ Franchise Fee Levels Tigard supports optional franchise fee levels (including 0) based on local option. Contract Should be opened up to other providers. Should be shorter term than a 15 year franchise. Selection process should be decided up front. 1 t~edmua4~ro..aoc 1 i i i i A-4 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: February 23, 1999 SUBJECT: Water Advisory Committee Facilitator This is in response to the Water Advisory Committee's request for a meeting facilitator. The three options you suggested are presented below. Trained Citizen Facilitators Pamela and Lynn Moyers would be willing to alternate the duties, depending on their schedules. Both have been through the CIT Facilitator training. Pamela has facilitated for about 2 1/2 years and facilitated the candidates forum last October. Her husband Lynn just received the training, had had lots of experience facilitating in his job, and did a great job facilitating the last CIT meeting. In fact, I received several compliments from CIT members on how well the meeting went. Lynn Moyers is out of town this week, but Pamela would be able to facilitate. One of them will be available on Thursday nights, except for March 18th, through April 8th. They are leaving for Japan on April 15th. Pamela did express to me that she would be more comfortable if I or you were in attendance. Paid Professional Facilitator I contacted Lenny Borer who has conducted our CIT Facilitator training for the last five years. He is available on Thursday nights until April 13th except for March 18th and April 1st when he will be in Seattle until 4:30 PM both days. He is willing to drive straight here from Seattle those days and can't guarantee when he would arrive, but it would probably be after 7:30 PM. Lenny is willing to work for a set fee for all sessions. His normal hourly rate is $150.00 but he would consider reducing it to $125.00. An estimated cost using an average of 3 hours for each meeting follows: $125 x 3 hours x 7 meetings (every week through 4/8) _ $2625. $150 x 3 hours x 7 meetings = $3150 iv P r County Staff Trained Facilitator I spoke with Anne Madden at Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation. The County has 15 employees that are trained in meeting facilitation and train co-workers. I suggested we trade services with the county; one of their employees serve as meeting facilitator for us, and we provide some service to them in trade. Anne was interested in facilitating for us but she is not available March 25th or April 1st. She will speak to the DLUT Managers and the County Administrator's office about the idea of trading services and who might be available. If the Council wants to pursue this option, I will contact Anne on Wednesday, February 24th and ask her if someone could be available for the March 4th meeting. February 23, 1999 Mike Burton Executive Officer Metro Headquarters CITY OF TIGARD 600 Northeast Grand Avenue OREGON Portland, OR 97232 Subject: Support for the Murray Boulevard Extension Project Scholls Ferry Road to Barrows Road Dear Mr. Burton: This letter is to express Tigard City Council support for the Murray Boulevard Extension from Scholls Ferry Road to connect with the Barrows Road/Walnut Street intersection. The City of Beaverton has submitted this project for consideration in the Priorities 2000 Regional Flexible Funding Program. This road extension has been a key element on Tigard's Comprehensive Transportation Plan for many years, and is critical to the establishment of Beaverton's Scholls Ferry town center. The construction of the Murray Boulevard Extension would provide a long-awaited direct east- west connection between Tigard and Beaverton. Improvements to major collectors in the City of Tigard are now being designed in preparation for this connection. The City of Tigard is initiating design projects for the extension of Gaarde Street from the northerly boundary of Quail Hollow- West to Walnut Street, and for the widening and reconstruction of Gaarde Street from 121" Avenue to Highway 99W. Washington County (under MSTIP 3 funding) is likewise initiating design of improvements to Walnut Street from 121" Avenue to 135'b Avenue. The Murray Boulevard Extension is therefore extremely important to both Tigard and Beaverton, and should receive strong consideration for implementation in the Priorities 2000 Funding Program. Sincerely, JAMES NICOLI Mayor c: Tigard City Councilors Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton Steve Sparks, City of Beaverton Andrew Cotugno, Metro Terry Whisler, Metro Bill Monahan; Tigard City Manager James Hendryx, Tigard Community Development Director Agustin P. Duenas, Tigard City Engineer Nadine Smith, Tigard Planning Supervisor Laurie Nicholson, Tigard Planner Clark Berry, Washington County DLUT lAEng\Gus\Letters\Support for the Murray Boulevard Extension 13125 SW Hall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 WASHINGTON COUNTY, SEP OREGON September 15, 1986 William Monahan, Director Community Development City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: ADOPTION OF THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT On September 9, 1986 the Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance Nos. 307, 308 and 309, amending the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 307 officially adopted the Urban Planning Area Agreement with your city. A final signed copy of the Agreement is enclosed for your records. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in the process to update the Urban Planning Area Agreements. If you have any further questions, please give me a call. t Curtis anning Manager BC:mb Enclosure Department of Land Use And Transportation, Planning Division 160 North First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Phone:503 / 648-8761 5/86 WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this Q day of 19~ by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political su&d vis on of the State o regon, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," and the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY." WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre- hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: 1. A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; 3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Location of the Urban Planning Area The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. II. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation P Page 2 1. Definitions Comprehensive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recrea- tional facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan" amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes. Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning ordi- nance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for imple- menting a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation" does not include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional use pQr- mits, individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit devel- opment approval or denials, annexations, variances, building permits and similar administrative-type decisions. 2. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate oppor- tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures-shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini- tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Under- standing" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at the time of being notified of a proposed action, the responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding." b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding Page 3 agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final recom- mendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi- nating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly mailable, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen- tation is available to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners 1. Definition Development Action Requiring Notice means an action by a .local government which requires notifying by mail the owners of pro- perty which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the I CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by Page 4 first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre- tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . C. If received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall include or attach the comments to the written staff report and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation require- ments contained in subsections A and B above. a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen- das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest oppor- tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. Page 5 C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek.appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. III. Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unin- corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A". 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. 3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY's Active Planning Area. Page 6 B. Area of Interest 1. Definition Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorporated ands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A". 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest. 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for development. b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre- sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the fore- going, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an ammendment may be initiated before the one year period is over. =Mimi Page 7 5. The City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A". Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual agreement of both cities. C. Special Policies 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce- dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement. 2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. . 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to the following stipulations regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from O1d.Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street: a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect the following functional classification and design considerations: 1. Designation: Collector 2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major intersections) 3. Bike Lanes: Yes 4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements where necessary) 5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum Page 8 6. Access: Limited 7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H. 8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street 10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec- tion may be planned to eventually accommodate additional lanes at the MurraylOld Schol l s Ferry and Murray/New Scholls Ferry intersections. 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue terminating at the Murray connection with a "T" intersection. 12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection is illustrated in Exhibit B. b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed. c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County shall support improvements to the regional transportation system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street. e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec- tions in 1986. 5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and review notices required by Sections II A, B and C of this Agreement. Imp, Page 9 IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary: 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal, shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement describing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received. 4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in the review process as outlined in Section III (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a study shall commence within 90 days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days'of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. Page 10 B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following topics: Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the Metzger-Progress Planning Areqa as shown as an area of interest on Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III B.4.d., which now requires the City to maintain County plan designations for one year after the effective date of annexation. Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the parties as data is available as soon as possible after September 1, 1986. C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning Area Agreement dated September 26, 1983, Washington County,Resolution and Order No. 84-73, and City of Tigard Resolution 84-19B. This Agreement commences on <PJ~ q 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD By Date Mayor W HINGTON COUNTY By Date Chairman, Board o County 'Corn i ssi oner~s Atwir ' 1 WJ,P- Date g-q 4(0 - Recording Secretary CITY OF TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON COUNTY-TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT fi, f 5` f l9JC ---j 1A 'Jil \Na ` 111 1 ~ _ . I ' • 1 I l 0 ~l r~ i ] _ ill.. i_J~- _ ,5,' _ 1988 u, ~ ` 1,- I t I• '~I r~.-''1(„ o .`Inn ry1f~~ 1 ~ , l -til, nnq 'URBAN PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY I III ACTIVE PLANNING AREA AREA OF INTEREST ~t°a' If MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION GEN`ERAL ALIGNMENT rr B ' 60o 1886 602 UFMM PLANNM AREA AGFAMMENr 601 l.. 804 601 107 <i 301 800 106 600 108 101 1100 100 200 1101 a ,t 1301 1200 1302 1300 100 i 201 101 . 1 200 A j e. Council consensus was that the vitamin production would be classified as food processing and thus the use could be approved with a Conditional Use request through the Community Development Department. f. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to find production aspect of use as secondary to warehouse use and consider it food processing with predominate use of property needing to go through the conditional use application process. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. g. Councilor Eadon encouraged Council to re-evaluate the uses in the CBD zone. 10. 1 11 1111 11 1 1 IM affmayANIM a. Community Development Director stated Washington County Commissioners were going to consider adoption of the UPAA at their 7/22/86 meeting. He encouraged Council to amend page 7 item C by deleting that paragraph. That section noted that "annexations to the City outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the County or the City." b. The City Administrator stated that other cities in the County do not have this language in their UPAA agreements. C. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Brian to delete item C from page 7 of UPAA and authorize signature by Mayor. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. Community Development Director discussed the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County and suggested more specific development standards be addressed as apply to Durham Road. e. After discussion, Councilor Eadon moved to adopt Intergovernmental Agreement re: Durham Road as amended. (Page 3 - item 3 add "minimum" - item 5 add "(subject to City variance procedures)". Motion seconded by Councilor Brian. i Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. a RECESS COUNCIL MEETING - 9:26 PM 11. CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING i i 11.1 Roll Call: Present: Board Chairman John Cook; Board Members: Tom Brian, and Carolyn Eadon; City Staff: Bob Jean, City 7 Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 11.2 Bid Award For Asphalt Overlay - City Engineer, Randy Wooley, requested bid award for the Asphalt Overlay noting that it was within budget and the engineer's estimate. Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1986 T 1 Q A R fl C I T Y C O .U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - MAY 12, 1986 - 702 P.M. 1. ROLL CALLS Presents Mayor John Cook{ Councilorss Tom Brian, (arrived at 707 p.m.), Carolyn Eadon, and Valerie Johnson; City Staffs Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Steve Crew, Legal Counsel; and Gerry Bowles, Recorder Protem. Absents Councilor Jerry Edwards 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator reviewed the updated agenda. Items have been added to eliminate the need to reschedule the May 19 meeting. 3. VISITORoS AGENDAS No one appeared to speak. 4. OLD BUSINESS a. III= ais/ S- 6 , b. City Administrator highlighted the key elements which were. of major concern to the Council. The County has tentatively approved this draft agreement. C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. ORDINANCE NO. 86-24 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING BUSINESS TAX FEES AND TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.04.160 (Second Reading) e. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Council Eadon to approve. `Approved by a 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Johnson voting nay. f. ORDINANCE NO. 86-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 3.20.030 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, STREET SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES --TRAFFIC CONTROL; AND PRESCRIBING NEW RATES OF CHARGES. (Second reading) g. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve. Approved by a 3-1 majority vote of Council present, Councilor Johnson voting nay. 5. PARKS USE FEE AMENDMENT a. Community Development Director explained that the Ordinance would allow a waiver of park facility fees for Tigard based non-profit organizations. Page i - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 12, 1986 MS TIP 3 Revised Schedule - Final Recommendation 3/16/98 ' rxaoa,rsM H 1 2002 PRGJECTM+dE lreu real! 1"!.20" nn.rf" 1.".rnr "".rnr rnt."" ~nr.~90o ri0..ne 1"O.r." ton.raea re"-.2M 20".r"r 20".90" anr.90a 90n."a t"r.s+a 20".t"a "Ov". I M010t U.... JLaa aN... 4....a a..... .r.ar/ a.u.0 a1..01 J..... ar...a L.... ar..W u.... area.. L.... .La.a ..r... WAU4UT: 13% Ph 2 -Gwk.1 A&W 0 fl 1 :121rtb 13% Ph 3 FlAn 1 FXn . bbrssclfon 4.975.942 1 1 ROW f f1 FLQ" 1 1 BEEFSEND&ELSNER J f b w A&W Rare f 1 Awre- --y 'UM Aran 10 1319t 1 F,An Fta" faD FLA" 49- 1 A . SkW**k 0! I0 f Fours, T-- f 000 1U TUALANN RIM. 1i5en b ACW Y/ak f 42 FLO" ow 1 LOWER Rain C4ntftckn S: Boorm ID Sftapon Ataasr vvo* FLAn he" 1 Fukre OREGON f S : TSE b Murdock 1 - 1 FuLw2 Design Mae ROW 0 0 FLA" 131,318 S : TS Murdock 2 • Mardodo- ALttl DWM ROW 4 1 f 77- Mstp3z.3d% page 4 Years In 6 month intervals CITY OF TIGA►RD, OREGON ` RESOLUTION NO. 91- 3t A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has entered into an Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) in accordance with Resolution No. 88-114; and, WHEREAS, the UPAA provides for the extension of Murray Boulevard to Walnut Street; and, WHEREAS, in order to protect the Walnut Street area from excessive through traffic, past studies have indicated that the Murray Boulevard extension should not be opened to through traffic until certain road improvements have been completed to the west of Bull Mountain; and, WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared to define the appropriate schedule for the completion. and opening of the Murray Boulevard extension; and, WHEREAS, the Council finds that the Memorandum of Understanding provides an appropriate schedule for implementation of the UPAA requirements regarding the Murray Boulevard extension. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the attached Exhibit "A" titled "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Extension of Murray Boulevard and Walnut Street". PASSED: This day of Mayor - City o Tigard ATTEST: 0 City Recorder - City of Tigar rwimurray4B RESOLUTION NO. 91- - Page 1 i • F j ' EXHIBIT "A" MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 'REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET This memorandum of understanding between Washington County, the City of Beaverton, and the City of Tigard is intended*to document the mutual understanding regarding the schedule for implementation of a portion of the existing Urban Planning Area Agreements between the County and the two cities, in order to assure an orderly and coordinated development of the transportation system in accordance with adopted planning documents. RECITALS: 1. In December of 1988, an Urban Planning-Area'Agreement was executed between Washington County and the City of Beaverton. In the same month, a similar Urban Planning Area Agreement was executed between Washington County and the City of Tigard. Both Agreements provide for the extensions of Murray Boulevard and Walnut Street to form a collector street connection between the two cities. No schedule is specified for completion of the street connection. 2. The Washington County Transportation Plan, adopted in October of 1988, calls for the extension of Beef Bend Road as a minor arterial to connect between Scholls Ferry Road and Sherwood. This road extension is also recommended in.the Southwest Corridor Report adopted by the Metropolitan Service District Council on.May 28, 1987. 3. The Southwest Corridor Study Report recon --ids that the Murray Boulevard extension not be completed until the Beef Bend Road extension is completed. Completion of the Beef Bend Road extension is considered necessary in order to discourage the use of the Murray Boulevard extension as a through route between Scholls Ferry Road and Highway 99W. The Southwest Corridor Study Report suggests that the portion of the Murray Boulevard extension to be delayed is the portion between Walnut Street and Gaarde Street. The partieslkto this agreement have previously supported the recommendations of the Report. 4. The Southwest Corridor Study Report, while very specific in some aspects, is considered by the parties to be a generalized public facilities planning document. As the parties have undertaken further planning for the affected area and observed development patterns in the area, it has become apparent that the Southwest Corridor Study Report objective of discouraging the use of the 1 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET 088 1 Murray Boulevard extension as a through route pending the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension can best be implemented through a modified approach to the one described in the Corridor Study. 5. In discussions between the Cities of Beaverton and Tigard, it has been determined that all portions of the Murray Boulevard extension need to be completed in conjunction with development of the adjoining properties in order to (1) comply with the intentions of the Urban Planning Area Agreement and (2) provide adequate traffic circulation in the developing areas., Engineering review has further identified that the opening of the roadway to through travel between Old Scholls Ferry Road and the area south of New Scholls Ferry Road can be deferred until the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension or for at least five-years from the date of this agreement. AGREEMENT: 1. The portion of the Murray Boulevard extension between Scholls Ferry Road and Old Scholls Ferry Road shall not be opened to through traffic prior to the completion of the Beef Bend Road extension to Sherwood. Physical construction of the roadway will be permitted, but the actual connection for through traffic will be impeded by the use of barriers or other effective devices approved by all parties to this agreement. 2. Washington County shall actively pursue funding for construction of the Beef Bend Road extension. The Cities of Beaverton and Tigard shall support the County in this endeavor. 3. This memorandum of understanding shall remain in effect until amended by mutual agreement of all parties. WASHINGTON COUNTY By : 'c-~ Date : /~;q/ Chairman, Boar of o my Commissioners CITY OF BEAVERTON BY: - r~~`'VvI C Date: Mayor CITY 0 ARD By: Date: - -M-.1 01 2 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF MURRAY BOULEVARD AND WALNUT STREET PiBC/ss (91-10507) a AGENDA ITTM NO. 4 DATE: February 23, IM AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE PROPERTY AIAMENANCE PROVISIONS STIPULATING NUNR 1UlOZ STANDARDS FOR HOUSING, AN LIMING THE DANGEROUS BUHMING CODE AND ADDING PROVISIONS FOR DANGEROUS STRUCTURES PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED S IK ETS ---m mmi AGENDA REM NO.4 PLEASE PRIM' Pro nent - L&M! Ling In Favor) rent - ( Newel Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Co>., f~,k • Gam,. CX M4 2- 7 a'N a37' po (Sox Liza(, Po 64c S, P cQ~ Ylxa" S-S5 11 143`l ~~d 97 2rr- ~ Zo la Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. t5Lko5 Sc-l MO i& t;;~A K►;~ away c~,+P D Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Narne, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i i i i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. a r AGENDA rIEM NO. 6 DATE: February 23, 1999 600 AVENUE LOCAL AdIPItOVEMENT D ICT PROJECT PL _ASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SEMM r AGENDA UEM NO.6 PLEASE PRINT Pro neat o In Favor) neat - ( Neutral Name, Address d Phon No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. -D e4e4nip i o2~= o.J 6CLIS5W,9Wbb5 RG *4 3- ~~z3 7160rRD W761-IS 644-q,' N , d Address and x+10. ^ Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. N , Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. d i;kII .4 M ~ ,019niLr `S'L " 5 H'C;ffi 4--L / a S'85- S4/ 6 e-` 1`1~ I ~G~tna v2 Q>2Z 3 Name, Address and Phone No. Nm Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. lc n n i'c L9-~~/Q h ~ aril Off. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No.