City Council Packet - 12/07/1999CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DECEMBER 7, 1999
COUNCIL MEETING WILL E TELEVISED
I:Aadmjo%ccpkH.doc
13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
« •
Revised 12/2/99
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 a.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please
call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow
as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the
Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-
4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 7,1999 - PAGE I
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 7, 1999
AGENDA
6:30 PM
STUDY SESSION
> EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all
discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose
nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
> Presentation: Ash Avenue Properties
> Review: Unified Sewerage Agency Conveyance System Management Study and Model
Contract for Intergovernmental Agreement
7:30 PM
BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council U Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Cali
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35 PM
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:40 PM
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted
in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be
removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Receive and File:
a) Tentative Agenda
b) Council Calendar
Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested
to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered
immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need
discussion.
COUNCIL AGENDA s DECEMBER 7,1999 - PAGE 2
7:45 PM
4. CONSIDER 15 RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO THE INITIATION OF
ANNEXATION OF ISLAND AREAS IN THE CITY. (City Council will take action
on each resolution separately, Areas 1 - 15)
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Questions and Discussion
C. Council Consideration: 15 Proposed Resolutions (991(0 to 99.fQ )
8:15 PM
5. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO BE
GRANTED WITHIN UNIMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS,
AND ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
a. Staff Report: Public Works Department
b. Council Questions and Discussion
C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-~_
8:20 PM
6. UPDATE FROM COGAN, OWENS, COGAN ON PARK AND RECREATION
TASK FORCE
a. Staff Introduction: Public Works Department
b. Discussion: Cogan, Owens, Cogan
C. Council Questions and Discussion
9:20 PM
7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9:30 PM
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9:40 PM
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all
discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose
nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
10:00 PM
10. ADJOURNMENT
1: W D MCAT H=CA\991207. D 0C
COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 7,1999 - PAGE 3
Agenda Item No. 3, I
Meeting of Oo
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City
Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City
Attorney Jim Coleman; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx
> MACC Grant
Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that, due to Liz Newton's and Councilor Scheckla's efforts,
Tigard had a good chance of receiving a $99,500 grant from MACC to install video equipment in
the town hall. He noted the $4,040 cost for the sound system upgrade MACC required the City to
contribute. He proposed using the money saved in the City Council budget by only Councilor
Moore attending the National League of Cities -conference (instead of three Councilors) to pay for
the cost of the upgrade beyond the $2,000 staff had already budgeted for the upgrade. The Council
agreed by consensus with Mr. Monahan's proposal.
Mr. Monahan reported receipt of $1,800 from the City of Tualatin as its contribution to Phase 1 of
the Atfalati study.
> Presentation: Ash Avenue Properties
Mr. Monahan suggested postponing discussion of this item until Councilor Hunt was here, as
Councilor Hunt originally suggested removing the IOS building and the Keefer building located on
these properties in order to create parking for the downtown. He referenced his memo explaining
that the City has allowed social service agencies to use the IOS building for several years. He said
that the City leased it to Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) and Neighborshare
this fiscal year.
Mr. Monahan noted that the agencies expected to use the building for more than one year. He
mentioned Mr. Hendryx's report that the Central Downtown Business Association (CDBA)
preferred to wait on turning those properties into parking until after the City improved Burnham
Street. He recommended not taking any action to remove those buildings at this time.
Councilor Scheckla agreed with allowing CPAH and Neighborshare a longer time in the building.
Mr. Monahan suggested scheduling the discussion for the January study session. He mentioned the
CDBA's intention to work with the Main Street Oregon program in surveying the property owners
about needs in the downtown, including the best location for parking. Councilor Scheckla
supported waiting until that report came to Council in February or March. Mr. Monahan indicated
that he would check with Councilor Hunt to see if he had any immediate concerns with the issue.
> Review: Unified Sewerage Agency Conveyance System Management Study and Model
Contract for Intergovernmental Agreement
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 1
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, advised the Council that it was premature at this time to
approve the USA Conveyance Management contract because not all the cities involved have agreed
to do the contract. He mentioned concerns with both the concept of the model contract and specific
provisions in it. Councilor Patton indicated that she had concerns with the contract also. Mr.
Wegner asked the Councilor to inform him of her concerns.
Mr. Wegner indicated that they used the Urban Services agreement between Tigard and Washington
County Land Use and Transportation as the starting point for the conveyance systems management
study begun in 1998. He explained that, under this model contract, USA would pay jurisdictions to
perform certain services but only up to a certain level. He gave the example of street sweeping: if
USA decided that its performance measure for street sweeping was streets swept six times a year,
then that was all it would pay for. If a city wanted additional street sweeps or sweeping of other
facilities, it paid for those itself. He said that USA paid the cities for the performance measures
through its surface water management fees and sewer assessments on the bill.
Mr. Wegner noted that not everyone agreed on what the base performance measures should be or on
what the contract language should be. He mentioned that Tigard contracted out its street sweeping,
and therefore, did not have the same problems as those cities that had their own street sweeping
equipment did. He stated that Tigard had been firm about USA maintaining the detention basins
and water quality facilities that the Agency required the cities to design and build.
Mr. Wegner stated that the services USA wanted Tigard to cover increased the City's storm and
sanitary sewer maintenance activities by 70% because they would take on the unincorporated areas
within Tigard's urban services boundary. He observed that this contract was an expensive
proposition for the City because those areas lacked adequate storm water systems. He mentioned
increasing his eight-person maintenance staff by five crew members plus one supervisor to handle
these increased services (which USA would pay for). He indicated that USA would pay for up to
70% of Tigard's increased costs. He said that staff was looking at owning 70% of the additional
equipment needed in conjunction with another jurisdiction. He stated that Tigard has firmly insisted
that it would not pick up the additional 30% of the cost simply to accommodate USA.
Mr. Wegner discussed the territorial swaps between USA and the cities proposed in the contract.
He pointed out that the USA (and the County) maintained its areas at a lower standard than most
cities did. He commented that the differing levels of maintenance were a major problem with the
contract, especially for Beaverton and Hillsboro. He said that Tigard would take an area equal to
the Tigard Water District plus Metzger plus a strip on the other side of I-5 plus the cities of Durham
and King City.
Mr. Wegner reiterated that this contract reflected the intentions of SB 122 the same as the Urban
a Services agreement did. It provided for those jurisdictions closest to the area needing the service to
perform the service.
a Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification about the lower level of service provided by the County.
ded
Mr. Wegner explained that the intent of this contract was to equalize the level of servic=cussed
by the jurisdictions for the storm water management services, such as street sweeping. the differing levels of standards for street maintenance that the Tigard staff implemented for the
unincorporated areas in the County versus the areas within the Tigard city limits. He noted that the
higher level of service provided by the City was an incentive to annexation. He confirmed to
Councilor Scheckla that the property owners throughout the County maintained their private streets
themselves.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 2
. A
Councilor Scheckla asked if the street upgrade work expected from the City upon annexation would
place a burden on Public Works. Mr. Wegner commented that that was a separate issue from the
conveyance system. He concurred that the streets, sewers, and storm drainage systems in the
unincorporated areas needed a lot of work but pointed out that the City never made a commitment to
fix them upon annexation. He mentioned that the Mr. Hendryx's cost figures included routine
maintenance and overlays. He indicated that the infrastructure needs in newly annexed areas went
through the same ratings system as areas already within the city limits did and competed for the
dollars available. He said that staff informed the unincorporated area residents of this at the open
house.
Councilor Patton asked if Mr. Wegner had a sense of what it would cost the City to handle the
emergency situations that would arise in these areas, beyond the routine maintenance performance
measures that USA agreed to pay for. Mr. Wegner said that Tigard was asking for between
$100,000 to $250,000 in capital money to come directly to Tigard to pay for those emergency costs,
as opposed to pooling all the capital money into one pot.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the goal of the program was to make whole the cities that participated. Mr.
Wegner said that was true if the standards a city accepted for an area were equal to the USA
performance measure standards. If a city wanted to maintain services to a higher standard, the city
paid the difference itself. Mayor Nicoli commented that the City's position under the current
agreement with the County was that it did only what the County funded. If the residents wanted a
higher level of service, then they could form a special assessment for the area to fund it.
Mr. Wegner discussed the City only doing what the County paid for in the unincorporated areas
using an example of right-of-way mowing. The City mowed its rights-of-way more often than the
two times a year that the County would pay for mowing its rights-of-way. The City received calls
from County residents asking why the City did not mow in front of their homes but did further up
the road; staff informed them that it was because the County did not pay for it.
Mayor Nicoli asked if staff would be able to resolve the contract at the City Manager level. Mr.
Wegner said yes.
Councilor Scheckla asked staff to prepare a comparison of the services delivered to its residents by
the City against the services delivered to the County residents. He asked if there were any
unidentified private streets in any of the islands under consideration. Mr. Wegner said that he did
not think so but he would check with Mr. Hendryx.
Mr. Wegner confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that his department did street sweeping and cleaning
out catch basins as part of its storm water management program. He said that from mid-November
to mid-March, crews cleaned out the catch basins and picked up signs in the right-of-way on a
weekly basis. He indicated that the crews did check about two dozen problem areas more
frequently, both during and after a storm.
> Intergovernmental Water Board
Mr. Wegner advised the Council that he would ask the Intergovernmental Water Board tomorrow
night to approve a scope of services to provide engineering services, an engineering assessment of
infrastructure needs for providing water to the City of Tigard, and an analysis of how the rate would
be set to charge for it. He said that the General Manager of the Joint Water Commission has gotten
his Board's agreement to allow Tigard to restudy this issue. He said that if the IWB approved it,
staff would put the request for $31,000 (amending the Joint Water Commission contract) on the
Council's December 14 consent agenda.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 3
Mayor Nicoli asked, on behalf of himself and Councilor Hunt, to schedule a discussion of a water
rate increase in mid-January. Mr. Wegner said that staff was expecting an update of the rate study
done three years ago by CH2M Hill, although he did not know that they would get all of it by
January.
Mayor Nicoli discussed his concern at jumping the rate a substantial amount all at once. He pointed
out that they knew that they would have to increase the rate within two to three years anyway. He
spoke to increasing the rate incrementally, starting now. He observed that by increasing the rate
now, they could build up their capital reserve fund with the intention of paying cash for as much of
the capital outlay for the infrastructure needs as possible. He noted that the City spent 30% less by
paying cash as opposed to paying with bonds. He said that he agreed with Councilor Hunt who did
not want to wait any longer to increase the rates.
Mr. Wegner explained that the rate study looked at both a rate increase and a different rate structure.
He indicated that if the Council increased rates in January, it might have to increase them again in
March, depending on what the study found. He said that staff was willing to look at the Mayor's
suggestion before the study was done. He noted that they did have to go to the Intergovernmental
Water Board for a rate increase recommendation. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, commented that
the IWB made recommendations to the participating jurisdictions with respect to rate increases but
had no approval authority if someone asked for a differential rate between jurisdictions.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification of Mr. Wegner's comment that they might have to
increase rates twice in one year. Mr. Wegner explained that he was referring to the Mayor's
suggestion to increase rates in January before the completion of the rate study. Depending on the
rate study, staff might recommend another increase before July 1 in order to build a healthy capital
fund. He commented that they wanted to maintain a rate as close to the median as possible in order
to insure a steady cash flow.
Councilor Patton summarized Mr. Wegner's comments as determining a rate by looking at the
historical average and plugging in an inflation factor in anticipation of future wholesale rate
increases. Mr. Wegner concurred. He pointed out that a difficulty they had was a short history
(only three years) of buying large quantities of water from Portland and a lack of comparables for
costs. Tigard was one of the few larger systems without its own water source. He confirmed that
this year the City purchased water from Portland at the wholesale rate of $1.23 (based on last year's
purchase) and resold it to its customers at a $1.32 rate.
> Experimental Youth Programs
Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to consider granting $5,000 to a group (headed by Wes Taylor)
who wanted to start up a temporary experimental youth program using the Senior Center after
school and evenings. He explained that he wanted to help this group get some needed experience in
youth programming so that they would have a better chance of making Atfalati's youth
programming succeed, should the bond issue pass.
Mr. Monahan explained that three different groups came out of the meeting facilitated by Linda
Eaton one and a half months ago at Tigard High School. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City
Manager, mentioned that Sharon Maroney was also involved in this group who wanted to start
youth programming for middle school and high school kids one day and one evening a week using
the Senior Center just to see what kind of response they received. She indicated that this group was
not connected to the church group mentioned by Councilor Scheckla.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, i 999 - PAGE 4
Mr. Monahan mentioned the discussions that he and Chief Goodpaster have had with the School
District about a student advocate position. He said that if Ms. Newton could get the information,
they could schedule the Mayor's requested discussion on next week's agenda.
> EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:25 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues.
> Mayor Nicoli adjourned the Executive Session at 7:45 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore and Mayor Nicoli were present.
1.4 Council Communications: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
Mr. Monahan asked to add authorization of a court settlement after Agenda Item 5, so that
Councilor Hunt could participate.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
a) Jack Polans,16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City
Mr. Polans read two letters, one from Mayor Jerry McReynolds of King City (December 11, 1992)
and one from Mayor W.K. Klammer of Lake Oswego (April 3, 1997), thanking Mr. Polans for his
work on behalf of area citizens.
Mr. Polans asked why the Council discussed certain subjects in study session in the workroom as
opposed to holding those discussions in the Council Chambers. Councilor Moore pointed out that
the study sessions in the workroom were open meetings to which the public was welcome.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-0]
a. Receive and File:
b) Tentative Agenda
c) Council Calendar
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 5
4. CONSIDER 15 RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO THE INITIATION OF ANNEXATION
OF ISLAND AREAS IN THE CITY
STAFF REPORT
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reviewed the analysis of the feasibility of
annexing the Walnut Island, a Council goal. He said that the analysis considered the cost of
building sewers, the potential property tax revenues, and how much it would cost the City to
provide the additional services required to serve the area. He mentioned the two open houses held
by the City in October, attended by 200 or so people, for questions and answers on the annexation
proposal. He indicated that staff did follow-up mailings from the City and provided notice to all
those in the affected area.
Councilor Hunt asked if the analysis involved only the Walnut Island or included the other small
islands the City intended to annex also. Mr. Hendryx said that the study addressed both the Walnut
Island and the non-island areas. He explained the definitions of island annexation (territory totally
surrounded by the City or by the City and a body of water) and non-island annexation (territory not
surrounded by the City). He reviewed on a map the location of the 15 separate Walnut Island
annexations and the three non-island annexations. He reviewed the process for island annexations
under ORS 222.750 (without an election).
Mr. Hendryx explained that the 15 resolutions before the Council tonight initiated the island
annexation process. Staff would mail out notices, take out advertising, and schedule public hearings
per the state statute requirements. He mentioned February 8 for the public hearing at which the
Council would approve, modify or deny the annexation. He pointed out that staff did give residents
advance notice of the annexation at the open houses. He emphasized that Council's action tonight
was not a public hearing; it was to adopt the resolutions. He said that the Council had to take action
at the February 8 public hearing in order to meet the March 31 deadline for newly annexed
properties to be counted on the tax rolls for the 2000,`2001 fiscal yea:.
Mr. Hendryx presented slides of the 15 islands, identifying their location by street boundaries. He
recommended that the Council adopt the resolutions to initiate the island annexations as the means
of completing its Council goal. He informed the Council that staff would recommend at the public
hearing that the Council, if it wanted to drop out any islands, cut out entire islands as opposed to
cutting out specific lots. He explained that staff would have difficulty meeting the March 31
deadline if it had to rewrite the legal description for a particular island.
Mr. Hendryx presented the analysis for the non-island annexation areas. He said that annexing
these areas generally north of Bull Mountain would simplify the city's boundaries and allow
efficient delivery of services. He reviewed the state law requirement for non-island annexations - a
double majority consent of the property owners and voters in the area. He indicated that that the
City had to hold an election if it could not obtain a double majority consent. He stated that the City
had not received a petition from the property owners in the identified r~on-island annexation areas
requesting annexation.
Mr. Hendryx presented three options for the non-island annexations. The first was to initiate the
annexation of these non-island areas and to send it to the voters at the next general election (May).
He pointed out that property annexed after March 31 did not get on the tax rolls until the following
year. Therefore, if the voters approved the annexations in May, the City would provide services to
these areas for 13 months with no tax revenues collected.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 6
Mr. Hendryx said that the second option was for staff to contact the property owners, get consent for
the annexation, and hold a public hearing on the same date as the island annexations public hearing.
He noted that this option consumed a great deal of staff time for an uncertain result. He described
the third option as directing staff to return to Council with a schedule and a process to contact the
property owners in the non-island areas for annexation next year. He indicated that this option
would put these non-island areas on the tax rolls for FY 2001/2002. He reviewed the locations of
the three non-island annexations.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND DELIBERA'T'IONS
Councilor Hunt mentioned that staff told him in the past that the city had islands in the northern part
of the city, in addition to the Walnut Island. Mr. Hendryx indicated that he was not aware of any
other islands in the city, other than the Walnut Island. He said that they did have a number of non-
island areas throughout the city, scattered along Bull Mountain Road, the Tualatin River, and in the
Metzger area. He confinned that staff's intent was to clean up all the island annexations the city
had at this time.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the annexation process with respect to Metro and the
County. Mr. Hendryx explained that, with the termination of the Boundary Commission, Metro's
new role was to notify all services of annexations. He said that staff would notify Metro, and rely
on Metro to notify the service providers.
Councilor Scheckla asked what the timeframe was for annexing the Bull Mountain area. Mr.
Hendryx said that he would return to Council early next year to get direction on a strategy for the
remainder of the urban services area. He mentioned that those areas were all non-island annexations
and required a conscientious effort by the City to solicit property owner participation in annexing to
the City.
Mayor Nicoli asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Council on the issue of
initiating the annexation process. Hearing none, he asked for a motion.
Motion by Councilor hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolutions 99-76
through 99-90.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolutions.
RESOLUTIONS NO. 99-76 THROUGH 99-90, RESOLUTIONS INITIATING ANNEXATIONS
OF TERRITORY REFERRED TO AS ANNEXATIONS ZCA 99-06 THROUGH 20, AREAS 1
THROUGH 15, WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATIONS TO CITY OF TIGARD AS DESCRIBED
IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, AND FURTHER ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B.
Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, noted for the record that staff marked all legal descriptions as
"Exhibit A" and all maps attached to the resolutions as "Exhibit B."
Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-0]
Councilor Hunt spoke in support of giving the staff more time to work on the non-island
annexations. The Council agreed by consensus.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 7
5. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT PERMITS TO BE
GRANTED WITHIN UNIMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS, AND
ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Wegner commented that they had instances in Tigard of encroachments on the public right-of-
way with both positive and negative effects. He explained that staff needed a system that would
allow them to work with the residents to make sure that anything that the residents wanted to do in
th,: public right-of-way was consistent with the City's Parks Master Plan and drainage easements,
etc. He recommended approval of the ordinance. He said that staff would return at a later date with
a resolution setting the permit fee.
Mayor Nicoli asked if any one in the audience wanted to address the Council. Hearing none, he
asked for a motion.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance 99-31.
The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE 99-31, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AMENDING
TITLE 15 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 724 AND 15.4
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.16, ENCROACHMENT PERMITS.
Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [5-4]
Councilor Hunt asked how Mr. Wegner intended to handle the current encroachments. Mr. Wegner
said that staff would meet with those individuals and grant them a permit, provided that whatever
they were doing was not detrimental to the City. He noted that the ordinance included provisions
requiring residents to come to the City to get permission to make any modifications to their
encroachments.
> NON-AGENDA ITEM
Mayor Nicoli declared a conflict of interest in this court settlement case. He said that he would
conduct the vote but not participate in the vote.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to authorize the City Attorney's
Office and the City Manager to enter into a settlement in Washington County Circuit Court
Case No. 99-01612CV.
Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Councilors Hunt, Moore, and
Patton voted "yes;" Councilor Scheckla voted "no;" Mayor Nicoli did not participate.) [3-1]
Councilor Hunt left the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
6. UPDATE FROM COGAN, OWENS, COGAN ON PARK AND RECREATION TASK
FORCE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 8
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Wegner recalled that over a year ago Atfalati presented the idea of a parks and recreation
district to the Council. He said that the agreement they reached began with the purchase of the
Gray-Lamb property adjoining Cook Park and led to the Council's creation of a 32-member Parks &
Recreation Task Force. He noted that since that time the Cities of Tualatin, Sherwood and Durham
and the Tigard-Tualatin and Sherwood School Districts joined with Tigard in funding a feasibility
study conducted by Cogan, Owens and Cogan.
Mr. Wegner mentioned the Steering Committee meetings attended by himself and the Mayor as the
elected and staff representatives of Tigard, the public meetings, and other informational devices
used during the process. He discussed the results of the phone survey of the residents within the
proposed boundaries (excluding King City who opted out). He noted that the phone survey
confirmed the findings of the City's Parks Master Plan: Tigard residents valued trails and hiking,
natural areas, and a youth center.
Mr. Wegner introduced Dave Nicoli, Steering Committee Chair, and D. J. Hefernen, Cogan,
Owens, and Cogan.
Mr. Nicoli commented that originally they had intended to present the information compiled
through the Phase 1 study to the participating jurisdictions in order to give the jurisdictions
sufficient information to make a decision on whether or not to participate in the district. He said
that, in Phase 2, they intended to fulfill all the legal requirements for a parks and recreation district
but now things have changed.
Mr. Nicoli presented an Executive Summary of the feasibility study results to the Council. He
stated that the Steering Committee concluded from the study that a parks and recreation district was
feasible, desirable, and needed. He reviewed the specifics of their proposal. He mentioned
providing services not currently provided by any of the agencies (city, county or school). He
discussed the four goals for the district: develop new facilities, formalize and develop athletic and
non-athletic programs currently not provided, coordinate existing athletic and non-athletic
programs, and support development of a regional trail and open space system.
Mr. Nicoli explained that the concept from the beginning was for the district agencies to form a
joint venture and to pool their resources with the intention of utilizing existing facilities as
efficiently as possible. He observed that each city was at a different level with respect to its parks,
and it was not politically possible to equalize the parks systems. Therefore, the Committee decided
to exclude parks from the district and create primarily a recreation district. He mentioned that the
Committee added the fourth goal as a direct result of the public opinion survey they conducted. He
said that they also decided that each city would maintain and operate its own trail system with the
district coordinating the regional linkages. He mentioned including money in the bond for a bridge
over the Tualatin River to connect trails and three parks in the area.
Mr. Hefernen discussed the technical details of the program. He said that early in the process they
conducted a statistically valid public opinion poll in order to find out if there was broad ground
level support for a recreation district. He noted that they polled only those people likely to say yes
or no to the district (registered voters who voted in two out of the last three elections). He reported
that 80% of the 406 voters polled supported the idea. He confirmed the primary area of interest as
walking paths and open space. He mentioned the strong interest in expansion of indoor recreation
facilities and aquatic facilities. He stated that they shaped their program around recreation centers,
indoor recreation facilities, upgrades of school-based recreation facilities, trails and paths, and
athletic and non-athletic programs for children, youth and adults.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 9
Mr. Hefernen reviewed the district boundary: the urban growth boundary of the four participating
cities plus the unincorporated area of the participating school districts. He noted that those areas,
which overlapped boundaries with non-participating jurisdictions, would be included within the
district (such as the area of the City. of Tigard within the Beaverton School District boundaries).
Mr. Hefernen reviewed the proposed governance structure: a combination Oregon 451 district or a
County special service district. He said that this type of district provided a permanent tax rate. He
explained that the County Board of Commissioners would approve the budget annually and any
bond measures going out for a public vote but an ORS 191 organization (an association of
governments) would set policy, develop a budget, and hire staff to run the day-to-day business of
the district. He said that each participating jurisdiction would have a representative on the ORS 191
Board.
Mr. Hefernen reviewed the alternative view with respect to the ORS 191 governing board expressed
by two of the participants. Since the district was a general-purpose government service, this view .
held that the school districts should not have a representative on the board because it was not within
the purview of school districts to decide how general government money should be spent. He stated
that the prevailing view of the jurisdictions (5 to 2) held that the school districts brought significant
assets to the table and should have a place on the board.
Mr. Hefernen reviewed the organization of the district. It would have its own tax rate, set its own
budget, have a permanent administrative staff, and operate programs all under the supervision of
the ORS 191 governing board. He said that they proposed a capital improvements bond measure for
$25 to $28 million along with the district formation because not all the facilities needed to deliver
all the proposed services were in place. He noted that the bond bought recreation centers in Tigard,
Tualatin and Sherwood, the bridge over the Tualatin River, upgrades of outdoor athletic facilities
associated with indoor facilities, and a trail system connecting the regional parks.
Mr. Hefemen discussed the annual budget and proposed tax rate based on Measure 50 assessed
values. He said that they proposed a temporary 32 cents per $1,000 tax rate for the $2.2 million in
annual debt service on the bond and a permanent 62 cents per $1,000 tax rate for the $3.8 million
annual operating budget.
Mr. Nicoli discussed the five capital improvements included in the bond: the Tualatin Community
Recreation Center, the Tigard Recreation Center, the Sherwood Community Recreation Complex,
and trails and a bridge over the Tualatin River to connect all three parks. He commented that they
tried to achieve equity between the jurisdictions in the bond.
Mr. Nicoli discussed their goal to use the facilities already built but only used part-time, such as the
school gyms. He described it as maximizing the current facilities and the investment taxpayers
already had in the existing facilities.
Mr. Nicoli discussed their proposed programs. He noted that youth programs had a high priority but
they intended to develop and coordinate programs for all age groups. He emphasized their intent
that all citizens, regardless of income level, would be able to participate.
Mr. Nicoli reviewed the schedule to implement a recreation district. He noted that they were on a
tight timeline because they had to get all documentation to the County by March 17. He announced
the final workshop for the governing agencies scheduled for January 13. He said that the County
has offered to put the district on the ballot (instead of Atfalati going through the initiative petition
process) if Atfalati got resolutions from all the cities by the deadline.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 10
Mr. Nicoli stated that they have expanded the original intent of the Phase 2 feasibility study beyond
doing the legal requirements in order to incorporate a second public opinion poll. He said that the
mayors really wanted another survey to find out if the public would support this specific proposal,
including the proposed tax rate and programs.
Mr. Nicoli mentioned that the County Administrator offered to draft the intergovernmental
agreement of how these seven entities would work together, provided Atfalati gave them the
necessary information when they submitted their request for the district. He said that they intended
to offer additional public information materials and more public education meetings.
Mr. Nicoli said that, for the County to consider this, Atfalati needed a final resolution from each city
agreeing to participate in the district. He stated that they needed the resolutions on or before March
29.
Councilor Scheckla asked if approval of the district was by the voters in each city or by the overall
vote in the district boundaries. Mr. Nicoli said that approval was by the overall vote of the residents
within the recreational district boundaries. Mr. Hefemen explained that if each city passed a
consent resolution, consenting to the inclusion of the city within the district boundaries, then the
voters within the district boundaries approved or denied the formation of the district, regardless of
the vote within an individual city.
Mr. Nicoli stated that Tigard's original estimated share of the Phase 2 study was $4,000 (based on
population). With the expanded scope of work, that cost increased by $16,435.20. He mentioned
that the County put in a maximum amount of $25,000 and Atfalati raised $11,000 on its own. He
explained that it fell to the cities and the school districts to pick up the difference in the cost of the
original Phase 2 study and the expanded study (another survey and architectural renderings of the
community centers).
Mayor Nicoli noted that the County has also agreed to kick in the attorney fees for the ballot
measure preparatory work. He mentioned another option of the district committing to reimburse the
cities and the districts for the costs of the study once it was formed. He said that the only risk to the
City came if the district did not form; then it was out the money for the study.
Mr. Wegner reminded the Council that it originally budgeted $15,000 for this process. He noted
that Tigard's bill for the first phase was a little over $12,000. He said that the Council would have
to do an additional appropriation for the remaining amount.
Councilor Moore stated that he liked the direction in which Atfalati was headed. He commented
that, although $16,000 was a significant amount, he could justify the expenditure of taxpayers'
dollars because the majority of those surveyed supported the idea and he thought that it was a
worthwhile endeavor.
Councilor Scheckla asked hove many of the 406 people surveyed were from Tigard. Mr. Hefemen
said that around 150 were from Tigard, around 150 from Tualatin, 23 to 24 from Durham, and the
remainder from Sherwood. Mr. Wegner pointed out that the Tigard sample included the area inside
of the urban growth boundary, not just the City of Tigard proper. Councilor Moore commented that
he thought it was a good sampling of the people who lived in the general area. Mr. Hefernen
concurred. He explained that the surveyors asked the respondents where they lived (even though
the surveyors already knew the answer) in order to find out which community the people identified
themselves with. He said that the Tigard area numbers came from those who identified themselves
with Tigard.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 11
Mr. Nicoli confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that they wanted another survey in order to verify the
levels of support for both the dollars and the programs. He explained that, in the first survey, they
gave the options of a district (such as Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District) at $195 a year for
a $150,000 home and a lower cost district at $75 a year. He said that 60% of the people did not
support the $195 amount but 60% were willing to support up to $90 a year. He stated that they did
try to build their district around the $90 figure, though they were currently at $120 a year. He
reiterated that they intended to use the survey to get feedback on the specifics of the proposed
program.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the district would get a 6% increase a year once the tax rate was set.
Mr. Nicoli said that they would get the same 3% increase based on property valuation as the City
did.
Councilor Patton pointed out that the assessed value was lower than the market value. Mr. Nicoli
concurred. He said that a $150,000 assessed value was a $165,000 market value.
Councilor Patton stated that she tended to support the district but was uneasy about the additional
$16,400. She spoke to the critical need for a second survey in order to determine exactly how much
people were willing to pay for a recreation district, once they knew exactly what they would get for
their money.
Mr. Nicoli noted that the latest figures for Tigard's share were actually at $13,100 for Phase 1 and
$13,800 for Phase 2. He said that the actual cost increase was by $9,000, not by $16,000.
Councilor Patton mentioned her concern with the competing measures likely to be on the ballot.
Mr. Hefernen indicated that they intended to use the survey to get a sense of where the district fit in
with people's priorities, in light of other measures scheduled for the ballot.
Mr. Nicoli mentioned the one issue that the Steering Committee did not reach unanimity on: School
District representatives on the governing board. He asked the Councilors what their opinions were.
Councilor Scheckla supported the districts having a vote. Councilor Moore concurred, citing the
assets that the districts brought to the table. He commented that losing the districts could jeopardize
the entire district.
Mr. Hefernen mentioned that one of the main reasons that the jurisdictions favored an ORS 451
organization over an independently elected governing board was their ability to enforce the IGA
after formation of the district.
Councilor Patton supported giving the school districts a seat on the Board, given the intent of the
district to maximize use of the school district facilities. She agreed that the district would not work
if they did not give the school districts a voice.
Mr. Nicoli mentioned that Tualatin did not have to buy land for its community center because the
School District was considering building a community center attached to a new school it planned to
build on property it already owned. He explained that, although they would like to do the same
thing in Tigard on the Fowler Middle School property, the School District requested them to include
money in the bond to purchase land for the community center because they have not yet studied
their options. He noted their consideration of building a high school on the Fowler Middle School
property.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 12
Councilor Scheckla pointed out another competing factor the already increased taxes that newly
annexed lands had to pay to the City. He commented that another $120 on top of the $200 might be
too much.
Mr. Wegner asked that Atfalati give the Tigard staff an opportunity to look at the scope of service
for the Phase 2 study. Hle said that he was not opposed to paying $9,000 more but he thought that
they needed to be very careful with a more detailed survey. He spoke to making sure that the survey
questions asked for the information that they needed to get from Tigard citizens. He mentioned that
parks capital improvement dollars were very tight right now because systems development charges
were lower. He commented that there might be some things in the scope of service that the cities
could do internally to save cash.
Councilor Moore commented that he assumed that the Steering Committee as a whole was involved
in the review of the scope of service. Mr. Nicoli said that the Steering Committee did review all the
questions but he had no problem letting the Tigard staff review the scope of service.
Mr. Hefernen discussed how sampling worked and what they needed to do in order to get a valid
representative sample and reliable data from each participating jurisdiction. He said that Tigard
could buy a margin of safety by paying for a larger sample from its community.
Councilor Scheckla noted that Councilor Hunt has opposed the district. He asked if he has changed
his mind. Mr. Nicoli said that he has not talked to Councilor Hunt and was not certain why he
opposed it. He mentioned possible concerns about elderly people on fixed incomes. He reiterated
that they have tried very hard to provide only services not currently offered by any jurisdiction,
including the school districts. He pointed out that currently the districts spent $500 an acre to
develop their land (except for varsity fields) while the City of Tualatin spent close to $4,000 per
acre to develop its parks. He said that they hoped to upgrade every elementary school into a mini-
park. He mentioned that the survey results for Summerfield did show a higher percentage of people
not supporting the district but the majority did support it (62% to 48%).
Councilor Scheckla said that he was not completely sold on the district and needed to do more
research. Mr. Nicoli said that he would like to know how they could structure this to help alleviate
the Councilor's concerns.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council wanted Mr. Wegner and the Finance Director to return to a future
meeting with a resolution for the additional money. Mr. Monahan concurred. He spoke to finding
out what the break down of costs would be. He pointed out that if one or more communities balked
at Phase 2, then they might have to modify their contribution. Mr. Nicoli said that he would like to
know tonight if the Council was interested in participating in Phase 2, predicated on what the other
jurisdictions did. He indicated that he wanted to get the consultant started on writing the survey
questions because their timeframe was so short.
Mr. Nicoli confirmed that Tigard was the first City Council with whom they have spoken. He said
that Mayor Hitchcock of Sherwood has commented that, while he was not certain that his city was
in for the overall district, he did support the request for the additional money. He mentioned that
Mayor Ogden of Tualatin was very interested in a second survey while Durham's cost was minimal
because it was so small.
Councilor Moore stated that he supported the additional expenditure. Councilor Patton said that if
Mr. Wegner found the scope of service reasonable, then she would support the additional
expenditure also. Councilor Scheckla said that he was not prepared to make a decision tonight.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 13
Mayor Nicoli said that he supported the expenditure.
7. COUNCIL. LIAISON REPORTS: None.
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:17 p.m.
Attest:
ibfapoi, City o Tigard
Council t
Date: OD
1
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -DECEMBER 7, 1999 - PAGE 14
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076
Legal Notice Advertising
e e ❑ City of Tigard Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
• ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tiga.rd,Oregon 97223
s
Accounts Payable
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the T; card-meal a -i n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ticrard 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:
December 2,1999
Legal virp n535
Notice - • Subscribed and sworn to fore me this2nd gay ^f np^ember, 1999
I OFFICIAL SEAL
it0BiN A. BURGESS
N ry Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
I COMMISSION NO. 062071
My Commission Expires: 4 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas maybe obtained from the City kecorder,.13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
December 7,1999 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Study Session (6:30 p.m.)
• Ash Street Properties
• Discuss Intergovdrnmental Agreement Proposed with Unified
Sewerage Agency for Conveyance System Management
Business Meeting (7:30 p.m.)
e Initiate Annexation Process - Walnut Island & Peninsulas -15 areas
• Update on Park & Recreation Feasibility Study
• Consider Ordinance Addressing Encroachment onto City Property
• Executive Session
TT9535 - Publish December 2, 1999. '
M'
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose and ay:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) a1.
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated
copy(s)
of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _
day of Qr-0 , 19
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn-to before me this day of 1/r C m j j~ , 19.~.
®FFMUI SEAL Notary Public for Oregon
QFAER A GASUM
NOTARY PUSUC-OFEGM
Ka My Commission Expires: - 1 DD3
N4Y E WRM OCT. 9% 2M I
1:\ adm\ jo\affpost. doc
.7 4
TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. •'3)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 7.24 AND 15.04 AND BY
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 15.16, ENCROACHMENT PERMITS.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it would be beneficial to the City to require permits for
encroachments within unimproved public rights of way, easements and on public property;
NOW, THEREFORE; the City of Tigard ordains as follows:
Section : Title 15 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended by adding a new chapter 15.16,
"Encroachment Permits" to read as follows:
15.16.010 Encroachments Within Unimproved Public Rights of Way, Easements and
Public Property
1. Permits Required for Encroachment in Unimproved Public Rights of Way,
Easements and Public Property; Exceptions.
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, it shall be unlawful
for any person to erect or cause to be erected any structure or to place or
maintain any vegetation and/or landscaping materials in, over or upon any
dedicated unimproved public right of way, easement or public property
without having first obtained a revocable permit from the City Manager or
designee authorizing such action. Encroachment into improved public
right of way is only allowed if specifically authorized by the City pursuant
to TMC Chapter 15.04.
b. The person in control of any encroachment of a structure, vegetation
and/or landscaping materials in, over or upon any dedicated unimproved
public right of way, easement or public property existing on December 7,
1999 shall apply for an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter no
later than March 6, 2000. No action charging a violation of subsection (a)
of this section may be initiated for an encroachment existing on
December 7, 1999 before March 6, 2000 or while a timely filed
application for an encroachment permit is under consideration by the City.
ORDINANCE No. Gfct•31
Page I
4
2. Application and Fee Required.
a. Any person desiring to locate or maintain an encroachment within any
unimproved public right of way, easement or public property shall submit
an application to the City Manager or designee. The application shall
include a description of the proposed encroachment; a scale drawing
illustrating the nature and extent of the proposed encroachment and its
relationship to adjoining properties. If the applicant is not the owner of
the property that will be benefitted by the encroachment, the owner of that
property shall also sign the application as a co-applicant. The City
Manager or designee may require an actual survey to determine the exact
location of any public or private improvements or significant vegetation.
b. The application shall be accompanied by a petition indicating the extent of
support for the proposed encroachment by owners/occupants of property
within 200 linear feet in each direction from the boundary of the proposed
encroachment, and the names and mailing addresses of all property owners
within that 200 foot area.
C. A fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council shall be
paid at the time of the application.
3. Review of Application.
a. The City Manager or designee shall conduct a review of the application for
an encroachment permit to determine its compliance with the standards in
TMC 15.16.050 and shall request comments from affected City
departments regarding the impact of the proposed encroachment.
15.16.020 Exemptions.
1. Certain encroachments are exempt from the permit requirement of TMC
15.16.010. Exempt encroachments are those which would have a minor impact
on the present or planned use of the unimproved public right of way, easement or
public property and those which are expressly permitted by Code. Except as
provided by subsection 2 of this section, exempt encroachments are:
a. Mailboxes and their enclosing structures.
b. Temporary signs and banners permitted by the Sign Code.
ORDINANCE Nofwq-31
Page 2
C. Guard/handrails along edges of driveway approaches, walks, stairs, etc.
encroaching in unimproved public right of way.
d. Lawns, plants and approved street trees encroaching in unimproved public
right of way that do not obstruct visibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and
motorists.
2. The encroachments described in subsection 1 of this section shall not be exempt if
they create a line of sight traffic hazard (TMC Chapter 18.795).
15.16.030 Permit Issuance.
The City Manager or designee may approve, modify and approve or deny the application
for an encroachment permit. Notice of the decision shall be sent to the applicant and
owners/occupants of property within 200 linear feet in any direction of the boundary of
the proposed encroachment.
15.16.040 Appeals.
1. An applicant or affected owner/occupant of property within 200 linear feet of the-
boundary of the proposed encroachment may appeal the decision of the City
Manager or designee to the City Council.
2. An appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 15 days of the date of the
decision stating the basis for the appeal and shall be accompanied by a fee in an
amount established by resolution of the City Council.
3. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing on the appeal providing the
appellant and any other affected party a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the
question of why the decision of the City Manager or designee should be reversed
or modified. Notice of the.public hearing shall be sent to the applicant, appellant,
and owners/occupants of property within 200 linear feet of the boundary of the
proposed encroachment. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council
shall make a final determination in the matter, applying the standards contained in
section 15.16.050.
ORDINANCE NAC4.3)
Page 3
41,
Standards and Conditions.
The City Manager or designee may approve the issuance of a permit for encroachment
within the unimproved public right of way, easement or public property where
compliance with the following standards can be demonstrated or specific findings are
made that the standard is not applicable. The City Manager or designee may attach any
conditions to the issuance of the permit that are reasonably related to ensuring
compliance with this section, other applicable City codes and ordinances, and to protect
the public interdst.
1. Standards for Approval.
a. A minimum of three (3) feet of clearance shall be maintained on all sides
of fire hydrants.
b. Clearances to water meters shall be one (1) foot behind and two (2) feet
from the sides measured from the outside edges of the box. The applicant
shall pay for meter relocation if this standard cannot be met.
C. Clearances from manholes and underground pipelines such as City sewer
lines, water lines, and storm drain lines shall be a minimum of 7 %z feet.
d. Clearances between underground utilities such as power, telephone, cable
TV and natural landscape materials, or structures placed over those
facilities shall be the distance required by the affected utilities. Conditions
requested by the utility providers shall be considered for inclusion into the
permit.
e. Proposed encroachments shall not prevent access to, cover, or block the
flow of water to or into catch basins, ditches, or swales, and shall not
otherwise alter the natural drainage patterns in a manner that adversely
affects other property. Where drainage is involved, the City Manager or
his designee may set specific requirements.
f. Where the adjacent right of way has been fully improved to its planned
dimension with associated curbs, sidewalks, utilities and street trees, an
encroachment may be permitted between the property line and the back
edge of sidewalk provided there is a one (1) foot minimum clearance
between the proposed encroachment and the back edge of the sidewalk and
all other standards have been met.
ORDINANCE No.QCI.31
Page 4
g. Sufficient room for off-street parking and pedestrian travel shall be
maintained and the encroachment shall not result in a loss of area needed
for parking, vehicular maneuvering, or pedestrian travel.
h. It is determined that the requested encroachment is consistent with the
current use of the unimproved public right of way, easement or public
property.
2. Conditions.
a. When the City Manager or designee determines that allowing the
requested encroachment may subject the City to potential liability, a
condition of permit issuance shall be the filing with the City Recorder of a
policy of insurance and form of policy by an insurance company licensed
to do business in the State of Oregon. The policy shall protect the City, its
officers, agents, and employees, and the abutting property owners, lessees
and tenants from any and all claims for injury or damage to persons or
property that might result from the placing and/or maintenance of the
permitted encroachment. The amount of the insurance policy shall be at
least the limits of public body liability under the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
The policy shall also contain a provision that the City Recorder shall be
notified at least 10 days prior to any cancellation of such insurance. The
permittee shall maintain the insurance for the term of the permit issued.
Failure to maintain the insurance shall result in automatic revocation of the
permit.
b. The City Manager or designee may place a limit on the time the proposed
encroachment may be located in or on the unimproved right of way,
easement or public property.
C. To ensure that unimproved right of way, easement, or public property
encroachments do not contribute to visual blight or creat' a safety hazard,
conditions of permit approval may include U requironi:-it that the
encroachment be appropriately maintained.
d. The City may impose a charge for the use of the unimproved public right
of way, easement or public property.
ORDINANCE No-'?q-3)
Page 5
15.16.060 Recording of Permits.
Approved encroachment permits shall be recorded against the title of the benefitting
property and the costs of such recording shall be paid by the applicant.
15.16.070 Revocation of Permits.
All unimproved right of way, easement or public property encroachment permits shall be
revocable by the City at any time such revocation would be in the public interest. No
grant of any permit, expenditure of money in reliance thereon, or lapse of time shall give
the permittee any right to the continued existence of an encroachment or to any damages
or claims against the City arising from a revocation.
Any permit issued under this section shall be automatically revoked if the permittee fails
to begin installation of the allowed encroachment within sixty (60) days after issuance of
the permit unless an extension is requested prior to the expiration of the sixty (60) day
period, or fails to comply with any conditions of the permit.
15.16.080 Removal of Encroachment.
Upon revocation, the permittee or any successor permittee, shall at the permittee's own
cost remove the permitted encroachment within thirty (30) days after written notice has
been provided by the City unless a shorter period is specified in the notice of revocation.
If the permittee does not remove the encroachment and return the unimproved right of
way, easement or public property area to a condition satisfactory to the City Manager or
designee, the City shall do so and the permittee shall be personally liable to the City for
any and all costs of returning the right of way, easement or public property to a
satisfactory condition, including the removal of structures and reconstruction of streets
and/or pathways which costs shall be imposed as a lien upon the property on the City
Lien Docket.
15.16.090 Liability.
The permittee, and owner of the benefitted property if different than the permittee, shall
be liable to any person who is injured or otherwise suffers damage by reason of any
encroachment allowed. in accordance with the provisions of this section. Furthermore, the
permittee shall be liable to the City of Tigard, its officers, agents and employees, for any
judgement or expense incurred or paid by the City, its officers, agents and employees, by
reason of the existence of an approved unimproved right of way, easement or public
property encroachment.
ORDINANCE No. "7 C - 3 I
Page 6
i
15.16.100 Enforcement.
Installation or maintenance of an encroachment in violation of TMC 15.16.010, or
failure to obtain an encroachment permit as required by TMC 15.16.010, or to
comply with the terms and conditions of an encroachment permit issued
thereunder is hereby declared a civil infraction subject to enforcement pursuant to
TMC Chapter 1.16.
Installation or maintenance of an encroachment in violation of TMC 15.16.010, or
an encroachment permit issued pursuant to TMC 15.16.010 is hereby declared to
be a public nuisance as defined by TMC Chapter 7.40, which may be abated
pursuant to TMC Chapter 1.16.
Section 2: Section 7.52.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any person to remove, destroy, break, injure, mutilate, or deface in any
way any structure, monument, statue, vase, fountain, wall, fence, railing, vehicle, bench,
tree, shrub, fern, plant, flower or other property in any park unless otherwise licensed or
privileged to do so.
Section 3: Section 15.04.020 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to cut upon or within, break, dig up, damage in any
manner, undermine or tunnel under any public street or public alley for the
purposes of doing work in a public right of way or in a sanitary sewer, storm
sewer or water easement as described in this chapter, without first complying with
the provisions of this chapter in regard to the obtaining of permits, depositing of
securities and the making of applications to the city. Applications for permits
shall be in the form prescribed by the city. Permits shall be issued on an annual
basis or for a limited time and shall specify the extent of the authority granted by
the permit.
(2) Any person who cuts upon or within, breaks, digs up, damages in any manner,
undermines or tunnels under any unimproved public street or public alley for
purposes other than those described in this chapter, must obtain an encroachment
permit pursuant to Chapter 15.16 of this Code.
ORDINANCE No.43)
Page 7
f
PASSED: By U0W1'I(nD8 vote of all Council members present after being read by number
and title only, this day of 12 (`f yi-~,b,Q l-,, , 1999.
Ca~)UAIM
Catherine Wheatley, City Record
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day o 1999.
l
Jam li, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City tt rney
t C~ ~/1~'99
Date
jmc/acm/90024/encroachmrnt.orl (11 /2/99)
ORDINANCE No.043)
Page 8
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STUDY
NOVEMBER 1998
Prepared for.
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
of Washington County
155 N. First Street, Suite 270
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Prepared by.
Shaun Pigott Associates
1045 NW Bond Street, Suite 5
Bend, Oregon 97701
541 383.1960
In Association With
KCIVI, Inc.
Donovan Enterprises
Brown & Caldwell
UAS Greiner/Woodward Clyde
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Since the Agency's formation in February of 1970, a comprehensive analysis and program for
coordinated, on-going and efficient delivery of sanitary sewer and stormwater maintenance
services has not been prepared for the entire service area. This Project was designed to identify
opportunities to gain efficiencies in the provision of service to the public through
benchmarking and assessment of the maintenance needs for these conveyance systems. This
benchmarking includes collection of inventory data to better understand the amount of
infrastructure needed to be maintained and proposes service levels and performance standards
to optimize and standardize the maintenance programs of both systems. In addition, the Project
produced an information database necessary to prepare annual maintenance work plans, and
evaluate specific maintenance functions, their frequency and costs. This work program
provides an estimate of the resources required to support these levels of maintenance activities
and introduces approaches to maximize the cost-effectiveness of sanitary and stormwater
maintenance services. The schematic on the following page provides an overview of the
maintenance planning process used to develop the Conveyance System Management Study.
The public stormwater system within the overall service area involves an estimated 26,500
catch basins (both sumped and flow through varieties); at least 42,000 lineal feet of drainage
ditch; 4,740,000 lineal feet of stormwater pipe; 348 detention basins/water quality facilities and
7,665,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer line. This infrastructure is distributed over a 123 square
mile service area that includes 80% of Washington County's population.
As part of this project, these conveyance system facilities have been reviewed with field
operations personnel in terms of the following maintenance issues:
• key activity descriptions
• priorities
• staffing
• timing factors
• equipment
• opportunities to contract out for services
In addition to these recurring maintenance requirements, the cities and the Agency deal with a
significant number of stormwater and sanitary sewer related complaints. The volume of these
work requests has risen due to the initiation of a stormwater service charge and increased
public awareness of the stormwater utility's responsibilities. The increasing awareness of water
quality as it is related to stormwater runoff is also generating inquiries which must be
addressed in a timely, accurate and consistent manner.
Conveyance System Management Study
0
m n n t-
o o m
~
O to O O
M
cm
O O
E~i C
Cl)
O
D
m
CD cn
C ;a -4
cn3
m0 m
Imo
C.)
CO
Q (n d
O
Q
oc
~Cm
C
O -D -~m
'qz~
O Ro
m
(D ;o
a -n
DtnS
;o "'{z
m n
cn m
O
M
A
M
m
.D
d
.Z1
co
0
Q V1' p
y '09 a
_o,a
y
co
n~3
y3`2
y ~ b
0
'O
j O
pE3
CD
y tb
n
d
n D
0
9-1
r;z
m -I
mm
0 co
0
o ? rj'
m o a 4 v°
fii 0 d
C 0
CD ~ O
o m ~
y l
o~
tz. -m
~j CL
y 0
Q
~ CD
0
~m
0
\ m
0
,n 0
z = C z
n m -4
0>00
ca o Z
m
0
o am
a ~ v
H 0 1
~ Q.
c
v ~
nom,
c° ,c
o C
Z CD
A
j
fn
0
J
Q
'D
m
CA ;a
DDO
cZw
3
cnMz
00
m
O O`U O
O :3 j
01 m
O 0 ~ ~
<m Q t 3
C O 0 N
_,003.
0 m m a
2 r Z3
CD co 0 0
't3 QL
m 0 O
G01 j N
Z
~O 0
0
m
n
0 O
O
d ~
~ m
n
~ p
~ o
H m
3
n
m
Q`
~z
O 70
m 0
q
3
m
r-~m
rmmcn
n m m C
0 m z n
z Om
n
2
mQ
O
c M
r A
m
(D
m
cn
-
ir-n
0 z
D z m
D m 0
r~
~
m
a0
0
;a
z
j O
5
O
- m
O
A m j y
m
~3 ~ y)
2
' 4z
co :3
uz c, o =3
CD CD
.
3
O
Q n C
d~ 0 Q
y
y d
O CD Q O
C
j O co
O m 0:3
0 4
c
Qla p m
y
E;
X 0 3
41 Z3 m
c
?
CL
0
o w 3' 0.
o
Qb m
O. O
m
n, < Q
y
o
y
i ?
v
Q
m
3
tr
O 4i
O 3
zzD
Z
nza
Co m
O
O
M O~ M
O
O O 0.
C in Q in
Cl 54 O O
m 1,
d a
IF,
y d
1
0
Z ?
d
v c m
O Q
o 0
Z.
o
x
9 CD
co
3<
CD 0 y
0 0
c
O Q- O
y 5 m
m
d
lz
03 01-
a ° °
:j
CD
M M
o
to c
o ~
v
i y a
j.
d
y
O
CD
Q
CD 3 S
h m 4
N
0
0
O.
(D
r o-
n
.0
CD
iU
CL
cn
C/)
Executive Summa
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Project Team's approach toward this analysis has been based on the principle that
development of the Conveyance System Management Study be done in cooperation with the
impacted cities. Accordingly, the process began by interviewing key persons involved with
conveyance system maintenance and reviewing the objectives for this project and the key issues
involved. These persons were also given an opportunity to comment on the major points
developed during these meetings. Those specifically involved during this initial data collection
phase and as members of the Tedtnical Committee for the Project included:
Dan Boss & Ernie Rode; Tualatin
P Lee Weislogel; Sherwood
• Cal Bowersox; Forest Grove
6 Joe Thompson, George Kneese & Tom Arnold; Hillsboro
• Rob Dixon and Mark Crowell; Cornelius
e Steve Baker, Keith Stone & Len Apling; Beaverton
• Ed Wegner and Eric Hand; Tigard
6 Chris Bowles, Steve Keenon, Dave Nutt, Ted Claussen & Mike Young; USA
STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study has a number of objectives designed to determine:
1. operational strengths and weaknesses of the current stormwater program;
2. standards for sanitary sewer and stormwater maintenance activities, including frequencies,
production standards, staff requirements, work procedures, equipment and material
requirements;
3. reconciling proposed field maintenance standards with the Agency's commitment to
implementing "Best Management Practices" for sanitary sewer and stormwater programs;
4. opportunities for consolidation or, outsourcing, and/or regionalizing specific functions and
definition of these opportunities in terms of cost/benefit to the cities and Agency;
5. procedure for the annual costing of specific maintenance activities with the objective of
establishing a common budgeting database from which annual field maintenance work
programs can be accurately forecast;
6. evaluation of co-location of maintenance hubs and equipment sharing, annexations and
maintenance service area boundary definitions.
Conveyance System Management Study
Executive Summa
These topics provide the framework for the Conveyance System Management Study and have
served as key issue points during individual and Technical Committee meetings.
Inventory Data
Overall, mapping of the sanitary sewer collection system is much more complete and accurate
than inventory data for the stormwater system. This is true within the unincorporated area and
the cities. The Agency began a GIS-based mapping process a number of years ago and has
developed an in-house "GDS" system for most of the sanitary infrastructure and portions of the
stormwater system. This GDS platform is now being converted to ARCINFO. On-going use of
GIS in terms of maintenance scheduling or condition assessment is just being initiated. The
cities are in large part reliant on hard copy maps for purposes of systems inventory and
condition assessment. Maintenance schedules are typically reflected on wall maps or aerial
photos with infrastructure overlays that are used to track completed maintenance and crewing.
Maintenance Staffing
Most cities do not employ dedicated crews for either sanitary sewer or stormwater system
maintenance. The cities approach field maintenance through a pooling of personnel who can be
assigned to water, sewer, stormwater or street maintenance operations. USA does assign
personnel to specific stormwater or sanitary programs for ongoing system maintenance. Street
sweeping, water quality facility maintenance, ditch cleaning, storm and sanitary line cleaning,
TV inspection, and system repair are all performed by separate groups within USA's Field
Operations.
Overall, it is estimated that 46 FTE's are allocated to stormwater maintenance and 37 FTE's to
sanitary (exclusive of Sherwood and Cornelius where specific FTE allocations are not used).
Contract Services
Various cities, over recent years, have expanded outsourcing for conveyance system
maintenance including TV inspection, street sweeping, line cleaning and some catch
basin/vactor services. The primary focus of these contracts has been in activity areas requiring
specialty equipment not currently owned or soon to be retired by the city. In terms of
stormwater system maintenance, the specialty equipment is a combination cleaner truck,
regenerative air street sweepers, and TV inspection units. In all cases, these services appear to
be cost-effective with the level of service provided consistent with the USA Guidelines. USA's
outsourcing activities have focused on overload street sweeping functions typically involving
sand removal.
Maintenance Programs and Performance Standards
The current maintenance programs have evolved over time to their current levels. The Agency
formally adopted the SWM maintenance program by Resolution and Order in 1994. The cities
have generally followed the maintenance programs established by the Agency. In all cases, the
cities use these standards as targets for conveyance system maintenance scheduling. Overall,
most cities meet these targets with lapses occurring mainly in the stormwater maintenance
areas.
Conveyance System Management Study
Executive Summary
Budgeting/Time Reporting
Existing time reporting and budgeting for conveyance system maintenance - labor and
equipment are broadly defined under existing accounting structures which limits the ability of
the cities and the Agency to relate specific resource requirements to units of production. Again,
Forest Grove has implemented and uses a maintenance management system which does
identify specific cost centers and relates these to reported maintenance production. Tigard also
makes use of a maintenance management system for its sanitary sewer pipe cleaning activities.
Because the integrity and use of any conveyance system maintenance program will be closely
linked with each jurisdiction's ability to plan and track field activities, a credible activity
reporting system is essential. Therefore, this project has proposed a simple and useable
structure for reporting work activities in order to develop a "planned" versus "actual"
comparison of work performed within the cities and USA service areas.
MAINTENANCE ISSUE SUMMARY
During discussions with city and USA maintenance personnel, a number of specific issues were
identified as needing to be addressed through this project. These issues and a short summary of
recommendations follow:
Detention Facility/Water Quality Facility Maintenance - The water quality facilities within the
cities and USA service area are mandated under DEQ requirements. While required
facilities, they need to consider maintenance in terms of both access and overall design. A
differentiation between issues related to aesthetics versus function should be made when
maintenance policies are established. In addition, there should be a coordinated policy
among the jurisdictions as to water quality facility maintenance and when/if/under what
conditions these facilities should be dedicated to a city or USA. Use of regional facilities -
when and if they can be sited - should also be considered. An initial recommendation was
made for USA to assume maintenance responsibilities for all of these facilities, but that
recommendation was not supported. The recommendation was revised to have the Agency
continue to work with the Cities to standardize design and maintenance practices, and to
continue to pursue opportunities for regional facilities.
Optimize Maintenance Responsibilities - In the case of Beaverton, where service area
expansion is occurring in a direction that further separates its Operations hub on the east
end of town from growing service demand along its western boundary, some assessment of
equipment location/personnel staging areas needed to be considered. The same is true for
USA where its Operations hub is a significant distance from urbanizing unincorporated
areas such as the S.E. portion of the County and the Cedar Hills area. These types of
equipment/ personnel location issues were evaluated in terms of possible co-location/joint
city-USA facilities, and/or redefinition of maintenance responsibilities. The travel times and
miles currently being experienced by some of the jurisdictions were reviewed as part of this
assessment. The results of the evaluation is a recommendation to redefine areas of
maintenance responsibility with each city and the Agency assuming responsibility for
providing basic maintenance services in the proximity of their field yard and following
drainage basin lines, regardless of city limits lines. A proposed map showing jurisdiction
boundaries has been prepared.
Conveyance System Management Study
Executive Summary
Stabilized Maintenance Boundaries - The boundaries of cities within the USA service area are
in a constant state of change due to annexation. In addition, some cities have annexed in a
pattern that creates islands of unincorporated area. These conditions create uncertainty as to
responsibility for specific areas of stormwater and sanitary sewer maintenance. In other
instances, inefficiencies are created where maintenance equipment and crews service a
checkerboard layout of infrastructure. The recommendation is to utilize the maintenance
responsibilities and map defined above which optimizes efficiency, and stabilize this
boundary such that it is independent of future annexations.
Systems Development Charges - While not a part of the review of the maintenance programs,
the methodology for allocating both sanitary and SWM SDC's were evaluated. It was
recommended that a new method for determining the amount of SWM SDC be developed.
Regarding the allocation of SDC revenues between the Agency and city, it was determined
that the current methods are outdated, and that new methods based on actual need be
developed.
• Regional Services - Certain work elements require specialized equipment and/or training. It
is not cost-effective for all cities and the Agency to go to the expense of providing these
specialized services. Individual work elements were evaluated, and a list of services which
fall into this category was developed. The recommendation is that the Agency or a private
contractor provide these services if it is not cost-effective for a city.
Maintenance Cost Reimbursement - Under the existing structure for the "in-city" stormwater
service charge revenue allocation, 75% ($3/ESU/month) is retained by the city and 25%
($1/ESU/month) goes to USA. Under the existing structure for "in-city" sanitary sewer
service charges, 30% is retained by the city and 70% transferred to USA (note that revenue
bond payments "come off the top" for all service charge revenues). The 75% stormwater
and 30% sanitary allocation for the cities is intended, for the most part, to support on-going
operations and maintenance of these systems. The current methods of allocating the
monthly service charge revenue was determined to be inadequate. It is recommended that a
new method be developed to more accurately relate the costs of providing maintenance
services with the allocation of service charge revenue.
Maintenance Program, Performance Standards, and Competitiveness - The existing maintenance
programs were reviewed to assure they provide reasonable levels of service intended to
ensure that the system operates to design capacity; protects the sanitary sewer treatment
works and is consistent with regulatory/BMP requirements established through USA. The
work programs have been reviewed as part of this study to determine "how much is
actually enough" and to better integrate the condition of the conveyance system with the
level of service. Performance standards were also reviewed to assure they meet industry
standards and that they are competitive with private industry. These "industry performance
standards" will serve as a benchmark to assure that each city and the Agency are providing
services in a cost-effective manner. If, through the annual review process, it is found that
performance standards are not being achieved, then that jurisdiction will have the option to
bring their performance up to standard, contract with the Agency or a member city to do
that work element, or utilize a private contractor.
Conveyance System Management Study
MODEL USA-CITY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _ day of ,
1990, between the City of a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,
hereinafter referred to as "City," and the Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington
County, a municipal corporation and county service district, hereinafter referred to as the
"Agency."
WHEREAS, the Agency was duly formed and organized under ORS Chapter
451, has the authority to provide sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, and to provide for
storm and surface water management within its boundaries; and City is within the
Agency by action of its Council pursuant to an election duly conducted within the
boundaries of the Agency; and
WHEREAS, City and Agency have the authority to enter into contracts for the
cooperative operation of service facilities under ORS 451.560 and ORS Chapter 190; and
WHEREAS, Agency has developed a master plan and a master plan update for
sewerage facilities, and a surface water management plan, and is in a position to
coordinate and unify sanitary sewer treatment facilities and storm and surface water
management, and regulation of waste water quality and quantity into an integrated system
for the areas within the Agency; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and Cities have established and will continue to
maintain an effective partnership for sanitary and stormwater services which this
agreement is designed to support, enhance, and clarify; and
WHEREAS, City and Agency previously entered into an Agreement for the
cooperative operation of sanitary sewer and surface water facilities, and said Agreement
is in need of amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements to be
kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows:
Section 1. Definition of Terms
Wherever the following terms are used in this agreement they shall have the
following meaning unless otherwise specifically indicated by the context in which they
appear:
A. Area of Resnonsibilily means the area set forth in the map attached as
Exhibit A as may be amended.
Page 1 of 11 - Agreement with City of
B. Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency, its governing body.
C. Chief Executive Officer means the City official responsible for managing
the day-to-day business affairs of City.
D. Council means the City Council, governing body of City.
E. Industrial Waste means any liquid, gaseous, radioactive or solid waste
substance or a combination thereof resulting from any process of industrial
or manufacturing business, or from the development or recovery of natural
resources. For the purposes of this agreement, Industrial Waste shall also
include any substance regulated under 33 USC Sec 1317, Together with
regulations adopted thereunder.
F. Operation and Maintenance means the regular performance of work
required to assure continued functioning of the storm and surface water
system and the sanitary sewerage system and corrective measures taken to
repair facilities to keep them in operating condition.
G. Order means Resolutions, Orders and Directives of the Agency
prescribing general standards and conditions for construction or use of the
storm and surface water facilities and the sanitary sewerage facilities, and
Rates and Charges.
H Person means the state of Oregon, any individual, public or private
corporation, political subdivision, governmental agency, municipality,
industry, co-partnership, association, firm, trust, estate or any other legal
entity whatsoever.
I. Program Funding means the revenues made available to City through
Section 4.A.3. of this agreement to follow the adopted work programs and
performance standards.
J. Rates and Charges are defined in the Agency's "Rates and Charges" R&O
No. 98-22, or as may be amended. The following terms when used in this
agreement shall be as defined in that R&O:
1. Connection Charge or System Development Charge (SDC)
2. Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE)
3. Equivalent Service Unit (ESU)
4. Impervious Surface Area
5. Permit Application and Inspection
6. Sanitary Sewer Service Charge
7. Storm and Surface Water Service Charge
8. Storm and Surface Water System Development Charge
Page 2 of I I - Agreement with City of
K. Sanitary Sewerage System means any combination of sewer treatment
plant, pumping or lift facilities, sewer pipe, force mains, laterals,
manholes, side sewers, laboratory facilities and equipment, and any other
facilities for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of sanitary
sewage comprising the total publicly-owned Sanitary Sewerage System
within Agency jurisdiction, to which storm, surface and ground waters are
not intentionally admitted.
L. Standards means the standards and conditions of use of the storm and
surface water system and the sanitary sewer system as specified and
adopted by the Agency. Standards-also shall mean applicable statutes and
rules of the United States and the State of Oregon.
M. Storm and Surface Water System means any combination of publicly
owned storm and surface water quality treatment facilities, pumping or lift
facilities, storm drain pipes and culverts, open channels, creeks and rivers,
force mains, laterals, manholes, catch basins and inlets, grates and covers,
detention and retention facilities, laboratory facilities and equipment, and
any other publicly owned facilities for the collection, conveyance,
treatment and disposal of storm and surface water comprising the total
publicly owned Storm and Surface Water System within Agency
jurisdiction, to which sanitary sewage flows are not intentionally admitted.
N. Work Program and Performance Standards are. adopted by the Agency to
define the activities required to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer
and Storm and Surface Water Systems.
Section 2 Responsibilities of City and OperatingProcedures (Note: Section 2 and 3 to
be combined and reorg nizedl
City agrees to:
A. The Agency is responsible for the management and operation of the
sanitary sewer and Storm and Surface Water Systems within its boundary.
The Agency, in cooperation with the Cities, shall adopt orders, Standards,
specifications, work programs, and performance criteria for the proper and
effective operation of the sanitary sewer and Storm and Surface Water
Systems and to comply with State and Federal permits, laws and
regulations. In addition, the Agency, in cooperation with the Cities, shall
have the authority to make changes to its orders, work programs and
performance Standards and to modify the division of responsibility
between the Agency and City as defined in Appendix A if the Board after
receiving input from the Cities determines this will be in the best interest
of the public. Any such changes duly adopted by the Agency which
impact City will become effective 30 days from the date of notice to City
by Agency or as mutually agreed to. City agrees to follow and enforce the
Page 3 of 11- Agreement with City of
Orders, Standards, specifications, work programs, and performance
criteria promulgated by the Agency, subject, however, to Program
Funding and to the extent that City may be lawfully authorized to act.
City further agrees to notify Agency of apparent violations thereof which
may require Agency legal action.
B. Refer Persons who may desire to connect a non-residential use to the
Sanitary Sewerage System to the Agency. City shall not issue any sanitary
sewer permit to non-residential customers without verification that the
Agency has issued an Industrial Waste discharge permit, or the Agency
has determined that none is required.
C. Provide notice to and obtain Agency review and approval of plans and
specifications as the Agency may require for any addition, modification,
construction, or reconstruction (other than repairs) of the publicly-owned
Sanitary Sewerage System and Storm and Surface Water System prior to
undertaking work thereon to insure conformance to adopted Agency
Standards, Orders, and master plans.
D. Obtain Agency review and approval prior to entering into any agreement
for the use of the Storm and Surface Water System or the Sanitary
Sewerage System, other than for issuance of connection permits.
E. Inform the Agency in writing not less than 30 days prior to initiating or
entering into any agreement for the financing or incurring of indebtedness
relating to or affecting the Storm and Surface Water System or the
Sanitary Sewerage System. City shall not obligate any Agency revenues
of the sewer fund or storm and surface water fund, nor shall facilities of
the sanitary or Storm and Surface Water System be obligated for any debt.
F. Establish separate accounts for the storm and surface water program and
sanitary sewerage program for the purpose of accounting for connection
and user fees collected and received. by City pursuant to this agreement.
G. Allow the Agency access at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice to
inspect and test storm and surface water facilities and sewerage facilities
within City.
H. Grant the Agency permits from time to time as may be necessary for the
installation of storm and surface water facilities and sewerage facilities in
the public streets and ways of City without imposing permit issuance fees,
provided that the Agency shall adhere to any conditions required pursuant
to ORS 451.550(6).
I. To issue no new permit for the construction within, or modification to, a
wetland, floodway, or floodplain without first receiving the written
Page 4 of 11 - Agreement with City of
approval by the Agency to do so. This paragraph shall not apply to
permits issued by City pursuant to a current permit under 33 USC Section
1344(e) (a section 404 general permit), and within the scope of such
permit.
To pursue, when deemed feasible and appropriate, the conversion of storm
and surface water facilities from private to public ownership, through the
acquisition of easements and other property rights as necessary, for those
privately owned storm and surface water facilities which are identified as
being necessary or appropriately a part of the public system.
Section 3. Respcnsibilizies
The Agency is responsible for the management and operation of the sanitary
sewer and Storm and Surface Water Systems within its boundary. The purpose of this
agreement is to delegate to and contract with City to do specific functions. The
responsibilities of the Agency and City are defined in Appendix A. All functions not
specifically listed in Appendix A as being the responsibility of City shall remain the
responsibility of the Agency.
A. Appendix A may be modified from time to time with approval in writing
by the Mayor of City or designee and the Agency General Manager or
designee. Appendix A may also be modified by the Agency Board as
defined in Section 2.A. Exhibit A is a map showing boundaries of
responsibility between the Agency and City and is hereby made a part of
Appendix A and incorporated into this agreement.
B. City is not obligated by this agreement to accept responsibility for any
programs or work activities outside of its city limits. City may request
that the Agency assume responsibility for any portion of the program
defined in Appendix A upon reasonable notice, such notice in no event to
be less than 6 months. Corresponding adjustments to the revenue
allocation shall be made to reflect the change in responsibility upon
implementation of such changes. City shall be responsible for correcting
or paying to have corrected any deficiencies in the system resulting from
non-performance of the programs under its responsibility.
C. To the extent City has agreed to responsibilities both inside and outside of
its City limits, for activities which are the responsibility of City, City shall
perform the work to meet the minimum requirements specified in the
Agency's adopted Work Programs and Performance Standards. When the
same type of service is being performed by City both inside and outside
City, the service shall be prioritized and performed in an equal manner in
each area, including the response to storms and other emergencies. The
exception shall be if City provides a higher degree of service inside City
due to its own supplemental funding.
Page 5 of 11 - Agreement with City of
D. City boundaries may change through annexation. For City annexation of
territory currently in the Agency's boundary, the responsibilities defined
in Appendix A shall apply to the new City boundary. The responsibility
boundaries defined in Exhibit A are not changed due to City annexations
of territory currently inside the Agency's boundary. For annexations of
territory not currently within the Agency's boundary, the Agency will
amend Appendix A and Exhibit A to define the responsibilities for the
new area in cooperation with adjacent cities.
Section 4. Administration Operation and Maintenance of Sewerage Facilities
City and Agency agree that:
A. City and Agency agree to divide revenues collected pursuant to this
agreement as follows:
1. To remit payments on a monthly basis, with a report on Agency
designated forms.
2. Payments shall be due upon 30 days of receipt of the revenue by
the billing party, unless the payment has been appealed by the
billing party. If the payment has been appealed by the billing party
under the dispute resolution process of Section 6, the amount in
dispute may be withheld or paid without prejudice to either party.
3. The Agency Board shall determine and certify annually for both
the Sanitary Sewerage System and for the Storm and Surface
Water System, the portion of the monthly service charge, and the
portion of the connection charge allocated for each of the
following:
a. Retirement of revenue bonds.
b. The portion required for City system as defined in Section
3 and Appendix A.
C. The portion required for the Agency responsibilities.
4. City shall remit to the Agency the portion of sanitary sewer service
charges and connection fees collected, and storm and surface water
service charges and connection fees collected, as identified in
Sections 4.A.3.a and c, and shall retain the service charge and
connection fee revenue identified in Section 4.A.3.b.
5. City may charge and collect a service charge or connection fee at a
higher rate per DUE and ESU than that set by the Agency when
the City determines it is needed for the local City system. The City
Page 6 of 11 - Agreement with City of
shall retain 100% of these additional revenues collected. Such
additional charge shall be consistent with the services provided by
City and with applicable federal rules in order to preserve
eligibility for grants and other funding programs.
6. For permit and inspection fees for private development
construction of public storm and surface water facilities and
sanitary sewer facilities, and for erosion control permit fees, City
shall remit to the Agency the fee set forth in Agency's Rates and
Charges to compensate the Agency for its costs for services
performed relative to these fees, as prescribed by Agency Order or
agreement with Ci±y.
7. For Industrial Waste fees, Agency shall remit to City. a percentage
of connection, volume, and monthly service charges collected
equal to the percentage of sanitary sewer SDC retained by City as
determined in Section 4.A.3.b. Agency shall retain one-hundred
percent (100%) of the annual permit fee, and any penalty fees,
COD, SS (as those terms are defined in the Rates and Charges) and
other fees that may be assessed.
The division of revenue may be adjusted annually by the Agency
to recognize changes in responsibilities after coordination and
communication with the Cities. If there is a change in
responsibilities which the Agency determines to be significant, the
Agency may, upon 30 days notice to City, adjust the division of
revenue at any time.
B. City will institute administrative procedures to diligently maintain regular
billings and collection of fees, adjust complaints thereto, and pursue
delinquency follow-ups and take reasonable steps for collection thereof.
C. Agency or City may at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice inspect
and audit the books and records of the other with respect to matters within
the purview of this agreement. Additionally, City and Agency shall
prepare and submit to each other a quarterly and annual performance
report of the storm and surface water functions, and the sanitary sewer
functions for which each is responsible. Agency will specify the
requirements and content of the performance report.
D. Interest shall accrue on late payments at a rate of 1.25 times the monthly
Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) earnings rate as posted for the
previous month, and will be applied each month to the unpaid balance.
Page 7 of 11- Agreement with City of
Section 5. Other Provisions
The City and the Agency further agree that:
A. The Agency will not extend sewer service to areas outside the City except
with prior approval of the City where such areas are included in the Urban
Planning Area Agreement between the City and the appropriate county or
counties and any of the following exists:
a. A new or existing single family property desires sewer service and
needs to directly connect to a sewer line within the city.
b. A new development desires sewer service and needs to directly
connect a lateral or mainline public sewer directly to a sewer line
within the city.
B. City and the Agency will each obtain such insurance contracts as
necessary to cover the liabilities of City and the Agency respectively for
the risks and liabilities arising from activities and operations under this
agreement. Each party hereto shall cause the other to be named as an
additional insured on its policy or policies as to the obligations under the
terms of this agreement. In the event that either party chooses to be self
insured, that party shall maintain and furnish proof of separately identified
and unencumbered reserves for the maximum liability allowed under state
law.
C. Agency will not establish local assessment districts within City, without
first obtaining City approval.
D. Agency will process applications from City pursuant to Section 2.1. for
Wetland, Floodplain, and Floodway modifications. Upon review and
approval by USA, and upon request by City, the Agency shall act as a
facilitator and liaison for State and Federal review and permit processes.
E. City and Agency shall each be responsible for the negligent or wrongful
acts of its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, while performing
work related to this agreement. Each party shall be solely responsible for
defense, costs or payments arising from legal challenge alleging improper
use by that party of funds derived from this agreement, or otherwise held
by that party. Each party shall be responsible for any liability arising out
of its ownership of real property and interests therein, for acting or failing
to act within its Area Of Responsibility, activities governed by an NPDES
permit or other air or water discharge permit issued by competent
authority to that party, and any conduct of that party subject to direct
regulation by state or federal authority.
Page 8 of 11 Agreement with City of
F. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a limitation upon or
delegation of the statutory and home rule powers of City, nor as a
delegation or limitation of the statutory powers of Agency. This
Agreement shall not limit any right or remedy available to City or Agency
against third parties arising from illegal acts of such third parties.
G. Where this Agreement calls for review or approval of a fee or charge,
Agency shall perform such review in a timely manner, shall not
unreasonably withhold approval, and shall provide its decision to City in
writing. If, within 30 days of written request by City for approval by
Agency, the Agency has failed to provide a written response, the request
shall be deemed approved.
H. ({City shall be co-signer of permit or indemnify USA???))
I. Enforcement Provision
Section 6. Dispute Resolution: Remedies
A. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding their respective
rights and obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the parties shall first
attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation. If a dispute is not resolved
by negotiation, the exclusive dispute resolution process to be utilized by
the parties shall be as follows:
1. Step 1. Upon failure of those individuals.designated by each party
to negotiate on its behalf to reach an agreement or resolve a
dispute, the nature of the dispute shall be put in writing and
submitted to City's Chief Executive Officer and Agency's General
Manager, who shall meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the
issue in dispute is resolved at this step, there shall be a written
determination of such resolution, signed by City's Chief Executive
Officer and Agency's General Manager, which determination shall
be binding on the parties. Resolution of an issue at this 'step
requires concurrence of both parties' representatives.
2. Step 2. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved at Step 1, the
matters remaining in dispute after Step 1 shall be reduced to
writing and forwarded to the Mayor and the Chairman of the Board
of Directors. Upon receipt of the written issue statement, the
Mayor and Chairman shall meet and attempt to resolve the issue.
If the issue is resolved at this step, a written determination of such
resolution shall be signed by the Mayor and Chairman. Resolution
of an issue at this step requires concurrence of both the Mayor and
the Chairman.
Page 9 of 11 - Agreement with City of
3. Step 3. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved at Step 2, the
parties shall submit the matter to mediation. The parties shall
attempt to agree on a mediator. In the event they cannot agree, the
parties shall request a list of five (5) mediators from the American
Arbitration Association, or such other entity or firm providing
mediation services to which the parties may further agree. Unless
the parties can mutually agree to a mediator from the list provided,
each party shall strike a name in turn, until only one name remains.
The order of striking names shall be determined by lot. Any
common costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties,
who shall each bear their own costs and fees therefor. If the issue
is resolved at this step, a written determination of such resolution
shall be signed by both parties. Resolution of an issue at this step
requires concurrence of by both parties. In the event a dispute is
not resolved by mediation, the aggrieved party may pursue any
remedy available to it under applicable law.
B. Neither party may bring a legal action against the other party to interpret
or enforce any term of this Agreement in any court unless the party has
first attempted to resolve the matter by means of the dispute resolution of
subsection A above. This shall not apply to disputes arising from a cause
other than interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement.
Section 7. Effect of this Agreement
This Agreement shall supersede all prior agreements and amendments including
the "City Committee Agreement" between the parties with respect to sanitary sewerage
and service, storm and surface water management; provided that, except as expressly
modified herein, all rights, liabilities, and obligations of such prior agreements shall
continue. This agreement shall be effective upon its execution by both parties hereto, and
shall continue in effect for four renewable terms of five years each. This agreement shall
be deemed automatically renewed for a succeeding five year term up to a limit of 20
years, unless either party gives the other written notice not less than one year prior to the
nominal expiration of term of its intent not to renew this agreement. This agreement may
be modified only by written amendment or as otherwise specified in this agreement.
Section 8. Severability
In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall deem any portion or part of
this agreement to be unlawful or invalid, only that portion or part of the agreement shall
be considered unenforceable. The remainder of this agreement shall continue to be valid.
Page 10 of i l - Agreement with City of
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed in duplicate by
authority of lawful actions by the Council and Agency Board of Directors.
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
By
Chairman, Board of Directors
Approved as to Form:
Attorney for Agency
CITY OF , OREGON
By
Mayor
Attest:
City Recorder
City Attorney
Page 11 of 11 - Agreement with City of
s+u d`-,
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF 12-7-99
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE . Review of US Conveyance System Mlanagement Study and Model Contract
PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
Discuss the City of Tigard's involvement regarding implementation of the USA Conveyance System
Management Study and Model Contract.
S'T'AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends proceeding with negotiations of the Model Contract with USA - City Agreement. If City
Council agrees and USA has final draft ready, formal approval will be December 14, 1999.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
For more than 18 months, staff from the cities and USA have been working on this project. See the attached
Executive Summary of the Conveyance System Management Study and the Model Contract.
OTHER AI .TERN~TIVES CONSIDERED
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Although not directly stated as a Visioning Task Force Goal, it should be addressed in a more efficient method
of delivery services to citizens and ratepayers.
All cost for the City to be responsible for maintenance outside the City of Tigard would be reimbursed by USA.
iAcit),Mde\sum.dot
Vu~
Agenda Item Ne. 5
Meeting of 12-- 7 -
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager
DATE: November 29, 1999
SUBJECT: Ash Avenue Properties
During an October Council Study Session, Councilor Hunt suggested that a
future agenda item be set for discussion of the properties owned by the
City on Ash Avenue . The properties in question are those on the corner of
Burnham and Ash (commonly referred to as the IOS property) and the
Keefer property. The I05 property is now occupied by Neighbor5hare and
Community Partners for Affordable Housing. The Keefer property is not
occupied.
Councilor Hunt suggested that the discussion be focused on the future use
of these properties for public use, and the possibility of removing buildings
that are now on the properties to create off-street parking for the
downtown area.
During the Study Session portion of the December 7 Council meeting, I will
bring Council up to date on the present use of the properties and discuss
whether the properties would make suitable parking lots for the Central
Business District. At this time the I05 building is occupied on a year-to-
year lease. The tenants have been in the property for less than six months.
Although it is a year-to-year lease, based on prior arrangements which we
have had with other social service occupants, the tenants likely expected to
utilize the property for more than one year. The Keefer property was
acquired in 1999 and was purchased for the purpose of assembling suitable
land for a future development concept. At this time there is no funding
available for such a concept.
Jim Hendryx has discussed the need for downtown parking with the Central
Business District Advisory group. A meeting of the group was scheduled for
November 29. A report will be presented at the December 7 meeting
regarding the interest of the Central Business District committee for these
locations.
WAM\ jh
\\TIG333\US R\DEPTS\HDMSILL\112999-3.DOC
KING CITY
15300 &W. 116th Avenue, King City, Oregon 97224 Phone: 639.4082
December 11, 1992
Jack Polans
16000 S.W. Queen Victoria P1.
King City, OR 97224
Vs-(6s
12,
Dear Jack:
As my tenure as King City Mayor and Councilor draws to
a close, I take this opportunity to personally thank you
for your support, your efforts and your friendship while
serving the citizens of King City. I have enjoyed working
with you and learned so very much.
King City is a unique community. It is involved people
like you who make this community a desirable place to
live.
Carol and I wish you and your family a joyous holiday
season!
sincerely,
• Gl/d `Q
Ger McRey lds .
M r
yj i k)e& Aje't,
1 cg(-7/ , 4~
380 "A" AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 369
LAKE OSWEGO,
OREGON 97034
(503) 635-0213
FAX (503) 697-6594
April 3,1997
To Whom It May Concern:
BILL KLAMMER,
MAYOR I~ have known jack Polans since I first assumed elected office in
BILL ATHERTON, 1993. In addition, I have known Mr. Polans in my position as
COUNCILOR Chair of the Metro Area Communications Commission.
BOB CHIZUM, jack has been a diligent citizen activist and attends our public
COUNCILOR meetings. He has frequently asked pertinent questions. I have
HEATHER CHRISMAN, found him to be a person of integrity. Even when he has been
COUNCILOR initially critical of a decision, he has always been open to the facts
and to reasonable explanations.
TOM LOWREY,
COUNCILOR If you have any further questions regarding jack Polans, please
CRAIG PROSSER feel free to give me a call.
,
COUNCILOR
Sincerely,
KARL ROHDE,
COUNCILOR
Mayor
WKK/sms
Agenda hem No.
121-7 1 Q G
Meeting of
~
2
2.
W
m
D
0
X
m
m
S
'0
23
c
c
c
8
d
(A
a
%C
O
d
3
C_
H
N
M
(D
»
D
y
O•
W
d
-
G
O.
CD
C
CO
N
N
O
L
O
C
x
m
n
D
co
O
~
~
T
c
7
Lf1
W
m
a)
O
ID
CL
Qn
O
p
tD
c
5*
I
CA
c(Di
m
d
a
m
T
Tr
o
0
01
b
w
v
CL
o
c
m
m
m
n.
m
-w
K
e
o
r
a
i
"
CD
fD
j
O
0
C-
c
!7
U3
rD
C
'
co
d•
~O
a~
d
-
ao
CA
3•
fO
d
=
N
O
0
7
W
01
-
r
Ln
3
0
3
0
'
,
w
7
o
o
m
'o
o
>
>
ca
a
f<
N
X
~
W
O
G C2
c
O
CD
W
H
C
0
O
7
C
a
C
--w
r
7
N
~
K
CD
G
CD
Er
N
CA
W
N
C
to
N
c
1
r
3
n
0
7
O
O
7
CD
m
D]
N
(D
O
a)
O
0
a•
_Z
o
8
o
-
Lp
(D
7
N
O
T
N
O
7
7
V
O
O
.
O
IN
N
7
m
O
!D
7
O
3
...I
LD
7 ~
N Q
m 0
`G
7 C
CL
N 0.
r r W
1
Q
i
:3
N
C
~
4
O
O
w
N
~S
0
'O
N
N
~
flo
d
is
N
Z
p
d
W
O
_N
C
C7
C
,
l
y
y
0
y
C.
~
-1
O'
7
0
m
C
i
O
r
ZT.
m
3
co
rn
3
m
c
1
c
1
n
o
n
Cl)
-
ID
ID
ID
>
p
>
O
VI
>
G7
C
M
0)
O
O
p
N
.
R
o
fD
i
NN=
C
C
C
Cl
O
V)
O.
(D
(Op
O
7
TI
v
D~j
N
S
CD
7
(D
N
1
1
C
G
`
1
.
3
D
c
0
ci
Q
c
f
o
v
c
=r
O
E;
y
a
CD
H
a
m
3
m
d
i
O
co
CD
O
T
L)'
cc
VI
CL
D)
'
W
CO)
N
1
O.
'
C
7
v
0
N
7
D
N
~
O
W
C
5
7
CD
N•
d
®
.
7
'
O
3
p
O
.tea
f0
•
7
c
fQ
O
d
CD
M
N
CD
1
W
O
C
C
D)
c"
~
S
0
P
cm
F1
'
(D
n+
VI
~
~
O
1
L
3
0)
1
N
O
C
7
N
3
C
1
~
a
1
C
0
'--I
co
C n
CD ,
'go
(MD 0
Q n
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
Agenda Item R10. 3,1
WAW~
Meeting of I 7-ci
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Monahan
DATE: December 7,1999
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, December 1999 - February 2000
Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can
proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars.
December
3
Friday
Holiday Tree Lighting (6 p.m.)
* 7
Tues
Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
* 14
Tues
Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
24
Friday
Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed
31
Friday
New Year's Holiday - City Offices Closed
January
*11
Tues
Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
17
Mon
Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday - City Offices Closed
* 18
Tues
Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
* 25
Tues
Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
February
* 8 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
* 15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.)
21 Mon President's Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
* 22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.)
Study Session - Business Meeting
1:\ndm\cathy\counc11\ccca1.doc
AGENDA ITEM # L/
FOR AGENDA OF December 7. 1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE
PREPARED BY: Laurie N. & Julia 4. DEPT HEAD OK
MGR OK
Before City Council are several proposed resolutions that initiate the process of annexing the City's island areas
that are currently part of unincorporated Washington County. One of the City Council's goals is to annex the
remaining unincorporated, island areas within the City this year. These proposed resolutions would be the first
step for Council to complete their goal of annexing existing unincorporated island areas in the City. The issue
before Council is whether to complete annexations for all the islands. If Council does not initiate the island
annexation, the City Council goal of establishing an annexation policy for the City will need to be revised.
There are two types of annexations: island annexations and non-island annexations. If a property is considered
an island, consent of property owners is not required. However, as is true for all resolutions, the resulting
annexation resolution is open to referendum.
Annexation of non-island areas would require that a majority of the property owners and voters (a "double
majority") file a petition for annexation, or that an election is held and the voters in the area elect to be annexed.
The City could elect to contact property owners in the area to attempt to establish a double majority and proceed
with annexation of the non-islands on the same schedule as the island annexations. As an alternative, the City
could hold an election in the area at the next general election in May in an attempt to win a majority for
annexation. Assuming that a vote to annex was achieved, these properties could not be brought onto City tax
rolls until the following fiscal year, which would mean that City services would be provided to these areas for
thirteen months without property owner tax support.
Because of the difficulty in achieving a double majority of the voters in the area by the date of the hearing, the
amount of staff time that would be involved in Council initiation of annexation and the timing of the vote, it is
recommended that Council direct staff to develop a time line to process the annexations next year sufficient to
complete the process, conduct elections if necessary, and have approved annexations result in having these
properties on the tax rolls as of July 1, 2001.
A more detailed description of the processes and issues is contained in the attached memo.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached island annexation initiation resolutions. If Council
does not initiate the island annexation, the City Council goal of establishing an annexation policy for the City
will need to be revised.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
One of City Council's goals this year was to annex the existing islands in the City that are still part of
unincorporated Washington County. Staff researched the costs of annexing the island areas, including the cost
of providing sewer service in the area, as well as the estimated net increase in property taxes for an individual
homeowner that is located in an unincorporated island area. There would not be a net loss to the City because
the study found that the revenue collected from the island property owners would equal or exceed the increased
expenditures Staff from the City, Washington County, and USA presented information to property owners at
two workshops for property owners in the unincorporated island areas.
Property owners appeared to be somewhat receptive to the concept of annexing into the City. Officials from
Washington County emphasized at the workshop that the County's policy is to cease being the provider of
urban services to unincorporated, urbanized areas and that the City of Tigard is the appropriate service provider
for the Walnut Island area.
Following the workshops, a letter was sent out to property owners in the area informing them of the City's
intent to initiate annexation. Staff did receive two letters from island property owners opposing annexation into
the City because they believe the costs of being annexed into the City outweigh the benefits of receiving City
services. In both of these letters, they appear to be concerned primarily with the cost of installing sewer in their
neighborhood. These letters are included the City Council packet.
Staff also evaluated the potential to annex non-island areas on the northside of Bull Mountain Road and Fern
Street. The purpose of annexing this area would be to simplify the City boundary and allow efficient delivery of
services to these areas. State law is different for non-island annexations than other annexations. For non-island
annexations to occur without an election, double majority consent must be obtained. Double majority means
that a majority of the property owners and voters in the area to be annexed must sign a petition consenting to be
annexed. If double majority cannot be obtained, then an election must be held in the area to be annexed.
The annexation process obviously involves several steps. As far as an island annexation, the first step involves
Council adopting the enclosed resolutions that initiate the annexation process. Metro requires that necessary
parties be notified 45 days prior to the hearing. As per Metro requirements, the staff report must be completed
30 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the proposed annexation must be given to property owners within 500
feet of the annexation, 20 days prior to the hearing. The completed annexation is sent to Metro and, in turn,
Metro forwards all annexation documentation to the Department of Revenue. The annexation must be
completed by March 315` for the annexed property to be included in next fiscal year's tax rolls.
The first step in this process is initiating the island annexation process with adoption of the proposed
resolutions. Individual resolutions have been completed for each of the 15 islands involved in this proposal.
The resolutions must be adopted at the December 7`h meeting so the annexation can be complete in time for
these properties to be included on the City's property tax rolls for the next fiscal year. If City Council does not
approve the resolutions that will initiate the island annexation process; properties could not be brought onto City
tax rolls on July 1, 2000 because notification and hearing requirements would not allow the necessary filing
with the Department of Revenue by March 3 15.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1.) City Council can deny the proposed island annexation resolutions and staff will have to wait at least one
year before re-initiating the island annexation process.
2.) City Council could adopt some of the proposed island annexation initiation resolutions and not adopt some
of the proposed resolutions.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Growth Management Goal #2, Strategy 1.) Adopt a plan for the orderly annexation of Walnut Island.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
iAcirywide\12-7-99 WalnutIsland.sum.dot
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Laurie Nicholson & Julia Hajduk, Planning Division
DATE: November 29, 1999
RE: Walnut Island Area Annexations
One of City Council goals this year was to establish an annexation policy for the City.
Annexation of the Walnut Island represented a main component of this goal and Council
directed staff to expedite the analysis of feasibility of annexing the Walnut Island.
As per Council direction, staff prepared an analysis of the feasibility of annexing the
Walnut Island. The study considered cost of building sewer in the area, how much
revenue would be collected from newly annexed properties in property taxes, and how
much additional service the area would require.
City staff worked with Washington County staff to prepare a public relations program to
inform Walnut Island residents about the costs and benefits of annexing into the City of
Tigard. Two workshops were held in October. Compared to previous workshops,
homeowners appeared receptive to the concept of annexing into the City. Officials from
Washington County at the workshops emphasized to homeowners that the County's
policy is to cease being the provider of urban services to unincorporated urbanized
areas and that the City of Tigard is the appropriate service provider for the Walnut
Island area.
There are two types of annexations required to achieve Council's goal of annexing the
Walnut Island area. Each one has a separate process and staff recommendation as
outlined below:
Island Annexations
ORS 222.750 applies to annexations of territory that are totally surrounded by a city, or
totally surrounded by a city and a body of water. It does not apply to any territory that is
not totally surrounded by a city or a city and a body of water. If the City wants to annex
islands, it may do so under ORS 222.750 without an election, unless the annexation
resolution is referred to voters by petition, provided it can also meet land use standards.
Since the Portland Metro Boundary Commission no longer exists, State annexation law
is directly applied and, in addition, State law also requires application of Metro adopted
standards regarding how annexations will be processed in the Portland Metro area.
Metro requirements involve longer notice periods, which requires more careful planning
to insure that annexations occur at the desired time. As with any action by Council, the
public has the right to referendum or the right to vote.
The following steps outline the process followed by the City for island annexations as
required by State, Metro, and City rules:
• The City of Tigard must adopt resolutions to initiate the island annexation process.
• Mail and post notice to affected parties 45 days prior to hearing date (necessary
parties are any county, city, or district whose jurisdictional boundary or adopted
urban service area includes any part of the affected territory or who provides any
urban service to any portion of the affected territory, Metro, and any other unit of
local government, as defined in ORS 190.003, that is a party to any agreement for
provision of an urban service to the affected territory).
• Staff must complete staff report 30 days prior to the February 8th City Council
hearing.
• Send notice of the public hearing to property owners within 500 feet, 20 days prior to
the hearing.
• Publish ad in newspaper once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the
public hearing.
• Have staff report packet and resolutions prepared 12 days prior to hearing and given
to City Administration.
• Completed annexation is sent to Metro.
• Annexation must be completed by March 31St for the annexed property to be
included on next fiscal year's tax rolls.
Recommendation:
To complete Council's goal regarding Walnut Island annexation, Staff recommends
City' Council `adopt the resolutions to initiate the island annexations at the
December 7, 1999, business meeting.; The public hearings for: the annexabons•wiil be
on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, business meeting.
Pion-Island annexations
Staff also evaluated the potential to annex non-island areas on the northside of Bull
Mountain Road and Fern Street. The purpose of annexing this area would be to
simplify the City boundary and allow efficient delivery of services to these areas. State
law is different for non-island annexations than other annexations. For non-island
annexations to occur without an election, double majority consent must be obtained.
Double majority means that a majority of the property owners and voters in the area to
be annexed must sign a petition consenting to be annexed. If double majority consent
cannot be obtained, then an election must be held in the area to be annexed.
Because of the difference in processing an island annexation and a non-island
annexation, staff is requesting that Council direct staff on how to proceed with the non-
island areas. Staff has identified three options:
Option #1
Initiate annexation of the non-island areas and send to electors. This will require a
majority of the votes cast in the area to vote in favor of the annexation in a general
election. The next General Election is in May. The tax rolls are not changed until the
following year for any property annexed after March 31St therefore, there would be a
period (13 months) where service is being provided, but taxes are not being collected.
Option #2
Direct staff to contact property owners to obtain consents for annexation and
hold the hearing at the same time as island annexations. This option will require
staff to contact the property owners in the non-island territory being considered and
request that they sign consent forms. No Council initiation is necessary. If staff can
obtain a majority of the registered voter's approval, the annexations can be processed
in the same manner and under the same timeline as the island annexations above, with
the exception of the initiation. This will be quite time intensive for staff. The consent
forms may be submitted at any time up to the date of the hearing (February 8th). If the
necessary number of consents are not obtained, the hearing will be canceled for that
particular area.
Option #3
Direct Staff to develop a separate timeline for non-island annexations and bring it
back to Council at a later date for annexation next year. Once the island annexation
process is complete and the annexations are forwarded to the Department of Revenue,
staff can devote the necessary time to developing a timeline for processing the non-
island annexations in the Walnut Island area. Staff recommends that, if this option is
chosen, the timeline be developed and presented to City Council by April 31, 2000 (1
month after the island annexations must be to the Department of Revenue).
Recommendation:
Because of the risk that a double majority consent in the area-,may. not-be obtained'by
the date of the hearing and the intensive amount of staff time that would be involved in
opti9n*1, it is recommended that Council direct.staff:"to develop;a time line to
process the annexations next year (Option #3): If an ;election is needed; the process
will4risure that an election can be held with the November. ®lecteon,_ which would allow
the annexations to be final prior to March 31st and:on theiax rolls the same taXyear.
This will also allow staff to focus the necessary amount.of energy in processing,the
island annexations this year.
I:Irpln/laude/12-7-99, Walnut Island Memo.doc
RECEIVED C.O. Ti.
NOV 131999
11-17-77
4 n n xQ 0107 CV .Sl a"L
~ Ci icy F % Qezs~: / G~✓e- ctnc•~ - r'I_ o1% 6 o rS
~e G(S lar a /I o ~ ~e.~~t 7~~ l:k r1~ e~ ei1 e ~i~
a 3 ~S Q^ L r-,- ~tire__ Q-Lt un ~t z,S A
~e op lc, / i.-e IaAl
6 ec u Se_ o ~ !fS Gt r b>9 IV ~Gr,(~ rA- 7-/7 ne c e., 74
c01e veto pm a~ ro unc- cc.S n S e ve^ 5 u~a0%~[sca~s i~r -/&i e.
l~s ~~o [~2ars wef4r~i Une-~Al~ ^,ey--C
`i o /71 I S -f '¢v~ c~ll C,G19 n 2 S Q nc.Q ~noal~ S ~`i
C.4.4n t - w+c /i%~l~ LcJ/~-fin v?t' ~-S nc~
4A~e- <P1
+4Q- eeV- O~ c~ f~i ~ ~ c t ~e'Q 5 likes G9 ke. aO 5 b -r4-e C i
d~ Lc~t~eO~c,A~ o ls!S doAe. Lt. ~in~z. `jab O rer~(}1nr1
/¢S aric 1n0.j G(/!0-1AA , 64~11Ile' S!aWL' cooVJn
e v~-~c) P tit e ~itGrect=e~ ~25 ac~ ~ ~C,2S O/~ ~-e O~~?e?ca~ie~
.min
Ei
H
a
1
a
0 T%
'Zz
t^
r F1j
N
N hS6pJd~
O
us p
a
N~
N
Nr
m
N
o
CD
CO O
r " S
f
Date: Nov. 18, 1999
To: William A Monahan
From: Ronald R Wilson
13200 SW 121
Subj.: Walnut Island annexation
PECHVru c.0j.
NOV 18 1999
Having attended the workshops on the proposed annexation, I and my wife have
come to the conclusion that whatever benefits may result are outweighed by the costs to
us in the form of increased taxes and the expense of sewer installation. In other words,
we do not want to be annexed into the City of Tigard.
-.L
N
Vd
V1rr~q
~e
e
f.~.a o
a
e
CD
e
CD
W
C®
rD
~ oe
CD
CL
o
CD
CD
CD
C)
V
Fern e
V
~a
s
e
r-W
=mw
®
s s
CD
OmmA e
~ e
~TA
C
CD
cri
e
o
W
O
r-L
O
~h
N
M~ •
C01
CD
r-L
cr
■
CL
C®
C~
1
C®
O
r-L
n
0
0
eu
h~
CD
PLA
a5i
~i
CD
1®a •
1
CD
rrf"~'~ e
V1
CD
PD
CD
-t~ t:~-
CD 100
v
CD
CD
CD
@Oe~ CD
C
-P
H
V~
-CD
O
Ol
s
3
3
a
3
0
V
r~
1
1
~ l i r.
A
a
i
Q1 .
u !
e
o
i
~
B
i
A
o O.
Z
0
CD
~C
O
00
co
O
.,,..T~ f i
l ~ ~ 3 ~ F 1~, ~ `~S it {
M
N
C
e
O
N
'^1
d
C
w~
W
g a - r
O >
`
~ S31
3g ~ $ Q 4k a _
~G. 7 c rr
tn~}g g zr. U)
~a d
J
(T1
'
D
s0
~trudr
m
Z '6T
S
.
N
NN~s
-1a
S~3
SW 113TH
PL
o
If Of
> R
all
;
.
s
3
3
c
O
w
S
v
C
I
t
Z
11
4T
H
:
[T
i
j
C
l
Z
~g
m
°s
9
S
loll
y►
Pil
N
l
C
d.
~g a '
'1N71 i
CD
P~
rCD
~ j
0
00
N
a
g
3
3
c
O
w
S
v
3
•
r
118T
V
~r
v
'
d,
y yy
F .rid.
r Qr`
y
~
VV
-1
I 0
b
sv
loll
=a
N R
pot ZIP
s
3
3
e
0
"z
s
3
HAZEL.TREE TER
~F~
L DR
cn
c
cn
r
r
~
~
O
C
C
Z
~
D
z
Q
0 ®1r
>g
(D S11 C
e
~
9
q ~ ®
a
~
~ c
3
i
ig
,..r -
[B
o~
n
(rj
s -
4~ m
a
~
N
W
s
3
3
c
A
s
S
3
AVE
v
g
c
~
a
ELTR
E T R
n
~
~
v
~o
`y
L DR
SW
121ST AVE
> s
fail"
n
.r,
IV
t~:
N
4
N
00
z
O
1
OMMA e
CD
O
N
CO
W
F~ •
CD
FC-+•
C®
CD
C®
8-1
•
Cl~
►MA •
CPS
b•d •
p•--i
O-A
OrA
CD
CD
b~ •
CD
cn
CD
F~ •
CD
FL
CD
cn
p®'P`
/M' •
CD
CD
C®
4-4~
0
c~
rA
OMWo
Owe
t~
Owe
POW
OMW
~id o
00
O
O
K
CD
W
O
hEmd
*do
1
p~
k=d
1 -6
tD
n
W
N
CA)
W
F~
r-L
CD
C®
cn
CD
p~
0
CD
CL
h~•
CD
ali
CD
01
old +
cm
C®
Iw
JON
X. w
MOW
Ond•
04
I~
e
0
~a
w
rt!
3
3
c
0
g
0
e
i
s
3
a~
BONNEVLLE
POWER ADHVMSTRATION
~ s
w
w
L
ILT
BB
Ry
z
V
Z
~w mm
y
AVEMIE
I
r
0
o
® o
G
0
y
1{
CL
C
f~ ^
(D is
_
06
-
Vl
0
f ~
s
3
7i
\f
Tn
RD A V } nl
s ~E
r~~ytt Y
~ S rit
f 13f.e.r X~t f3~ 7
J i M I y'EiL
A s r~ ` a
~ ` ~ ,fir ~~s$'•
4
o~3fdN3
co
m
o a0 ~e
C
9
y ~ n. s
iBi$;~ $ 19 Z
06
9 W
~ A
w
4
CD
W
CD
~i
V1
CD
CD
CD
CD
Fwh .
V^~
P-O
cr
CD
0~ 4
t7l
FS)
O-A
O-t
OmmA s
CD
0
CD
CD
CL
V1
A
CD
5
cr
onow
how
fD
fD
zz
O
Oat-
O
00
W
OD
W
CO
.h
O
.t,
11 0
r
>
a
1
A
m p1
t
jail
G'
np~~xQ o ~
ZP
~
N
=
'
_
a-
a
C.
N
.p
W
t
4
6i
3
3
c
O
S
0
3
r
1 I BT
V
00
v
f
1
y
~
W 6'!
C
g
gi ®
~ R
g
CL
s C ^
BI
0
O
3
3
i
s
0
3
s
n
118 V
O
W.
~
C
m
o
s
(D 0
IW
p naA
B
~
9
a C
~ 8
tlYO
F'
7 •
s'
3
c
O
S
3
0
.p
HAZELTREE TER
M
F~
L DR
vo
c
~y
r
r
O
m
C
~
n
Z
o ❑l e
•
•
~
_
zb.
N
s
s
3
3
c
O
z
s
3
w
AVE
n
0
0
cn
c
~
a
z
ELTR E T R
~
a
L DR
SW
121ST AVE
CL
O
3
3
c
a
i
S
v
3
to
, ~y
h
v
y rblk
6TH AVE
k~
0
ELTR E T R ~i
of 0
3 nii
9
~ a ~ ~
B~~~x~
ze.
~ ~ (11
n
i@~L g
d'
3
3
3
c
V~
O
w
S'
3 SW 138TH AVE
cn
1 r
SW 135TH C
x ~
3", ti T~~ r
135TH AVE
Pam
0 HIV
1 - ,y
M1 t
c~
Y
01o
x a $ M to (D pl
i ~
9 CL s rt
o
r, 'Y
~~~6aj - to
~s
IV
W
a a'
x
0
"s o
s
3
~r
.~yaaa
br H
m
RD AV p
77, -711W
ti z r
a " v
WF ,F1 FY'?
30
r
O~3fdN~
m r w
m
o s®~ r
M i m
n
ilia 7 o .1
Zip-
QYjL yii - C pp i
N_
C ~ N S
8 y
CA
C.n
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF December 7.1999
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Encroachment on Public Properties
PREPARED BY: Jeff Munro DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
That Tigard City Council establish an ordinance to allow encroachment permits to be granted within
unimproved public rights of way, easements and on public property.
That the City of Tigard establish an ordinance amending Title 15 of the Tigard Municipal Code by amending
chapters 7.24 and 15.04 by adding a new chapter 15.16, Encroachment Permits.
INFORMATION SUMMARY '
Over the years private citizens have been allowed to encroach upon City owned property. This has both
positive and negative effects dependent upon the property owner. The need to establish a consistent policy for
all to abide by throughout the City has become necessary before other encroachment that is detrimental to the
City becomes a reality. Attached you will find a copy of the Tigard Municipal Code Amendment created by the
City's Attorney's office, which would amend chapters 7.24 and 15.04 by adding a new chapter 15.16,
Encroachment Permits. The proposed ordinance requires an application and fee. The fee amount to be
established by resolution of the City Council. The issue of Encroachment Permit issuance was discussed at the
November 23, 1999 Council study session. The attached Code Amendment reflects Council consensus.
Council instructed staff to proceed with the proposed ordinance change after discussion on the issue at the
November 23, 1999 Council study session.
N/A
N/A
e~
4
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 12-7-99
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park & Recreation Task Force Update
PREPARED BY: F. Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Cogan, Owens, Cogan will lead a discussion with Council on the concept of a Park & Recreation District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Council needs to give input and direction into the Park & Recreation District concept. Direction needs to be
given on governance and finding issues in particular.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
A Task Force was formed to study the feasibility of a Park & Recreation District within the boundaries of the
TTSD & Sherwood School District. You have received issue papers on alternatives, recommended scenarios
and funding issues. You also have had Council Representatives on the Steering Committee - Mayor Nicoli,
Council Members Patton and Moore have attended other Parks & Recreation Task Force Workshops.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
During the process, the Task Force looked at status quo and other types of District concepts outlined in issue
paper entitled Alternatives.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Urban & Public Services.
Goal: Create a Park & Recreation District strategy; create a Task Force regarding development of a Park &
Recreation District.
This will depend on decisions of the governing bodies within the proposed Park & Recreation District regarding
responsibilities in an O & M budget and CIP Bond Issue.
iAcirywide\sum.dot
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Park & Recreation Task Force Update
DATE: November 24, 1999
Membership & Boundaries
• Cities of Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood and Durham
• TT School District & Sherwood School District
• Steering Committee of 15
Tigard Reps - Mayor Nicoli & Ed Wegner/Jeff Munro
• Proposed Service area would be TT School & Sherwood School
District Boundaries, excluding King City.
II. Process
• Steering Committee, Newsletter, Public Meeting, Governance
Workshop
• Preliminary interviews revealed a strong need for additional and
improved ball fields and other youth sports, other regional community
centers, upgraded aquatic facilities and coordination of existing
recreational programs. Cost was another key issue to be addressed.
• Participating jurisdictions will need to endorse the concept, along with
1St & 3`d year budgets & governance structure for a District formation to
be considered by the voters in November 2000
• Mid-February 2000 -approval Resolution of Support by perticipating
jurisdictions
Ill. Telephone Survey
• Riley Research Associates
• 406 Responses (voters in last two elections)
• 26 Durham area
• 73 Sherwood area
• 152 Tigard area
• 155 Tualatin area
• Majority of respondents felt the creation of a Park & Recreation District
was a good (or very good) idea - 80%
• Most popular features:
• Hike/Bike trails 62%
• Natural areas 57%
o Youth Center 46%
• Aquatic Parks 46%
• Indoor Activity Center 44%
Finance questions & answers in general
• $195.00 for total District - 37% were at least "leaning" toward 'yes'
with 7% undecided (Tigard 42% - supportive)
• @ $75.00 per year for "limited District' concept (Recreation only)
59% leaning toward 'yes', 8% - undecided (Tigard
supportive at 61%)
• Of those who supported the District at $75.00 (59% at least leaning
'yes'), 83% also supported at $195.00
• A large percentage of retirees remained opposed to this District -
48%
IV. Recommended Alternative Analysis
• Steering Committee outlines a service concept
• Goals
(1) Develop new facilities and standardize, improve & maintain
existing community facilities.
(2) Formalize and/or develop athletic and non-athletic programs
outside of those provided by the school districts and municipalities
(3) Coordinate existing athletic & non-athletic programs
(4) Support & promote development of a regional trail and open space
system
Overview of the Recommended Alternative
• Focus primarily on developing and operating community recreation
facilities and related programs.
e Maintain community centers, regional athletic facilities and aquatic
facilities
• Sherwood option to manage community center under existing contract
with YMCA
• Cities will retain responsibility for all public parks, but may enter into
contracts to jointly develop recreation facilities in parks.
• School districts may enter in agreements with district to jointly manage
indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programs
• Help acquire and develop open space areas and trail system to create
linkages, i.e., pedestrian bridge across Tualatin River
V. What happens to our jurisdiction resources?
• Cities & schools can retain ownership or elect to turn them over to new
District
• Cities & schools can ask new District to assume maintenance and
operation responsibility and use funds for other services
• Cities & schools can decide to make no change in current operation
ATFAL,ATI RECREATION DISTRICT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
MEMORANDUM
Tigard * Tualatin * Sherwood * Durham
Tigard Tualatin School District* Sherwood School District * Washington County
TO: Tigard City Council
FR: Atfalati Recreation District Feasibility Study Steering Committee
DA: November 30, 1999
RE: Phase 1 Report Summary and Recommendations
As background for your Council meeting December 7th, we are pleased to submit to you a
preliminary summary of the Steering Committee Phase 1 Report and Recommendations. The
full report is still under review at the Steering Committee level. Thank you for your participation
in and contribution to this study thus far.
The purposes of our discussion with you on December 7th include:
1. Present Phase 1 findings, recommendations and other information
2. Solicit feedback on Steering Committee recommendations
3. Obtain a `go/no go' decision regarding whether or not to proceed with Phase II
4. If a proceed decision is made, discuss share of funding for Phase H
Please call Feasibility Study Committee Chair Dave Nicoli at 612-8200 or D.J. Heffernan at
Cogan Owens Cogan, 225-0192, with any questions or comments you may have prior to your
December 7th Council meeting.
We look forward to a very productive discussion with you then.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Atfalati Recreation District Feasibility Study Phase I analysis is to determine whether
or not it is feasible to establish a recreation district in southern Washington County. A Steering
Committee comprised of representatives from the seven participating local governments (Cities of Tigard,
Tualatin, Sherwood and Durham, the Tigard-Tualatin and Sherwood School Districts and Washington
County) and the Atfalati Recreation District (ARD) citizens group was formed to study this issue and
recommend a course of action to the region. The Steering Committee established the following goals for
the proposed district.
0 Develop new facilities and standardize, improve and maintain existing community facilities.
0 Formalize and/or develop athletic and non-athletic programs outside of those provided by the school
districts and municipalities.
0 Coordinate existing athletic and non-athletic programs.
0 Support and promote development of a regional trail and open space system.
After six months of study, the Steering Committee has concluded that forming a district is both feasible
and desirable and would provide recreational services that are not currently being provided. The
Committee makes the following findings and recommendations regarding the proposed district:
1. Creation of a special recreation district is feasible and it is the recommendation of the Steering
Committee that steps be taken to put the question before the voters in November, 2000. The
boundaries of the proposed district includes all property in the Tigard/Tualatin School District (except
for King City), the Sherwood School District, and a portion of the Beaverton School District that is
within the City of Tigard. King City residents would have to pay out of district fees to use district
facilities or enroll in district programs.
2. A statistically valid survey of likely voters found that 80% of voters think forming such a recreation
district is a good or a very good idea. A majority of voters said they would support the District if it
focused on indoor recreation facilities and passive (trails, open space) outdoor recreation facilities.
3. The District will not overlap, or provide services that cities are currently providing. Each city will
own, operate and maintain their own parks. The District seeks to efficiently fill recreational needs
that are not currently being met.
4. Three alternative service concepts were analyzed. A recommended alternative was developed that
includes a $25 million bond improvement program and a $6 million dollar annual operating budget
(including debt service).
5. The amount of tax revenue coming back into a community from a proposed district is approximately
equal to the revenue collected in the same community.
6. The bond improvement program, attached as Table 1, includes indoor community/teen centers in
Tigard and Tualatin, a community/youth activity center in Sherwood, outdoor sports fields and fitness
areas (walking paths, jogging track) adjacent to the indoor facilities, a pedestrian bridge across the
Tualatin River, and an improved trail system in Durham Park with links to other regional parks and
trail systems.
7. The recommended recreation district also would operate and maintain new district facilities. Under
this alternative, the district would assume responsibility for managing the Tigard and Tualatin
Aquatic Centers and expand community aquatic programs. The district would upgrade and provide
2
enhanced maintenance of open space areas around elementary and middle schools throughout the
district to expand recreation opportunities for area residents.
8. The proposed district would contract or directly offer youth, adult, and senior programs, athletic and
non-athletic activities and events such as arts and crafts, drama classes, exercise classes, coordination
and scheduling services for recreation facilities, and hosting community meetings and special events.
Accommodations will be made for all income levels.
9. If all participating jurisdictions consent to the district's formation and voters approve the program
outlined above, the bond program would impose an added tax burden of $0.34/$1,000 of assessed
property value within the district. The operating budget would impose an additional tax burden of
$0.62/$1,000 of assessed property value within the district (total $0.961$1,000). The $0.62/$1,000 of
assessed property value would be the district's permanent tax rate in accordance with Measure 50.
10. The average residential property in the proposed district has a market value of $165,000 and is
assessed at a value of $125,000. The average homeowner would pay an additional $120 per year for
debt service and operating costs associated with the proposed district.
11. The governing body for the proposed district would be established through an association of local
governments (ORS 190). The association would function as a board of directors for the district.
Representation to the proposed district board is still under discussion. The district's tax base would be
authorized under ORS 451 as a County Special Service District. The County would cede all policy
and management responsibility to the local association of governments. The Board of County
Commissioners would approve the district's annual budget and all bond issues. Preparing the budget,
planning capital programs, and managing the district day to day would be left to the governing
association.
12. The proposed district is the most reliable way to provide these recreation services that are currently
not being provided. The combined `joint venture' effort by the four cities, two school districts and
Washington County to take advantage of economies of scale maximize resources while providing a
coordinated, regional recreational service program.
3
Atfalati Recreation District Feasibility Study
Capital Improvement Program for the Recommended Alternative
Table 1 Revised 1112911999
Item Description Estimated Cost Source
1. Tualatin Community/Teen Recreation Center - multi- $7,500,000 City of Tualatin
purpose 35,000 sq. ft. bldg. and outdoor recreation
facilities - including multi-purpose fields and community
facilities such as youth center and meeting rooms
2. Tigard Community/Teen Recreation Center - multi- 12,500,000 Comparable facilities
purpose 50,000 sq. ft. bldg. and outdoor recreation
facilities - including multi-purpose fields and community
facilities such as youth center and meeting rooms
3. Sherwood Community/Teen Recreation Complex - 4,000,000 Comparable facilities
including multi-purpose fields and community facilities
such as youth center and meeting rooms
4. Durham Park Trails 450,000 Comparable facilities
Develop 3 miles of trails and links to new bridge
5. Tualatin River Trail Bridge 1.000.000 City of Tualatin
pedestrian/bike bridge across the Tualatin River
Subtotal $25,450,000
Closing costs (1.5%) 381.750
Total $25,831,750
Discount rate 5.50%
Debt service (20 Yr. Term) ($2,161,584)
Debt service is budgeted at $2.16 million.
Debt Service 2,161,584
Operations/Administration 3,871,576
The total cost of service is: $6,033,160
' Share for each jurisdiction has been altered slightly to reflect jurisdictions' assessed value contribution to the
proposed district.
4
The corresponding tax rate associated with these service levels is:
Debt Service
Operation/Administration
Total Rate
$0.34/$1000 of Assessed Value
$0.62/$1000 of Assessed Value
$0.96/$1000 of Assessed Value
Only the Operations/Administration rate component is subject to Measure 5 general government tax rate
limitation. The debt service amount falls outside the Measure 5 limit. The $0.62 general government rate
is well under the allowable increases for all tax code areas within the District. Most general government
combined tax rates for tax. code areas in the study area would remain under $7.50 per $1000 A.V.
Phase II budget and jurisdictions' share to be distributed at the December 7"' meeting.
FACurrent Projects\9934 - Atfalati P&R Disffinal ReporffigardCouncilMemo.d-