The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 07/18/2000 I TIR CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 185 2000 COUNCIL MEETING ILL NOT BE- TELEVISED r 1Aidm%jolccnkt2.doc y r Y 1 2 L t- f 1 ~I s[ F,Y l r 7 F r k+ ~s ~f S i ,rr' t T,~ ,pan ~t~~p v.I lh x~4 r.. i., r .1.., Revised 7-14-00 (2) +1 { ' ~ ryl~~~1~i9NG c~ Yi' H-lt.x Y?xI'' Th~xt zl- 'nom j Vt ' I h'i'1 1 Y4~ ZIJ V~ f ll,iy r. r!~?' 1" TIGARD CITY CQUNCIL `'a ' CITY OF TIAR® WORKSHOP NiE7'ING' n JULY 1,2o~ot, 'a~~~ 30PM r w TIGARDCITI'FHLI,~ tty'~' jnU s< a r w b ls~"t't Kan Y ~r.~re ~ t t d 4?<7'k,~n~ E` at' eris n"G'~3~{t`w t:~: ;.~}...;:3;5_~.~i'~7,?~b 34'~:,~M.~r~e'~'~•',J~^``u PUBLIC NOTICE: 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 - JUL` 18, 2000 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING JULY 18, 2000 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING • Call to Order: Council President Moore • Pledge of Allegiance • Council Communications 8T Liaison Reports • Cali to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. PROGRESS REPORT: SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PRO,ECT • Staff Report: Engineering Department 7:05 PM 3. UPDATE: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION • Staff Introduction: Community Development Department • Update: Tigard Central Business District Association Representatives 7:35 PM 4. DISCUSSION OF VACANCY IN THE POSITION OF MAYOR • Staff Introduction: Administration Department, City Attorney's Office • Council Discussion/Direction to Staff 8:05 PM 5. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW • Staff Introduction: Administration Department, City Attorney's Office 8:30 PM 6. UPDATE: 2000 COUNCIL GOALS • Staff Report: Administration Department 8:40 PM 7 COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 8:50 PM 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 2 mmgmsvw~ SEARS RON, 9:00 PM 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go Into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation Issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any Information discussed during this session. 9:15 PM 10. AD,OURNMENT 1:1A0 MICATHMCA\000718, 00C COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item No.-I-L. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 9 - ! 2 - DD WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 1. WORKSHOP MEETING e Call to Order Council President Brian Moore called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call Council Present: Council President Brian Moore, Councilors Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla and Paul Hunt Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Attorney Tim Ramis; City Engineer Gus Duenas; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley o City Manager - Administrative Item Bill Monahan, City Manager, briefed the Council on the status of the Tri-County appeal. He explained that Tri-County submitted two applications with differences for the same development. He indicated that staff thought Tri-County would appeal both applications. There was a possibility that Tri-County might withdraw the appeal. He mentioned staff sending a letter to the applicants asking when the City should set a date for the appeal hearing o Council Communications Mr. Monahan confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the City was televising two Council meetings per month at this time. He explained that they would televise the study session eventually after staff and volunteers had been trained to use the equipment. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: Mr. Monahan said he would update the Council on the Joint Water Commission meeting, Mayor Lou Ogden's work on Goal 5, and the status of the Tri-County appeal. Councilor Hunt indicated that he had a non-agenda item. Councilor Scheckla indicated that he would send a letter to the Mayor of Tualatin expressing concerns with Mayor Ogden's remarks that he stated at Mayor Nicoli's memorial service. 2. PROGRESS REPORT: SUMMER CREEK WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the status of the Summer Creek wetlands enhancement project in the Merestone area. He noted the agencies that staff met with at the February 8 meeting as part of devising an "approvable" concept plan. He mentioned the key points raised by the agencies: the water draining back to the creek after the high flows, and preventing the trapping of fish in ponds. Mr. Duenas reviewed the two options developed by their consultant, TetroTech. He pointed out that the temporary pond created by a storm event draincd back to the meandering creek, leaving the area dry during the summer months (Option 1). He stated that Option 1 was in compliance with the regulatory agencies requirements and most likely to be approved. Mr. Duenas said that the neighbors did not like Option 1, preferring some ponding in the area. He referenced Option 2 with some deeper areas for ponding. He explained how Option 2 might work, confirming to Councilor Hunt that the ponds would consist of stagnant water. He commented that he doubted that the regulatory agencies would approve Option 2, as it created ponds with the potential to trap fish. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 1 i Mr. Duenas explained to Councilor Scheckla that this was a joint effort by USA and the City, with USA providing input on the design and some funding for construction. He said that staff sent two options to the Corps of Engineers because the neighbors wanted another option. He confirmed that staff sent Option I, knowing that it met the regulatory agencies' criteria, while sending Option 2 in a good faith effort for the neighbors, despite their suspicions that the agencies would reject Option 2. Mr. Duenas indicated to Councilor Patton that they had a timeline with the next steps dependent upon the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife's response (the agency whose lead the other agencies would follow). He mentioned their hope of a response within the next two to three ecks. Mr. Duenas indicated to Councilor Scheckla that he did not think they would make the construction season this year because of the process needed to achieve consensus between the agencies and the neighbors. He mentioned the need to get easements from the neighbors to construct Option 1. He said that if the neighbors objected to Option 1 and refused to provide the easements, then the City's options were to discuss the project concept more with the neighbors or redesign the project to eliminate the need for easements (which was not his preferred option because flipping the design to the other side would leave mud flats). Mr. Duenas confirmed to Councilor Hunt that, even if the City cancelled the project, it still met the regulatory requirements because they have removed the beaver dam. He indicated to Mr. Monahan that the City needed to keep the beaver dam cleared, even if the beaver returned to rebuild the dam. He discussed staff's long-range approach to use bond money to replace the existing culvert with a larger pipe in order to create an opening that would not be so easily blocked. Mr. Duenas commented that he thought Option 1 was attractive, mentioning that it did not create stagnant water and insect problems. He confirmed to Councilor Patton that under Option 1 the neighbors would not see any water for three months during the summer but it would fill up during the winter. Councilor Scheckla asked who maintained the right-of-way on 12151, noting the high weeds. Mr. Duenas indicated that it was the property owner's responsibility. Mr. Monahan concurred, commenting that the City as the property owner of the wetlands had responsibility for the area next to the wetlands. He mentioned a staff meeting set for tomorrow to discuss the right-of-ways maintenance question. Council President Moore mentioned the Central Business District representative's question about the railroad maintenance. Mr. Duenas discussed the staff work with the railroad to reach an agreement on maintaining the track area. He said that the Council approved a project for replacement concrete panels, tentatively scheduled for the third week of August. He indicated that the railroad would handle the project and inform the City of its schedule. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that the project required closure of the street. He said that once they had dates certain, they would inform the businesses in the area. 4. UPDATE: TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION Mr. Monahan explained that staff set $50,000 for this fiscal year in the Community Development Department budget for the Central Business District Association. He noted that they rolled the $25,000 remaining from last year's allocation into this year's allocation for a total of $50,000. Tyler Ellenson, Tigard Central Business District Association, presented a report on the TCBDA's activities. He explained that the TCBDA decided to table the Tigard Daze event until l next year in order to allow sufficient time to plan the event in a professional manner, and to gain the y cooperation of the local businesses for the use of their parking lot for a carnival. He mentioned to 1 Councilor Scheckla that Rite Aid and Value Village had security concerns and complaints about the a damage done to the asphalt parking lot by tent stakes. He spoke to starting earlier and resolving the businesses' objections. He indicated that they would probably schedule the event for the third week in August next year. Mr. Monahan reviewed the City's budget process for event applications, noting that the Council gave preliminary approval for funding in May. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that it was up to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 2 the Council to decide whether the money for Tigard Daze came out of the $50,000 or out of the community events allocation. Mr. Ellenson mentioned their good fortune in obtaining the volunteer services of a Tigard resident event planner. He spoke to developing continuity in administering the event. Mr. Ellenson discussed the TCBDA's proposal to replace the deteriorating banners on Main Street with new and larger banners. He indicated that their intent was to promote downtown Tigard, as opposed to identifying individual businesses. He mentioned the $3,360 request for the banners. Mr. Ellenson discussed the proposal to hire a part-time Downtown Manager to help the Association achieve its goals of greater self-sufficiency and a more equal partnership with the City. He mentioned job duties involving developing a funding mechanism, membership, and marketing plans. He observed that the business owners did not have enough time to volunteer to get the Association really going. He noted their proposed $30,000 budget to cover salary and office expenses. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that this part-time 20 hour a week position could grow into a full-time position over the years as the organization became more established and they implemented the Economic Improvement District (EID) process. Councilor Scheckla asked if the TCBDA would be able to accomplish what it wanted to accomplish, given the increasing number of commercial developments in the area. Mr. Ellenson commented that they needed to work hard in the competitive marketplace to achieve their goals but they hoped to attract businesses back to the downtown and to build upon their existing foundation. He mentioned their frustration with the slow process and their desire to make something happen. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that providing sufficient parking was their top priority, agreeing that parking was a key issue in a viable downtown. He spoke to a downtown manager helping to find an answer to the parking issues more quickly than volunteers could. Councilor Hunt discussed his concern that the budget was low for obtaining a qualified person. Mr. Ellenson reviewed their options for obtaining a qualified person with an interest in the community who did not need a large income. He mentioned a lead from the Oregon Downtown Development Association of a gentleman doing this type of work in the Hollywood district who had some extra time. He noted the semi-retired folks in Summerfield. Mr. Ellenson commented that they knew that they had a low budget but they had to start somewhere. If their budget was not enough, then they needed to re-evaluate. He indicated that they did research the issue and work out the numbers. Mr. Monahan clarified that a 12 to 18 month process to implement an Economic or Business Improvement District meant a two-year funding cycle. He explained that these districts were funding mechanisms intended to create a cash flow to provide funding for the downtown manager and other activities, thus decreasing the City's contribution over time. Mr. Ellenson reiterated his goal to create a partnership with one-third of the funding coming from the community through special events, one-third from the City and one-third from the businesses. He confirmed to Councilor Patton that the successful downtowns had downtown managers to facilitate the program. Councilor Patton spoke to the City continuing to support the TCBDA through this interim process in obtaining its own funding as a means of maintaining the organization's momentum. She commented that the TCBDA's requests have been conservative, concurring with Councilor Hunt that the $30,000 request was very conservative. Mr. Ellenson noted that they knew that this was not their money, they tried to be specific about what they spent it on. He observed that their hearts were in making this work, and they would continue with it regardless of the Council's comments. Council President Moore asked what the process was for allocating the money, if the Council disagreed with the proposed dollar amount. Mr. Monahan reviewed the process. He mentioned the need to clarify at a regular meeting how the $50,000 would be used, noting that the Association's proposed expenditures were in the range of $43,000. Councilor Hunt discussed Isis concern about spending all the money in the first year, leaving the Association with nothing if something unexpected came up. He suggested funding the downtown CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 3 11 ~ 11 manager over the banners, if they had to make a choice. Mr. Ellenson concurred that the downtown manager was a greater priority than the banners in making the organization self-sufficient. Mr. Monahan asked if the Association would pay out the $10,000 estimate for ODDA consulting over one or two years. Mr. Ellenson said that he needed to talk to ODDA about where they were but he thought that $6,000 for the first year was a reasonable target number. He agreed with Mr. Monahan that, due to a manager probably not starting until September, they might need only $25,000 for the downtown manager, bringing their expenditures down to the $31,000 range. He concurred that, if necessary, they could revisit the banners later. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Mr. Monahan that he would return next week to the Council's televised meeting to make another presentation as part of educating the public. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Ellenson to bring back a proposal for a specific dollar amount, now that he has heard the Council's concerns. Mr. Ellenson said that they could break their proposal down on a fiscal year basis to clarify where and when the money might be spent. The Council agreed by consensus on the direction discussed. Council President Moore and Councilor Patton each supported implementing the banners. Councilor Scheckla suggested that the Association set up a regular meeting time, date and place so that interested citizens could drop in, as opposed to the Association's current practice of setting the next meeting date at the meeting. Councilor Hunt suggested setting audience participation rules. Mr. Ellenson indicated that the Association encouraged participation in the discussion by any visitors. A lady in the audience pointed out that, although the banners appeared to be a frivolous expenditure, they actually served as concrete evidence that the Association was doing something. She observed that all their work so far has been behind the scenes and invisible to the general public and businesses. Council President Moore recessed the meeting for a break at 1:40 p.m. Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 1:51 p.m. 4. DISCUSSION OF VACANCY IN THE POSITION OF MAYOR Tim Ramis, City Attorney, recalled the memo he reviewed last week on the rainbow of options available to the Council to fill the vacancy. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the editorial in the Oregonian. Council President Moore noted that Councilor Patton's remarks were misrepresented. Councilor Patton commented that, in her article, Emily Tsao accurately reported the discussion she had with her but the editorial took one comment that she made about there being too short a timeframe before the November election, and implied ulterior motives on the part of the Council. She indicated that while she found nothing wrong with the paper's opinion that they should hold an election, she did disapproved of the manner in which the paper went about relaying that opinion. Councilor Scheckla recalled the process used when Mayor Bishop resigned and he filled in as Council President until the earliest election date when John Cook won the election. He confirmed that the Council operated with four members until the election. The Council discussed the option of appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim mayor, and what would happen with the Councilor vacancy. Mr. Ramis confirmed that legally the Council could appoint a sitting Councilor as interim mayor and then appoint a Councilor whose term was ending this year to fill the Councilor vacancy. He commented that the Charter language did not give direct answers on the various options of appointing a person to fill a vacancy until an election was held. He stated that, in his view, the Charter provided a general guideline that created a great deal of authority for the Council and gave it the freedom to interpret the language. He indicated his opinion that appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim and temporary mayor did not create a vacancy in that Councilor's position. Council President Moore reviewed the questions before the Council in this situation. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 4 summarized the Council discussion as agreement on the need to hold an election, leaving open the questions of when to hold the election and who would be the interim mayor. Councilor Patton spoke in support of a March election over a November election in order to allow citizens sufficient time to consider running for the position. She said that she wanted a five-member Council. She indicated that she was willing to consider someone from the community as interim mayor, if the Councilors could not agree among themselves on an internal appointment. Councilor Hunt noted that Jack Schwab had been an excellent interim mayor the last time. There was brief discussion about Mr. Schwab. Council President Moore said that he supported either a March or a May election. He suggested soliciting that people be asked to submit letters of interest and then the Council conduct interviews, similar to the process used to fill the last Council seat vacancy when he was appointed to Council. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his concern with losing continuity on the Council (especially with respect to water issues) if Councilor Hunt went off the Council. He suggested that appointing Councilor Patton as interim mayor and then appoint Councilor Hunt to fill her seat would maintain continuity. Councilor Patton commented that, while she appreciated the sentiment, that should she consider becoming mayor, she would prefer to obtain the position by election. The Council discussed the election date. Councilor Scheckla mentioned a March election. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, noted that the March election could cost the City $13,000 while the May primary election may be available at no cost to the cities. Council President Moore suggested waiting two months'and saving the City $13,000. Councilor Patton concurred with Council President Moore, *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to set the mayoral election date for May. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, that the City Council appoint an interim mayor to fill the position until a May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to allow the interim mayor to run for the mayoral position in the May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] , { , , + *(City Recorder's note: Subsequent to this meeting, it was determined that the only election available to the City at no cost is the General Election held in November during even-numbered years. After, conducting a telephone poll of the City Council members, the Council determined to ' proceed with a March election. This election would be to elect a Mayor to fulfill the remainder of j Mayor Nicoli's term, which would expire on December 31, 2002.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 5 The Council discussed the process to use in selecting an interim mayor. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Councilors be allowed to contact anyone they wanted and to suggest that the person submit a letter of interest. The Council discussed who was eligible to vote and who was eligible to run in the mayoral election. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that the residents in recently annexed properties were eligible to vote, and in addition, registered voters in recently annexed areas would also be eligible to nm for the office of Mayor. Council President Moore opened the meeting to questions from the audience. Council President Moore clarified for a gentleman that the Council has decided to hold an election for an elected mayor and also to select an interim mayor to fill the position until the election. He clarified that the interim mayor could run for office if he/she so chose. He indicated that the Council would ask people to submit their names as soon as it decided what process to use. He also noted that two Council seats are up for election this November. Mark Padgett recommended that the Council complete the interim mayor selection process by the August 28 filing deadline for the Council seat election in order to avoid someone having to withdraw from the Council race because the Council appointed that person as interim mayor. Council President Moore concurred. The Council discussed possible venues to advertise for an interim mayor, including the newspapers, a brochure and the web page. Ms. Wheatley noted that the Cityscape was scheduled to go to press tomorrow. Mr. Monahan reviewed the process used in 1994 to fill the mayor vacancy when Mayor Edwards resigned, noting that it took approximately two months. He suggested an aggressive schedule so that the appointment would be made by August 22, 2000. The Council discussed Mr. Monahan's recommended process and decided to proceed as outlined by Mr. Monahan. The Council agreed to wait to see how many people applied before deciding how many applicants should be interviewed. Council President Moore suggested that the Mayor be sworn in at the first televised meeting in September, which would be September 12. Council President Moore mentioned an inquiry from Mike Lucas of the Tigard Times with respect to the process. Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Monahan posed the question of whether or not the interim mayor had to reside in the city for one year before taking office. Mr. Ramis pointed out that the title of the Charter section was "Qualifications of Officers," and did not address how an officer got to the position. The Council agreed on maintaining the one-year residency qualification. 5. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW Mr. Ramis reviewed the Council's two options for developing criteria for the City Manager's review. He noted the statute language clearly stating that the Council could not invent the review criteria outside of the public process. He said that the Council could use the criteria existing in the City Manager's contract or determine the criteria at a public meeting at which it allowed the public an opportunity to comment. Councilor Hunt mentioned the Council's earlier discussion with respect to the review criteria. Mr. Monahan indicated that if the Council was ready to finish up his review this evening using the contract criteria, that was tine. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that if it wanted to hold the review in rne d that the Council Executive Session, then it had to adhere to the contract criteria, He confi . could hold a public hearing at a later date to develop additional criteria. The Council agreed by consensus to complete the City Manager's review tonight in Executive CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 6 Session, using the contract criteria, and to set a date for a public meeting to discuss the City Manager review criteria in the future. 6. UPDATE: 2000 COUNCIL GOALS The Council agreed by consensus that the quarterly staff report on the Council goals was well done. There were no questions. 7. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan explained that City staff set the USA agreement over for a second time in order to hear the other jurisdictions' concerns before requesting Council approval. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Joint Water Commission Mr. Monahan reviewed the memo reporting on the Joint Water Commission meeting that he and Ed Wegner attended last Friday. He mentioned the Hillsboro staff's recommendation that the Commission start providing water to Tigard as soon as they could work out the details, and that they start developing an intergovernmental agreement to provide water to Tigard on a longer-term basis. Mr. Monahan said that the City Attorney would work with the City to draft an agreement with the Hillsboro staff. He mentioned that the Commission would buy back whatever Tigard invested toward finding additional raw water sources, if the Commission could not find a water supply for Tigard to buy into. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the price of the Commission water was two-thirds the price of Portland water, thus enabling the City to build reserves toward a buy-in amount. He mentioned the probability of buying incrementally through the years, as opposed to one huge buy-in, which would save the City a significant amount in costs. Mr. Monahan reviewed the various cost elements contributing to the price, and concurred that the price looked very favorable. Mr. Monahan explained to Council President Moore that Portland assessed Tigard no penalty for purchasing a large amount of water from somewhere else. He mentioned their good fortune with Lake Oswego supplying 3.47 mgd to Tigard during May and June. He commented that he thought that Portland preferred that Tigard not buy a huge amount from them because they might not be able to supply it during peak times. 0 Goal 5 Compliance Mr. Monahan reported that Mayor Lou Ogden of Tualatin has been spearheading a Washington County cities' effort to reach a compromise with Metro with respect to the 200-foot stream buffers in Metro's draft proposal for Goal 5 compliance. He mentioned Tigard's objection to the Metro proposal on the premise that local governments should be able to create their own regulations. He said that Mayor Ogden has suggested that other Washington County cities look at Hillsboro's draft proposal to modi fy the Metro language and, If they liked it, join in a joint submittal of the Hillsboro package. He indicated that Tigard staff reported support for the proposal from the elected officials involved. Mr. Monahan stated that the Community Development Department's review of the Hillsboro proposal found it more similar to Tigard's regulations than to Metro's proposal. He reported that the City has been asked to provide a letter of support signed by the Council President, which Mayor Ogden would deliver to Metro through MPAC, asking for modified and less restrictive language than that proposed by Metro staff. He indicated to Councilor Scheckla that he would provide the Council with copies of the mocked up draft proposal. He mentioned how fast this matter was moving. He asked for authority to brief Council President Moore more thoroughly on the issues, and to send the letter. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed as outlined by Mr. Monahan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 7 ® Status of Tri-County Appeal Mr. Monahan reported that staff needed to clarify status with the Tri-County attorney and engineer about a requested appeal hearing date and whether issues were being settled. o Cell Phones Councilor Hunt asked for a background report by the Police Chief on the use of cell phones while driving. He cited safety issues and also whether a ban on the use of cell phones while driving would be enforceable. Councilor Scheckla cautioned about such proposals and referred to the City of Portland ban on signs, for which they had to pay a $500,000 fine. Mr. Ramis explained that Portland failed to establish a record justifying the ban. Portland needed more than the opinion of the police department; it needed data to verify that there was a problem. Councilor Hunt suggested that this concern about signs should also be reviewed. Mr. Monahan mentioned that he scheduled a discussion of employee use of cell phones for the next Executive Staff meeting. He noted that they have not yet had an accident attributable to the use of a cell phone, but it was a concern. He indicated that he understood that Councilor Hunt was asking for information on whether or not to allow this use within the community. He said that staff would research the question and work with Chief Goodpaster to formulate a recommendation. Councilor Scheckla discussed his opinion that regulating cell phone use while driving infringed on people's rights. Councilor Patton indicated that she would like to hear more information, commenting that the dynamics of structuring a ban and enforcing it, and the question of people's civil rights, presented some hurdles. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that ladies driving while putting on their makeup presented a similar situation. He asked where they drew the line. Mr. Monahan said that he would ask Chief Goodpaster to get accident statistics. Mr. Monahan asked for clarification on the signs under discussion: were they the crawl signs, such as the new one at Walgreen's? Mr. Ramis explained that the controversial signs in Portland were the video board signs but the City ended up banning all signs with movement because the City Attorney's office indicated that they could not distinguish between time and temperature signs and the video board signs. Councilor Hunt advised that all he was asking for was Chief Goodpaster's review on whether this was an issue that the Council should consider. Mr. Monahan said that Chief Goodpaster could comment on whether the City has had a problem with its existing signs and look at the impacts of the new types of technology. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:20 p.m.. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. Council President Moore reconvened the work session at 9:25 p.m. o Transportation Bond Mr. Ramis reported that the staff revision of the City Attorney's draft language for the ballot measure title for the transportation bond exceed the legal word limit. He noted that, instead of returning to his office for review, the ballot title went straight to the Council for adoption. He explained that the Council could re-adopt the ballot title, as edited by the City Attorney's office to meet the legal word limit, or lie would send the edited title directly to the elections office. Council President Moore asked what happened if the Council voted 2 to 2, given the 3 to 2 vote last time. Mr. Ramis explained that, under the statute, lie was obligated to send the amended ballot title CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 8 to the elections office, regardless of Council action. He indicated that he preferred the Council to adopt the amended ballot title. Councilor Hunt pointed out that if the Council did not vote to adopt the amended ballot title, and the City Attorney sent it on, then the City Attorney was not acting under the wishes of the Council. Mr. Ramis concurred, commenting that he did not like the statute. He emphasized that the Council would be voting on the ballot title language only; the Council has already made the decision to put the measure on the ballot. Councilor Hunt characterized this as similar to the Atfalati resolution, reiterating his questions and concerns with respect to the legality of the County's action. Staff indicated that they could return with the amended ballot title at the July 25 meeting. Mr. Ramis confirmed that this was an ad ministerial task dealing solely with the language of the title, and required for compliance with statutory requirements. Councilor Hunt stated that he voted against the bond measure originally because of his displeasure with the total tax situation and his opposition to the Atfalati measure. He said that, having made his protest vote, he would vote in favor of changing the title. The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(l) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. 9. ADJOURNMEN'T': 10:20 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder yor, Ci of ig Date: a C_ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 9 AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF July 18, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Summer Creek Wetlands Enhancement Project ~y PREPARED BY: G. Be= DEPT HEAD OK C`1°9- --'CITY MGR OK V - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Progress report on Summer Creek Wetlands Enhancement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION No Council action is requested. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 14, 2000, staff reported to Council that City and Unified Sewerage Agency staff had met with the regulatory agencies to discuss the design of this project. The consensus reached at that meeting was that the area could be best improved with a meandering shaded stream to convey low summer flows. Higher flows would be diverted into backwater areas to support the growth of native vegetation. The water in the backwater areas would return to the stream as flows recede so that fish would not become trapped in the backwater area. It was further agreed that a preliminary design should be submitted to the regulatory agencies for review and comment in advance of the permit application so that the agencies' comments could be reflected in the permit application. The consultant has prepared two design options for consideration by the regulatory agencies. These options were mailed to the regulatory agencies on June 28, 2000 and are attached. Comments received from the agencies will be presented to Council. The Option 1 design includes ponds in the backwater areas that will completely drain back to the stream as flow recede. This is accomplished by grading the ponds so that the bottom of the pond is no lower than the bottom of the stream. The Option 2 design alternative modifies the Option 1 design by including a grading option with ponds in the backwater areas deepened to three or four feet below the bottom of the stream so that ponds will remain during periods of low flow. The elevation at the top of the backwater area at its connection to the stream will equal the elevation of the bottom of the stream so that the stream and pond remain connected to prevent fish from being trapped. This is the option preferred by the neighboring residents. Both of these options will require easements from the owners along Mdrestone Ct. Once agency comments have been evaluated, a design option will be selected and presented to neighboring residents. The required easements will then be requested. Following acquisition of the easements, a permit application will be submitted and the consultant will be requested to submit a proposal to prepare construction bid and contract documents. The implementation schedule is highly dependent on the acquisition of easements. That schedule will be developed after agency comments are received and the design option is selected. a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. FISCAL NOTES Funding through Surface Water Management system development charges is available. The cost will be estimated following Council approval of the conceptual plan. 1AdWde\sumisummer creek proprewjuly 18 -OO.doe PLANTING LEGEND I` FORESTED WETLAND I Overstory .37 Botanical Name Commn Name G poeudatanga men-ies!i Douglao Pic . ~ _ 1 1111 x• _,,„yt~. aR;_ j~-,.F c ;~.t l^i:; _ _ rf ? r 5~~ -t-~1i .a* ✓ 1'hula Dluata Western Red Cedar Acer mecrophyllum Sigleaf Maple Cratagua douylasii estern ~R / 1 r✓j ' 'i Py:vs tnaa Western Crabapple Understory . Symphoricerpos albus Snovberry Rican eanguineum Flavoring Currant { ~ ! r J ' Oi, ~ Rasa nutkana Nootka Rose vaccinium Darvifolium Red Huckleberry o / 7 i r i Phyaaarpus capitatua Ninebark O ✓ 9 J, / I I ( I / t~,% Cornus noricea, Radtvig Dogwood / o > i / ~o G Groundlayer Elymus glaucus Elymus Oba J/} Poatuca rubra v.rubra Pestuca Polystic.Num munitum Sword Fm Gacltheria ahallon 3a1al ! ♦ 7 n N+honia nervosa Nahonia Deochampsia caespitosa Tufted Hairgrase SCRUB-SHRUB Overstory Botanical Name CC-0. Name Praxinus latifolia Oregon Ash Populua :richocarpa eeack Cottonwood PNnaa emarginata Bitter Chokecherry rr ~J Salinilmdra Pacific Willow J - . aa, , Salix 31tcha"is Sicka Willow ^ Salix acouleriana Scouler a Willow Understory Ameianchiec aanifolia Western Serviceberry ! 1 Comas eericea Redtwig Dogwood Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose J~ Spirea dongiasli Docgias Spirea Symphoricarpua albus Co=4r. Snowberry ~ ' '-'•~n i~ I ~a ~ m / ~ Groundlayer } oc , % ~ n w , Deschampsra caespitosa Tufted Xairgraes Rlymus glauaw Blue Wildrye \ J / ! ! 7 n / ! j Festuw rubra v. rube Red rescue , / t'{ ' r 1 / 1 _ / / ~ Clycaria nttrdmcalia xestaen Nannagraas EMERGENT MARSH Groundlayer Botanical Name Co=n Name pD. ,ru 3 \ e syzigacMs Sleughgraea v/ / Ceeehamp9la caespitosa ufted Nairgraee r _ ' r , x / r G Blymua g:aucus Bfuc Wildrye /f~ Peutuca ztrbra v, [nh[e Red rescue / - , Allema Dlama9o ` i..- ! Jr ' y, r \ " :Q x n n +Y• i i X,,,,' -aguatka American Mater-plantain m * " k,,;~', Carew obnupta Slough Sedge j •N ! / p - m LL-7- Carex stipata Savaeakcd sedge 1 1 r : w l- }---u-+r _ Sieocharis ecicuiaris Needle Spike-Rush \ 1 Ebotharis ovata Ovate Spike-Rush 1 w Eleocharie palustria Common Spike-Rush dacrua of fuses Ccm=Km Rush i^ n Sagitar:a latifclia Aac h:a3 u..,..._ Sullrarh I ~j USci:pus mic.-carpus Small-Fruited Bullruah c Cr ~T\ r f'T ^ 'n n l ~f !f / City of Tigard 1 Unified Sewerage Agency 1 ' .a , L. Ciimmar f r®®4 Apefnrrifinri ` ± 1 f- to6/.. Y 4100 B %02 V 601 F. a %v .a w yr %4 i to e J- u, e ■ 5 M 1121 5 A(,E Z Master Plan ` _ LJ - m I 4 GreenWorks, P .C. Tetra Tech/KCM Inter-Fluve May 2000 1 i / i-11.•.. ~1 4. ~'t ~'1'" OPTION 1 o 'Aft V Qt425 Low Flow r Forested Scrub Emergent Scrub Forested Channel Scrub Forested Wetland Shrub March Shrub Wetland Shrub Wetland Fringe Fringe } Scrub Section ®A Shrub J 4 Q1Dd5 Q .g Low Flow Created Terrace Forested Scrub Emergent Scrub Forested Channel Scrub Forested City of Tigard Wetland Shrub March Shrub Wetland Shrub Wetland Fringe Fringe Unified Sewerage Agency Scrub Shrub Section -Summer Creek Restoration Master Plan OPTION 1 GreenWorks, P.C. Tetra Tech/KCM Inter•Fluve May 2000 North / 06' PLANTING LEGEND J 1 FORESTED WETLAND r..•1I', %r i~ • oversta 1 " / _"r ' \ Jet Botanical Name OT,,onNr [ xi1 PseudOtapga mei Dnugiae Fir A-tr plicate western Red Ced J A:u naortphyl lum 8441raf Maple Cretagp8 ea -ii Western ~ ~I / ~•I/ 'L Pyrusfu a Western Crabapple understo[y / r ; SymptarieerPox Alhcn Snovberry Z + lly sarguineum Flowering Current Ronk nutkana Wootka Rose L,TA' 0" vaccinium pmifolium Red Huckleberry hr, Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark ~~.~'f~•-JIB, i .!y Corn-as dericea Redtwig Dogwood T J. GrOundlayer Ely a a I sl / / • r / + Blymua glaucu ucus Slymue Fescuca "bra v. rubs Featuca ` g Polystichum munitum Sword Hm caultheria shallon $alai a ~ ' ~ r~ f 1~ ~ ~ \ ~ V ~ \ } l~ MplWnia nervosa !layanie / ; ,e n t•+, i DescMmpaia eaeapitaea Tufted Hairgrass % n y qt f ~ / ~ i SCRUB -SHRUB overstory Botanical Name Comm Na'o Fraxirua la.ifolia Oregon Ash Populus txichncarpa Black CO'tonwaod r •a `"a )n` /k w (j~r yrwma a ArgineG Bitter Chokecherry SAI'mihndra PACific Willow Soli. sitcho sis Sitka Willow Solix aaouleriana Scouler s Willow understory !r~~ J / , • r ~kPr a e ~i a r _ =nenchaar ainifolix Neste" Serviceberry aericea Redtwig Dogwood Rusa ne n utkana Nvo[ka Rose Rosa J/ J ^x e f f / Spires daugiaasi uougias Spires Symphoricaapus albus Comon Snovbarry Croundlayer Deachampsia caeepitusa Tufted Hairgrasa 1 Blymue glauew Blue Nildtye nc ! i r' ' r r1 w / % Festuca rubra v. rubra Red Fescue \ , `7 a ~ ^ n © ~ ~ ~ ~ Slyceria acldentalia western Vannagrasa EMERGENT MARSH Groundla er Botanical Name Cannon Name a 1 - r s ! / t Beckmannia ay.ig.chne Sloughgraes O Deschampsia ceespitosaTufted Hairgrasa I slyms 9lautua Blue Wildrye Pent teme 1 1 uca [vbra v. zubxa Red Fescue E r r r H I s w r ll ex p sc ve American water-plantain i,•.4/ 1 f yr••~p. Carex o ppta ate Slough Sedge Carex eapau SavAeaked Sedge Eltocharis acicularis Needle Spike-Ruah Pirochnria ovate Ovate Spike-Rush Eleocharis palustris Carron Spike-Rush Swcus effuses Co man Rush _ 1 _ •j'. ,1. l J / Sagitaris laeifolis Arrowhead n m / Scixpua acptue Nardocem Bvll"ah r s e r/ ~n m J 1 Scitpua micrccaryua Smell-Fruited Bullrush City of Tigard e L,, / ~~`S ((~~j1 r~ > r - ,b Unified Sewerage Agency r IQ' 6 ~.J ~v C/I• n / Ii a5 mmer Creek Restoration 12, ST M avE `i L L3_11 rnasc`er Tian if c 11 nl(~'"(n'~1(~'~ GreenWorks, P.C. Tetra `Pech/KCM Inter•Fluve , .•f I (_~I 1x. ~I// J r'aI W:,~ June20W - ' i y I 1 I I / l / 'w . w v l l e 1I ~ I fr r l p i i'1 OPTION 2 1 r i 0 n;~ Qta25 - At__ ~ i i Qs Low Flow Forested Scrub Pond Scrub Forested Main Scrub Forested Wetland Shrub Shrub Wetland Channel Shrub Wetland Fringe Scrub Fringe Shrub Section A-A Q,U.23 - a 4C i I v S Low Flow Created Terrace Forested Scrub Pond Forested Main Scrub Forested City of Tigard Wetland SFmb Wetland Channel Shrub Wetland Fringe Fringe Unified Sewerage Agency Scrub Shrub Section B-B Summer Creek Restoration Master Plan j OPTION 2 f ! GreenWorks, P.C. Tetra Tech/KCM fnter•Fluve June 2000 k krr t t Y s Amer Creek Wetlands synancem ent Project Status Update July 18, 2000 ~a $us of Project ❖ Meeting on February 8, 2000 ❖ Attendees included representatives from: - City and USA Staff - City's consultant - US Environmental Protection Agency -US Corps of Engineers - Oregon Division of Fish & Wildlife -Division of State Lands 2 1 kill, Ggperad Points of Agreement 11,110 ❖ Meandering stream will be restored ❖ Creation of several off-line channels ❖ Water will drain to the creek during low flow ❖ Improvements to habitat in the area ❖ Consultant will create concept plans for review by regulatory agencies 3 Sw am er Creek-Merestone A rea g_ y e q'n 2 Detl n Option 1 - Plan View ri Section BS'' r'A. ct~op A~ii. I" Summer Crook Restoration -ign Option I - Section AA t+++i~i~~EjO 1,1 M 6.1 i a»~ Jx- t _9a:~ wne. MAI" Section A-A a 6 3 Design Option I Section BB yr, l v.ro ...v.n ~w:a I um and ivr Section B-B yiign Option I ~9~tt •:a Key Points - Areas adjacent to creek are flooded only during periods of high water { - Water drains to creek as storm flows recede ;I - Will be mostly dry during summer months i - Is in compliance with regulatory agency requirements i a - Most likely approvable g 4 Des.ign Option 2 - Plan View Connect go < Point Sect'bn! AuA.. - _ '{4 r ~,c.: r ` ~ 1~ ✓ Summer Creek Restoration Duo n Option 2 - Section AA 1r~ a»r 1 J { /adN kW Ntl k.W I /amiM I kM 411Ytl { 'TRW ADD 9M •MOaO QunM 1h10 Irryl Section A-A {o 5 a Qesgn option 2 - Section BB ff i. 7wa awlee un.. IvrwN SSW IsJ IsaN bW hale! vvWw SkW LvrIW ~ WrM LIW ~ MvLd Yrb- Section B-B ~lJesgn ®ption 2 - Connection Point 8i`~fl f~f~f Backwater Area Stream Water Surface ` ® I 6 e flgn Option 2 ❖ Key Points - Areas adjacent to creek will fill up at high flows - Small ponds adjacent to the creek will not drain back to the creek at low flows - Will not create any deep, contiguous ponds - Most likely would not be approvable by agencies - Neighborhood may prefer this to Option 1 13 r 'ere Do We Coo From Here? ❖ Submitted both options for review by the regulatory agencies - Corps of Engineers - DSL - ODF&W ❖ Next steps will depend on the response by the regulatory agencies i 14 Steps -ekly ` i ~j#r ❖ Review comments with the neighborhood ❖ Scenario 1 - City obtains consensus from neighborhood to proceed with approvable option - Submit permit application to agencies - Obtain easements from adjacent residents - Design and construct project 1s ,N ztSteps si-i ❖ Scenario 2 - Neighborhood disagrees with project concept - Discussion with Council for next step - Possible options • Project is delayed and redesigned to eliminate need for easements; or • Project is cancelled 16 1 1 8 r . AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF July 18.2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE USA-City Agreements PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK k ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of the draft USA-City Agreement which would revise the original USA contract adopted in 1970 as modified through 1990. USA has determined that the existing agreements with Washington County cities are incomplete and do not reflect current operating conditions within the urban area of Washington County. A draft revised contract has been discussed with City staff for the past several months. The latest draft is ready for discussion with the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council review the draft City Agreement and engage in discussion with City staff as well as representatives of USA. INFORMATION SUMMARY Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County has prepared a draft City Agreement for review by member jurisdictions. City staff has participated in discussions with USA personnel and other cities for the past several months. The Agreement is out-of-date as modifications have not been made since 1990. Surface water management responsibilities were added to the agency in 1990 resulting in changes to the Agreement to reflect the added responsibility. Current/pending regulatory requirements such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Metro Title 3 as well as the Conveyance System Management Study necessitate a review at this time. The proposed agreement would better identify the responsibilities of USA as well as member cities. Attached for review is a redline version of the USA-City Agreement which illustrates changes proposed by various jurisdictions, including Tigard. Our City Attorney has contributed to the City's proposed amendments. A clean copy of the agreement proposed by USA is also attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Keep the 1990 USA Agreement without making modification. ti- VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\ADM\GREER\AGENDA ITEMS\USA-CITY AGREEMNT SUMh1.DOC UJA Q0 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY RECEIVED C.O.T. May 19, 2000 MAY 2 2 2000 Administration Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Bill: SUBJECT: CITY AGREEMENTS I have enclosed two copies of the USA-City Agreement (Agreement) in advance of our meeting within the next few weeks. My office will call to schedule a convenient time. The first enclosure highlights the comments received from the cities during the review process. These proposed revisions have been discussed during earlier meetings with you, at our County Manager's meetings and at a joint council meeting of the Agency and cities. The second enclosure is an executable copy of the Agreement containing the revised language reflecting many of the changes proposed by the cities. In considering Tigard City Council action on this issue, it is useful to summarize why the Agency feels that adoption of this revised Agreement is essential at this time. Out of Date The current USA-City agreements were originally adopted in 1970 with only minor modifications through 1990. In that year, surface water management responsibilities were added to the Agency, and changes were made to the Agreement reflecting this added responsibility. In reviewing the existing Agreement within the context of current/pending regulatory requirements (Clean Water Act, Endar;ered Species Act, Metro Title 3), new service delivery initiatives (Conveyance System Management Study), and the Agency's legal responsibilities for managing revenues and expenditures under ORS 451, it is clear that the existing Agreements are incomplete and do not reflect current operating conditions within the urban area of Washington County. The revised agreement better reflects these current conditions. Regulatory Compliance Under ORS 451 and as the lead Agency in terms of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and overall Clear, Water Act (CWA) compliance, USA is the permittee for both sanitary sewer and storm water regulations. While USA is the responsible party, federal and 155 North First Aven n ue, uite 270, MS 10 Phone: 503/648-8621 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-3072 FAX: 503/640-3525 111 Will City Agreements May 19, 2000 Page 2 of 3 state regulatory agencies have determined that the existing language in the USA-City Agreements does not clearly delineate USA's authority to mandate specific compliance actions within the cities. In light of this criticism, we engaged outside counsel to assess the legitimacy of the regulatory agency concerns and evaluate possible remedies. It is true that the existing agreements do not contain very credible provisions assuring compliance. We are advised that this weakness can be corrected through revision of the Agreement or by Agency rulemaking. It seems most consistent with our history of collaboration that we work together to address this need by amendment of the agreement. Accordingly, the revised Agreement restates this authority (already established under ORS 451) by clearly designating USA as the lead Agency in responding to permit issues throughout the service area. Service Delivery Efficiencies The urban area of Washington County covers 123 square miles. Within that area are over 1,400 miles of sanitary sewer pipe, 26,500 catch basins and 890 miles of storm lines. USA and the cities share field maintenance responsibilities for these collection systems. The current Agreement has provided the basis for assigning general system responsibilities and establishing very basic criteria for performing field maintenance activities. The unprecedented rate of development within the urban growth boundary and the corresponding expansion of sanitary sewer and storm water system inventory have highlighted the need to better define and coordinate the field maintenance operations of the Agency and cities. The work planning program and service area maps developed with the cities over the last two years and included in the proposed City Agreements are key steps toward implementing a more cost-effective approach toward sanitary and storm water system maintenance. This efficiency will translate into better service and long term savings for all ratepayers in the urban area of Washington County. Coordinated Financial Management Under the current Agreement, the Agency and cities jointly provide field services under a framework, which generally assigns to the individual jurisdictions the physical areas of responsibility and the system inventory to be maintained. Under the Agency's rules, uniform percentage allocations of service charge revenue are made between the cities and USA; 75 percent of storm water rate revenue is retained by the City and 30 percent of the sanitary sewer rate revenue is retained. These percentage allocations have been in place since 1990 and 1970 respectively. Neither is supported by actual cost or system inventory data. In order to insure that cities receive revenues needed to do the revised work programs resulting from the Conveyance Study, we need to develop a consistent cost based means of paying the City for that work. The basis for allocations has been developed with the cities through the Conveyance System Management Study. In addition, these allocations can be adjusted annually to reflect any changes impacting maintenance activities/costs. In terms of funding, rate setting and financial management, the existing and new Agreements provide the Agency with comprehensive Unified Seiverage Agency/CityAgreements Revised May 2000 w, City Agreements May 19, 2000 Page 3 of 3 authority to manage revenues and expenditures throughout the service area. Our revised approach establishes a procedure to better manage the allocation of service charge revenues for field maintenance activities. In addition, the Agency will continue to work with the cities toward better allocation of system development charge revenues and establishing improved financial reporting systems. These areas highlight the major changes to the Agreement, which the Agency believes necessary to meet regulatory requirements and better manage how USA and the cities do business. As in the past, the Agency commits itself to working with the partner cities in providing the highest quality and lowest cost sanitary and storm services. This revised Agreement is an important step toward ensuring this level of service into the future. Agency staff is available to assist with presentations to Council and hope that the Agreements can be brought up for adoption by mid- June. I look forward to our meeting in the next few weeks. Sincerely, Bill Gaff General Manager Uniyred Sewerage Agency/City Agreements Revised May 2000 Version 3-23-00 USA-CITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the - day of , 2000, 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, the Agency and Cities have established and will continue to maintain an effective partnership for sanitary sewerage and surface water management 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 Geographic Responsibility means the area set forth in the map attached as Exhibit A as may be amended. 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. Page 1 of 20 - Agreement with City of Ills 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, and in full compliance with the requirements of all applicable laws, regulations, and permits. Tualatin City is concerned about the reference to "full" compliance and "all" applicable laws because of the potential legal implications. These terms may be read to impose a duty of absolute perfection in operation and maintenance, with any infraction of that duty openin<, the door to civil liability for negligence and whatever the Federal government mi~,ht impose. While we strive for excellence and understand the consequences for failing to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and permits, we believe that simply deleting those two words and leaving the rest of the language accomplishes your needs without imposing impossible standards on us. Comment USA agrees with the City of Tualatin's comment to delete the word "full" and the word "all" from section I.F. 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. 1. 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. 3. Rates and Charges are defined in the Agency's "Rates and Charges" Resolution and Order (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. Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) 2. Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) Page 2 of 20 - Agreement with City of 3. Impervious Surface Area 4. Permit Application and Inspection 5. Sanitary Sewer Service Charge 6. Sanitary System Development Charge (SDC; Connection Charge) 7. Storm and Surface Water Service Charge 8. Storm and Surface Water System Development Charge K. Sanitary Sewerage S stem 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's 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. Tigard The Work Program and Performance Standards should be a joint effort of USA and the Cities. Section IN should read: "Work Program and Performance Standards are adopted by the Agency and City to define..." Comment There were similar comments from the cities throughout this agreement on the fundamental issues of the Agency's authority to ultimately set the work programs, division of responsibility, rates and charges, the division of revenue, and to assess enforcement actions and penalties. In general, the cities commented that these actions should be by mutual approval. This issue is fundamental to the Agency being able to carry out its responsibility as the regional service provider for the storm and sanitary sewer programs. The new agreement does not give the Agency any additional authority than it had in the existing agreement, rather it is just defined more openly. The exception being the ability for the Agency to assess fines and penalties. USA was formed in 1970, Page 3 of 20 - Agreement with City of and the SWM authority was added in 1990, in order to create an agency with the power and ability to operate a unified program. The regulatory agencies view USA as the responsible entity, and USA would receive the fines and penalties for non-performance throughout its service area. The Agency believes that in order for the regional storm and sanitary sewer systems to function properly and meet regulatory requirements, the Agency must have the authority to develop and enforce the programs necessary to meet the permit obligations. As such, the rules, policies, and work programs are not a "group decision", but instead are ultimately a decision of our governing board. It also follows that the implementation of the policies and programs can not be "discretionary" within each member cities. The alternative of each city having "veto power" over rules, policies, and programs would neutralize this central authority and make it virtually impossible to achieve the goals required by our permits. Recommended revising to read: "Work Program and Performance Standards are adopted by the Agency after considering input from the cities to define the activities required to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems." Beavcnoll General Comiiiew ('it\ believes this is a cooperame a`lreertrent sharin`, (nn mutual authcu V, anti not one that delcu"Iles auth<n'ity to 0tv, Comment Please see the response to Tigard's comment above. No change recommended. Section 2. Determination of Programs, Rules, Policies and Standards A. The Agency is responsible for the management and operation of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems within its boundary, and is the designated permittee who shall obtain and enforce timely compliance with relevant Federal and delegated State Clean Water Act permits for treatment plants and stormwater. 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. Any such changes duly adopted by the Agency that impact City will become effective 30 days from the date of notice to City by Agency or as mutually agreed to. Tigard Amend the last sentence to read: Any such changes duly adepted by the Ageney that impaet to work programs and performance standards required by state and/or federal permits or regulations will become effective 30 90 days from the date of notice to City by Agency or as mutually agreed to. Any changes to work programs and performance standards not required by state and/or federal permits and regulations shall be mutually agreed to by the Agency and City before they become effective Proposed changes should be communicated Page 4 of 20 - Agreement with City of MEMO' between the Agency and the City in or before December of the year before they are to be implemented to allow Agency and City to budget appropriately for the following year. Comments Regarding the 30 or 90 days, USA agrees with the City of Tigard's comment to amend the effective date of changes to orders, work programs and performance standards. USA proposes that the phrase "become effective 30 days from the date of notice to City by Agency or as mutually agreed to" be amended to read "become effective 60 days from the date of notice to City by Agency or as mutually agreed to. However, in the event such orders, work programs or performance Standards are required by a regulatory agency to be implemented immediately, the orders, work programs or performance Standards shall be immediately implemented." This change gives the cities more time to inform work groups of the changes and allows time for supplemental budgeting if necessary. Regarding the Agency's authority to make the changes, please see the response to Tigard's comment in Section 1.N, with no change to the authority being recommended. Beaverton City does not a,ree \%'ltll Auencv mjtliorlt~' to Clliltlue division of work and revenue on a 10 day rlcltice. Comment Same as above. Tualatin In the existing language, it says, "The Agency, in cooperation with the Cities..." The term, "cooperation" is unclear as to what the Agency and the cities are to do. We would like this clarified. Comment USA proposes to change "in cooperation with" to "after considering input from the cities". B. City agrees to follow and enforce the 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. Tualatin The first sentence of Section 2.8 requires the city to follow and enforce the Agency's orders, specs, etc. With USA becoming the issuing agency for stormwater and the cities merely referring developers to USA, I don't know what we're expected to enforce nor where we (,et the authority to do so, especially where we have existing SWM ordinances on our books that do not mirror what USA has just adopted. Comment The City only has to enforce the provisions where the City has taken the responsibility for the activity in the agreement. No change is recommended. Tualatin Section 2.13, last sentence, change to read: "City further agrees to notify Agency of apparent violations thereof of which it has knowledge which may require Agency legal action." City believes this is necessary to keep from imposing a duty on the city to actively seek out violations. Comment The change as proposed is accepted. 11 Page 5 of 20 - Agreement with City of Section 3. Division of Responsibilities A. Division of Responsibilities 1. The purpose of this agreement is to delegate to and contract with the City to do specific functions. The responsibilities of the Agency and City are defined in this Section and Appendix 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. 2. All functions relating to the subject matter of this Agreement not specifically listed in this Section or Appendix A as being the responsibility of City shall remain the responsibility of the Agency. B. Procedure for Modifying the Division of Responsibilities 1. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified from time to time with approval in writing by the Chief Executive Officer of City or designee and the Agency General Manager or designee. Tualatin City does not believe that the City Manager (Tualatin's chief executive officer) can modify this agreement without City Council action. The agreement itself has to go to Council for approval, so any modifications, unless there are very specific, narrow parameters upon the delegation, would also have to go to Council. Therefore, "chief executive officer or designee" should be deleted and "City" inserted. Comment USA agrees with the City of Tualatin's comment to delete the words "Chief Executive Officer of City or designee" and replace with "City", although the assumption of the original language assumes that the City official would obtain the necessary authority to sign, including City Council authorization when necessary. 2. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified by the Agency Board after receiving input from the City and determining this modification will be in the best interest of the public. Any changes in responsibility imposed by the Board shall only be done when the Board determines such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations. Tigard Amend the last sentence to read: Any changes in responsibility imposed by the Board shall only be done when the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the City or designee determines such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations. Comment Regarding the joint approval, please see the response to Tigard's comment in Section 1.N, with no change to the authority being recommended.. Recommended clarifying the paragraph to read: "l:csponsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix Page 6 of 20 - Agreement with City of A may be modified by the Agency Board after receiving input from the City and determining this medifieatien . ,;"be in the best -interestedthe-public. Arm-ehanges-in responsibility impesed by the Board shall enly be done when !he Bear-d deter-mines sueh a the change is necessary to comply with State or Feder:'. permits, laws or regulations." Beaverton ('11v does not agree \\ith ALW11CV M11[11061[ V to chan,_,e division of'work and rCVenIIC oil a 30 day,' notice. - Comment Same as above. Tualatin Section 3.13.2 allows modification by the Board "after receiving input" from the city and "determining" the modification is in the best interest of the public. It is unclear whether the Board can unilaterally modify the responsibilities, even if the City's input is "No" and it is also unclear whether the City has to determine that the modification is in the best interest of the public or whether only USA makes that determination. We do not favor USA being able to modify the responsibilities unilaterally. Comment The intent of this language is that the Board makes the decision after receiving input from the city, and the City does not have to agree with the final decision. Please see the response to Tigard's comment in Section 1.N, with no change to the authority being recommended. 3. City may request that the Agency assume responsibility for any portion of the program defined in this Section and 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. Tigard Amend the second sentence to read: "As long as funding; levels stay the same, corresponding adjustments to the revenue......" Comment The intent of the original language is that the funding levels will not stay the same, but this would only occur when there is a significant change in the program required to meet regulatory requirements. No change is recommended. Amend the last sentence to read: H H " ....resulting from non-performance of the programs under its responsibility subject to funding availability." 7 Comment The proposed change is acceptable. a a 4. 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 Page 7 of 20 - Agreement with City of 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. C. Additional City Responsibilities Tigard Section 3.C General comments and concerns The City is concerned that the additional City responsibilities listed in the draft IGA do in fact add to the City Responsibility and may impose additional costs on the City. The City should not have to bear extra financial burdens just so that USA can restructure its process. Comment The intention is that the Agency will fund everything we ask the City to do. The procedure requires coordination of the USA and City processes. The City is concerned that USA will not be able to respond in an adequate time to allow the City processes to meet their deadlines. Subsection 2 requires the City to refrain from issuing a stormwater connection permit without verification from USA. Does USA have adequate resources to provide a response without delaying projects, including City project? Under subsection 3, the City must obtain approval from USA before approving grading permits, land clearing permits, plat approvals and land use approvals. The City must reach a final decision on most of these applications within 120 days, or in some cases a shorter time. Any delay will result in a mandamus action, with the Courts not the City and not USA making the decision. Does USA have the resources to do this? This section should be substantially modified. USA previously informed us that the two processes would be independent and that the City could issue approvals and that USA would have independent authority to deny the sewer connection. That system could work, but a system that requires prior approval from USA cannot work unless USA devotes substantial resources to the process and commits in the agreement to a decision within a short amount of time. Comment The intent of this language is to meet the requirements of Agency R&O #00- 7, Section 1.02.15, which defines Development and is in part intended to ensure that proposed development can meet water quality requirements before it is approved through the land use process. It is also intended to ensure that other activities, like land clearing and tree removal, which can have a negative impact on water quality, are reviewed and provide mitigation for negative water quality impacts. Thus, the IGA language in Section 3.C.3 which reads "for any grading permit, land clearing permit, plat approval, or land use approval prior to undertaking work" should be revised to mirror more closely the language in R&O #00-7 to, for all development, as defined by the Agency (such as land division, grading, paving, clearing, etc.), prior to undertaking work. Page 8 of 20 - Agreement with City of The first part of Section 3.C.2 refers primarily to construction and the second portion, primarily to pre-development activities. It is correct that the pre-development reviews by the City and Agency are two separate processes. They can, however, be handled concurrently and should be coordinated. R&O #00-7, Section 2.04.3, outlines the Agency's approval timelines. Upon initial submittal, the Agency shall endeavor to approve, return for revision, or reject it within 15 working days. The Agency shall endeavor to approve, return for revision, or reject subsequent submittals within 10 working days. We question why a separate USA approval is necessary if the standards are clearly stated. Comment Please see response above. Section 3 is headed "Division of Responsibilities". Subsection C of Section 3 lists "Additional City Responsibilities". There is no section listing USA responsibilities. (Again we note we have not seen Appendix A.) Section 3.C.7 requires the City to allow USA to obtain certain permits from the City without having to pay fees? This provision should be reciprocal. Comment The organization of the agreement appears to cover all the topic areas. Regarding permit fees, the Agency does not have roads where we could reciprocate. No changes are recommended. 1. 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. 2. Refer persons who are proposing 'development', as defined in the Agency's current version of its Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order, to the Agency to obtain a Service Provider Letter. City shall not issue a stormwater connection permit without verification from the Agency that the development conforms to adopted Agency standards, orders, and master plans. Tualatin Section 3.C.2 reference to Agency's "current" version of its Design and Construction Standards is too vague. The reference should be to a particular dated version or at least refer to the document that is in effect at the time the developer is seeking a Service Provider Letter. Most important: This says that the "City shall not issue a stormwater connection permit..." It was the City's understanding from David Noran that USA would be issuing the permits and that the City was merely to refer developers to USA. If that is not true, we need to be so advised because that changes the City's position on this process. If it is true, then perhaps we need a definition to know I r.Vhat a "stormwater connection permit" is and how that is different from what USA will be issuing. Page 9 of 20 - Agreement with City of Oil it I Comment Regarding the first comment, the Agency must be able to refer to whatever is the current version of the D&C Standards, plus the current version of all other rules, without having to go back to the City for approval of a change to the agreement. Please see the response to Tigard's comment in Section L N for further discussion. Regarding the second issue of issuing stormwater connection permits, the intent of this language is to meet the requirernc;nts of Agency Ordinance 927 and R&O #00-7, Section 3.01, which states in part, "All development within USA's jurisdiction must obtain a stormwater connection permit from the Agency or its designee.... " So the proposed IGA language is correct. Agency staff is working to clarify the difference between a "connection permit" and systems development charge, which have been used interchangeably in the past. Historically, the Agency has delegated to large City staffs the routine authority to sell, charge, and collect systems development charges. The term connection permit, however, should be limited to the approval to physically connect to the public system. 3. Provide notice to and obtain Agency review and approval 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, or for any grading permit, land clearing permit, plat approval, or land use approval prior to undertaking work or approving such action to ensure conformance to adopted Agency Standards, Orders, and master plans. 4. 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. 5. 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 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. Tualatin Does Section 3.C.5 mean that the City may not use its share of revenues for debt and if so, why not? Why does USA care what the City does with its share of the revenues'? If this is meant to refer only to USA's share of revenues, I don't understand how the City could obligate revenues that does not belong to it. Comment The Agency recommends subsection 5 be amended as follows: "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 the storm and surface water system or the sanitary sewerage system. Revenues allocated by the Agency to the City for the performance of functions identified in Appendix A are considered restricted, and may only be used to perform those fiinctions (including reasonable administration) delegated to the City for such things as operation and maintenance of the sanitary or storm and surface water system. System Development Charge (SDC) revenues allocated Page 10 of 20 - Agreement with City of by the Agency to the City may only be expended for the uses identified in the Agency's SDC methodology, and may not be obligated by the City for payment of non-Agency bonded debt. City shall not obligate any and s••f ee - mer- ffina, ner sha assets or facilities of the Agency's sanitary or storm and surface water system be ebligated for any debt." 6. 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. 7. 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). 8. To issue no new permit for the construction within, or modification to, a wetland, floodway, or floodplain without first receiving the written 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. Tualatin In Section 3.C.8, under FEMA rules, the City administers floodway and floodplain matters. How does this paragraph reconcile with FEMA regs? Do we need to work on this Section? Comment Regarding the comment that section 3.C.8. may overlap with FEMA regulations, USA would be happy to review any specific changes that City of Tualatin might have or to discuss any specific concerns. 9. To pursue, when City deems 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. D. City Responsibilities Outside of its City Limits 1. City is not obligated by this agreement to accept responsibility for any programs or work activities outside of its City limits. 2. 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 Page I I of 20 - Agreement with City of 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 a like 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. Tigard Section D.2 refers to the Agency's Work Programs and Performance Standards. As discussed above, these should be jointly adopted by USA and the City. Comment Please see the response to Tigard's comment in Section 1.N, with no change to the authority being recommended. Section 4 Determination and Division of Revenue, Operating Procedures and Rules Relating to Revenue A. The Agency Board shall determine and certify annually for both the sanitary sewerage system and for the storm and surface water system the monthly service charge and system development charge. The City agrees to impose these charges as a minimum. The City may impose additional charges as allowed in Section 4.D.4. B. 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 system development charge to be retained by the City for performance of the functions defined in this Agreement. Tigard Section 43 should be modified to provide a standard for funding. We recommend as an additional sentence: "The portion to be retained by the City shall be sufficient to perform the functions described in this Agreement". Comment It is recommended to add the following sentence to the end of subsection B: "Certification of revenues to be retained by the City will be dependent upon the standard costs for functions performed by the City and the overall level of revenue available for allocation." C. 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 Board may, upon 30 days notice to City, adjust the division of revenue at any time. Any mid-year changes in the division of revenue initiated by the Agency Board shall only be done when the Board determines such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations. Page 12 of 20 - Agreement with City of - Pi Ell Tigard The provision should be revised to provide 90 days' notice rather than 30 days notice. Mid-year adjustments should not be permitted because of the effect on adopted budgets. Comment Agency agrees to give 60 days notice. City of Tigard commented that mid- year adjustments should not be allowed. However, the agreement allows mid-year changes only "when such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations." Recommend clarifying the paragraph as follows: "The division of revenue may be adjusted annually by the Agency to recognize changes in responsibilities after coordination and communication with the Cities. Changes in the division of revenue will be done as a part of the normal budget process, except as defined below. If there is a mid-year change in responsibilities, which the Agency determines to be significant, the Agency Board may, upon 60 days notice to City, adjust the division of revenue at any time. Any such mid-year changes in the division of revenue initiated by the Agency Board shall only be done when the Board determines such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations." Beaverton ('it\- dues not a,ree with A_,enc\- authOr_itV tee Chan`,C dig ision ot'%~ork and re%'elrile on a 30 day notice. Comment Same as above. Tualatin Section 4.C, when does the "year" begin? Is it calendar or fiscal? Comment Fiscal D. Operating Procedures Relating to Revenue Tigard The City has not had adequate time to consider all the financial consequences of the proposed operating procedures relating to revenue and expects to provide additional comments after further review. Comment With the recent change in adoption schedule delaying the implementation of the phase 1 program to July 1, 2001, there should now be adequate time to review the financial impacts. 1. City shall remit to the Agency the portion of sanitary sewer service charges and systems development charges collected, and storm and surface water service charges and systems development charges collected, as identified in Section 4.13. 2. Payments shall be remitted on a monthly basis, with a report on Agency designated forms. 3. 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 Page 13 of 20 - Agreement with City of dispute resolution process of Section 6, the amount in dispute may be withheld or paid without prejudice to either party. Tualatin The due date in Section 4.D.3 appears to be a moving target because revenues would come in at various times through a month. We would prefer a date certain each month that would give us time to get the paperwork done. Comment The Agency agrees with the comment and recommends the first sentence be revised as follows: "Payments to the Agency shall be due apen 30 days ef r-eeeipt of the revenue collected by the billing party shall be due within 20 days following the end of each month, unless the payment has been appealed by the billing party." 4. City may charge and collect a service charge or system development charge 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 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. 5. 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 City. 6. For Industrial Waste fees, Agency shall remit to City a percentage of system development charges, volume, and monthly service charges collected equal to the percentages of non-industrial fees defined in Section 4.13. 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. 7. 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. 8. City and Agency shall each establish separate accounts for the storm and surface water program and sanitary sewerage program for the purpose of accounting for service charges and systems development charges collected and received pursuant to this agreement. 9. 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. Page 14 of 20 - Agreement with City of 10. City and Agency shall each prepare and submit to each other a performance report of the storm and surface water functions, and the sanitary sewer functions for which each is responsible. Agency will specify the requirements, frequency, and content of the performance report. Tigard Section 4.D.10 must specify the frequency. It cannot be left to the agency to dictate but must be agreed to by the parties. Comment The Agency believes we do need to be able to specify everything about the report. Different types of reports will require different frequencies, and it appears there will be new reporting requirements mandated by Federal Rules. In addition, the Agency will pay the costs for the city to prepare the reports, and so the Agency will be prudent in not requiring overly frequent or time intensive reports. No change is recommended. 11. The City and Agency may, each at its own cost, install permanent and temporary volume and quality monitoring stations to determine the effectiveness of City and Agency programs. 12. 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. Section 5. Administrative and Operating Provisions 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 Page 15 of 20 - Agreement with City of 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 3.C.7 for Wetland, Floodplain, and Floodway modifications. Timely review of the application shall be provided by the Agency. 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. Under applicable State law, the obligations for monitoring and reporting of sanitary sewer overflows to the State rest with the relevant permit holder, here the Agency; on the other hand, only City can timely obtain and report the relevant information within its area of responsibility. Agency therefore agrees not to have City brought under a permit reporting requirement, and for Agency to maintain that obligation, so long as City timely reports to Agency the information necessary and appropriate for Agency to fulfill that reporting obligation. City agrees to reimburse Agency for any expense, costs, damages, claims, fines, or penalties incurred by Agency that result from or are related to City's failure to so timely and adequately report. Tigard The City has a concern that Section 5.E imposes liability on the City in some situations in which the City itself lacked information. The section should simply read: "The City shall report all sanitary sewer overflows that it becomes aware of to the Agency within 24 hours of learning of the overflow. The City shall require all permittee of the City to report sanitary sewer overflows to the City." Comment The change is acceptable. Tualatin What do "timely" and "adequate" mean in Section 5.E? Need to clarity City's duty under this section. i Comment It is recommended to use Tigard's proposed language above. a F. 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 Oft 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 Page 16 of 20 - Agreement with City of IM, 111MISM-- 111111111111 111111M regulation by state or federal authority. Each party shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other from any expense, costs, damages, claims, fines, penalties, or liability incurred by or threatened against the other due to or resulting in whole or in part from the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party (including its officers, agents, or employees) under or in connection with or arising from any work, authority, jurisdiction, or responsibilities delegated to that party by this Agreement. G. The City agrees that the Agency has the authoricy to impose fines and penalties against the City for r t . performance of adopted programs or non-compliance with Agency, State, or Federal rules and policies. The procedures by which the Agency considers non-performance or non- compliance, imposes such fines or penalties, and processes appeals, shall be set forth in an Agency rule. In this regard, any fines or penalties assessed by the Agency against a City shall be of the same magnitude as those set forth in the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules for fines and penalties imposed by Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality. The City shall have the right to appeal any such fines or penalties imposed by the Agency to the Agency's Board of Directors. Any monetary fines or penalties imposed can not be paid from the regular Stormwater or Sanitary Sewer Funds retained by the City, but rather would have to be funded from the City's General Fund or through additional Stormwater or Sanitary Sewer revenue generated locally as provided in Section 4.D.4. Tigard The City does not agree with Section 5.G. The last sentence should be deleted. Comment Penalties can not come from the City's regular storm or sewer fund allocation, because that would reduce their ability to do a required program element. Fines and penalties must come from another source. The following is an alternative to replace the last sentence: "Payment of fines and penalties does not relieve the City from the responsibility to accomplish the work program." Tualatin In Section 5.G. how does USA have the authority to impose tines for federal or state violations'? Aren't those the purview of the agency whose rules have been violated? Further, why should this agreement say that the City may not pay fines or 4 penalties out of Stormwater or Sanitary Sewer Funds but must be taken from the General n Fund? The City council has the sole discretion to determine how City hinds should be N spent. We oppose this section in concept. Comments The Agency is not imposing Federal or State penalties. Regarding where fines are paid from, see the response to Tigard's comment above. 13cmC1toll - (,It\ doe" not auree %\ith awllont\' to 1111pose tines Oil ('11v Comment As discussed with the Cities, the Agency believes it needs some type of enforcement tool short of taking over the entire program. Page 17 of 20 - Agreement with City of H. 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. 1. 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. J. To the extent that it is so required by law or regulation, City shall comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 49, "Regulations Pertaining to Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel," including the obligation that City shall have its wastewater collection system supervised by one or more operators certified at a grade level equal to or higher than the system classification shown on page 1 of Agency's NPDES permit, issued by the State. The designated supervisor(s) shall be available to the system owner and any other operation of the facility. Tigard The last sentence of Section 5.J is confusing and unclear. Comment Agency agrees with the comment and recommends deleting the last sentence as the topic is already covered in the general statement in the first sentence. Tigard General comment concerning responsibilities and liabilities. USA appears to be asking the City to assume substantial additional liability, even though USA is taking over more of the administration of the system. USA has not provided any good reason why the City should increase its liabilities without receiving any benefits. Comment As discussed with the Cities, the Agency recommends that these changes are needed to insure the continued performance of the storm and sanitary systems and to meet the current demands and requirement of regulators. These changes are in response to recommendations from outside Counsel. i i a 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 a 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 Page 18 of 20 - Agreement with City of Y 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. 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 (S) 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 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 y 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. 7 a Section 7 Effect of this Agreement This Agreement shall supersede all prior agreements and ar.-.cndmerts includ!ng the "City Committee Agreement" between the parties with respect to sanitary sewerage Page 19 of 20 - Agreement with City of lisli~lloolll 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. Severabilitv 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. 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 CITY OF , OREGON OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON By By Chairman, Board of Directors Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: City Recorder Attorney for Agency City Attorney Page 20 of 20 - Agreement with City of 0 USA-CITY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _ day of , 2000, 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, the Agency and Cities have established and will continue to maintain an effective partnership for sanitary sewerage and surface water management 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 Geographic Responsibility means the area set forth in the map attached as Exhibit A as may be amended. 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. a D. Council means the City Council, governing body of City. Page i of 12 - Agreement with City of 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, and in compliance with the requirements of applicable laws, regulations, and permits. 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. 1. 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" Resolution and Order (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. Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) 2. Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) 3. Impervious Surface Area 4. Permit Application and Inspection 5. Sanitary Sewer Service Charge 6. Sanitary System Development Charge (SDC; Connection Charge) 7. Storm and Surface Water Service Charge 8. Storm and Surface Water System Development Charge 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 Page 2 of 12 - Agreement with City of 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's jurisdiction, to which sanitary sewage flows are not intentionally admitted. N. Work Program and Performance Standards are adopted by the Agency after considering input from the cities to define the activities required to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems. Section 2. Determination of Programs, Rules, Policies and Standards The Agency is responsible for the management and operation of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems within its boundary, and is the designated permittee who shall obtain and enforce timely compliance with relevant Federal and delegated State Clean Water Act permits for treatment plants and stormwater. The Agency, after considering input from 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, after considering input from the cities, shall have the authority to make changes to its orders, work programs and performan ce Standards. Any such changes to work programs and performance standards that the Board determines are required by state and/or federal permits or regulations will become effective 90 days from the date of notice to City by Agency or as mutually agreed to. Any changes to work programs and performance standards, not required by state and/or federal permits and regulations, shall be mutually agreed to by the Agency and City before they become effective. Proposed changes not required by state and/or federal permits and regulations should be communicated between the Agency and the City in or before December of the year before they are to be implemented to allow Agency and City to budget appropriately for the following year. A. City agrees to follow and enforce the Orders, Standards, specifications, work programs, and performance criteria promulgated by the Agency, subject, Page 3 of 12 - Agreement with City of 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, of which it has knowledge, which may require Agency legal action. Section 3. Division of Responsibilities A. Division of Responsibilities 1. The purpose of this agreement is to delegate to and contract with the City to do specific functions. The responsibilities of the Agency and City are defined in this Section and Appendix 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. 2. All functions relating to the subject matter of this Agreement not specifically listed in this Section or Appendix A as being the responsibility of City shall remain the responsibility of the Agency. B. Procedure for Modifying the Division of Responsibilities 1. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified from time to time with approval in writing by the City and the Agency General Manager or designee. 2. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified by the Agency Board after recei-, ,ig input from the City and determining the change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations. 3. City may request that the Agency assume responsibility for any portion of the program defined in this Section and 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, subject however to funding availability. 4. 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. Page 4 of 12 - Agreement with City of C. Additional City Responsibilities I . 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. 2. Refer persons who are proposing 'development', as defined in the Agency's current version of its Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order, to the Agency to obtain a Service Provider Letter. City shall not issue a stormwater connection permit without verification from the Agency that the development conforms to adopted Agency standards, orders, and master plans. 3. Provide notice to and obtain Agency review and approval 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, or for all development, as defined by the Agency (such as land division, grading, paving, clearing, etc.), prior to undertaking work or approving such action to ensure conformance to adopted Agency Standards, Orders, and master plans. 4. 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. 5. 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 the storm and surface water system or the sanitary sewerage system. Revenues allocated by the Agency to the City for the performance of functions identified in Appendix A are considered restricted, and may only be used to perform those functions (including reasonable administration) delegated to the City for such things as operation and maintenance of the sanitary or storm and surface water system. System Development Charge (SDC) revenues allocated by the Agency to the City may only be expended for the uses identified in the Agency's SDC methodology, and may not be obligated by the City for payment of non-Agency bonded debt. City shall not obligate any assets or facilities of the Agency's sanitary or storm and surface water system for any debt. 6. 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. Page 5 of 12 - Agreement with City of MINIM m2m 7. 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). 8. To issue no new permit for the construction within, or modification to, a wetland, floodway, or floodplain without first receiving the written 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. 9. To pursue, when City deems 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. D. City Responsibilities Outside of its City Limits 1. City is not obligated by this agreement to accept responsibility for any programs or work activities outside of its City limits. 2. 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 a like 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. Section 4. Determination and Division of Revenue, Operating Procedures and Rules Relating to Revenue A. The Agency Board shall determine and certify annually for both the sanitary sewerage system and for the storm and surface water system the monthly service charge and system development charge. The City agrees to impose these charges as a minimum. The City may impose additional charges as allowed in Section 4.13.4. Page 6 of 12 - Agreement with City of 9 B. 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 system development charge to be retained by the City for performance of the functions defined in this Agreement. Certification of revenues to be retained by the City will be dependent upon the standard costs for functions performed by the City and the overall level of revenue available for allocation. C. The division of revenue may be adjusted annually by the Agency to recognize changes in responsibilities after coordination and communication with the Cities. Changes in the division of revenue will be done as a part of the normal Fiscal Year budget process, except as defined below. If there is a mid-year change in responsibilities, which the Agency determines to be significant, the Agency Board may, upon 60 days notice to City, adjust the division of revenue at any time. Any such mid-year changes in the division of revenue initiated by the Agency Board shall only be done when the Board determines such a change is necessary to comply with State or Federal permits, laws or regulations. D. Operating Procedures Relating to Revenue 1. City shall remit to the Agency the portion of sanitary sewer service charges and systems development charges collected, and storm and surface water service charges and systems development charges collected, as identified in Section 4.13. 2. Payments shall be remitted on a monthly basis, with a report on Agency designated forms. 3. Payments to the Agency of revenue collected by the billing party shall be due within 20 days following the end of each month, unless the payment has been appealed by the billing party. 4. City may charge and collect a service charge or system development charge 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 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. 5. 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 Page 7 of 12 - Agreement with City of i for its costs for services performed relative to these fees, as prescribed by Agency Order or agreement with City. 6. For Industrial Waste fees, Agency shall remit to City a percentage of system development charges, volume, and monthly service charges collected equal to the percentages of non-industrial fees defined in Section 4.13. 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. 7. 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. 8. City and Agency shall each establish separate accounts for the storm and surface water program and sanitary sewerage program for the purpose of accounting for service charges and systems development charges collected and received pursuant to this agreement. 9. 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. 10. City and Agency shall each prepare and submit to each other a performance report of the storm and surface water functions, and the sanitary sewer functions for which each is responsible. Agency will specify the requirements, frequency, and content of the performance report. 11. The City and Agency may, each at its own cost, install permanent and temporary volume and quality monitoring stations to determine the effectiveness of City and Agency programs. 12. 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. Section 5. Administrative and Operating Provisions 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: Page 8 of 12 - Agreement with City of -M i 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 3.C.7 for Wetland, Floodplain, and Floodway modifications. Timely review of the application shall be provided by the Agency. 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. The City shall report all sanitary sewer overflows that it becomes aware of to the Agency within 24 hours of learning of the overflow. The City shall require all permittee of the City to report sanitary sewer overflows to the City. City agrees to reimburse Agency for any expense, costs, damages, claims, fines, or penalties incurred by Agency that result from or are related to City's failure to so timely and adequately report. F. 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. Each party shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other from any expense, costs, damages, claims, fines, penalties, or liability incurred by or threatened against the Page 9 of 12 - Agreement with City of other due to or resulting in whole or in part from the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party (including its officers, agents, or employees) under or in connection with or arising from any work, authority, jurisdiction, or responsibilities delegated to that party by this Agreement. G. The City agrees that the Agency has the authority to impose fines and penalties against the City for non-performance of adopted programs or non-compliance with Agency, State, or Federal rules and policies. The procedures by which the Agency considers non-performance or non- compliance, imposes such fines or penalties, and processes appeals, shall be set forth in an Agency rule. In this regard, any fines or penalties assessed by the Agency against a City shall be of the same magnitude as those set forth in the relevant Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules for fines and penalties imposed by Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality. The City shall have the right to appeal any such fines or penalties imposed by the Agency to the Agency's Board of Directors. Payment of fines and penalties does not relieve the City from the responsibility to accomplish the work program. H. 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. 1. 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. J. To the extent that it is so required by law or regulation, City shall comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 49, "Regulations Pertaining to Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel," including the obligation that City shall have its wastewater collection system supervised by one or more operators certified at a grade level equal to or higher than the system classification shown on page l of Agency's NPDES permit, issued by the State. 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 Page 10 of 12 - Agreement with City of 141 11 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. 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 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. Page 1 I of 12 - Agreement with City of _ .B r 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. 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 CITY OF , OREGON OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON By By Chairman, Board of Directors Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: City Recorder Attorney for Agency City Attorney Page 12 of 12 - Agreement with City of APPENDIX A DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVE THROUGH JUNE 30, 2001 TIGARD Basic Work plan Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Sanitary Maintenance Lines under 24" Line Cleaning city Agency Root Cutting city Agency Emergency response city Agency Overflow and Complaint response and investigation city Agency Cross connection investigation and response city Agency Manhole adjustment city Agency Non-structure line sealing and point repair city Agency Manhole rehabilitation (sealing) city Agency TV inspection city Agency Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation city Agency I&I abatement and system rehabilitation projects Agency and City Agency Root Foaming city Agency Structural line repairs city Agency Line replacements City Agency Pump station maintenance Agenc Agency Lines 24" and Larger All maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement Agency Agency SWM Maintenance Line Cleaning city Agency Root Cutting Cit Agency Catch Basin cleaning city Agency _ Water quality manhole maintenance Ci Agency Storm and emergency response city Agency Complaint response and investigation city Agency Street Sweeping City Agency City for local Agency _ Water Quality facility maintenance for Regional Agency _ City for local Agency __M Water Quantity facility maintenance for Regional Agency aintenance of public Streams/creeks/open channels _ City Agency Processing and disposal of sweeper, catch _ basin and storm line material _ City Agency _ Structural line repairs _ City Agency Line replacements _ _Cq, _ Agency Pump station maintenance and o eration Agency Agency MEN= Roadside ditches and piping system in County Roads Agency Agency TV inspection city Agengy Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation city Agency Proactive Leaf mana ement program city Agency ENGINEERING, INSPECTION, AND SUPPORT ELEMENTS Development Process (development review, plan review) city Agency Sanitary Sewer connection permit issuance city Agency SWM connection permit issuance city Agency Billing and collection of monthly service charges city Agency Inspection of developer projects city Agency Installation of Sanitary Sewer Masterplan City 21" and less, Projects Agency 24" & up Agency Installation of Masterplan Pump Station Projects Agency A enc Installation of SWM Masterplan Projects Ci Agency Erosion control permit issuance city Agency Erosion control inspection -city Agency Accounting City Agency Industrial Waste Program Agency Agency Maintaining GIS information City and Agency Agency Maintaining system mapping City and Agency Agency Maintaining Engineering records of systems City and Agency A enc Preparing and revising sanitary sewer masterplans Agency - Agency Preparing and revising SWM masterplans Agency Agency Response to customer billing inquiries city Agency Public information, newsletters, etc., for SWM and Sanitary ro rams City and Agency Agency IRCM.RFM g1l APPENDIX A DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2001 Inside City, and Inside City, and Outside City, and Outside Inside Responsibility Inside Responsibility Responsibility Tigard Boundary Boundary Boundary Sanitary Maintenance Ines under 24" Line Cleaning city city Root Cutting Ci C' Emergency response city city _ Overflow and Complaint response city City Cross connection investigation and response city city Manhole adjustment city _ City Non-structure line sealing and point repair Agency Agency City 10/year, Agency City 10/year, Agency Manhole rehabilitation (sealing) remainder remainder TV inspection city city Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation Agency Agency I&I abatement and system rehabilitation projects Agency Agency Root Foaming Agency Agency City 10/year, Agency City 10/year, Agency Structural line repairs remainder remainder Lateral Repairs in Public Right of Way Agency Agency Line replacements Agency Agency Pump station maintenance Agency Agency Vector Control city City Offroad inspection and locator post maintenance City city Easement and Access Road Maintenance city city Lines 24" and Larger All maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement Agency Agency SWM Maintenance Line Cleaning city city Root Cutting Ci Ci Catch Basin cleaning Ci city _ Water quality manhole maintenance Ci city Storm and emergency response city city Complaint response investigation and reporting city city Street Sweeping Ci city Water Quality facility maintenance Agency Agency Water Quantity facility maintenance Agency Agency Maintenance of public Streams/creeks/ I open channels City city Processing and disposal of sweeper, catch basin and storm line material (excluding leaves) city city Structural line repairs Agency gency _ Line replacements Agency Agency Pump station maintenance and operation Agency Agency Roadside ditches and piping system in County A enc Agency TV inspection Ci City, Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation Agency Agency Proactive Leaf management program C4Y. city ENGINEERING, INSPECTION, AND SUPPORT ELEMENTS Development Process (development review, plan review) city Agency Sanitary Sewer connection permit issuance city Agenc SWM connection permit issuance Ci Agency Billing and collection of monthly service charges city Agency Inspection of developer projects city Agency Installation of Sanitary Sewer Masterplan City 21" and under, Projects Agency 24"& up Agency Installation of Masterplan Pump Station Agency Agency Installation of SWM Masterplan Projects city Agency Erosion control permit issuance city Agency Erosion control inspection Agency Agency Accounting city Agency Industrial Waste Program Agency Agency Maintaining GIS information City and Agency City and Agency Maintaining system mapping City and Agency City and Agency Maintaining Engineering records of systems City and Agency City and Agency Preparing and revising sanitary sewer masterplans Agency Agency Preparing and revising SWM masterplans _ Agency A ency Response to customer billing inquiries - City Agency Public information, newsletters, etc., for SWM and Sanitary programs City and A enc Ci and Agency Flow Monitoring Agency Agency Formation and Administration of LID's City and Agency Agency Inspection of Private Facilities City Agency Marking Utilities City Agency Fixture Counting Agency Agency Field Yard General Maintenance city Agency ~A R ~ 1 ~I I I, Exht A Ifll ~ ! LilillQl ~ ~S~ If ~F tl;ii ~1\~ ~Il' ! ~~~~N~II~ ~ I~ `~r,~}I11S~li tl{; ~!f ~ I fll i I il ,~,77 ~ QJ~ ~ I In1N ~ 1 u r N ~ ~11!f 'f 'Etl'~Ui~ r 1, ~a sb ! <i R P ifill YpIl 11 D i I ~I 11p1~~,h,r"f ~:{6~lylkih~"1'hl~ u dh 111 k ~al~~ f'~, Fill C a +~1 ? f~il~ j '..ICI 1 ~r~' cl_ }1NFdtl~!'9VfHlJ~6f ! ! 11._I ~ 9G39~11'~~~Ifh,r~!i i r ~NId~ it it ~1 nsibilit Res o r, f~ 11,1111 ,~j,jBoundsly 1 I_ t r I 1 1 I I - J - :i II IV1( LEGEND I ~ I F fJ 1 ~ ~ ~ I' ~F! _ \R E~ Beaverton .,Ore Ne I Forest GleVC 4 A,r 14 r I I ! I 'uf. I.~fl I ,mdEe A _ s f Ti Tualatin Sherwood - If! ~ I 1 l fv '2 k\ 1 ~ J Unified Sewerage Agency Taxiots , w CmUNTS ,fit # -sill - ~1 E rra.l 5M Banks } 1 + Beaverton x ~ ~\Elii~ d Cornelius LA DXNM Forest u"NYe 1 I - i "t SIl4 1 Gaston ;Hillsboro I I~ ~ Ikli f WgOty r I ,bra I ~ i i JI[ t; Lake Oswego a z T Note Plains I Portland Rivergrove _ N 1 na 1u Sherwood Tigard Tualatin 15C LLB,SNERkYdI)D / f ) I i 1 ` Ip r- T arm ILM umard I IN OEM-- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Central Business District Association Update PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK A-ICITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) to develop it's Action Plan and complete a Resource Report on the downtown. From these two efforts, TCBDA has established its direction for the coming year. TCBDA will provide an overview on its activities and will discuss future plans with Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY TCBDA is similar to other downtown associations with regards to being composed of local business and property owners. As such, all the members volunteer their time while being actively involved in running and managing their businesses and properties they own and operate in the downtown. This in turn leaves limited time to devote to the ongoing responsibilities and roles for a successful association. A downtown manager is critical to such organizations since the position bridges the gap between what volunteers have the time and/or technical ability to accomplish. The manager is responsible for coordinating all project activities locally and helps guide the organization as it grows and objectives evolve. TCBDA recognizes the importance of securing long term funding. While assistance from the City has been and will continue to be critical to the success of the Association, it is recognized that other sources must be obtained. Over the next 12-18 months, TCBDA wants to establish longterm funding for the Association. This will require continued assistance from the City, ODDA, project oversight, and contract services. TCBDA has evaluated the need for new banners along Main Street and seeks funding to replace the existing banners and install 24 new four-season banners along the entire length of the street. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED I Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life/Downtown, Goal #1 - Provide opportunities to work proactively with Central Business District (CBD) businesses and property owners and citizens of Tigard to set the course for the future of the central downtown area; Strategy #1 - Tigard's CBD: Be Proactive; Action Plans - Explore options: Outside expertise (i.e., Economic Dev. Dir., Livable Oregon). FISCAL NOTES Community Development has $50,000 approved in the budget for consultant services to assist in preparation of downtown planning. 11cdadm\tcbda july 00 update.dot CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: July 18, 2000 SUBJECT: Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) TCBDA will be updating Council at its July 18, 2000, workshop meeting on progress to date and plans for the coming year. Community Development 2000-01 budget includes $50,000 for consultant services to assist in preparation of downtown planning. As Council is aware, TCBDA contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) this past year to help TCBDA complete its Action Plan. The Association also brought in a Resource Team to evaluate and prepare a report on the downtown. Both efforts were presented to Council at previous workshops over the last year. TCBDA established its mission with the assistance of ODDA. The Association's mission statement states: "The Mission of the Tigard Central Business District Association is to set the course for the future of the central downtown area that will promote the heath and viability of the community and businesses while preserving the unique qualities of downtown Tigard and providing a safe environment for families and individuals to work, live and gather." Downtown Manager ODDA recognizes the importance of a downtown manager for any successful revitalization program. The manager is responsible for the development, conduct, execution and documentation of the downtown program as outlined in the Action Plan and Resource Team report. The manager is responsible for coordinating all project activities locally and helps guide the organization as it grows and objectives evolve. Generally, the downtown manager carries out the following duties: • Coordinate activities of the downtown program committees, ensuring that communication between the various committees is well established, and assist committees with implementation of the work plans. TCBDA has several committees including land use and design, promotions, membership, funding, etc. liginillislimimiligilill • Manage administrative aspects of the downtown program including purchasing, record keeping, budgeting, preparing reports, and supervising consultants, etc. • Assist the board of directors and committees in developing annual action plan for implementing downtown revitalization programs (design, promotions, organizational, and economic/business mix). • Development and on-going public awareness and education programs designed to enhance appreciation of the downtown's unique character and assets. • Monitor the budget and assure appropriate financial records are kept and required reports are filed. TCBDA is similar to other downtown associations with regards to being composed of local business and property owners. As such, all the members volunteer their time while being actively involved in running and managing their businesses and properties they own and operate in the downtown. This in turn leaves limited time to devote to the ongoing responsibilities and roles for a successful association. A downtown manager is critical to such organizations since the position bridges the gap between what volunteers have the time and/or technical ability to accomplish. The Downtown Manager would work directly for TCBDA with one board member responsible for daily supervision and work program. The board would get progress reports twice a month at their regularly scheduled meetings. TCBDA estimates that approximately $30,000 would be required to fund a half time downtown manager. This would include direct and indirect costs associated with employment including such costs as mileage, rent, utilities, postage, phone, etc. Long Term Funding TCBDA recognizes the importance of securing long term funding. While assistance from the City has been and will continue to be critical to the success of the Association, it is recognized that other sources must be obtained. Over the next 12-18 months, TCBDA wants to establish long term funding for the Association. This will require continued assistance from ODDA, project oversight, and contract services. Economic Improvement District (EID) The EID is the most common funding mechanism for Oregon downtown associations. It is an assessment placed on commercial properties and is governed by Oregon Statutes (ORS 223.112 - 223.141). Features of an EID include: • City Council establishes the EID within specific boundaries. • Only commercial properties (not residential) can be assessed. • Virtually, any assessment criteria can be used. • The most common assessment criteria is based on ad valorem or square footage. • The maximum length of an EID is five years. • The EID can be voluntary or involuntary. • The EID generally pays for downtown revitalization programs. • The EID cannot pay for large capital projects. ® There are two formal hearings held by City Council. • If more than one-third of the assessed property parcels object, it fails. • Failure to pay an assessment generally results in alien or judgment. Business Improvement District (BID) The BID functions in much the same way as the EID except that it is generally a surcharge of a business tax. It is also governed by statue (ORS 223.141 - 223.161). Criteria for a BID may be number of employees, size of business, location of business, revenue, etc. Strategy for Implementing an EID/BID: • Allow 8-12 months to establish an EID/BID. • Volunteers should plan on about 12 meetings to pass an EID. • Begin a dialog with significant downtown property/business owners. • Schedule regular meetings with the property/business owners to ensure their participation. • Carefully create a scope of work. • Sponsor a general meeting to kick-off the EIB/BID process. • Survey the business community asking about their concerns of the downtown. • Survey downtown property owners. • Contact all commercial property owners (letter, personal contact, meetings). • Provide immediate response to concerns and objections. • Be prepared to delay the process to resolve issues. Other funding mechanisms exist to fund downtown revitalization programs such as Urban Renewal Districts, association fees, etc. The obvious preference for TCBDA would be to pursue a combination of funding sources and develop a partnership with the City and businesses to implement an EID/BID. ODDA estimates that contract services to provide general assistance to TCBDA and to assist with forming an EID/BID would be approximately $10,000. Banners Several years ago, the City funded banners that hang on light and power poles along Main Street. Several months ago the Chamber requested funds to replace missing or damaged banners. TCBDA has evaluated the need for new banners along Main Street and seeks funding to replace the existing banners and install 24 new four-season banners along the entire length of the street. DiJulio Displays, Inc. out of Brier, Washington, quoted TCBDA $3360 for 24 double-sided banners (30" x 84"). TCBDA has a commitment from the Fire Department to install the banners. Initially TCBDA wants to concentrate its efforts along Main Street. In coming years, other streets could be considered for similar treatment depending on property/business owner interest. Incidental costs would occur to replace damaged banners. However, the style chosen is currently in stock and does not require special order to replace. Tigard Daze TCBDA approached the City about possible funding for the Tigard Daze Carnival. Early discussions by the Association indicated that a successful event could be initiated this August. At its June 26, 2000, meeting, TCBDA voted not to proceed with the event. Major property owners were not interested in having the event on their property and thus the feasibility of the event ended for this summer. TCBDA is interested in pursuing continuation of Tigard Daze next year and may approach the City about partial funding during next year's budget process. Conclusion The City has long recognized the importance of its downtown. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow reemphasized that citizens value their downtown and want to see it prosper. TCBDA was formed approximately two years ago with bylav s being adopted in October 1998. The board has been active, meeting at least monthly. The TCBDA Action Plan and Resource Team Report on the downtown both point to its potential. However, additional resources are needed to carry out the recommendations from these two efforts. Hiring a part time downtown manager is critical for the continued success of the downtown. Likewise, obtaining long term funding sources is also imperative to continue the progress made to date. TCBDA will request funding for these efforts which will be carried out over the next 12-18 months. I/cdadm/jerree/jim/gen/tcbdajuly 18,2000 I:cdadm/jerree/jim/gen/TCBDAjuly 18,2000 c sc a ss ed In ' m Me- " 7 OS- Awl FREF ti STICKEL, Publisher. PATRICK iiiil. S~ICKEL "S RA IL ROWE Presrden~; Editor IpLHOdIS L. ATIi1Pt PETER L BHATIA AdversW Dtredor Executive Editor. Founded Dea 4,1850. Establuhed ps a daily Feb. 4,1861 O~EIIIl~ DENIIY ` ROBERT J. CALDWELL The Sunday oregonian wablisW D= 4, 1881. Circulation Director Editorial Page Editor -wipe 0 icy is Elect elected The death of Jim Nicoli last people time enough to consider." Actu- month has left Tigard's city ally, nearly three weeks seems like council trying to figure out plenty of time. Good elected officials are how to fill the vacant mayor's deliberative, but can't sit on decisions position. Councilors are thinking about forever; so why should candidates for appointment or election. The decision mayor. should be easy. Arguments that political hacks or Elected officials should be elected. someone with name familiarity but un- The reasons are clear; certain qualifications might win a short ® A better, broader democratic process campaign don't justify the potential for than exists when elected bodies pick cronyism that exists in appointments. their own members - no matter how Besides, surely council members recog- open the appointive process - increas- nize that voters would exercise the es confidence in government. same intelligence and thoughtfulness ® All citizens should be able to partici- they exhibited in choosing the current pate in the selection of a successor to members of the council. Right? someone they trusted to represent-and A cozy arrangement of elected bodies lead them. picking their own members is not what ® The election process helps ensure Oregonians want. Voters have stated that questions of concern to the public and restated that when asked. can be raised and responded to - per- Washington and Multnomah coun- haps even some questions the council ties and Portland and other cities all might not think of asking people it's have put the right of the people to de- considering for appointment. cide who will govern them ahead of the Councilwoman Joyce Patton suggests ease, expediency and comfort of ap- that the filing deadline of Aug. 7 for the pointing individuals to elective offices. November election "would not give Tigard should, too. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7/18/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council Goal Update PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK wyeCITY MGR OK LW~- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discussion of the progress on the Councils goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the attached summary report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are brief summaries of the efforts to date on the stated Council goals for this year. Also attached are the tasks identified during the last Council goal-setting session with regard to specific activities considered to be part of departmental responsibilities and individual work programs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council. FISCAL NOTES N/A 1AADM\CATHMOUNCIUGOALSUM 7-00.000 Council Goal Update o 2000 Goals 1. Complete the City's transportation improvement program development. Staff Responsible: City Engineer Gus Duenas April 2000: The Transportation System Update Plan (TSP) development process continued during the past few months. The draft Transportation System Plan has been completed, and is currently being reviewed by Tigard staff and government agencies. The last Tigard Transportation Task Force (Planning Commission and citizens) meeting was held in March. The draft plan will be made available on the City's web site during the coming months. Future activities include: two public open houses, joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop, and public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. The updated TSP is expected to be adopted by late summer or early fall this year. The Transportation Bond Task Force conducted a series of meetings during the month of February 2000 to obtain comments from a broad cross-section of the community. The first meeting was a presentation to the Citizen Involvement Teams on February 3, 2000 at the Tigard Senior Center. The other meetings were open house format conducted as follows: February 9, 2000 at Fowler Middle School, February 16, 2000 at Conklin Hall, Metzger United Methodist Church, and February 24, 2000 at Tigard High School. Following the public involvement meetings, the Task Force met on March 8 to discuss the citizen input and to incorporate that input into the criteria for final selection of projects. At a subsequent meeting on March 15, 2000, the Task Force selected a list of projects that primarily focused on improvements to major collectors, and one minor collector. The Task Force also Goals Update Page 1 April 2000 recommended a list of alternative projects that could be implemented if favorable bids are received, or if other funding sources are identified through partnerships or some other means. At this point, the bond package is approximately $16 million. The Task Force recommendation is for a ten-year bond term. The Task Force emphasized the need to minimize adverse impacts to existing neighborhoods during the design and construction of these projects. The list of projects has been provided to City Council. The package of projects and other Task Force recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000, and to City Council on May 9, 2000. Assuming Council approval of the bond package, the bond measure will be submitted for voter approval in the November 2000 general election. The Task Force cannot promote the bond package once it becomes a measure on the ballot. However, the members indicated their intention to support the bond issue individually or through formation of some other citizen group for that purpose. June 2000: The draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) was completed, and is being reviewed by Tigard staff and government agencies. Comments have been received from Metro, Washington County, and the Cities of Beaverton and Tualatin. Comments are expected from ODOT during the last week of June. Future activities will be scheduled after receipt of all comments. These activities include: two public open houses, joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The updated TSP is expected to be adopted prior to the end of the calendar year. The Transportation Bond Task Force presented the package of projects and specific recommendations to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000. The Planning Goals Update Page 2 April 2000 Commission endorsed the Task Force recommendations and approved the projects for further submittal to City Council. The City Council approved the Task Force recommendations during the Council meeting on May 9, 2000, and directed the preparation of a resolution and ballot title to place the bond measure on the November 7, 2000 election ballot. The Transportation Bond Resolution, Ballot Title, and Explanatory Statement have been prepared and will be considered by City Council during the June 27, 2000 Council meeting. The recommended projects include transportation system improvements for: • Gaarde Street - 99W to I.21st Avenue • 121St Avenue - Walnut Street to North Dakota Street • Walnut Street - Tiedeman Avenue to 121St Avenue • 121St Avenue - Gaarde Street to Walnut Street • 98th Avenue - Signalization at Durham Road if, after the above-listed projects have been completed, there are bond funds remaining, the alternative projects listed below will be funded in order of priority shown: • Commercial Street - North side, Main Street to Lincoln Street • Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Boulevard • Tigard Street - South side, Main Street to Tiedeman Avenue • Tiedeman Avenue - Greenburg Road to Tigard Street The total estimated cost for the recommended projects is $16 million. The proposed bond issue is for a period of 10 years in the amount of $16 million. The Task Force cannot promote the bond package once it becomes a measure on the ballot. However, the members indicated their intention to support the bond issue individually and through formation of a citizen group for that purpose. Goals Update Page 3 April 2000 2. Review the results of the Atfalati Recreation District Feasibility Study and determine if the City should support formation of the district by endorsing forwarding the results of the study to the Washington County Board of Commissioners asking that a measure be placed on the November 2000 ballot to form the District. Staff Responsible: Public Works Director Ed Wegner April 2000: At the March 28, 2000, City Council Meeting, the City Council passed on a 3 - 2 vote a Resolution consenting to the formation of a new County Service District. The City Manager was authorized to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for an amount not to exceed the stated tax rates of $.48/1,000 operating and $.35/1,000 bond cost. The cities of Durham and Tualatin are yet to act on support of the resolution, but are scheduled to do so within the next few weeks, as is the Tigard-Tualatin School District. The details of the MOU are being worked out by all parties. When all resolutions are approved and a MOU is completed, they will be forwarded to the County Board of Commissioners. i June 2000: The Washington County Board of Commissioners has adopted an order declaring its intent to form the Atfalati Recreation Partnership District, an ORS Chapter 451 County Service District. Two public hearings are scheduled. The proposal is to seek voter approval in November 2000, for a permanent rate levy of approximately $0.83 per 1,000 assessed valuation for operation and capital projects. Goals Update Page 4 April 2000 3. Assist the Tigard Central Business District Association to develop a plan for the downtown. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jinn Hendryx and City Manager Bill Monahan April 2000: TCBDA contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association to complete a Resource Team report on downtown Tigard. A series of recommendations resulted from this effort and will serve as a plan to shape the downtown. The Resource Team believes that it is important to strengthen the downtown as the "heart" of the community. It can be achieved, in part, through elements of design, appropriate mixed use redevelopment, and capitalizing on the downtown's image, history, and culture. Creating a strong and positive image that promotes the specialness of the downtown and marketing it to the community will define and highlight its unique role. The results of the report will be presented to Council on April 18, 2000. June 2000: TCBDA and representatives from the Oregon Downtown Development Association presented the report on downtown Tigard to City Council on April 18, 2000. The Association is currently evaluating conducting the Tigard Daze event in the downtown. The final outcome of those discussions will be presented to Council in July. The Association has also investigated the feasibility of replacing light pole banners along Main Street. A formal Goals Update Page 5 April 2000 request for funding will occur in July. In conjunction with the Balloon Festival, TCBDA initiated a treasure hunt with several downtown businesses participating in the event and offering prizes. The Association is evaluating the need to hire a part-time manager to assist in implementing the Resource Team Report and Action Plan. This will be presented at the July 18 meeting. 4. Complete the City Master Plan for Parks. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx and Public Works Director Ed Wegner. In addition, City Engineer Gus Duenas is involved in the Summerlake management plan and implementation. April 2000: Most of the current year projects included in the implementation portion of the Park System Master Plan are being carried out. Funding shortfalls have delayed the implementation of two projects (upgrade playgrounds and fenced dog park) on the 99/00 list. Staff will update Council on April 11 on the status of park projects, potential land purchases, and available grant funding. i i i Goals Update Page 6 April 2000 IN mom liiiiiiiii June 2000: The City lacks an adequate budget to fully implement the Parks System Master Plan's recommendations for 2000- 2001. The expansion of Cook Park is underway and several land acquisitions are pending. Several other ambitious projects, such as the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge and the development of two new neighborhood parks, recommended in the Master Plan for current year implementation have had to be postponed due to funding shortfalls. Goals Update Page 7 April 2000 5. Determine the City's long--term water supply. Staff Responsible: Public Works Director Ed Wegner and City Manager Bill Monahan April 2000: The City along with its Intergovernmental Water Board members is presently looking at the following three long- term water supply options: Portland Water Bureau The wholesale water group has hired Paul Matthews of Integrated Utility Group to negotiate with the Portland Water Bureau on the wholesale water contract. Tigard's proportionate share of the contract is $23,101. There is no target date at this time for a report from the consultant. s Joint Water Commission The Joint Water Commission has hired Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) to work on their facility plan and cost allocation study. After JWC reviews this information they will forward it to Tigard for review. o South Fork Water Commission The South Fork Water Commission has voted on continuing to study the idea of equity ownership and is preparing an RFP to move forward with this study. Once the RFP has been approved, and a contract issued, Tigard will know what their proportionate share of the project will be. At this time, there are no target dates for these matters. Goals Update Page 8 April 2000 June 2000: ■ South Fork Water Commission a. A consultant has been hired to review permitting and other regulatory rules to make sure the plant expansion could be a reality. b. The consultants are preparing for a staff workshop in mid-July to hear issues and criteria for each agency. c. In mid-September an elected officials workshop will be held to discuss these needs and begin developing a memorandum of understanding to continue. if feasible, with this source. ■ Portland Water Bureau a. Integrated Utility Group has reviewed reports on water rates, demands forecast, and developed a model to use in assessing the Portland proposal as it pertains to economic impacts. b. We are still awaiting a first draft outlining contract concepts from the Portland Water Bureau. We were told the document would be available by the end of June. As of June 28, 2000, we have not received the document. ■ Joint Water Commission a. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. reviewed the Joint Water Commission Facility Plan with the Intergovernmental Water Board. The cost of the allocation portion of the study is ongoing. b. Joint Water Commission partnering meetings have been held with staff and I anticipate that at the July 14, 2000, meeting the Joint Water Commission will be making a preliminary decision on the feasibility of ' allowing Tigard into the Joint Water Commission for both short- and long-term water supply. c. Long-term water is still a concern with this proposal, a however, an Integrated Water Resources Group is s actively exploring various options and we have been a included. a Goals Update Page 9 April 2000 6. Establish an annexation policy for the City. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx April 2000: Island areas of Walnut Island have been approved for annexation and will come into the City on May 17, 2000. Staff is in the process of developing a strategy to address Bull Mountain and "non-island" areas of Walnut Island to present to Council. Council is scheduled to discuss the annexation policy on April 25, 2000. June 2000: Staff presented annexation options on May 23, 2000. Council directed staff to further research annexation options, especially in terms of staff resources and public outreach. Staff is following up on getting more detailed information on what this approach entails. i i 3 Goals Update Page 10 April 2000 A 7. Encourage and support private sector programs to rehabilitate housing which will be offered for rent at affordable rents, resulting in a safer environment for the tenants (public safety, fire, life, sanitary). Staff Responsible: City Manager (Sill Monahan April 2000: On March 28, 2000, the City Council approved the request of Community Partners for Affordable Housing to grant a tax exemption. This is the third annual exemption granted by the City for the Villa La Paz property. Sheila Greenlaw- Pink of CPAH also reported that they have submitted an application for funding for the construction of new housing at a site in the northeast section of Tigard. That application is now pending review. CPAH is also interested in obtaining additional existing housing to manage for lower income residents. The agency hopes to balance their property ownership with a mix of existing and new housing before undertaking another acquisition and rehabilitation project such as that undertaken at Villa La Paz. June 2000: Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has received preliminary funding approval from the State of Oregon for new construction of affordable housing at a site on Greenburg Road, in the Washington Square Regional Plan area. Community Development staff is working with CPAH to determine the appropriate way to process a request for land approval to develop the units. Among the options are a comprehensive plan change, an Goals Update Page 11 April 2000 interpretation, or completion of the implementation elements of the Washington Square Regional Plan. 8. Develop a demonstration bus program for Tigard intra-city services to be submitted to Tri-Met for consideration in 2000. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director 31m ;Hendryx April 2000: Community Development staff has met with Tri-Met staff as well as the Westside Transportation Alliance and others to discuss the possibility of providing bus service throughout Tigard, to serve those areas that have populations which would benefit from service. A meeting was held on January 20, 2000, where the Oregon Office of Energy provided information on programs that could be of benefit to Tigard residents. At the close of the January 20 meeting, Tri-Met staff offered to help City staff to develop a transit needs survey which will be placed in the June, 2000 Cityscape to assess the need and interest of the community for developing demonstration bus service. Staff will be presenting a draft Community Transit Needs survey for City Council review and approval at the April 18 City Council workshop meeting. The revised survey will then be included in the June Cityscape for City residents to fill out and return to the City Planning staff. Goals Update Page 12 April 2000 June 2000; Staff presented the transit needs survey and made changes to the survey as per Council direction. The transit needs survey appeared in the June issue of Cityscape. The results of the survey are now being tabulated. 1 , , , Goals Update Page 13 April 2000 Q Task Update The 2000 Goal Setting also resulted in creation of tasks to be completed in 2000. The status of these tasks is as follows: 1. Support development of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan -a task force developed a plan that is now before Council for action in February. Further work on the need to coordinate the improvement of infrastructure at the time of development will be completed. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim IHendryx April 2000: Council approved the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments with delayed implementation until issues of storm water, open space, and funding of infrastructure are addressed. Staff is currently working on developing a scope of work to address these issues. June 2000: Staff completed scope of work for the implementation grant funded by both the State and City. The City has recently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP). Staff is in the process of selecting a team of consultants and finalizing the contract. Goals Update Page 14 April 2000 2. Expand the use of the City's web page - the City made significant strides in 1999 and will place even greater emphasis on using the web page as a communication tool in 2000. Staff Responsible: Finance Director Craig Prosser April 2000: Nancy Lof, Information Processing Technician, has attended additional training on web site technology. New software was purchased to optimize photographs, which allows faster user load times when accessing our site. For an example, the City Council page was redesigned with this new software. An internal Web Steering Committee has had an initial meeting. One representative from each department attends meetings on a quarterly basis and works with Nancy and their departments to continuously review, update, and expand use of this communication tool. Examples of changes and uses of the web site include: o Updates of the progress (and meeting announcements) of the Transportation Bond Task Force. New links added; i.e., to ODOT. New maps available for public view. A welcome message to the newly annexed Walnut Island residents. o News releases. Local, county, and regional governments are working to assist one another to develop links and explore new developments in this technology. Metro is coordinating a schedule of meeting topics; staff will monitor this schedule to determine whether a representative should attend. Goals Update Page 15 April 2000 June 2000: The Web Steering Committee has been meeting monthly to provide direction for the growth of the web site. A draft philosophy statement has been completed and is being readied to forward to Executive Staff for review. The Committee has also developed a list of needs for the City. The Committee will be prioritizing the list, however it appears the need for a web site search engine and interactive forms are top priorities for all departments. Office Services staff did a presentation on the web site for Council. Council suggested adding a search engine, council e-mail links and a consistent header on each page to enhance the web site. Following up on the suggestions, Council e-mail links and web page headers have been completed. Nancy Lof is researching different options for search engines and we anticipate the search engine being added this year. Areas of the web site that have been added or updated: ■ The Balloon Festival information was posted on the web site. Hits for the first two Saturdays of the month were pretty typical (28 30 hits.) The Saturday of the balloon festival there were 114 hits. Current park projects along with pictures are being posted. ■ Agendas for Planning Commission and Hearings Officer meetings are being posted. Department' have also updated their web site and more forms are available on-line. ■ Staff is reviewing the options for on-line lien searching. Goals Update Page 16 April 2000 3. (New) Strive for implementing a paperless Council meeting in 2000. Staff will investigate the steps involved to convert to Council use of notebook computers, receiving Council packet information via the internet, rather than the present Council packet materials. Staff Responsible: Network Services Director Paul deBruyn and Cathy Wheatley April 2000: Paul deBruyn and Cathy Wheatley met to review ideas for transitioning to a "paperless City Council meeting packet." Paul is in the process of identifying equipment needed (for example, should we purchase laptops for each City Council member) and the best way to transmit the City Council packet to the City Council members. Paul and Cathy are also reviewing what other cities are doing in this area. June 2000: At the May 16, 2000, Council meeting, it was decided that the first step towards automating the routing of information to the Council be the addition of e-mail links on the City web site. As a result of that meeting, we have added an e-mail link for each Council member. Mail from citizens to Council members via these links are routed to Cathy Wheatley with the individual Council members name specified. Cathy Wheatley receives the mail and reroutes or takes action as needed. \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\GOAL UPDATE - 2000.DOC Goals Update Page 17 April 2000 1 JOW - A C9 El'~(1~~ 7 /I MEMORANDUM TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Joint Water Commission Meeting - July 14, 2000 DATE: July 18, 2000 The Joint Water Commission met on July 14, 2000, with one agenda item to include a discussion on Tigard's consideration. I have attached the JWC staff report on this subject. Joe Thompson, from the Hillsboro staff and David Winship from the Beaverton staff have been very instrumental in moving the Tigard proposal forward. Bill Monahan, City Manager and myself attended the meeting to represent the Tigard Water Service Area. The presentation to the Commissioners by the Joint Water Commission staff included the following options for Tigard: Y Sell no water • Sell water at wholesale rates ® Allow buy-ins with built in termination dates if no additional raw water storage is developed within the basin ® Allow buy-in of current facilities After discussing these options and addressing questions, the JWC staff made the following recommendations: • Authorize the General Manager to provide a water sales agreement for remainder of the 2000 calendar year 0 Direct staff to develop an IGA for Tigard to become a participant with a built in termination if additional source water can not be developed e Direct staff to move forward on research and planning for the development of additional raw water source. The discussion of the first recommendation centered around the following: Who will negotiate for the JWC? Which members will be effected? • What would be included in the cost of water ? • What would the rate be? M ~7 It was decided that the JWC, General Manager would negotiate the rate and notify individual members prior to the signing of an agreement, in the case that the Commission members need their respective Council's approval. This item centered around the possible use of Forest Grove's surplus, raw water allocation that may need to be presented to their entire Council in order to sell water to a non-member. However, other members have excess stored raw water rights that Tigard could utilize. The only discussion regarding the second recommendation was that an IGA must give Tigard enough time to ramp back from Joint Water Commission water, if it is determined that an additional raw water source cannot be developed. After the discussion, the Joint Water Commission approved the staff recommendations with the General Manager notifying members of the terms of the 2000 water sales agreement. What does all of this mean? Well, hopefully within the next couple of weeks, we will be purchasing approximately 1.5 mgd from the Joint Water Commission. Also, meetings are being scheduled now to begin working on the IGA with a draft due possibly as early as October. I will give a more detailed report at the IWB meeting on August 9th. Also Portland has invited wholesale managers to a presentation on a "straw man" contract later this month. As noted above, we will discuss this matter in more detail at the next meeting. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks! Cc: Bill Monahan Mike Miller Norman Penner KathylwbTjwc memo 7-18 s 07/13/00 10:06 N0.607 P003/003 511 CITY OF HILLSBORO July 14, 2000 To: Joint Water Commission (JWC) From: Joe Thompson, Asst. Director of Public Works Re: City of Tigard Water Request .■..■.■■a........90aaaa.a...a006aaaa■0aaNNaaaaaaa0aaaaaI On June 22, 2000, members of the JWC met in a partnering meeting to discuss a number of issues. One of these issues was, "Should the JWC work with Tigard to secure a water supply?" and, if so, then "How can this best be accomplished?" Collectively, both Technical and Financial Representatives from all agencies agreed that staff should move forward to develop a short and long term plan to meet Tigard's water needs. For the short term, staff will be meeting to evaluate how much water can be delivered to Tigard and where in the system can the water be delivered. Also, a methodology for payment will be proposed. For the long term, it is clear that all the existing partners want to be assured that they remain whole, as to the availability of source water. Therefore, any buy-in option for Tigard must be contingent on the future development of an adequate supply of raw water. If the JWC was unable to secure additional sources of raw water, Tigard would be compensated, in some manner, for any capital investments made into the JWC` system. This memorandum is intended only to provide a brief overview of the many complex issues that must be worked out, before a long-term commitment can be signed. However, members agreed that all options should be explored, since it would be beneficial for Tigard to become a participant and member of the JWC. It would especially strengthen efforts to secure an additional source of raw water for municipal use, which JWC partners arc very interested in pursuing. Therefore it is recommended that staff be directed to develop plans and terms to bring back to i the Commission for consideration as follows: 1. Develop and determine the feasibility of a short-term water supply to meet the City of Tigard's needs for a given period of time. 2. Develop a long-term plan that will provide additional source water for municipal use, which would allow the City of Tigard to become a full member of the JWC.