City Council Packet - 08/17/1999r^ ~ r - t,t'7. d ~t.c.rr•. vjK,r: ,fix;• r ~,c -rr ~ sc v~
r .;4Rt ,~u''j(C tiff / 't ,wh'M1b,s,`, }F t y. At HN%'✓ J sY'{ vc ` 1S+iy} , 1 Y{°''~" n g t is [~~y ' q f i-,~ y.f yv.}. 44 Uyr~}i.tr .s t~.tP,t,axr? ..i Edi,d 'C,~t~p'i+.
r t, I f r ; } r r t "4"c`.sA 'r d 'wS1 e t .,f. l{~i n~` ),y. fr.~~ .
I;hs < J•`iy 7 a.1 x jF ~
r iv r ~ m-!a .1' .@cZ kSki3'2f zfr7r-Xai ~'•'a ~ 4~s~'k.'.e~tf~~~.eW ~~Ltt'~'~~O:c_iC~uc'~A
J:'. s "p" ! Aa f +s,,} ,aftw r •F rlT'" 'rsif,~ r` .s{T 'YSf"^'+ `^.7 t i ~Y~' ' t; ~ T
t t /,~1 i , +4 l`" r !iie r b'vt:~^5 I`fl,ti. 2.w. 7 r ~"a~y
r ~~trt 7. tt{i~+ers f_~ri~tui`,~}r%y ~~;t .s~f+'i~4%DVS.}fix'-;isr~i(r•t,~i'~+f...~`~.~tAk°..':~jt. lt~`,,,.U tv;C,gyYr~
~ f +e 7 ,,t'~, c {+"t s7 J y u 7m~Vas-.. ,:•-r,f i e t~ 7'~'R.t r~ 7:~ ~3 ~~tr,,i!"°'la S d
r7 r~ t '`}rr.r v~4., ~ u; 4e- ✓s f .~~y t yr ,"'m'.i' M rr y jj
`4 ~ "n w" ~'~`f~F~~'sss, •s~• t~,~ a s-f t~f e .6'-•. r.C, 4.'r { P 1~Y~fr~v
t'~ , ry 1t" ~ L < '~1{zs yR z ~ t "TMb54y~;rny, t4~+
~Z'a4b#+t r 4r4 ~?si n F~.~~+
fta
r - ' r i.~ Js f 4 1a
1 7.
t_ r
L g®
f
1 `
tI
AUGUST .1
s
'
!
_ .1z.
.l
IrW
COUNCIL IETI lL T
MSE
r V
i'
t t P Q 4~ .1t7~ ?F~'
` rart ~ l+s'~G~'yu'~
t ~t a
i.%ad!hV6%ccpkt2.doc , r} a f >w5 tiaJ
}3 Y .S Lam, 1 t ~44hf` ! y~.~
~ , tr 1tt`( ~i ( ~ M ~ MII ~ YiR
t r ~ 51 t ~ S ~ .fi.r a !s Y • ~ ~ s ~,t''1 ~ ~ 1~ ~k„
tqn f _Fi~a+ - yF1Z'~r'f +rS{~`r s g3
. `~.`zl{ ~,~1'y N,~'{~1^at _'IGf~1! r~...' 4i j ~{.=✓y,yt ~j,~)7LLt Xi?j+.~...},k ~~',~iP ~3
IR+~y,4rc` { 'r4 r f , A Flr, ~n ^05w,
f f r t, a K 1 r+ { r` r r -3 ild Y •f
sv d t c~'r t ws' r s a ct~ a.. rY` 1' .~`a'6 ~A."1' , FY 4E' tR` s t.
4~
r . R , A t+"dFtd,iy~d .'r~' tE ~ ~'.av~ i alt ~f ~ P CLL J X. 4.y ~
yV~'d.Pr~~W?at~.1'Ir-crMM,
.:j: ~•*yz~~4T y.t'Suair "6k'~'G N* `S~'~C'ssc~J'
t f k p d ~ ii su a .v. ts.. a' " . ~5s~`''r T ~ .~7r a~F at • a
..~~s fix. ~7a ~ r _ RSA' ~ ,~.lx tt ~r 'ht3»g`4. ~ ~'f
J ) ?r~i 1 ~aAj r~ .1 s rt.. 4~r~~~a ~j34'~~`f ~ yet ~s~~~~~~.~~~~~ ~,4~~, y~rW~7 Gb.~~~" Z~ '*~~,g s.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at
the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or
less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda. by contacting either the Mayor or the
City Manager.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
O Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-
4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL. AGENDA - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE I
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
AUGUST 17, 1999 - 6:30 PM
6:30 PM
i . WORKSHOP MEETING
• Call to Order: Mayor Nicoll
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Council Communications az Liaison Reports
• Call to Staff and Council for Ron Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) rx (f) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public
records. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore
nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information
discussed during this session.
6:50 PM
3. OPERATIONS UPDATE FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
COMMUNICATION AGENCY (WCCCA)
• RoxAnn L. Brown, Director of WCCCA
7:10 PM
4. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION HYDRAULIC STUDY
® Public Works Staff
7:30 PM
S. UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING - COMMINGLING PROGRAM
i Risk Management Staff
7:45 PM
6. REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO THE BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE
• Finance Department Staff
8:05 PM
7. UPDATE ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) OPTIONS FOR 79T"
AVENUE
® Engineering Department Staff
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 17,1999 - PAGE 2
8:30 PM
8. UPDATE ON OPTIONS FOR SW GAARDE/WALNUT INTERSECTION
Engineering Department Staff
8:45 PM
9. UPDATE ON SHARING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT WITH TIGARD-
TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT
® City Administration Department
a) Broadway Rose Auditorium Rental
b) School District Field Maintenance
c) Park and Recreation Update
9:15 PM
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:25 PM
11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9:35 PM
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) 8t (f) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public
records. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore
nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the
news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disckose any information
discussed during this session.
9:45 PM
13. ADJOURNMENT
1AADM\CATHY\CCA\990518.DOC
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 17, 19N - PAGE 3
A anda ern No.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 1 O f I~ 49
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -AUGUST 17, 1999
> EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records, current & pending litigation issues.
> ANNOUNCEMENTS
Bill Monahan, City Manager, informed the Council that there has been a request for a new
trial in the Edwards' case. He noted the receipt of the money for the library from the Grace
Tigard Houghton estate several months earlier than expected. He said that staff was meeting
tomorrow with the Tigard Historic Society to discuss installing a restroom at the John Tigard
house using the $100,000 plus received by the Society from the same trust.
e Mayor Nicoli recessed the Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. to the regular session.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
Call to Order
Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
o Roll Call
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; City
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Administrative
Risk Analyst Loreen Mills
o Council Communications
Councilor Scheckla reminded the Council to give him any feedback regarding MACC before
the meeting tomorrow.
• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan announced that the City Library received a bequest of $816,585 from the
Grace Tigard Houghton estate. He reviewed the cablecast dates of the Water Spot. He
informed the Council that the Tualatin Valley Community Band did not have any practices
scheduled in the multipurpose building in Cook Park prior to the dedication on September
11 but they might practice there on Tuesday nights.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 1
3. OPERATIONS UPDATE FROM NAIASHINGTON COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
COMMUNICATION AGENCY (WCCCA)
Mr. Monahan introduced Roxanne Brown, WCCCA Director.
Ms. Brown distributed handouts on WCCCA call statistics, noting the significant increase in call
volume over the past three years (600,000 plus last year). She stated that the increase was due to
population growth and the proliferatiwi of cell phones.
Ms. Brown explained that WCCCA was a consolidated agency consisting of 17 member
jurisdictions (all the cities except Banks and all the school districts in the County). She
mentioned that Banks would join WCCCA in September. She reviewed the governance
structure of the Board with an elected or employee official representative from each jurisdiction
and an Executive Board.
Ms. Brown reviewed the working structure and use of the WCCCA system by the member
jurisdictions. She emphasized the cooperation between WCCCA and the County in using the
intP3rated dispatch, radio and phone system to provide 911 service for police, fire and EMS
calls. She mentioned that many Public Works departments also used their dispatch system.
Ms. Brown reviewed the elements and services provided through WCCCA's enhanced 911
system (built for $16 million in the early 1990s prior to the state mandate). She mentioned the
800mHertz system, data systems with data devices in police cars, a paging system, mapping
services, a master street address guide, 911 dispatch and non-emergency calls, statistical record
information for planning and analysis, and public education and citizen academies. She
described a r.oope-ttive venture between WCCCA and the Beaverton schools in which WCCCA
contracted our ; on their radio system to the schools.
Ms. Brown reported that WCCCA received their letter from City/County Insurance Systems
certifying their Y2K readiness. She reviewed the equipment upgrades and replacements
required for Y2K compliance. She mentioned participating in a County-wide drill for Y2K in
September. She indicated that WCCCA also provided rooms to serve as the County's
Emergency Operations Center in the event of an incident.
Ms. Brown reviewed WCCCA's involvement in regional councils such as the Law Enforcement
Council. She spoke to the importance of ensuring that the legislature extended the 75 cent 911
surcharge on phone bills when it expired in 2001. She explained that WCCCA used 50 cents to
pay for call taking and 25 cents to pay for equipment upgrades. She mentioned the new 911
system (paid for by the state) that they were in the process of obtaining.
Ms. Brown discussed the issue of changing and aging technology in the industry. She described
the coverage holes in Tigard (Washington Square and an apartment complex that sat in a hole).
She said that the Board decided not to go out for a levy for new equipment until their recently
established Blue Ribbon Committee did further research and made recommendations on the
appropriate dollar amount for a levy and what equipment to b. y.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the $41,968 increase on Tigard's bill was a one-time increase or an
annual increase. Ms. Brown stated that last year the Board consciously decided to hold costs
down because of Measures 47 and 50. She explained that this increase covered the increased
costs due to higher call volume and the across-the-board increase to cover four more dispatch
positions. She said that she did not expect the bill to increase exponentially.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 2
Mr. Monahan mentioned that former Councilor Bob Rohlf served on the WCCCA Board,
Executive Committee and Budget Committee last year. He said that Mr. Rohlf made the motion
to increase the staff because of the high burn-out rate in this industry and Ms. Brown's need to
to fill vacant positions without using existing staff working extra shifts. He agreed with Ms.
Brown's explanation of bolding down the budget the year before.
Councilor Scheckla asked what the staff size was. Ms. Brown described the 80+ staff members
employed at WCCCA, including part-time positions.
Councilor Scheckla asked about the foreign language service. Ms. Brown stated that WCCCA
contracted to use the AT&T language line. She commented that the costs increased due to
increased foreign language calls.
Councilor Hunt asked what Ms. Brown thought of the 311 system. Ms. Brown stated that the
discussion in Oregon among the managers regarding a phone line for non-emergency calls
concluded that, with public education, it would work. She pointed out that the 311 system in
Baltimore failed because of lack of public education and an effective seven-digit number for
non-emergency calls. She stated that, in Washington County, they had a seven-digit number
that they advertised and placed right under 911 in the phone book.
4. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION HYDRAULIC STUDY
STAFF REPORT
Mike Miller, Utility Manager, described how staff could use a computer model of the water
distribution system to understand the character of Tigard's distribution system and where they
needed to go for water (depending on usage). He compared the dynamic changes in the
distribution system that resulted from the switch in the water source - from Lake Oswego to
Portland. He mentioned that staff would use this model to study the water quality of the
different water sources. He explained how a better analysis of the existing system helped staff
plan for the appropriate size of water lines in new developments or for replacement lines.
Mr. Miller described the bid process in May which yielded four bids from solid companies. He
mentioned that, due to the sensitivity of who they used as a consultant, he asked engineers from
Portland and Tualatin to review the proposals with Tigard staff. He reported that they selected
Murray Smith & Associates as the best quallified. He noted that MSA teamed up with
Montgomery Watson for the water quality portion. He said that staff wanted to put this item on
the August 24 Consent Agenda.
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, noted the lower costs given in the Murray Smith
proposal. He said that staff checked with other cities and found that it was common for the main
water engineering consulting firm used by a city to have lower prices because they have already
done the initial work that the city would have to pay another firm to do again.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Hunt asked if the study impacted the water-source question. Mr. Wegner said no, it
had nothing to do with the water source, only with Tigard's internal water distribution system.
Mr. Miller indicated that the consulting engineers were aware of the potential water sources as
part of the system dynamics but they were focusing on the distribution system at this time.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 3
Mr. Miller confirmed to Councilor Patton that this was a baseline study to give the City a good
analysis of its existing distribution system and to provide recommendations for system
improvements needed to accommodate future growth.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the study included the area outside the Tigard cit;, limits. Mr.
Miller said that the study encompassed the entire water service area. He indicated that the
funding came out of the water fund.
5. UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING - COMMINGLING PROGRAM
Mayor Nicoli left the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, noted that John Cook (Solid Waste Efficiency
Task Force member), Dean Kamphor (USA Waste dba Miller Sanitary Service) and Mike
Leiclmer (Pride Disposal) were present. She referenced the detailed report in the Council
packet.
Ms. Mills noted that the Solid Waste Task Force (SWETF) recommended developing user
friendly recycling system than the existing multi-sort system She listed their concerns of not
creating additional costs at the curb, maintaining or increasing the level of recycling
participation, and finding markets for recyclables. She mentioned the success of the Council's
letter writing campaign to the Governor and Metro, citing the legislature's allocation of money
for research on recyclables market development in Oregon.
Ms. Mills stated that Portland finished its 18-month regional study of recycling and proposed a
regional commingled recycling program to start on October 1. She described the four sorts of
the program: all fiber products, all non-glass containers, clear glass and colored glass. She
mentioned the Metro and Portland marketing promotional plan to educate the citizens on how to
use the new system. She pointed out that the Tigard haulers were part of the 18-month test and
that implementation of the program would not change their procedures much.
John Cook, SWETF member, described the changes that occurred over these last two years
which resulted in SWETF not getting the program that it has hoped for. He noted that the
studies indicated that a reduction in the number of sorts from 8 to 4 only yielded a I% to 2%
increase in recycling. He mentioned that they had hoped for a garbage can container or cart for
recyclables. He noted that this program was a start, even if it was not everything they had hoped
for.
Ms. Mills mentioned the Council discussions regarding the difficulty of storing carts on the
smaller lots, even though they did bring a rate reduction at the curb because of efficiency of
handling. Mr. Cook pointed out that the program was worth doing, even if it only increased
usage by I% to 2%, because Tigard was at 47% of the state mandate to recycle 50% by 2002.
Ms. Mills reiterated that this commingling program did make it easier for the customer.
Mayor Nicoli returned to the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 4
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Scheckla asked if they could find markets to recycle plastic sacks, batteries, plastic
pop can holders, styrofoam food containers, fluorescent lights, and light bulbs. He questioned
how they could encourage recycling without finding markets for the materials. Ms. Mills noted
that the Council has been encouraging the state to find more markets for recyclables. She
mentioned that the City of Eugene encountered stiff resistance from its customers when it lost
its recycling market for plastic containers and pulled them from its acceptable recyclables. She
pointed out that discussions regarding creating markets for recylables occurred at the regional
level (Washington County Recycling Coop and Metro) because individual cities lacked
sufficient funds to start businesses to recycle materials.
Councilor Hunt discussed his concern with the potential customer reaction to another change in
the recycling program. Ms. Mills confirmed that the new system allowed customers to throw
bags and papers into the bin without tying them up or putting them into bags. She said that they
were asking customers to bag the mixed scrap paper so that it was not blown out of the
containers.
Councilor Moore commented that he saw this as baby steps in the right direction of eventually
putting everything into one big barrel.
6. REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO THE BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE
STAFF REPORT
Craig Prosser, Finance Director, reviewed the history of the Tigard business tax. He said that
the City adopted it in 1963 to provide general levies for municipal purposes, not to regulate
businesses. He mentioned that the number of businesses has grown from 1,400 on file in 1982
to 3,100 in 1999. He noted the last $5 increase in 1988 and the change to an annual renewal
cycle. He reviewed the business tax levels: $55 for 0 to 10 employees, $110 for 10 to 15
employees, and $220 for 50 plus employees.
Mr. Prosser reported that the 1997 study on non-compliant businesses identified 500 businesses
not on file. He mentioned the hiring of Michelle Wareing in January 1999 as a full-time
Business Tax Specialist to work on the program and to make recommendations.
Michelle Wareing, Business Tax Specialist, reviewed the recommendations in the staff
summary. She explained that she recommended the $10 increase for the administration portion
of the tax only, not the enforcement fee portion. She indicated that, after 11 years, the City
needed an increase. She commented that she had not thought it fair to charge a flat $5 late fee
for all levels. Therefore she recommended charging 10% of the fee owed each month up to a
maximum of double the fee.
Ms. Wareing pointed out that basing the residential rental property tax calculation on the
number of units in an apartment complex (rather than on the number of employees) would
generate more revenues, if the Council chose to do so. She discussed housekeeping and
definition changes to clarify how they set fees and who paid them.
Ms. Wareing explained that the City did not charge a business tax to contractor businesses who
did business in the City if the business purchased a Metro regional license. However, if the
business exceeded $250,000 in gross receipts, then the City could charge a business tax. Mr.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 5
Prosser mentioned that Metro did return a portion of that fee to the City. Ms. Wareing indicated
that Tigard's 7% share totaled $22,000 last year. She said that Tigard made $208,000 in FY
1998/99 from its own collections.
Councilor Patton asked what the benefit was to the City to participate in the Metro program.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the Metro one-stop licensing program was a political issue
strongly supported by the Homebuilders Association lobby in Salem. He explained that the time
it would take an individual business owner to pay the tax at every jurisdiction in which he did
business would cost more than the taxes.
Councilor Scheckla asked if all the cities participated. Ms. Wareing said that most of the cities
in the Metro area participated, except for Portland and those without business taxes. Mr.
Monahan pointed out that Tigard did not volunteer to participate in the Metro program; it was a
mandate on how a business tax program for contractors would be handled in the Metro area. He
mentioned that Portland calculated its tax on an income basis.
Ms. Wareing asked for direction on changing the definition of doing business from "one act" to
those businesses which earned a certain amount of revenue. She mentioned that charging a
business tax to those vendors from outside the city who did business intermittently in the city
created discord with the vendors.
Councilor Scheckla asked how the City dealt with the non-profits. Ms. Wareing said that non-
profits were exempt but she included them in her system for informational purposes.
Ms. Wareing reviewed the existing enforcement policy which used the Code Enforcement
Officer and the municipal court system. She proposed that she work different portions of the
city at a time to inform people about the business tax and to check on compliance.
Councilor Hunt asked if the City had a penalty for the time a business was in violation before it
started paying the tax. Ms. Wareing said no. She explained that the current system dealt with
those who failed to renew. She said that the Code allowed the late fee and a $150 per day fine.
She asked how far the City wanted to go to collect a $55 business tax. Councilor Scheckla
questioned whether it was worth the staff time and effort to take non-compliant businesses to
court. Ms. Wareing described her efforts to collect from delinquent businesses, noting that she
had 140 out of 500 that still have not paid.
Councilor Scheckla commented that taking a hard-line approach on collecting the business tax
could discourage people from doing business in Tigard. Mr. Prosser pointed out that the tax
applied not only to businesses located in Tigard but also to businesses located outside Tigard but
doing business in the city. Ms. Wareing mentioned cleaning businesses, caterers, and
contractors without the Metro license as examples of businesses doing business inside Tigard
but looted outside the city.
Councilor Scheckla stated that he did not support taxing businesses who did intermittent
business in the city. Mr. Prosser said that the options staff was looking at were to change the
definition of doing business to "10 or more days" or to consider the amount of money earned
from doing business in Tigard.
Councilor Moore commented that the purpose of the City collecting this tax determined from
whos it should collect it. Ms. Wareing said that the City set up the program to generate revenue
for the general fund. She mentioned that one service that the program did provide was call-in
verification that a business was registered to do business in the city.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 6
Mayor Nicoli questioned what the City's net revenues were from the program and whether or
not there was a reason for the service. He asked staff to report on all the program costs, the
gross revenues and the net revenues.
Councilor Scheckla commented that the small businesses operated on a small profit margin
whereas the larger businesses could afford to pay the tax.. Ms. Wareing asked if the City wanted
to adjust the tax portion of the fee to the larger businesses.
Ms. Wareing recommended changing the renewal date from the calendar year to the anniversary
date of the business because staff had difficulty processing the renewals when they came in all at
once.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Scheckla asked how Mayor Nicoli, as a business owner, felt about the tax. Mayor
Nicoli indicated that his $55 fee was not onerous. He commented that there were probably three
times more businesses doing business in town than registered at the City. He mentioned that a
business owner might not want to report where he was doing his business (e.g., starting a
company at home). He characterized the methods used by the City several years ago to collect
the business tax as "offensive."
Councilor Hunt supported Mayor Nicoli's request for a staff analysis of the revenues gained
from this program. Councilor Moore asked what the purpose of the program was in the long
run. Councilor Scheckla spoke to the City establishing a better relationship with the business
people and creating a united community rather than assessing a divisive tax that might not
generate much revenue. He asked to reconsider the program.
Ms. Wareing confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that the police department did not use her database.
She agreed with Councilor Scheckla that hiring more staff for the program was an issue. She
asked for Council direction on the level of enforcement it wanted her to use.
Councilor Moore commented. that if the City enforced the ordinance at all, then it had to enforce
it consistently. He asked if there was another useful purpose for the program other than
generating revenue, such as registering businesses. Ms. Wareing explained that the business tax
was not a business license to regulate businesses.
Councilor Patton supported the cost analysis. She asked for information on the extent of the
service provided by the City in providing proof of business to those who asked. Councilor Hunt
asked that the cost analysis information be broken down by size of business. He asked if they
could maintain a system of information even if they discontinued the business tax program.
John Cook, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the chamber Board reviewed the issue. He
reported that the Board supported the $10 increase and redefining "doing business" based on
gross receipts. He said that the Board did not discuss the rental issue at all. He spoke to a
license registration system for businesses without a business tax. He agreed with Mayor Nicoli
that the number of businesses actually doing business in the city far outnumbered those
registered and paying the tax. He conceded that the fees were not high but questioned what the
purpose of the tax was. He suggested that the City contract with the Chamber to provide the
verification service for a fee.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 7
Ms. Wareing asked for a decision by November because that was when the renewal cycle
started. The Council agreed that Ms. Wareing would return to a Council study session with the
information requested.
7. UPDATE ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) OPTIONS FOR 79TH
AVENUE
STAFF REPORT
Gus Duenas, City Engineer, introduced Ron Weige, Century West, and Randy McCord, DKS.
He explained that they were the design consultant and subconsultant on both the SW 79 and the
Gaarde project.
Mr. Duenas noted that, after receiving neighborhood input, staff redesigned the original cross-
section for this minor collector to the minimum standard possible: two 12-foot travel lanes, two
bike lanes, and two sidewalks. He reported that the citizens action group (which met with
Councilors Moore and Patton last Thursday) conceded the need for bike lanes. He mentioned
that the neighborhood survey indicated a preference for a sidewalk on one side only.
Mr. Duenas stated that staff decided that the City standards were non-negotiable because they
existed for certain reasons. He pointed out that full improvements that would occur on the other
section of SW 790' as the undeveloped land developed. He discussed the various design options.
He explained that the difficulty with the neighborhood's preferred design (Option A) lay
primarily with the conflict between the shared bike lanes and the driveways. He indicated that
DKS' suggested option (Option D) had possibilities worth looking into as a variation on the
staff proposal (Option Q. He reiterated staff's conclusion that the City needed all the elements
in the standards in order to benefit the entire city.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the right of way and the cross-section widths. Mr.
Duenas said that right of way varied from 40 to 60 feet. He stated that the cross-section width
was 44 to 45 feet. He agreed that the project involved the minor land acquisition of two to three
feet on each side of the right-of-way.
Councilor Moore commented that the neighborhood has not seen Options C and D, and that he
did not know what their reaction would be. He mentioned his concerns with the safety issues of
sidewalks and bike lanes. Mr. Duenas pointed out that a sidewalk on only one side forced
residents either to cross the street to get to the sidewalk or to walk in the street. He reiterated
that the staff-recommended Option C included the bare bones of the standards.
Councilor Patton reported that the Executive Committee's neighborhood survey (done at the
request of herself and Councilor Moore) found that the 100 out of the 260 who returned the
ballots generally favored the option discussed at the meeting. She mentioned that the
Committee did not find total support for a road wider than 40 feet, bike lanes or double
sidewalks. She emphasized that the option described by Mr. Duenas was not likely to meet the
neighborhood's concerns.
In response to Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Duenas said that the sidewalks were 5.5 feet wide
(including the curb) and the bike lanes 4.5 feet wide (subtracting for the stripe). He confirmed
that streetlights were included.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 8
Mr. Duenas commented that they did not discuss the financing issue at the Thursday meeting, as
they felt that the neighborhood was concerned about the design options. He emphasized that the
City required developers to comply with these standards.
Councilor Patton advised the Council that they had asked the Executive Committee to survey
the neighborhood regarding Option A under the premise that the City would pay the bill. She
mentioned the clear objections by many of the residents to an LID. Councilor Moore
commented that it was understood at the meeting that he and Councilor Patton would be
bringing the option back to the Council for approval.
Councilor Hunt discussed his concern at requiring developers to comply with the City standards
if they allowed the City to build a substandard street.
Mayor Nicoli discussed his concern with non-remonstrances placed on properties off the right of
way slated for improvement. He said that he did not want to pursue this matter any further at
this time. He spoke to moving :orward with selecting projects for the November 2000 road
bond that had the support of the neighborhoods. He pointed out that, although the City was
willing to put some money into this project, it appeared that nothing the City offered the
neighborhood was acceptable. He stated that he did not think that this project qualified for the
road bond. He mentioned looking at it again in a few years.
Councilor Hunt pc,Jnted out that the road did .seed maintenance. Mayor Nicoli conceded the
point but held that the problem would take care of itself when the undeveloped end of the road
developed. He said that he was not opposed to the City putting money into the project but he
believed that asking people who lived two blocks away from the road to help pay for
improvements was an awkward situation.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that the underlying goal in his mind was to identify projects for the
November 2000 ballot. He said that this project did not meet the criteria of acceptance by the
voters. He pointed out that the County listed only those projects for MSTIP that the majority of
the voters supported. He held that the MSTIP bonds were successful because the voters could
relate to the projects listed. He spoke to the City finding the money for this project at a later
date over a longer period of time.
Councilor Moore said that he was not sure that he agreed that they could do this project without
the bond measure. He mentioned that both he and Councilor Patton felt that the key issue was
the LID. He discussed his concerns with using 15-year-old non-remonstrances in a residential
neighborhood. He held that they could not know for certain whether or not the later
homeowners knew of the agreement made by the original homeowner.
Councilor Moore commented that he did not think that the dollar amount contributed by
residents through an LID for this road would be enough to stop the Council from writing off the
non-remonstrance agreements. He spoke to putting the money for the project in the bond and
getting the project done while relieving the property owners of any liability. He stated that
Options C and D addressed his safety concerns and provided a standard street cross section. He
held that betting the neighborhood support for Option C or D (44-foot right of way with double
sidewalks and bike lanes) plus relieving the property owners of the liability of the non-
remonstrances was a win-win situation.
Mayor Nicoli stated that he could support relieving the property owners of the non-
remonstrances. He emphasized the importance of carefully selecting projects that the voters
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 9
could support. He indicated that if Councilor Moore's suggestions were what it took to move
the project forward, and the project met the final selection criteria, then he would support it.
Councilor Hunt suggested that the Council authorize Councilors Patton and Moore to present
Councilor Moore's scenario to the neighborhood. He stated that he would not support
improving only one end of the road and leaving the most dangerous end unimproved.
Councilor Patton concurred with Councilor Moore's remarks about the LID. She stated that,
although she was willing to go back and discuss the issue with the neighborhood, she was not as
confident as Councilor Moore that the neighborhood would accept these options even without
the LID.
The Council agreed by consensus to remove the LID and the nonremonstrances. Councilors
Scheckla and Hunt stated their support of pulling the project off the road bond if the
neighborhood did not accept the City's offer.
Councilor Moore asked for feedback on Options C and D. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the
narrow 12-foot travel lanes addressed the speed issue. He characterized the e.,--sign as
neighborhood friendly, to accommodate pedestrians and bikes as well as cars. He emphasized
the necessity of keeping the children walking to school separated from the traffic lanes. He
noted that the City had several effective methods of reducing speeds on city streets.
The Council supported Option D, two 12-foot travel lanes, two raised bike lanes, two 5.5-foot
wide sidewalks, and a utility area behind the five feet.
Councilor Patton asked if there was a centerline. Randy McCord, Century West, explained
that the centerline was important on narrow roads for keeping cars in their lanes, even though a
double yellow line would reduce the traffic lane widths to less than 12 feet. He confirmed to
Councilor Scheckla that they would install reflector bumps.
The Council discussed how to proceed. Councilor Patton mentioned the Executive Committee
doing a more extensive survey of the surrounding area, now that the LID was off the table.
Councilor Moore suggested staff provide cross-sections to distribute with the ballots.
Mr. McCord discussed Option D as the best option. He mentioned that the State considered the
raised bike lane concept to be innovative. He pointed out that the increased width of four feet
all went to the pedestriai,s, not to the road.
One of the residents raised the issue of old houses located close to the existing street and the
impact on them of widening the street. He asked if there was an engineering variance that
allowed a narrowing of the road in those sections. Mayor Nicoli said that there was no
engineering variance. He mentioned an exception to the standard allowed by the City when it
decided that the cost and effort to move the graves in the cemetery on Greenburg Road in order
to allow widening of the road was not worth it. He stated that they looked at these situations on
a case-by-case basis. He indicated that staff would bring it to Council's attention if a project
would substantially damage the appearance of a home.
Mayor Nicoli observed that staff has narrowed the road down as much as it could within the
standard. He commented that a similar problem occurred with homes set close to the road when
they widened Greenburg Road. He indicated that staff was open to looking at the individual
situations, especially if the road widening substantially impacted a homeowner's ability to use
his property.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 10
Councilor Scheckla mentioned his observations that the problem lay with the shrubs planted
along a property's frontage or in the right-of-way that would have to be removed.
Councilor Hunt asked if staff knew which homes might be affected by the road widening. Mr.
Weigle described the process used by his firm to design a 34 feet wide curb to curb road
precisely to address the driveway conflicts created by a 40 foot wide road curb to curb. He said
that the Carlson house was the one closest the widened road. A resident indicated that, with a
40-foot right of way, the Carlson property had 21 feet remaining in the front yard.
Mr. Preston suggested that the Executive Committee write up a ballot indicating the Council's
interest in Option D, its agreement that an LID was not appropriate under these circumstances,
and its consideration that moving forward with the project depended upon the degree of public
support in the neighborhood for the project. He asked the Council to approve the ballot's
wording before they took it out to the neighborhood.
Councilor Scheckla observed that if this negotiation did not work out, the Council would push
the project off into the future, noting there may be two new Councilors who would review the
matter.
8. UPDATE ON OPTIONS FOR SW GAARDE/WALNUT INTERSECTION
STAFF REPORT
Mr. McCord explained that all the jurisdictions - Tigard, Washington County, and Metro -
showed Gaarde as a through road. He discussed the forecasts which indicated that Gaarde
would continue to be a primary route of eminent value to Tigard citizens. He stated that the
right-of-way at the Gaarde/Walnut intersection formed a "T" intersection right now.
Mr. McCord described the advantages and disadvantages of the three intersection options for the
Gaarde/Walnut intersection. He said that the first option, the "T" intersection, cost the least to
develop, minimized the right-of-way impact, and had the least coordination impacts with the
Walnut improvements (Walnut could be left alone for five years). He pointed out that the 90-
degree turn lost operational efficiency, caused delays and created potential safety problems for
pedestrians.
Mr. McCord confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the intersection would have a signal light. He
explained that both Option A & B would operate the intersection acceptably.
Mr. McCord reviewed the second option of a modification to the "T" intersection by adding four
feet of additional right of way for the installation of a median as a means of separating the
traffic. He pointed out that, while this increased safety, it did cost more with the wider cross-
section.
Mr. McCord described Option C, the through alignment. He explained how this design required
the purchase of two to three parcels in order to acquire sufficient right-of-way for the alignment
of Gaarde as a through street. He indicated the much higher cost of this option but pointed out
that it also built the road in the plans and provided the highest level of operational safety. He
described how this option impacted the alignment of Walnut, making it necessary to correct the
vertical curve issue at this time, as opposed to waiting for five years.
Mr. McCord asked for direction on which intersection option the Council preferred.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 11
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
The Council asked for clarification on the purchasing of the land parcels. Mr. McCord
explained ti., correcting the three pieces of Gaarde into a through alignment required
purchasing the three parcels. He indicated that the assessed values of the parcels and the houses
on them were $160,000, $140,000 and $150,000.
Mr. Duenas discussed the disadvantages of the through-route option. He commented that he did
not think it was good to push all the traffic down Gaarde Street. He indicated that a delay at this
intersection might help keep the traffic from jamming up all the way down to 99W. He stated
that, with the Walnut/Tiedeman intersection improvements in the bond measure, they could
provide two routes: Walnut for the northbound traffic and Gaarde for the southbound traffic. He
recommended the "T" intersection with the median.
Mr. Duenas pointed out that the decision the Council made now had far reaching impacts
because whatever they did would count as the MSTIP 3 project for this area. He said that the
County would not come back and redo it. Mr. McCord agreed that this was the final design for
the road.
The Council agreed that Option 2, the "T" intersection with the median was their choice.
Mayor Nicoli asked about signalization. Mr. McCord stated that they would install a signal at
this intersection as part of the project. He pointed out that the next project in the area would
pick up the light at 1215` and Gaarde. He mentioned that they had three concurrent projects that
made timing critical.
Mr. McCord reported that neither Washington County nor Metro indicated problems with
Gaarde not being a through road. He said that this decision should be made on what was best
for Tigard. At Mayor Nicoli's request, Mr. Duenas reviewed the connections provided by a
through-Gaarde Road. He reiterated that he did not think that they were doing themselves a
favor if they funneled all the traffic down to that area.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Duenas advised that construction would
begin next summer.
9. UPDATE ON SHARING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT WITH TIGARD-TUALATIN
SCHOOL DISTRICT
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Monahan referenced his memo explaining the status of the discussions that he and Mr.
Wegner had with the School District regarding sharing the costs of facilities. He said that the
District had been open to discussing the concept of trading City maintenance for availability of
District facilities for City use. He indicated that the District and City staffs were making lists of
things that they might be able to trade.
Mr. Monahan explained that he brought this matter to the Co».ncil at this time because if the
City took on responsibility for field maintenance, then it might be giving more than it received
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 12
back from the District. He asked if the Council expected a one-to-one trade arrangement
through the negotiations or was agreeable to providing a grant to the District. He mentioned a
third alternative of the City developing credits from the District which it could make available to
other people, such as Broadway Rose, a recreation district or social service agencies.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Nicoli said that any of those options were fine. He explained that he did not look at the
City maintaining and/or improving the fields as giving something to the School District because
he expected the District to allow the general public access to those fields.
The Council discussed the various kinds of joint usage of facilities and equipment and planning
possibilities. Mayor Nicoli suggested informing the District of the Council's support of the
Broadway Rose program. Mr. Monahan commented that staff was looking to build a
relationship with the District. He mentioned the District's interest in participating in the
County-wide system in which the jurisdictions in the County regularly shared equipment and
staff.
The Council discussed how the City might use credits for district facilities, using the Broadway
Rose as an example. Mr. Monahan observed that the District sending Broadway Rose to the
City for more money last year put the City in an awkward position. He spoke to the City
helping to improve the partnership between the Broadway Rose and the District by showing its
support of the theater as a benefit to the youth in the community.
Mr. Monahan asked if staff was headed in the right direction in their negotiations with the
District. He asked for further discussion at a later meeting if the Council supported the staff
direction.
Councilor Hunt asked for more information on the issuing of credits concept and more
definition on what control the City would have over the fields it maintained. Mayor Nicoli
concurred. Mr. Monahan said that staff heard a positive response from School Superintendent
Joki and Tom Kurt during their discussion of the field control and field maintenance issues. He
said that he thought that they could work out those details, especially if the District saw the City
as supportive.
Councilor Scheckla asked for updates on the Broadway Rose and the Balloon Festival. Mr.
Monahan said that staff has not met with Bruce Ellis yet to get the figures for the Balloon
Festival, although they did know what the City costs were.
Mr. Monahan summarized the Council's direction as he should proceed in this direction at this
time and keep the Council posted. He mentioned the School District meeting on August 23 at
which Broadway Rose would give its presentation.
10. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None.
11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 13
13. ADJOURNMENT: 9AC p.m.
Attest:
yor, City of Tig
Date: l1qf
1 AADM\CATHY\CCM\990817.DOC
Catherine Batley, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 17, 1999 - PAGE 14
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 9469
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
°City of Tigard e ❑ Tearsheet Notice
013125 S17 Hall Blvd. e ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard,Oregon 97223
0Accounts Payable e
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, ua- ny snv~r _
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal cleric, of theTi ,-Lrr1-Tual a _in Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti ga rd in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
August 12,1999
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 2+h AaV of AucQust,1999
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROSIN A. SUROWS
►.~ta: Puk+Rafcu.flsAp~►~v...,... ARV,/"186.1 OREGON
Tbp,€allow>i>ting highlights are published for your information. Full • 062071
my Commission Expire egesidas >:i~y be obtained from.the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall S MAY ts, 2001
AFFIDAVIT Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223; q~1-;`idlin9 639-5171.
TIGA7D CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACTAEVIEW BOARD MEETING
August 17,1999 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOIJ EVARD, TIGARD; OREGON
o O0eratl6fii t)pddte fronn'-*6b ngton County Consolidated Com-
mumcdtiiip Agency
o Ptelutn>tnary Discussion of Water Distribution Hydraulic Study
Update-on Residential-Rocycling -Commingling Program
e. Revi6W of Revisions to he Btisiness Tax Ordinance
• llpaafe'' otl:Local Improvement District (LID) Options for 79th
•Avenue (&nW*)
e Update bti Options for SW Gaarde/Walnut Intersection.
tTpdite'oii Sharing Facilities and Equipment with Tigard-l'jalatin
School District ;
Tj"P.-;-~ Publish August 12, 1999,
TVC;A
Fax:5036458561
Tualatin ~ Valley
Communitv access
Your Center for Com+nunity
Attention: Liz
Fax 684-7297
Water Spot, The
Cablecast Dates:
P-M,
Friday, August 20,1999
Saturday, August 21, 1999
Monday, August 23, 1999
Friday, August 27,1999
Above times are for the
September Episode:
Aug 13 '99 15:36
August 13,1999
Time
Cham
5:00pm
9/33
7:00am
9/33
11:00am
9/33
1:00am
9/33
P. 01
` wt~ Ot SS
episode in our library. Times below are for the
Thursday, September 2,1999
8:00pm
11
Friday, September 3, 1999
5:00pM
9/33
Saturday, September 4, 1999
7:00am
9/33
Monday, September 6, 1999
11:00am
9/33
Friday, September 10, 1999
1:00am
9/33
Friday, September 17, 1999
5:00pm
9/33
Saturday, September 18,199
7:00am
9/33
Monday, September 20,1999
11:00am
9/33
Friday, September 24, 1999
1:00am
9/33
Channels are listed with two chain el numbers separated by a slash. The first channel number is for the
TCI Tualatin Valley system; the se nd number is for the portion of the TCI Portland system serving
unincorporated Washington Coun .Programs scheduled for Channel 11 can be seen throughout the
Portland, metropolitan area on the ommunity Access Network.
!f you have any ques::Dns, please co me at 629-8534, extension 107.
Sincerely,
,I' 11&'5x.~0,P-'2-1-1
Matt O'Dell
Tape Traffic Coordinator
Tualatin Valley Community , ccess • 1815 NY1' 169th Place, Suite 6020 • Beaverton, OR 97006
. 6
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUEIAGEIdDA TITLE Operations iJ )date From Washington County- Consolidated Communications
Agency (WCCCA)
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Roxanne Brown, Director, Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency, will appear before
Council to provide an update on the activities of WCCCA and the outlook for future delivery of service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide an opportunity to Roxanne Brown to address Council on the services provided by WCCCA.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) is an ORS 190 organization, made
up of cities, Washington County, and fire protection districts for the purpose of performing functions of a 9-1-1
public safety answering point and initiating appropriate response. Over the last couple of years, the agency has
continued to grow in staffing in response to the increased number of emergency calls generated within
expanding Washington County. As technology changes, challenges and opportunities arise which WCCCA
responds to in its continuing efforts to provide the highest quality of public service to member jurisdictions and
citizens at large. For example, WCCCA dispatchers handled approximately 115,000 more calls in 1998 than in
1997, for a total of 564,414 calls.
The fiscal year 1999-2000 budget was recently approved unanimously by representatives of participating
agencies present at the WCCCA Board of Commissioners meeting of March 11, 1999. The cost to the City of
Tigard to participate in the program is $266,639 for the present fiscal year, up by $41,698.60 from the prior
year. Thus, our increase was 18.54%. Our population increased by 2%; 744 people, over the prior year.
Roxanne will present au overview of the operations of the agency and discuss some of the present issues which
will be addressed over the coming years by WCCCA.
We have not had a regular update from WCCCA for quite some time. Presently, the City Manager serves as the
City's representative to the Board of Commissioners. In the past, former Councilor Bob Rohlf served on the
Board, as well as on the Executive Committee of the agency.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action, at this time.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
None
FISCAL NOTES
None.
I:\ADMUO\W CCCASUM. DOC
The following pages were provided by
RoxAnn L. Brown of the
Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency
❖ 1997 Law Enforcement Calls for Service and Incident
Activity
❖ 1998 Law Enforcement Calls for Service and Incident
Activity
❖ 1997 Fire/EMS Calls for Service
❖ 1998 Fire/EMS Calls for Service
1997 Law Enforcement Calls for Service in a Foreign
Language
1998 Law Enforcement Calls for Service in a Foreign
Language
0
`
n
2
n
~
Z
o
z~
P
Z Z
~
C
O
~
e
Z
O
~
Z
0
0
~
n
o
z
g
p
m
n
Z
o
Z
p
~
Z
m
O
y
F,
n e
0 m
I
+i
0
O
~
n
°
~
c
y
D
~j
D
0
n
i
D
D
Z
~
-4
D
g
m (
D
)
D
C
S
1
D
i
D
n
N
n
fin'
0
i
~n
r
vi'i
n
d
~n
C7
M
n
d
u,
m
m
n
.
n
z
S
0
z
m
m
m
m
N
a
'
TI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Z
p
p
.
pp
pp.
..pp
~,o
p.
.p
p
O
o
c
V
q
O
W
p
P
V
O
N
N
O
O
CT
•O
N
_
9
W
1
EI
-
pp..
N
(pp~.~.
W
t
pAn
~N
W
V
(tea
(Jt
N
~p
N
v
W
V
~p7
W
a
a
~
V
N
,OW
O
(P~
A
O
4~
P
p~.
OD
P
A~'
y
P
P
p
0
C
D
P
G
N
_
3
ZZ
~
O
w
Cn
.
pi
pp
QOpp
pW~ f
~
tp~
.
.
W
pp
p.
OD
N
A
pp
N
_
V
(per
V
N
Ra
WN
W
~ 3
VV~
N
C.
CT
C.
V
OD
w
pC1.
N
_
~..~j
C
G Z
p
N
(Nj~
p
O
P
Oo
OD
N
O
N
~D
~
Oo
V
N
CT
O
P
n
O
Z n
M
0,
°
°
yy~
5}~~
fS
'
-0
g;
7
m
~o
N
a
s
la
w
0
r
;o
oz
~-C
w
o,
~
.Ni
b
S
a
v
a
Z
K
N
pW
V
p
A
Np
.(p
N
V
pWp
Np
p.
&
~_a
pp.
O
tc
O•
(p~.
a
N
P
App,
P
qpN.
O
N
-4
N
V
N
CV7~
C,
O~
Y<
-
02
E c
O
pp
ic
N
.
p
N
a
P
r
P
T C
O
D
rNO'
N
p
N
V
Nw
[per
w
O
.per
P
A
N
ppo
W
(per,
O
_
p~
O
O
o
-
.!pO
u+
m
en FV
m
C
N
r
W
W
CJi
P
A
N
r
(
m
~
a
1
p
~
((~1
N_
W
Np
o
-
(Qp~p~
ppp
N
N
N
!O
d
((~~t
P
W
N
p N.
OD
V
V
NN
N
U1
N
N
V
•O
V
(~~p
{
C
z
O•
p
W
6
6
(
l1
W
N
'
P
8
'O
W
A
N
c C
a
>
m
_
tr
N
N
A
U
_
U
ppp
P
(Ji
V
N
V
N
W
~
~
v
W
N
v
P
~
~
D
~
-1 G
P
O
w
N
W
O
m
_
r
er
~
WW
W
GNU
~
U
a
N
~
~
pp
~
p.
~
v
V
(T
~
P
N
v
W
a
Go
•O
~
p
U
.p
s
~
W
v
W
c a
(7i
V
~
(per.
~A
W
P
o
~O
~
p
p..
CT
N
P
R
V
V
O
P
(
T
P
O
O
O
'
_q
4
-
~
r
'
4
a
m
Sv
23
v
~~qq
~o
v
o
N
pp
S
V
N
aN
N
w
w
~o
A
w
~
w
v
a
C
D
V
.
t
pD
A
ppo
pp
N
.Np
(per
G
co v
co V
[yb~
O
OVO
co
N
pppp
V
V
®y.
W
.
pp
N
f(Gr~
W
pW
A
.
P
p.
U
A
K
Shun
A
~O
N
A
v
Q
NN
oo
~
~
~
A
NNW
~
_
~
V
~
ppp
~
~
(nom
J
d
~
p
P
oop
.p
1OsJ
Wp
m
W
NN
•O
d
~.pp
p
(Ph
4
+
~q1+
i+`
~
~
r~i+
a
~
V
pp..
A
N
Gf
v
~
P
O
O
Cl.
W(~
p~
t
~
fJ
O
.pp
p
.O
W
p.
p~
A
pV
N
_
A
W
O
V
O
P
N
O
N
N
~e
O
p
N
OVO
C2
A
P
V
CO
W
W
O
In
OD
_
~
O
~
WI
P
p
Lo
~
0
I
L
O
O
-
OD
_a
ti
-r
0
=
S
p
e
°
~
n
➢
z
n
8
D
~y
n
z
n
O
8
yy
0
DDC
2
"
Z
n
m
"
n
n
➢
z
O
n
~
Oy
n
DD
z
7O
0
CD
Z
n
52:
~
E C
C
Z
n
O
o
O
r R
Z
0
S
T
O
Z
0
i
Ca
O
m
F
O
m
Z
F
N
m
F
rn
=
C
m
r
fn
m
F
Fn
0
m
$
v
Fn
m
Z
N
m
m
O
m
T
T
2
~
T
z
T
o
(T~
T
2
0
T
_
T
~7
D
T
D
T
2
D >
Z
T
2
D
s
W
5
D
n
w
5
D
n
y
5
D
n
M
N
AO
y
S
nD
,
'
M
D
(7
y
M
D
(7
y
S
D
n
~
M
M
y
1
o
M
n
f
y
n
o
m
m
m
z
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
~
I
~
n
S
F
Z
_
.p
p
p,
p
piaO
(W~
V
P
Nr~O
pp
p.
W
ONO
N
w
N
_
.p
pO
p.
aO
~
tl~
c
V
C.
O
Oo
Of
N
P
O
W
N
CJr
A
V
O
OO
V
CA
N
V
co
(/p~
`Q
p
OD
N
W
p
G.
p
O
N
O
(pJp
O
O
W
d
4vi
V
p
f71
N
V
W
pp,
N
p_.
(T
.p
N
U1
N
O
((Q~~
(T
(T
~mQy
N
((ppp~~
N
(pN~
O
~/l
~j
FO
0.
Yn'
o
a
20"
m
w
cVo
w
m
`L
Z
Z
n
~
~
0
0
~
N_r
O
~
O
nn
.p
(nom
(p
ppd.
10
14
pp~
CCU
_p
r
p
O
p
A
(
~
P
p
O
p.
P
pp~~
W
N
(
(
P
P
~O
A
Cr~~
O
pp
A
CC~~
N~
(7~
O
V
~
a
w
P
cn
OD
O
A
m
~
O
`~Qf
J~
C
N
pp.
O
Cpl.
pu
Cp~p
a
pp
pW
Cp.~.
Cdpoa
C0
C
r~
V
<
W
(
~
Oo
pa
A
n
O
W
N
N
Oo
(T
co
V
W
v
P
O
n
C
C~
OO
W
rv
C7~
O
O
W
N
pppppp~~
V
r
N
p.
P
A
N
P
N
r~~O
N
N
P
.O
p
a
W
p.
P
p.
N
V
C.
.p
,O
V
pp.
V
O
W
~p1
P
V
CN.~
A
w
O
_
pp
Cn
C~
C•r
V
N
p v
CI1
(Qva.
O
p
O
W
W
C
O
.m'"7i
A
O
0
m
O
Yw
-0
00
u
m
Y'n
a
2fo
.0
m
75
w
~i
v
w
75
0
~ 3
z
-
0
fTJ,
y
CC~O~
..pp
pp
CC..~~
N
N~O
(C~O~
N
N
~N7
(per.
Opp
W
N
pp~.
p,
p.
V
O
y
V
?
4f
d
P
O
P
4+
Cn
4a
O
O
N
OO
P
O~
OO
OO
y
r
C.
V
W
O
v
V
pp.
V
C.N
A
-O
Oo
O
P
N
N
pp.
O
O
w
(p~
On
(ONno
pp.
pry
P
~
A
Oo
r
0
O
v
W
(Jt
W
W
m
N
CIS
O
O
-O
P
O
v
~O
CT
1~
O
O
O
O
CJ~
v
Co
~O
QO
o
C1
C.~
r
p.
~i
Nw
y±
E
`~~j
p,
pN
(pn
uN'
±
=
0-
N
vi,
Y.a
'
i
V
O
w
A
P
OO
r
p
N
V
OD
O
N
P
P
t7~
Cn
O
~O
OO
O
V
V
N
V
ZZ
O
N
(,a
w
CU~
N
pp
W
N
pGp
~O
(per.
OO
S
Ej
~o
OD
CT
W
q
fS
n
~
w
N
~
N
a
P
N
V
~
N
a
v
1
8
v
~
p~
v
A
ro
~
o
=0
p
t(~~
4r
V
p
P
tCo~
A
V
V
{p.~
V
Cps.
W
A
a
t~sSi~
N
~
V
v_
OO
4~i
pO
CT
~
m
V
~
pp.
P
tVV
O
N
W
CT
V
CD
tv.~
P
C~i
N
O
A
V
V
y~
%%%'lli
V
~
V
Np
O,
r
V
Cn
C.
Cp.~
Cb
W
Cl~
C~
O
A
r
A
Q
j
j~V
N
O
N
Ay
~
r
.p
d
~j7O
P
r
Cpr~
~O
va
W
W
P
V
i}SG
8
p
~
W
V
I
O
A
Cf.
W
N
N
~
u
O
y~
i
D
H
=C)
o
1
8
I
I~
o
F
°
z
N
m
C
0
N
n
7
Q
ZZ
v
Z
Ti
~
F
qq
A
F
F
F
~
m
~c
a
i
n'
CC
>
C
~
Tl~
C
j
~
E
~y
tyn~
~
N p.
~
~
~
~NQ
`y
c
~
p
.p
n/
{
P
m
A
pp
(T
pp
N
V
fN.l
N
A
L
O
A
O
v IP
N
S
Co
i•O
U :
L
N
f
J
~
I
2
j
-
I
s
~
'
~ Y
~
O
9
g
N
0
v
m
v
,o
a
I
Fn
i
.
v
2
n
i i
{
l
j
t
I
~
o
V
N
Ki
1
0
0
o
s
~
~
I
a
~
N
m
~
~
~i
NW .w
`
1
i
~
~
I Ii
; a
1
N
i _
`
{
ppN
O
j
N
P
_
P
~
f
N
N
•O
~
m
U
fNit
~
~
~ f f~ l
n
V
NN
O
pp
V
N 3 I
i O
{ ~ I
I
VN i
Q
O
~
j O
1
1
t
'
1
/
r
N
V{
O
:
•O
V
Np
O
pw
P
I
W
O
p
P
P
N
C
n
U;
A j`UOI
p.
V
N
O
p.
p.
P
pel
iV;U i
Oi
'O
;O
. .
:
: :
i -
zy
~
~
V
S
~
((N~~
V
1
U
P
~
N
~O
~
m
I
~
_
U
p
U
p.
O
N
~
fWY
{
3
t
P ~
: q
ODjAI
(per
A
m
Oo
{y
N
I
iC iS {
j
~Oi
V
m
i O
miZ
~
(V
(J
~
i
gN
5
I
I
4i
N
U
r
a
p
AO
(per
W
{
U
N
A
V
V
BO
O
N
.9
N
j
N'V
i`b
S
V
•N.
O~
N
U
iN{V
iP (O I
N;
V
00
`
~ia
D
a j
pppp
N
~
I
{
P
V
fJ
p
p
N
0
A
0
j
Oo
~,r
P
A
P
V
tUil
'~i
O• `v
V
m
m
P
paNpp
A
' Ip~ I
iS iW
yyj
W
n
y j o
~i3
S j3
I
t
I
I {
{ I I
m:z
N
pps~i
N
I
I
ppN.,
A
OD
U
u
W
a
.Pp
w
I
j
a
n
O
N
L
P
N
A
!
{
3
~
V
1
I
1w kOj
U
A
N
_
App.
P
1
E t(~ I
I~~$I
1
N
~
n
i=f
O
j
!
I I
I
I I 3
I
p
y
:
Iy
•D
m:
V
'
O
A
A
A.
P
1
i
U
N
Oo
O
j
4+iz;
U iPI
W(~
o
~pQ`~'~
f
-
tP 33
~iV i
-
OI
Vi
N
V
7 In
?T
.....I
. .
-
_
•
-
n
o
I
V j
N
5~
N
w
O.
3
I
_
N
~
j
j
I
i I
{ I
_
i i I
E I I
{
'
N
o
m
1
W
I
V
N
~
A
_
U
4f
~
~
I
P
~
P
A
U
~
U
~
p
O
p~
U P I
~
u
P
Os
j ~ I
IS I.O I
I
b
m
I
i
l
E
1
I I
~
~
~
I
S
O
Oj
U
S
lVT
A
;
O
N
O
N
v
tJ i0
O
fJ
IIN
uI
V
I
i
{
I
O
O
O
O
fJ
O
~ 0
d
A
oV
,pp
OD
pA.
m
I
0
~
0
8
w
V
O
P
O
~
P
$
X.
Q
b 1j C
N
U
I
N
~
V
O
D~
Nt
b~!
L~
LQ
:t
M
8Q
3t
~
L~
~
DT
8~
D~
L~ i i~
L~
7R
i~
. LQ I
:
i~
0 m
j
0
122
1
-11
0
1
to
A
n
1
z
c
i i
7O'
,
n
°
>n
°
z
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
a
D
CC
D
23
n
D
C~
n
C
n
I
1 I n
!T !C D I
M
o DCC
D n
C
-n
Dfl
I
T
C n
n
C
.
~
.
.
. .
m
to
I
.......I.......
m
m
ti'A
~
im i
m
N
f/!
m
!
m
Fn
to
~
i
i
N
I
OD
D
p fop
P O
fVT
E
U
O
A
'
A
N
4~i
(ay
A
~o
V
q
P
1 f
~
O ! '
V
W
O
_
D•
A_
.lpJ
P
o
O
3
N
p
OD
_
p
O
V
CJ1
N
l
_
~'vI
E
p,
v
al
e,
y~??
K
P
t
P''
N
!U!= o.[
i
s
=i
I
I
~ ! 1
1
t
_
SIOND
P
!
P
O
U
3I
P
U
m
p
W
!
!1
,
(NT le.
~2
m
P
~
R
R
i
O
V
P
N
O`
~
~
~
~
~
I
i
N
a
D
x
~
~~pp pppp
P I O
N
P
'
I
U
O
U
i
!
N
O
N
O
p
N
P
N
i ! I
N I W'
O.P.
W
N
N
P_
_
N
Oa
V
P
V
U
r
I
i
I
N
U
O
ppp
A
~
O`
V
3
r
Z
G1
O
N
I
i
W
i I
3
A
W
N
O
V
g
1518
~~nn
l
i
.
P
v
w
N
w
C
I
i ! I !
i
z
n
g
A~
N
V
U
!
A
O
A
i
[n
Np
iT
N
A
d
U
N
' ' N
' C. 3 tT ~i ~O I
A
v
N
O
P
U
O
I
V
U7
m
Z
p<
P
!
V
N
'O
1
m
U
lJ
A
O
A
O l OO I NW 3
O
U
!
P
V
N
co
G
C
>
T
A
i
i I
N
I
~
~
t o
L~nfi
N
U
NN
N
V
~
I
(D
P
Wp
ppp
~O
m
o
b
!
!P {~O ifAi~ I
U
~
~
V
N
v
~O
I
~
U
a
N
t
n
3
1
!
I
!
m
m
Z
1npJ {`{p
V E(T
~
N
-w
V
V
N
A
!
:
V
V
pWp
N
V
~O
N
A
A
V
V
M
~ NN i
`O~P i0. i
p.
OD
r
CD
pppp
P
pVp
(T
~
?
~O
~
E
4Vi
V
N
O
Y
I2S;
1
0
m
~
a
i
, bo''
u, ~N
°o
a
S
a
i
s
rPi
o~O.
~
~
m
r
n
•
z
i
!
~
j 1 !
i I I
~
o
j
N pppppp
PiN
(pN~~
d
I
f
N
W
U
I
N
A
(p.~
O
A
A
P
N
~
~I~i~l
p
A
r
~o
p_.
W
P
pp
4f
(pNT
~O
N
C
d
~
~
?
I i
.0
i
U
N
V
N
t~T
$
p
kp
y
!d iPtt'ii
V
O
V
pp
P
(N~pe!+
P
1
U
pp.
P
V
~
`Q
m
N
NIQ
r
~
I
N
V
f~~
N
v
! !
!gy
!W
~
A
~
V
N
WWp
.Wp
v
V
~
j
fNJ I A
U
j
OI O
p
D
p
N
P
y
O
p
P
W
p p
i f.~ 00 1 1
N
N
A
P
P
C:
A
Ul
O
I
O_
8
O 10
(.t
W
O
P
~y
P
~y
P
v
N
c
o
d
U i O~
a
P
N
N
$
y
I
N
L<
cxomo~0„moo=xcw5-n; m>KG)Mcn
Cl)
=CDc tea'>>> =r
CD T CD 91) 3 .0
L
a
i
i Z
CO N
W ul
m
i
i
i
O
N
A
W co
a
i
~
Tq
i X11!
W
CO
N
i
W W
N
i
co
a
i
i
V
C-
i
i Z
A
W
O
N
C-
C
co
00
W
CO
i
i ye
O
V N
N
W
N
m
n
i
i
i
4
N
N
N
Z
O
i
i
i
v
m
0
a
O
~
iiNN aNi
aN-+-+OWco-~
N W -400W
V
a~
tri
n
Cn A
tTl
R
n~
E o
Irl
O
V) A
trj
J O
li9
z~
a
O
M O
Crf
z~
aM
~~yy
\.l
vc-10r--ono=x--iT5m> .~-Z.K0m n
o w w_ a o o E e m o-@ M w.c c'o
o a c rn o. 3 R- uj 5 cC in v o. psi in
rA 'oC-1. wsw Mv; ZS>>~ww_civ;
m
W
I
L
a
Z
i
N i
N
00
m
1 W
i
P4
i
ja N
a
i ]7
i
CA)
i
CO
W U1
a
M
i
i
W
O
N
C) ►
i QNj
i
i
V
V
(T
C-
c
i Z
i
W
~j
N
Cn co
L
c
V
~p
N
V
V
a
i
i MI
O
,
CD
G7
m
M
i
W i
A
CO
O
A
i
JJ
i -tl
i
i W
i U1
Z
O
i
i C
Q~
i N
1 i
O
m
~
i 0
i
CO)
N W
A
0
00
z'
Izi
f7 p
C=1
p
C1
O
tria
Co
c]
Cif
z
Y es
09
tTj C
Z>
^^aCD
4J
MM,
M
j i
W ON-+000N O 00-+000 V W W V ON~~
O
z
O
O
aOM
IL CO R -i log
wy NF e
O) ~Np N U*j
ca w
a co An
~ o cr)
J aocq~
m
03
qt
v
d
E
co o m
co
tUlflMM
ac
'
ri
t
r
~
cc
U
} CS! m
Cc) Cl)
co N u7 3, 1"1
lqt CV
to O
4:1 CO M
C4 1*
~ m
Mo m .
04
O C O a
an vi ch
co
LLJ
LL
~ O 2u,
.:y Z~ ? co =C
O f~ U
a~ s O
rEu)?00
C6 d: a U r- tom
N
W
r
..1
V
jg
5
0
H
N
C
C '
co
C
cm cm
o
2-Q
r..
~ - m
r 4) ID
~ a "COO
d C 10
0 V U
ai
00
e- r N ~
6C6 at- t~
00 o o 19
E Ea EE w
z z z z
iA c
cc -2 0
~ (D
cm w P- t-
o
x
C1
m
/o®v
In
CO
b
tlg$
1O
N
~p
t~~?w
~mpj
lV
fppp
l7
(N~
tl
CI
1~
N
N
tt~~
p
~1
0
l'9
~
Q
iV
f0
19
Q
A
~
f
p Qr
(py
In
~
W
~
A
N
17
N
I.
Y
'+f
A
~
~p
O
Yf
W
f9
Qom!
W
t~
A
~
~~py
q
Q
Y
~
~
r:
3
~
O
Q
1P
W
m
~
l
O
N
A
!D
W
W
Q
N
N
Ol
1~
N
C
12
to
[V
D
1
t
N
7
~9
W
D
O
W
Q
'
+5
~
=
N
N
M
t
77
W
f`
r
A
l
l
1-
0
uuH
O
W
N
^
tD
1ff
CV
Y!
t0
IA
a
t4
8
W
A
~
M
1M1P
S
O
N
^
W
~
t9
tai
A
A
.o
{9
77~q~~
W
N
g
H
~gu
O
f~py
A
Q
W
~~py
O
{V
~~py
In
P
N
~y
S
iV
m
~p
N
1W~
TT
yQ
@
p
p
~p
O
q
Ol
W
~p
1D
N
W
N
ENO
Z
}
~
[
!
V
N
m
N
Q
M
MJ
N
[V
00
l7
A
M
h
T
aV
N
10
1~
C
~
-r
l
O
N
Q
iiiVVV
000
Q
Z
-a
M
r'
r
N
LL
Z ~
(UJ
}
~
10
A
~
CV
~
M1W
~
~C
A
~
N
~
♦
N
N
W
O
tD
~
~
A
~V
~
~
p
~D
O
~
~
Qi
T
lV
Y
Q
W
~i
~
O
1
~
~O
Q
V
JJ
~y
V ~
'
4
P7
pu
A
O
Q
Nl
W
N
fD
~f
Q1
Y
M
a0
Yl
O
W
t~
l9
Q
N
W
Z
l~
CJ
N
O~
Q
M
'
C'f
-
r
~
N
~
~
l+l
~
~
~
~
'
W
n
~
aD
f
C
CD
N
~
~
/~7
In
OD
W
N
Q
f'J
O
~
W
O
~
O
1
0
j
K
~
e
N
~
LL
Q
S
i~
pW
~
M
~~Apy
A
N
(NV
N
A
lA"!
l0
NI
Y
p~
N
A
~p
1D
~p
N
N
10
17
h
~p
(p
QD
Wf
N
@
~~ryp
1n
Wm
QI
pp
Q
p
W
pp
M
lV
W
A
Of
Q
^
N
01
O~
m
~
V
3
Q
O
N
0
0
N
s
N
!3
Z
N
a
QQ
G
O
N
Q
tc
~Z~.
co
¢
N
h
d
y
Z
Q
S
N
a
Q
O
N
~
~
UU_
Z
~
F
a
$
C
~
H
W
~
}p.
F
x
~
~
~
U
Z_
~
S
F-
a
yT~
b
6
U
a
~
k3
o
d
e
ad
o
d
d
-
S
CD
r
~
~
el
d
d
r
0
C,
m
r
fD
IA
1
'
V
N
2
4
'
l
I4
Q
1
7
1
1
I
l
,
1
1
1
f
1
co
p
If1
N
~
?
14 m
9
m
f
A
M1
f0
~
!
~
5
N
NN pm
m `v
Q
HHH
1
N
}
Q
O
~
N
^
a
m
0
$
m
p
ti
V
N
n
M
^
^
X
A
~y
p
~
Q
O
to
I
M
M
73
cn
{
r
g
~
s
u
U
ww
A
~
~p
~
~
tl
~
CC
~
11~~
~
pp~~
n
t0
~
tl
°
~p
p
N
ff'~!
N
A
Q
7'
~
D,
~N
7
y
to
IL
~i
in
n
m
.
m
N
T
83
'
:
g
8g
g
f'
N
T
I
at
2
3o
v
R
R
N
T
1
7
n
IR
~
R
~
~
~
ffi
N
~3
R
8
~
Y
"
?
~
N
N
~
A
N
h
8
in
tl
r
N
f
tp
t7
v
A
r
m
^
1n
r
m
W
r
N
T
LL
~ p
m
(
VV
N
}
Q
W
Zr
ry
~
TAPE REQUEST 1999
Tape Req.
Hours
January
59
25
February
42
23
March
40
17
April
61
38
May
40
9
June
69
41
July
69
46
August
92
52
September
49
33
October
72
37
November
70
40
December
74
34
737
395
(V) r~
00 V
-i co
o0
i~ t~ ri
O vi
N
N
O rn
N rn
l
DOM
0) LO
l
1
N
> -
t O r
0 P
M rn
Z r
N
N
r
I--
rn CD
v
co
O
OO
I... r
r
C
C! to
N rn
n r
1
co
fl-
&a CO
IL act M C
N N
O
C)
r
(a
N
N Co I-
sh r
r
~
M
_MG
0d
f
D
C)
s N
h co co
Co
rn
N Co O
co
M
N N D
Wt
at
ti
rn
=
'
r-
v N
CO
rn
r
7
sy
xx?i:
7
O
O tM CD
ZNrC.M.
: to P
Mtn
P
s
rn
Sco
r
N
r N to
cD O
w
M co
r O
y.
^k co I-
r::~
SS
t
3~
rn
C P
~YNSSf N
ti
as
ti
as
N
O J
z
~ U
O
0
Z
a
0
C
U
C)
C
N U
CA W t
r C N
d O
L
O
N ~ L - 0
> V O N N O
V N m
Q' a r-
O Q
to N w N N 0.
O tII fII E
U U d U U
r r d D1 ACA O
y=es-~ 0Q y
o)ch ()rti O
o o o o -p
L L Q) L L d
N d> 0 d O
E F N E E aL)
ZZI- ZZQ
h C ~ O
cu 72 0 Q
rnRQr-r-
to P O Co
CO CIS r
C, r
to r C 0) to
d. CA g{E Cl) Co
N
M
O r Lo,
to st O f f`
C*,* 40 CD
V- .3f, N
Yti}pp
}4
M O top : P Cl)
f'- N C) ' Qt I-
m-'* PO~.:r-cc
rn x.
3%+r
LL
?3'
~'ttv
tnrntn; mM
co O O r
O r 0 rR r
as »~cr~
'7 r N
K
7 '
L C 0
~ L
72 CO
r O 7 CA rn
r a) C6 = i5
4)
CA Q' -C0 -
C4
:P I
I
~G
:t
r
se i
m
r
n~
h
m
o
°o
C
N
r
N
IG
Pf
O
I
A
!7
r
OO
G
x
A
M
W
P
fD
M
W
WN
Q
N
Q
Q
m
b
n
Q
N
b
'
M
N
n
co
W.
M
I
O
of
W
M
O
W
m
n
Q
N
b
b
W
M
Q
n
O
A
`
m
n
°
N
O
M
0
m
n
N
N
n
O
~A
N
M
b
co
A
A
M
b
J
m
m
M
N
N
N
m
M
W
m
n
m
Q
O
A
I Q
fD
m
N
Wm
~
m
N
b
O
M
K
{
O
n
t
v
w
i
r
O
O
i
0
M
n
'
M
Q
m
M
r
N
N
Q
b
M
N
w
N
I
K
^
M
W
M
b
b
N
W
co
M
M
N
O
b
N
O
m
I N
W
n
O
M
m
O
A
W
W
W
N
O
N
W
b
co
N
N
N
Q
Q
V)
Ol
A
A
N
N
M
O
N
N
at
fD
f~
N
W
N
N
CD
Q
A
W
m
b
O
W
O
W
W
W
O
N
b
I Q
N
A
m
(I
m
<
Q
N
m
N
M
O
O
m
m
M
N
W
N
M
b
N
M
!
r ,
m
r
N
W
N
0
'
ymj
Q
W
N
N
M
b
m
m
CO
n
N
m
W
co
m
M
N
N
b
O
M
b
n
N
A
O
`
N
Q
O
A
O
N
m
A
O
O
m
m
n
m
Q
N
N
W
N
d
'Q
m
m
m
M
W
O
m
O
Q
Q
W
Q
m
Q
N
M
W
O
W
M
N
fD
N
m
W
4
OI.
N
M
M
O~
N
m
N
~
W
M
b
m
N
Q
b
N
M
I
z
'
_
W
O
w
W
N
N
M
Q
b
17
N
~Ny
N
O
S
.Qp
r_
A
m
N
O
W
A
V
M
4.
Q
n
N
W
n
N
Q
O
A
O
m
Y
h
m
O
m
N
A
m
i7
M
W
m
M
'f
N
co
m
W
O
M
.
(O
m
M
N
Q
A
N
N
q
m
W
M
M
N
m
n
K
W
b
b
m
N
Q
M
O
n
N
M
A
0
M
N
W
m
r
W
m
M
A
N
to
N
W
N
A
A
~p
0
b
0
N
m
O
m
N
N
m
•
O
b
n
m
AA,~
A
W
m
m
M
N
N
O
N
m
b
m
m
m
M
1A
m
M
b
0
~f
Q
N
A
W
Q
Q
A
N
Q
m
N
M
'
O
O!
m
W
°
CD,
M
m
w
M
M
A
r
N
M
r
r
r
M
N
e
~
N
U
a
N
CD
n
N
M
N
M
n
m
CO
iyp
N
h
m
Qm
m
<
N
m
co
O
M
M
co
m
n
W
m
V
~
N
N
M
W
N
M
m
O
W
01
Q
W
M
m
O
m
0
b
0
~
O
N
Q
A
W
m
~
'
n
O
Y
O
i
m
to
2 O
M
n
0
N
Q
A
N
Q
Q
N
W
O ~
U
?
Q
b
n
M
~~(Nyyy
N
A
W
m
M
m
W
W
N
7
N
m
N
N
Q
M
~M{
m
m
0
N
m
N
N
~~yy
N
M
N
N
W
m
,y
y
Q
M
A
Q
v
^
N
N
p
m
n
N
CO
b
6
!
OD
N
1
f1
~
7
N
N
a
a
A
A
Q
M
W
U
M
W
b
n
m
m
N
b
M
m
co
N
m
co
pp
W
O
N
Q
O
Q
N
co
N
W
N
M
m
N
Q
m
c~
N
Q
M
tO
O
O
M
W
m
M
b
N
O
N
A
N
f~
~y
N
O
H
M
n
Nm
N
M
m
W
w
w
W
N
O
b
0
W
N
N
R
h
O
m
N
b
M
N
Q
W
W
Q
A
M
N
9
N
M
n
N
t
O
LL
co
m
N
N
O
Q
tD
m
N
~t
fD
O
O
Q
m
m
m
m
N
O
Q
N
t0
G
O
/0
to
M
N
t0
O
N
m
W
A
M
Q
W
N
m
N
O
W
Q
~O
N
O
'~S
I[)
b
N
m
N
O
n
m
W
..1
a
N
M
A
~
10
N
N
m
co
Q
N
to
Q
O
N
W
M
A
N
N
A
M
N
M
N
O
N
U
M
f0
1
O
co
V
A
P
9
I r
N
M
Z
w
b
m
to
Q
Q
Q
m
Q
N
b
W
W
m
M
n
0
W
W
m
m
O
Q
N
W
m
W
N
m
w
M
Q
1
W
b
'p
m
m
O
N
N
m
N
M
N
10
N
N
m
'
M
V
m
b
n
N
M
~4
O
N
O
N
N
N
M
m
m
m
Q
m
M
t
O
Q
tC
N
N
g
_
U
O
N
m
W
~
~
A
M
N
~
N
M
m
m
Q
O
'
n
M
h
m
r
O
M
J
n
~
M
i
O
W
r
}
b
m
m
co
o
M
0
Q
~D
W
co
W
A
Q
M
O
'
N
W
n
M
N
M
N
r
N
co
n
Q
W
Q
M
W
N
Q
M m
co N
m
'
m
Q
m
W
'f
Q
O
W
W M
W
N
O
m
m
M
m
a,
Q
m
QQ
N
N
W
m
r-
N
CO
Q
N
b
Q
M
m
W
N
N
CD
m
'7
~
N
O
n
m
<
O
O
D
N
N
W
N
M
b
N
M
M
W
r.
N
K
N
CD
W
LL
W
A
M
W
O
Q
M
M
fV
r
N
M
N
n
N
to
N
1~
N
N
W
m
m
N
O)
0
m
W
W
m
m
A
w
N
O
m
M
m
O
W
N
O
N
Qi
O
m
W
m
m
Q
n
m
m
V
M
N
Ob
m
}
L
L
I'
N
N
N
N
H
N
M
-T
M
m
e
N Cl)
04 V)
~NfT
m
m
N
N
f
co
co
m
<
~
co
N
w
t
0
l
I
N
Z
Q
yr
i
J
U
Y
w
~
W
U
W
U
-
W
U
-
w
U
-
w
U
w
U
5
W
U
W
U
5
Q
W
U
W
U
5
W
U
>
z
5
a>c
>
z
z
>
z
otf
w
S
w
w
w
F
w
F
w
w
w
N
F
U
w
U
U
w
N
U
w
N
F
U
w
U
N
U
N
F
U
N
q
U
U
a
0
a
0
a
~
a
s
w
a
a:
a
s
a
w
Z
a
p
z
w
_
s
5
H
O
Z
O
O
O
F-
Z
O
U
O
I-
Z
O
LL
F
Z
O
LL
O
r
O
LL
N
H
Z
O
LL
~
2
O
LL
I-.
Z
O
U.
w
m
F
z
O
LL
F
Z
O
LL
J
a
Z
o
U.
J
a
0
LL
J
a
-
0
.
J
a
o
J
a
O
co
a
a
O
a
U
a
O
J
L
.Ua
'
'
Z
O
O
U
f
U
a
O
S
:
¢
O
O
w
Z
-
O
U
Z
a
Z
U
?
U
r
>
z
U
z
U
M.,
R
ilm
-
U
-
-
J
F
~
T
co
U
U
LU
c?
x
o
o
<
o
0
m
-
co
Y
U
2
o
F
N
Z
O
a
U_
Z
a
O
U
G
W
a
J
.7
z
L
s
C
7
t
7
O
~
C14
^
^
~
N
e
v
^
^
o
o
a
o
o
Vi
a
:
o
0
0
0
o
g
s
P
X
O
n
g
y~
}n
QQ
N
r
r
cn
M
U')
,
N
In
La
~
0
N
yy''
`
~
W
~
♦
~
-
~
~
~
A
O
^
{O
N
^
^
o
A
~
N
f
~
N
N
r
W
~
~
~
06
@
O
.
^
C
$j
N
}
g
w
Di
v
~
~
^
~
0
}}55
~p
OJ
any
V
~
A
1A
e
fl
N
♦
W
p
V
„
'
p~
W
{V
♦
l~f
p
IV
FI
aD
Q
co
(
v
O
cm
N
U
O
w
1'~
co
C
y~
'
O
n
~p
fV
N
m
CI
p
fD
q
'
t~V
♦
1n
INi
A
V
~y
/~1
'
N
N
Pl
$
yF51
r
J
N
O
W
N
Q
W
n
pp
t0
N'I
m
N
1~~
♦
Yf
m
1p
{7
p
N
~N
V
Qp
H
p~
N
N
r
n
}U
~
w
N
Cf
1
N
h
z
O
r.
Q~
"
~
~
'
r
<
P!
~
N
r
v
o
17
♦
~
~
W
Ql
(~l
U
>
c0
N
T
I
W
r
f0
I
I
T
N
Z
O
H
z
O
Ir
O
p~
/V
p
lV
V
m
t~~I
m
fV
^
N
^
p
f~
n
O
If VV
V
N
N
~
N
g
a
3
n
N
p~
IV
_
A
N
<
H
N
m
~~Vy
1p
Q
h
N
-
N
O
O
(spy
N
N
T
a0
N
T
O
W
N
N
N
O
S
ti
O^l
~
N
~
~
^
YJ
N
~
T
N
m
N
f~V
fV
t^O
N
3
N
m
w
N
y
♦
01
t~0
pf
Ri
~~pp
H
W
r
A
YI
N
{~V
N
A
n
(V
N
J
J
K
J
J
Q'
J
0
N
Q'
U,
J
J
Q
'
J
N
d
'
J
N
Q
J
J
V
N
~
~
W
~
W
~
W
~
a
3
~
W
W
W
"
N
O
o
2
k%
c3
O
K
N
F
W
w
O
,a
a
=
e8
W
U
J
L~
l
W
p
►
'
F
0
Q
L
F
O
U
2
O
0
L
lu
I
AGENDA ITEM # H
FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
PREPARED BY: Mike Miller DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This is background information on the proposed Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study. Staff will be
requesting that Counci! approve the recommendation at the August 24, .1999, City Council meeting.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
During the last few years, reports of water pressure fluctuations, facility operational concerns and system
capacity and adequacy questions have prompted the City to complete several independent water system
hydraulic analyses. Arriving at appropriate solutions has required that individual evaluations, analyses and
solutions be developed for each problem. In some cases, addressing questions of system performance and
assessments of system adequacy in meeting existing and future capacity needs has required that portions of our
water system be analyzed using a computerized water system network analysis program. While these analyses
developed sound solutions, the City would be better served by completing a comprehensive planning effort that
evaluates system deficiencies and needs and develops recommendations for improvements on a system wide
basis. This planning effort would be completed through the proposed Water Dstribution System Hydraulic
Study.
As the City's water system continues to expand and experiences increasing pressure to maintain adequate levels
of service to its customers, we can anticipate that the need for a comprehensive water distribution system
hydraulic study and analysis will intensify. The development of the Willamette River, or other water supply
system, will also impact our need for future transmission facilities, pumping and storage needs. A
comprehensive water distribution system study offers a very powerful tool to assist the City in assessing the
need for, and timing of, system improvements that can economically maintain our high level of water service.
Such a analysis is critical in forecasting the financial requirements of system improvements that match
prioritized improvements with available funding.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not complete the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMNIIT'i'EE STRATEGY
A component of the. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study is to review and assess the City's existing
water conservation program
FISCAL NOTES
The approved project budget is $100,000. This funding is available during the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year.
L\C;►Y%i&\=.r.1
ti
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilors
FROM: Mike Miller, Utility Manager a\
RE: Water Distribution System Hydraulic Study
DATE: August 5, 1999
In May 1999, we advertised a Request For Proposal for a Water Distribution System
Hydraulic Study. We received five proposals, one of which was rejected after the bid
opening due to an incomplete proposal. Of the four remaining proposals, CH2M Hill,
EES, KCM and MSA are qualified and can adequately perform the study. Some of the
consultants, however, appear to have better addressed the response requirements and
study elements, and have better researched and understood the issues that are
addressed in the study.
The objectives of this study are:
• Identification of capacity requirements for pumping, storage and distribution facilities.
• Preparation of a computerized hydraulic network analysis model of the water
distribution system.
• Preparation of planning level estimates for capital costs of proposed projects,
including recommended priorities and schedules for capital projects to allow the City
to update financial plans and rate models in support of the capital needs.
The study elements of the proposal that are to be addressed are:
• Inventory of the existing facilities.
• Development of water demands for the water service area and for each pressure
zone, both existing and proposed.
• Develop and calibrate a distribution system hydraulic model.
• Perform distribution system analysis including:
Identification of distribution system improvements needed to improve system
capacity.
Evaluate the systems ability to provide adequate fire flows.
Complete a storage analysis and pump station capacity analysis.
Complete a pressure zone analysis.
Complete an evaluation of unaccounted for water.
• Recommend system improvements
• Provide a Capital Improvement Plan and System Plan Map
A committee made up by Mr. Dennis Kessler, PE, Environmental Services Manager
with the Portland Water Bureau; Mr. Mike McKillip, PE, Tualatin City Engineer; and
wI . OV
myself. The proposals were evaluated on a 100 point system, with qualification and
experience receiving 20 points; understanding and approach to the project at 20 points;
quality and responsiveness of the work plan at 15 points; knowledge of issues relating
to the water distribution system at 15 points; project team experience at 15 points and
project cost worth 15 points.
Below are our ratings of the proposals using the rating criteria as described above.
Under these criteria, MSA, CH2M Hill and EES receive the highest ratings. KCM's
proposal was not comprehensive and did not exemplify an equivalent level of
understanding with regards to the relevant issues.
EVALUATION CRITERA
CI-12M
EES
KCM
MSA
Qualifications & Experience
18
18
14
18
Understanding and Approach to the Project
18
15
13
19
Quality and Responsiveness of the Work Plan
14
12
8
15
Knowledge of Issues Related to the Water Distribution
System
12
12
12
12
Project Team: Credentials and Experience
10
10
8
9
Cost
10
12
9
14
TOTAL
82
79
64
87
CH2M
EES
KCM
MSA
COST
$103,910
$92,288
$98,450
$86:,142
Based on the evaluation criteria we recommend that MSA be selected as the contractor
for this project. We also believe that MSA's prior work with the City has gained them a
thorough understanding, expertise and knowledge of the water system that allows the
City the maximum value from the distribution system hydraulic study.
AGENDA ITEM # 5
FOR AGENDA OF 8/17/99
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Residential Recycling - Commingling Report
PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK LL~-
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Tigard residents be able to do less sorting of red bin recyclables for curbside pickup?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council consensus to proceed with changing the residential red bin recycling program from a source-separated
collection program to a commingled recycling collection program in October, 1999. This program would be the
same "mix of materials" at curbside and on the haulers' trucks as implemented in Washington County and
would be consistent with Tigard's 3-Year Solid Waste Plan & regional study results.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
BACKGROUND: The Tigard City Council appointed a Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force (SWETF) in 1996 to
review solid waste hauler efficiencies, rate impacts, and service standards. After review & study, the Task
Force recommended Council implement a residential commingled collection program to: make participation
easier for customers; keep the cost of service as low as possible; increase the amount of recyclables generated;
and reduce the amount of material being sent to the landfill.
As a result of the SWETF review, Tigard Council also adopted a 3-Year Solid Waste Plan for Tigard. In that
plan, Commingling of residential recycling was identified as a major goal. Collection was to be more efficient
& keep overall recyclable tonnage at the same level or higher than before a program was implemented. It was
anticipated that the program change would take place in mid-1998, however, it was recognized that City of
Portland changes to recycling programs would also affect Tigard citizen's expectations for service.
At the same time, City of Portland began a review of commingling residential recyclables and began a regional,
large-scale review of the issues. Tigard decided to hold off implementing commingling and joined regional
jurisdictior_s and haulers in the study. This has occurred over the past 18 months with staff representing the
city.
The purpose of the pilot study was twofold; 1) to determine the impacts of commingling materials in terms of
landfill residual; and, 2) to determine if consensus could be reached on a "regional curb sort' for the resident.
To date, z number of local governments have .greed to the "regional curb sort' which requires glass to be
collected separate from the other materials and kept separate on the truck. Discussions or public hearings on
this issue are currently being scheduled throughout the region.
Tigard became more interested in the prospect of commingled recycling, partially as a by-product of the annual
rate review. Over the past two years, the direct cost of providing residential collection services has risen
approximately 30 cents per month per residential customer. By coincidence, the cost has been offset by the two
recent decreases in the Metro disposal tip fee, thus, allowing the rate to remain unchanged. Staff has attributed
the rise in cost, in part, to an increase in urban congestion. Simply stated it takes longer to "get there."
SUMMARY OF COMMINGLED STUDIES REGIONAL DISCUSSIONS AND PILOT PROGRAMS: Since Oregon's
curbside recycling programs began in the early 1990's, they have achieved national acclaim. Our recycling
programs also differ significantly from those across the country, in that we source-separated 12 to 13 items on
the curb and kept them separated on the truck via franchise mandates.
In December 1997, Tigard's commingled red bin recycling study conducted by Harding, Lawson Associates
was released. Our report evaluated three different commingled options for residential curbside recycling.
Findings showed:
➢ Commingling into 2, 3, or 4 sorts have little impact on costs;
➢ A 2 sort system is more customer friendly than a 3 or 4 sort system;
➢ A 2, 3, or 4 sort system have similar costs, but are more efficient than the current source-separated system;
9 By keeping glass separate the local glass market can be utilized and may be less risky than shipping to out-
of-area processors; and
➢ Participation would likely increase 1-2% as a result of the convenience of commingling.
In January 1998, the City of Portland economists reviewed Portland's recycling red bin collection system and
recommended changing to a commingled system to contain costs. On a regional basis, Portland then convened
a task force to discuss and examine the commingled recycling issue. Summarized below are the groups' major
discussion points:
➢ Customer Service: Commingling allows the customer to sort materials into fewer categories and has the
potential to increase customer participation by 1-2%. One potential downside is the possibility of increased
contamination. A large-scale education and promotion campaign should be undertaken at program
implementation.
Landfill Residual: Committee members agreed at the outset, the landfill residual could not exceed the
residual from the current source separated programs.
➢ Tyne of Mix: The types of materials mixed together on the truck and the available technology and labor to
process it affects the amount of landfill residual. The Environmental Practices Report goes into great detail
on various mixes and resulting residual.
➢ Glass: This issue has generated the most discussion and controversy. Recycling advocacy groups and local
governments heatedly discussed the highest and best use of the materials collected, the near proximity of a
bottle manufacturer, and the increase of residual when the material is collected in certain mixes. Agreement
was reached among the groups that container manufacture and fiberglass are acceptable uses for the
collected glass. Oregon has the advantage of a local end use market for bottle manufacture. Fiberglass is
not manufactured locally; therefore, glass must be shipped out of state for end use. Currently there is not
adequate market demand in the fiberglass industry to consume the region's glass. The groups also agreed
that the uses of glass for roadbed aggregate or for landfill cover/disposal are unacceptable uses.
REVIEW OF RECYCLING MARKET IMPACTS: Recycling markets prices are volatile at best, and could be
classified as poor, at worst. In fact, the residential recycling revenue as a percentage of total company revenues
hovers around 1%. (See the attached staff report if more detail is desired).
REGIONAL STATUS OF COMMINGLING: At the writing of this report, Washington County & most cities within the
County are going to implement a commingling program like staff is proposing for Tigard.
DETAILS OF COMMINGLED SORT BEING RECOMMENDED: Residential red bin recycling program will change
from a source-separated collection program to a commingled recycling collection program. The cuRB soRT for
the resident shall utilize the existing red bins and the materials will be placed in the bins in the following
manner:
➢ 1°' Bin All Fibers, which include magazines, newspaper, corrugated cardboard (see clarification below),
and mixed scrap paper. Scrap paper is to be placed in a kraft bag & placed on top of the bin to discourage
blowing of the materials.
➢ 2nd Bin Plastic Bottles and Metals, which include tin (steel) cans, aluminum, plastic bottles 1-7, ferrous
and non-ferrous scrap metal, and aerosol cans.
➢ Glass shall be set out in two sorts (clear glass and green/brown glass) in a customer provided container or
kraft bag. The customer may either place the bagged or containerized, sorted glass on top of the plastics and
metals bin or to the side of a bin.
➢ Cardboard shall be no larger than 36" x 36" and can be placed in bin if in manageable pieces, or placed
underneath a bin.
➢ Used motor oil shall be placed in a leak proof, see-through plastic container with screw top lid and set to
the side of a bin.
The TRUCK SORT shall maintain the following criteria: Haulers shall ensure that all collected recyclables are
delivered to a processor or broker of recyclable materials or to an end-use market. The hauler shall be
prohibited from delivering or causing to be delivered any collected recyclable materials for disposal or
unauthorized end use, except by prior approval of the Washington County Solid Waste and Recycling Division.
➢ Glass shall not be mixed with the other materials on the truck.
Used motor oil shall remain separate from other materials on the truck.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue current source-separated collection program.
Mix all materials together (including glass).
Implement another "mix" of materials.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITIEE STKA I lzu Y
This was not addressed in the Citywide Vision.
FISCAL NOTES
There would be no rate change with the implementation of the program in October. No change in solid waste rates
will occur since processor & market rates offset the efficiencies of hauler's time. However, it will be more
convenient for citizens and take less time to prepare materials for recycling at curbside.
lm/h:/docs/solid wasWS-17 cc sum.doc
TIGARD COMMINGLED RECYCLING REPORT
Red Bin Program
Prepared by Loreen Mills - July 30, 1999
BACKGROUND
The Tigard City Council appointed a Solid Waste Efficiencies Task Force in 1996 to review solid waste hauler
efficiencies, rate impacts, and service standards. The Task Force recommended Council conduct a study to
determine what type of costs and savings would be available if residential recycling was commingled at curbside. In
December 1997, the study was completed and the report published. The Council's Task Force recommended
implementing a residential commingled collection program to:
➢ Make participation easier for customers;
➢ Keep the cost of service as low as possible;
➢ Increase the amount of recyclables generated; and
9 Reduce the amount of material being sent to the landfill.
At the same time, City of Portland began a review of commingling residential recyclables and began a large-scale
review of the issues. Because Portland began this large-scale, regional pilot study, the City of Tigard decided to
hold off implementing commingling and join regional jurisdictions and haulers in the study. This has occurred over
the past 18 months with staff representing the City.
The purpose of the pilot study was twofold; 1) to determine the impacts of commingling materials in terms of landfill
residual; and, 2) to determine if consensus could be reached on a "regional curb sort" for the resident. To date, a
number of local governments have agreed to the "regional curb sort" which requires glass to be collected separate
from the other materials and kept separate on the truck. Discussions or public hearings on this issue are currently
being scheduled throughout the region.
Staff became interested in the prospect of commingled recycling, partially as a by-product of the annual rate review.
Over the past two years, the direct cost of providing residential collection services has risen approximately 30 cents
per month per residential customer. By coincidence, the cost has been offset by the two recent decreases in the
Metro disposal tip fee, thus, allowing the rate to remain unchanged. Staff has atilbuted the rise in cost, in part, to an
increase in urban congestion. Simply stated it takes longer to "get there."
In program planning discussions with the haulers, there has been general agreement that increased collection
efficiencies are an important factor in cost control. Long term plans at the County level call for a review of programs
throughout the country that provide 60-gallon roll carts for collection of recyclable materials (glass maintained in a
separate sort). A cart program allows for the entire collection system: solid waste, yard debris, and recycling to be
semi- or fully automated.
CURRENT SOURCE-SEPARATED RED BIN RECYCLING SYSTEM
The current source separated red bin recycling collection system started with 9 material sorts consisting of: clear,
green, and brown glass, tin cans & scrap metal, aluminum, newspapers, cardboard, magazines, and used motor oil.
Several years later, milk jugs, mixed scrap paper, aerosol cans, and eventually all plastic bottles 1-7 were added to
the program. The customer sets out the materials by completely separating each item into kraft bags. A driver stops
to collect the materials and walks the length of the truck to deposit each material in its own compartment. The table
on the next page shows the breakdown of all materials by weight. Source-separated materials are eventually taken
to various markets. Any revenue from the sales is factored back into the ratemaking calculations.
PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL MATERIALS COLLECTED BY WEIGHT *
MATERIAL
PERCENT BY WEIGHT
FIBER**
85.6477
GLASS TOTAL-ALL 3 COLORS
8.79%
TIN & ALUMINUM
2.49%
METALS
.24%
PLASTIC BOTTLES 1-7 & MILK JUGS
1.47%
OTHER CONTAINER MIX
1.37%
TOTAL
100.0%
* Washington County-wide information
Fiber includes newspaper, scrap paper, magazines, and cardboard
Includes tin, aluminum, metals and plastics
Fiber represents the largest amount of material collected. It has been increasingly common for the collection truck to
quickly fill all the available space allocated for the fiber category. This caused the hauler to leave the route mid-day
and empty the fiber containers, even though the other materials had adequate or excessive compartment space left.
This off-route time ranged from 30 to 90+ minutes, depending on the distance to the hauler's yard and time spent
unloading. Some companies had no choice but to go off-route several times per day.
Searching for some relief to the off-route dilemma, haulers began mixing some materials on the truck to increase
their ability to remain on-route and to increase the collection efficiencies. Various mixes occurred but the frequently
mixed items were newspapers and magazines, or tin and aluminum, and more recently green and brown glass.
Prior to any commingling on the truck, material recovery facilities (mrPs) began to process or "sort" the source-
separated materials entering their facilities. A material like scrap paper, if processed, could yield enough newspaper
or white ledger paper to be marketed as a higher grade of fiber. As truck commingling increased, mrrs responded to
the hauler needs by processing their commingled material. These progressive developments have led to increased
processing capacity and commingled collection on trucks throughout the metropolitan region over the last 18 months.
SUMMARY OF COMMINGLED STUDIES, REGIONAL DISCUSSIONS, AND PILOT PROGRAMS
Since Oregon's curbside recycling programs began in the early 1990's, they have achieved national acclaim. Our
recycling programs also differ significantly from those across the country, in that we source-separated the materials
on the curb and kept them separated on the truck via franchise mandates.
In December 1997, Tigard's commingled red bin recycling study conducted by Harding, Lawson Associates was
released. Our report evaluated three different commingled options for residential curbside recycling. Findings
showed:
➢ Commingling into 2, 3, or 4 sorts have little impact on costs;
A A 2 sort system is more customer friendly than a 3 or 4 sort system;
➢ A 2, 3, or 4 sort system have similar costs, but are more efficient than the current source-separated system;
➢ By keeping glass separate the local glass market can be utilized and may be less risky than shipping to out-of-
area processors; and
r Participation would likely increase 1-2% as a result of the convenience of commingling.
In January 1998, the City of Portland economists reviewed Portland's recycling red bin collection system and
recommended changing to a commingled system to contain costs. On a regional basis, Portland then convened a
task force to discuss and examine the commingled recycling issue. Staff represented Tigard's issues. The
Washington County Recycling Coop. concurrently reviewed the issues. Summarized below are the groups' major
discussion points:
➢ Customer Service: Commingling allows the customer to sort materials into fewer categories and has the potential
to increase customer participation by 1-2%. One potential downside is the possibility of increased
contamination. A large-scale education and promotion campaign should be undertaken at program
implementation.
➢ Landfill Residual: Committee members agreed at the outset, the landfill residual could not exceed the residual
from the current source separated programs.
➢ Type of Mix: The types of materials mixed together on the truck and the available technology and labor to
process it affects the amount of landfill residual. The Environmental Practices Report goes into great detail on
various mixes and resulting residual.
➢ Glass: This issue has generated the most discussion and controversy. Recycling advocacy groups and local
governments heatedly discussed the highest and best use of the materials collected, the near proximity of a
bottle manufacturer, and the increase of residual when the material is collected in certain mixes. Agreement was
reached among the groups that container manufacture and fiberglass are acceptable uses for the collected
glass. Oregon has the advantage of a local end use market for bottle manufacture. Fiberglass is not
manufactured locally; therefore, glass must be shipped out of state for end use. Currently there is not adequate
market demand in the fiberglass industry to consume the region's glass. The groups also agreed that the uses
of glass for roadbed aggregate or for landfill cover/disposal are unacceptable uses.
Portland released the Ecodata, Inc. Study in May 1998, which portrayed the costs of the present recycling system,
and projected the costs of a two, three, four, five, and six sort. A two-sort system with compaction results in the
lowest collection costs, followed by a three-sort system.
In 1998 and 1999, Washington County staff reviewed calendar years 1997 and 1998 cost data in order to determine
the tradeoffs between paying a per ton processing charge at a mrf and the decreases afforded to collecting
commingled recycling. Several factors come into play when looking at the data. Recycling markets prices are
volatile at best, and could be classified as poor, at worst. In fact, the residential recycling revenue as a percentage
of total company revenues hovers around 1 Depending on the processor, the various mixes are currently
accepted at $0 - $10 per ton for fiber with all containers (excluding glass), $10415 per ton for fiber only sort, and a
negative -$35 to -$40 for container mixes (including glass). Market prices for glass average $40 per ton for clear
glass and around $5 per ton for the green/brown sort. All prices change almost weekly.
Based on data gathered from the haulers on the amount of off-route time per day, Tigard's Commingled Study, and
the City of Portland Ecodata Study, staff determined the net system benefit of changing to a commingled system was
positive or neutral based on the cost analysis.
The final study was conducted by Environmental Practices, for Washington County, Clackamas County, and the City
of Portland. Released in March 1999, the study looked at actual pilot programs, various mixes of materials, markets
for the materials, processing effectiveness, and landfill residual. Although the study was a snapshot in time, it
addressed the long-term issues of processing, marketing, and residual. Excerpted from the Environmental Practices
study, you will find an analysis of residual on the following page.
"The following chart displays the residue findings from the four different pilot project collection and
processing operations. The residue is itemized by amount sorted by processor and amount
determined in selected sampled materials, which included newspapers, mixed paper and glass.
Each column represents the amount of residue in that material stream (e.g., fiber, containers,
newspapers, etc) expressed as a percent of total recyclables. Thus the residue levels in each row
are additive.
Quantity of Residue
From
Fiber
NIZEW
From
Containers
subtotal
sorted
:
From
ONP
From
MWP
"
Fmm
Glass
Subtotal
Sampled
0.25%
0.25%
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.4%
1.0%
1.5%
0.6%
0.7%
1.3%
0.0%
0.27°k
0.5%
0.8%
2.1%
.03% (3)
N/A
(4)
0.03%
0.06°!0
0.18%
<01
<0.3%
<0.4%
0.16%
0.21%
0.4%
0.0%
0.15%
<0.1%
<0.25%
0.65%
(1) Sorted residue is a direct
measurement of residue se
parated from recyclables by workers.
(2) Sampled residue is a calculated residue level based on. the percentage of reside in a sample of selected
materials, such as ONP, MWP, or mixed glass containers.
(3) Residue measured from fiber, cans, scrap metal, and plastic bottles. Containers include only glass.
(4) Glass only collection, residue was minimal. Observed and not weighed.
"6.15.99 Meeting with Strategic Materials, Inc.: Strategic Materials is a glass processor located in
California, which accepts mixed glass for sorting and sales to a national wine bottling firm. The
Strategic representative, at a meeting attended by local governments, a processor, and haulers,
defined the market for Oregon mixed cullet (clear, green, and brown glass mix) at its best as
aggregate."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the multitude of studies, pilot programs, and additional data analysis, staff recommends the program
changes as set forth in Attachment A.
Pending Council review, implementation for the new commingled recycling program is set for October 1999. Staff is
working with the Cooperative Recycling Program Cities and the City's franchised haulers to review and revise, as
needed, recyclable materials preparation instructions and collection instructions. Staff, in coordination with the
County and haulers, will develop promotional and educational materials for the customer.
Lmrn:/docs/solid waste/99 commingle rpt.doc
4
Attachment A.
Residential Commingled Red Bin Recycling Program
(Effective October, 1999)
Residential red bin recycling program will change from a source-separated collection program to a commingled
recycling collection program.
The CURS SORT for the resident shall utilize the existing red bins and the materials will be placed in the bins in the
following manner:
1st Bin All Fibers, which include magazines, newspaper, corrugated cardboard (see clarification below), and
mixed scrap paper. Scrap paper is to be placed in a kraft bag & placed on top of the bin to
discourage blowing of the materials.
2nd Bin Plastic Bottles and Metals, which include tin (steel) cans, aluminum, plastic bottles 1-7, ferrous and
non-ferrous scrap metal, and aerosol cans.
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS:
• Glass shall be set out in two sorts (clear glass and green/brown glass) in a customer provided container or
kraft bag. The customer may either place the bagged or containerized, sorted glass on top of the plastics
and metals bin or to the side of a bin.
Cardboard shall be no larger than 36" x 36" and can be placed in bin if in manageable pieces, or placed
underneath a bin.
® Used motor oil shall be placed in a leak proof, see-through plastic container with screw top lid and set to the
side of a bin.
The TRUCK SORT shall maintain the following criteria:
® Haulers shall ensure that all collected recyclables are delivered to a processor or broker of recyclable materials
or to an end-use market. The hauler shall be prohibited from delivering or causing to be delivered any collected
recyclable materials for disposal or unauthorized end use, except by prior approval of the Washington County
Solid Waste and Recycling Division.
• Glass shall not be mixed with the other materials on the truck.
. Used motor oil shall remain separate from other materials on the truck.
Lm/h:/docs/solid waste/99 commingle rpt.doc
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Business Tax Ordinance review and revision
PREPARED BY: Michelle Wareing DEPT HEAD OK M P CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City make changes to Chapter 5.04, Business Tax, of the Tigard Municipal Code that would:
1) Increase fees; 2) change residential rental property tax assignment procedure; 3) remove all references to
actual fees; 4) clarify ordinance by expanding list of definitions and exemptions; 5) clarify the definition of
"doing business" in Tigard; 6) develop a city-wide enforcement policy; 7) change renewal cycle from calendar
year to anniversary year; and 8) set goal/purpose of program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) The cost of administering the business tax program has increased since the last fee review in 1988. Staff
recommends increasing all business tax fees by $10. Also recommend that the late fee be changed from a
flat rate of $5 to 10% of the fee owed for each 30 days the fee is delinquent with a maximum of 100% of the
fee owed.
• Increase administrative fees by $10
• Change late fee to 10% of fee owed for each 30 days the fee is delinquent
2) If Council determines that the goal of the business tax program is to maximize revenues, then the way
residential rental property business tax is calculated should be changed.
• Tax will be based on number of dwelling units instead of number of employees
• Minimum tax will be $65; Maximum tax will be $250
3) Since fees are set by resolution, all references to actual fees need to be deleted and replaced with "All rates,
fees and charges shall be set by resolution of the Tigard City Council." Therefore, future fee changes will
not require changing the TMC.
4) Expand list of definitions and exemptions to clarif., ordinance.
5) The current ordinance states that "one act" constitutes "doing business" in Tigard. Staff recommends
changing the definition of "doing business". The business tax is not being uniformly imposed on businesses
not located in the City. The City is requiring all vendors, even one-time vendors that do business with the
City to pay the business tax. However, the City is not able to identify and tax businesses hired by citizens.
This has created much discord with vendors and City staff. Also on review of the Oregon Revised Statutes,
staff has found several statutes prohibiting the City from collecting the business tax from businesses not
located in the City.
9 Change definition of "doing business".
The Business Tax Specialist should canvas the City to identify businesses located in Tigard that are not paying
the business tax. In 1997, a canvas of the City was done and 500 businesses were identified as not being
compliant. This is an on-going issue and should be made a priority.
o Business Tax Specialist will have authority to do monthly sweeps of the City to identify non-
compliant businesses.
6) Develop a citywide enforcement policy that all staff will adhere to and utilize.
7) As the number of businesses in Tigard increases, it has become very cumbersome to renew all the
businesses once a year. Recommend changing from a calendar year renewal cycle to anniversary year.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Chapter 5.04, Business Tax, of the Tigard Municipal Code and the Business Tax Program has not been
reviewed or revised since 1988. A full-time Business Tax Specialist was hired to administer the program in
January 1999. Upon review of the Program and other cities' ordinances, it was determined that the ordinance
and the program needs review. Staff is requesting Council to give direction on the purpose and goals of the
program. Depending upon Council directives, staff recommendations may change. (A comparison of Tigard's
tax program to other jurisdictions' license/tax programs is attached.)
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve all proposed modifications.
2. Approve only deletion of references to actual fees.
3. Change the proposal as desired.
4. Do nothing.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Urban & Public Services
FISCAL NOTES
The estimated Business Tax revenue for FY 99/00, using the current fee schedule, is $207,565. If the
administration fee is increased to $30 and the other changes are not made, then the estimated Business Tax revenue
would be $234,625. If the recommended proposed changes are made to fees, then the estimated Business Tax
revenue would be $241,084. These revenues are based on current businesses paying the full tax and fees; does not
include new business revenues.
Currently, there are 450 businesses paying the City's business tax, who are not located within the City. If the "one
act" of doing business is changes, revenues could decrease by a maximum of approximately $25,000. However,
this revenue will be recouped by identifying businesses during monthly canvassing of the City who are not paying
the business tax.
City of Tigard
Business Tax Code
Analysis of Administrative & Enforcement Fee
Staff Member
Backup Support for Business Tax Specialist
Business Tax Specialist
Financial Operations Manager
DST Counter (Administration)
Code Enforcement
% of time
Dept.
% of
spent on
Annual
Budget on
BT issues
Budget
BT issues
3%
$ 195,765
$ 5,873
90%
$ 65,255
58,730
1%
$ 65,255
.653
5%
578,368
28,918
1%
57,636
576
Total Budgetary Costs =
$ 94,750
Total Busines
s Tax Accts =
3,047
Administrative and
Enforcement cost per acct = $ 31.10
a z
c c
z3
z
N C
O Q
? O b,
Q
= v.
° O
W
0
O cD
c
c 0
O
m
N
D
T
m
m
3
_
r
N A m d, 40 M
2.
N C71 CT
c
4X
fD , CY O O m
3
o
goo
n x o 0
<D w m 009
m o
CD
C
r
m
:3
n
S 9) w
N
T CL
FL
c CT fD
0
N fD
=
x
N
0 ID r. O
0 m CD
o
N X
X
N CT
O O 0
0 0
OO
o
NEAm
83
o
'
x
N
c
n
c
D
CD D
N
C1 O
x "
a
x
C .0 z' fD N
n`D ~2 d
D 0 5
T m
Z CO T
L7 c m
co
CD c°nc m
W .T
m m
m co z
a
m
e
T C 3
((qq X
O0 W N w W A• A T m
w V O N A W m Z
O 0 O Um O Cn m -I
G O O O O C 0
O O O o 0 0 0
O 'L
N! (fl 69 IrA
O
O ~D ~N~.it~~ Can m 0
V OOD V 3a V 0 T CA
pOcn OCOCn MM
O O O O O O O m 0
.fl
V
'O
0
N
m
v
T
m
m
y
A
x
m
D
C
m
T
0
X
x
m
y
0
m
r
m
z
8
r
e
N
Z
A
N
Ch
m
w
O
N n 0
N O O. CO
m a (D N
CD g f m
N N
O O'
T N
ax)
N• X
m m M
7 N C
m W M N
3 o a d
m 3 n
C r =
f0 m o >
m ~
F c
M G N
d (D
c
N
n
C N• m
yy N N
~ N
d ~
O 7 f0
fD O
N O
O = O 78
m m N
w C
m
c CL
_u (D
N
la _z
CA
°Q
9 N O 3 T
O c
O
CL
m3
7
fA d> 4A O N
O O O
Cl O 0 O
7
Df
n
0 O N y
o0x
g O O
CO
c 0
FA ffl ~ N, N
W N O O
O O N
x -
N 7
T N O.
~ co O N
fD 7 C W
N fD CX N
° j
m ID
r ° N m
o f N
n TL c d
L n.
CD =3 @
fD fD <
N * N O
7 rJ N
c a
N O CL N
3 w cL N
x m
r o 0
3 0
m Q
N
co
d
mc
D y
Aj 7
mN
„ Cf n
O N
61 N
T
C d y
TL N fa
O ( O
C 8
W 2 ry(p
O N G
d
T
O
Vl
O
m
0
x
m
0
C
r
(T7
C
N
Z
m
<n
Cl)
m
H
-rll
X
A
C
D
Z
m
m
N
D
m
z
r
m
b
r
< N 7
CD
= f0 7
c a W
(D N c N
M
C C fD ~
3 m N N
d
O' O)
Q N x
(D 7 @
O 0 m N
(pN
~
N
C m 7
fD N CL N a g
N d N
m ? a
C 7
I
N =,r fD
c p
d m m
fD
c
~ N
N
N N
(nm
m CD n ~ 'O
C d K
ry CD to
O f0
:3 st
:7 E.
m Er O ID
N
~m7
CDT
(9 N N
m
'co c z
3 ~"omT
O ° .D C
m
3
N N N N
O O O 2
0 0 0 O
N
CL
464 4A 49
oo o _,wl -i
. y
O 0 0 x
Co
v ~
N 40 M N O_
N ~ ry ~
O O N
O O ° C
X
O r ;o co
Dt M C
CL y
N
D ~T~pp N ~m
N N ~ H <
m m
x C
m m
d N
A
C
M
m
1
T
mm
N
A
S
m
O
C
r
m
D
A
N
° A #
co 0 0
W N Z T
N
A
4.9 4A
C
o 4A 55
V
rn 00 W N Z
N O O U1
C1 G O C
CO O O
N (p' 0 T
4A 10 'fl .T
i co 0 T
NwW rnO°~m
O O O CD D
0 0 0 0
a to v ~
a ~ ;o r o
r f71 V co 0 'O
o-+gbzo
co V N p co CA
4 mm
o g $ °o S D
n _ M O m
Z O 4 g A
S O O O m
o
m
rlr Z Cl)
$ p C C o p ~r5
N
o x
N ~
7 w N N N ~ r
(n 7C
o N
° l0
< o O
7 a C
A,
sd
N C n
z
N m N
y N m
~N! i
w
m x
~ v d
o f a ?t
N p~j O Q D p m
f 9 X m? W A fl
m
a d m 3 v P O 3 v
o _
v
:3 0
A O N; O N ~D G (p N fD (D
EA M 4A M in d! fA M 64 W M N
CO 0) :g 8 -4
O O O Cn N to N N " co C. G O NO
O
A
n
g } 7
o m a v c < 7 p1 m m z
3.a' OF y
m c N v m
m °
O m
4A 19 CL C13
CL o N (a C d d @ D o• ag r
x C ai d
O fC (D d all m m m 3 a O N ry <D 5
CDm ~3~ 1~mjOCO. cr m
° K g o M 0 0 c o m
m ON y N m
o
O a
X N CO
C N M i+
O a th
O
N c m
o : z
o r
7
c 0 0' O o• O c
O
y, N o N o a o
cp CD
C m
N Q N Q y Q an d
N a N a N a N 1 Z
R C R m
OOz
M
N ~ N SY N ~ ~ m
z
s.
w
a
CA
L
'm
V
/A/
n
m
z
Cl)
m
M
m
5m
tt~
m
m
z
4A 4" r r -i
w c
d
_ .0.. O O
o = , b v
N ~ N -',Cry~pJ (~ryp
O A O N t O N + O N
fA fA fA b a fA fA 4AA fA fA
W O W O O O O N N
3 o3.fl o0 00
O C O N
fD N
A ~
oni w d
a a n
N N (D
d m G~1
O
Z
fA
O
N
F
a
O
(D
M 4A F -
~ u+33 ~ o
O O N
A ~ G~ O
N 0
N ~ fl
N N y
N ~ O
2
B N o
O ~ ~ N
fD
M
0
0
~c
W t.4 O, N
m to $ N 3
$ N O M N 0.
N
O. N a d
c
T
C O
~ 3 m
f/1 N ~ y
m
g
x (D
`L v y N
g g m
N 4 N ~1
-C =r CD
°i m' C=
; 0 O
0 to =
c
c~N
C
N M
'''fffpppDDD y~ A (_p
N ~y F. fD
pn f0 Er
FL
N
Ta
y
H
N
fR
N
0.
z
O
G
O
d
o
m
~
o_
0
~
N
N
N
_
O
N SL
N A
7
p y~
N {
~ N a (D
m O
0.
S y 9a .
N
N
N W f3 7~c G
7
7
~ N
~ N
c ~
m m
m
y
O
A
C
O
m
z
l/1
m
w
T
m .
m
0
°0 0 o A
fA fA iA M fit
LA G O O N
0 .17
m m
m Z
c
m
N r
m
2
Oy
m
T
m
m
C
N
O ~
O_ 0
a Z
o Z
y D
o
o -G
c O
N. N
7
A
a
CD N m
z
m
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Ch, a p ters:
5.04 BUSINESS TAXES
5.10 DETECTIVES AND MERCHANT
POLICE
5.12 ?CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
5.16 SOUND TRUCKS
5.20 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
PROCESS
Chapter 5.04. BUSINESS TAXES
5.04.010 - Short title.
5.04.020
Purpose.
5.04.030
Definitions.
5.04.040
Prohibited business operation.
5.04.050
One act constitutes doing business.
5.W.060
Agents responsible for obtaining a
business tax receipt.
5.04.070
Separate tax for branch
establishments.
5.04.080
Rental real property.
5.04.090
joint tax. '
5.04.100
No tax required for mere delivery.
5.04.110
Business tax receipts for nonprofit
enterprises.
5.04.120
Issuance of business We.
5.04.130
Procedure for obtaining and
displaying a receipt.
5.04.140
Display.
5.04.150
Reissue of tax receipt.
5.04.160
Fee schedule.
5.04.173
Temporary business.
5.04.180
Enforcement.
5.04.190
Penalties.
5.04.200
Rate review and adjustment.
5.04.010 Short title.
The provisions of
known and may be cited
Ordinance of the City of
§1(Exhibit A)(part),1988).
this chapter shall be
as the "Business Tax
Tigard." (Ord. 88-13
5.04.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide
revenue for general municipal purposes and to
recoup the necssary expenses required to
undertake the ''activities of the city in the
administration' ana `enforcement of this. chapter.
These fees shall be in addition to, and not in lieu
of, any license permit fee, charge or tax required
under any ordinance of the city.
It is not intended by this chapter to repeal,
abrogate or annul or in 'any way impair or
interfere with' the existing provisions of other laws
or oidinances, except those specifically repealed
by the ordinance codified in this chapter. Where
this chapter imposes a greater restriction on
persons, premises or personal property than is
imposed or required by such existing provisions
of law, ordinance, contract or deed, the provisions
of this chapter shall control.
This chapter shall not be construed to
constitute a regulation of any business activity or
as a permit of the city to persons engaged therein
to undertake unlawful, illegal or prohibited acts.
Nothing in this chapter. shall be construed to
apply to any person transacting or carrying on
any business within the city of Tigard which is
exempt from taxation by the city by virtue of the
Constitution of the United States or the
Constitution of the state of Oregon or applicable
statutes of the United' States or the state of
Oregon: (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(party,1988).
5.04.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the
following terms, phrases, words and their
derivations shall have the meaning given herein.
When not inconsistent with the context, words in
the present tense include the future, words in the
plural number include the singular number, and
words in the singular number include the plural
number. The word "shall" is always mandatory
and not merely directory.
5-04-1 Reformatted 1994
TIGARD 1i/IUNICIPAL, CODE
(a) "Business" means all kinds of
vocations, occupations, professions, enterprises,
establishments,, and all kinds of activities and
matters, together with all devices, machines,
vehicles and .appurtenances used. therein, any • of
which are conducted for privafeyrofit; or benefit,
either directly or indirectly,. on any preauses an
. r
the dry.
(b) rcA person "engagesjiin,busu- ess"
within the mewing of this chapter when soliciting
orders4 for future; delivery,. selling: or. offering for
sale any goods, a terzhandise..,; or service,
performing ariy service for profit,tdelivering any
goods o;' merchandise within the city, `personally.
advertising, byruulividua contract with residents .
of the dty'any.goods, merchandise or service, to be
sold ,or. performed within or:.wiihout the city.
Such. activity shall also include `engaging in an
enterprise, establishment, store, shop, activity,
profession or 'undertaking of any nature
conducted, either directly or indirectly, for private
profit or benefit.
(c)'"The city" means the city of
Tigard, Oregon:.
~d) "City council"_ means the city
council of the city of Tigard, Oregon.
(e) "Full-time equivalent employee"
means the total number of hours worked by: all
employees' •'working within the city of Tigard
divided by, two thousand eighty hours equals the
number of full-time equivalent employees
working within the city of Tigard.
(g) "Person" means and includes
individual natural persons, partnerships, joint
ventures, societies, associations, clubs, trustees,
trusts or corporations; or any officers, agents,
employees, factors of any-kind or personal
representatives thereof, in any capacity, either on
that person's own behalf, or for any other'person,
under either. personal appointment or'pursuant to
law.
(h) "Pem-tanent business". means
professions, trades, occupations, shops and all and
every kind of calling carried on for profit and
livelihood at a fixed or permanently established
place of business maintained within the city.
(i) "Premises" means and includes all
lands, structures, places and also the equipment
and ,appurtenances connected or used therewith
in any business, and also any personal property
which is affixed to or • is otherwise used in
connection with any such business conducted on
such premises.
(j) "Temporary business" means any
business that meets the criteria, outlined in
Chapter 18.140 of the community development
code and has a valid temporary use permit. (Ord.
88-13 §l(Exhibit A)(part),1988).
5.04.0440 Prohibited business operation.
It shall be unlawful for any persons, either
directly or indirectly, to engage in any business
without having first paid the business tax as
provided by this chapter. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit
A)(part),1988).
(f) "Itinerant business' means all
persons, firms or corporations, including
merchants, solicitors, peddlers,. hawkers and
agents, engaging in the business in the city to sell
or solicit for sale products or services, when such,
persons, firms or corporations do not maintain a
permanent place of business within the city or
who are not engaging in "temporary business" as
defined below.
5.04.050 One act constitutes doing
business.
For the purpose of this chapter, any
persons shall be deemed to be engaging in
business or engaging in nonprofit enterprise, and
thus subject to the requirements of Section
5.04.040, when undertaking one of the following
acts:
0
5.04-2 Reformatted 1994
TIG.ARD MUNICIPAL CODE
(1) Selling . any goods or
service;
(2) Soliciting business or
offering goods or services for sale or hire;
(3) ; ;':Acquiring or using any
vehicle or any, premises-in the city for business
purposes- (Ord. 88-13 §1 (Exhibit A)(part),1988)
5.04.050 Agents zesponsible for obtaining
a business.tax receipt..:..
The agents or,oth.er -representatives doing
business in the city shall be personally responsible
for the compliance of their principals and of the
businesses, they represent. with . the provisions of
this chapter. (Ord. ,8843 51(Exhibit ' A)(part),•-
1988).: . .
5.04.070 Separate tax for 'branch
establishments.
A tax shall be paid in the manner
r prescribed in this .-chapter for each branch
establishment or, location of the business engaged
in, as if each such branch establishment or. location
were a separate business; provided, that
warehouses and distributing plants :used-in
connection with and incidental to a business taxed
under the provisions of this chapter shall not: be
deemed to,be separate places of business. or
branch establishments. Separately franchised
operations shall be deemed . separate businesses
even if operated under the same name. (Ord. 88-
13 §1(Exlvbit A)(Part);1988).
5.04.090 Joint tax.
A person engaged in two or more
businesses at the same location 'shall not be
required to pay separate taxes for conducting each
such business; but,,when eligible, shall be issued
one receipt:which shall specify on its face all- such
businesses: (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exlubit A)(part),1988).
5.04.100 No tax required for mere
delivery.
No tax shall be required for any person
for any mere delivery in the city of any property
purchased • or acquired in good faith from such
person at the regular place of business outside the
city. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part),1988).
5.04.110 Business tax receipts for
nonprofit enterprises.
(a) The city shall issue business tax
receipts, without requiring the payment of any tax
or. other charges therefor to any persons or
organization for, the conduct or operation of a
nonprofit enterprise, either regular or temporary,
when the city finds that the applicant operates
without private profit, for a public, charitable,
educational, literary, fraternal or religious
purpose.
(b) A nonprofit applicant shall
submit an application therefor to the city upon the
prescribed forms, and shall furnish such
additional information and make such affidavits
as the city shall require.
5.04.080 Rental real property.
Each rental real property shall be deemed
a branch establishment or separate place of
business for the purposes of this chapter when
there is a representative of A he owner or the
owners agents on the premises who is authorized
to transact business for each owner or owner's
agent, or there is a regular employee of the owner
or of the owner's agent working on the premises.
(Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part),1988).
(c) - A person or organization
operating under nonprofit exemption shall
operate the nonprofit enterprise in compliance
with the provisions of this chapter and all other
applicable rules and regulations. (Ord. 88-13
§1(Exhibit A) (part), 1988).
5.04120 Issuance of business tax.
(a) The city shall collect all taxes and
shall issue receipts under the provisions of this
5-04-3 Reformatted 1994
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
chapter. The city shall promulgate and enforce.
rules and regulations necessary for the operation
and enforcement of this chapter.. Such rules shall
be available to the public upon request.
i (b) „ .Business which constitute a ,home
occupation. as : defined Jn, -Chapter ,.18.142- W :the
TigardIcommunity developmentcdde shall have a•
valid home occupation- permit prior to the
issuance jof a :.business tax: receipt. All-,,bther'
business tax receipts shall be,issued upon written
application and receipt of the applicable tax by the
city:.,.,
(cj , A duplicate tax ;receipt • shall beissued., by:, the . city to- . replace -any : receipt
previously, issued. which. has been' lost,. stolen,
defaced, or destroyed, without any wilful conduct
on. the part, of the business' taxpayer upon'. the
filing by the ;business ..taxpayer of a statement
attesting to such a fact and paying the city a fee of
ten, dollars. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part},1988).
5._04.130. Procedure for obtaining- and-
displaying a receipt.
(a) All business. lax receipts shall be
issued upon written application and receipt of the
applicable tax by the city..
(b) The business tax application shall
be completely filled out before a tax certificate is
issued. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part),1988).
5.04140 misplay.
5.04.150 Reissue of tax receipt.
A business tax receipt may be reissued if
incorrect. -"information -is recorded. ' on the
certificate: i .
{1) ' rn If,;1he' f :reissue is the result of
incorrect information due wan error by-the city or'
a cityeniployeelthese`-will lie rio fee. ~ •~:~~,c; .
i (2) If: ,the ;reissue is the resiilf incorrect' information 'ue sto : an error by the
applicant or an agent of the applicant, a reissue
fee in the same amount"as the initial issue fee will
be're-quired: J, , a r
f • a'business tax receipt •holder
(3) If
relocates during the calendar year, city7files'will
be updated but a new receipt will not be issued'
until the next renewal receipt is issued. (Ord. 88-
13 §1(Exlu'bit A)(part)1988).
5.04.150 Fee schedule.
(a) The taxes required in this chapter
shall be paid in the amount-specified below prior
to the issuance of a receipt.
Number of
Full-Time , Administration
Equivalent.-!and.Enforce- Total Annual
EmR1gyees :;ment ' - Tax : Business Tax
0-10 $20.00 $ 35.00 $55-00:
11-50 20.00 90.00 110.00
51 or more 20.00 100.00 220.00
Upon payment of the business tax, a
person shall be issued a receipt by the city, which
receipt shall be kept posted in a conspicuous place
on the business premises at all times. If there is no
physical structure on which to display the receipt,
the receipt . shall be in the possession of the
representative of the business present within the
city at all times during which business is being
transacted. (Ord. 88-13 §l(Exhibit A)(Part),1988).
A business tax receipt will be valid from
the date of payment through December 31st of
that year.
(b) The initial payment of an annual
business tax can be made at'any time. Thereafter
the annual tax shall be due in full January 1st.
The annual fee will be prorated according to the
following schedule:
5-04-4
Reformatted 1994
0
t 1•
, •
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
Number of full-time
equivalent =plMes
0-10 11-50 51 or more
$4.58 $9.17 $18.33 -for the initial month
when issued on or before
the 15th of the month
2.29 4.59 9.17 -for the initial month
when issued after the
15th of the month
4.58 9.17 18.33 -for each month after the
initial.: month until the
next annual billing cycle
begins (January 1)
(c) There will be no business tax
refunds for businesses who cease operation or
who move out of Tigard during the tax year.
(Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(Part),1988).
5.04.190 Penalties.
(a) Violation of this chapter shall
constitute a Class 2 civil infraction which shall be
processed according to the procedures established
in Chapter 1.16 of this code, Civil Infractions.
(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 that a person has
committed a civil infraction in violation of this
chapter shall not act to relieve the person from
payment of any unpaid business tax, including
delinquent charges, for which the person is liable.
The penalties imposed by this section are in
addition to and not in lieu of any remedies
available to the city.
5.04.173 Temporary business.
(a) A temporary business as defined
in Section 5.04.0300), must comply with all
regulations in this chapter.
(b) The business tax fee for a
temporary business shall be ten dollars. A
business tax receipt for a temporary business shall
be valid until the initial temporary use permit
expires. Any extension or renewal of a temporary
use permit shall require an additional business tax
payment. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(Part),1988).
5.04.180 Enforcement.
The city is authorized to conduct
inspections to insure the administration and
enforcement of this chapter. The code
enforcement officer(s) shall be responsible for the
enforcement of this chapter. (Ord. 88-13 §1(Exhibit
A)(part),1988).
5-04-5
(d) Payment of the business tax after
the complaint and summons is served is not a
defense.
(e) 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. (Ord. 38-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part),
1988).
5.04.200 Rate review and adjustment.
Adjustments in the administration and
enforcement portion of this chapter may be made
by the city council following a cost analysis to
occur annually during the budget cycle and in
conformance with Chapter 3.32 of this code. (Ord.
88-13 §1(Exhibit A)(part),1988).®
Reformatted 1994 '
i nwl Gv~c.~
AGENDA IT'El. ##.q
FCf$~`AGEI3DA
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 7th venue esi ns
PREPARED BY: __4 P Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
I SUE uRF(1RF.'I'HE COUNCIL
Presentation to City Council on various design options which were suggested during a meeting with the 790i
Avenue Citizens Action Group.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests City Council discussion and input. The proposed design for the street is the recommended option
from the design team. No other recommendation at this time.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
As a minor collector, 79`h Avenue is important for access to the adjacent neighborhoods and as a connector
street between a minor arterial (Durham Road) and a major collector (Bonita Road). The street has some serious
safety issues with narrow lanes, no pedestrian walkways, lack of streetlighting, and dips and humps in the street
that obstruct sight distance and are hazards to motorists and pedestrians alike. The street is highly deteriorated
and requires reconstruction, vertical realignment in certain areas, and expansion to meet current design
standards. Improvements to meet current design standards address the safety issues by widening the street to
provide two driving lanes, separate bike lanes, sidewalks on both sides, streetlights, and vertical realignment to
meet sight distance requirements for a 25 mph posted speed. These elements would all be incorporated in the
design and construction of the street to meet those standards.
Century West Engineering Corporation has been selected by the City to complete the project design and have
the project packaged for construction by the end of calendar year 1999. There are no funds currently available
for construction of the project. Some of the previous developers did not construct the public improvements on
791h Avenue at the time of development, but opted to execute non-remonstrance agreements instead. The
construction of this project could be funded through a combination of funding sources consisting of an LID and
a Road Bond issue.
As a result of a neighborhood meeting conducted in January 1999, several changes were made to the typical
minor collector design. The proposed street width was narrowed to 34 feet, six feet less than the standard 40-
foot wide minor collector standard. No parking will be allowed along the street, and bikepaths are proposed for
both sides of the streets.
Many of the residents in the 79`h Avenue area are concerned about both the design elements that typically are
included in a minor collector and about the financing of the project. Councilors Joyce Patton and Brian Moore
were requested by Council to meet with the 79`h Avenue Citizens Action Group and discuss their concerns
about the project as designed. That meeting was conducted on Thursday evening, August 12, 1999. Several
options were suggested in lieu of the design that is currently being proposed. Most of the options included
sidewalk on one side only. These options do not'meet the minimum standards required for a minor collector.
However, the Transportation System Plan Update Study is proposing to include a street classification known as
a Neighborhood Route, which would be something less than a minor collector and would be designed more in
conformance with the character of a neighborhood. However, even that street classification requires sidewalks
on both sides of the street. Sidewalks on one side only means that residents on the street opposite the sidewalks
would have to cross the street to get to the walkway. Those that do not cross would end up walking in the street,
which is definitely undesirable.
Attached are the following: design as currently proposed and two options, one of which was suggested at the
meeting. Each option has disadvantages which could pose major problems for safety. The design concepts are
further discussed below:
Design as currently proposed: 34 feet of paved surface curb to curb, 5-foot bikelanes on each side, 5-foot
sidewalks on each side.
Option 1: 28 feet of paved surface curb to curb, 6-foot sidewalk on one side only, 2-4 foot utility strips on both
sides. The roadway would be a shared roadway for bicycles and motorists. The downside of this section is that
motorists would tend to think there is no bikeway and look at the entire lane as a driving lane. This would tend
to encourage speeding: In addition, the sidewalk on one side would encourage crossing of the street at random
or walking in the street.
Option 2: 24 feet of paved surface curb to curb, 5-foot sidewalk on each side, two-way bikelane on one side
only. The disadvantage of this option is that the bikepath would cross driveways throughout the project, creating
potential vehicle/bicycle conflicts for bicycles going the opposite way from where drivers are used to looking
for traffic.
These options are provided for discussion and Council input. The creation of the Neighborhood Route
classification does provide some flexibility in the application of stariuards. The reclassification of this street to a
Neighborhood Route would provide a better basis for downscaling the requirements. However, sidewalks on
both sides is a standard in all of the classifications.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The 791h Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Project supports the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation
and Traffic goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow.
The design project is authorized and funded through the FY 19910-1999 and FY 1999-2000 CIP Budgets.
Construction funds for the project could come from a combination of LED and Road Bond funding.
L\Citys \S-\AS-& &-n-y fa 79` A-- D-Sn OpU-
Design option
79th Avenue
Proposed Design
5.50 5.00 12.00
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane
Area
Option A
2-4 ft
e--
Utililty
Area
Option D
14.00
Travel Lane
2.00
5.50 ft
12.00
I~ Utility
Area
Sidewalk
Area
Travel Lane
12.00 5.00 5.50
Bike Lane Sidewalk
Travel Lane Area
14.00
6.00
2-4ft
Travel Lane I
Sidewalk
Area
Utililty
Area
12.00 5.00 8.00
Sidewalk Two Way
Travel Lane Area Bikelane
C7
4
Avenue
gn Options
Presentation to
City Council
August 17, 1999
Oaolfln Optlon®
79tti Avanuo
v.eoo.b w.w..
oWio.. n
Op„on s
Oplk.r. C ~'~`~•w~'y~`y''
RAISED BIKE LANES
w~Y.7.1'.r,.~r
N.falwd.I1.lr'W •~~~YF •YrY.•r
r w aaY.YS ea.w.
.Y..Y M1. Y a r,Y~rYI may ar.ar.
.Mplw~rM MYa
lAy.~e.r wr Yr wr.+rw/Yurwr
..~w r~Ylr w.wi.a
. W 1.
~WYr1r MA b. w1►7
.e..wbwwraw..nr:.+
L
~.rr rN.rY r~.sY~. w.r~.+..~
.*rrVl~.wanrf.iYwer...
rA.Y~Yrlr~
IWra w• W Yr V
wr W YrYaprr'r.s+.~...~
~uy~rrr.rrMa.glr
wrrY. w. r~rr, .r r..n.r~~
•A wait wY gdlr r ae. r
bw r Yr r.r b tw1, r wrYRf.<
~YwIrYw Oq w r.r, 6wr...+
1r~frr/ blb N{M YsY wrr Y)
r.orlYas,r
•W.Ir N.7ellsw a Iby rK Y r
W Yr,bN,raiYwLbpYrfr
lyfrnw~..(nir Yi. Ye Y r wr.r~ 1
awwriw r ww1 Yrr W YrvA w p..1
rf.ryr......p.r~ arAY. Yw.ir b
•M, r W Ya
T..64fa1 a,w rYy.a by rfr.d b,-
rdrs.nra
•7Y W Yv ~r•iwlw.Yr wrrbM1rr
lb-
•T. W Ia.sYr Y, eYrY. r{~ty Y.
IYa w w
A. b py.
r Ir L.Ir/M~IwI
b.wr...+wwr
~.,Yra.,.Y..yr 4
pi', Ira
1i
AGENDA ITEM # 12
FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA
PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 111
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Presentation of the two options for the Gaarde Street Extension and opportunity for Council discussion and
direction on which option to pursue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests City Council discussion, input and direction before a decision is made on which option to pursue.
Staff sees advantages and drawbacks to each option, and wishes to obtain Council input before proceeding with
the design of the project.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Gaarde Street Extension from Quail Hollow-West to Walnut Street is currently in the initial stages of
design. The design consultant is recommending that Gaarde Street be realigned to be the through route. The
current plan is to have Gaarde Street intersect Walnut Street at a T intersection. Gaarde Street is classified as a
"collector of regional significance" in Metro's RTP. Walnut Street is not classified as such by Metro. Generally,
a roadway with such a classification should be the through route. There are pros and cons with either approach.
The design consultant and staff will be available to present the two options and elaborate on the advantages and
disadvantages of each. Additional land acquisition is required in varying degrees with each option. One of the
two options needs to be selected before the design project can proceed any further. Since the final alignment of
Gaarde Street will have significant future ramifications, Council discussion and input is desired before that
selection occurs.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
The improvements proposed for Gaarde Street meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traffic
Sae and Improve Traffic Flow.
FISCAL NOTES
The design of the Gaarde Street Extension is funded in the FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program.
1ACirywide\SumWgenda Item for Gaarde Street Extension Options
V
Street Extension
Discussion of Gaarde Alignment
Quail Hollow-West to Walnut
August 17, 1999
edfr' P'laftl7rAS
/
#ffh R
o Tigard Circulation Plan
d Washington County Transportation Plan
1988
o Metro Regional Transportation Plan -
Collector of Regional Significance 1998
*yr-.c FO/ie'ca5t
o Heaviest Movements
are for north/south
traffic on Gaarde
a As traffic grows, the
through movements on
Gaarde grows Cte
most
o Movements to/from
Walnut are minor
~ IS
~1 4 ~
t s
y
W
I
~/i~144
llgfl Al%Q/).*l ent
p~Cffi Right-of-Wary
o While the through alignment of Gaarde is
operationally desirable, it has greater impact
on ROW
o Through alignment requires coordination
with Walnut Street Project to the west to
occur concurrently
o ROW already exists for tee intersection
*/C ree Option A
a Pros
- Minimizes ROW
Impact
- Lowest Cost
- Fewer Coordination
impacts with Walnut
a Cons
- Highest Movements
Must Turn
- Less Desirable
operation, more delay
s
2
with Median Option B
.0, Pros
- Same as Option A
- Provides Separation for
Opposing Fligh
Volume Movements
O Cons
- Same as Option A
- Wider Cross Section
adds cost
3
d ,
e/inear Option C
4. Pros
- ~
-Consistent with
regional plans
better Operation for
!
Highest Volrmtes
ai T=
F-7
~=1 o Cons
- ROW Impacts
- Pushes up coordination
with Walnut Project
AaML
t do we reeled tonight.
o Guidance on the issue of alignment - tee or
through?
♦ Ability to address ROW issues
• Coordination with other jurisdictions
(MSTIP)
4
1
AGENDA ITEM # q
FOR AGENDA OF August 17, 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Sharing Facilities and Equipment with Tigard-Tualatin School District
PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK 'CITY MGR OK t44t"--*'
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Administrative staff will discuss with the Council the progress made to date in working out cooperative
arrangements with the Tigard-Tualatin School District for sharing facilities and equipment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Allow Administrative staff an opportunity to update Council on the discussions held to date with representatives
of the Tigard-Tualatin School District and receive direction whether the approach being taken is appropriate.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Annually, the Tigard City Council meets with the Board of Directors of the Tigard-Tualatin School District.
During the joint meeting held earlier this year, representatives of the District asked that the City Council take
into consideration the possibility of the District and City sharing facilities and equipment. Specifically, the
District is interested in having the City take over responsibility for maintenance of school fields. A study was
prepared in 1998 which has been the basis for some preliminary discussions.
The City Council asked the City Manager to meet with District officials to begin discussions. On July 1, Bill
Monahan and Ed Wegner met with Superintendent of Schools Russ Joki, along with Tom Kurt and Ron Hudson
of the District staff. During the meeting it was established that the District can be a participant in a pre-existing
cooperative arrangement between local governments, Washington County, and districts, to share equipment.
For instance, Tigard regularly lends or borrows specialized equipment such as tracks, backhoes, vactors, or
other equipment with neighboring communities. In the past the District has not been a participant, although it
has the option to do so. Under the pre-existing arrangement, credits are given to agencies which lend out their
equipment. At the end of each year the agencies tally the records to determine if any imbalance in borrowing or
lending has occurred in the prior year.
During the meeting, we proposed to the District that a similar arrangement may be useful between the City and
District. For instance, if the City assumed responsibility for maintaining some or all district fields, the City can
track the actual costs of equipment operation, staff time, materials, and other expenses. The City could keep a
record of charges and provide information to the District on a regular basis. The District in turn could assign
costs to rental of school facilities such as fields, auditoriums, meeting rooms, gymnasiums, etc.
Both the School District and City are preparing lists of items which could be part of an initial agreement for
sharing facilities and equipment. One option available to the City and District is to direct staff to work out
arrangements to trade services on a basis which will result in no net gain or loss for either participant over the
course of a twelve month period. Or, a pre-arranged program could provide for the City or District to provide a
grant of a fixed contribution to the other partner. Also available is the potential for the City or District to
accumulate credits which result from providing excess service or facilities to the other partner without receipt of
an equal amount of service or facility use. We could create an arrangement where credits are held over from
year to year, or that the credits could be assigned to some other user. For instance, if the City chose to either
support (1) a provider of the recreational services, (2) a social service agency, or (3) a provider of community
events, an arrangement could be made where credits owned by the City could be transferred to another user.
Therefore, for instance, rather than providing cash subsidy to a social service agency or say Broadway Rose
Theatre Company, credits which are of use to the recipient might be applied to obtain facilities or services from
the School District. Broadway Rose could use credits to rent the Deb Fennell auditorium for part or all of its
Summer season.
The proposals discussed above are in the talking stage at this time. Staff feels it is necessary to discuss the
concept with the City Council at this time to gauge whether such a concept is acceptable to the City Council and
worth devotion of staff time to develop more detail to the potential program. If Council is interested in the
concept, staff expects to work over the next several months with representatives of the School District to
develop details and make proposals during the budget process for fiscal year 2000-2001.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Take no action at this time.
2. Work an arrangement with the School District for the City to take over responsibility for school field
maintenance without compensation.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal No. 3 under schools and education calls for the schools and City government to work together to
maximize financial efficiencies and address funding shortfalls. Strategy No. 1 calls for examination of the
potential for City government to provide some support services for the Tigard-Tualatin School District.
FISCAL NOTES
Depending upon the ultimate direction taken, there may be a cause to the City for a balanced exchange of
services and facilities between the District and City to be developed. At this time no decision has been made.
\\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADNNO\TIGARD•TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT.DOC