The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/12/2002 zor ,17QZ- W OF TIGARD OREGON TIOARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2002 COUNCIL MEETING ILL BE TELEVISED HM EANN IEI000SICCPKT I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 'd'IGAI iD` CITY IOU, S CIL1 ~ p, NIEET'ING` ' CITY OF TIGARD February 12OQ2 ji.3® pm. OREGON I®~I p~9 t Y r -.rT{GI-~.~+YCI 6~4 ~AL~ ~ [ t 1 J f- l r PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in an order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684- 2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 12, 2002 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > PREVIEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CLARK COUNTY AND CLARK PUBLIC UTILITIES > YOUTH FORUM UPDATE • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations under ORS 192.660(1 d). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Nathan Leamy 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for November 20, 2001 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council 8r Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix b. Council Calendar COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 2 C. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Appoint Brooks Gaston to the Tree Board - Resolution No. 02 - 3.4 Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Clark County, Washington and Clark Public Utilities for the Receipting of Utility Bill Payments 3.5 Adopt the Tigard Police Officer's Association Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Draft - Resolution No. 02 - 3.6 Adopt Employer Payment of Employee's Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) Contributions for Tigard Police Officer's Association Sworn Police Officers - Resolution No. 02 - 3.7 Authorize the City Manager to Submit an Application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. RECOGNITION OF GARY JOHNSON FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE LIBRARY BOARD • Mayor Griffith 7:50 PM 5. RECOGNITION OF DAVID CORY FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE TREE BOARD • Mayor Griffith 7:55 PM 6. INTRODUCTION OF BROOKS GASTON AS NEWLY APPOINTED TREE BOARD MEMBER ® Mayor Griffith 8:00 PM 7. PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW CITY WEB SITE a. Staff Report: Administration b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 3 8:15 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 69T" AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Engineering Department C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Direction: Should staff modify the methods of assessment or proposed assessment amounts and should staff prepare an ordinance spreading the final assessments? 8:35 PM 9. UPDATE ON THE NEW LIBRARY SITE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY MEETING a. Staff Report: Library Staff b. Council Discussion 8:45 PM 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.20 OR THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO JURY TRIAL a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - 8:55 PM 11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - 9:00 PM 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.26 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO WITNESSES a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 4 9:05 PM 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ABANDONED, FOUND, SEIZED AND STOLEN PROPERTY a. Staff Report: Police Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 02 - 9:15 PM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALL STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT a. Staff Report: Engineering Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 02 - 9:20 PM 15. BRIEFING ON THE BULL MOUNTAIN OPEN HOUSE a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion 9:25 PM 16. CONSIDER RENEWAL OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Should Council renew the Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County to provide planning, building, and engineering related services to the Urban Services Area? 9:35 PM 17. CONSIDER 2002 COUNCIL GOALS a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Motion: Should Council approve the 2002 Tigard City Council Goals? 9:45 PM 13. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:50 PM 19. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 5 9:55 PM 20. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go Into Executive Session. If an Executive Session Is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statue. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 21. ADJOURNMENT 1 AADM\CATHY\CCA\020226.D0C COUNCIL AGENDA - February 12, 2002 page 6 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS FOR REVIEW FEBRUARY 12, 2002 The Study Session Is held In the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall. The Council encourages Interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(1) (d) labor relations and (h) pending litigation. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any Information discussed. No Executive Session may be held, for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. > STUDY SESSION Preview Intergovernmental Agreement with Clark County and Clark Public Utilities • Gary Johnson (former Library Board Member) and David Cory (former Tree Board member) will not be able to attend tonight's Council meeting. Brooks Gaston (new Tree Board member) may be able to attend. • Public Hearing - 691 Avenue Local Improvement District Distribute Council information from DeHaas 8t Associates that City Engineer Gus Duenas will explain during Study Session. This information will also be reviewed by Mr. Duenas during the staff report at the beginning of the public hearing. Letters received: © 2/7/02 letter from Jim Corliss (distributed in Council mail of 2/8/02) ® 2/8/02 letter from Attorney Hoelscher on behalf of the Peirces (distribute to the City Council for the 2/12/02 Study Session) • Distribute letter signed by Mayor Griffith regarding Washington County Systems Development Charge - Parks • Downtown Area - Mayor to present idea of a workgroup regarding Commuter Rail • Distribute Tigard Showcase Program Schedule • Youth Forum Update Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet In executive session In certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is dosed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (1) (a) - Employrnent of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (1) (L) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 1 °A..660 (1) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (1) (d) - labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded In this Instance.) 192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (1) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically Identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (1) (g) - Trade negotiations - Involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body Is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (1) (h) - Legal counsel Executive session are appropriate for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (1) Public Investments - to cant' on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 1AA M\CATFMCOUNCUCCUST.DOC February 7, 2002 OF OREGON Tom Brian, Chair Board of Directors Washington County 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 RE: Washington County Systems Development Charge-Parks Dear Tom: Thank you for attending the January 31, 2002, meeting which the city and county hosted for the Bull Mountani community at Fowler Middle School. I am sure that you will agree that the meeting was informative for all concerned. Late in the open house, you made a comment regarding the city's request that Washington County create a special parks systems development charge for the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. Your comment was that you do not believe that the county has legal authority to create such a district. City Manager Bill Monahan mentioned that we would provide you with the legal authority that we have in our files. Attached is a memo dated March 14, 2001, from Alan A. Rappleyea, Sr., Assistant County Counsel, directed to John Rosenberger, former director of the Department of Land Use &z Transportation. In his analysis, Attorney Rappleyea opined that while j there is some risk to the county imposing a systems development charge, it is doable. In addition, it is my understanding that county counsel Dan Olsen agrees with this opinion which is further shared by our city attorney Tim Ramis. Tigard is very concerned that the longer the area goes without a systems development charge the more opportunity is lost for generation of funding to provide for parks to serve the area. Our estimates show that revenue lost since February 2001 exceeds $300,000 if the county had applied Tigard's systems development charge. The lost opportunity increases every day. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 I urge you to review the city's request and, if necessary, revisit the legal authority with your county counsel. At this point of our discussions with the residents of Bull Mountain, it is apparent that some decisions need to be made by the city and county together on how we should proceed. I suggest that we meet soon, possibly in a workshop meeting involving all members of the City Council and all members of the Board of County Commissioners. I expect that the members of City Council will hesitate to either perform additional studies or surveys of county residents guarding the prospect of annexation without financial contribution from the county. It seems to me that the time has come to develop a series of options and timelines and decide soon whether our energies should be put into the project or should we move on to other projects until the residents of the area request further action. I look forward to hearing from you and discussing this issue. Sincerely, t Griffith Mayor att LUCMw%YM CRFFffH20ML%L L40LWAW SDQDW WASHINGTON COUNTY Inter-Department Correspondence DATE: March 14, 2001 TO: John Rosenberger, Director LUT FROM: Alan A. Rappleyea, Sr. Assistant County Counsel SUBJECT: TIGARD PARK SDC REQUEST I received the attached letter addressed to you from Jim Hendryx of the City of Tigard inquiring about the County imposing a systems development charge (SDC) for City parks. The City wants authority to impose a SDC for parks outside of the City limits but within the Urban Services Boundary.. Apparently, the City included the Urban Services Boundary (USB) in preparing their methodology for the SDC. The first question is whether the Board is interested in imposing this SDC. Assuming the County wants to impose this fee on its residents for the City of Tigard, the County has a couple of options: 1) the County can adopt an ordinance that accepts the City's methodology and capital improvement plan and imposes this SDC on the behalf of the City for the USB for parks under ORS 223.297 et seq.; or 2) the County could adopt an ordinance that grants the authority to the County to adopt by resolution and order any local government SDC -that it chooses to apply in that governments USB. This would expedite the process for the next city of special district that requests the County to perform this service. There is some risk to both of these options. First, an analysis of the methodology will have to be made to make sure that it complies with state law. This can always be challenged on factual grounds. Second, a challenge may be made that this action is ultra vires or exceeds the scope of authority of the City or County. The County would be applying a SDC for the City outside of the City's boundaries presumably for City parks. As long as we limit the SDC to the USB and that area was included within the methodology, we would probably survive a challenge to the SDC on these grounds. Deschutes County currently is involved in litigation in circuit court over its SDC, which it collects for the Bend Metro Parks District, in Remarkable Properties v. Bend Metro Parks and Deschutes County. The County collects the SDC for development within the UGB but outside of the park district. There, the challenge is not to any ultra vires actions of the District or County but the fact that the methodology allegedly did not incluee any area outside of the District boundary. Other arguments may be raised in this case and it deserves watching. Upon direction from the Board, an ordinance can be prepared and filed. It would not be a land use ordinance under our charter, as the statutes specifically state that the adoption of a SDC is not a land use decision. ORS 223.314 Additionally, the charter excludes from the definition of "land use ordinance" ordinances on "fees." Charter, Chap l0,Sect. 100(d). AR/WMUTGN Vr1GARDSDCMEMsb Attachment OWN Now ON= Tualatin Valley Community Access Program Schedule Detail 11 Tigard's 40th Birthday Celebration" 2/8!2002 1:17 PM, Page 1 Channel: 23, Date Range: 2/8/2002 12:00:00 A to 3/31/2002 12:00:00 A, Included Events: All, Program ID: 2309 Channel: 9/23 Start Length Proj ID/rftle Prog ID/Episode/Title Wed 02113102 4:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Fri 02115/02 6:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Mon 02118/02 5:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Fri 02/22/02 1:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Fri 03101/02 3:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration sat 03102102 5:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th 13-day Celebration Tue 03/05/02 8:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Sun 03/10/02 12:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Wed 03113/02 5:30:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Tue 03119102 5:30:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration Sat 03/23!02 3:00:00 P 0:42:50 15 TVCA Showcase Productions 2309 Tigard's 40th B-day Celebration This Program will also be repeated before thelOAM replays of the Tigard city council on channels 21/30 and 22/28. Channels are listed with two channel numbers. The first channel number is for the AT&T Portland system serving Unincorporated Washington County Residents; the second number is for the portion of the AT&T Tualatin Valley system. The schedules for this and other programs can also be viewed on the TV Guide Channel. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Kris at 503-629-8534, extension 124. Sincerely, Kris Merkel TVCA Programming Coordinator Agenda Item No. 44Meeting of C)a MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING February 12, 2002 • STUDY SESSION Study Session was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went Into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations and pending litigation under ORS 192.660(l d) ez(1 h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any Information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Executive Session concluded at 6:45 p.m. Council Reconvened into Study Session. > Financial Operations Manager Imdieke reviewed the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clark County and Clark Public Utilities to provide remittance processing of utility payments. This item is also before the Council for approval on the Consent Agenda for this meeting (See Item No. 3.4). > City Engineer Duenas reviewed information from DeHaas & Associates that was distributed to the City Council regarding the 691 Avenue Local Improvement District. (See Item 8) > Mayor referred to a letter distributed to the City Council regarding "Washington County System Development Charges - Parks," which was sent to Tom Brian, Chair for the Washington County Board of Commissioners. > Council consensus was to support the Mayor's proposal to form a workgroup regarding the Commuter Rail. Councilor Dirksen will be the Council liaison to this workgroup. Discussion followed on the need for planning in the downtown area to accommodate a commuter rail station. Mayor asked for Council to give input with regard to whom should be involved In this planning group. > The most recent Tigard Showcase schedule from Tualatin Valley Community Access was distributed to the City Council. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 1 > Assistant to the City Manager Newton updated Council on the activities of the Youth Forum Including the Skateboard Task Force and the pilot after school program. Study Session concluded: 7:25 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8Z Local Contract Review Board Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8z Liaison Report 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Tigard High School Student Envoy Nathan Leamy presented a report to the City Council. A copy of his written report is on file in the City Recorder's office. ® )ack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria, King City, OR 97224, advised he has been attending Tigard-Tualatin School Board meetings. He noted his concern about drop- out rates and would like to see more preventative efforts made. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilor Scheckla received clarification on Consent Agenda Item No. 3.7, which would provide partial funding for the completion of the Fanno Creek Trail. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for November 20, 2001 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council ar Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix b. Councii Calendar C. Tentati 'e Agenda 3.3 Appoint Brooks Gaston to the Tree Board - Resolution No. 02 - 08 3.4 Approve an Intergovenimental Agreement with Clark County, Washington and Clark Public Utilities for the Receipting of Utility Bill Payments 3.5 Adopt the Tigard Police Officer's Association Bargaining Agreement and Authorize the City Manager to Sign the Draft - Resolution No. 02 - 09 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 2 3.6 Adopt Employer Payment of Employee's Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) Contributions for Tigard Police Officer's Association Sworn Police ; Officers - Resolution No. 02 - 10 3.7 Authorize the City Manager to Submit an Application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes Mayor Griffith combined Items 4, 5 and 6 to recognize service on the following boards and to introduce Brooks Gaston who was appointed to the Tree Board. 4. RECOGNITION OF GARY JOHNSON FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE LIBRARY BOARD 5. RECOGNITION OF DAVID CORY FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE TREE BOARD 6. INTRODUCTION OF BROOKS GASTON AS NEWLY APPOINTED TREE BOARD MEMBER 7. PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW CITY WEB SITE Network Services Manager Paul DeBruyn and Web Administrator Victor Soares presented the progress report on the City's new website. 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 69.. AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. b. City Engineer Duenas presented the staff report. He also reviewed the letters received regarding this matter. Mr. Duenas referred a correction on the numbers In the DeHaas report. C. Public Testimony • Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy Associates, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard, 97224, advised he was representing Specht Development. Mr. Murphy referred to COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 3 a letter submitted by Specht (on file in the packet materials, which is located In the City Recorder's office). While the project was considered a successful one by Specht, they requested an Increase In the City's contribution toward paying the costs associated with the LID. Mr. Murphy distributed a handout entitled "Beveland Right-of-Way Costs." • Cecil ]ones, 12190 SW 691 Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, noted that his property was one of two residential properties located within the LID area. Mr. ]ones noted concerns with the amount of assessment assigned to his property for LID costs, which he believed would also affect the resale value of his property. He reviewed how the construction affected his property. He asked the Council to consider reducing the amount of his assessment by one-half. Council members discussed Mr. ]ones' situation with him and received clarification from City Attorney Ramis about whether the Council would have the ability to reduce Mr. ]ones' assessment. • Tim Roth, 13779 SW Charleston Lane, Tigard, Oregon commended the work by the consultant on this project. While Mr. Roth said he agrees with the assessment methodology, he outlined his concerns with the costs associated with the Beveland extension that he says was added by the City because of the Tigard Triangle Plan. He requested consideration of the proposal to increase the City's contribution as presented in earlier testimony by Mr. Ed. Murphy. • Ella Snyder, 12170 SW 691 Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified noting she a residential property owner within the LID boundaries. She asked that her assessment be lowered and confirmed that a reduction of one-half of the proposed assessment would be a "big help." Council meeting recessed at 3:55 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. d. Staff recommended that the Council approve the assessment as presented In the staff report and that the LID be closed as soon as possible. e. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing. f. There was lengthy Council discussion with concerns noted about the impact of the LID on the residential property owners. In addition comments were made about increasing the City's share of the cost of the LID because of cost overruns and adding the Beveland extension, which is likely to benefit the COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 4 commercial properties, but would be of little value for the residential properties. Council members also Indicated they would prefer to delete from the total assessment an amount due to the City owed by a property owner (Peirce) In the area as a result of a court decision. g. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to increase the City's share of the LID costs to $59,941, based on the final assessment figures; and to remove the $52,500 listed as the "Peirce taking" from the assessment amount of the LID; and to reduce the assessment to the two residential homeowners by 50 percent. Discussion on the motion: Councilor Moore asked staff to prepare information showing how the above-referenced adjustments to the LID assessment would affect the City budget. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 9. UPDATE ON THE NEW LIBRARY SITE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY MEETING Library Director Barnes presented the staff report, which is on file with the City Recorder. Discussion followed concerning the number of parking spaces proposed. The number represents the standard required for an institutional building, such as a library. Note: Item Nos. 10, 11, and 12 were presented as one staff report, with the ordinances considered separately by the City Council as noted below. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.20 OR THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO JURY TRIAL a. Judge Michael O'Brien presented the staff report, which is on file In the City Recorder's office. b. There was brief Council discussion with City Attorney Ramis confirming that he saw no problem with proceeding as proposed by the staff report and proposed ordinance. C. Council Consideration: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 5 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Dirksen to adopt Ordinance No. 02-08. ORDINANCE NO. 02-08 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.20 ("JURY TRIAL") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 11. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE a. The staff report is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Scheckia, to adopt Ordinance No. 02-09. ORDINANCE NO. 02-09 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.24 ("CRIMINAL PROCEDURE") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.26 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO WITNESSES a. The staff report Is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 02-10. ORDINANCE NO. 02-10 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.26 ("WITNESSES") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 6 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 13. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ABANDONED, FOUND, SEIZED AND STOLEN PROPERTY a. Police Captain Schrader presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. Captain Shrader noted in section 2.52.030 (attachment 1 to the ordinance), the wording should be "At any time..." instead of "At anywhere..." b. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 02-11. ORDINANCE NO. 02-11 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.52.030 AND SUBSECTION 2.52.040 ABANDONED, FOUND, SEIZED AND STOLEN PROPERTY. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALL STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT a. Staff report was presented by City Engineer Duenas, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. Council Consideration: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 7 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No. 02-11. RESOLUTION NO. 02-11 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALL STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 15. BRIEFING ON THE BULL MOUNTAIN OPEN HOUSE a. Planning Manager Barbara Shields reviewed the staff report. b. Mayor Griffith referred to the straw vote at the open house asking whether those in attendance supported annexation. After discussion, consensus was that the City should not proceed on this natter if the majority of the residents in the area do not want to annex. There was discussion about the need to determine the level of interest from the area's residents. 16. CONSIDER RENEWAL OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT a. Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report, which is on file in the City Recorder's office. b. Councilor Scheckla noted his concern about the County responding to the City's request for collection of system development charges in the urban services area for Tlgard and, since this Is not addressed in the agreement, he said that he would possibly vote no. C. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to renew the Urban Services Agreement, with the updated Agreement to be scheduled for Council review on a March Council agenda. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 8 The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - No 17. CONSIDER 2002 COUNCIL GOALS a. City Manager Monahan presented this agenda item; the goals are contained in the packet material on file In the City Recorder's office. b. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton to accept the 2002 Goals as presented in the staff report. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Patton - Yes Councilor Scheckla - Yes 18. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS a. Councilor Patton updated the Council on the regional drinking water authority, which is moving ahead. Tigard was the only jurisdiction that presented specific conditions. Tigard's preference that distribution systems not be included in the regional drinking water authority was stated; however, Portland wants to include this in the study. It was made clear that Tigard should not be penalized if Tigard did not participate in the distribution system. 19. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 20. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled 21. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. r atherine heatley, Ci Record Attest: yor._C ty / and Dlate: L/ T.b2 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\CCM\020212.DOC COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 12, 2002 page 9 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Notlce TT 9995 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 op of I 'nr 3.3125 S' qrigard, Account The following.will be..considered by the TIGARD.CITf COUNCIL .ON' TUESDAY, FEBRUARY ° 12TH,. 2002, AT 7:30 PM at the Tigard City Hall - Town Hall, 13125 SMI Hall Blvd.; Tigard; Oregon 97223: Both public oral and written testimony are invited. The "public hearing on this. matter will be con- ducted in accordance with the rules of ORS 197.763, ORS 227:120, and the rules of!Chapter 13.04.0606f the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PROPOSED ASSESS11tlEENTS FOR THE 69'x" Avenue Local bnprovement Dlt tract: STATE OF t The Tigard City Cguncil will conduct ti Public Heating to hear objections, if any, to the proposed assess- 000NTY t ments for the 69 Avenue Local IImmpprovement District. Tigard Municipal .Cole. Section 13.04.060 , requires that the proposed assessments be presented to the City Council in the form, of an assessment res, i, ICatht elution. City Counc:l approved the proposed assessments in Resolution No. 02-07 on January 22,`2001, ! thggt benefited ptopetty owng~rs directed that a.public hearing be set to consider objections "add d' be notified of the proposed assessmentii KD6rd uce , yaETM~SScpon. 1 3 04 0 being Director, first or ®bJcctdons to tltseproposead drssessriaerrtsinaasd be sabrXdtted to lire C60. do" ltdrrg by FaerSruary 12,.2002, a n .02 at 12.00 noon In order to ;be consWredat the public ixardng. Wrftix objea.7lons must s8ate speclile aUy and 1 19383.02 the grounds for ob/e efibii f h 1 ;d The total ~fOSect costto be assessed to the benefited properties is $1,589,211.00. The aeeeosable coat for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA08700 wHh owner of record DMA MARK R 1s proposed to be SISM1' a printed c, The assessable cod for Tax Lot No,: 28101AA04900 with owner of raccrd FAIRMARK MEMENTS LLC Is proposed to be $51,427. . 11* assessable cost for Tax Lot No:'.28101ADUM with owner of record CEOROS Fox UNIVERSITY Is proposed to be 537,618 entire issue The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA02300 with owner of redid JONES CECIL E DONNA RAE Is proposed to bo $37,363 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No. 28101AD03OW with owner of record KF LLC is proposed to be $0,679 consecuti W The assessable coat for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA02700 whh owner of record LANDMARK FORD INC is proposed to be $30,702 n The assessable cost for Mix Lot No.:'28101AAOS200 with owner of record LANDMARK FORD INC is proposed to be SU 372 J a nu a r,i The assessable coat for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA02400 w hh owner of, cord LANDMARK FORD INC is proposed to be $26,370 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 23101AADS100 ifM owmv of record LANDMARXFORD INC Is proposed to be S20,100 The assemble cost for Tax Lot No 28101AA04M with owner of record LANDMARK FORD INC is proposed to be 524,700 The assessable coat for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA028B0 wdh owner of record LANDMARM FORD INC is proposed to be $16,777, The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AD02700 w tth owner of record MCCROSICEY HDHN g le proposed to be $24,005 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AD02800 wkh owner of record MORTON DOl! R A CYNTHIA SUE to proposed to be $31,590 ? The assessable coat for Tax Lot No.: 28101AAMM wRh owner of rem OPDAL RLLA A le proposal to be 530,722 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AAOSM with owner of record PEIRCE STEPHEN W A Is proposed to be $66,128 - ' . The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA00106 girth ow* of record R L p, PROPERTY DEV LLC Is prowsed to be $66,519 The assessable coat for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AAMM wfth owner of record ROTH J T JR*,THERESA b > o{ used, b' be $26,666 Subscribed The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA087001Nth owner of tax 4d BOTH J T JR 4i THERESA Is proposed to be MAN The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA06300 wtih owner of record ROTH J T JR 8 THERESA is proposed to to $17;167 - The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA03600 wM owner of record ROTH J T JR 6 THERESA Is proposed to be 515x690 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 23101AA06302 wtth owner of record SZA1EB AAN IN57M ELOISE Is proposed to be SK19e. The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA08500 with owner of record ROTH J T JR 11 THERESA is proposed to be $2,16+4: . ! 1 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA039w with lamer of remnd TwArw CORPORATE CENTEI;is proposed to be 5347,023 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA02600 with owner of record TIOARD CORPORATE CENTER Is proposed to b s 5306,696 My Commis The assessable cost for Tax LOW.: 28101AA09100 with owner cf record THMRD COj1JAORATE CENTER Isproposed to be S;t01,191 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.:18101AD02000,with owner of record. TRIA19" TERRACE LLC le proposed to ba S73,046 , : , AFFIDAVI This proposed assessment, 'oi sa`iinnonant'as aria clified`'1sy'0 iih6il,:, vdlI,be:leAed by Council'thiough' as ordinance sometime after the hearingg and will be charged ag~tnst the property acid be immediately payable in full or in installments asIw=ged.by the City's Finance Director. mttgard or:us)at 503=539- If there are any questions, pleme contact Gus Duenas, CityEngineer (gtW 4171 x378, or Diane Jelderks, Senior Administrative-S Ialist deanpp,, onus at 501-6394171. x369. s ' TT9995 - Publish January 31, February 7, 2002. r v S w kf r Sti ~ a. yy ~i~};, r ~P u F~ ~y~'~'^'ffh,.~ e,•},. ~ti'S ~'+r S v ~r`y,~ s~..iSgl~y~p~w,rtsa... f tl r'Y .y1. ,yP s - r rk`~ f'1's'g-q. t 4 y M i} S 4 r f ^v w7. i }z•~u ~P~~F'~'d' ~ ~ ~4 ll'D'''~' t Tta,E~~lc s L{. ; a uo~eued a s~lB+AI ,y ! r ti rx N v snags 'ileU1'Z u0u+p0'~ ~°8 'a ?per ~ uo?ewe0 s!• ~u®e !vc) $ y~l~t~~!,~9o'v0aoe~%9:s;,psei, +i~ '"P'~c tl es-~~ rt a vE ~ '►f',~t' ~ ~ii)it~v~ F'°'~~~'' r ~,~p r, . pry m ® O Tearsheet Notice` City of Tigard 1.3125 Svj Iia l l I31vd. qrigard,Oregon 97223 e Q Duplicate Affidavit Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, • COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the `_T_'].L1ard-T ual n _i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti_garcl in the aforesaid county and state* that the 69t1'i Avenue Local n„h1ir unarina/ fr'ij?rovement District a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for TWO successive and consecutive in the following issues: January 31,yebruary 7,2002 Subscribed and sworn to fore me thidZ 1.1 day of F-hr,iary, 2002 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS ary Public for Oregon NO~ pUBUC_Op_cGCN , My Commission Expires: Ct MMISSUN DIM MAY 16, 2M AFFIDAVIT - CITY OF TIGAR D, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POS'T'ING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) y I, - 6A-u A. G,~ /UYL begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 02-1,0, O2 -1 / which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 2 -/Z -,02- copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ / day of ckzru ~ , 200 z.- 1. Tigard City Ball, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Mall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 5777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn to before me this L day of , 20.OJ.. n-'Ts Notary Public for O t~OZ'LO'1d3S S3liIdX3 NOISSIWWCO AN eLssas •ON NOISSIWWOO My Commission Expires: 7 b NOJ3wo-Onend AldV1ON S)IN3a13r W 3NVIa lV3S lVlOl:1dO OFFICIAL SEAL DIANE M JELDERKS NOTARY PUSUC-OREGON MY COMMISSION COMMISSION NO. S ol, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 02- 0% AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.20 ("JURY TRIAL") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Chapter 2.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides for jury trial in cases where imprisonment may be imposed and establishes the procedures for summoning and reimbursing jurors; and WHEREAS, staff review has shown that the same mandatory rights and procedures are prescribed in Chapters 10 and 221 of the Oregon Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, repeal of this section makes it unnecessary to revise the Code as the legislature amends the Oregon statutes that govern the right to trial by jury, jury selection and juror compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 2.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code (Exhibit A) is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U.n &rLXrr nwQ. vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this P-Lh day of , 2002. Catherine Wheatley, City Rec er APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this ~a day of , 2002. ~Cmes E. G&121, r Approved as to form: Attoiney la Date ORDINANCE No. 02- 09 Page I A " TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A Chapter 2.20 JURY TRIAL*. any reason the preparation of the preliminary jury list is omitted or neglected on the first Monday in Sections: January or July of each year, it may be prepared on Monday of any week following, to serve until 2.20.010 Defendant's Right To Jury the end of the term and until another list is Trial. prepared. The jury list shall contain the first name 2.20.920 Preparation Of Jury List. and surname, and place of residence of each 2.20.030 Selection Of Jury From Jury person named therein, and the list prepared shall List, be certified by the City Recorder and maintained 2.20.040 Compensation For Jurors. on file in the Court's office. 2.20.050 State Statutes To Govern. No person shall be required to serve more 2.20.010 Defendant's Right To Jury than one term during any calendar year. (Ord. 85- Trial. 26 §1 (part), 1985). In all prosecutions for any crime or offense 2.20.030 Selection Of Jury From Jury defined and made punishable by the Charter or List. City ordinances, the defendant shall be tried and determined without the intervention of a jury, When a jury is demanded in the Municipal except in cases where imprisonment may be Court of the City of Tigard, the jury must be imposed. Either party in a criminal action may drawn and selected from the jury list. The demand a jury where one is allowed, but such Municipal Judge or the City Recorder must draw demand, to be effective, must be made, or from the jury box, in the presence of the postmarked, fifteen calendar days after the entry Municipal Court Clerk twelve ballots, or any of a plea of "Not Guilty" to the charge or fifteen greater number if necessary, until the names of calendar days prior to the commencement of trial, twelve persons who are deemed able to attend at whichever is sooner. the time and place required are obtained. The Municipal Judge or City Recorder must make and A jury trial in the Municipal Court shall file the list of the twelve names thus drawn. consist of six persons, sworn to try and determine the question or questions of fact, selected and If it appears to the Municipal Judge or the drawn as provided in this code. The terms of City Recorder that a person whose name is drawn Municipal Court shall be for a period of six is dead or has removed from the City, the ballot months, beginning on January 1st and July 1st of must be destroyed. If it appears to the Municipal each year. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). Judge or Recorder, or if he has good reason to believe, that a person whose name is drawn is 2.20.020 Preparation Of Jury List. temporarily absent from the City or is unwell or so engaged as to be unable to attend at the time As of the first Monday of January and July and place required without great inconvenience, each year, the City Recorder or Court Clerk shall the ballot must be laid aside without the name select not less than fifty names of persons from thereon being entered on the list drawn, and either the latest tax roll or registration books used returned to the box when the drawing is in the last City election, in the same manner as completed. A person whose name is drawn is juries are selected for circuit courts pursuant to deemed able to attend and his name is deemed to ORS Sections 221.349 and 10.110--10.480. If for be entered on the list except as otherwise herein 2-20-1 SE Update: 11/01 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A provided. The names of the twelve jurors so selected must be inserted in the "order to summon a jury," together with the names of the parties, date, time and place at which the trial is to be held, and the order shall require the jurors to appear at that date, time and place. The order shall be signed by the Municipal Judge or the City Recorder and a copy thereof directed to the Chief of Police or to any policeman authorized to act in his behalf, commanding him to summon the persons in accordance with the order, and he shall make his return of service to the Court at its opening. The Court may impose a fine not exceeding twenty dollars upon a juror who without reasonable cause neglects to attend the Court session to which summoned. (Ord. 85-26 §1 (part), 1985). 2.20.040 Compensation For Jurors. Each juror sworn as a member of a trial panel in the Municipal Court, shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars for each day or fraction thereof. (Ord. 85-26 §l(part), 1985). 2.20.050 State Statutes To Govern. (a) To the extent not herein specifically provided, all proceedings with respect to selection of juries, swearing of juries, and trial by jury in Municipal Court, shall be governed by the applicable general laws of the state of Oregon governing Justice of the Peace and justice courts. (b) All rules of evidence as provided pursuant to state statutes shall be followed in all jury trials in the Municipal Court. (Ord. 85-26 §l(part), 1985). * For statutory provisions giving procedure for trial by jury, see ORS 221.349.0 2-20-2 SE Update: 11/01 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 02- Uq AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.24 ("CRIMINAL PROCEDURE") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Chapter 2.24 of the Tigard Municipal Code establishes procedures for criminal cases, including filing complaints, imposing costs, issuing warrants and citations, entering pleas and conducting trials in municipal court; and WHEREAS, staff review has shown that the same mandatory rights and procedures are prescribed in detail by Chapters 133, 135 and 156 of the Oregon Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, repeal of this section makes it unnecessary to revise the Code as the legislature amends the Oregon statutes that govern criminal procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 2.24 of the Tigard Municipal Code (Exhibit A) is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U hA.n 0Yrti 'UZ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this lay'`` day of ate, 2002. h.e Catherine Wheatley, ity Rec er APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this /off' day of , 2002. awes E. G 'ffi 11or App oved as to form: ity ttomey arm Date ORDINANCE No. 02-Ch Page 1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A Chapter 2.24 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 2.24.030 Costs In Criminal Cases- Indigent Defense Account. Sections: (a) The Municipal Judge shall assess five 2.24.010 Filing Complaint- dollars as and for costs in every case of finding of Commencement Of Action. guilt and in each instance of bail forfeiture in all 2.24.020 Complaint Deemed Indictment. cases brought before the Court. In every case of a 2.24.030 Costs In Criminal Cases- finding of guilty by a jury, the Municipal Judge Indigent Defense Account. shall assess sixty dollars minimum as and for 2.24.040 Warrant Of Arrest-Generally. costs. 2.24.050 Warrant Of Arrest-Execution And Return. (b) All costs collected shall be paid over to 2.24.060 Citations To Misdemeanants. the Finance Director. There is established in the 2.24.070 Reading Complaint To general fund of the City, a special account Defendant-Defendant To designated "indigent defense." The Finance Plead. Director shall credit all costs collected to such 2.24.080 Right Of Counsel. designated "indigent defense account." The sum 2.24.090 Defendant's Plea-Refusal To of five hundred dollars shall be maintained for Plead. indigent defense purposes. Any overplus of funds 2.24.100 Trial By Court. so collected shall be credited to the general fund 2.24.110 State Statutes To Govern, of the City. (Ord. 85-26 § l (part), 1985). 2.24.010 Filing Complaint- 2.24.040 Warrant Of Arrest-Generally. Commencement Of Action. Upon the filing of the complaint, the In Municipal Court, a criminal action is Municipal Judge shall issue a warrant of arrest for commenced by the filing of the complaint therein, the defendant named therein. (Ord. 85-26 verified by the oath of the person commencing the § I (part), 1985). action, who is thereafter known as the complainant. (Ord. 85-26 § I(part), 1985). 2.24.050 Warrant Of Arrest-Execution And Return. 2.24.020 Complaint Deemed Indictment. A warrant of arrest in a criminal action in a The complaint shall be deemed an indictment Municipal Court is issued, directed and executed within the meaning of ORS 132.510 to 132.570, in all respects as the warrant mentioned in ORS 132.590, 132.610 to 132.690, 132.710 and 133.140, except that it shall be made returnable 132.720, which sections prescribe what is only before the Judge who issues it. (Ord. *85-26 sufficient to be stated in such pleading and the §1 (part), 1985). form of stating it, except that the sufficiency of a uniform traffic citation shall not be controlled by 2.24.060 Citations To Misdemeanants. these sections. (Ord. 85-26 § I (part), 1985). (a) City police officers may, if an arrest is made without a warrant, or if a person is arrested by a private citizen and is turned over to a peace officer, or if the Municipal Judge before whom a 2-24-1 SE Update: 11/01 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A complaint is filed authorizes it, issue a citation in (A) The defendant is charged with a lieu of continuing custody in those cases in the violation of a municipal ordinance for which a jail form and mariner authorized by ORS 133.045 to sentence may be imposed; and 133.080, inclusive. (B) The defendant requests the aid of (b) If any person wilfully fails to appear counsel; and before the Municipal Court pursuant to a citation issued and served' under the authority of ORS (C) The defendant states under oath, in 133.045 to 133.080, inclusive, and subsection (a) writing, his financial circumstances showing lack of this section, and a complaint is filed, he shall be of ability to obtain counsel, and provides such deemed guilty of a violation of Chapters 2.16 other information required by the Court as to his through 2.26 and a Class A misdemeanor. (Ord. inability to obtain counsel; and 85-26 §1(part), 1985). (D) The Court determines that the 2.24.070 Reading Complaint To defendant is without means wherewith to obtain Defendant-Defendant To counsel. Plead. (4) Unless otherwise ordered by the When the defendant appears or is brought Municipal Court, the counsel appointed under this before the Municipal Judge, the complaint shall be section shall continue to represent the defendant read to him and he shall plead thereto at that time on appeal to the District Court. The Court may or within such additional time as the Municipal substitute one appointed counsel for another at Judge may grant for entry of plea. (Ord. 85-26 any stage of the proceedings when the interest of §1 (part), 1985). justice requires such substitution. 2.24.080 Right Of Counsel. (5) If at any time after the appointment of counsel the Court finds that the defendant is (1) When a defendant who is charged with financially able to obtain counsel or to make violation of a municipal ordinance for which a jail partial payment for the services of counsel, the sentence may be imposed, appears before the Court may terminate the appointment of counsel Municipal Judge without counsel, he shall be or may require such partial payment. If at any informed by the Court that it is his right to have time during the proceedings the Court finds that counsel before any further proceedings are had the defendant is financially unable to pay counsel, and shall be asked if he desires the aid of counsel. the Court may appoint counsel to represent defendant as provided in this section. (2) The Court shall allow the defendant a reasonable time to obtain counsel and shall (6) Counsel appointed pursuant' to adjourn the proceeding for that purpose or shall, subsection (3) of this section shall, after the Court in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, so orders, be paid fees by the City for the services i appoint counsel to represent him unless the rendered in conducting the defense, as follows: i defendant waives counsel and the Court approves the waiver. (A) When, a plea of guilty is entered prior to trial on merits $ 75.00 (3) Counsel for a defendant shall be appointed by the Municipal Court if. (B) When a plea of not guilty is entered 2-24-2 SE Update: 11/01 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A and adversary trial on the merits is conducted 75.00 (C) When defendant is charged with more than one offense for which jail sentence may be imposed and defendant is tried on all charges concurrently 75.00 (D) After an appeal and trial on the merits is had in the District Court 75.00 (Ord. 86-30 §§1 and 2, 1986; Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). 2.24.090 Defendant's Plea-Refusal To Plead. The defendant may plead the same pleas as upon an indictment. His plea shall be oral and entered in the docket. If the defendant refuses to plead, the Municipal Judge shall enter the fact, together with the plea of not guilty, on his behalf. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). 2.24.100 Trial By Court. Upon a plea other than a plea of guilty, if the defendant does not .demand a trial by jury in accordance with Section 2.20.010, the Municipal Judge shall proceed to try the issue unless continued for cause. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). 2.24.110 State Statutes To Govern. When not governed by Chapters 2.16 through 2.26 or by the City Charter, all proceedings prior to judgment with respect to criminal actions in Municipal Court for the violation of a City ordinance shall be governed by applicable general rules of the state governing Justice of the Peace and justic::. courts. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985) 2-24-3 SE Update: 11/01 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.02-~ AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2.26 ("WITNESSES") OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Chapter 2.26 of the Tigard Municipal Code provides for the issuance of subpoenas and specifies the number, form and manner of service, establishes a witness fee, requires testimony of witnesses and permits contempt proceedings for failure to comply with a subpoena; and WHEREAS, staff review has shown that the same procedures are prescribed in Chapters 33, 44 and 136 of the Oregon Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, repeal of this section makes it unnecessary to revise the Code as the legislature amends the Oregon statutes that govern witnesses and subpoenas. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 2.26 of the Tigard Municipal Code (Exhibit A) is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By a n CM i MO D vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of, 2002. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this /04 -h day of , 2002. (i. es E. G ffi , or t A proved as proved to form- n~~ A 6711__~ Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 02--D Page 1 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A Chapter 2.26 WITNESSES*. blank subpoenas subscribed by the Judge or Clerk respectively for not to exceed three witnesses Sections: within the jurisdiction; provided, however, that any defendant may have subpoenas issued for any 2.26.010 Subpoena-Purpose. number of witnesses at his own expense. (Ord. 85- 2.26.020 Subpoena-Number. 26 § 1(part), 1985). 2.26.030 Subpoena-Form. 2.26.040 Subpoena-By Whom Served. 2.26.030 Subpoena-Form. 2.26.050 Subpoena-Manner Of Serving. 2.26.060 Witness Fee-Designated. (a) The form of subpoena to be used within 2.26.070 Witness Fee-Claiming. the City of Tigard shall be substantially that set 2.26.080 Testimony Of Witness. forth in ORS 139.070, except that the attendance 2.26.090 Contempt. thereby required shall be issued in the name of the 2.26.100 Applicable State Statutes City of Tigard and the attendance shall be Adopted. required in the Municipal Court at a time and place therein to be set forth. 2.26.010 Subpoena-Purpose. (b) If books, papers or documents are The process by which the attendance of required, a direction to the following effect shall witnesses before the Municipal Court is required, be added to the form as set forth in the ORS. (Ord. is a subpoena. 85-26 § 1(part), 1985). The subpoena may be issued: 2.26.040 Subpoena-By Whom Served. (a) By the Municipal Judge; A subpoena may be served by the defendant, or any other person over eighteen years of age, (b) By the City Recorder, acting as Clerk of and shall be served by the chief of police or under the Municipal Court; his direction within the City of Tigard when delivered to him for service either to a witness on (c) By the City Attorney; the part of the City or on the part of the defendant. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). (d) By the Attorney of record for the party in whose behalf the witness is required to appear. 2.26.050 Subpoena-Manner Of Serving. The subpoena shall be subscribed by the The subroena shall be prepared in duplicate signature of the Municipal Judge, City Recorder, and shall be served by delivering a copy to the City Attorney, or by the signature of the attorney witness personally, and the original shall be of record. (Ord. 85-26 § I(part), 1985). returned to the Clerk of the Court with proof of service made in the same manner as in the service 2.26.020 Subpoena-Number. of summons. (Ord. 85-26 §1 (part), 1985). Upon application of a defendant, the 2.26.060 Witness Fee-Designated. Municipal Judge or the Clerk of the Municipal Court in which a complaint or citation is pending The fees of witnesses required to attend the for trial, shall at the expense of the City issue in Municipal Court shall be five dollars for each day 2-26-1 SE Update: 11/01 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A or any part thereof in attendance before the 2.26.100 Applicable State Statutes Municipal Judge. Adopted. Every witness who is required to travel in ORS Sections 44.310, 44.320, 44.330, order to execute or perform his duties as a 44.340, 44.350, 44.360 and 44.370 with respect to witness, from any point outside the City limits, is oaths and affirmations of witnesses, by virtue of entitled to mileage at the rate of eight cents per authority of ORS 221.330, are adopted by this mile and no more in going to and returning from reference, section by section, paragraph by the place where the service is performed. (Ord. paragraph, word by word, in the entirety in all 85-26 §1(part), 1985). respects to the same legal force and effect as if set forth herein in full. (Ord. 85-26 § 1(part), 1985). 2.26.070 Witness Fee-Claiming. * For statutory provisions regarding witnesses, see The Clerk of the Municipal Court, on ORS 136.555-136.695; for Charter provisions application of a witness subpoenaed to attend allowing the municipality judge to compel Municipal Court, shall enter in the fee book under witnesses to appear in Court, see Chapter V §21 the title of the action in which the witness was of the Charter of the City of Tigard.® subpoenaed or recognized, the number of days attendance and the number of miles necessarily traveled in consequence of the subpoena. The Clerk shall swear the witness to the statement contained in that entry. The fees and mileage of a witness in the Municipal Court shall be claimed within fifteen days after the appearance of the witness pursuant to the subpoena, and not afterwards. (Ord. 85-26 §1(part), 1985). 2.26.080 Testimony Of Witness. Any person present in Court or before the Municipal Judge may be required to testify in the same manner as if he were in attendance before the Court upon a subpoena. (Ord. 85-26 § 1(part), 1985). 2.26.090 Contempt. Disobedience to a subpoena or refusal to be sworn or answer as a witness when required, may be punished as a contempt by the Court before whom the witness is required to attend. (Ord. 85- 26 § 1(part), 1985). 2-26-2 SE Update: 11/01 • ATTACHMFNr #3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.02-1 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.52 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING SUB SECTION 2.52.030 AND SUB SECTION 2.52.040 ABANDONED, FOUND, SEIZED AND STOLEN PROPERTY. WHEREAS, Sub section 2.52 regulates the sale of abandoned, found, seized and stolen property, and WHEREAS, current and past practice have been to dispose of such property at a public auction in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment codifies the practice and is consistent with the accepted business practices of other counties and municipalities in the disposal of property, WHEREAS, Sub section 2.52.050 should refer to current ORS 166.280. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Sub Section 2.52.030 is amended to allow for disposal of property at public auctions in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies. SECTION 2: Sub Section 2.52.040 Certificate of Sale is eliminated and replaced with 2.52.040 Use of Property by City. SECTION 2: Sub Section 2.52.050 Dangerous or Perishable Property state "weapons shall be destroyed in accordance with ORS 166.280." SECTION : This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By (.LrIa,(T1y l)5'*1-k vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day o 2002. a erine Wheatley, City Reco er r APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this /,T-6'O'day of 2002. ames E. G th, Wor A roved as to form,: City Attorney I o° Date ORDINANCE No. 02-(L Page 1 ATTACH MM #1 TIGAR D MUNICIPAL, CODE Chapter 2.52 ABANDONED, FOUND, SEIZED AND STOLEN 2.52.030 Sale Of Prepert~-of property. PROPER'T'Y. (a) At any time after the expiration of Sections: thep_--==-=~ - e department tl- `L' c 2.52.010 r~e" of the ~ r~--- palie Custody Of --PropeA -"f erliee sixty dam from conclusion of all property. criminal actions related to the seizure of the 2.52.020 Surrender Te True--9wfer:to property or after sixty days from the conclusion of true owner. the investigation if no criminal action is filed the 2.52.030 Sale GM repetty: chief of police may sell the property at public 3.52040-Gertifleate Of Sale. auction. The Chief of Peliee~hief of police shall 2.52.045 Use Of Property B~- f not sell any such property held in evidence in any property. court proceeding until the need for its use in that 2.52.040 Use of property by city proceeding has passed. 2.52.050 Dangerous Or Perishable P1 epe0" perishable (b) NetieeThe auction may be conducted in ro er . conjunction with other law enforcement a encies. 2.52.060 Scope. The auction company. as agent for the police department, shall give notice of the saleshaH--be 2.52.010 Custody O€---P-rsper"f givef3 once by publication in a newspaper of property. general circulation in the C-ityci1y at least tert3l, days before the date of sale. Notice must also be Whenever any personal property other than a posted in at least three public places within the motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any City of Tigard. A copy of the notice shall also be department of the Gitycity by reason of its having sent to any person that the police department has been abandoned, found, seized, or for any other reason to believe has an ownership or security reason, the personal property shall be turned over interest in the proIeriy. The notice shall give the to and held by the police department at the time and place of the sale and shall describe expense and risk of the owner or person lawfully generally the property to be sold at the sale. The entitled to possession of it. (Ord. 81-37 §1, 1981). notice shall include a statement in substantially the following form: 2.52.020 Surrender To 'rue Ow* -.to true owner. NOTICE Except when the property in question has The Tigard Police Department has been confiscated or is being held as evidence, the in its physical possession the unclaimed owner or person lawfully entitled to possession personal property described below. If may reclaim it upon application to the police you have any ownership interest in any department. The department shall require of that unclaimed property, you must satisfactory proof of ownership or right to file a claim within 30 days from the date possession, and the department shall further of publication of this notice or you will require the payment of any charges and expenses lose your interest in that property incurred in the storage, preservation and custody of the property. (Ord. 81-37 §2, 1981). (.)Lcl All sales of property under this 2-52-1 Reformatted 1994 i TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE chapter shall be for cash and shall be made to the stipulation that the City does not waffant the highest and best bidder; provided, however, that eendition title of the pr-epefty ether- thaft the any person appearing at or prior to the sale and of t, ifehas° pr-iee in the the title proving ownership or right of possession to the slietald-prove -€er any-reasen to -be invalid. The property in question shall be entitled to reclaim it eei4ifieate-of shall be in substantially : upon the payment of the charges and expenses €ell incurred by the Ckycity in the storage, preservation and custody of the property and a r'r `TE OF SALE proportionate share of the costs of advertising for the sale. This is (e)fd) If no bids are entered for the 81 _ and ° nt to due netiee of and pleee property or if the highest bid is less than the costs of sale, 1 aid en the dey o€_ 19= sell atria incurred by the Gity, the Chief ` i the attetien-te-fefthe sufn of $ as'- the named chief of police may enter a bid on behalf of the per-sen being the highest-andPoest bidder-, the Gitycity in an amount equal to such costs. If bid "'Mowing a°-°'"'°a pe ° pr-opeftyz (oi=`= in by the C44y;cLty, the property shall become the deser-iption °`T~°P'. property of the Gityc as compensation for the costs incurred. M eens:dera'ion of the payment of the stim identified Abeve I have on this date delivefed the (d) 44►e,(e) The auction company shall . provide the City with a detailed list of items sold and the monies received for each item. The Dated t 7is_day of , 19 proceeds of the sale shall be applied first to payment of the costs of the sale and any expenses incurred in the preservation, storage and custody GHIRF OF PO GE of the property, and any balance shall be credited to the general fund of the Gity: CI'2Z ID city. The auction company shall be responsible NO IGE TOP ? GHT A S for issuance of a receipt of sale to the purchaser of the property. („The City of Tigard assumes no responsibility as to the condition of the title to the (e)M The sale of property pursuant to property which is the subject of this transaction. this chapter shall be without right of redemption. In the event this sale should for any reason be (Ord. 90-05 §1, 1990; Ord. 81-37 §3, 1981). invalid the liability of the City is limited to the return of the purchase price. (Ord. 81-37 §4, 252.040 r""se"°°t° Of Sale. 1981). -At the time of the payment-purebase 2-02.045 - Use Af-; epegfy--~Y C4ty-..52.040 Use of property by city. pur-ehasef, and a eopy to be kept on file in the effee of-the-inanee-Direet^~, whieh eei4ifieate (a) In lieu of a sale of the property under shall eeetain the date of sale, the side...t:°° Sections 2 52 030 and 2.52.040, a any fifne -°after- paid~ a brief deseriptien of the pFepefty and a the expir-ation of ninety days ften- the time the 2-52-2 Re(onnatted 1994 'I'IGARD MUNICIPAL CODE e --the City X2.52.030, at any~ the City is authorized to sell the property, the ci manager may, at the request of the Ghief of Polie chief of police, convert the property to public use by entering it on the Git-f ~ci 's fixed asset inventory. (b) Notice of the transfer of the property to the GitycLty shall be given once by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Eit5,ci1y at least 4en31 days before the property is converted to C-ityc tty use. The notice shall describe the property and state that the described property shall be converted to C4tycc& use if the I property is not reclaimed within tend es 30days. Any claim of ownership shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.52.020. (c) If the property is not reclaimed within tenths days after publication of the notice described in subsection (b) of this section, the property shall be entered on the Cty'sci 's fixed asset inventory and shall not be subject to the right of redemption. (Ord. 90-05 §2, 1990). 2.52.050 Dangerous Or- Perishable Ptoper.or perishable property. The Chic` of Pelieechief of police may order the destruction or other disposal of any property coming into his possession which is, in his judgment, dangerous or perishable. Weapons shall be destroyed in accordance with ORS 166.280. (Ord. 81-37 §5, 1981). 2.52.060 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all personal property, except motor vehicles, now or hereafter in the custody of the Eityc& of Tigard. (Ord. 81- 37 §6, 1981).® 2-52-3 Reformatted 1994 ATTACHMENT #2 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 2.52 ABANDONED, FOUND, The chief of police shall not sell any such SEIZED AND STOLEN property held in evidence in any court proceeding PROPER'L'Y, until the need for its use in that proceeding has passed. Notice of the sale shall be given once by Sections: publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days before the date of sale. 2.52.010 Custody of property. The notice shall give the time and place of the sale 2.52.020 Surrender to true owner. and shall describe generally the property to be 2.52.030 Sate of property. sold at the sale. 2.52.040 Certificate of sale. 2.52.045 Use of property by city. (b) All sales of property under this chapter 2.52.050 Dangerous or perishable shall be for cash and shall be made to the highest property. and best bidder; provided, however, that any 2.52.060 Scope. person appearing at or prior to the sale and proving ownership or right of possession to the 2.52.010 Custody of property. property in question shall be entitled to reclaim it upon the payment of the charges and expenses Whenever any personal property other than a incurred by the city in the storage, preservation motor vehicle is taken into the custody of any and custody of the property and a proportionate department of the city by reason of its having share of the costs of advertising for the sale. been abandoned, found, seized, or for any other reason, the personal property shall be turned over (c) If no bids are entered for the property or to and held by the police department at the if the highest bid is less than the costs incurred by expense and risk of the owner or person lawfully the city, the chief of police may enter a bid on entitled to possession of it. (Ord. 81-37 § 1, 1981). behalf of the city in an amount equal to such, costs. If bid in by the city, the property shall 2.52.020 Surrender to true owner. become the property of the city as compensation for the costs incurred. Except when the property in question has been confiscated or is being held as evidence, the (d) The proceeds of the sale shall be applied owner or person lawfully entitled to possession first to payment of the costs of the sale and any may reclaim it upon application to the police expenses incurred in the preservation, storage and department. The department shall require custody of the property, and any balance shall be satisfactory proof of ownership or right to credited to the general fund of the city. possession, and the department shall further require the payment of any charges and expenses (e) The sale of property pursuant to this incurred in the storage, preservation and custody chapter shall be without right of redemption. (Ord. of the property. (Ord. 81-37 §2, 1981). 90-05 § 1, 1990; Ord. 81-37 §3, 1981). 2.52.030 Sale of property. 2.52.040 Certificate of sale. (a) At any time after the expiration of At the time of the payment of the purchase ninety days from the time the property comes into price, the chief of police shall sign a certificate of the possession of the police department, the chief safe in duplicate, the original to be delivered to the of police may sell the property at public auction, purchaser, and a copy to be kept on file in the 2-52-1 Reformatted 1994 TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE office of the finance director, which certificate property comes into the possession of the police shall contain the date of sale, the consideration department, the city manager may, at the request paid, a brief description of the property and a of the chief of police, convert the property to stipulation that the city does not warrant the public use by entering it on the city's fixed asset condition or title of the property other than the inventory. return of the purchase price in the event the title should prove for any reason to be invalid. The (b) Notice of the transfer of the property to certificate of sale shall be in substantially the the city shall be given once by publication in a following form: newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days before the property is converted to CERTIFICATE OF SALE city use. The notice shall describe the property and state that the described property shall be This is to converted to city use if the property is not certify that under the provisions of Ordinance No. reclaimed within ten days. Any claim of 81-_ and pursuant to due notice of time and place ownership shall be subject to the provisions of of sale, I did on the day of_ 19 sell at public Section 2.52.020. auction to for the sum of $ , cash, the named person being the highest and best bidder, the (c) If the property is not reclaimed within following described personal property: (brief ten days after publication of the notice described description of property). in subsection (b) of this section, the property shall be entered on the city's fixed asset inventory and In consideration of the payment of the sum shall not be subject to the right of redemption. identified above I have on this date delivered the (Ord. 90-05 §2, 1990). described property to the named purchaser. 2.52.050 Dangerous or perishable Dated this day of , I9 property. The chief of police may order the destruction CHIEF OF POLICE or other disposal of any property coming into his possession which is, in his judgment, dangerous. or perishable. (Ord. 81-37 §5, 1981). NOTICE TO PURCHASER 2.52.060 Scope. The City of Tigard assumes no responsibility as to the condition of the title to the property This chapter shall apply to all personal which is the subject of this transaction. In the property, except motor vehicles, now or hereafter event this sale should for any reason be invalid the in the custody of the city of Tigard. (Ord. 81-37 liability of the City is limited to the return of the §6, 1981).0 purchase price. (Ord. 81-37 §4, 1981). 2.52.045 Use of property by city. (a) In lieu of a sale of the property under Sections 2.52.030 and 2.52.040, at any time after the expiration of ninety days from the time the 2-52-2 Reformatted 1994 Agenda Item No. -,i t t C « Meeting of a I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Tom Imdieke, Financial Operations Manage RE: Study Session - February 12, 2002 - IGA with Clark County and Clark Public Utilities DATE: January 29, 2002 On the February 12, 2002 Consent Agenda, there is an item requesting Council approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Clark County and Clark Public Utilities to provide remittance processing of utility payments. The Finance Director, Craig Prosser, briefed the Council earlier this past year, and at that time, the Council approved going ahead with the proposal. I will be attending the Council's Study Session essentially to review the highlights of the agreement and respond to any follow-up questions that Council members might have regarding the IGA. All related materials are included in the Council's packet for this agenda item. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at ext. 326. AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2002 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED Ac' 9tn-- Cr-] (~Ofu~ C a r~c2~ VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 Tigard High Leadership► 9000 SW Durham Road • Tigard • Oregon • 97224 (503) 431-5518 • FAX (503) 431-5410 • http://ths.ttsd.kl2.or.us/leadership/home.htmi thsorez(@,,hotmai i. com Atlvlemr a r'Eft ' • FEBRUARY 8TM BASKETBALL V5. TUALATIN N~~fiialw,!isls9t; ® FEBRUARY 9TH TIGERETTE "FOR THE LOVE OF DANCE" COMPETITION vim I, ® FEBRUARY 9TH ' aaD SENIOR CITIZENS PROW 19' FEBRUARY 9T" Liu!", P ` "MORP" DANCE - VIVA LAS VEGAS Yire~aursr~; ' Jondw~ot Tae r FEBRUARY 14" TEACHER STUDENT FORUM Hurt l3~a~e~`'. R,aelfAl hJOl~jji990R: , FEBRUARY 4-15 iMlee` ' COAT DRIVE ® FEBRUARY 21sT Erettel aelr z NHS BLOOD DRIVE ati6lct~jr ® MARCH 1sT 3ca+e4e kguy*n "THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE" Technology Dgnn,ls McMlllan ® MARCH 2no "THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE" • MARCH 7-9T~ "THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE" "Together we can succeed... by connecting the dots. " ' THS Leadership '01- '02 Mission Statement AGENDA ITEM # 3. oZ . FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Receive and File - Council & Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK tA-`~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive and file the updated Council and Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 14, 2002, the City Council reviewed the Council and Liaison Appointment Matrix. The attached Matrix has been updated to reflect current Council and staff appointments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Updated Matrix. FISCAL NOTES i N/A I:\ADM\PACKET'02\20020212\COUNCIL LIAISON MATRIX AIS.DOC G 2002 'SOn A in'~~~n$5 Januaxy 29, rt4ff itAl ~heckla updated ~®unCii at or Staff Patton it or Alternate ative PrimO~"Y {Gaunt Re Moore Scheckla Committee Oame Staffl p►rksen Patton Griffith Bud et Committee Patton. Prosser, Moore pirksen Budget Subcom ' Mon an Social Services Griffith Budget Subcom. Roberts a Events Scheckl Community Develop. Moore Stock Grant Board Adviso Mendr i Anne Braun Central Duty - Dec 03 Assn. Barnes June 03 ©irksen District Dirksen an ' LibB r 02 ~,oore Goof d Patton July -Dec Adviso Ord Scheckla _ June 02 TWB W er Jan ton Mayors APO- Patton New Advisa Gom Scheckla MAGG ReQuest farStaff FJietr'a Technical namipatMor► Advisory Committee ,,e►nber (alternate and. if desired. alternate) Monahan secor`d Patton NeW Library Construction Dirksen staff) we ner t Committee Patton Regional Water Consortium Mills staff: Senior Center of "endrYx t T~9ard Chambard ex offic7%0 Commerce $0 x _ Page , - ;son ApP°'nt~'~~t ~°tr► Go>anc+9/Staff iirn jyyJlFlJ~~yl l N11~ - 00Z Jauuaty 29, _ Updated 'r Staff o Staff (Council or Altert►at. pr►m Re reseatative a ma litee Name Staff) Moore Co pirvsen Trans?Ortation Financing strategies Rohlf - Budget Schrader until Comn+ittee/Citizen Task force Moore then vision Task force Monahan retirement: Rep Washington County Moore Consolidated communications Com puenas Griffith Washington county Coordinating pirksen staff) Comm1 ee patron We ner ( Willamette Water Hendryx Su 1 A enc scheckla care Wnsh'Won r SW force Goodpaster, Re iana Moore. Balloons We ner, Wheatle festival of ~f f s tariff ith Mayor Gr. Meeting of City and County Elected officials (Informal) Metro - Various Meetings as we are notified ment Matrix - Page 2 Councill5taff UdIson APO"' LEUIB Xf Y tyrMY Updated January 29, 2002 Primary (Council or Alternate or Staff Committee Name Staff) Re resentative Tualatin Basin Griffith Hendryx Natural Resource i Coordinating Committee (Goal 5) Tualatin River Moore Roberts National Wildlife Refuge - Visitors Center Fundraising Cam i n Westside Economic Moore Alliance I: W DM\CATFMCOU NCI LI A PPTMATR.DOC Council/Staff Liaison Appointment Matrix - Page 3 AGENDA ITEM # 3 a FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Greer Gaston DATE: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: COUNCIL. CALENDAR, February 2002 - April 2002 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. February * 12 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting 18 Mon Presidents Day - City Offices Closed * 19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 26 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting March * 12 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting * 19 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 26 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting April * 9 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting * 16 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 23 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting - Business Meeting i.\admlcathyWouncii\cccai.doc Council Calendar - Page I 'igard City Council > Tentative Agenda .Greeter 3112102 - Business PJ N Marg aret -Greeter 5 p,m• Due: 2126102 212610 - Business Session mrnunity Events 12102 @ 5 p•m Study Review of Co Discussion & Craig _ 1 hour oeoho Due- 21 p Requests - y19102 ' dy Study Session Management Funding 215102 @ 5 P.M. FMLA policy Update on 5 min Due: Sherrie . Wo shop Top►~ Hot Present* personnel Policaat - on Citywide Personnel = Dilt Monahan~mm (OV) _ FMIA Policy Up 5 rein Planning Corn - Shert 1e - ends 1.6:30 Jt Mt9 w Consent A9 Change to Management BLUE SHEET ment _ Duane - LA Title 3 Code Am end enda _ a 'ne FM policy ide Personnel 2, Proposed 15 nrin consent ases - personnel 4ot hang icres to SheGirrivqe . 25 min date - Duane - ccep ance Ago uveni e Lot FMLA policy C RenevW4 policies She - 3.Regional Goat 5 UP policy Discussion - policies She me 4. Affordable" using UE SHEET Senior Center Lease R M100 vane - Loll Option Levy - BL 5. WCCLS Margaret Business p~eeting YA - Hathan LeamY p rnendment - PH ' Meeting SHEET ReCg u 5 d - A5 ton ing go ~ Business M~ IGA _ aim - BLUE O Quarry Durham 15 min 20 nnin Update _ Loreen - option, Mee Update - Insurance e Library ConstructioMargaret rn BLUE BLUE SHEET ' policy -Duane - qffordable Housing owners in the 69th J - SHEET Assessments to Pr 5 ~ rafter PH) 15 min. y - Gus - Overview - Gus - LID - Department Final Engineering uare Reglonal Plan - Washington J m BLUE SHEET Qecision - page 1 SI = standing item I:tadmlgreethentatv agltentative.xls j/3`1102 Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda -Greeter 419102 - Business N -Greeter 3119102 -Workshop 3126102 -Business N Due: 3112/02 @ 5 p.m- Due: 3126102 @ 5 p.m. Due: 315102 @ 5 p.m. Study Session Study Session Workshop Topics 6:30 p.m. Discuss TTSD Facilities Bond - City Attorney Review - Liz/Bill- 30 min School Committee 30 min - P.M. g w i rary oar - min. it Mtg - Budget Committee -Craig - 30 min Update on Gook Park Expansion Plans - Consent Agenda I'll Ed/John - 20 min Consent Agenda Transit Action Update - Julia - 30 min LCRB Cook Park Master Plan Expansion Phase ll Construction -John WCCLS Update - Margaret -10 in BLUE SHEET Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force - Street Maintenance Fee Draft Report - Gus 20 minutes E Business Meeting Business Meeting VNathan Leamy Adopt Code Amendment implementing Title 3 - A - TA Update -Public Assemblies PH - ORD -Duane - 25 min _ ORD & RES - Ron -10 min SI = standing item I:1adm/gre..,1tentaty agltentative-xls Page 2 1131102 AGENDA ITEM # 3. FOR AGENDA OF February 12. 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointment of Brooks Gaston to the Tree Board PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Appointment to the Tree Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution appointing Brooks Gaston to the Tree Board. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the appointment of Brooks Gaston to the Tree Board to complete the term of David Cory. This term ends April 30, 2005. Mr. Gaston currently serves as alternate to the Tree Board. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: The city will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. ATTACHMENT LIST Information about the candidate. FISCAL NOTES There is no cost associated with this action. \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS%DM\SUSANK\TREE BOARD\GASTON APPT SUM 2'02.DOC Brooks Gaston's name is forwarded to the City Council for appointment to the Tree Board. Brooks moved to Tigard about 1.5 years ago and lives not far from Fowler Middle School. He received his teaching certificate from the University of Texas and currently teaches in Lake Oswego. Mr. Gaston was appointed to serve as an alternate to the Tree Board in November, 2001. AGENDA ITEM # 3, L FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement with Clark County Washington and Clark Public Utilities for Remittance Processing of Utility Payments PREPARED BY: Tom ImdiekA DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Whether to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Clark County, Washington and Clark Public Utilities for the receipting of utility bill payments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve IGA with Clark County and Clark Public Utilities. INFORMATION SUMMARY Earlier this past year, the Council was briefed by the Finance Director, Craig Prosser, on a proposal to have Clark County and Clark Public Utilities provide remittance processing services for the receipting of utility bill payments. Council feedback was to go ahead and proceed with discussions and finalize an agreement. Since then staff has been working on the technical related items before a final agreement could be drafted. This work has now been completed and staff is ready to proceed with implementation. A representative of the City Attorney's office has reviewed this IGA. History Currently, the City's Utility Billing staff processes over 106,500 payments, which includes the receipting and posting of these payments to individual accounts. Time spent processing this increasing volume takes away valuable time for responding to customer inquiries in a timely manner as well as for preparing the billing statements. The Clark County Treasurer's Office and Clark Public Utilities acquired automated equipment enabling the utility to process payments at a rate of 250 itc-Ins per minute. This investment in equipment was approximately $500,000. They are currently using this equipment to process receipts for six different clients: Clark Public Utilities, Clark County Treasurer's Office, City of Vancouver, Tualatin Valley Water District, Clean Water Services, and the City of Camas. This remittance processing system also allows for all items, checks and utility bill stubs to be imaged, front and back. This allows for a much faster response time for research and archive retrieval of payment information. It is possible for a remote client to retrieve image data at individual locations. Once processing is complete, the host information is then transmitted to a client via the Internet. These payments can then be posted to individual customer accounts by 3:00 p.m. on the same day. All processed payment stubs and imaged copies of checks are then returned to the client. When items are encoded and endorsed, the checks are sorted to different banks using the information on the checks. This means that a deposit is made on the same day that payments are received by the processing center. If the City of Tigard contracts with Clark Public Utilities for this service, all utility bill payments sent in by mail would be addressed to a City of Vancouver address. Customers would still have the ability to pay in person, on the web, or use drop boxes that are located throughout the City. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Continue with existing program of internal receipting of utility bills. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CON IITTEE STRATEGY Does not apply. ATTACHMENT LIST Intergovernmental Agreement with Clark County, Washington and Clark Public Utilities, with Exhibits A through E. FISCAL NOTES Funds in the amount of $25,240 were approved in the FY 2002 budget. $8,200 of this was for one-time setup costs Or61na t Cc INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0-n-\ _ 2//3/OZ AGREEMENT W BETWEEN City of Tigard AND Clark County, Washington Clark Public Utilities (Joint Processing Center) THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR REMITTANCE PROCESSING OF UTILITY PAYMENTS, AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL RECEIPTS, (this "Agreement") dated as of , 2002, by and between CLARK COUNTY, Washington and CLARK PUBLIC UTILITIES (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "Joint Processing Center") and CITY OF TIGARD ("City of Tigard"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Joint Processing Center has sufficient capacity to process remittances for payment of utility payments and other governmental receipts and has offered to do so; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard desires to more effectively process its mail payments; and WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statute 190.420 gives Oregon public agencies authority to make agreements with public agencies in other states and Chapter 39.34 RCW permits public agencies in Washington to enter into agreements for cooperative actions, and the parties to this Agreement desire to enter into such an agreement for the purpose of causing the City of Tigard's utility payments and other governmental receipts to be processed electronically, and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Administrative Rule 10.010. La exempts contracts with other public agencies from competitive bidding and "public agencies" as used in the City Administrative Rule is not limited to Oregon public agencies; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 1 ARTICLE I Section 1.01. City of Tigard Activity. This section sets forth the activities and responsibilities of the City of Tigard: The City of Tigard shall at its sole expense (except as provided herein) undertake the following actions and provide for the following associated costs to effectuate this Agreement: a. Format, layout, design, print, and utilize statements that contain optical character readable (OCR) digits in the format specified by the Joint Processing Center. Joint Processing Center staff will provide technical assistance to the City of Tigard in order to achieve the most optimal statement design to provide for efficient processing of City of Tigard's payments. The cost associated with formatting, layout, design and printing of such statements shall be paid by the City of Tigard to City of Tigard's vendor for such activity. All forms must be approved by the Joint Processing Center staff prior to being put into production. b. Cost of programming the NCR remittance processor, by Wausau Financial Systems, and the OPEX 5.0 mail extraction equipment, by OPEX Corporation, to process the City of Tigard's mail payments shall be borne by the City of Tigard. At a minimum, the City of Tigard's OCR line should include the City of Tigard's account number being paid upon, the dollar amount billed, and a check digit which would either, verify: (1) account number or (2) the entire OCR line or (3) both the account number and the entire OCR line by the remittance processor equipment's check digit routine. Use of an Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) Box on the City of Tigard's utility bills must be coordinated as to placement and design with thz Joint Processing Center. ICR boxes on payment stubs must be utilized by all clients to maintain effeciencies established within the Joint Processing Center. A mark sense box and/or position recognition can be utilized to recognize and out-pocket statements containing address changes or customer comments. Both the ICR Box and the mark sense area need to be coordinated with the Joint Processing Center and any costs associated with these functions will be borne by the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard shall remit payment to Wausau Financial Systems, the Joint Processing Center's software vendor, for all costs associated with this programming. As to the OPEX 5.0 mail extraction equipment, payment envelopes are more efficiently processed through this equipment if the construction of such envelopes follows Exhibit A. c. The City of Tigard shall receive copies of burned CDs on a periodic basis as subsequently defined by the parties. Such subsequent definition shall be written and attached hereto as an Exhibit B. 2 d. Cost of programming the NCR remittance processor to contain the appropriate bank sort pattern desired by the City of Tigard for deposit of the City of Tigard's check and check-like items into its depository bank shall be at the City of Tigard's expense. The City of Tigard shall remit payment for the desired bank sort pattern to Wausau Financial Systems. e. The City of Tigard shall bear the costs associated with electronic transfer of the account data (appropriate account number and dollar amount remitted) captured on the Joint Processing Center's equipment for entry into the City of Tigard's accounts receivable and/or general ledger system(s). Processed statements shall be returned to the City of Tigard either through the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, courier service, or the armored car system, whichever is most appropriate and agreed upon between the parties hereto. The City of Tigard shall bear the costs associated with this service. f. The City of Tigard shall bear the costs of depositing checks and check-like items received by the Joint Processing Center into the City of Tigard 's bank account(s). This cost shall include the per item charge by the bank(s) for encoded items deposited on a Federal Reserve processing designated area. Additionally armored car service will be provided by the Joint Processing Center with a current cost of $75.00 per month to the City of Tigard. The Joint Processing Center shall provide the City of Tigard with a copy of the Joint Processing Center's certificate of insurance. The armored car service will also provide the City of Tigard with a certificate of insurance naming the City of Tigard as an additional insured. g. The City of Tigard shall post all payments electronically transferred to it from the Joint Processing Center to the City of Tigard's accounts receivable records and in summary to its general ledger system using its own personnel. Such data will initially be received in a holding file form. h. The Joint Processing Center shall provide a monthly total of the number of items (items is defined as a statement or a check - a statement (bill) and a check (remittance) is two items) it processes on behalf of the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard shall remit on a monthly basis to the Joint Processing Center eight cents ($.08) per item processed by the Joint Processing Center. Each year, if the Joint Processing Center determines, in it's sole discretion, to increase this processing fee (up to a maximum of $.16 per item), it shall notify the City of Tigard by Nov. 1St of each year. Such a rate increase shall not become effective until July 0 of the following year. If the City of Tigard elects not to accept the processing fee adjustment, it shall notify the Joint Processing Center pursuant to Section 2.04 by December 31St of that year and such notice shall constitute notice of termination pursuant to Section 2.15. i. The City of Tigard must follow all forms specifications as provided by the Joint Processing Center staff. j. The City of Tigard will, with technical assistance from the Joint Processing Center staff, obtain and pay for a postal caller box for remittance payments at the Vancouver Main Post Office at 2700 Caples Avenue, Vancouver, Washington. The Joint Processing Center shall pick up mail at the Vancouver Main Post Office in Vancouver, Washington at no cost currently. The Joint Processing Center will reassess this if the cost of this pickup rises. 3 Section 1.02. Joint Processing; Center Process. This section sets forth the activities and responsibilities of the Joint Processing Center: a. The Joint Processing Center agrees to work with the City of Tigard to clarify and explain all activities and responsibilities identified in Section 1.01 of this Agreement. b. The Joint Processing Center will pick up the City of Tigard's remittance payments (mail) at the Vancouver Main Post Office at 2700 Caples Avenue in Vancouver, Washington between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM each workday, pursuant to U.S. Postal Service approval. c. The Joint Processing Center will open such mail each workday on its extraction equipment. Extraction will be based upon criteria agreed upon in Exhibit C that details statement/check mail versus multiple items. The City of Tigard's payment processing specifications are detailed in Exhibit E. The Joint Processing Center will process all payments accordingly. d. The Joint Processing Center will process all mail received each day in time to meet the armored car pickup for delivery of the deposited items to the City of Tigard's bank on the date of receipt. Such deposit will incorporate restrictive endorsement of the City of Tigard's name as the depositor and the account number to which the item will be deposited. An audit trail will appear on the back of the check and statement for purposes of tracking. Deposited items will be at the City of Tigard's expense. e. The Joint Processing Center will provide a report to the City of Tigard of all bank deposits it makes on behalf of the City of Tigard. f. At the end of the processing day the Joint Processing Center will transmit, in the manner agreed upon in Exhibit D, a file containing the days receipt activity to be used for posting to the City of Tigard's accounts receivable database. g. Additionally, the Joint Processing Center will provide image backup in the manner agreed upon in Exhibit B. h. The Joint Processing Center shall provide a monthly total of the number of items (items is defined as a statement or a check - a statement (bill) and a check (remittance) is two items) it processes on behalf of the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard shall remit on a monthly basis to the Joint Processing Center eight cents ($.08) per item processed by the Joint Processing Center. Each year, the Joint Processing Center determines, in its sole discretion, to increase this processing fee (up to a maximum of $.16 per item), it shall notify the City of Tigard by Nov. ls` of each year. Such a rate increase shall not become effective until July I" of the following year. If the City of Tigard elects not to accept the processing fee adjustment, it shall notify the Joint Processing Center pursuant to Section 2.04 by December 31" of that year and such notice shall constitute notice of termination pursuant to Section 2.15. i. Circumstances may require processing of documents which do not meet Joint Processing Center requirements. If such a situation were to arise, a special handling fee for processing this work will be assessed. The fee will be reviewed annually as in Section 1.02 (h) 4 Mutually agreed procedures between the City of Tigard and the Joint Processing Center shall be established for processing of the City of Tigard's remittances and made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit C. These procedures may change from time to time through signed documents evidencing each Parties' mutual agreement to such modifications. Upon execution, and by this reference, such modifications shall become part of this Agreement. Section 1.03. Mutual Agreements. Both parties agree to work in a cooperative atmosphere to the mutual benefit of both parties with the goal of providing effective cost savings to its customer base. ARTICLE II Section 2.01. Administration. It is not the intent of the parties to create a separate legal entity to conduct this joint undertaking. This undertaking shall be administered by the Joint Processing Center. Section 2.02. Holding of Property. It is not the intent of the parties that real or personal property will be acquired or disposed of as a result of this joint undertaking; however, any real or personal property acquired shall be the sole and separate property of the party that paid for it. Section 2.03. Governing Law, Venue. This Agreement as appropriate will be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes hereof. Except as other wise required by applicable law, any action under this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Clark County and/or in the United States District Court of the Western District of Washington in Seattle, Washington. Section 2.04. Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices, consents or other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if addressed and mailed by first-class, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requests as follows: To the Joint Processing Center: Clark Public Utilities 1200 Fort Vancouver Way Vancouver, WA 98668 Attn: Rose Wiley, Office Services Manager-Clark Public Utilities or Michelle Denman, Tax Services Manager-Clark County Treasurer's Office 5 w To the City of Tigard: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Tom Imdieke, Budget and Financial Operations Manager The City of Tigard or the Joint Processing Center may, by notice given hereunder, designate any further or different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates, requests, or other communication shall be sent. Notices shall be deemed served upon deposit of such notices in the United States mail in the manner provided above. Section 2.05. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Joint Processing Center and the City of Tigard and their successors. Section 2.06. Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 2.07. Amendments, Recordation. This Agreement may not be effectively amended, changed, modified, or altered except by an instrument in writing duly executed by the Joint Processing Center and the City of Tigard, or their successors in title. Section 2.08. Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or agreement contained herein shall operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant or agreement or as a waiver of any breach of any other covenant, or agreement, or undertaking, the non-defaulting party may nevertheless accept from the other any payment or payments or performance hereunder without in any way waiving its right to exercise any of its rights and remedies provide for herein or otherwise with respect to any such default or defaults that were in existence at the time such payment or payments or performance were accepted by it. Section 2.09. No Rights Created in Third Parties. The terms of this Agreement are not intended to establish nor to create any rights in any persons or entities other than the Joint Processing Center and the City of Tigard and their respective successors and assigns of each. Section 2.10. Indemnification. To the extent permitted bylaw, the City of Tigard and the Joint Processing Center shall at all times during the term of this agreement indemnify and hold harmless the other's officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives against any and all losses, damages, costs, charges, expenses, judgments and liabilities, including attorney's fees, resulting from, arising out of, or related to the negligent acts of indemnitor's employees in performing the duties under this agreement. 6 Section 2. 11. Conse uential Damages. Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, neither party shall be liable to the other for any consequential, indirect, liquidated, or special damages or lost revenue or lost profits to any person arising out of this agreement or the performance or non-performance of any provision of this agreement, even if such party has been informed of the possibility of such damages. Section 2.12 Limitation of Liability: The Joint Processing Center shall not be liable for any losses sustained as a result of its failure to provide any service or perform any obligation unless such action or inaction is directly attributed to the negligence of its employees. Both parties acknowledge that services provided by the Joint Processing Center are dependent upon outside vendors over which the Joint Processing Center has no control. Any delay or loss caused by the actions or inactions of outside vendors shall not be the responsibility of the Joint Processing Center. Section 2.13. Interpretation. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and any working understanding of this arrangement, this Agreement shall control. Section 2.14. Time of Essence. Time and all terms and conditions shall be the essence of this Agreement. Section 2.15. Effective Date; Filing. This Agreement shall enter into force upon its filing with the Clark County Auditor. Section 2.16. Duration and Termination. This Agreement shall continue until it is terminated by one or both of the parties. This Agreement may not be terminated by the City of Tigard prior to the payment of all sums owing the Joint Processing Center. Subject to the foregoing, either party may at its discretion terminate this Agreement upon 120 days written notice to the other party. Upon the termination of this Agreement, any property, acquired shall be the sole property of the party who paid for it. Section 2.17 Compliance with Applicable Authorities All parties agree to comply with any and all applicable statutes and regulations of the state, local, or federal governments 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Joint Processing Center (consisting of Clark County, Washington and Clark Public Utilities) and the City of Tigard have caused this Agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers, and have caused this Agreement to be dated as of the 1;2 day of , l ATTEST: CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON By: Title: Clerk to the Board Clark County Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chair, Board of Commissioners APPROVED AS TO FORM: CLARK PUBLIC UTILITIES By: Clark Public Utilities Attorney Director of Finance/Treasurer CITY OF TIGARD By: )"ayor Arl EXHIBITS ATTACHED 8 Exhibit A Wausau Financial Systems Stub Design Recommendations Stub Design Constraints: The NCR 7780 transport accommodates documents ranging 5om 4.79' to 8.W' long and from 2.5" to 4.8" high. While there is no specific optimum dimension for a remittance stub, Wausau Financial recommends that a good size for a stub is 3.5" high by 7" long. The physical characteristics of the paper also impact the effectiveness of document scanning. NCR's 7780 transports have been designed to accommodate document paper weights varying from 20 lb. to 100 Ib. with thickness ranging from .003" to .0075". To maximize scanning effectiveness, the paper used for a new coupon should: • Have a weight from 20 lb. to 24 lb. • Have a thickness of.005" • Have a smoothness of more than 200 Sheffield Flow Units • Have a stiffness of 60 to 100 mg (Gurley) OCR Fonts Supported and Recommended Scanline Characteristics: ImaeeRPS supports a wide variety of industry-randard OCR fonts, including: - OCRA - OCRA Special - OCRA Alphanumeric - OCRB - OCRB Special - OCRB Alphanumeric -B-13B - Farrington B-7 - 1402/1403M -1428 - IBRO ImageRPS allows up to three unique fonts to be accommodated per document. In addition, ImageRPS with Software OCR is capable of being "trained" to read most machine printed numbers and characters that are non-OCR standard. This was done very successfully to support a specific application used to capture check re-order forms at a large customer of Wausau Financial Systems. The location of the OCR line on the coupon is not restricted as long as it does not conflict with the edge of the document. However, the following should be considered when determining where to place OCR information: • The backgi c and for OCR and _:l zones should be white. If not white, the back-*ound color should at least be consistent. • The OCR line should be kept away from the edge of the document. The edge is often damaged by mail extraction equipment, handling and tearing which leads to inconsistent scanline reads. Ima;eRPS supports all known check digit verification routines. If SBC utilizes a check digit routine that Wausau Financial is unaware of, we will program this routine for SBC. Up to ten check digit routines may be accommodated on a single scanline. Optional Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) Recommendations for Stubs: The following are guidelines recommended by Wausau Financial to optimize recognition in ICR constrained boxes: 1. Use as many constraints as possible • Use drop out boxes to dictate location and size of characters provided • Utilize drop out boxes if any information is written within .25" of data to be recognized, including constraints • Provide drop out boxes where any non-essential information, such as background, rules and graphics exist 2. Provide enough space to allow for well-formed characters • At a minimum, 0.20" wide and 0.22" high • Use well-defined field labels • Use field locators to that enable recognition to identity information location • Dollar signs and graphical symbols can be used as locators • Field locators must be scannable in ink • Field locators should be positioned at least 0.15" from the beginning of the data field Drop qut J t in these areas will improve recognition, reduce image size, and speed image processing. Drop out ink should be highly reflective so there is little contrast between it and the paper, but high contrast between it and the scannable information printed on or near it. _ Yellows, oranges, greens and some browns make the best drop out colors when utilizing the NCR 7780 as the image capture device. Mark Sense Detection Considerations The ImageRPS application uses a user-definable pixel percentage for each mark sense box or zone to determine if an area has been checked or marked by a customer. The recognition system treats any additional data beyond the pixel percentage in zone as a positive response or hit. Therefore, the following should be considered when adding a maric sense area to a coupon: • The white space within the box must be large enough to provide clear and accurate marks, with internal dimensions of at least 0.125". • At least 0.25" space should be provided between boxes if more than one box is being used. • Make sure enough white space is allowed to eliminate pre-printed information from being picked up by the system. Exhibit: A: o Paper Specifications for Automated Extraction 1997/1998 The document contains the following sections: 4 ENVELOPE SPECIFICATIONS 6 PAPER PROPERTIES G ENVELOPE CONSTRUCTION RETURN DOCUMENT SPECIFICATIONS Click on a section name to jump to that section or use the scroll bar to step through-the document. v ENVELOPE SPECIFICA.TI NS ENVELOPE SIZE: Opex System 150 Length: 6.00" to 9.50" (shorter envelopes preferred for speed) Height: 3.50" to 4.40" Opex System 100 http://w-ww.opex.com/Paprspec.btm 419199 Length: 6.00" to 9.50" (shorter envelopes preferred for speed) Height: 3.50" to 4.125" Opex WE 5.0 Length: 6.00" to 9.50" (shorter envelopes preferred for speed) Height: 3.50" to 4.375" for standard machine 4.5" to 5.75" for tall mail machine Opex Model 51 Length: 5.00" to 11.50" Height: 3.50" to 6.375" Opex Model 50 Length: 5.00" to 10.50" Height: 3.50" to 5.00" 1 Return to top PAPER PROPERTIES 1. Stiffness Iugh st.;MGss is always desirable. Basis weight may vary slightly from the values below if stif"mess is maintained. II. Paper Basis Weight http://www.op".com/paprspec.htra 419199 Uncoated White Wove: 20# minimum Coated White Wove: 7011 minimum, matte finish preferred Recycled: 24# minimum (request testing for lighter weights) III. Thickness . All envelopes to be run together as a single job must be of the same design and overall thickness. Envelope thickness variations exceeding .001" will degrade the quality of the extractor's thickness outsorting. Although worst case paper thickness tolerances within the paper manufacturing industry allow greater variation than specified above, field experience has proven that real life variations can be maintained as specified by high quality vendors. Single paper supply sourcing is highly recommended for each envelope size or style used. N. Finish Extremes of 'smoothness and coarseness should be avoided. Very smooth (highly calendered) envelopes may be slippery or retain ink poorly. Very coarse (toothy) envelopes are difficult to feed and stack. V. Porosity Low paper porosity is preferred. Failed extractions due to "bleed through" will be reduced as the porosity is decreased. VI. Color Image-based functions rely on print contrast against the paper. For this reason, dark colored paper should be avoided if image functions (Postnet Bar Code read, Change of Address, Mark Sense, Bent Corner detection) are desired. Printing on the envelope I. Heavy printing under the glue line of the envelope flap will prevent the glue from adhering properly. If the flap or back seams are not fully sealed, an increase in paper jams and other serious extraction problems will occur. 2. Heavy printing, particularly on high gloss coated papers, will cause ink to transfer to paper handling components and increase down time for maintenance of those items. 3. Printing on the corners of the envelope will prevent optical detection of folded corners and should be avoided to optimize performance. Return to top hittp://vvww.opex.com/paprspeo.htEn 4/9/99 J O ENYELOPE CONSTRUCTION General Construction Envelope designs that result in damage from Post Office handling (torn windows or flaps, crumpled, previously opened etc.) will create problems for automated extraction equipment. The contact area of the envelope with the extraction mechanism must be structurally sound after cutting. The envelope sides must be connected securely to the contact area. Trapping of contents Side seam envelope constructions may allow checks to become trapped under side seams, which may result in failed extractions. While these failed extractions may not cause the machine to jam, they will significantly increase manual processing of "reunites." The following are ways to minimize or eliminate the possibility of contents being trapped. 1. Shorten the length: If the envelope is short enough to prevent a 6" personal check from being inserted under the side seam, the problem is eliminated. This can be accomplished by either shortening the envelope or increasing the width of the side seam. (Side seam widths over 1" are not recommended, however, and the seam flap must be securely glued not more than 1/8" from its inside edge.) 2. Use a Back Window: Checks cannot be trapped under the flaps of a side seam envelope if the window is placed on the back of the envelope. The return document, correctly inserted by the customer, shields the check from the side seams. 3. Use a Diagonal Sears Construction: Checks cannot be trapped under the flaps when the envelope is constructed using the diagonal seam design. 4. Secure the Side Seams: Specify that the side seams be securely glued within 1/8" from the inside edge of the seam. A double glue line rather than a wide glue line may be required to accurately secure the outside of the seam at the same time. 4 http://wrvw.opex.com/paprspec.htm 4/9/99 a. 4TIue Exposed glue on the inside of the envelope is unacceptable. Special attention should be paid to the glue on the flap. Even when poorly closed, the glue should not be exposed on the inside of the envelope. Flaps and windows should be glued securely and as near to their edges as possible without exposing glue inside the envelope. Fold Quality Folds should be adjusted such that the corners are perfect or open. Over-folded corners (ears) will require that the cut depth be increased to ensure complete opening. Throat A tapered throat is preferred to enable full customer insertion of the documents. This minimizes the probability of the customer's documents being folded over with the glue flap. Flap Length System 150 Long seal-flaps must fall at least 1/2" from the bottom edge of.the envelope. System 100 Long seal-flaps must fall at least 2" from the bottom edge of the envelope. lYIPE 5.0 Long seal-flaps must fall at least 3/4" from the bottom edge of the envelope. Bangtail (advertising flap) Bangtails can be accommodated, but should be designed to encourage easy removal. Attached bangtails sometimes cause misfeeds and will always result in reunites or other exceptions which must be handled manually. Static Electricity Control of static during the manufacture and insertion of envelopes, particularly those with covered windows, is recommended. Laser printed documents should be discharged after printing. Orientation Marks Orientation marks on the edges of envelopes are highly recommended to assist in confirming orientation during mail preparation. Misoriented input will cause either output rejects or misoriented documents in the output. A very effective dual orientation mark system is shown below that highlights all misorientations while the mail is still in the tray or on the feed conveyor. httpJ/www.opex.com/paprspec.htm 4/9/99 e • .~-....M....~-» p90R6~L~lE~fTA~fiGi~l PRMY biM USED AND UPSIDE COM REUSED UPSIDE DWI 1Ion 101 Milli smiii mii ! IpilimpOU ~1k1' (I~ncun~ SECIDARYMARK t1LTfAfLUADED Windows and Window Location While virtually any windowed envelope can be made to run on automated equipment, optimum performance is achieved by proper window placement and construction. Improper placement of the envelope window can severely degrade the performance of high speed automated extraction equipment. Two rules apply: 1. The opening mechanism (suction cup or friction) must not overlap uncovered windows. 2. The area (and closely adjacent areas) where the opening mechanism operates must be structurally intact and free of damage. A common problem of this type occurs when an uncovered window is located too near to the edge of the envelope and is torn by Post Office sorting equipment. Uncovered Windows The key elements for good performance using an uncovered window are size and location. Window size should be minimised. Large uncovered windows create structural weaknesses and Postal damage due to "snagging" in the stackers. The window location must conform to the requirements for the extraction machine used to process the mail. (See diagrams on the next page.) Tip: If the return address can be printed on the envelope and only the Company name shows through the window, a small uncovered window can be used resulting in a cost effective high performance design. Covered Windows http://Www.opex.com/paprspecJ2tn 4/9/99 These are preferred when the window must be large or when the window location causes the problems mentioned above. The primary concern when using covered windows is the tendency for the covering material to retain static electricity inside the envelope. If the window is in the extract area, this can cause contents to stick to the window and result in missed extractions (reunites). Reunites increase the customer's manual exception processing work. Window patch material may not be located within 1/8" of any edge of the envelope to prevent slivers from being created during the cutting process. Covering materials: Glassine holds much less static electricity than plastic patches. However, it is somewhat opaque (it looks like waxed paper) and may sometimes present problems reading 'a barcode through the window. Plastic patch material is very clear, but can hold a significant static electric charge. Diagrams: Both covered and uncovered window envelopes can be processed at peak performance if the envelope windows are located according to the following specifications. System 150 Window Placement Diagram 1.000 Address Area 1.000 - 'it}&W Address Wndow ~.a~'i~ "9 1.401 3uicii©n Cup CantactArea Open windows must not 0v9?l93pthP- yeltow area hdk= http://www.opex.com/paprspec.htn 4/9/99 • System 100 Window Placement Diagram Typcai Add rem Windov, I z . Fftotl "Area Pot s3dESj nr%pnvairv -wr- mias& ne* Averan ihsz umllnw nrrwa h-wiir=f:= NPE 5.0 Window PlaciAhent Diagram http✓/www.opex.com/paprspecJ= 4/9/99 ~►~{For a a'b 7 7fz tnc31 envelnp~j . I 3W (for gr rftn 7 ill inch long embpe) Trailing Le Edge - F sP ge 1 114" Front Fl&ca of Envelope - t • 1 ;518" Ala t 3 14 Edge ALL DIMENSIONSARE IN INCHES OPEC! WNDOVVS MUST NOT OVERLA T HE YELLOW COLO RED AR EAS Return to top RETURN DOCUMENT SPECIFICATIONS http://www.ope,,c.com/paprspec.btm 419/99 orientation of a document based on the presence of a PostNet Barcode. This is partacutarly useful when the document has mach data and little white space. NtC:R: Mapetic.Printing on Documents Magnetic detection is used to detemaine the orientation of checks. Magnetic printing on documents can disable this function in some instances. "Documents processed by the System 150, System 100 Check orientation is determined after extraction, and each item is scanned individually. Therefore, some MICR on the document can be tolerated, if either the length of the document or its magnetic profile do not match those of a valid check. Dmac;~xn~egts pFacgoed-by the WTE 5.0 or. 4h *VS-''b Soi-ter Check orientation is determined before extraction (through the envelope.) Therefore, no MICR on the document can be tolerated. Return to top J http://www.opmcom/paprspec.htin. 4/9/99 Exhibit B City of Tigard Image Archive CD After all City of Tigard items have been processed, they are archived to a compact disk. Each CD created contains its own index of documents contained on the CD and a volume number is assigned. Each CD will hold approximately 25,000 images (front and back of both stub and check). Once the CD volume has been identified for research, there are a variety of search criteria that can be used. Within a particular volume, the City of Tigard can search by Account Number, Batch Number, Amount Fields, Bank Number, etc. The City Of Tigard shall receive copies of burned CDs on a weekly basis either through the U. S. Postal Service, UPS, courier service or City of Tigard personnel, which ever is most appropriate and agreed upon between the parties hereto. Frequency may be adjusted by mutual written agreement. Such process may be modified to delivery via the Internet provided both parties agree to this alternative process and procedures associated therewith addressing accuracy, timeliness, and security of such data are agreed upon. Exhibit C City of Tigard Payment Processing Procedures Processing daily operations details Mail is retrieved from the Caples street post office by processing personnel between 6:00 and 6:30 each morning, pursuant to US Postal Service approval. Mail is delivered to the Joint Remittance Processing center. Mail is opened by client, any one client does not receive preference. Client mail is sorted, and each client is loaded onto the Opex 5.0 individually. The Opex 5.0 sorts single transactions from multiple or more manual type transactions. As singles are opened and retrieved from the Opex 5.0 the statements and checks are loaded into the remittance processing system for Pass 1. The multiple or more manual type transactions are retrieved from the Opex 5.0 and taken to the manual mail opening machines. At the manual mail opening machines the envelopes are opened and prepared as directed by the client. At the remittance processing system Pass 1 is completed first, which creates a record with information from the scanline on the statement and the MICR line on the check. If the system is unable to identify particular fields or portions of a field within a scanline or micr line, keying operators will review the images of the items (either stub or check) and assist the system with identifying the missing information. At the time that all batches are balanced, Pass 1 is completed. At this time checks are encoded and endorsed and made ready for deposit. Transactions are kept separate by client, but all mail is worked simultaneously to allow for greater efficiencies to be met. All processing will be completed by 2:30 each day. Electronic transmission of data will occur before 3:00 PM the day of processing. t Exhibit D City of Tigard Data Transmission Requirements Transmission will occur in one of two ways, which ever is preferred by the City Of Tigard. The first option is to produce a disk containing host file data, which can be delivered to the City Of Tigard via USPS, courier, armored car delivery or picked up by City Of Tigard personnel. The second option is to compile an electronic file, which can be sent via the Internet to the City Of Tigard. The file will then be retrieved by the City Of Tigard and electronically loaded into their host system. 0 Exhibit E ImaweRva Implementation Questionnaire Marcia Tank Manager Remittance Implementation Office: 715-241-2416 Fax: 715-241-2288 Email: mtank@wausaufs.com I Implementation Questionnaire ImageRPS General Information Contact Name: Site Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: Participants Please list all persons attending the Implementation meeting, including company name, title, phone, and address. Identify those participants below who will be the project contracts for their respective departments. Also, please include the name and contact information for a Data Security Contact. If you have no Security Contact, please indicate this. Name / Title Company / Address Phone / Fax/Email Identify the individual authorized to sign-off on the accuracy of the ImageRPS system. Name Title Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 21mplementation Questionnaire ImageRPS On Site Meeting m Discuss Implementation Process • Discuss live ramp up vs. full blown live day one • Brief System Description using color diagram ® Review Current Operations Client Information Please list all clients, customers, or lock boxes to be setup on the ImageRPS system. (For example: Credit Card, Utility Stub, Mortgage Coupon, Cable Coupon, etc.) Client Names: Client # 1 - Client # 2 - Client # 3 - Please mark each box for the work types that apply for each client: Client # 1 Client # 2 Client # 3 Singles Multiples Checks Only Stubs Only Check and List Image Only Encode Only Other (Please explain) Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 31mplementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Remittance Information Please fill out the following table for each remittance coupon (stub) to be setup on the system. Indicate which client it is to be run under. Document 1 Document 2 Document 3 Document Name Alpha in OCR Line (Y/N) MICR in Line (Y/N) OCR Font Type Mark Sense Req'd (Y/N) Oursort Marked items to a separate pocket (Y/N) Which Pocket (Next to last/Last) Rear Image Req'd (Y/N) Is a Check Digit used (Y/N) if Yes complete below CD Position in scanline CD Modulus CD Weight Pattern Weights applied L to R or R to L Is CD Sum of Digits, Ones Digit or Product Addition CD Complement (CD subtracted from this value) Ignore spaces (Y/N) If remainder is 10, replace with what value If remainder is 11, replace with what value What fields are included in the CD Is there a Document Identifier embedded in the scanline (Y/N) If Yes complete next 3 lines What value is to be used What is it's position in the scanline Flow is it used in your application If MICR module, is this doc maintained in the database (Y/N) Describe all fields within the scanline, such as account number, full payment amount, minimum payment amount, etc. Please mark the fields on the sample stub you are providing. Describe any input fields required that are outside of the scanline, such as stub courtesy amount or a data entry field. Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. t 41mplement3tion Questionnaire ImageRPS Please indicate if any data edits are required for this document and if they are to be rejected (not processed) or outsorted (processed, but outsorted to a separate pocket). Examples of use would be: high dollar pulls, validation of bin or account numbers, reject partial payments, etc. Please describe any stop or EIP (Exception Item Pull) files used. Provide the file layout, file name, and a sample file in electronic format. The file accepted by the ImageRPS system will have one account number per line with carriage returns. The naming convention will be an 8-digit name with .dat extension. If the file is not sent to the ImageRPS system in this format, WFS, through the use of the reformatter module, can perform custom eip maintenance to rename and/or reformat the file. Batch IDs are physically MICR encoded on the batch header. Batch numbers are generated through the application. Please indicate if a specific batch number range is required for this document. Does this number rollover daily by date? Indicate if a unique routing and transit number is required for ImageRPS batch tickets: Standard entry is 4444-4444. Indicate what other documents will be running with this coupon (examples are substitute stubs, substitute checks, cash tickets): Pass One Options Maximum items per batch: (Suggested 500 - 600. This includes stubs and checks) Microfilm: (YES) (NO) Wausau Financial. Systems, Inc. 51mplementation Questionnalre ImageR?S Data Completion Prevent same operator from keying different jobs in same batch: [YES] [NO] If YES, circle desired jobs: Account Key, Check Key, Stub Key, Balancing See check and stub on same balancing screen: [YES] [NO] If no CD on account number, key account number [ONCE] [TWICE] Key checks twice to balance [YES] [NO] (see Glossary for explanation) or Key check and stub to balance [YES] [NO] Repair MICR: (Used for endpoint sorting of checks or if check information is required in host file). [YES] [NO] Allow negative or zero-dollar stubs in balancing? [YES] [NO] Correct rejects at transport (singles & checks only): [YES] [NO] This allows an IDT operator to reject a check if they are unable to determine the dollar amount onscreen & gives them the option of allowing the transport operator to unreject the item and key the dollar amount of the check when they have it in hand. How do you handle unbalanced multiples? [REJECT] [INSERT STUB] If other, explain: [OTHER] Are extra dollar amount fields required: [YES] [NO] For instance, extra principal, interest, late charge, etc. If yes, please indicate on sample stub and describe below. Are there any fields besides the numeric check amount that require recognition: [YES] [NO, For instance, stub courtesy amount in a drop out box area. Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 61mplementation Questionnaire ImageRPS What percentage of the work processed is full pay? Which fields are considered full payment fields: 0 Indicate how many days you want to be able to forward or backdate work: (The default is 5 days). Receive date - (number of days) + (number of days) Process date - (number of days) + (number of days) Deposit date - (number of days) + (number of days) Indicate the number of days to retain completed data on the system, usually 3 -5: Pass Two Options Maximum checks per pocket cut: (Suggested 250 - 300. Each bundle contains checks for bank deposit). Autoprint Cash Letter? [YES] [NO] Microfilm: [YES] [NO] Keep pass two images: YES] [NO] Note: Pass one images provide the same picture with the exception of the P1 audit trail on pass two images. P1 audit trail information is available on Image Archive. Please describe the audit trail required for this document: This will print on the backs of all stubs and checks during Pass 1 processing. The field is limited to 2 lines of 45 characters each. Below is a standard audit trail format. 111111 2222 333 444444 Deposit Only Bank Name 5555555555555555 DDA >#t###;< 66666666 1 - Batch date MMDDYY 2 - Pass one batch number 3 - Pass one sequence number 4 - Batch ID 5 - Customer account number 6 - Applied amount Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. i 71mplementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Please describe the endorsement required for checks run with this document: (This will print on the backs of checks during Pass 2 processing). Also provide a photocopy of current endorsement. Endpoint Information An endpoint is a bank or institution where your processed checks will be deposited or cleared. You may sort to multiple endpoints if desired. Does this document have more than one endpoint: [YES] [NO] If yes, please provide routing number, doc id, account number, etc. used for sorting. Deposit Information Depository Bank Name: Bank Routing and Transit Number: Deposit account number: Pocket cut or endpoint ticket MICR information: Maximum pocket cuts per deposit: Deposit cut off time(s): Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 81mplementalion Questionnaire ImageRPS Printers If you have multiple printers, do you [YES] [NO] want the rejects and reports sent to separate printers? Reporting Requirements List current reports and provide sample reports, including report formats and electronic copies. Describe any special reports required. Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 91mplernentation Questionnaire ImageRPS Host File Requirements Host file name (The naming convention will be an 8-digit name with a 3-digit extension): Host file record length: Maximum batches per host file: Host file naming standard: Host file contents: All clients & consolidations? All consolidations for a single client? Single client & consolidation? File format type: (ASCII, EBCDIC, packed, signed fields) Please list all record types required in the host file: • File header • Batch header • Other headers? • Stub Detail record • Check Detail record • Batch trailer • File trailer • Other trailers? Provide a record layout for each host file using the following example format. RECORD TYPE LENGTH VALUE JUSTIFY FILL EXAMPLES: FILE HEADER LENGTH VALUE JUSTIFY FILL n STUB DETAIL LENGTH VALUE JUSTIFY FILL RECORD If FoxPro hostfile, how many days to retain data? Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 10implementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Image Transfer Requirements (This is only needed if transferring images to an archive other than the ImageRPS Archive) Image Transfer Vender and version Number: (ImageSoft, Hyland, Standard Spec, Custom Spec) If ImageSoft- Match or Matchless? If Match- • Should the Match Control File be in ASCII or EBCDIC? • Do they have ImageBanc II?- • Do they have Image Archive and Retrieval? Client: Items to include: (Stubs, Checks) Items to exclude: (certain doc groups) Upstream or Downstream Images: Image Format: (Standard NCR, NCR TIFF) Socket Transfer or FTP transfer: Front Images or Rear Images: Upstream or downstream camera Image Destination Path: Image Contents: 1 file per day (all clients and consolidations)? 1 file per consolidation $ Client? 1 file per client? 1 file per consolidation? Provide a user defined record layout (80 bytes) in the following format Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. I l Implementation Questionnaire ImageRPS USER RECORD LENGTH VALUE JUSTIFY FILL Transfer of Data File to Host Primary method of file transfer: f Backup method of file transfer: Host Operating System type: Host network type: Image Archive Do you want to create company or client CDs? [COMPANY] [CLIENT] Do you want to archive rejects? [YES] [NO] Number of months to retain Master Index? MICR Database (Checks only processing) Number of hits to automatically assign account no. If automatically assigning account nos., do you want to reject non-hits? [YES] [NO] Number of days to retain inactive accounts? NSF Database Days to retain in database? Include multiples transactions? [YES] [NO] Do you want to key rejected checks? [YES] [NO] Please submit a copy of the hostfile layout to be used for processing NSF transactions. Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 121mptementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Name and Address (Checks only processing) The name and address database is built using a text file provided by the client. Update files are needed on a regular basis to keep the database current. The format of the initial file and the subsequent update files is the same. The files must follow the naming convention of "addr" + 4 digit client id + ".dat". For example, "addr0001.dat". The file should placed in K:\kyris\prod\address on the ImageRPS network. The import file must be a space delimited file with the following fields in the order listed below. All fields are mandatory but can be empty, indicated by and must be separated with spaces. Field Contents Record Type A = Add, C = Change, D = Delete Account Number Valid account number First Name First name or"" Middle Name Middle name or"" Last Name Last name or"" Line One Line one of the address or" " Line Two Line two of the address or" " City City name or"" State State name or"" Zip Code Zip code (5 or 10 digits including the dash) or Country Name of country or"" Company Name Company name or"" Note: if first, middle, and last name are blank this will show up in the name field when doing lookups. Things to Provide The following items are required to facilitate the setup of your system. • Hard copy and electronic copy of host file • Layout of host files, EIP files, and image transfer user defined records • Sample of current reports and report mockups • Test deck including all types of documents run through your system, representing all types of processing types (singles, multiples, etc.) • Five to ten original coupons, control documents, batch headers, endpoint tickets, block tickets, deposit tickets, etc. • Completed "Site Survey Checklist" accompanying this questionnaire. NNW Glossary Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 13 implementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Batch Ticket is a special MICR encoded ticket used to precede a group of documents. Batch Tickets are used in Pass 1, Pass 2, Power Encode, Read & Key and Encoder modes. A batch ticket consists of a special Routing and Transit number enclosed by routing and transit symbols, and a batch number followed by an ONUS (account number) symbol in the account number field. EIP File is an Exception Item Pull File. This is a file used to compare/reject customer specified accounts. Key Checks Twice to Balance is an option the site may use instead of utilizing the balancing function of the ImageRPS system for regular payments. When this option is selected, if the check amount obtained from any source, CAR, CCA (check keying one), CC2 (check keying two), or CC3 (check keying three) equals the stub amount, the amount is accepted and the transaction killed. If the check amount does not equal the stub amount, when a check is keyed the same way twice, the amount will be accepted and the transaction killed. Mark Sense Detection is the counting of pixels (black dots) in a given area of a document. Mark sense is commonly used for change of address detection. 13- Wausau Financial Systems, Inc. 141mplementation Questionnaire ImageRPS Date Review On-site Implementation meeting: System setup at Wausau: Customization of system at Wausau: Customer training at Wausau: Test file to processor: "I Equipment delivered to site: Technician at site for equipment setup: Testing at site: Training at site: Live at site: Additional Notes: Wausau Financial Systems,. Inc. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 12.2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of the TPOA Bargaining Agreement and authorization for City Manager to sign final draft PREPARED BY: Sandy Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK u' CITY MGR OK cra ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council adopt the TPOA collective bargaining agreement for the period of July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004, and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the bargaining agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement INFORMATION SUMMARY The City and TPOA (Tigard Police Officers Association) met on January 28, 2002 for interest arbitration regarding the labor contract for TPOA after negotiations and mediation were unsuccessful in reaching a final agreement. During the course of these proceedings the City and the Association conferred and reached a tentative agreement on the contract. The City Council was apprised of the major economic elements of the new proposed agreement at their February 5, 2002 Executive Session. Highlights of the new agreement include: a) change to the new Blue Cross PPP (Preferred Provider Plan) and other insurance plan options, consistent with other health plans offered to OPEU and Management/Supervisory/Confidential employee groups, including the establishment of maximum insurance contributions by the City b) the City will begin picking up the 6% employee portion of the PERS (Public Employee's Retirement System) contribution for swom personnel only effective January 1, 2002, in conjunction with a wage freeze on the first year of the contract for these positions. c) a 3.5% increase in wages for non-sworn employees effective July 1, 2001. The wage schedule for sworn employees, as mentioned above, will be frozen in conjunction with the City's agreement to begin picking up the 6% sworn employee portion of the PERS (Public Employee's Retirement System) contribution effective January 1, 2002. Wage increases for July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003 will be increased for all personnel in accordance with a CPI-W, West Index, (annual average), minimum 2.5% maximum 5% d) deletion of the Longevity merit system (current maximum is 10%), with the provision to grandfather in employees with 5 years or more in the system as of July 1, 2001. A sixth step at 5% above the current top step of the salary range will be available only to those employees not electing the City's longevity premium program as referenced above. e) an increase in equipment allowance from $50 to $100 each year; an increase in clothing allowance from $40 to $50 per month; under the City's right to transfer and assign as determined by the Chief, some adjustments to special assignment pay (i.e. Detective, K-9, Narcotics, etc.) ; a $50 per month Bilingual language incentive; other language contract changes aimed at improving operational procedures and administrative issues for the city. fj A three year contract beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2004 . The Association met on Thursday, January 31, to present this tentative agreement to their membership. The agreement was ratified by TPOA at that time. This agenda item requests that the City Council also adopt the tentative agreement on behalf of the City, and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract once it has been prepared. a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES Expenditures as the result of the new labor contract are budgeted for in the Police Department budget AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Febnuuy 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY e ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Resolution for the Public Employees Retirement System MERS) jMplementine th ado ted labor contract provisions dealing with the 6% ` ick-u " for TPOA sworn Police Officers L PREPARED BY: Sand Zodrow DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK t ✓ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City of Tigard adopt a resolution as required by the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for the purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 414(h) to implement the 6% "pick-up" provision of the newly adopted TPOA collective bargaining agreement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution as required by PERS INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has adopted a new collective bargaining agreement with the Tigard Police Officers Association. Included in the contract is the City's agreement to begin picking up the 6% sworn Police Officers employee portion of the PERS contribution effective January 1, 2002. In order to implement this change, PERS requires that the City adopt a specific resolution to that effect using their required language. This agenda item accomplishes that and includes a resolution which meets PERS requirements. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES Expenditures to implement the TPOA contract provisions are included in the Police Department budget AGENDA ITEM # 3.q FOR AGENDA OF 2/12/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Land and Water rCononservation Grant Pro am PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts //141 Q DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK _jo ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council authorize the City Manager to submit an application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant as a means of providing partial funding for the completion of the Grant/Main segment of the Fanno Creek Trail? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize grant submittal. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a National Park Service program that passes down federal dollars to the states for the acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of park and recreation areas and facilities. In Oregon, the State Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the distribution of the federal monies to State agencies and local governments. The program provides up to 50% funding assistance to park providers for eligible activities. The application deadline is February 15th. Public Works and Community Development staff have reviewed potential project proposals. In terms of program guidelines and requirements, the Grant/Main trail segment appears to be the project with the best chances of being selected for grant funding and is the project nominated by staff for City submittal. A copy of the proposed grant application is available in the City Recorder's office. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not apply for the grant funds. Adopt a revised resolution. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST FISCAL NOTES A 50% local match is required. This may be in the form of hard or in-kind dollars. Hard match dollars for the proposed project are identified in the City's proposed 2002-03 and 2003-04 budgets. This includes $50,000 in park SDC funds and $3,000 in tree mitigation funds in the earlier and later FYs, respectively. The amount of grant funds requested is $52,192 i/citywide/sum/L&Wgrant AGENDA ITEM # _ FOR AGENDA OF Feb. 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Recognition of Gary Johnson for his past service on the Library Board PREPARED BY: Susan Koenning DEPT HEAD OK 14~ ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Recognition of Gary Johnson for his service on the Library Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION On behalf of the Tigard community, Mayor Griffith and the City Council will express appreciation to Gary Johnson for his service on the Library Board. Mayor Griffith will present a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Johnson. INFORMATION SUMMARY Library Board members volunteer their time and expertise as citizens who are interested in their community. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. FISCAL NOTES None AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Feb. 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Recognition of David Cory for his past service on the Tree Board. PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping DEPT BEAD OK CITY MGR OK Lt's ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Recognition of David Cory for his service on the Tree Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION On behalf of the Tigard community, Mayor Griffith and the City Council will express appreciation to David Cory for his service on the Tigard Tree Board. Mayor Griffith will present a certificate of appreciation to Mr Cory. INFORMATION SUMMARY David Cory was one of the original appointees to the Tree Board when it was created. All Tree Board members volunteer their time and expertise as citizens who are interested in their community. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. FISCAL NOTES None AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF Februarv 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Introduction of newly a ointed Tree Board member PREPARED BY: Susan Koepping _ DEPT HEAD OK L~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This appointment to the Tree Board was made as part of the Consent Agenda of this meeting. The new Tree Board member will be acknowledged by the Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Introduce the new Tree Board member, Brooks Gaston. INFORMATION SUMMARY Mr. Gaston will complete the remainder of David Cory's term on the Tree Board. Gaston has been serving as the alternate to the Tree Board. Tree Board members and alternates serve as volunteers using their experience and knowledge for the benefit of the Tigard community. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED If action is delayed on the appointment, delay action on the introduction. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. FISCAL NOTES None MIJ AGENDA ITEM # / FOR AGENDA OF 02/12/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE New City Web Site Progress Report PREPARED BY: Paul de Bruyn DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL For Information Only. This will be a progress report on the new Web Site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY This topic is a Progress Report to Council on the current status of our new web site. The new site was brought up on schedule on January 2, 2002 and has received many compliments. Victor Soares, our Web Administrator will be presenting a demonstration of the current state of the web site. Victor will also be showing some of the web statistics he gathers. These statistics are valuable to each city department, as they show what the citizens are looking for and where they expect to find it. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A Website Status Update • Site Launch Report February 12, 2002 • User Feedback Victor J. Soares Paul deBruyn • New Website Additions victor ci.tigard.or.us pdb(ZDci.tigard.or.us • Website Tools http:/lvruvw.ci.tig a rd.o r.us CV-0r4•d aytwmM,lMp C•r•rTyed C•rC•WC6M,.., xwxm, vr.•xm Feedback Positive • On-Time Survey ResuRs • Under Budget Way bettarl 72 Slightly better 5 N (5.3%) About the same 1 1(1.1x) • No Glitches OIA site was better s ® (5,1r) Never saw old site 12 M (12.6x) Total Votes: 95 Cqr d T4•d C4 C"ric7 WMYq CRYOTly"d dlrGwetl MrSq Ji~j xraxm, • Photo Gallery • MMore Photo Galleries • Other Agency Links • Expanded "About Tigard" Section • "Hot Topics" Section • New "Tigard Balloon Festival" Section • Library Feedback Survey Cy MTleed C6y C"noYYMp my ("44M aft Cenct Mwe,y u r+xm, s r+xoe Ail 1 '0 00 0 °'ee • Search Engine Reports 7-Show what Mvisitorsare searching for via the "search" feature of the website • Broken Links Reports • Help determine what information needs to • Website Log Reports be better displayed Cyd/Ti•sd Cry cow" MO." WdTil alyC ""MOO ►i0 0 0 e 0 ' e 0 e 0 0 • What information do they give us? • Show if any links are broken - Number of visits - Most visited pages • Useful for catching errors on the site -Visitor geographic regions -Visitor browser/platform usage C•T dTd.d Cb 1C-0M. COY dtyad CRY C]F-1e ' -e •o m-e• 'e es °-ee 7-What does "Most Visited Pages" tell us? • What does "Number of Visits" tell us? • Helps answer: • Helps answer: - What is the level of interest regarding an - Are we maintaining visitor interest? Issue? - Are we losing or gaining visitors? - What sections of the site should we make more prominent? I CRY d Tlgrd CCT 1CWW11 MOM" Clip Cry 1-d , a 2 I 0 °'00 '0 00-00 • What does "Visitor Geographic Regions" What does "Visitor Browser/Platform tell us? Usage" tell us? • Helps answer: • Helps answer: -Where are visitors coming from? - What technologies can vie use? - What information should we add to the - is the website viewable to the majority of website? visitors? ca «ry.. oy C MMWA, as «*w+ av w. M9*Wo °s - ooe -o M PINI • Site launch was successful • User feedback is positive Questions or Comments? • Website is growing with new additions , • Website tools help us address needs . '0 00. Thank You 1 Victor J. Soares Paul deBruyn victor(a ci.tigard.or.us pdb(cDci.tipard.or.us 7 httr)://www.ci.ti-gard.or.us CW-#Tb-d dly ....dk%W&* 3 w e AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: February 12, 2002 P lJ LI I ON' G4 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING T A OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR T 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:\ADM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTMNY UPDATED 6-13.DOC AGENDA ITEM No. 8 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - S Peaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. q a~ s u RVYAOJ s^o3_~zq- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 97283 S a 3 -6 3y'-~3 7~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 377' SwC Ae- r f Z^ a rd c)rz 12"03/-516 a 3q Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Ism AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY* ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public Hearing=Proposed Assessments for the 69`}' Avenue Local Improvement District PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should City Council conduct a public hearing to hear objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the 690i Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) approved by City Council through Resolution No. 02-07? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That City Council conduct a public hearing to hear objections to the proposed assessments, determine if any modifications should be made to the methods of assessment or proposed assessment amounts, and direct staff to prepare an ordinance spreading the final assessments as determined by Council after the public hearing. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 22, 2002, City Council approved the methods of assessment and proposed assessment amounts for the 69'' Avenue LID through Resolution No. 02-07 and directed that a public hearing be set to consider objections to the proposed assessments. City Council further directed that benefited property owners be notified of the proposed assessments in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 13.04.060. The attached notice of the hearing appeared in the Tigard Times on January 31, 2002 and February 7, 2002. Also attached are a sample of the notice mailed to benefited property owners on January 28, 2002 and the mailing list containing the names and addresses of all property owners mailed individual notices. The notice specifies that objections to the proposed assessments must be submitted in writing by February 12, 2002, at 12:00 noon to be considered at this hearing. Following the hearing, City Council may approve the proposed assessments with or without modification. The next step in accordance with TMC 13.04.060 is the preparation of an ordinance to assign a portion of the total overall project assessment to each owner in accordance with the assessment amounts determined by Council. This will be the final assessment for the district and will include any modifications approved by City Council following the hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution No. 02-07 2. Public Notice published in the Tigard Times on January 31, 2002 and February 7, 2002 3. Sample of hearing notice to owners 4. Mailing list of benefited property owners sent individual notices 5. Memorandum dated 1/18/02 from Gus Duenas regarding issues and recommendations on proposed assessments for the 691h Avenue Local Improvement District 6. Letter dated January 22, 2002, from Specht Development regarding 69`h Avenue LID - Final Assessment Roll FISCAL NOTES The total project cost to be assessed to the benefited properties is $1,589,211. iACkVwid SumWubOC Hea ft on the Proposed Aueummss for 8W Avenue U0.6oc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE METHODS OF ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS TO ,,BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE 69' AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING THAT NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS BE GIVEN TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER, AND DIRECTING THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS. WHEREAS, in June 1998, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve certain streets in the 69'x' Avenue area; and WHEREAS, at the Council meeting of March 9, 1999, Ordinance 99-07 was adopted officially forming the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District (LID 49); and WHEREAS, final construction plans were prepared by DeHaas & Associates, Inc., and the project was advertised for bids; and WHEREAS, the construction contract was awarded to W.A. Jones, Co., the construction began on June June 17, 1999, and was certified as substantially complete on April 21, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is a participant in the assessed district, contributing an amount not-to- exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68th Avenue and 69`h Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City contribution has been deducted from the total LID costs; and WHEREAS, after deduction of the City contribution, the total amount remaining to be assessed against benefited property owners is $1,589,211.00; and WHEREAS, the Final Engineer's Report was completed in November 2001 with revisions on January 10, 2002 setting out the assessment methods and spreading total costs of the Local Improvement District among the benefited property owners; and WHEREAS, Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) Section 13.04.060 requires that City Council adopt the assessment methods and proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, TMC 13.04.055 further requires that Council direct that notice of proposed assessments be given to the benefited property owners and that a public hearing be held to consider objections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Final Engineers Report for the 690h Avenue LID dated November 2001 is attached as Exhibit A and by this reference is incorporated as part of this resolution. SECTION 2: The total LID costs to be assessed against benefited property owners is $1,589,211.00. RESOLUTION NO. 02-M Page 1 SECTION 3: The methods of assessment and proposed assessments as presented in the Final Engineer's Report are hereby approved. SECTION 4: Council hereby directs that a public hearing be held to consider objections, and that proper notice of the public hearing in accordance with TMC Section 13.04.060 be given to each of the property owners to be assessed. EFFECTIVE DA'L'E: This Resolution shall be effective immediately. PASSED: This as n~ day of 002. U AAA A .4 ayor - ity ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard 1:\CityMde\Res\Assessment Resolution for the 60 Avenue M.doc RESOLUTION NO.02- q1 Page.2 Attachment 2 FATS TRANSMITTAL CITY OF TIOARD DATE: January 25, 2002 TO: Sylvia Makinster - Legals Section/Community Newspapers (Fax) 503-620-3433 FROM: Diane Jelderks, City of Tigard (Phone) 503-639-4171 Ext. 369 PLACE UNDER CITY OF TIGARD LOGO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE SECTION OF TIGARD TIMES NEWSPAPER, THE FOLLOWING: The following will be considered by the TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2002, AT 7:30 PM at the Tigard City Hall - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony are invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance with the rules of ORS 197.763, ORS 227.120, and the rules of Chapter 13.04.060of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 69TH Avenue Local Improvement District The Tigard City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to hear objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District. Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that the proposed assessments be presented to the City Council in the form of an assessment resolution. City Council approved the proposed assessments in Resolution No. 02-07 on January 22, 2002, directed that a public hearing be set to consider objections, and directed that benefited property owners be notified of the proposed assessments in accordance with TMC Section 13.04.060. Objections to the proposed assessments must be submitted to the City in writing by February 12, 2002, at 12:00 noon in order to be considered at the public hearing. Written objections must state specifically the grounds for objection. The total project cost to be assessed to the benefited properties is $1,589,211.00. The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA09700 with owner of record Mark R Dana is proposed to be $18,821.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA04900 with, owner of record Fairmark Investments LLC is proposed to be $51,427.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AD02400 with owner of record George Fox University is proposed to be $37,615.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA02300 with owner of record Cecil E Donna Rae Jones is proposed to be $37,383.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AD03000 with owner of record KF LLC is proposed to be $9,579.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101 AA02700 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $39,792.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA05200 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $34,372.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA02400 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $25,370.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 23101AA05100 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $25,109.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA04300 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $24,700.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA02600 with owner of record Landmark Ford Inc is proposed to be $16,777.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AD02700 with owner of record John B Mccroskey is proposed to be $24,905.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AD02800 with owner of record Don R & Cynthia Sue Morton is proposed to be $31,390.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA02301 with owner of record Ella J Opdal is proposed to be $30,722.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA09600 with owner of record Stephen W & Lynn Peirce is proposed to be $55,126.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA09108 with owner of record R & D Property Dev Lic is proposed to be $58,519.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA09800 with owner of record J T Jr & Theresa Roth is proposed to be $26,558.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA08700 with owner of record J T Jr & Theresa Roth is proposed to be $22,469.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA08300 with owner of record J T Jr & Theresa Roth is proposed to be $17,467.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 28101AA08600 with owner of record J T Jr & Theresa Roth is proposed to be $15,890.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA08302 with owner of record Peter& Eloise Szambelan is proposed to be $54,199.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA08500 with owner of record J T Jr & Theresa Roth is proposed to be $2,464.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA03800 with owner of record Tigard Corporate Center is proposed to be $347,023.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA02900 with owner of record Tigard Corporate Center is proposed to be $306,696.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AA09100 with owner of record Tigard Corporate Center is proposed to be $201,191.00 The assessable cost for Tax Lot No.: 2S101AD02900 with owner of record Triangle Terrace LLC is proposed to be $73,648.00 This proposed assessment, or an amount as modified by Council, will be levied by Council through an ordinance sometime after the hearing and will be charged against the property and be immediately payable in full or in installments as arranged by the City's Finance Director. If there are any questions, please contact Gus Duenas, City Engineer (gus @ci.tigard.or.us) at 503-639-4171 x378, or Diane Jelderks, Senior Administrative Specialist (dianei(aDci.tigard.or.us) at 503-639-4171 x369. TT PUBLISH DATE: Thursday, January 31, 2002 & Thursday February 7 1h a January 28, 2002 Attachment 3 ((Owner)) ((Address)) ((City)) ((State)) ((Zip)) Notice of Public Hearin Proposer! Assessments for the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District Tuesday, February 12, 2002 - 7:30 PM Tigard City Hall - Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 The Tigard City Council will conduct a Public Hearing to hear objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District. Tigard Municipal Code Section 13.04.060 requires that the proposed assessments be presented to the City Council in the form of an assessment resolution. City Council approved the proposed assessments in Resolution No. 02-07 on January 22, 2002, directed that a public hearing be set to consider objections, and directed that benefited property owners be notified of the proposed assessments in accordance with TMC Section 13.04.060. The Public Hearing is scheduled for February 12, 2002 at 7:30 PM in the Tigard City Hall - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and written testimony are invited. Objections to the proposed assessments must be submitted to the City in writing by February 12, 2002, at 12:00 noon in order to be considered at the public hearing. Written objections must state specifically the grounds for objection. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.04.060 of the Tigard Municipal Code The total project cost to be assessed to the benefited properties is $1,589,211.00. i The assessable cost for Tax Lot Number ((TaxID)). Owner of record ((Owner)) Proposed Assessment $((TotalAssessCost)) This proposed assessment, or an amount as modified by Council, will be levied by Council through an ordinance sometime after the hearing and will be charged against the property and be immediately payable in full or in installments as arranged by the City's Finance Director. If there are any questions, please contact Gus Duenas, City Engineer (gus(fti.tiaard.or.us) at 503-639- 4171 x378, or Diane Jelderks, Senior Administrative Speciaiist (dianeiO-ci.tiQard.or.us) at 503-639-4171 x369. 1:1eng\109$2000 y ciptOgtHmUce Oft ova public hearing for 2.12 hearing.Joc Still lillillil:ll III! III III I ill!ilIlillIllIl I TazID Owner Address City Stat Zip e 2SI01AA09700 Mark R Dana 12585 SW 68TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA04900 Fairmark Investments LLC PO BOX 901 TUALATIN OR 97062 2SIOIAD02400 George Fox University 414 N MERIDIAN NEWBERG OR 97132 2SI01AA02300 Cecil E Donna Rae Jones 12190 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 2SIOIAD03000 KF LLC 7407 SW HUNT CLUB DR PORTLAND OR 97223 2SI01AA02700 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 Q 2S101AA05200 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 2SI01AA02400 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 2SI01AA05100 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 2S101AA04300 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 2SI01AA02600 Landmark Ford Inc PO BOX 23970 TIGARD OR 97281 2SIOIAD02700 John B Mccroskey 1380 MORNING SKY CT LAKE OR 97034 OSWEGO 2S101AD02800 Don R & Cynthia Sue Morton 3109 NE BROADWAY PORTLAND OR 97232 2SI01AA02301 Ella J Opdal 12170 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA09600 Stephen W & Lynn Peirce 12560 SW 70TH TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA09108 R & D Property Dev Llc 12559 SW 69TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA09800 J T Jr & Theresa Roth 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA08700 J T Jr & Theresa Roth 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI01AA08300 J T Jr & Theresa Roth 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 2S101AA08600 J T Jr & Theresa Roth 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI03_AA08302 Peter& Eloise Szambelan 3258 LAKEVIEW BLVD LAKE OR 97035 OSWEGO 2SI01AA08500 J T Jr & Theresa Roth 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 2S101AA03800 Tigard Corporate Center 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON OR 97006 2SI01AA02900 Tigard Corporate Center 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON OR 97006 2S101AA09100 Tigard Corporate Center 15400 MILLIKAN WAY BEAVERTON OR 97006 2SIOlAD02900 Triangle Terrace LLC 12600 SW 72ND AVE #200 TIGARD OR 97223 69TH AVENUE LID - MAILING LIST - 1-28-02 Hero,+ea ary w.se +«s-,z as eatit doc 01 Attachment 5 CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: January 18, 2002 SUBJECT: Issues and Recommendations on Proposed Assessments for the 691h Avenue Local Improvement District The resolution for approval of the proposed assessments for the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) is scheduled for the Council meeting on January 22, 2002. The public hearing to hear objections to the assessments is currently scheduled for the Council meeting on February 12, 2002. We conducted a neighborhood meeting on January 10, 2002 specifically for the benefited property owners in the LID. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed assessments with the property owners and answer questions on the project and the final costs. Attached is a letter from Marlin DeHaas of DeHaas & Associates, Inc. summarizing the results of the neighborhood meeting and commenting on the objections raised by the two residential property owners during the meeting regarding the final assessments on their properties. Also attached is a letter dated January 16, 2002 from Cecil and Donna Jones objecting to the proposed assessment on their property. They suggest that at least half of the propose 1 assessment on their property and the adjacent property owned by Ella J. Opdal (Snyder) be shifted to the developers and the City. This argument is not new. City Council, after hearing testimony from Mr. Jones (during the public hearing for formation of the district), rejected that argument and formed the district with proposed assessments based on everyone benefited paying their fair share of the costs to provide the improvements. These two properties are surrounded on all sides by commercial developments. As Mr. DeHaas pointed out in his letter, the current use of the two properties is not the highest and best use. The Preliminary Engineer's Report strongly recommended that the Beveland Street Extension be constructed between 68`h and 69`h Avenues. This connection is required by the Tigard Triangle Street Plan and provides for enhanced circulation for the entire area. The presence of an existing building within the proposed right-of-way complicated the incorporation of the Beveland Street Extension into r the LID improvements. In recognition and anticipation of the extraordinarily high land acquisition costs for purchase of the property, City Council agreed to participate in the LID costs in an amount not to exceed $200,000. Council approved the inclusion of the Beveland Street Extension in Resolution No. 99-10 declaring Council's intention to form the LID. Ordinance No. 99-07 forming the district (LID #49) included the Beveland Street Extension and stipulation of Council participation in an amount not to exceed $200,000. Both the resolution and ordinance are incorporated into the Preliminary Engineer's Report, which has been included in the Council packet for the January 22, 2002 meeting. Issues O The overall costs have increased since the district was formed. The existing structure and land that had to be purchased was originally estimated prior to appraisal at $200,000. The formal appraisal placed the value at $225,000. Relocation costs for the tenants as required by law would be in addition to both amounts. We could not negotiate a mutually agreeable amount with Mr. Stephen Peirce, the property owner. Therefore, we proceeded with condemnation of the property so that the project construction could continue without delay. At the court hearing to determine the amount that should be deposited for the City to obtain immediate possession of the property, the judge required a total deposit of $330,000, $105,000 over the appraised value. At the trial to determine just compensation, the jury fixed the amount at the appraised value of $225,000. Because Mr. Peirce had already withdrawn the deposited amount, he now owes the LID $105,000. So that we can close the LID and not continue to incur interest charges on the interim financing, we estimated that we would be able to collect only half of that amount. Mr. Peirce has not paid anything to date. The costs attributable to the structure plus relocation costs are summarized as follows: $225,000 Appraised value of house and lot $ 52,500 Amount deemed unrecoverable without extraordinary collection efforts $127,000 Approximate miscellaneous costs (relocation costs, house removal, attorney's fees, various other miscellaneous items) 38,000) Sale of remainder property after construction of Beveland Street credited to the LID Total costs: $366,500 Because the purchase of the structure and the anticipated relocations were the primary reasons for the City decision to contribute to the LID costs, I have not included the cost to purchase right-of- way from J.T. Roth, which represented the segment of Beveland Street from 691n Avenue to the Peirce property. In addition, the appraisal estimated the value of the structure at approximately $124,000. The balance of $101,000 for the lot itself minus the $38,000 credit can legitimately be removed from the total costs to determine the true cost of removing the house so that the street could be built. The total cost after deduction of the land value is approximately $303,500. The participation by the City in the amount of $200,000 is substantial when considering the actual costs incurred in removal of the house to allow for construction of the street. The rise in land acquisition cost can be directly attributed to the costs for the condemnation proceedings and the exorbitant amount deposited in court for the right of iirnnediate possession. Memorandum on Proposed Assessments for the 69`h Avenue LID Page 2 of 3 ® The interest on the interim financing has been substantial. The City has been paying interest on the interim financing for over three years. This interest expense was not factored into the original estimated LID costs. We have set a cutoff date of March 31, 2002 for purposes of interest and expenses related to the interim financing. The total cost of $209,952 has been incorporated within the LID costs and is distributed into the proposed assessments. Delay in closure beyond March would result in additional interest costs for the LID. Summary Despite the rise in costs due to the problems encountered in purchase of the structure and subsequent relocation costs and other charges, the project construction turned out exceptionally well. This was in spite of the conflicts with the contractors working on the Specht Development project while the street project was underway. The extension of Beveland Street was constructed in compliance with the Tigard Triangle Street Plan and does provide better traffic circulation in the area. The proposed assessments have been spread in accordance with the benefits afforded to each property. As Mr. DeHaas pointed out in his letter, additional work was performed during construction to upgrade access to the two residential properties. These costs have been spread among all the properties in the LID. Recommendation I recommend that Council approve the assessment methods and the proposed assessments as recommended in the Final Engineer's Report. The proposed assessments spread the LID.costs in accordance with the benefits received by each property in the LID. This is a principle that Council agreed with and formalized in the formation of this Local Improvement District. In addition, even factoring in the rise in costs, the project has resulted in a street system that is now completely upgraded in that area benefiting the developers at a cost that is most likely less than they would have incurred if each developer had undertaken the public improvements individually. Finally, the City contribution of $200,000 is a substantial amount considering that the Beveland Extension both addresses the Tigard Triangle Street Plan and benefits the lot owners by providing better traffic circulation in that area. However, because the cost to acquire and remove the existing structure is higher than first envisioned, and because the interest expense has added to the overall LID costs, Council may choose to consider some relief to the two property owners. Please note in that consideration that any additional amounts contributed by the City would probably be chargeable to the State Gas Tax Fund. As operating costs rise, the funding available for our corrective and preventative maintenance decreases. For example, $25,000 is our entire Traffic Calming Program for a year. Hence, our preferred option is that Council approve the proposed assessments as recommended in the Final Engineer's Report. Attachments 1. Letter from Marlin DeHaas dated January 17, 2002 2. Letter from Cecil and Donna Jones dated January 15, 2002 c: Craig Prosser, Finance Director Vannie Nguyen, CIP Division Manager I:\Eng\Gus\Memorandums\Memorandum on Proposed Assessments for 69t, Avenue LID.doc Memorandum on Proposed Assessments for the 69d Avenue LID Page 3 of 3 v D E HAAS Suite 300 - AGC Center 9450 SW W Commerce Circle Wilsonville, OR. 97070 (503)682-2450 2X ,,-1W ssociates9 Inc. (503) 682-4018 Fax ConwlGngEngincers d Surveyors January 17, 2002 Gus Duenas City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 69th Avenue LID Dear Gus: This is intended to comment on the Neighborhood Meeting held on January 10, 2002 at the Tigard Water District auditorium whereat you and I summarized the project procedures, especially the final hearing on the assessment tentatively scheduled for February 12, 2002. We displayed excerpts from the Final Engineers Report; plans of improvements, proposed assessments on each parcel separated into eight assessment schedules, total assessments for the eight schedules for each parcel and formulas for calculation of assessments. Handouts were available for those attending. The sign-in sheet reveals that the following property owners were in attendance: Tim Roth Ella J. Opdal (Snyder) Cecil Jones Ed Murphy (Representing Tigard Corporate Center/Specht Development) Steven Pierce (whose property was condemned by the City) was also in attendance, but was reluctant to sign in. We received calls before the meeting from the following who were not going to be able to attend: Todd Sheaffer - CEO Specht Development Steve Kolberg - KFLLC Peter Szambleon - Employers Overload We did our best to advise these people about the information.. to be reviewed at the neighborhood meeting. Basic concerns about the proposed assessments were regarding costs. The major cost increases were related to the taldng costs for R/W, principally the Pierce property and house and the addition of interest on construction payments. There were no objections to the assessment methods or formulas other than the objection of Jones and Snyder that an exception should be made in their cases because they reside on their properties and therefore have not converted their property to a commercial use. You will recall that Snyder and Jones were both in opposition to the costs when hearings were held forming the LID. In addition Jones and his attorney have corresponded with both you and I and we have addressed all their questions. Jones has corresponded with the Council as well and has written letters to-the-editor published in both the Tigard Times and the Oregonian. Although we all understand that the highest and best use for the Jones and Snyder properties is commercial like all the remaining property in the district, and that it is possible (but not probable) that either could immediately convert to the highest and best use immediately after the assessment is levied, their situation is somewhat unique and different than all the other properties in the district. They both occupy residences and reportedly intend to continue to occupy the residences. Acknowledging the impact on these two properties, during the planning, design and construction of the project we initiated a number of special treatments to mitigate the impacts. 1. On both the Snyder and Jones properties full paved and widened driveways were constructed replacing gravel driveways. 2. On both the Snyder and Jones properties, special keystone retaining walls were constructed to save trees and mitigate the amount of yard sloping to match design grades. 3. Both Jones and Snyder were originally served with overhead utilities. Inasmuch as one of the elements of the project was undergrounding of the overhead utility system, all connections on the private side had to be converted to underground as well. Such conversion costs are normally a cost to the private property, as was the case with all other properties in the district. In the case of Jones and Snyder, costs of conversions were absorbed by the entire district and spread as part of the Ancillary Improvements. 4. Jones' existing gravel camper driveway was widened and paved. 5. The Jones comer wheelchair ramp was specially designed and constructed to minimize to the optimum, the amount of R/W necessary to accommodate the ramp. Agreement on the design was a condition of dedication of 16ft2 of R/W, as was the paving of the driveways and the keystone wall. 6. The construction cost of special items afforded Jones and Synder and spread over the entire assessment district instead of directly to Jones and Snyder was $14,071.60 and $12,816.20 respectively. The Council, after holding the public hearing on the proposed assessments -------"may adopt, correct, modify or revise the proposed assessments." Inasmuch as the district was formed based upon the assessment methods proposed, and as the assessments have been spread accordingly, except revising the costs for trees from "frontage" to a "per 1 tree" basis, we strongly recommend the Council not revise assessment methods. Such methods have been selected to be uniformly applied. If Council, after considering all aspects related to Jones and Snyder, wish to mitigate the assessments, I suggest they do so by City participation and not by spreading costs to other properties in the district. It would appear to me that City participation in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 should alleviate the burden on these two residential property owners. On another aspect, we have heard the comment or inference from Jones that the assessment could cause loss of the property or require selling and moving. It should be noted that both owners have been advised of the Deferral of Special Assessments program whereby the State of Oregon will make installment payments, if the owner qualifies. To qualify they must be 62 years or older, own the property, live on the property and have household income less than $17,500 the proceeding year. If Council does choose to participate in the amount of $10,000 to $15,000 (or a lesser amount of their choosing), I recommend that the City participation be stipulated as involving extenuating circumstances and not be considered or taken as a precedent. Sincerely, i Marlin J. D aas, P.E., P.L.S. President cc: 98.189.118 MJD/lo 1891tr.117 J 99 10:32a EnCineerine 624 0752 p.2 . 1 ::y t,08/99 LION 13:34 FAX 5036 1 CITY OF TIGARD 0002 Information Circular September 1997 Deferral of Special Assessments t. Senior citizens can 'borrow' to pay for public improve' 4. If you owe any assessmens when you file the menu that are charged against the property. The sate application, the property mart not have lien sold a will, make the payments for those who qualify. All a foreclosure sale. i payments, plus interest, must be repaid 5. Your household inc-' must be less 517,500 Oregon homeowners age 62 or older may defer pay- for the preceding year. Hotuehold yin ments on certain 'special assessmens' again: their both tmbie and nontaxable income. Ilf property. These are assessments by a city, county. sani. How to apply tary district or other taxing district for improvements Apply for the deferral between October 1 and Decem• such as paved streets, sidewalks and sewers. Because ber 1 at the assessment district office that billed you for these assessments usually are large, homeowners may the improvement. pay in Installments over several years. The application must include a certified copy of the How does deferral work? installment agreement If your payments are delinquent and you want the state to pay them, the delinquent if you qualify for the deferral program. the State of amount must be shown on the application. Oregon will make the installment payments for you. The taxing district bonding officer will send your appli- The payments will be charged to an account that estab- otion to the Oregon Department of Revenue for ap- lisltr a lien attains yl,ur property. The miney. plus proval. if the departmen, approves your application, the interest. must be paid hack when you move, sell the sure will pay your special assessment installments for property. change ownership or die. 1l,c interest rate is 6 you as long as the property qual'dies. prrc•vm per year. Payments on the deferred amount . This progrnn :dle)%% y ou to t lice an y our pruperr as lung as you wish without n,akirgspeeul asat:.,mnt payments' You or your spouse may pay ail or part of the deferred You may applc,U defer presc-ni and fluUrt mP msmcnts. If amount. and still defer present or future payments. can, Never any past duv a, .avntt•nt... %ou aN i may defer Others (relatives or friends) also may pay for you if you those (including in,crc•.t or prnalt %i m a t vv ) don't object. All payments should be nude eta the taxing Do I qualify? district office. a Tit yu:diry for lilt: dvfc rani' When deferred assessments are due 1 1'uu nu,st I l:? or ulJer at the tune can, ids ,he All deferred assessment payments, plus interest, become application. dud- to August 15 of the calendar year after the year that 3. Yau must h:nc a recur ct decd tu,he pnapvny or he any of these events occur: buying the propem• undrr a rcc•oft1ccl cdt: contract. • The person who claimed the deferral dies. Crnain trusur-w.ace arrangen,cni. qualif% fur dc- a The ownership of the property changes. farad. You are not eligible for deferral if y,tu have - The person who claimed the deferral no longer lives only a life estate interest in the prtirwny Your on the property (except when required to be absent homestead is limited to Maur principal duelling and for health reasons). the tax Ina u =,r,, However. if the person who deferred the payment dies 3. You n : t live t swept for an or is disqualified. that person's spouse may continue the indivi re uihs reason of deferral if: health). If Mlle property is owned h) oco or more persons, not husband and wife. each owner must • The survivor was age 591h or older when the disquali- apply. live on the propcoy, he 62 a,a older. and fication occurred, have combined household inconec or s 1:.500 or • Meets other qualifications, and less per year. • Applies by August 15 of the next year v • 'v 10 99 10:32a £r. veering 6•.4 0752 p,'3 022ros/99 RON 13:35 FAX 30393771 CITy OF TIGARD X003 When heirs inherit the property and make It their prin& ORgon tax questions. You can also order tax fonds. This pal residence by August 15 of the following year, a service is available 24 hours a day. repayment schedule may be arranged with the Oregon Once you're in the system, push: Depanmma of Revenue. CaU Salem at 3784988 for information about your de- i-For personal income tax refund infotmation (begin- ferred account balance. This number is not toll-free. ntng March n' TTY (hearing or speech impaired only): (503) 94548617. federal order eurreat year or a~eaded fo Yns (Some Call your assessment district for the assexssaeet balance. federal [areas available.) Make any payments to the assessment district Your 6-For odor information. asses=cw district will send the payments to the Depart- O-For assistance from a representative. menu of Reventra Repttsentativeesmre available: 3:30 Au -5:10 r.rt. Mon• Property tax defetra! program day-FrWay, accept Wednesday when the Moan are 9 Au. 5:10 r.m. Closed on holidays. From April 1- The program deferring special assessments isn't related April 15, representatives are available from 7 tin. to the Senior Gleam's Property Tax Deteml program. until 7 rit., Monday-Friday. You may defer payments under one or both programs, TTY (heating or speech impaired only). These num- but you must make a separate application for each. You bers are answered by machine only and are not must apply for property tax defetrsl•wiGi your county forvolceuse The year-round toUree number within assessor between January 1 and April 15. Oregon is 1.800-886.7204. In Salem, the number is For more information about tax deferral, write for the (503) 945.8617. free information circular, 'Senior Citizen's Property Tax Habta Fspaflola l.as personas que necesitan asistencia Deferral; 150.310-675. The address is: en EspzAol pueden dejar un mensaic. El nomero Publieatloas disponible todo el aAo ern 521em cs (503) 945-8618. Oregon Department of Rcveaue A message line is available all year for those who It'O Box 14999 need assistance in Spanish. The number in Salem is Salem OR 97309-0990 (503) 945.8618. Taxpayer assistance In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this information is available in alternative fora.2ts Call: Salem (503) 3784988 upon request by calling (503) 378.4988. Toll-free within Oregon 1.800.3564222 TO get forms The, toll-free number & on/p available Janrran- tbruuKb April Inaxtte tax booklets are uvailahle at many pout offices. hanks and libraries. Or write to: Forms. Oregon Depart. For towchtone phones, our telephone voice resporoe ment of Revenue. PO Box 14999. Salem OR 97309.0990. shtan has recorded tax information aho)ui many of your Our Internet uddress is: http::~tt~~tiv.durstutr.or.us Copies to: Mayor/Council V O er: City Manager utus January 16, 2002 Council File t/ Dear Mayor Griffith and Tigard City Council We live at 12190 SW 69t Ave. Tigard and am one of the two residences that is a victim of the 69th street Local Improvement District. (LID) The assessment will be coming up for review at the January 22nd council meeting and approval at the February 12th meeting. We have lived in our home for 28 years and feel we we are unfairly assesed for the street improvements forced upon us by the City Council and Specth Developers and would like for the Council to shift some of the cost for the maze of streets to the ones that benefit the most. Donna and I are both over 65 years old and have a $470.00 per month pension plus Social Security. Because I knew I would have a small pension ( I left the printers union in 1988) I tried to put $2000.00 per year in an Individual Retirement Account to supplement my retirement and you are about to wipe out 14 years of saving by putting a $40,000.00 mortgage on our home at 7 percent interest. This is not fair. When we approched the Council in 1999 we were told that if we got a break it would not be fair to the developers. Councilman Moore said it would increase the value of our home that much. The City just sold a 40 X 200 foot strip of land along Beveland St. between 68th and 69th to Tim Roth for $40,604.00. How can you sell an 8500 sq. foot lot with a $40,000 assessment to a developer? You wouldn't let them build a very large building and leave enough space for parking The house is of no value to a developer but it is zoned MUE so we would like to stay here. If we wanted to sell we wouldn't have enough money left to replace it after paying the assessment. The house is old but not a run down shack and I have done a lot of remodeling in the last 28 years to make it the way we want it. I feel just because we are small we are being kicked around. If the City was trying to give some kind of equal treatment we should be treated at least the sarpe as the Dartmouth Street LID. The landowners were only required to pay for Dartmouth street and not all the artarial streets. They also were not required to pay for sidewalks until their land was developed. Our sidewalk assessment on our lot is $7432.00 and I am not developing my property. Our street assessment is $24,746 and we only have 77 foot of frontage left on 69th ave.The city took 8 feet of our frontage for the corner which I will go into more detail later. I think the homeowner on the corner of 72nd and Dartmouth was even excused from any assessment even though the street joined their property. We have never apposed paying our share of 69th Ave. because that is the only street that we get the least bit of benefit. The following is the reason we feel we are being unfairly taken advantage of. I.The Beveland Street improvement West of 69th has only one entrance and that is for the 40,000 sq. foot Specht office building. No one else can use it. The remainder of residences and businesses on Beveland St, west to 72nd St.benefit from the hookup to 69th street but didn't have to pay a cent yet we were assessed and we live 3 block away. Is this fair? 2. Beveland Street east of 69th added approx. $400,000.00 in land aquisitions, appraisals, moving buildings etc. and that figure dose not include building the street. Again that is three blocks away and dose not benefit us in any way. This was strickly added by the City to get a street built at our expense. Specth didn't want to hold up there developement to fight it so two senior citizens homeowners got sucked into paying a part of that street 3 blockes away. Most of the $200.000 the city paid went to reduce Specths assessement yet they were the ones that benefited the most along with the developers that own property along that section of Beveland. Is that fair to us? 3. Elmhurst street west of 69th ends at the edge of the Specth property, where 70th St may someday be built, and the only access to Elmhurst is another Specht 40,000 sq. ft. office building on one side and a 5 story parking garage on the other side which was planned and built after the LID was almost finished. There paying the same assessment as we are and they have 500 to 700 vehicles a day using that section of Elmhurst. Does that sound fair? 4. Elmhurst St. west of 69th does border our property but Landmark Ford already done all the grading and two thirds of the paving bordering our property. We are forced to pay $4000.00 extra for the sidewalk that and we are not developing our property. It is the only section of aterial off 69th street that is not being developed. I asked the Engineer if the sidewalk on Elmhurst St. could continue around the corner at the curb instead of the property line so they would't take so much of my property (4 foot off Elmhurst and 8 foot off 69th).I was told byDehaas that the triangle standards would not allow the sidewalk to the curb yet when the sidewalk was built it was to the curb on Landmark Fords corner across the street on the corner of Elmhurst and 69th. As soon as it got to the edge of the Snyder property north on 69th street it was moved back to the curb again. They just wouldn't move it to the curb for us. I now have a 2 foot wall across 8 foot of the front of my driveway that I have to try to back around every time I back out of my garage becau=.e they took such a large chunk of the corner to move the sidewalk to the property line. The Engineers could have told us the standard had been changed for Landmark Ford and the wall could have been shortened but that's what happens when your small. There's lots of these types of things that happened but I won't dwell on them now. They are some of the things that should not have happened They could just about do as they pleased to us because we didn't have the clout the developers had. This is when I expect the Local Government to step in and give us some help. We were new at this kind of thing and didn't know what to expect. 11 11111 1 111 01 We would respectfully request the Council shift at least half of the $40,000.00 assessment to the developers and the City they are the ones that benefit from the arterial streets. The remaining $20,000 is a lot of money for 77ft of frontage on 69th street , especially since every spot on the street is taken up by parked venicles by 6 AM every morning, but I would like to get it over so I don't have to lay awake at night trying to figure what is going to happen and how we are ever going to pay this. I suspect deep down the City Council and most of the developers, including Specht, agree we have been unfairly treated. Its easy for you to sweep it under the carpet but you can take a stand for the homeowners of Tigard. I think the voters expect you to stand up for the small guy when something like this happens. I know Specht is a big taxpayer but they have no right to destroy a couple senior citizens that just want to stay in their homes. I am enclosing a letter from Specht Developement dated October 22, 1999 that you may not have in your file any longer. Sincerely Cecil and Donna Jones 12190 SW 69th Ave. Tigard, OR 97209 503-639-8373 e-mail: cecjonesor@netzero.net CITY OF TIGARD OREGON January 17, 2002 Cecil and Donna Jones 12190 SW 69' Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. and Ms. Jones: Your letter of January 16, 2002, regarding your concerns about the 69ti' Avenue tax assessment, has been forwarded to the Mayor, City Council, City Manager and City Engineer. A resolution regarding the assessments for the 69' avenue local improvement district is scheduled to be heard by the Council at its January 22, 2002, meeting. Sincerely, Greer Gaston Deputy City Recorder I:%ADM1GREERICORRESPONDIACKNOWLEDGEMENT - JONES.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 SPECHT SPECITI, PRO PER1,1 B 1;PECHT DEVEL(WMINI I i111(~ `.Ifllir~,,~ ~\;~j • L'~d:'efh.; . ti' 1T.htt•, Fax 5oV(,-26-x,jo, October 25, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli Via: Facsimile 684-3636 Councilor Brian Moore Via: Facsimile 603-0461 Councilor Paul Hunt Via: Facsimile 620-8759 Councilor Joyce Patton Via: Facsimile 590-0371 Councilor Ken Scheckla Via: Facsimile 639-5697 City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69th Avenue LID Dear Mayor Nicoli and City Councilors: We are writing this letter in response to correspondence we received from Cecil and Donna Jones dated October 1, 1999 (see enclosed). Mr. Jones expressed in a subsequent conversation that his primary grievance regarding the LID is the plan to allocate a portion of the costs of extending Beveland Street between 68th and 69th Avenues (the "Extension") against his property. Mr. Jones requested that we support him and the Snyders (the property owners directly north of the Jones) in their efforts to obtain relief from the City in regards to the Extension, as he does not believe there is any benefit to his property or the Snyder's property from the Extension. Therefore, please accept this letter as our support of the Jones' and Snyders' efforts in this matter. As you know, the Extension was discussed and debated extensively during the formation of the LID. Our firm specifically requested that the cost of the Extension not be bome by the LID participants, as we felt that the benefits associated with the Extension were not of benefit to the vast majority of the LID participants (including the Tigard Corporate Center). Accordingly, we believe that the Extension will not be of any discernable value to either of these residences. We appreciate the City's agreement to participate in paying for a portion of the Extension, as well as the City's commitment to creating the LID. We request that the City consider assisting the Jones and Snyders in regards to the Extension costs allocated to these residences, in addition to the City's previous commitment to fund a portion of the Extension costs. We assure you that we would not view such an agreement as the basis to seek additional City funds to further reduce the portion of the Extension costs applied to the Tigard Corporate Center. However, we do request that the previously agreed upon City participation in the Extension remain in place pursuant to City of Tigard Ordinance 99-07. w.w proi(ru%l WS rw4ftu . k%Mt W viw%kkc446 an City Council. City of Tigard October 22,1999 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact me should you have any comments or questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. 14w// Jza* Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President c: Cecil and Donna Jones John and Ella Snyder Gus Duenas & Vannie Nguyen, City of Tigard (fax: 6847297) Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas and Associates, Inc. (fax: 6824018) Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID =jb, Summary of Assessment Costs Rev. 1/10/02 D-1 D-2 D-3 D4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 Ident Tax Lot Street & StD. & Sanitary Street Trees Undergrounding Total Assessable Property Owner Water Sidewalk power, Telephone Ancillary No. No. Water Quality Detention Sewer & Barkdust & TV Costs 1&2 2900 Tigard Corporate Center $75,858 $57,378 $31,991 514,709 $32,758 S17,439 521,434 555,129 5306,696 3-6 3800 Ti and Corporate Center 85,716 71,190 38,096 14,709 33,944 11,475 25,726 66,168 347,023 7 9100 Ti and Corporate Center 51,562 37,282 21,314 9,738 25,247 6,302 13,927 35,820 201,191 9600 Steph ea W. & L L. Peirce 16,271 14,043 0 0 4,704 1,370 5,246 13,492 55,126 9 9108 R & D Property Development LLC 22,905 3,278 1,505 0 11,069 4,018 4,408 11,337 58,519 10 2700 John B. McCrosk 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,972 17,933 24,905 11 2800 Don R. & Cynthia Sue Morton 11,643 0 1,505 0 2,965 908 4,022 10,346 31,390 12 2900 Triangle Terrace LLC 24,063 0 1,505 4,971 6,918 2,665 9,386 24,140 73,648 13 3000 KF LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,682 6,897 9,579 14 2700 Landmark Ford, Inc. 12,441 5,556 3,483 0 5,930 2,635 2,449 6,299 39,792 15 2600 Landmark Ford, Inc. 4,938 3,278 1,742 0 1,977 469 1,224 3,149 16,777 16 2400 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7 407 4,917 0 2,965 837 4,724 25,370 17 2301 Ella J. Opdal 8,691 5,769 4,570 0 3,479 515 2,155 5,543, 30, (gl8 2300 Cecil & Donna Rae Jones 12,009 5,039 4,570 0 7,432. 635 2,155 5,543 37,383 5100 Lan o c. .109 20 4900 Fairmark Investments LLC 14,814 9,834 6,730 0 5,930 X998 3,673 9,448 51,427 21 5200 Landmark Ford, Inc. 9,876 6,556 3,483 0 3,953 1,756 2,449 6,299 34,372 22 4300 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,494 3,266 3,471 0 3,953 938 2,440 3,138 24,700 23 8300 IT., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 4,938 3,278 3,247 0 1,977 878 0 3,149 17,467 24 8700 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 9,063 2,599 1,381 0 5,534 1,395 0 2,497 22,469 25 8500 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 665 918 0 0 0 0 0 882 2,464 26 8600 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 6,602 2,034 0 0 3,953 1,347 0 1,954 15,890 27 9800 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 7,494 3,266 0 0 3,953 529 0 11,315 26,558 28 9700 Mark R. Dana 7,503 31278 0 0 3,953 938 0 3,149 18,821 29 2400 George Fox University 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,530 27,085 37,615 30 8302 Peter & Eloise Szambelan 18,027 8,958 5,191 0 9,883 2,755 0 9,387 54,199 $427,471 5255,980 5139,867 544,128 5186,428 $61,813 $125,154 $348,371 51,589,211 Attachment 6 r SPECHT SPECHT PROPERTIES SPECHT DEVELOPMENT 15400 S.W. Millikan Way • Beaverton, OR 97006 503/646-2202 Fax 503/626-8903 January 22, 2002 Mayor and City Council RECEIVED C.O.T. City of Tigard JAN 2 2 2002 134125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Administration RE: 69`h Avenue LID - Final Assessment Roll Dear Mayor Griffith and Members of the City Council: Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Assessment Roll for the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District. Specht Development, Inc. initiated the LID in mid-1998 as a method of improving SW 691h Avenue. We would like to express our appreciation to the City Council for creating the District, and for the City's participation in it. We would also like to thank the City Engineer, Gus Duenas and his staff, and the consulting engineer, Marlin De Haas & Associates, Inc. for their cooperation and professionalism through the entire project. We would like to bring one request to the City Council, and that is in regards to the cost of extending Beveland Street between SW 68`h and 691h Avenues. We respectfully request that the City increase its financial contribution to the cost of the right-of-way that was needed to construct this street extension. The reasons for our request are summarized below: A Brief History of the Beveland Street Extension. • The LID petition did not include extending Beveland Street between 68th and 69th Avenues. The City did not own the right-of-way, and further complicating the matter was the fact that there was a house converted to business uses in the path of the proposed street extension. In addition, there did not appear to be any significant benefit to Specht Development, Inc. (and most of the other LID participants) from extending this street. Note that we never objected to the City's plan to extend the street between 68th and 69ch Avenues - just to the idea of including the cost in the LID. • Between October 1998 and March 1999 the City Council and staff discussed whether to include the Beveland Street extension in the LID. While the first Resolution (98-52) stated that it should be left out "because of potential complications that the extension might cause", the second Resolution (99-10) stated that the City Council "has provided additional guidance ...to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue to satisfy the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan". (See Exhibit A, minutes of City Council meetings from October 13 and December 8, 1998, and February 9 and March 9, 1999). S WonapondenceNTSM 2ooncoT 01.22-o2.doc City of Tigard Page 2 of 4 • We have always opposed including the Beveland Street extension cost in the LID, as is clear from our testimony on October 13, 1998 and February 9, 1999. However, we agreed to support the payment of street improvement costs by the LID participants for the Beveland Street extension if the City chose to accept responsibility for the costs associated with acquisition of the right-of-way. This was after hearing Mr. Duenas suggest at a neighborhood meeting on February 17, 1999 that the City was contemplating paying the costs associated with acquiring the needed right-of-way. At that time, the right-of-way costs were estimated in the Preliminary Engineering Report at $330,000. (See Exhibit B, letters from Specht Development, Inc. to Bill Monahan and Gus Duenas, dated February 19 and February 23, 1999, respectively.) • When the City Council approved the Ordinance forming the LID in March of 1999 (Ordinance 99-07), it agreed to contribute "an amount not to exceed $200,000 that shall be used to reduce the costs assessible to the benefited properties." • We do not know why the City Council chose the figure of $200,000. It was first used by Mr. Duenas in December of 1998. According to the December 8, 1998 City Council minutes, Mr. Duenas said that "to include that house would lengthen the process and add $200,000 to the project." However, the Preliminary Engineering Report, which was presented to the City Council at their meeting of February 9, 1999 used the figure of $330,000 for right-of-way acquisition. That report does not state whether this estimate was just for the Beveland Street extension right-of-way, or for additional right-of-way on other streets, or included other acquisition costs, such as appraisals, attorney fees, and compensation to the businesses. • Although the City Council was apparently reviewing figures presented by staff related to the right-of-way acquisition costs, those cost estimates were discussed only in executive session. • At the March 9, 1999 hearing, the hearing in which the City Council adopted Ordinance 99- 07 forming the LID, we expressed concern about the extent that the actual costs might exceed the estimates, and stated again, for the record, that Specht Development was requesting the City to absorb the cost of land acquisition because it was the City that wanted to include the Beveland extension in the LID. What actually happened? The cost of acquiring the right-of-way to extent Beveland Street between 68`h Avenue and 691h Avenue was much more expensive, in both time and dollars, than anticipated. Although the final assessment roll does not break it out specifically, it appears that the right-of-way acquisition costs, including moving the house and paying compensation to the businesses operating in that building, totaled approximately $482,594. (See Exhibit C, Beveland Right-of-Way Costs.) This is significantly more than either the $200,000 or the $330,000 estimates. The total LID project cost is now $1,789,211, with $1,589,211 (88.8%) assessed to the benefiting properties. This compares to the Preliminary Engineering Report estimate of $1,228.005 with $1,028,005 (83.7%) assessed to the benefiting properties. Much of that difference is unfortunate, yet understandable and acceptable. Change orders account for approximately $70,200 of S:Tortesponde %TMTS 2002TOT 01-22.02.dm City of Tigard Page 3 of 4 increased costs. Interest and bond costs account for an added $209,995, which is a legitimate cost that was unfortunately not included in the 1999 estimates. But a significant proportion of the increased cost of the LID is directly related to the Beveland Street right-of-way acquisition. The total ancillary improvement costs proposed to be spread to the benefiting properties is now $348,371, compared to an estimate of $176,615 in February 1999 ($376,615 estimated in the 1999 Preliminary Engineering Report, minus the City's $200,000 contribution). That represents an increase of over 97% in the ancillary improvement costs spread to the LID participants. Complicating matters is the fact that the City paid the property owner, whose house the City acquired, more than the necessary amount. The Court decided that the City should pay $225,000 for the house, which was the appraised value. The City had already deposited $330,000 with the Court to gain immediate possession of the property. Now the City is trying to get $105,000 back from the property owner, which represents the amount that the property owner was "overpaid" for the property. However, the City is not certain it will get the full $105,000 back from the property owner. The Final Assessment Roll includes one-half of that amount, or $52,500, under the "State of Oregon (Pierce taking)" line item in the Ancillary Improvements schedule. (See Exhibit D, the backup pages for Exhibit D-8 of the Final Assessment Report). If the City only charged the LID participants the appraised value of the property, $225,000, the total ancillary improvements would total $495,871 instead of $548,371 (before subtracting the $200,000 City contribution). The total ancillary improvement costs assessed to the LID properties would be $295,871 instead of $348,371. Again, that $52,500 difference is the net amount the City overpaid for the property, i.e. the amount it overpaid ($105,000) minus the minimum amount it hopes to recover ($52,500). What should the City do? While we still sincerely believe the most equitable approach would be for the City to take responsibility for the entire costs of the right-of-way acquisition for the Beveland Street connection, we know that it may be unrealistic to expect the City Council to agree to this. However, we would support the following two part solution to this unfortunate circumstance: 1. The City would be financially responsible for the $105,000 that the property owner received above what the jury decided was the fair market value. No part of that sum should be assessed to the LID participants. (The Final Assessment Roll includes 50% of that amount, or $52,500). The City can keep any and all of the funds it is able to "retrieve" from the property owner, which could be the entire $105,000. The total ancillary costs assessed to the LID properties should be reduced by $52,500 accordingly, for a total of $295,871 ($348,371 - $52,500 = $295,871). 2. In addition, the City would contribute 60.6% of the cost of the Beveland Street extension right-of-way acquisition (the ratio of $200,000 to $330,000). That figure would now be $260,657, which equates to $482,594 minus $52,500, which equals $430,094, times 60.6%. This is $60,657 more than the $200,000 to which the City initially committed in March 1999. SACnrte.,pondmee\TS\TS 2002\COT 01-22-02.dm City of Tigard Page 4 of 4 In summary, we respectfully ask that the City remove $52,500 from the LID acillary Improvement costs, and also increase the City's contribution by $60,657, for a total adjustment of $113,157 to the $200,000 the City already committed to the LID. The LID participants, on the other hand, will be assessed $169,437 for costs directly related to the right-of-way acquisition. The total ancillary improvement costs assessed to the LID would be $235,214 ($348,371 minus $52,500 minus $60,657), which is still 33% higher than the 1999 Preliminary Engineering Report estimate of $176,615. We believe this represents the fairest and most reasonable solution. Thank you once again for your partnership in creating this successful Local Improvement District. By working together with the property owners, the City has greatly improved the public facilities within the Tigard Triangle, and stimulated significant private investment to the area. Best Regards, , Ja-A Q-U~ cp-&-~ Todd R. Sheaffer Chief Operating Officer SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Encl: Exhibit A, City Council minutes from 10/13/98, 12/8/98, 2/9/99 and 3/9/99 Exhibit B, Letters from Specht Development, Inc. 2/19/99 and 2/23/99 Exhibit C, Beveland Right-of-Way Costs Exhibit D, Final Assessment Roll (Backup to Exhibit D-8) C: William A, Monahan, City Manager Agustin P. Duenas, City Engineer Marlin De Haas, De Haas & Associates Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy & Associates Greg Specht, Specht Development, Inc. SACorrespondenee\TSM 2002\COT 01.22.02.doc . X17 Y LOVAX41. h11a7vr255 V ' EXHIBIT A TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -OCTOBER 13, 1998 > Mayor Jim Nicoli called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:32 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 6:58 p.m. • STUDY SESSION > DISCUSSION: PUBLIC INFORMATION ON WATER Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, introduced Brian Bell, Rocky Bowler & Associates, and Adam Davis, Davis & Hibbetts, who presented a report on the status of the public relations work done in response to the Council's directive to staff to address the issue of communicating to the public that the Willamette River was a treatable drinking water source. Brian Bell, Rocky Bowler & Associates, mentioned the importance of the Council's support .and ongoing participation in the continuing information and education program on the long-term water supply for Tigard. He reported that, through a coordinated effort with Tigard staff, WWSA staff, and others in the region, they have made considerable progress in accomplishing the primary objective of the initial public information program: to inform Tigard area citizens that there was a serious long-term water-supply problem. Mr. Bell referred to separating the two-tiered approach they have used until now to reach both Tigard area citizens and citizens in the region. He said that in moving toward a primary focus on Tigard area residents, they thought it valuable to assess the progress to date. Subsequently, Davis & Hibbetts was hired to evaluate progress. Adam Davis, Davis & Hibbetts, reviewed the questions and results of the scientific random sample survey his firm took of 305 voters in the Water District. He reported that 46% of the respondents believed that there was a water-supply problem, 40% were unsure, and 14% did not think there was a problem. He pointed out that the large percentage was significant because the water-supply issue was not one of the major concerns of the general public at this time, yet 80% indicated they were unsure or believed there was a problem. He noted that of those who saw a problem, 85% understood that it was a somewhat or very serious problem. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1998 - PAGE 1 Mr. Wegner referenced the comparison charts showing how much the City has grown in service connections from September 1, 1998, to September 1, 1999: 2% in Tigard, 6% in the unincorporated area, and nothing substantial in King City and Durham. He noted the net change of over 349 service connections added to the system, which was lower than the numbers for the last three years. Mr. Wegner referenced the Cascade Water Alliance agreement he distributed to Council. He explained that Rosemary Bernard, on their tour of the Bull Run system, cited this as a possible model to use for a regional water provider system. It was the agreement among Seattle and its suburban providers, and would be reviewed at the water managers' meeting tomorrow. Mr. Wegner said that City staff has been working with representatives of both the WWSA and the City of Portland to get the reports done by the December 15 due date. He reported that staff has been meeting with Portland and Tualatin Valley Water District on Tigard's short term water needs, as they might not have enough to go around if they had another summer like last summer. Mr. Wegner mentioned that staff invited members of the Intergovernmental Water Board and Tigard Water Board to attend the meeting next week at which Council would discuss the evaluation criteria with Phil Smith as the facilitator. Mayor Nicoli directed Jack Polans to address any questions to Ed Wegner following the meeting. 9. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT FOR PROPOSED 69"H AVENUE LOCAL E%IPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) Gus Duenas, City Engineer, directed Council's attention to the preliminary evaluation report on the LID requested by Specht Development, Inc. He reviewed the boundaries of the requested LID. He mentioned improvements to Elmhurst, Franklin and Beveland south of the Specht properties and to the south side of Dartmouth. He reported that the LID was feasible with advantages and disadvantages. He commented that the Maintenance Department has been anxious to upgrade this gravel road, SW 69a', because it has been a problem for the City in the past with dust in the summer and potholes in the winter. He noted that it was in a tightly contained area. Mr. Duenas reviewed the disadvantages also, noting that Specht Properties' option on an affected property was up in March. Therefore, staff had to have the project designed and planned by March 1999 for construction to start in May, a very tight time schedule requiring intense staff effort. He mentioned that the proposed LID did not cover the extension of Beveland Street all the way to SW 68th Avenue, as was called for in the Tigard Triangle street plan. He said that if they did not do that extension in this LID, then the City would probably end up having to do it. He noted the existing structure and business in the way of completing the connection. Mr. Duenas recommended that Council direct staff to proceed with the preliminary engineering report. He said that he would return on October 27 with an appropriate resolution of intent to form an LID. He also recommended that the preliminary engineering report address the possibility of making the connection ofBeveland Street with SW 68 and recommend whether or not it was feasible to do so, considering the time frames involved. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13,1998 - PAGE 13 Mr. Duenas mentioned that when a developer initiated an LID, according to the Tigard Code, the Council could charge a fee for the preliminary engineering report or direct the City to bear the cost. He estimated that they would need $91,000 to develop 60% engineering drawings. He explained that normally the cost of the report was rolled into the LID, but if Council decided not to proceed with the LID, then whoever paid for that report would have to eat the costs. Councilor Scheckla asked what the Council has done in the past. Mr. Duenas commented that the City's experience with LIDs was skimpy and he did not have a good example of how an LID should be handled. This was new ground for the City. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the excellent results the City obtained with the sewer line. He expressed his concern at the possibility that the City might bill someone for the work done on a project still desired by the interested parties which the Council decided to turn down. He acknowledged the other possibility that the City could be left with the bill if the City fronted the money and the participants decided that they no longer wanted the project. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, concurred with Mr. Duenas' presentation of the funding options before the Council regarding the preliminary engineering report. He advised the Council that it was up to them to decide how to handle it. Councilor Scheckla asked how staff ended up with such a tight time schedule for this project. Mr. Duenas mentioned that he did bring this matter to Council's attention in late May, as the LID was going to be submitted in June. He said that, given the other higher work priorities (such as the CIP program and the budget), staff did not complete the preliminary evaluation report until recently! He reiterated that this matter could not move forward without Council direction. Councilor Scheckla asked what the City gained by doing this project on the tight time schedule as opposed to waiting. Mr. Duenas said that they gained a fully improved road system in the area, as opposed to the half or two-thirds street improvements normally required of developers. He said that piecemeal development, not full street improvements, would result from not proceeding with the LID. Mayor Nicoli opened the discussion up to public comment. ® Greg Specht, Specht Development, 15400 SW Milligan, Beaverton, reviewed their proposed development on part of the 12 acres included in the LID. He said that their concept was to build approximately 122,000 square feet of Class A office building in three 40,000 square feet two story tilt concrete buildings on Dartmouth. He explained that they have been working on this project for a year, and it has been a slow process to get to this point. He mentioned that they went through the Design Evaluation Team process. Mr. Specht said that he supported the staff recommendation to proceed with the LID. He requested Council to direct that the preliminary engineering report return to the City by December 21 in order to allow staff sufficient review time prior to the January 12 meeting. He stated that they did not support an extension of Beveland from SW 691i to SW 681', as it was not critical to the improvement of SW 691i. He mentioned that they already requested the vacation of Franklin Street between SW 69 h and SW 701', and that they would improve Elmhurst and Beveland between SW 69 h and SW 701' as part of the LID. Mr. Specht stated that they believed that the LID was critical to the success of their project. He commented that he did not want to have to access a $60 million project on a half street. He said that they anticipated asking for building permits in the spring, and building the project out as a COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1998 - PAGE 14 A single phase with completion of the shell in September/October 1999. He mentioned that they expected it to take 12 to 15 months to fill the building. Mr. Specht asked the Council to consider in the preliminary engineering report the conundrum faced by his company, given the staff hesitancy to issue certificates of occupancy until after the LID improvements were completed. He said that, as a practical matter, they needed to be able to bring in their tenants, even if the improvements were not completed. Mr. Specht commented that he understood the sensitivity of the City to advance funds on a project not yet finalized but pointed out that it was not equitable to require them to front the fees for a report on a project that the Council turned down after receiving the report. He stated that they were willing to guarantee, to the extent that they moved forward with their application (if the City paid the fee and they got the LID), that his company would pay the City back so that there was not a loss of money to the City. He mentioned that Ed Murphy was handling the LID process and Todd Schaeffer was the project manager. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the property option that Specht had. Mr. Specht explained that they were under contract with Don Pollock, the property owner, to purchase his property. Mayor Nicoli commented that in the past, Mr. Pollock has been very particular against any assessments made against his property. He asked if Mr. Pollock understood that if the improvements were done, and Specht did not exercise its option, then Mr. Pollock was responsible for the cost of the improvements. Mr. Specht said that Mr. Pollock has signed the LID application as a property owner and was fully aware of the situation. • Ed Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock Street, referenced a letter dated October 9 sent to the City Manager to provide the information presented tonight. He quoted from the 1985 City manual on LIDS which stated that the preliminary engineering report was either prepared in-house by staff or by an outside consultant with continuing costs covered by City funds until appraisals and assessments were performed, at which time the costs of the engineering study would be included in the project costs. He said that typically that was the way it was handled by jurisdictions in the region. The costs were rolled into the LID but if, for some reason, the project did not go through, then the City ate the costs. Mr. Murphy pointed out that adding on the extension of Beveland complicated the project and increased the time needed to do the project. He cited the March 13,1985, manual which spoke against complicating a process by increasing the number of options considered for an LID. He mentioned that they discussed different alternatives with the property owners and settled on the one that they thought had a high chance of success.. Mr. Murphy asked Council to give verbal direction to the City Engineer to proceed with the preliminary engineering report. He argued that if they waited for the resolution of intent to form an LID, then they merely lost another two weeks. Mayor Nicoli asked what Specht's position was regarding the BevOand Street extension. Did they not want it included in the LID because it could potentially hold up their project for another year or did they not want to see the street jo through under any circumstances? Mr. Specht said that an extension of Beveland from SW 69 to SW 68`" did not impact their project but adding an extra component to the LID did create uncertainty which would delay the project and be a problem for them. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13,1998 - PAGE 15 • Tim )Roth, property owner, noted that on the east side of SW 69th across from the improvements proposed by Specht Development, the City previously gave approval to Jim Corliss to put in a parking lot but did not require half street improvements. He supported the LID for full street improvements as originally submitted by Specht. He asked if the expansion of Beveland was the only adjustment suggested by staff to the LID application or were there other improvements staff had considered including. Mr. Duenas said that, since the expansion of Beveland was called for in the Tigard Triangle Plan, he felt that it was his responsibility to bring it to Council's attention because it did need to be looked at. He mentioned that he considered expanding the improvement down Hampton but decided that doing so did not make sense because of the developments already in place. He said that he decided against including SW 70'h Avenue because they had already vacated quite a bit of that street and there were too many pieces missing. Mr. Roth asked if improving Beveland to full street standards from SW 70th to SW 72m had been a consideration. Mr. Duenas stated that he did not want to go much farther than the proposed LID boundaries. He commented that they could extend beyond the boundaries if it looked reasonable but it would add more cost to the project. Mr. Roth pointed out that the Beveland extension from SW 68th to SW 700' existed only in the intent of the Tigard Triangle Master Plan for connectivity reasons; it did not exist on paper or in pavement. He said that Specht Properties has worked with the City towards a common goal by dedicating right-of-way that currently did not exist from SW 70th to SW 69th in order to complete half of this non-existent street. The City agreed to vacate a section of Franklin in lieu of Specht dedicating a certain section of Beveland and completing a different section of Beveland. Mr. Roth spoke to including the additional leg of Beveland in the LID to complete that portion of the Triangle Master Plan. He agreed that doing so would not be easy because of the existing structure but contended that the City has put itself in a position where eventually it would happen anyway, and this was an opportunity to get it done. Mr. Roth asked that he be notified, as a Tigard Triangle property owner, of the LID process and the assessment methodology prior to a Council decision. Councilor Moore commented that as a member of the LID, Mr. Roth would automatically be notified. Mayor Nicoli said that he assumed that staff would prepare the same detailed reports on anticipated assessments for this LID as they did for the sewer reimbursement districts. Mr. Duenas said that his report would include the assessment formula but they needed the 60% engineering drawings in order to tie down the costs. Mr. Specht pointed out on the map the Specht dedication of right-of-way to extend Beveland from SW 70 to SW 69 h, and the extension of Beveland from SW 69th to SW 681h that Specht did not want included in the LID. He reviewed how the proposed improvements would improve connectivity. He mentioned that in exchange for the formation of the LID, the City would get full street improvements on SW 69th from Dartmouth to Beveland, on Elmhurst, and on Beveland. He held that the incremental advantage of improving Beveland from SW 69`h to SW68th was not worth the possible legal battles at this time. Mr. Murphy informed the Council that the structure in the way was a home converted to a business which was owned by Stephen Pierce, Pacific Christian Counseling Center. He stated that he has never talked to Mr. Pierce about the Beveland extension because he did not want to COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1998 - PAGE 16 alarm him that someone was considering condemning his business. He pointed out that Landmark Ford signed non-remonstrance agreements for the frontage along SW 691h but did not sign any agreements supporting the connection of Beveland between SW 68`" and SW 69`x. He commented that he expected that both Landmark Ford and Specht Properties would remonstrate against that project. Mr. Coleman advised the Council to address the issue of occupancy permits (a land use issue) separately from the LID process. He commented that typically land use issues were not dealt with in the documents that carried out the LID, such as the preliminary engineering report. Mayor Nicoli expressed his concern that staff was conditioning Mr. Specht that they would not give him occupancy permits until the City got the LID done. He held that the City was creating the problem, not Mr. Specht. He agreed with keeping the land use process separate from the LID process. Mr. Specht clarified that staff was not telling them that they would not allow it but rather that the Code was silent on the issue. Mayor Nicoli concurred but reiterated his concern with the staff ruling on how to handle the situation. Mayor Nicoli commented that he was not sure this was a land use issue because occupancy permits were part of the building code process and had nothing to do with land use. He said that to the best of his knowledge, he did not know that they have ever dictated the occupancy of the building around a land use decision. He held that requiring completion of the LID prior to issuance of occupancy permits was unfair. Mr. Duenas said that normally they did tie the completion of improvements to the occupancy in order to Insure that the street was ready before traffic was generated, and that normally it was not tied into with an LID. He agreed that it was a consideration, noting that the City controlled the LID. Mayor Nicoli said it was that relationship that made him nervous. He said that he did not think that it was that big of a problem but things could go wrong. Councilor Hunt spoke to following the advice of the City Attorney regarding not putting a provision in the LID pertaining to this matter. Mayor Nicoli agreed but reiterated at the same time he did not want staff to make the ruling that they could not occupy the buildings until the City finished the LID improvements. Councilor Moore recommended that staff proceed with the preliminary engineering report with the understanding on the part of Specht Properties, that if they backed out, they paid the bill. The City will front the money and roll it into the LID. Councilor Rohlf raised the extension of Beveland issue. Councilor Moore commented that he did not want to tie up this LID because of one property. He supported an LID up to that property with the understanding that when that property developed, part of the development costs would be finishing the improvement to SW 68th. Councilor Rohlf concurred. Mr. Duenas stated that a December 21 deadline for the preliminary engineering report was not realistic. He recommended a February date for the consultant to finish the report. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Specht and Mr. Roth if they had an engineer satisfactory to the City to get the report done by December. Mr. Specht said yes. Mr. Duenas mentioned the public process. Mr. Specht commented that this LID included common City projects, and felt that the RFP could be prepared in a couple of weeks. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the City Engineer had other projects besides this one. Mr. Monahan cited a three page list of City projects that Mr. Duenas was working on which lie would like to see COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1998 - PAGE 17 continued. He pointed out. that the January 12 meeting was a ceremonial meeting at which they normally took no Council action. He said that they could give this project priority but he did not want to knock other City projects out of the loop. The Council discussed when to set the deadline. They agreed on February 9, 1999. The Council agreed by consensus to direct the City Engineer to proceed with the LID process. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. AIDJOURNN[ENT: 10:53 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, City of Tigard Date: 1:1AQVhCA dHY1CCAAl~i01013.DOC COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1998 - PAGE 18 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL r off' MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 pro" • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Legal Counsel Jun Coleman; Administrative Risk Analyst Loreen Mills; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner; Brian Rager, Development Engineer; Eric Hand, Public Works Dept. > Agenda Review Bill Monahan, City Manager, advised the Council that Eagle Scout Dale Miller could not come until 8:30 p.m. this evening. He said that Eric Hand from Public Works would give the staff report on the Titan Pond improvements. > Charter amendment petition Mr. Monahan briefed the Council that the City received a prospective petition for a charter amendment filed by the Citizens for Safe Water. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, reviewed the procedures required to process the amendment and create a ballot title. She explained that the signature gathering phase occurred after this preliminary process of creating the ballot title and handling any challenges. She said that there was no time limit on how long the petitioners had to get valid signatures of voters within the city limits of Tigard (however those boundaries might change with annexations). The Secretary of State's office told her to call the petitioners back in a year if nothing was filed to see if they were still actively pursuing it. Ms. Wheatley explained that once the petition with sufficient valid signatures was filed, it would go to the next available election, no later than the 91P day after filing. If that was not a general election, then the City would bear either some or all of the cost, depending on if other jurisdictions had measures on that ballot (c. $4,000 to $5,000). Mr. Monahan noted that the petitioners have already contacted the newspapers. Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel, confirmed that the City could use taxpayer money to provide neutral information on a measure but not to advocate for or against the measure. He said that private citizens could form a PAC but not with City money. Ms. Wheatley mentioned that the Council could put a competing measure on the same ballot, such as was done in West Linn. Mr. Coleman pointed out that if both measures passed, then the Council had to decide where the conflicts were between the two measures, with the measure with the most votes being paramount. He recommended thinking through the ramifications of competing measures in a situation where both measures passed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 - PAGE 1 ' w Councilor Rohlf asked if they had not already determined that a vote of the people would be only an advisory vote. Mayor Mcoli said that it was different for a charter amendment. Councilor Rohlf asked what would happen if this measure passed and was in conflict with other provisions in the Charter. Mr. Coleman said that he was not prepared at this time to address that question but he would respond later to the Councilor. > Update on the SW 6Vh Avenue LID Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reviewed why he had originally not recommended extending the boundaries of this LED beyond those suggested by Specht Development. He explained that he changed his mind based upon the arguments in Tim Roth's letter and the fact that Mr. Roth, a major property owner in the section down to Hampton, has indicated his support of the extension and his interest in developing his properties soon. He reported that he expanded the scope of work to include design of these improvements down to Hampton, mentioning that they were in the selection process now for the consultant. Councilor Hunt asked what Specht's position was. Mr. Duenas stated that he has not checked with Specht. He commented that Specht might not want the extension because the original proposal was favorable to them or they may want it because it included more people and spread the cost more. He mentioned the Council direction not to include the Beveland extension to SW 68`x. Councilor Scheckla noted the concern in Mr. Roth's letter that part of that area might not develop for 10 to 20 years. Mr. Duenas agreed that that was possible, as Mr. Morton did not appear interested in doing anything. He commented that he did not want to extend the boundary down Beveland to SW 72nd because that was getting out of the area but going down to Hampton did make sense. He said that the other option was to stay with the original boundaries, let Roth do his half street improvements for his development, and leave Morton's section until he developed it - an unknown length of time. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at changing the boundaries without talking to Specht when the Council essentially approved those boundaries at the meeting. Mr. Duenas explained that the Council direction had been to examine what the logical boundaries would be for the LID and to return with a recommendation. Councilor Moore mentioned the issue of the house on Beveland between SW 68th and 69 h that sat in the right-of-way. He suggested asking the owner about selling the property. Mr. Duenas pointed out that including that house would lengthen the process and add $200,000 to the project. He said that staff could explore the property owner's intentions. The Council agreed by consensus that the boundary should be extended to Hampton Street. > Council Calendar Mr. Monahan noted that the December 15 meeting was a combination workshop/business meeting, leaving no items for the December 22 meeting. The Council agreed to cancel the December 22 meeting. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the January 12 meeting was the ceremonial meeting to swear in the elected officials and to present the State of the City report. Ms. Wheatley suggested asking Judge O'Brien to swear in the officials. Mr. Monahan reminded the Council of the goal setting session on Monday, December 14. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 8, 1998 - PAGE 2 Agenda Item No. L TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 0l3 q- MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Police Chief Ron Goodpaster; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow; Legal Council Tim Ramis; Labor Legal Counsel Ken Bemis; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Deputy City Recorder Jessica Gomez; Development Review Engineer Brian Rager; Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson > AGENDA REVIEW Bill Monahan, City Manager, mentioned that Dr. Wilson, the water expert brought in by WWSA, would answer questions from the public from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Puett Room in the Library > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 7:05 p.m. > JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, introduced the Planning Commissioners present: Dave Anderson, Nick Wilson, Jim Griffith, Darrel Glenn Mores, Shel Scolar, and John Olsen. He suggested that the Plarming Commission stay to hear the DKS report on the Transportation System Plan. Mr. Monahan noted the training provided for the new Planning Commissioners and Councilor. He invited the Commissioners to attend the Council's quarterly training sessions on various topics, including land use and ethics. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Commissioners had any comments on gated areas in the city or how to avoid situations where traffic issues polarized neighborhoods. Tim Ramis, City Attorney, cautioned the Council against discussing the facts of a specific case. Commissioner Griffith observed that the biggest issue the Commission faced for any development right now was insuring that the long-range transportation needs were met. He mentioned their diligent efforts to comply as much as possible with the direction from the Council and Metro to consider connectivity and logical transportation routes. He pointed out that restrictions (such as a limited number of bus routes and a limited amount of development CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 1 a, dollars) cut down on their creativity in resolving transportation issues. He cited their work to find a balance between transportation and development in all areas of the city with consistency. President Wilson commented that connectivity would not be such a contentious issue if arterials flowed freely and there was not so much cut-through traffic. He pointed out that the visioning study showed that people's greatest concerns in Tigard were with the traffic, particularly the arterial traffic. He held that the visioning study's conclusion that Tigard could not do much about arterial traffic because the arterials in Tigard were ODOT facilities was a shortsighted approach. He spoke to the City finding a way to leverage money from ODOT or seek Federal funding to solve the problem. Councilor Moore mentioned a point brought up at a meeting that he and the Mayor attended with Max Williams and an ODOT official. Although the Portland Metro area generated a considerable amount of the state gas tax dollars, those dollars did not find their way back into the Metro area. Mayor Nicoli commented that the State legislature controlled ODOT's funding. He expressed concerns with Senator Eileen Qutub's position on transportation funding packages proposed at the legislature. He said that District 4 and western Washington County produced a huge amount of State payroll tax and gas tax revenues but saw very little of it coming back to address their desperate transportation needs. He mentioned the Governor's position for all funding to go to road maintenance and none to new roads. Mayor Nicoli held that Senator Qutub could make things happen with transportation funding but probably would not do so. He said that ODOT would get no additional funding for the eighth year in a row. He pointed out that inflation alone "ate" 20% to 30% of ODOT's dollars. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City could condition developments to get developers to put pressure on Tri-Met to provide more bus service. Mr. Ramis indicated no. He commented that indirectly using a third party was a difficult way to create leverage with Tri-Met. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the public outreach meetings conducted by Tri-Met where staff presented the Council's concern s regarding additional bus service and routes. He said that Councilor or Commissioners could attend the upcoming meetings to reiterate these concerns. Mayor Nicola mentioned the letters received by the City following the death of a pedestrian killed by a car shortly after stepping off a bus. He reported that the mayors of the eastern Washington County cities and two County Commissioners discussed their concern that Tri-Met returned only 50 cents on the dollar of the money from Washington County, and spent most of the money moving people around Portland. He stated that Tri-Met has pushed to run bus routes in Tigard on rural streets not equipped to handle pedestrians (lacking sidewalks and lighting). Mayor Nicoli stated that he would bring to Council the issue of possibly withdrawing from the Tri-Met district as a County unless Tri-Met paid more attention to the type of roads they chose for bus service. He would like to convey to Tri-Met that it was more important to have safe bus stops and bus routes on roads with sidewalks than it was to have more buses on the roads without regard for the condition of the road. He held that running a bus up Walnut was not a safe venture. He reiterated that the mayors were becoming frustrated with Tri-Met, the low return on the County's money, and the inadequate service. Mayor Nicoli informed the Planning Commission that the Council intended to appoint at least one Planning Commissioner to a new committee that would identify road projects, sidewalks and pathways for the next road bond (November 2000 election). He noted that this year the City CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 2 retired the bond for the improvements made six to ten years ago. He asked the Commission to recommend which member(s) should serve. Commissioner Olsen spoke to the excellence of the Metro training workshop for new Commissioners and thanked the Council for sending him to it. He asked if the Commissioners could get sensitivity training to handle the "hot button" issues (such as connectivity). He said that sometimes the animosity level facing the Commission was pretty high. Mr. Monahan suggested having Liz Newton work with Mr. Hendryx to explore what kind of training would be appropriate. Mayor Nicoli noted that the developers knew that the land use laws in the State would support their position, no matter what the neighbors' concerns were, and that often the neighbors did not know this. He spoke to staff setting up facilitation meeting (using Tigard's facilitation program) between developers and neighborhood representatives to resolve divisive issues before applications came to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Griffith pointed out that the Commission's charge was to determine whether or not an application complied with the Development Code; they did not have Council's ability to deal with non-Code related issues. He said that neighbors brought up valid concerns but those concerns had nothing to do with land use laws and regulations. He agreed that a middle step might help to resolve these situations before they got to the Commission. Mayor Nicoli suggested that if the Commission identified issues in an application that they could not address, they discuss the issues with the neighbors following the public hearing and the decision. In addition, they should inform the neighbors that they would send a letter to the Council recommending that the Council look at the situation. He asked that the Commission let the Council know about these items unrelated to land use law so that it could try to fix them. President Wilson commented that the most contentious issue by far was connectivity, an issue that was seldom truly resolvable. He noted that, with the new Code; the Commission would see subdivision applications only on appeal. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff has tried to educate the public on the different aspects of land use through the CIT format. He explained that the developers met with the neighborhood separately from the CIT forum. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Commission had any trouble dealing with Goal 5 and wetlands. President Wilson said that they deferred to the Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands, as they did not address those issues at their level. > Mayor Nicole adjourned the study session at 7:42 p.m. -1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7: 42 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore were present. The Council heard the water quality report at this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 3 1.4 Council Communications Councilor Hunt reported on the Affordable Housing meeting. He mentioned the moving testimony from a working single mother who has benefited from the low-income housing at Villa La Paz in providing for herself and her daughter. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mayor Nicoli said that he would discuss a response to the letters received regarding the pedestrian death. Mr. Monahan asked to pull Consent Agenda Item 3.4 for discussion at next week's meeting and action on February 23. He reminded Council of the special meeting on the Erickson Heights subdivision tomorrow night. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA a Bonnie Bishop, Citizens for Safe Water Committee, asked for clarification regarding the Water Advisory Task Force appointments. She noted that she has been asked to serve. She stated that she did not appreciate the Mayor's comments during the study session regarding Senator Eileen Qutub, and held that he owed her and the citizens of District 4 an apology. She asked if the Council would allow the Task Force to bring in independent technical advisors. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Task Force would not be controlled in anyway by the Council and was free to bring in other consultants. He emphasized that the Task Force would appoint its own leadership and set their own agenda. Ms. Bishop asked about the selection process. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the selection process used by staff to fill the 20 to 30 slots on the Task Force with as broad a representation of the city and special interest groups as possible. He mentioned that he and Councilor Hunt gave some input. He commented that he did not know a lot of the people on the list that staff would ask Council to approve tonight. Ms. Bishop asked that more members of the Citizens of Safe Water Committee be placed on the Task Force. Councilor Hunt stated that the list was representative of the community, including the outlying areas. He did not support adding people. Mayor Nicoli noted that Ms. Bishop was on the Task Force. He disagreed that the Task Force would not listen to Ms. Bishop's group. Ms. Bishop contended that the information being put out was untruthful, and therefore the information from the Citizens for Safe Water would not be heard. Councilor Moore asked, if the Citizens for Safe Water Committee wanted to hear the facts, why did only two or three of their members attend the Council meetings where the water issue was discussed. He mentioned last week's meeting where the City's financial officer described the costs of the two options, and tonight's meeting where a water expert would address a specific issue. Ms. Bishop said that their committee was not notified that Dr. Wilson was coming tonight. Councilor Moore pointed out that the agenda was published in advance and available to anyone. Ms. Bishop said that the City of Tigard was spending $165,000 to promote the Willamette River. Councilor Moore said that they were not promoting the River, they were studying it. Ms. Bishop stated that hundreds of citizens did not want the City to go to the Willamette River because they had a reasonable doubt about it. Councilor Moore commented that the Council did not want to debate the merits of either side tonight and would take Ms. Bishop's point about the Task Force under advisement. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 4 Ms. Bishop argued that the deadline date of April 13 was arbitrary and that the Task Force should have as much time as it took to examine the situation. Mayor Nicoli said that it was Ms. Bishop's task to convince her peers on the Task Force that she had a legitimate point. He emphasized that the Council was staying out of it. He pointed out that the Council started reviewing the two reports (received in mid-December) only last week. They would have perhaps 30 days longer than the Task Force to review the reports. He reiterated that the people on the Task Force were equally concerned about drinking water quality and would listen to anyone with sincere issues. Ms. Bishop held that the committee was stacked because some of the people, like herself, told staff what their position was. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nicoli noted that Item 3.4 was pulled. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Items 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of: November 17, 24 and December 8 and 15,1998 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Amendment to Personnel Policies for Management, Supervisory and Confidential Employees by Adding New Articles 1, 5,17,18 and 19 - Resolution No. 99-07 Removed from Consent Agenda: 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: Award Bid for Construction of Pavilion and Picnic Shelter at Cook Park to Robert Gray Partners s The Council heard Agenda Item 5 at this time. > WATER QUALITY REPORT STAFF REPORT Kevin Hanway, Executive Director, Willamette Water Supply Agency, introduced Lisa Obenmeier from Montgomery Watson. Lisa Obermeier, Montgomery Watson, gave a slide presentation of the quarterly update on the raw water monitoring program which the City started in July 1998 as a continuation of the Tualatin Valley Water District's program begun in 1994. She explained that the Tigard program expanded the number of contaminants they tested for, including everything covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA Contaminant Candidate List, anything found by USGS in their previous work in the Willamette Basin, and endocrine disrupters, bacteria, and organic chemicals. 7 Ms. Obermeier said that the data found in the August and November samplings has been consistent with the data found since 1994: no red flags. She reviewed the organic sampling program in detail. She mentioned the one regulated herbicide that they found in August at 2 parts per billion (less than half the allowed levels in drinking water) but noted that they dad not find CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 5 Again in the November re-sampling. She said that the one detect out of 240 chemicals, dichloromethane, was at levels well below the finished water standards. She pointed out that this chemical was also a frequent lab contaminant. She stated that the results from the January sample of the river under winter conditions would be available in six weeks. Councilor Hunt asked what the comparison of Willamette River raw water was to Clackamas River raw water. Ms. Obermeier said that the water looked very similar in terms of softness, pH, and turbidity. She noted that she could not compare levels of organic chemicals because most utilities did not test for organic chemicals. She observed that the two river basins had similar land uses: mostly forested with some agricultural and urban development. She mentioned that Joe Glicker of Montgomery Watson was also present. Councilor Scheckla asked if the consultants intended to test during the spring when most people fertilized their lawns or crops. Ms. Obermeier explained that the scientists theorized that the chemicals were highest in the river during the first flush or the first major rainstorm washing the surface of the land. She stated that they would take their last sampling in April/May. Ms. Obermeier confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that in this program they did not take daily samples but .instead took them at regular intervals. She mentioned a pilot treatment plant program on the river during which they did take daily samples over a six-month period. Mr. Hanway stated that, in the past four years that the WWSA has been studying the viability of the Willamette River as a water supply option, they reached the conclusion that the Willamette River should be tapped as a water supply source. He said that, based on their research and a comparison of findings with other water sources in the region and country, they continued to have the highest confidence that the Willamette River would provide a high quality source of water. Mr. Hanway said that they recognized the different levels of public understanding about the facts and the different levels of public confidence. He informed the Council that, in response to recent concerns expressed about endocrine disrupters, the WWSA sent a water sample to CTRAPS (Consultants in Toxicology and Risk Assessment and Product Safety) for testing. He reviewed the credentials of Dr. Daniel Berg, head of CTRAPS, as an authority on the endocrine disrupter issue. Mr. Hanway said that the bioassay done on their water sample was the same test that EPA anticipated using to test for a wide variety of chemicals. He noted that a test was conducted on only one sample but indicated that Dr. Wilson would explain why they were confident of the results. He mentioned the importance of having this information available to Tigard citizens this spring for their decision making process as opposed to waiting through several years of tests. Mr. Hanway introduced Dr. John Wilson, Vice President of CTRAPS, here to present and interpret the findings. He reviewed Dr. Wilson's credentials, mentioning in particular his interest in studying how governmental bodies used scientific information in setting policy. Dr. John Wilson, CTRAPS, reported that there was no detectable activity of the endocrine disruption kind found by this test. He mentioned that this was the first use of this specific and sensitive test (developed by a University of Michigan professor) on water. He commented that, based on the testing already done on the Willamette River water, he would have been very surprised if the test did turn anything up. He stated that, in terms of chemical activity, the raw water was safe. He pointed out that the purification process would take out most of what was left. He said that they could be confident that the water coming out of the treatment plant was safe to drink. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 6 Dr. Wilson explained how. the issue of endocrine disrupters came to the forefront three years ago. He said that Leah Colburn had reviewed environmental literature, found examples of wildlife with developmental abnormalities, and attributed these abnormalities to disruption of the endocrine system. He mentioned that most of the examples were very site specific. He stated that her book created enough of a stir to put this issue on the national agenda with Congress ordering the EPA to do testing. Dr. Wilson commented that the exact nature of the testing was still being debated but likely this year the EPA would start testing for a fraction of the 20,000+ organic chemicals used in commercial production. Dr. Wilson explained that the first part of the three-screen process that the EPA would use to test chemicals for endocrine disruption ability was this test developed by Dr. Jack LaRusky (which he adapted to test water). He stated that the test was intended as a screen to see if there was any trace of this activity in the water, not as a way to characterize water quality or to describe with thoroughness how this kind of activity would vary through the year in different flow levels. He said that they reasoned that a single sample taken three times in early November before the fall rains started represented something close to the normal flow of water in the Willamette. Dr. Wilson said that most sources of endocrine disrupters would come continually into a river (as opposed to episodic occurrences at peak flows). Therefore, they concluded that the test did give valid information to help increase confidence that the water was safe. Dr. Wilson described the specifics of the test that used genetically altered human cancer cells to test for the ability of a chemical or something in the water to mimic the effects of the natural hormone estrogen. He explained that for the hormone activity to occur, an estrogen receptive protein had to be present. Dr. Wilson said that the test detected no such estrogenic activity in the Willamette River water at a level of.003 micrograms per liter. For comparison, he stated that adult women produced 200 to 300 micrograms of estrogen every day and adult men produced 5 to 10 micrograms per day. To illustrate the term microgram, he said that a typical two-pill dose of aspirin or ibuprofen was 400,000 micrograms Dr. Wilson stated that, in his judgment, that there was no threat from endocrine disrupters in the raw water from the Willamette River or in the treated water coming out of the system. He said that he and his children would drink it. Mr. Hanway pointed out that WWSA went the extra mile in having this test done in order to assuage the concerns of citizens. He said that the sensitivity component of the test could detect things down to a level of 3 parts per trillion, and yet they found nothing in the water. He explained why the two chemicals they found traces of in the water could not be endocrine disrupters. The chemicals were the wrong shape to fit into an estrogen receptor. Therefore, they could conclude that these chemicals were not endocrine disrupters. Councilor Scheckla asked if they have tested bottled water. Dr. Wilson said that, to his knowledge, no test of this kind has been conducted on any water sample anywhere ever before. Mr. Hanway mentioned that this state-of-the-art test has been published, peer reviewed, and conducted on individual chemicals, just not on water. Mayor Nicoli thanked Dr. Wilson for coming. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 7 > REPORT FROM KAMPE & ASSOCIATES WIDENING OF SW 92ND AVENUE (PARK MASTER PLAN) STAFF REPORT John Roy, Property Master, introduced Ron Kampe of Kampe & Associates, the consultants providing the engineering and design services for the Cook Park Master Plan expansion project. He said that, in January, the Council directed staff to look at improvements to SW 92°.d Avenue leading into. Cook Park. He noted that the focus was on improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety and providing safety in general to the public for current and anticipated use of the park. He mentioned the meetings between the consultants and staff, including the Police Chief and the Public Works Director, to identify needs for improving SW 92nd Avenue. Ron Kampe, Kampe & Associates, presented the five options developed during the meetings with staff to address traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety and emergency vehicle access issues relating to the use of Cook Park. The five options he reviewed using the cross-sections were: ® An 88 foot wide configuration with (1) 12-foot center turn lane, (2) 12-foot travel lanes, (2) 8- foot bike lanes, (2) 10-foot parking strips, and (2) 8-foot sidewalks, adding on (2) 3-foot buffer strips for a total width of 94 feet; m A 68-foot wide configuration that with (1) 12-foot center turn lane, (2) 11-foot travel lanes, (2) 6-foot bike lanes, (2) planter strips, and (2) 6-foot sidewalks, adding on (2) 2-foot buffer strips; A 66-foot wide configuration with no center turn lane, (2) 12-foot travel lanes, (2) 6-foot bike lanes, (2) planter strips, and (2) 6-foot sidewalks, adding on (2) 2-foot buffer strips; ® A 62-foot wide configuration with (1) 12-foot center turn lane, (2) 11-foot travel lanes, (2) 6- foot bike paths, no planter strips, and (2) 87foot sidewalks, adding on (2) 3-foot buffer strips; e A 52-foot wide configuration with no center turn lane, (2) 12-foot travel lanes, (2) 6-foot bike lanes, no planter strips, and (2) 8-foot sidewalks, adding on (2) 2-foot buffers. He pointed out the significant cuts and fills coming down the hill and the wetland fills, noting that the wider the configuration, the greater the impact. He mentioned the desire to plant trees in a planting strip to enhance the aesthetics of this park entrance. He said that a center turn lane was very important for emergency vehicle access, especially during high-volume events. Mr. Kampe presented the cross sections at the wetland areas. He said that these were the most critical cross-sections because they would have to mitigate any significant impact. He mentioned the difficulty in finding sufficient space to do so without impacting the objectives of the master plan. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Hunt asked if Mr. Kampe recommended any one of the alternatives. Mr. Kampe said that the staff committee agreed on the importance of the center turn lane for emergency vehicle access but also agreed that Option I was too grandiose. ' 'h,,A left them with Options 2 and 4. Councilor Hunt asked if they had any costs. Mr. Kampc said that they have not done any costs. He mentioned that they brought Option 5 forward because during high-volume events, the City could cone off the street into three travel lanes ar d not permit bike access for those events. He noted that doing so worked against the goal of providing good access to the full community. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 8 Councilor Scheckla asked several questions on the bike paths. Mr. Kampe confirmed that there were two bike paths in each plan. He said that they included bike paths and sidewalks on both sides because the police chief felt they were necessary for safety reasons, especially during high volume events. Councilor Scheckla held that one 8-foot bike lane was sufficient to accommodate bike traffic, except for a few events. He pointed out that they would gain four feet for use for something else. Mr. Kampe mentioned that a single bike path would have to be separated from the road. o Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:36 p.m. for a break. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m. In response to Councilor Scheckla's questions about the bike path, Mr. Ramis commented that, from a legal standpoint, a bicycle was a vehicle that was supposed to be on its own side of the street. He said that a 6-foot bike path was not suitable for two-way traffic. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Moore cited his experience riding a bike on SW 92"d Avenue. He said that it was very dangerous for a bike rider going down the hill when a car was coming up the hill. He expressed concern at what could happen with kids weaving up and down the hill on their bikes. He agreed that they needed two bike lanes. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at spending money on this project without knowing what other dangerous locations in the city also needed improvement. Councilor Moore asked where the money would come from to fund these SW 92"d Avenue improvements, noting that they did address park access issues. Mr. Monahan said that he thought it likely that the funding would come from street funds before it came out of park funds. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council could legally take the money out of park funds. Mr. Ramis said that they could probably do that but they would have to be careful about how they constructed CIP. Councilor Hunt requested further discussion of cost allocation and other areas needing money. Councilor Scheckla asked if, in the future, a path would come from the USA treatment plant on 85`h Avenue to provide another park entrance. Mayor Nicoli said that the master plan did call for a pathway from the park to the USA treatment plant to Durham Road. He mentioned that the City of Durham had clearly indicated that they did not want the regional pathway along Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River to go through their city. Councilor Scheckla asked if the pathway would be more beneficial than bike lanes on both sides of 92"d. He suggested using 90`h to get to 92d. Mayor Nicoli said that, for him, the issue was one of safety, not an issue of redirecting people. He held that, with the schools in the area, the kids would shoot down the steep hill just for fun. Therefore, it was important to keep the bike traffic separated from the car traffic. Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to indicate their preferences regarding the five options so that Mr. Kampe could put together a budget. He commented that he did not see the Council giving direction tonight to implement an option but a price would be useful in the long term planning for the park. Councilor Hunt asked if they had the money for this cost study. Mayor Nicoli said that it was part of the contract already. Mr. Roy commented that they needed to know what the road design would be so that they could incorporate it into the entrance to Cook Park, and avoid redesigning the park entrance whenever the road improvements went in. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 9 Councilor Hunt commented that they could use a combination of elements from the various options. Mayor Nicoli said that he liked a combination of Option 4 (with the rock wall on both sides through the wetland to minimize the impact) and Option 2 (once past the wetlands, widening the road and sidewalks and planting trees). Councilor Scheckla suggested planting flowers in the planting strip. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought that a nice row of vegetation would make a nice entrance to the park, whatever that vegetation was. He mentioned a waterfall also. Councilor Moore said that his first choice was Option 2 with the planter strip and his second choice was Option 4 without the planter strip. He said that he could also support a combination of the two options. He stated that it was important to have three lanes, sidewalks and bike lanes. He pointed out that they already had a lot of vegetation on the upper half of the road, so they would need to plant vegetation only on the lower flat part. Councilor Hunt expressed concern for protection for the sidewalks and bike lanes from the travel lanes. Mr. Kampe explained that they used eight-foot sidewalks when sidewalks were immediately adjacent to travel lanes. He mentioned a possibility of using six-foot sidewalks if adjacent to the bike lane. Councilor Hunt spoke in favor of eight-foot sidewalks, citing the Durham Road sidewalk as a positive example. Councilor Patton said that she liked the idea of planters extending through to provide more protection for the pedestrians. She supported minimizing the impact on the wetlands as much as possible, and the combination of the two alternatives. Councilor Scheckla also supported the combination. Mayor Nicoli asked that Mr. Kampe look at the costs of the improvements in segments. He mentioned the possibility of doing half of the improvements at the same time as the parking lots and the other half two years later. He reminded the Council that the Task Force had dropped a second access road to the park because of its impact on the wetlands, and agreed to rely on one road. He indicated that they struck a deal with the neighborhoods to address the transportation issues on that road, if they used a single access road into the park. Councilor Hunt said that he felt this was more of a park improvement than a street improvement. Mayor Nicoli agreed. Councilor Hunt asked to direct staff to check into using parks money for this project, rather than street money. Mr. Kampe pointed out that, although they were asked to look only from the park entrance to Waverly, eventually the City would have to address the road situation from Waverly up to the existing improvements at the development. Mayor Nicoli asked whether or not Mr. Kampe has determined if most of the perpendicular part was City right-of-way. Mr. Kampe said no, they have not done a title report for that area. He stated that they were relying on the right-of-way map for the area and. the development plats. He pointed out where the City had a 60-foot right-of-way but commented that the City probably did not own all of the parking. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that, during their one major event, the School District allowed the City to take over the parking on their property. Councilor Hunt suggested approaching the School District, as the City was doing much of this for the good of the children in the area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 10 PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Nicoli opened up the meeting to public comment. Martha Bishop, 10590 SW Cook Lane, asked if they included a bus turn around in the plan. She mentioned the insurance requirement that buses not back up. Mr. Roy indicated that a bus turn around has been included. e The Council heard Agenda Item 1.5 at this time. 5. UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) STAFF REPORT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, introduced Randy McCord of DKS Associates, the consultants on the TSP. He mentioned that this part of the TSP focused only on motor vehicles. He said that, at some point, they would have to include alternate modes of transportation, such as a bike and pedestrian pathway plan. Randy McCord, DKS Associates, used a PowerPoint presentation to review the findings of the study. He explained how planners used a TSP to look 20 years out while working within a five- year time frame. Updates every five years allowed planners to respond to changes in the transportation environment and business methods. He mentioned the State Transportation Planning Rule mandating four key elements in a TSP: multi-modal, trip reduction, local streets, and performance standards. He pointed out that cities had to have a TSP in place one year from the adoption of the Metro Regional Transportation Plan. Mr. McCord reviewed the project history. He noted that much of the work on street functional classifications began in 1994. He explained that they worked with staff to get accurate local and regional traffic forecast projections based on land use when they realized that the Metro numbers were not accurate. He mentioned that land use was a critical element in transportation, with land use changes effectively determining changes in traffic volumes. Mr. McCord reviewed the trends they identified in their modeling. He mentioned substantial growth in the next 20 years with accompanying substantial transportation improvements. He pointed out that the city has been living on the capacity provided for when they built the roads 20 years ago. Now those roads were reaching their capacity with levels of service "D" and "E." He mentioned that, on a weekday, they found an average of 1.1 riders per car on 99W while on the weekends that average increased to 1.5. He concluded that they could achieve higher occupancies on the roadways and thus extend the road capacity. Mr. McCord identified 99W, Hall at 99W and in the Washington Square area, and 72°d Avenue as the key congestion areas both now and in the future. He said that the 20-50% growth potential in the region, particularly in the Tigard streets, was due primarily to the development of vacant land. He noted that their models also showed that from 50% to 70% of the traffic on 99W came from points outside of Tigard and went to points outside of Tigard. Tigard had a responsibility to deal with the regional traffic traveling through their town. Mr. McCord mentioned key policy issues identified: widening 99W, freeway widening, maintaining three lanes on key Tigard routes, and circulation and volume improvements in the southern and western parts of Tigard, including the Triangle. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 11 s 1 Mr. McCord observed that 99W was the most critical over-capacity route in the Tigard area. He stated that even if they widened the road to 7 lanes, certain sections still would not be able to handle the volume of increased traffic. Therefore, one option was to leave 99W as it was, and look for other solutions. He said that they found that if they operated the roadway better and increased the number of vehicles per lane, they might pick up 10% here and there on the ffinge. He mentioned that while the proposed I-5 to 99W connector would attract a lot of traffic, it did not necessarily provide traffic relief to Tigard. Mr. McCord said that they looked at strategies for widening freeways, including an expressway facility running parallel to 99W, but concluded that all widening options were very expensive. He pointed out that their modeling showed that if they did not provide adequate capacity on the freeways, then the traffic cutting through Tigard increased, particularly on 99W, Hall Blvd., and 72°d Avenue. Mr. McCord discussed the issue of how wide the east-west connector streets like Hall, Durham, Bonita, McDonald, and Gaarde should be. He said .that if the City had a policy of no five-lane streets, then they would have to look at other solutions of new extensions or connections. Examples included taking Walnut across 99W to Hall or connecting Hall to Hunziker in the industrial area north of Fanno Creek or installing a 217 overcrossing at Hunziker and Hampton. He pointed out that when looking at roadways, they had tradeoffs whatever they did: they either widened roads or they did something else. If they did not widen 99W, they impacted their east- west connectors and they would have to deal with those. Mr. McCord said that a fourth key policy issue was north-south capacity in the southwest Tigard area. He stated that they knew that they had to do something about Beef Bend and Elsner or the roads would go over capacity within 20 years.. He mentioned that limiting direct residential driveway access to major roads could double the capacity of a road, and was a key strategy to consider in planning for that area. He noted that, in their consideration of extending 150 Avenue south to Elsner, they realized that a route to get traffic to Beef Bend Road (to skirt around Tigard) was a better option than a route paralleling Beef Bend Road. He pointed out that people would heavily use a corridor linking the Elsner/Beef Bend Road corridor to the I-5/99W connector. Without that connection, traffic filtered back through Tigard. Mr. McCord said that the last of the planning issues was the Tigard Triangle that lacked connectivity and capacity. He stated that the percentage of local traffic on Hwy. 99W at full build-out of the Triangle rose from 30% to 70%. He spoke to a seventh lane for Hwy. 99W in the Triangle segment in order to provide the needed additional capacity. He mentioned that without a seventh lane they would have to put in an expressway facility that in turn required frontage roads to access businesses. He stated that either widening the road or putting in frontage roads was expensive with severe impacts on the area. Mr. McCord commented that if they extended Atlanta Street towards Dartmouth, they might not need to widen Dartmouth and 72nd to five lanes because Atlanta Street provided a connection from I-5 into the Triangle. He stated that the.initial test results of a 217 overcrossing. from Dartmouth to Hunziker and Hall did not necessarily eliminate the need for seven lanes on Hwy. 99W. He explained that what would make the overcrossing work was connecting it to the freeway but the spacing standards did not allow that. Mr. McCord explained that the functional classification of a roadway was intended to describe the function of the road in connecting within the community and/or region, not the volume of traffic it carried. A freeway provided regional connections, an arterial provided inter-city or sub-regional CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 12 connections, a collector provided intra-city connections and a local street provided neighborhood connections. He said that what they heard from the open houses was that there was a gap between the collector roads and the local roads. Some local roads acted like collectors and some collectors acted like local roads. Mr. McCord said that there was a need for connectivity on the neighborhood level. He suggested developing a new classification for roads to get traffic out of the neighborhoods. He stated that they needed to make sure that the street design standards addressed issues such as speeding traffic and traffic calming. He described the traffic volumes for these neighborhood collector streets as more than 500 cars per day, possibly up to 2,000. 0 Mr. McCord mentioned that the Transportation Planning Rule and the Metro Functional Plan both provided for better local street connectivity for all modes of traffic. He pointed out that if people had to go half a mile out of their way to get to their destination, they would not walk or bike there. He emphasized that pedestrian and bicycle connectivity was a critical accessibility issue within the street system as a whole. Mr. McCord pointed out that an interconnected set of local streets would reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in a community (which widening highways would not). He stated that providing connectivity on all local streets balanced the traffic flow so that no one street carried an unfair share of the traffic burden. In addition, pushing all the traffic onto one local road created capacity problems on Hall or 99W but dispersing the traffic to many streets did not. He mentioned the Metro spacing standards given as guidelines to local agencies to create connectivity for motor, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Mr. McCord reviewed the public involvement process used in developing the Transportation System Plan. He mentioned a citizens advisory committee, joint City Council/Planning Commission meetings, and open houses as methods of gathering citizen input. He said that the result would be to provide information for policy decisions, to provide recommendations for action plans, and to produce the draft TSP with a plan for each transportation mode. Mr. McCord asked the Council to approve developing the TSP as a multi-modal document, to approve the public involvement process, and to provide input on the key policy issues. He mentioned the need to coordinate with Metro's Regional Transportation Plan to insure getting their projects in the regional funding stream for transportation. He said that it was critical to move forward now with the bond measure so they could attach the critical projects identified in the TSP to the measure. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council intended to set up a Task Force to identify projects for the road bond measure. He asked if Mr. McCord was recommending a second simultaneous Task Force to work on the TSP. Mr. Duenas stated that they did need a Task Force to focus on the road bond issue. They also needed a committee to take the TSP all the way through to adoption in order to beat the deadline. He confirmed that both processes could occur at the same time. Mayor Nicoli asked what their options were for a citizens advisory committee. Mr. McCord described the five different processes that they have used in working with various communities in the Metro region. He said that the Council could set it up however it wanted to but it was important to have representation from the Planning Commission and the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 13 e, Mr. Hendryx mentioned that the City has used task forces involving both citizens and the Planning Commission in the past. Commissioner Griffith held that these mixed task forces have worked very well, citing the Code rewrite and the greenspaces task forces. He pointed out that Tigard did not control some of the roads that had the greatest impact on their street system, but ODOT did. He spoke to including ODOT on this Task Force since they needed ODOT's cooperation to make anything work. He observed that the ODOT signal lights were "traffic on demand" lights which were not an efficient way of moving people through the city. Mr. McCord stated that ODOT's reluctance to participate in certain issues was funding driven: ODOT had no money to do anything, and therefore why should they participate? He said that they would make recommendations in the plan with regard to signal light timing. He spoke to involving ODOT on a technical advisory committee and inviting them to serve on the Task Force. Mayor Nicoli agreed that they were unlikely to see a change in direction from ODOT until their funding situation changed. Councilor Moore stated that having the public process was very important to him, as those who made the recommendations would support the recommendations. Councilor Scheckla supported the Planning Commission taking this on, expressing a concern that involving a lot of citizens would drag the process out. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Planning Commission form the core group with citizens from the community and special interest groups, a Councilor, and a Washington County representative also serving. Mr. Hendryx said that staff could report back with a structure similar to the Mayor's suggestion. Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, mentioned the staff discussion of forming a technical advisory group with representatives from City staff, Washington County, ODOT, and other agencies with a second citizen's advisory group formed around the Planning Commission. Councilor Scheckla requested only one representative from each group. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to develop the structure as discussed. Mr. McCord asked for another time to meet with Council to get Council's input on the five key policy issues. Mayor Nicoli suggested setting aside time in the March workshop meeting to bring the whole group together, including the Task Force. 6. CONSIDER PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT STAFF REPORT Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer, mentioned that in November he had presented the Council with the staff conclusion that the current fee structure was not adequate to recover costs in two areas in particular: address assignments and permits for work in the public right-of-way. He explained that the right-of-way work permits had a basic 4% flat fee while the address assignments had no fee. He stated that their costs were exceeding their revenues by 70%. Mr. Rager described a "cost recovery system" used by other jurisdictions. This system based the final fee on the actual time spent by City staff in going through the complete process. He said that staff has had success with this method in the urban services area and would like to adopt this same fee structure (patterned after Washington County) for the rest of the city for consistency purposes. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999• - PAGE 14 J Mr. Rager said that many jurisdictions did not charge an address fee but wished that they did. He noted that Washington County and Portland were both considering increasing their $15 address fees because $15 did not cover the costs. Mr. Rager reported that no one attended the January 6 public open house he held on these fee increases. He concluded that this was not a radical proposal, and it was consistent with how other jurisdictions recovered their costs. He recommended adoption of the resolution to modify the fees. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Scheckla commended Mr. Rager on the excellent written staff report. Mayor Nicoli asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 08. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-08, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES AND CHARGES TO BE COLLECTED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RELATED TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PERMITS AND ADDRESSING. Mayor Nicoli asked when this resolution would take effect. Mr. Ramis recommended including a specific date in the motion. Mr. Rager stated that he had assumed an effective date in 30 days. Motion amended by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to make the resolution effective in 30 days. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 7. ESTABLISH AND APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Mr. Monahan referenced the updated list of the 36 citizens who have agreed to participate on this Task Force. He said that the first meeting date was February 18. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution no. 99-09. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-09, A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE TO ADVICE THE CITY COUNCIL ON DETERMINING A PERMANENT LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 15 8. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT- 69T" AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) STAFF REPORT Mr. Duenas recounted the Council's approval of Specht Development's petition to create this LID (Resolution 98-52) and direction to develop the preliminary engineering report. He said that staff retained the firm of DeHaas and Associates to do so. He mentioned the staff recommendation on December 8 to extend the LID boundary down to Hampton and the Council direction to explore the possibility of including the extension of Beveland from 68 h to 69'h. He said that if the Council passed the resolution of intent to declare an LID tonight, it would save time and hopefully allow the project to be completed by September. He asked for approval of the preliminary engineering report also. He introduced Marlin DeHaas of DeHaas and Associates. Mr. Ramis clarified that in the LID process, the decision Council made tonight was not the final decision that directed application of the assessments or 'commencement of construction. He emphasized that creating an LID was a multi-stage process. The Council would make the final decision at a public hearing at which property owners could remonstrate against the LID. He explained that tonight the Council would decide whether or not the preliminary engineering report was going in the right direction in terms of project scope, preliminary cost estimates, and project specifications. He listed the Council's options this evening: to reject the report and stop the process, to recommend changes to the report, or to approve the report as written. Mr. Ramis confirmed to Councilor Moore that tonight the Council would not determine who paid for what. Mr. Duenas explained that the resolution of intent was the intent to form the district. He said that staff proposed setting the public hearing for February 23. Marlin DeHaas, DeHaas & Associates, reviewed the scope of improvements requested by Specht Development in their petition for this LID, and the Council direction to extend the boundaries to Hampton Street and to investigate including the Beveland Street extension. He recommended that Council accept the report, pass the resolution of intent, and call for a public hearing. Mr. DeHaas discussed the proposed assessment method. He pointed out that, in this project, different improvements benefited different property owners. He reviewed the eight assessment methods they used to fit the costs to the benefiting property owners: o Streets: 50% road frontage, 50% area; ® Storm drainage: 100% area; 4 Sanitary sewer: connections on an individual basis, other general costs on an 100% area basis; o Water: fire hydrants assessed to benefiting property owners but services provided by Tualatin Valley Water District per their set cost schedule; ® Sidewalks: 100% road frontage (developed property only); ® Landscaping and street trees: 100% road frontage; o Undergrounding utilities: 100% area for those properties without existing undergrounded utilities; Ancillary improvements: 100% area basis (includes Beveland street extension and house demolition, cleaning storm drainage, and pedestrian ramp upgrade). Mr. DeHaas referenced the exhibits illustrating the spread of the assessments against each tax lot. He confirmed their schedule for project completion by September/October 1999. He mentioned the public meeting held earlier for the affected property owners to view the assessment schedules CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 9, 1999 -PAGE 16 and project scope. He recommended holding a second informational meeting before the public hearing. Mr. DeHaas clarified for Councilor Scheckla that the wheelchair ramp at 69`h and Hampton already.existed and would be replaced, if necessary. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Nicoli opened the meeting to public continent. ® Cecil Jones, 1219 SW 69th, said that he was speaking for the two homes on the east side of SW 69`h. He mentioned his assessment of $35,000 for an 8,500 square foot lot on the corner .of Elmhurst and 69 h. He argued that the real beneficiary of these improvements was the developer, not -the homeowners. He asked if the traffic impact of substantially increasing the traffic volume has been assessed. He said that he knew that he could not stop the LID, his concern was the assessment. Mr. Jones questioned why the LID went only to 70`h Avenue, not 72nd Avenue, thus creating a heavy traffic impact on 69`h: He conceded that the value of the property would increase but mentioned that a $35,000 assessment would not help in trying to sell it. He said that he was told that the reason they could not assess properties differently was that he could sell the property in the middle of the construction and the new owner would get a break on the assessment.. He asked the Council to consider an assessment based on traffic impact, noting the two cars from his lot and the 50 cars from the development Mayor Nicoli emphasized that tonight the Council was not dealing with any of the issues raised by Mr. Jones. 0 Greg Specht, Specht Development President, requested removal of the Beveland extension from the scope of the LID. He stated that Resolution 98-52 clearly indicated that the extension of Beveland Street from 69'h to 68 h would not be part of this LID. He mentioned that he verbally agreed to pay the engineering costs for the LID. He held that the proposal before Council tonight was not the deal that they agreed to in October. He pointed out that the 220 feet of that extension had a $400,000 bill because of the house. Councilor Moore stated that he asked staff to look into the costs for the Beveland extension. He emphasized that Council has not decided whether or not to include the extension nor have they decided who would pay for what. He held that Mr. Specht's concerns were premature. Mr. Ramis explained that the Council had two opportunities to modify the project: tonight by ordering a modification of the preliminary engineering report or at the public hearing. He said that the Council would also decide at the hearing who paid for what. Mr.-Specht stated that the issues were the scope (inclusion of the Beveland extension in the resolution), the cost ($400,000 for 220 feet), and the allocation (50% to Specht Development). He objected strongly to this proposal on the grounds that it was not what Specht had agreed to. He pointed out that with the Beveland extension the LID costs went from $821,000 to $1.228 million, an increase by 49% ($1,850 per lineal foot). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 17 Mr. Specht said that they strongly supported.the LID but reiterated their objections to the changes in this proposal. He noted that they did not learn of the changes until the January 15 neighborhood meeting. He said that they were sensitive to Mr. Jones' issues. He stated that they would provide a chronology of how these changes occurred at the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council decided to include the Beveland extension in the study at this time because staff told them that at some point they needed to make a decision about it. He agreed that they should take a hard look at that extension, now that the numbers were in, with regard to fairness and impact issues. He stated that staff has done what the Council asked them to do, and the decision was now up to the Council. Councilor Moore observed that the Council needed to look at the options for financing the Beveland extension, including an LID or a bond measure or city funds. He.said that they might decide that it did not make financial sense to do it at this time, and eliminate it from the scope of the LID. He reiterated that the Council needed the information from staff on funding options before it could make a decision. Councilor Scheckla spoke to discussing the matter tonight, as they had the two main parties in attendance. Mr. Monahan pointed out that other major property owners in the proposed LID were not present. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Jones if leaving Beveland out would alleviate his assessment. Mr. Jones said it would help because he, too, was paying for Beveland. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council would address Mr. Specht's point, as it was well made. He proposed that staff look at the alternate funding sources before the public hearing. Councilor Moore asked about payment options for the homeowners. Mr. Duenas agreed that Council needed to consider that issue but said that he was not prepared to advance any proposals at this time. o Bonnie Owens said that she represented Dr. Steven Pierce, the owner of the office building that would need to be purchased if Beveland was extended. She said that there were five businesses in that building that would need relocation. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve Resolution 99-10. Councilor Hunt said that he could not support the resolution until they decided whether or not to include the Beveland extension. Councilor Moore asked staff how a Council decision not to extend Beveland would affect this motion. Mr. Duenas said that if the Council took the extension out, it would result in a reduced assessment. Mr. Ramis concurred, pointing out that Council could take things out of the LID at the public hearing but they could not put things in to it. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10, A RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVMENT DISTRICT LID TO IMPROVE 69"i AVENUE AND CERTAIN OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 18 Motion passed by a majority voice vote of the Council present. ((Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton and Moore voted "yes." Councilors Scheckla and Hunt abstained.) Mayor Nicoli asked Council for what information they wanted staff to provide to them at the public hearing. He mentioned other funding sources to reduce the cost and consideration of doing it now or in the future. Councilor Moore mentioned the assessment on the residential properties. Mr. DeHaas mentioned a State law allowing deferred assessments under certain conditions of age and income. Councilor Scheckla asked for relocation costs for the businesses in the house. Mr. DeHaas confirmed to the Mayor that the estimate included a range of costs for the right-of-way and tenant relocation. He commented that they needed to know whether or not the Council would include the extension before doing a full-blown appraisal because of the expense and length of time needed to do the appraisal. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on Councilor Moore's suggestion of City funds going into the-LID. Councilor Moore indicated that he had not made a clear proposal because he did not know yet what their options were. He said that he, had thought that perhaps the City would not include Beveland in the LID, yet consider it important enough to have done at the same time and find another way to fund it. Or they might find that it was not financially feasible at this time and hope that it would be done in the future. 9. VISIONING ANNUAL REPORT: This item was not discussed. 10. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLES 1, 2 AND 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE ABATEMENT REQUIREMENTS, TO PROVIDE WARRANT REQUIREMENTS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE WITH AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WARRANTS Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Ordinance No. 99-01. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-01, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 115.220(a), 115.340, 216.050, 116.305 AND 740.21(a). Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council received a thorough presentation from staff regarding this item at a previous work session. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 11. COUNCIL LIAISON APPOINTMENTS Mr. Monahan presented the list of current Council liaison appointments. Councilor Moore spoke to the importance of a replacement for former Councilor Rohlf on the Washington Square Regional Task Force that met at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesdays. He recommended retaining Mr. Rohlf as an advisor to the new Council representative. Councilor CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 19 Scheckla agreed to be the representative. Mr. Monahan reviewed the list (see packet materials for this meeting). Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council decided to let the Planning Commission take the lead in finishing the TSP but they still needed to put together the Transportation Bond Measure Committee. Councilor Moore suggested contacting some people who served on the Bond Committee 10 years ago. He agreed with the Mayor that they should have representatives. from special interest groups, such as bicyclists and pedestrians. Mayor Nicoli suggested having staff develop a list of names. 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. e Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 11:40 p.m. 15. STUDY SESSION Mayor Nicoli advised the Council that he was planning on meeting with the daughter of Patricia Tan. Patricia Tan was killed in the auto-pedestrian accident at SW 121" and SW Walnut. The Mayor was going to.investigate the incident fiuther but he heard that the area around the bus stop was poorly lit with no sidewalks. He discussed ideas for urging Tri-Met to review bus stops for safety. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:48 p.m. 04-16~1w-~rU 60 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor Vy&,-Ciiy Tigard Date: -,3,.2 3-q CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - PAGE 20 Agenda Rom No. L u t - TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting Of L4 1 ~ 1 MEETING MINUTES -MARCH 9, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Mayor Jim Nicoli called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; ; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; City Engineer Gus Duenas; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; former Building Official David Scott. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 7:30 p.m. • Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that staff has not yet received the findings on the Erickson Heights appeal. He said that the attorney submitted a letter extending the 120-day period. He mentioned that Council would hear the matter on April 13. > WHOLESALE WATER CONTRACTS Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, distributed two items received from the City of Portland last Friday describing a process for developing a consensus regarding the wholesale water contracts, including setting up a committee to meet on a weekly basis. He advised Council that the Wholesale Water Managers would discuss this proposal at their meeting tomorrow. He noted the make-up of the proposed committee: Portland, Tualatin Valley Water District general manager, Tualatin city engineer, Tigard public works director, Gresham environmental services director, Rockwood Water District general manager, and one representative from the remaining group of siriall buyers. He commented that, regardless of the decision in April, Tigard needed a long-term water contract with Portland for emergency and other purposes. Mr. Wegner referenced the list summarizing the key issues of concern to the wholesale water managers and Portland that were up for discussion during the proposed process. He mentioned regional governance issues, rates, and financing. He pointed out one issue ir. particular: Portland ratepayers must, in some fashion, receive an appropriate return on investment as the system owners. He asked for Council input on items they wanted to add or did not want in the contract. Mr. Monahan commented that previously Portland has said no to questions asking if there was a profit built into the rates. Councilor Hunt asked who would be Portland's representative. Mr. Wegner said either John Rosenberger or Rosemary Manard. o Mr. Monahan listed the non-agenda items. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 1 b > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:40 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Joyce Patton, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and Brian Moore. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan requested a Council vote on the representative and alternate for JPACT and adoption of a resolution recognizing an employee for his years of service. MVor Nicoli announced that later in the evening he would sign the proclamation of the 20 anniversary of the Washington County Community Development Block Grant program, and declaring the week of March 29 to April 4 as National Community Development Week. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of., January 26,1999 3.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Resolution to Oppose Legislation Creating a New State Board to Regulate Building Code Activities in the Portland/Metropolitan Area and Supporting the Establishment of a Required Intergovernmental Agreement to Enhance Consistency and Services in Building Code Enforcement in the Area - Resolution No. 99- 3.4 Approve an Amendment to an Easement Agreement Allowing the Tigard-Tualatin School District to Develop an Environmental Garden on City-Owned Greenway Located Adjacent to Mary Woodward School - Resolution No. 99-14 3.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Bid for the Construction of the Striping Portion of the 1998-99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Apply-A-Line, Inc. b. Award Bid for the Construction of the Pavement Overlay of the 1998-99 Pavement Major Maintenance Program to Morse Brothers CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 2 4. UPDATE ON LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY Mr. Wegner referenced the document Council received last week discussing Willamette River water quality questions and his March 5, 1999, memo. He explained that the document contained the questions asked of Tigard, Murray Smith & Associates, Montgomery Watson, and Wilsonville. Mr. Wegner noted the question on whether or not the Willamette River was more contaminated than shown in the Montgomery Watson report. He mentioned a USGS report "The Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams" referenced in the question. He reviewed the test results reported in the USGS report, contending that these test results confirmed the Montgomery Watson test program as a valid program for looking for contaminants in the river. Mr. Wegner pointed out that the USGS test results at the Newberg site found that the four chemicals detected in the water (out of 127) were at parts per trillion, levels that did not violate the drinking water standards for untreated water. He stated that they were confident that the ozone and GAC treatment processes proposed for the Willamette water treatment plant have been demonstrated as effective in removing the organic chemicals detected by the USGS. He said that they did not believe that the river pollution was any different than their consultants were telling them. Mr. Wegner mentioned concerns expressed by a few citizens that the granulated activated carbon (GAC) was not a reliable treatment method to remove toxic chemicals from water. He stated that the process used in the Willamette treatment plant would be state-of-the-art, one of the most advanced in the country. He referenced a survey Montgomery Watson did in 1998 of seven rivers in the US with regard to pollution: He stated that they checked with cities on these rivers that used the same state-of-the-art treatment process and found that none reported detecting any bacterial problems with contaminants in the river following the treatment process. He reiterated that they were comfortable with this process for obtaining drinking water from a river. Councilor Patton asked if this information was available to the public. Mr. Wegner stated that his staff would send this and any other information they had to anyone who asked. He mentioned that staff would distribute it to the Water Advisory Task Force on Thursday and that Wilsonville received it at their Council meeting last week. Mr. Monahan said that staff would also make the information available in the City Hall lobby and at the library. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: BUILDING FEES 5.1 Consider Amending Tigard Municipal Code Title 14 to Provide that Fees for the Building Code Administration Program be Established by Resolution 5.2 Consider Increased Fees for the Building Code Administration Program a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report David Scott, Former Tigard Building Official, explained the first item as a request to set building code administration fees by resolution. He said that Tigard already used a resolution method to establish the electrical fees CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 3 Mr. Scott distributed copies of his presentation overheads. Councilor Patton pointed out a typographical error in the resolution regarding the effective date: it should be June 30, 2000, not June 30, 1999, or July 1, 1999 (page 5). Mr. Scott reviewed the underlying criteria used by staff in doing the fee study. These included the standard City policy to recover all building program costs from fees, and to establish a reasonable reserve to allow the continuation of services during time of economic distress (six months). He reviewed the analysis. He explained that the first part of the analysis was looking at the cost recovery for 22 specific services under current and proposed fees while the second part was looking at the overall health of the funds supporting those services. He noted that he reviewed the resulting options at Council's last meeting. Mr. Scott recommended increasing the building and mechanical fees by 102% split equally over a two-year period, increasing the plumbing fee by 52% split equally over a two-year period, and increasing the electrical fees by 7% in the first year. He mentioned miscellaneous fee increases also listed in the packet. Mr. Scott referenced the summary list of the 22 cases staff looked at in its analysis. He pointed out that with the medium-sized projects, they recovered their costs in full and built towards a reserve while with the small projects they did not see full-cost recovery. Mr. Scott referenced the graphs depicting the impacts of the options on building a reserve fund for the different funds. He pointed out that with an annual 4% increase, their costs continued to exceed their revenues and they built no reserve. ' He said that, under the recommended proposal, the department was in the red for a month, and then, over two to three years, built slowly to a six-month reserve. He stated that the electrical fund required only a 7% increase to maintain its existing six-month reserve. Councilor Moore asked where the money would come from to cover the difference between the costs and revenues if Council did not approve a fee increase. Mr. Scott said that it would have to come from other sources, such as the general fund property taxes, revenue.sharing or other general fund sources or the hotel/motel tax. He. mentioned another option of reducing their level of service through program cutbacks. Mr. Scott referenced a chart comparing Tigard' s current and proposed fees with the fees of comparable municipalities in the area: Tualatin, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, Portland, and Beaverton. He noted that their proposed fee increases made them consistent with Lake Oswego's current fees. He observed that.the Tualatin comparison was not a fair comparison because Tualatin was not on a dedicated fund. He said that Sherwood's situation was unclear, as they would look at their fees once they converted to a dedicated fund. He mentioned that Portland was currently studying its fees and interested in what Tigard did, Lake Oswego recently adjusted their fees, and Beaverton would not increase its fees again until it drew down the reserve it built during the building boom over the past few years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 4 C. Public Testimony Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, distributed copies of the letter Mr. Wing submitted that afternoon. o Kevin Wing, Homebuilders Association, stated that, over the past several months, he has discussed with Mr. Scott theories on funding building departments. He explained that the Association's two guiding principles were that only those costs directly associated with the enforcement of the state building code should be recouped through permit fees, and it would only support fee increases if it could be proven that there was no other way to maintain the current level of service or increase the level of service. He said that their rationale behind these guiding principles was the fact that the Metro region was currently the fourth least-affordable major-housing market in the nation. Mr. Wing stated that they thoroughly examined any fee increases because they knew that every cost associated with building a home was passed on to the new home buyer. He suggested that the Council keep in mind that in raising fees, it raised the cost that was passed on to the buyer. Mr. Wing mentioned the discussions he had with Mr. Scott regarding whether or not a policy to recover 100% of the building department costs was fair. He stated that the Association distinguished between the building department budget and the cost of enforcing the state building code. He contended that the building department performed functions not related to building code enforcement, functions that benefited the community but not the developers. He stated that the City should not require the developers to subsidize the services that it provided to its citizens. Mr: Wing said that his industry supported a modest three-month reserve fund to insure that homebuilders received the same level of inspection services following a reduction in building department income that they would have received before. He mentioned that it took approximately three months to build a single-family house. He also recommended that Tigard collect the funds for the reserve fund through a surcharge rather than the funds being tied into the permit costs themselves. He said that, if the City collected a surcharge, then the homebuilders- would not have to pay an additional surcharge to the state for those funds used to set up reserve funds. He held that doing so would allow better accounting and fund management. Mr. Wing asked the Council to read his report before making a decision. He said that the Association supported a small increase in permit fees. He argued that anything more than a small increase right now would require more proof of necessity by the City. He suggested that Tigard adopt the 1991 Uniform Building Code fees, as Beaverton has done, to provide the City with a little more income in the short term while it studied these other issues in depth. Mayor Nicoli asked if Mr. Wing identified in his report any specific functions that the Building Department did outside of code enforcement. Mr. Wing referenced page 2, listing examples of functions that his Association did not believe were related to building code enforcement: consulting with Public Works, performing existing tenant inspections, performing setback inspections, performing driveway inspections, and investigating complaints. He mentioned his conversation with Mr. Scott on the issue. He contended that the City performed these services for the good of the City, not for the benefit of the individual permit applicant, and therefore it was unfair for the applicant to be funding those services. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCI-1 9, 1999 - PAGE 5 Councilor Moore asked what percentage of the overall Building Department services did these unrelated items represent. Mr. Wing said that Mr. Scott indicated to him, when he asked that question, that further study needed to be done to,determine that percentage. Councilor Scheckla cited Mr. Wing's statement on page 3, item 3, that it appeared that the City of Tigard was performing less efficiently than other neighboring cities in some areas. He asked for clarification on what Mr. Wing meant by that statement. Mr. Wing explained that he did a rudimentary analysis of building department staffing and functions based on phone calls and faxes to other local jurisdictions but he was not an expert in evaluating building departments or analyzing staffing levels and could not state his conclusions other than "it appeared to him" that the City of Tigard performed less efficiently in some areas. He said that Tigard had the lowest average number of inspections per full-time employee of the major jurisdictions (those with nine or more employees) that he contacted. Mr. Wing stated that he was trying to show that more study needed to be done to make sure that there was no other way to continue to provide Tigard's high level of service other than through permit fee increases. He held that there might be some efficiencies that could be made without raising permit fees yet maintaining the high level of service. Mayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Wing's chart showed Tigard's average inspection per full time employee at 1,192 per year per employee. He asked if Mr. Wing ruled out Forest Grove and Oregon City (with lower numbers than Tigard) because they had fewer than nine employees. Mr. Wing said yes. He explained the theory that it took a certain number of people to staff a building department. Mr. Monahan clarified that the City did not have 19.66 employees in the building department because that count included development service technicians from the community development department. He commented that this was an `apples-to-oranges' comparison. He suggested . asking for clarification on what was being counted as full time employees in Tigard as compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Wing stated that he took. the 19.66 number directly out of the cost analysis done by Mr. Scott. Mr. Monahan held that the issue of the average number of inspections done per inspector was a different matter, given Tigard's use of the development service technicians. Mr. Wing concurred, stating that the 19.66 figure included support and management positions. Councilor Hunt commented that Tigard received good comments from contractors regarding its level of service. He asked if Mr. Wing's report took into account quality of service. He pointed out that Tigard might have fewer inspections per inspector because its staff did a more thorough job. Mr. Wing concurred. He stated that his report did not attempt to measure the quality of service provided by Tigard. He reiterated that this was a rudimentary analysis intended to provide examples of the types of things that could be looked at. Councilor Scheckla observed that Tigard inspectors had a reputation in the field as user friendly, and providing inspection services in a timely and efficient manner. He stated that he thought that their building department under Mr. Scott has done excellent work, and that a more precise analysis would find that Tigard's building department was on par with every other city in the area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 6 Mr. Wing concurred that the building department under Mr. Scott has done excellent work. He reiterated that the 19.66 figure came from an internal budget document. He conceded that this was an apples-to-oranges comparison. He commented that comparing different building department budgets was a difficult task. He said that the industry appreciated the high level of service provided by Tigard. Mr. Wing commented that it sometimes did make economic sense to pay more for inspections received in a timely manner than to pay the expenses of waiting around for an inspection. He pointed out that the 102% increase after two years gave Tigard fees over $1,400 higher than Washington County's current fees. He said that it would be hard to justify that amount, even with superb service. Councilor Scheckla conceded the point but noted that these other jurisdictions might raise their fees also within a short period of time. He said that Tigard did not want to gouge anyone but neither did they want to be left behind. Councilor Moore asked if Mr. Wing knew what percentage of the costs of building a home was attributable to permit fees. He mentioned Mr. Wing's earlier comment inferring that an increase in permit fees added to the escalation of home prices in today's market. Mr. Wing disagreed that he inferred that. He said that he had said that because the Portland Metro. area was currently doing so poorly in housing affordability, his Association took a very close look at these issues. He said that he did not have a percentage. Councilor Moore stated that he asked the question because he could not see that an increase in permit costs was a big factor in the escalating prices in homes. Mr. Wing contended that increases in fees and SDCs had to be considered within the big picture of the total costs the builder had to pay before he could build a home; those total costs were quite high. Councilor Moore commented that he wanted to make sure that the citizens of Tigard were not subsidizing the builders and developers in the city. Mr. Wing contended that the developers were subsidizing the taxpayers through paying permit fees to cover the costs of building department services benefiting the community, not the developers. d. Council Questions Councilor Moore observed that, without a percentage, it was difficult for him to determine how much builders/developers were subsidizing the citizens of Tigard. Councilor Hunt remarked that he found Mr. Wing's statement that Tigard performed less efficiently than other jurisdictions somewhat offensive. Mayor Nicoli stated that he has already asked staff to provide information on what services the building department provided outside of building code enforcement, and that he has not yet received that information. He stated that he shared Mr. Wing's concern. He argued that if the City asked for a 100% increase in building permit fees, then the City needed to look at the hard issues. Mr. Hendryx stated that he thought that he had had Council's concurrence to evaluate the issue over the next several months and return with a report to Council in six months. He said that this task would be one of the first tasks for the new Building Official. He pointed out that they were increasing the fees over a two-year period. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ME%I=S - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 7 Mayor Nicoli pointed out that even a 50% increase in one year was big jump. He said that he was concerned about the efficiency of the building department operation. He pointed out that Washington County, as a rural enforcement agency, paid more to get its inspectors to sites throughout the County, yet its fees were less than the City's. He reiterated that when they discussed 100% fee increases, he started questioning department operations. He asked why they did not looked at efficiency at the same time as fee increases. He noted that the Council has not previously authorized a request from staff to increase fees and look at the efficiency later. Mr. Monahan suggested asking Mr. Scott to address this issue. He mentioned information on Washington County fees relevant to the discussion. Councilor Moore asked for confirmation that the 102% increase was split into 51% increases each year for two years, the 54% increase in plumbing fees was 27% per year for two years, and the 7% increase in electrical fees. Mayor Nicoli indicated that he thought that staff was asking for an automatic increase the second year. Councilor Moore said that he did not have a problem with that. He referred to the Council request asking staff to come back in a year for a re- evaluation of the automatic fee increase the second year after gathering the information that the Mayor requested. Mr. Wing commented that the Homebuilders Association could challenge this fee increase to the State Building Code Division. He said that the State would ask far tougher questions on the City's justification of the need to increase the fees. He argued that a small reasonable fee increase would be fair while the City studied these issues. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the State Building Code Division might find the City justified in its fee increase. He supported re-evaluation of the fee increase after one year in order to make any needed modifications. He commented that, until they put the fees in place, they could not know if they were right. Mr. Wing disagreed. He said that the issue of how many functions were performed by the building department for community benefit needed to be answered before putting through a 50% increase. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Homebuilders would support a 25% increase. Mr. Wing indicated that they would not on the face of it. Councilor Patton asked what the Homebuilders saw as the "modest" increase that they would support. Mr. Wing referenced his recommendation on the last page of his report that Tigard increase its fees to the 1991 Uniform Building Code schedules, as Beaverton has done. He held that this increase could perhaps be justified on its face before the analysis was completed. Mr. Scott spoke to the issue of comparable fees. He stated that it was not appropriate to look at Washington County's fees in comparison to Tigard's because Washington County made a conscious decision two years ago to keep its fees low in order to draw down the embarrassingly high reserve ($7 million) it built during a period of explosive growth. He cited his conversations with both the former and the interim building official at the County. He pointed out that the County has only recently had sufficient staff to provide an appropriate level of plan review turn around and inspection loads. He reiterated that the County subsidized the permit fees for single- family homes in order to draw down the reserve. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mr. Scott stated that Beaverton was in a similar situation as the County with a high reserve that it needed to draw down. He cited his conversations with the Beaverton building official. He explained that several years ago, Beaverton increased its fees from the 1974 Uniform Building Code to the 1991 Code, a 50% increase that allowed them to build up this high reserve during a period of explosive growth. He concurred with Mr. Wing that Tigard would-have the highest fees in the region (with the exception of Lake Oswego). He mentioned Portland's fee study in progress and Beaverton's intent to reevaluate its fees in the next two years. He noted that the interim building official at Washington County intended to look at this whole issue also, as she was concerned about the level of valuation they charged. Mr. Scott addressed the issue of staffing levels and number of inspectors per full-time employee. He commented that Mr. Wing's numbers were not too far off when considered within the big picture of the total staff required to provide these services. He pointed out that Tigard had the support staff necessary to provide the highest level of service in building plan review turn around (single family applications took less than two weeks) and an over-the-counter service. He explained that adding those employees into the equation gave the impression that Tigard was over-staffed. Mr. Scott agreed that Tigard inspectors carried a lower inspection load than other jurisdictions but argued that doing so was a policy choice. Providing more thorough inspections costs more money. He mentioned the policy question of whether or not they should take the time to scrutinize the sites during the inspections as an appropriate, consideration in evaluating the costs of providing the service. He stated that right now, the direction has been for staff to provide a very high level of service and to promote quality but pointed out that that level of service could be re-evaluated. Mr. Scott addressed the concept of general fund subsidy of the functions provided by the building department for the general good. He said that staff did know which of its functions were not directly related to building code enforcement. What they did not know was what percentage of their total time it took to perform those functions. He noted that he had suggested at the last meeting to take a quick look at how they spent their time but there had been another suggestion to take longer to do that. Mr. Scott said that the 1991 Uniform Building Code table provided for a 45% increase for building and mechanical, not too far from the 51% increase staff recommended for the first year. He mentioned that the Council could make the second year increases not automatic, undertake a study to determine what percentage of time the building department.spent on community functions, and then determine what level of general fund subsidy was appropriate and any increases beyond that. Councilor Patton pointed out that the mechanical fee increases were not comparable to Beaverton's (which were much higher). Mr. Scott explained that Beaverton was attempting to recover the cost of each area from the permit fees for that area rather than following the 1991 Code's method of subsidizing lower mechanical fees with higher building fees. He said that he did not recommend that Tigard go with the huge increase in mechanical fees that Beaverton did several years ago. He reiterated that the 1991 Code provided for a 45% increase in building fees and a similar percentage increase for mechanical fees. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 9 e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing Mayor Nicoli asked the Council either to go into Executive Session at this time to discuss certain issues with the City Manager or to postpone the discussion for an Executive Session at another time. The Council discussed the request and agreed to postpone the discussion to an Executive Session at the end of the meeting if there was time. (See Item No. 13, in these Minutes - Following the Executive Session for a summary of Council direction to City Staff on this agenda item. 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL . CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE (PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS) Mr. Scott stated that, in working on the Community Housing Task Force recommendations, he and Mr. Coleman realized that Title 2 gave authority to the Building Appeals Board with respect to all aspects of Chapter 14, including the recently adopted Housing Code. He explained that the Task Force had recommended using the civil infractions procedures, not the Appeals Board, a recommendation adopted by the Council last week. He confirmed that this was a housekeeping ordinance to clarify the Council's action. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, concurred that this was a clarification implementing the Housing Task Force's recommendation to use the civil infractions process rather than the Building Appeals Board. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-06. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-06, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUILDING APPEALS BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14.16 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") . 7. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION FROM FEBRUARY 23,1999: 69' AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) a. Mayor Nicoli reconvened the public hearing. b. Stan Report Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that every property owner in the LID received written notice of this hearing. He mentioned that he wrote an amendment to the ordinance, listing the City's contribution as $200,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 10 r c. Public Testimony Greg Specht, Specht Development, 15400 SW Milliken, Beaverton, said that he appreciated the City's willingness to share the costs of the Beveland extension. He asked for clarification on the ordinance language. Did Section 5 mean that the City would contribute $200,000 in any event or were there circumstances under which the City would not contribute $200,000. Mr. Duenas said that the City's intent was to contribute $200,000, as staff has established that the costs would be more than $200,000. He reported that they have completed the appraisal and would now go through the acquisition process. Mr. Specht said that they were concerned that the increased cost of adding the Beveland extension to the base LID cost was about 50%, based on certain assumptions regarding the land acquisition costs. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council looked at budget numbers for the acquisition or condemnation costs and all related costs. He said that the City did not publicize its negotiations. Mr. Specht pointed out that the process under consideration tonight limited the City's participation and asked the other property owners in the district to pick up the costs. He said that they were concerned about the extent that the actual costs might exceed the estimates. He stated, for the record, that they were requesting the City to absorb the cost of land acquisition because it was the City that wanted to include the Beveland extension in the LID. d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Duenas recommended approval of the ordinance as submitted. e. Council Questions Mr. Coleman asked for verification that the City has received no written remonstrances to the formation of the district. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, stated that that was correct. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-07 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Ordinance No. 99- 07. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-07, AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999, AS AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 69' AVENUE LOCAL IN4PROVMENT DISTRICT (LID# 49), DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT, DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED, ESTABLISHING A DISTRICT, AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BEING PREPARED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. Motion approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 11 8. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL): CONSIDER FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12 a. Mayor Nicoll opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer, stated that this third project under the sewer neighborhood sewer extension program provided service to nine homeowners near SW Johnson and 106th Avenue. He said that the estimated costs per owner were $7,700 with an $8,000 cap if the owner connected within one year. He mentioned the wetlands permit needed from the Corps and the probable requirement to delay construction until July 1. He noted that it would probably be August before homeowners could connect to the sewer. Councilor Hunt asked what happened if they did not connect within one year. Mr. Berry said that the $8,000 cap was removed and an annual increase of 6% applied for each year after that. Mr. Berry confirmed to Mayor Nicoli that this neighborhood annexed to the city for sewer service. Councilor Scheckla explained his concern that the realignment of Walnut and Tiedeman scheduled for this summer and the construction of this sewer at the same time could effectively block people's access to their homes. Mr. Berry stated that staff would coordinate the two projects to address that concern. c. Public Testimony Jim Flatters, area resident, asked the Council to consider installing a stone drain in the street, citing the gathering of a large amount of water between his property line and his neighbor to the north. He concurred with Councilor Scheckla's concern at constructing both the street realignments and the sewer at the same time. Mayor Nicoli said that staff was generally very good about coordinating all the construction projects in the city during a given season. He mentioned staff looking at the option of installing the whole system except for the last 50 to 100 feet going through the wetland area. Mr. Duenas said that they should have enough time to put the sewer in before construction began on the Walnut/Tiedeman realignment. Councilor Hunt asked about the storm drain. Mr. Bent' said that staff did not discuss it. He pointed out that installing a storm drain in this neighborhood required running a line all the way down to Johnson Street at considerable expense. Mayor Nicoli asked if there was any money in the storm drainage fund. Mr. Duenas explained that it needed to go through the CIP process that was currently underway, and therefore this was the time to look at the project. Mayor Nicoli suggested getting a wetlands permit from the Corps only once to install both the sewer and the storm water line at the same time. Mr. Duenas confirmed to Councilor Hunt that they could move fast enough on the project. a Georgia Lambert, 10530 SW Johnson, testified in support of installing the sewer. She said that the sooner it was done, the better. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 12 i d. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bent' recommended Council approval of the resolution establishing sewer reimbursement district no. 12. e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing L Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-15 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 15. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-15, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 12. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 9. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING (TSP) - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Mr. Hendryx presented the staffs recommended public involvement process for the Transportation System Plan. He recommended that the Council appoint three individuals (representing the bicycle, transit, and business interests respectively) to assist the Planning Commission in carrying out the public involvement process. He mentioned four Planning Commission meetings to provide the opportunity for citizen comment and review of the Plan, two technical advisory committees composed of staff and representatives from interested local, state, and regional agencies, and four public information meetings. He said that at the conclusion of the public process, the City would hold open houses, a joint City Counci]/Planning Commission meeting, and a public hearing to revise the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hendryx asked for Council concurrence for staff to return with specific names for the committee. He mentioned timing issues: they had only a year to work on this and they wanted to coordinate with the transportation road bond. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the two task forces Council had discussed. He explained his concern that the two task forces work simultaneously. Councilor Moore explained that this task force was for the overall transportation plan while the second task force would deal with the specific projects for the road bond. Mr. Duenas stated that staff would return next week with a list of potential road bond projects. He agreed that the two task forces needed to work at the same time. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council liaisons to the Road Bond Task Force also serve as liaisons to the Transportation System Plan Task Force. Councilors Moore and Patton agreed to do so. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the public involvement process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 13 Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted '.yes.") 10. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Mr. Hendryx reported that staff revised the resolution language in response to the Council's concerns expressed at the March 2 meeting. He emphasized that the CEP was not adopted as part of the master plan. The master plan functioned as a framework plan or tentative project list with actual expenditure decisions incorporated into the City's regular budget process. Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote against the plan because he disagreed with certain parts of it, although he thought it was a good plan overall. He explained his concerns regarding the assumption in the plan that Atfalati would become a recreation district and take on items listed in the plan, even though Council has not yet voted on the formation of Atfalati and did not know if Atfalati would take on any of the projects. Mayor Nicoli said that Councilor Hunt's issue was a fair one. He said that he had no problem voting on the resolution tonight or in six months after Atfalati reported back to the Council on what they would do for the City. Councilor Hunt stated that he could not support the assumption that they were going to form a recreation district (another property taxing district) in light of the Measure 50 vote to limit property taxes. He mentioned the impact of another $100 a month in property taxes on those with fixed incomes. He pointed out that Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District (which assessed $275 a year on a $180,000 home) was held up as a model. He said that this appeared to him to be just a means of getting a foot in the door, and that eventually their fee.- would reach similar amounts. Councilor Hunt said that he supported many of the programs but not another taxing entity. He observed that the City would not reduce its tax rate, even if a recreation district took over some City expenses, and therefore this would be an additional burden on the taxpayer. He said that he would probably vote against a district for those reasons. Mayor Nicoli disagreed. He.cited the report's finding that the City would have to raise 70 cents per $1,000 valuation in order to fund these programs. He argued that either the City did it or a recreation district did it, but either way the money had to be raised in order to implement the master plan projects. He stated that the advantage to a recreation district raising the money was its ability to assess properties outside the city limits of Tigard. He pointed out that currently people outside of the Tigard city limits used their parks but contributed nothing to the park system. He contended that, with a recreation district, the people outside of Tigard would pay the same amount as the people inside of Tigard for the same services. Councilor Hunt asked why Tigard could not charge an out-of-district fee as THPRD did. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that THPRD had indoor facilities and recreational programming for which they could control access and charge an out-of-district fee. Tigard had only parks open to the public without controlled access. 5 Councilor Moore stated that he accepted the document for what it was: a master plan of the possible capital improvements for parks that the Council might or might not ever fund. He emphasized that they were not authorizing any money at this time, and that staff would bring the master plan projects to the Council on an annual basis for approval or denial. He spoke to approving the plan with the understanding that the funding discussion remained in the future. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 14 Mayor Nicoli concurred but reiterated that he could wait six months to vote if necessary. Councilor Moore stated that he saw no advantage to waiting six months to vote. Councilor Hunt reiterated his concern that this plan included assumptions of actions that the Council has not yet moved on. Councilor Moore said that, while he understood Councilor Hunt's comments, he thought that a recreation district might be willing to fund some of the projects listed in the master plan. He pointed out that the public would vote on whether or not to create another taxing district just as the Council would vote on whether or not to fund any of these projects. Councilor Patton concurred that the master plan provided a conceptual framework for projects that might or might not ever be funded, depending on Council action at a later date. She mentioned the future discussion of a parks and recreation district as a possible funding mechanism for the projects in addition to other possible funding mechanisms identified by the City. She said that she was comfortable voting on the matter tonight, given the revisions to the resolution language. Councilor Moore commented that, without a master plan, the City had no context within which to evaluate proposals that came to it to determine whether or not it wanted a suggested park improvement. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to approve Resolution No. 99- 16. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PARKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN THAT DETAILS THE VISION, GOALS, AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OF A CITY/URBAN SERVICES AREA PARK AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. Motion passed by a majority voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton and Moore voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no.") 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS a Vote for JPACT Mayor Nicoli spoke in support of reappointing Mayor Rob Drake of Beaverton as the Washington County representative to JPACT. He mentioned the fine job Mayor Drake has done and his willingness to present Tigard concerns to JPACT. He commented that both individuals nominated for the alternate position were fine people but he supported reappointing Mayor Lou Ogden of Tualatin as the alternate. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to support Rob Drake as the JPACT representative. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 15 Councilor Moore spoke in support of reappointing Mayor Ogden as the alternate, as a neighbor would have a better feel for the needs in this part of the county. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to support Lou Ogden at the JPACT alternate. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") • Special Resolution - John Hagman Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 99- 17. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-17, A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JOHN S. HAGMaN FOR THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes.") 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 9:37 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(i). ® Mayor Nicoli reconvened the regular session to give staff direction on the proposed building fee increases. Councilor Moore recommended directing staff to return with a revised resolution and ordinance to reflect a 51% increase in building and mechanical fees, a 27% increase in plumbing fees, a 7% increase in electrical fees, and the miscellaneous fee increases as proposed by staff with a Council review of these fees by June 1, 2000. In addition, staff would proceed with a study to address the concerns raised by Council and the Homebuilders Association to be completed by June 30, 2000, for consideration during the fee review. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 p.m. l,,t Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recor or, City of Tigard Date: I: W DMICATMCC%990309. D0C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 9, 1999 - PAGE 16 h r SPECHT . ,I-t c I rl rlv ,rl•hI II . d'I I I I I ~I.'.'LI ~I".II %I .a' '.1 tile. • L'r.i.~•r~.ii ;I• 1.'~4~f. February 19, 1999 EXHIBIT Mr. Bill Monahan Via: Facsimile 684-7297 City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69" Avenue LID Dear Bill: As you know, I am both concerned and disappointed regarding the proposed addition of the Beveland Extension from 69d' to 68'" Avenue (the "Beveland Extension") to the LID which we initiated last summer. You heard our testimony in front of the City Council on February 9d', and received a copy of our letter to Ms. Vannie Nguyen regarding this matter. In summary, we believe that the 490/a increase in the total LID costs, arising solely from the Beveland Extension, is not only preposterous due to its cost, and the allocation of such costs to the Specht Property, but also provides very limited benefit to the City of Tigard. We continue to support the LID, albeit without the Beveland Extension costs being allocated to our property. However, due to the outrageously excessive cost of the Beveland Extension, we have no choice but to remonstrate against the LID in the event that the LID allocates the Beveland Extension costs to our property. If the City chooses to proceed with the Beveland Extension as part of the LID, we ask that the City either fund the additional Extension costs, or assess those properties which will benefit from the Extension, namely Mr. Tim Roth's properties. Furthermore, our Counsel has brought to our attention that if we wish to remonstrate against the LID, we must do so prior to the "close of the initial public meeting" (Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.040.(d).(I).(A).), which will take place on February 23rd. Therefore, we ask that the City'remove the Beveland Extension from the LID prior to public testimony, or in any case prior to the conclusion of the public testimony, in order to permit us to withdraw our remonstration prior to the close of the initial public meeting. If no such accommodation can be made, the entire LID would be in jeopardy if two-thirds of the property area within the LID district remonstrate. Therefore, we were pleased to hear Mr. Gus Duenas suggest, at the LID Neighborhood Meeting on February 17''', that the City is contemplating paying the costs associated with the acquisition of LID right-of-way, estimated in the Preliminary Engineering Report to be $330,000. We certainly would like to resolve this matter in a mutually agreeable manner prior to the February 23'd City Council meeting, and thus are agreeable to this proposal. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President c: Wayne Lowry, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Gus Duenas & Vannie Nguyen, City of Tigard (fax: 684-7297) Steve Pfcifter, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht r WJJ pnje~u\I Wp ynya~ b . a~WViy"J tri•ngle4~~t dr 7 SPECHT ,lJl ; III i < I I I: ti X4'1 (.1 r1 D1A*1:I i )1'%11:\ ► I ,;:v• '.I~iiti.i:, ..;r: • Rri~cnnn. (~I: 1-t~l~h February 23, 1999 WI)41-2202 lax-)o3/626-890, Mr. Gus Duenas Via: Facsimile 684-7297 City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 69"' LID Dear Gus: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you yesterday. At the conclusion of our meeting, you asked me to notify you regarding what portion of the LID costs the City should bear in order to ensure Specht Development, Inc.'s ("Specht") support of the LID. Please let me provide you with two alternatives that would carry the support of Specht: 1. Extension of Beveland: Should the City choose to accept responsibility for the LID costs associated with the acquisition of the right-of-way (the "ROW'), Specht will support the payment of the street improvement costs by the LID participants, for the extension of Beveland from 691" to 68'h Avenue (the `Beveland Extension"). DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has estimated in the Preliminary Engineering Report that the ROW acquisition costs would total 5330,000. 2. Original LID Scope: Should the City determine that the cost of the ROW acquisition is excessive, Specht will agree to support the LID proposed in the Preliminary Engineering Report, sans the Beveland Extension. Please note that Alternative One represents substantial movement and compromise on the part of Specht. As you know from our testimony on October 13, 1998 and February 9, 1999, Specht has not previously supported the Beveland Extension. However, should the City decide that the Beveland Extension is worth up to $330,000 (cost of ROW acquisition) in City funds, Specht will agree to bear it's pro rata share of the Beveland Extension street improvement costs. Should the City determine that the Beveland Extension's benefits do not match the ROW acquisition costs, we propose that the City remove the Beveland Extension from the LID (Alternative Two). Again, we continue to support the LID, so long as the LID participants are not unduly burdened with the ROW acquisition costs. We believe that the originally proposed LID, which would result in full street improvements, are of great value to the City and the LID participants. Please contact me should you have any further comments or questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President c: Bill Monahan, City of Tigard (far: 684-7297) Steve Pfeiffer, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht Beveland Right-of-Way Costs 69th Avenue LID Related to Total Ancillary Beveland R/W EXHIBIT Costa Acqulaltlon FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Construction WA Jones 56,283 17,000 (Cost of Moving House) RJ Rouse Electric 5,480 - KS Landscaping 100 Total Construction 61,863 17,000 27.5% WIN Acquisition Kathleen Knowlton 14,675 14,675 Clancy Garner & Pierce 405 405 State of Oregon (Pierce taking) 6/23/99 225,000 225,000 State of Oregon (Pierce taking) 7/28/99 52,500 52,500 Tax - Pierce taking 1,058 11058 Business Journal 85 85 DJC 59 59 Community News 46 46 Pacific Coast Credit 6,833 6,833 Teach Reporting 336 3.36 Moscato Ofner & Henningsen 3,245 3,245 Paula Monic Trosen 4,199 4,199 SML Associates 500 500 Clayton Environmental 270 270 Bonnie Owens 13,020 13,020 Sheri Ireland 20,000 20,000 Hanna McEldowny 750 750 JF Young 5,178 5,178 Limelight Studio 588 588 Mari)ane Simon 581 581 Mark Dana 1,643 - Landmark Ford 864 - J.T. Roth (net) 38,089 38,089 Pacific Christian Counsel 20,000 20,000 Ramis Crew & Corrigan 44,226 44,226 Preston Gates & Ellis 1,182 1,182 Total PJW Acquisition 455,331 452,824 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs 25,447 6,993 Total LA&E and Bond Interest 25,447 6,993 27.5% Extras Amendment #I Legals 1,500 1,500 Amendment #2 Legals 1,250 1,250 Amendment 03 Easement for PGE 725 - Amendment #3 House Removal Alts. 780 780 Amendment 93 House Removal Afts. 675 675 Amendment #4 Possession Delay 1,572 1,572 Total Extras 6,502 5,777 Miscellaneous 409 - Total Miscellaneous 409 - Total Ancillary Improvements $649,662 $482,694 87.8% SOLUTION SUPPORTED BY SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Remove Overpayment for R/W $52,500 Subtotal $430,094 Portion in Excess of Original Estimate ($330,000) $100,094 City Participation Increase in City Participation $60,657 60.6% ($200,000 divided by $330,000) of Excess of Original Estimate Previously Committed City Participation $200,000 Total Ancillary Improvements Assessed to LID Property Owners $169,437 Note: The numbers used in arriving at "Total Ancillary Improvements" were reviewed with Marlin DeHaas on 1/11/02 and faxed to Gus Duenas on 1/14/02 for his review. Ed Murphy Associates January 20, 2002 ci uc iu:ada Murphy 5039681674 p,2 EXHIBIT Rev. 1/10/02 11 Ancillary Improvements (Backup to Exhibit D-8) Construction W.A. Jones $56,283.35 (Pay Estimate) R.J. Rouse Electric 2/7100 300.00 (Remove Light Pale) 4/25/00 5,180.00 (Extra Light) KS LLC Landscaping 100.00 Total Construction $61,863.35 R/W Acquisition Kathleen Knowlton 3/11/99 $ 300.00 4/07/99 5,528.75 5/19/99 581.25 6/14/99 2,925.00 6/30/99 1,230.00 6/30/99 2,400.00 8/9/99 506.25 9/16/99 637.50 10/12/99 566.25 $ 14,675.00 Clancy Garner & Peirce 4/15/99 $ 405.00 $ 405.00 State of Oregon (Peirce taking) 6/23/99 $225,000.00 1/26/99 52.500.00 $277,500.00 . Tax-Pierce Property $ 1,057:79 $ 1,057.79 The Business Journal $ 85.00 $ 85.00 Daily Journal of Commerce $ 58.50 $ 58.50 01/22/2002 TUB 10:56 ITX/RX NO 80861 Q002 EXHIBIT "A„ CITY OF TIGA ENGINEER`S REPORT FJNAL L 49 69TH AVENUE LOCAL, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TIGARD, OREGON NOVEMBER, 2001 98.189.118 Please Refer to Item #A in Your January 22, 2002 Racket HeHaas & Associates, Inc. for a Copy of This Report Suite 300 - AGC Center 9450 SW Commerce Circle Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 682-2450 (503) 682-4018 Fax V D HAAS Suite 300 - m Center % 9450 SW W Commerce Circle • . Wilsonville, OR. 97070 c~c C (503) 682-2450 2 X291 ssociates, Inc. (503) 682-4018 Fax Consulting Engineers 8 Surveyors February 11, 2002 A3ena* e" Gus City of f Tigard to m 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 69th Avenue LID Dear Gus: On 2/5/02 we had a detailed conversation with Tim Roth reviewing methodology of assessments and addressing the assessments for each of his parcels. While reviewing Tim's assessments, I noticed that one sanitary service cost was assessed against the wrong parcel. At the beginning of the project, Tim owned Tax Lot 8300. During the project he sold the northerly portion to Szamblean which was assigned Tax Lot No. 8302. Although our map (C-3) is correct in showing a sanitary service was constructed for Tax Lot 8302, Exhibits B, D-3 and D-9 reflected assessing the service cost ($1,505.00) to Tax Lot 8300. Tim Roth's contractual arrangements with Szamblean call for Roth to pay the Szamblean assessment, so the bottom line is the same. However, I believe it is important to correct the exhibits for the record. On a second item, recall Ed Murphy's comment that the ancillary improvement item costs (Exhibit E) didn't quite add up. In our office we originally had the Preston, Gates & Ellis cost in with the Ramis Crew & Corrigan costs. Upon separating them there were a couple typos, although the total costs were correct and the assessments were not affected. However I believe it is important to correct pages 14 and 15 of Exhibit E. Additionally, you have brought to our attention that at the bottom of page 1 of the Final Engineer's Report, the total amount to be assessed has been revised to $1,589,211 to reflect addition of bond interest. It is important that this 2/11/02 revision of Exhibit B (Assessment Roll) be corrected such that the final assessments levied will be correct. Sincerely, 0/04 i Marlin J. De~Haas, P.E., P.L.S. President cc: 98.189.118 Attachments: B (Revised 2/11/02) C-3 D-3 (Revised 2/11/02) MJD/lo D-9 (Revised 2/11/02) Page 1 of Final Engineer's Report (Revised 2/11/02) 1891tr.21I fi I (Revised 2/11/02) L.I.D. NO. 49 69th AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT NOVEMBER. 2001 This final Engineer's Report follows the full completion of the project, including all right-of-way acquisition proceedings. The 69th Avenue Local Improvement District involves improvements to all or a portion of the following streets within the City of Tigard: 69th Avenue - Hampton Street to Dartmouth Street Elmhurst Street - 70th Avenue to '/2 Block East of 69th Avenue Franklin Street - 69th Avenue to 1/2 Block East of 69th Avenue Beveland Street - 70th Avenue to 68th Avenue Dartmouth Street - 70th Avenue to 69th Avenue General improvements include Streets and Water Quality, Storm Drainage and Detention, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Sidewalk, Street Trees and Barkdust, Undergrounding Utilities and Ancillary Improvements which included right-of-way acquisition, street lighting and miscellaneous minor improvements. General financing of the project is accomplished by formation of a Local Improvement District (LID), a process whereby the City finances the construction, sells bonds to cover all project costs, places assessment liens on beneficial property owners, and allows the property owners to pay off the liens plus interest in six-month installments over a specific period (in this instance 20 years). The City of Tigard is a participant in the assessed district, contributing an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68th Avenue and 69th Avenue. In addition to the Beveland right-of-way, dedications of land were acquired at 16 street comers to allow for construction of wheelchair ramps. The total amount to be assessed against benefitted property owners is $1,589,211. 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID - Assessment Roll Rev. 2/11/02 Ident. Tax Assessed Outstanding Bonding Final Bonding No. Not Owner Valuation Assessment Capacity Assessment Deficiency Ella J. Opdal 17 2301 12170 SW 69th Ave $132,660 0 110,550 $30,722 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Cecil & Donna Rae Jones 18 2300 12190 SW 69th Ave 148,200 0 123,500 37,383 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Landmark Ford Inc. 19 5100 PO Box 23970 99,490 0 82,908 25,109 0 Tigard, OR 97283 Fairmark Investments LLC 20 4900 PO Box 901 152,820 0 127,350 51,427 0 Tualatin, OR 97062 Landmark Ford Inc. 21 5200 PO Box 23970 552,000 0 460,000 34,372 0 Tigard, OR 97283 Landmark Ford Inc. 22 4300 PO Box 23970 141,870 0 118,225 24,700 0 Tigard, OR 97283 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 23 8300 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 57,630 0 48,025 15,962 0 Tigard, OR 97223 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth ' 24 8700 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 47,270 0 39,392 22,469 0 Tigard, OR 97224 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth ; 25 8500 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 57,630 0 48,025 2,464 0 Tigard, OR 97225 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 26 8600 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 126,480 0 105,400 15,890 0 Tigard, OR 97226 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 27 9800 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 939,950 0 783,292 26,558 0 Tigard, OR 97227 Mark R. Dana 28 9700 112585 SW 68th Ave 441,070 0 367,558 18,821 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Bonding Capacity = Assessed Valuation 1.2 Page 2 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID - Assessment Moll Rev. 2/11/02 Ident. LTax ot Owner Assessed Outstanding Bonding Final Bonding Valuation Assessment Capacity Assessment Deficiency No. Lo No. George Fox University 29 2400 414 N Meridian $5,256,530 0 4,380,442 $37,615 0 Newberg, OR 97132 Peter & Eloise Szamblean 30 8302 3258 Lakeview Blvd 786,590 0 655,492 55,704 0 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Bonding Capacity = Assessed Valuation 1.2 Page 3 -~J I Dartmouth Street EXhibl? C' SGnltary Se per Impr0 Vera' en tS Assessment Mc~ a~~: ` :7 E/mhurst Street ?rt:raa G, /dent. No. ;M: $z • ::'e El Assessment Area c services Ilk( Fronk/in Street .rz,. Beve/an Street Scale: 1'=200' 0 A 97010 O R 9600 a W08 I 7L 9" I I R 1700 / n 2800 a 1400 Q UD Boundary n 2" I I '©n_vw I HOmotnn VrPrl 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Rev. 2/11/02 Tax Lot Total Ident. No. No Area (ft2) Service (ea) Area Costs Service costs Assessable Costs 1&2 2900 87,522 1 $30,486 $1,505 $31,991 3-6 3800 105,048 1 36,591 1,505 38,09 7 9100 56,868 1 19,809 1,505 21231 8 9600 0 0 0 0 9 9108 0 1 0 1,505 1,505 10 2700 0 0 0 0 11 2800 0 1 0 1,505 1,505 12 2900 0 1 0 1,505 1,505 13 3000 0 0 0 0 14 2700 10,000 0 3,483 0 3,483 15 2600 5,000 0 1,742 0 1,74 16 2400 7,500 0 2,612 0 2,61 17 2301 8,800 1 3,065 1,505 4,57 18 2300 8,800 1 3,065 1,505 4,57 19 5100 9,964 0 3,471 0 3,471 20 4900 15,000 1 5,225 1,505 6,73 21 5200 10,000 0 3,483 0 3,483 22 4300 9,964 0 3,471 0 3,471 23 8300 5,000 0 1,742 0 1,74 24 8700 3,964 0 1,381 0 1,381 25 8500 0 0 0 0 26 8600 0 0 0 0 27 9800 0 0 0 0 28 9700 0 0 0 0 29 2400 0 0 0 0 30 8302 14,902 1 5,191 1,505 6,69 358,332 ft 10 $124,817 $15,050 $139,86 Sanitary Sewer Improvements (General Construction) $124,817 Services $15,050 $139,867 Assessment Formula Sanitary Sewer Improvements $124,817/358,332 ft2 = $0.34833 /ft2 Services = $1,505 ea. i 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-9 Summary of Assessment Costs Rev. 2/11102 D-1 D-2 D-3 D4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 Ident. Tax Lot Street & St.D. & Sanitary Street Trees Undergrounding Property Owner Water Sidewalk Tel hone Ancill Total Assessable No. No. Water Q~.rality Detention Sewer & Barkdust p°wer& .1, ary Costs 1&2 2900 Tigard Corporate Center S75,858 $57,378 $31,991 $14,709 $32,758 $17,439 $21,434 $55,129 $306,696 3-6 3800 Tigard Corporate Center 85,716 71,190 38,096 14,709 33,944 11,475 25,726 66,168 347,023 7 9100 Tigard Corporate Center 51,562 37,282 21,314 9,738 25,247 6,302 13,927 35,820 201,191 8 9600 Stephen W. & Lynn L. Peirce 16,271 14,043 0 0 4,704 1,370 5,246 13,492 55,126 9 9108 R & D Property Development LLC 22,905 3,278 1,505 0 11,069 4,018 4,408 11,337 58,519 10 2700 John B. McCroskey 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,972 17,933 24,905 11 2800 Don R. & Cynthia Sue Morton 11,643 0 1,505 0 2,965 908 4,022 10,346 31,390 12 2900 Triangle Terrace LLC 24,063 0 1,505 4,971 6,918 2,665 9,386 24,140 73,648 13 3000 KF LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,682 6,897 9,579 14 2700 Landmark Ford, Inc. 12,441 6,556 3,483 0 5,930 2,635 2,449 6,299 39,792 15 2600 Landmark Ford, Inc. 4,938 3,278 1,742 0 1,977 469 1,224 3,149 16,777 16 2400 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,407 4,917 2,612 0 2,965 908 1,837 4,724 25,370 17 2301 Ella J. Opdal 8,691 5,769 4,570 0 3,479 515 2,155 5,543 30,722 18 2300 Cecil & Donna Rae Jones 12,009 5,039 4,570 0 7,432 635 2,155 5,543 37,383 19 5100 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,494 3,266 3,471 0 3,953 1,347 2,440 3,138 25,109 20 4900 Fairmark Investments LLC 14,814 9,834 6,730 0 5,930 998 3,673 9,448 51,427 21 5200 Landmark Ford, Inc. 9,876 6,556 3,483 0 3,953 1,756 2,449 6,299 34,372 22 4300 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,494 3,266 3,471 0 3,953 939 2,440 3,138 24,700 23 8300 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 4,938 3,278 1,742 0 1,977 878 0 3,149 15,962 24 8700 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 9,063 2,599 1,381 0 5,534 1,395 0 2,497 22,469 25 8500 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 665 918 0 0 0 0 0 882 2,464 26 t2400 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A Roth 6,602 2,034 0 0 3,953 1,347 0 1,954 15,890 27 IT, Jr. & Theresa A Roth 7,494 3,266 0 0 3,953 529 0 11,315 26,558 28 MarkR- Dana 7,503 3,278 0 0 3,953 938 0 3,149 18,821 29 George Fox University 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,530 27,085 37,615 30 Peter & Eloise Szambelan 18,027 8,958 6,696 0 9,883 2,755 0 9,387 55,704 $427,471 $255,980 $139,867 $44,128 $186,428 $61,813 $125,154 $348,371 $1,589,211 Rev. 2/11/02 14 Ancillary Improvements Cont. 11/18/99 777.10 12/16/99 216.00 12/23/99 117.20 115100 243.00 1/18/00 256.39 1/26/00 166.50 2/16/00 72.70 3/2/00 487.50 3/9/00 227.00 4/6/00 72.00 4/13/00 570.10 4/25/00 63.00 5111100 120.00 6/2/00 993.00 6/13/00 234'.10 355.50 96.10 40.50 513.00 5,782.50 6,992.40 465.93 643.50 243.90 184.00 113.80 125.70 183.00 54.00 177.50 6.52 85.50 237.40 70.00 139.20 169.00 422.25 July-Oct, 30,01 1,535.50 Projected Ramis Atty. 10.000.00 $ 42,344.13 Rev. 2/11/02 15 Ancillary Improvements Cont. Preston Gates & Ellis 1.882.29 $ 1,882.29 City Participation ($200.000.00) ($200.000.00) Total R/W Acquisition $254,148.46 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (Construction) (41.135%)($61,863.55) _ $25,447.57 (Right-of-Way) Amendment #1 Legals for R/W Acquisition 1,500.00 Amendment #2 Legals for R/W Acquisition 1,250.00 Amendment #3 Ease for PGE 725.00 House Removal Alts. 780.00 House Removal Alts. 675.00 Amendment #4 Extra Work PC: Possession Delay 1,572.22 $6,502.22 $347,961.60 * 409.06 TOTAL: Ancillary Improvements $348,370.66 * Plus cost of one 21h" caliper tree removed to add light 189Fina1. N 15 EXHIBIT "ARD CITY OF TIGA. s . FINAL- E-N- GINEER'S REPOT T L 49 69TH AVENUE FOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TIGA.RD, OREGON NOVEMBER, 2001 98.189.118 DeHaas & Asxx:iates, Inc. Suite 300 - AGC Center 9450 SW Commerce Circle Wilsonville, OR 97070 (503) 682-2450 (503) 6824018 Pax L.I.D. No. 49 69th AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FINAI, ENGINEER'S REPORT NOVEMBER, 2001 This final Engineer's Report follows the full completion of the project, including all right-of-way acquisition proceedings. The 69th Avenue Local Improvement District involves improvements to all or a portion of the following streets within the City of Tigard: 69th Avenue - Hampton Street to Dartmouth Street Elmhurst Street - 70th Avenue to 1/2 Block East of 69th Avenue Franklin Street - 69th Avenue to 1/2 Block East of 69th Avenue Beveland Street - 70th Avenue to 68th Avenue Dartmouth Street - 70th Avenue to 69th Avenue General improvements include Streets and Water Quality, Storm Drainage and Detention, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Sidewalk, Street Trees and Barkdust, Undergrounding Utilities and Ancillary Improvements which included right-of-way acquisition, street lighting and miscellaneous minor improvements. General financing of the project is accomplished by formation of a Local Improvement District (LID), a process whereby the City finances the construction, sells bonds to cover all project costs, places assessment liens on beneficial property owners, and allows the property owners to pay off the liens plus interest in six-month installments over a specific period (in this instance 20 years). The City of Tigard is a participant in the assessed district, contributing an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68th Avenue and 69th Avenue. In addition to the Beveland right-of-way, dedications of land were acquired at 16 street comers to allow for construction of wheelchair ramps. The total amount to be assessed against benefitted property owners is S4-,365-,M Formation of LID In June of 1998, Specht Development submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District to improve streets in the 69th Avenue area. Specht's petition for the LID was prompted by the need for street improvements required by the City to support Specht's Site Design Review (SDR) application for development. Four (4) other properties had SDR approvals conditioned upon street improvements and one other was eminent. Owners involved in the SDR process requiring street improvements were: 1. Specht Development, Inc. 2. Landmark Ford 3. Martin 4. McCroskey 5. Porter 6. Roth Inasmuch as it was deemed far more efficient to construct required street and related improvements under a single project, the City set in motion the LID process for making such improvements. City Engineering Staff presented a Preliminary Evaluation Report which was presented to Council at their meeting of October 13, 1998. On October 27, 1998, Council passed Resolution 98-52 directing the Engineering Staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for the proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District. DeHaas & Associates, Inc. was retained by the City to provide engineering services. At their meeting of 12/8/98, City Council expressed their desire to implement an element of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan and include the extension of Beveland Street from 68th Avenue to 69th Avenue in the project. A Preliminary Engineer's Report (Preliminary Plans and cost estimates) was prepared and presented for review at a neighborhood meeting 1/14/99 in the TWD Auditorium. The Preliminary Engineer's Report indicated that the LID boundary should be extended South to Hampton Street, and East to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue. The extension to Hampton Street ensured that all of 69th Avenue between Hampton Street and Dartmouth Street would be improved to current standards, to include undergrounding of overhead utilities. The extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue complied with the requirement of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan to provide a direct connection from 68th Avenue to 72nd Avenue along Beveland Street. Engineering analysis found that the LID as proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report was feasible, and that the improvements could be completed by fall of 1999. The Preliminary Engineer's Report was adjusted based upon continuing input and information provided, along with refinement of the proposed preliminary design. On February 9, 1999 Council, after reviewing the Preliminary Engineer's Report, passed Resolution 99-10 declaring Council's intention to form a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve 69th Avenue and certain other streets within the Tigard Triangle in the City of Tigard. The refined Preliminary Engineer's Report was reviewed at an informal meeting with benefitted property owners at City Hall on 2/17/99. Council held a formal public hearing for formation of the District (LID) on 2/23/99. That hearing was continued to the Council meeting of 3/9/99 at which Ordinance 99-07 was adopted, officially forming the LID. Construction Final construction plans were prepared by DeHaas & Associates, Inc. and the project was advertised for bids. Ten (10) bids were received on 5/18/99 as follow: 1. . W.A. Jones Co. $ 832,341.70 2. Coffman Excavation, Inc. 833,966.50 3. Northwest Earthmovers, Inc. 855,859.30 4. Emerald Tower, Inc. 879,117.99 5. D & D Concrete & Utilities, Inc. 940,980.00 6. Three Dimensional Contracting, Inc. 974,552.50 7. The Saunders Company, Inc. 1,033,818.70 8. Eagle Elsner, Inc. 1,035,266.90 9. Kerr Contractors, Inc. 1,037.153.00 10. P. Miller & Sons Contractors, Inc. 1,152,333.10 The construction contract was awarded to W.A. Jones Co. in the amount of $832,341.70 and W.A. Jones was issued a notice to proceed on 6/17/99. The construction was certified as substantially complete on 4/21/00. Final W.A. Jones construction cost was $931,472.20 which included $70,200.47 in change orders, the largest change order being $17,986.45 for moving the Pierce building off of Beveland Street. Assessment Methods This is a comprehensive LID, inasmuch as a series of different improvement elements were included, each of which benefit a different set of properties. Assessment methods recognize improvements already completed. Accordingly, each set of improvements is assessed by a method which recognizes its appropriate area or element of benefit and fairly distributes the costs. Improvement elements have been separated as follow: 1. Street Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis 50% of costs on an Area Basis This method mitigates unfairness related to properties of variable shape and size and reduces the heavy impact on comer parcels that would occur if a 100% Frontage Basis were used. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements 100% of costs on an Area Basis 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis 4. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis 5. Sidewalk Improvements 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis 6. Street Trees and Barkdust Barkdust: 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis Street Trees: 100% of costs on a Per-Tree Basis (Preliminary Engineer's Report 100% on a Frontage Basis) 7. Undergrounding_Power. Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis 8. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis a. Right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. b. Added catch basin and lateral at NW comer of 69th and Hampton. c. Reconstruction of wheelchair ramp at NW comer of 69th and Hampton. d. Street Lighting. Exhibit A illustrates the overall LID boundary. Exhibit B is the Final Assessment Roll. Maps illustrating the respective elements, areas of benefit and assessment factors are identified as Exhibits C-1 through C-8 and D-1 through D-8 respectively. Exhibit D-9 includes a summary of individual total assessment costs. .s Exhibit E provides a record of all costs and calculations for distribution to each assessment element. Exhibits FI - F16 provides a record of reports, resolutions, ordinances, hearings, meetings and other pertinent project documentation. This Final Engineer's Report has been prepared in a manner which acknowledges all the Council's decisions and actions to date. The Final Assessment roll reflecting the total of those actions is attached as Exhibit "B". ,~EREU PROF ss Sincerely, ~NGIN /p ~ 47 Marlin J. DeHaas, P.E., P.L.S. President 'Z ON b~ Y14,~~ g cc: 98.189.118 R~~N 1 04 Exp. 12/31/01 cc: 98.189.118 Attachments: Exhibit A LID Boundary. Exhibit B Assessment Roll. Exhibits C-1 through C-8 Areas or Elements of Benefit. C-1 Street and Water Quality Improvements C-2 Storm Drain and Detention Improvements C-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements C-4 Water Improvements C-5 Sidewalk Improvements C-6 Street Trees and Barkdust Improvements C-7 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV C-8 Ancillary Improvements Exhibits D-1 through D-8 Individual Assessment and Assessment Factors for Each Construction Element. D-1 Street and Water Quality Improvements D-2 Stone Drain and Detention Improvements D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements D-4 Water Improvements D-5 Sidewalk Improvements D-6 Street Trees and Barkdust Improvements D-7 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV D-8 Ancillary Improvements Exhibit D-9 Summary of Individual Total Assessment Costs. Exhibit E A record of all costs and calculations for distribution to each assessment element. Exhibits F-1 through F-16 A record of reports, resolutions, ordinances, hearings, meetings and other pertinent project documentation. F-1 Staff Preliminary Evaluation Report for Proposed 69th Avenue LID - 10/13/98 F-2 Resolution No 98-52, Resolution directing Staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report, 10/27/98 F-3 Preliminary Engineer's Report F-4 Resolution No 99-10, Resolution Declaring Council's Intent to Form the LID F-5 Notice for Neighborhood Meeting of 1/14/99 F-6 Agenda Outline for Neighborhood Meeting of 1/14/99 F-7 Acknowledgment of Adoption of 20-year Term for Repayment and Criteria for Deferral of Special Assessments, 2/8/99 F-8 Notice of Informal Public Meeting of 2/17/99 an Formal Public Hearing before Council of 2/23/99 F-9 Agenda Outline for Informal Public Meeting of 2/17/99 F-10 Notice of Continuation of Public Hearing to 3/9/99 F-I 1 Ordinance No 99-07, Ordinance forming the District (LID) and Ordering the Improvements to be made, 3/9/99 F-12 Advertisement for Bids for Construction, 5/4/99 F-13 Tabulation of Bids and Recommendation of Award to W.A. Jones Co., 5/19/99 F-14 Notice to Proceed, 6/17/99 F-15 Certificate of Work Completion and Acceptance F-16 Final Payment Estimate 189FINAL.N26 mill- Sol ~a N O n O o 14 70th Avenue O 0 3 0 c 1 a 3 . 0 ..........~f,~...•::::::::~I~.tit?Q!• :::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~,.:.:.:.:.:.:::.:::::~#h::::::::::::::A ti , 0 w 68th Avenue INNER 1 EXAgBIT B 1 1 B 1 1 B 0 pro t FINAL ASSESSMENT ROIL (and Ownership Report) e L.I.D. 49 1 f 69th AVENUE LID 1 1 NOVEMBER, 2001 (Revised 1/10/02) EXHIBIT 1 69th Avenue Reconstruction LED - Assessment Rolf Rev. 1/10/02 Ident. Tax Assessed Outstanding Bonding Final Bonding No. Lot Owner Valuation Assessment Capacity Assessment Deficiency Tigard Corporate Center 1&2 2900 15400 Millikan Way $9,962,880 0 8,302,400 $306,696 0 Beaverton, OR 97006 Tigard Corporate Center 3-6 3800 15400 Millikan Way 6,104,020 0 5,086,683 347,023 0 Beaverton, OR 97007 Tigard Corporate Center 7 9100 15400 Millikan Way 5,793,140 0 4,827,617 201,191 0 Beaverton, OR 97008 Stephen W. & Lynn Peirce 8 9600 12560 SW 70'h 204,910 0 170,758 55,126 0 Tigard, OR 97223 R & D Property Dev LLC 9 9108 12559 SW 69`h 617,300 0 514,417 58,519 0 Tigard, OR 97223 John B. McCroskey 10 2700 1380 Morning Sky Ct 569,640 0 474,700 24,905 0 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Don R. & Cynthia Sue Morton 11 2800 3109 NE Broadway 144,870 0 120,725 31,390 0 Portland, OR 97223 Triangle Terrace LLC 12 2900 12600 SW 72nd Ave #200 1,687,640 0 1,406,367 73,648 0 Tigard, OR 97223 KF LLC 13 3000 7407 SW Hunt Club Dr 1,106,870 0 922,392 9,579 0 Portland, OR 97224 Landmark Ford Inc. 14 2700 PO Box 23970 183,540 0 152,950 39,792 0 Tigard, OR 97281 Landmark Ford Inc. 15 2600 PO Box 23970 117,100 0 97,583 16,777 0 Tigard, OR 97282 Landmark Ford Inc. 16 2400 PO Box 23970 91,160 0 75,967 25,370 0 Tigard, OR 97283 Bonding Capacity = Assessed Valuation 1.2 Page 1 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID - Assessment Roll Rev. 1/10/02 Ident. Tax Assessed Outstanding Bonding Final Bonding No. Lot Owner Valuation Assessment Capacity Assessment Deficiency No. Ella J. Opdal 17 2301 12170 SW 69th Ave $132,660 0 110,550 $30,722 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Cecil & Donna Rae Jones 18 2300 12190 SW 69th Ave 148,200 0 123,500 37,383 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Landmark Ford Inc. 19 5100 PO Box 23970 99,490 0 82,908 25,109 0 Tigard, OR 97283 Fairmark Investments LLC 20 4900 PO Box 901 152,820 0 127,350 51,427 0 Tualatin, OR 97062 Landmark Ford Inc. 21 5200 PO Box 23970 552,000 0 460,000 34,372 0 Tigard, OR 97283 Landmark Ford Inc. 22 4300 PO Box 23970 141,870 0 118,225 24,700 0 Tigard, OR 97283 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 23 8300 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 57,630 0 48,025 17,467 0 Tigard, OR 97223 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 24 8700 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 47,270 0 39,392 22,469 0 Tigard, OR 97224 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 25 8500 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 57,630 0 48,025 2,464 0 Tigard, OR 97225 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 26 8600 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 126,480 0 105,400 15,890 0 Tigard, OR 97226 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 27 9800 12600 SW 72nd Ave Ste 200 939,950 0 783,292 26,558 0 Tigard, OR 97227 Mark R. Dana 28 9700 12585 SW 68th Ave 441,070 0 367,558 18,821 0 Tigard, OR 97223 Bonding Capacity = Assessed Valuation 1.2 Page 2 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID - Assessment Roll Rev. 1/10/02 Ident. Tax Assessed Outstanding Bonding Final Bonding No of Owner Valuation Assessment Capacity Assessment Deficiency George Fox University 29 2400 414 N Meridian $5,256,530 0 4,380,442 $37,615 0 Newberg, OR 97132 Peter & Eloise Szamblean 30 8302 3258 Lakeview Blvd 786,590 0 655,492 54,199 0 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Bonding Capacity = Assessed Valuation 1.2 Page 3 t s ~ EXHIBITS C-1 through C-8 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 e s i 0 Dartmouth Street Exhibit C- 7 Street & Wcr ter Ouclity 71 P7dtJ,; Assessment ; Assessment Mcp < Q O~ Elmhurst Street :•..s,a0 t9 0 /dent. No. 12) Assessment Area Assessment Frontage c rz~:ri3a o ® .Area Assesed ® 75% Frontage Assessed ® 75% 2 Franklin Street Q 00 5 8506 :B Bevelond Street Sco%: 1 "=200' ? :s~ao s . :.:0: 7z 98w, a) n 1700 C 7L 1400 i 1 t LID Boundary 1© rz .won Hampton Street Dartmouth Street Exhibit C-~ Storm Drain ~ rL:'p•. ®e tern tion 1mpre vem erg is ; ► Assessmerg t /WC WA~ - AS : :rz;z; ar . ~o tt:: 1 Elmhurst Street Baia': F9 /dent. No. m 13 Assessment Area ® Area Assessed ® 75X n;: evoio . Frank/in Street N) Q ..71::.9loF7... 00 ~o Beve/and Street Scale: 1 "=200' n•:s i sue: lZ 9108 n 9806 j n 27010 c Q I 1 R 96M 7Z 2400 n 29x7 0 LID Boundary7z Joao Homoton Street ,y ~J I 1 Dartmouth Street Exhibit C i Scn/tcry Se wer 1m r® vern en is:.P......:: . ' Assessment flap 'r.xtia. Elmhurst Street rai? (2) /dent. No. ` M Assessment Area c :i;: services Franklin Street ...s3az... ::::.•.....9fLd: C R Bevelan Street Sca/e: 1 0=200' rz 9 rz 96W A 99109 I rz 9" I rz 2" ~ 11 rz 26W rz 2400 Q rz 29M LID Boundary ~ I I n roan I Hampton Street Y __J I Dartmouth Street Exhibit C-4 Wcter impro vemen is Assessment MG I It 2700 p ~ IL 2"@ Q and 7L 24W n 2900 I c~c rz 2J01 I 7[ 2-W 4-1 @ Elmhurst SfII reet I n 5107 7L JwO I Q to Q I OO /dent. No. n 4900 O- Fire Hydrants 6" Services 7Z 52W Q 4 R 4JW I Frank/in Street e I ©o n 9J02 7L 9100 I I 71 MbO n Beve/anl Street Scale: "=200' O O I n s'a' 7L 9" 7L 9109 I n9" I I 0 7l 2700 0 A 2800 7L 2400 9W LID Boundary 0 n 2 I I Q 71 laao I Hampton Street -J l Dartmouth Street Exhibit C-5 Side wa/k imcaro vim ~r~ is Assessment Mc ; rz 2700 Q ( and rz 210 n 2907 Cam, rz 2301 0 rz 2300 Elmhurst Street n 5100 Q rz 3ea0 ©to© C rz 4" O /dent. No. a ® Assessment Frontage Q Q rz 5M Q I coo rz 4-W c Frank/in Street © Q 8" n 9107 7Z ~ n e70~ rz Beve/and Street Scale. 1 "=200' ® O rz 900 rz9" 7Z 9108 n9" i i ~ j rz 27W { q 11 n 2800 n 2400 ® 7Z zsnn ~ L/D Boundary Q rz JVW Hampton Street Dartmouth Street ,Exhibit C-6 Street Tres & 000000 Scrkdus t Improvements j 7Z 17a Assessment Mcp aondQ e 2400 A 2" rz 2J01 rz 2" Elmhurst Street e eO e % 51140 O f® O e O O O ~ e 4" OO /dent. No. O m n MW ® y 0 2.5" Cal. Street Trees ® 3.5" Cal. Street Trees ' q o n sza0 ® Assessment Frontage ° t e e b °rz 4JW o Franklin Street e © q O © O rz 8M2 4 R 91 e I O e s ® ® rz 8760 an Seveland Street Scale: l 0=200' 0 ® 97A7 R 9600 7z 9109 R 9 1Z I ~ n z7W e q Q 0 a 2660 0 e rz 14A0 ~f b { R 2"s LID Boundary o e /Q n ia~00 Hampton Street Dartmouth Street Exhibit C- 7 !fin dergro un ding Power, Telephone & 711 1 Impro vemen is Q : . Assessment flap Elmhurst Street ...':4... OO /dent. No. C1 Assessment Area Q w Frank/in Street n eJo2 n exw n Beve/and Street Sca/e: 1 "=200' rz span 9 Q v LID Boundary <.:r x:.'.::.:.rz Hampton Street --J I Dartmouth Street _EXh%b%t C-8 Ancillary Improvements .''::p.....:: Assessment Mc C ....rz Z`ltit:; ?afi1b't Elmhurst Street tL:.5J00 r:::::: ; tii'•'•: •..~r..•::.i•.::::!:::~::::~:i: (2 /dent. No. c M Assessment Area e c 4 aC of O C Fronk/in Street Q q Beve/and Street Scale: 1 "=200' m Q :Jt:OF1Q: LID Boundary . !-/mm~lnn SYrAA1 t e s e a ~ EXHIBITS D-1 through I)-8 0 r e i MEN 0 f~ 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-1 Street and Water Rev. 1/10/02 Qua~ty Improvements Ident. Tax Lot 2 Frontage Total No. No. Frontage (ft) Area (ft) Costs Area Costs Assessable Costs l&2 2900 669 87,522 $34,315 $41,544 $75,85 3-6 3800 699 105,048 35,853 49,863 85,71 7 9100 479 56,868 24,569 26,993 51,56 8 9600 119 21,420 6,104 10,167 16,271 9 9108 280 17,998 14,362 8,543 22,905 10 2700 0 0 0 0 11 2800 75 16,425 3,847 7,796 11,643 12 2900 155 33,945 7,950 16,112 24,063 13 3000 0 0 0 0 14 2700 150 10,000 7,694 4,747 12,441 15 2600 50 5,000 2,565 2,373 4,93 16 2400 75 7,500 3,847 3,560 7,40 17 2301 88 8,800 4,514 4,177 8,691 18 2300 * 163 * 7,686 8,361 3,648 12,00 19 5100 100 4,982 5,129 2,365 7,49 20 4900 150 15,000 7,694 7,120 14,81 21 5200 100 10,000 5,129 4,747 9,87 22 4300 100 4,982 5,129 2,365 7,49 23 8300 50 5,000 2,565 2,373 4,93 24 8700 140 3,964 7,181 1,882 9,063 25 8500 0 1,400 0 665 665 26 8600 100 3,102 5,129 1,472 6,60 27 9800 100 4,982 5,129 2,365 7,49 28 9700 100 5,000 5,129 2,373 7,503 29 2400 0 0 0 0 30 8302 * 225 * 13,664 11,541 6,486 18,02 4,167 ft 450,288 ft $213,736 $213,736 $427,471 Street & Water Quality Iir, rovements (General Construction) $427,471 * 75% Assessment - See Exhibit C-1 Assessment formula 50% of costs o,i Frontage Basis $213,736/4,167 ft = $51.29 /ft 50% of c,)sts on Area Basis $213,736/450,288 ft2 = $0.475 /ft2 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-2 Storm Drain and Detention Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 Special Total No. I Tax Lot Area (W) Services Area Costs Assessable No. No. Specht Costs 1&2 2900 87,522 $0 $57,378 $57,37 3-6 3800 105,048 2,322 68,868 71,19 7 9100 56,868 0 37,282 37,28 8 9600 21,420 0 14,043 14,043 9 9108 5,000 0 3,278 3,2781 10 2700 0 0 0 11 2800 0 0 0 12 2900 0 0 0 13 3000 0 0 0 14 2700 10,000 0 6,556 6,55 15 2600 5,000 0 3,278 3,27 16 2400 7,500 0 4,917 4,91 17 2301 8,800 0 5,769 5,76 18 2300 * 7,686 0 5,039 5,03 19 5100 4,982 0 3,266 3,26 20 4900 15,000 0 9,834 9,83 21 5200 10,000 0 6,556 6,55 22 4300 4,982 0 3,266 3,26 23 8300 5,000 0 3,278 3,278 24 8700 3,964 0 2,599 2,59 25 8500 1,400 0 918 91 26 8600 3,102 0 2,034 2,03 27 9800 4,982 0 3,266 3,26 1 28 9700 5,000 0 3,278 3,27 29 2400 0 0 0 30 8302 * 13,664 0 8,958 8,95 386,920 ft $2,322 $253,658 $255,98 Storm Drain & Detention Improvements (General Construction) $253,658 Special Services for Specht $2,322 $255,980 Assessment Formula (General Construction) Costs on Area Basis $253,658/386,920 ft2 = $0.65558 /ft2 * 75% Assessment - See Exhibit C-2 N 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 Total Ident. No. Tax o t Area (fl) Service (ea) Area Costs costs e Assessable Costs M2 2900 87,522 1 $30,486 $1,505 $31,991 3-6 3800 105,048 1 36,591 1,505 38,09 7 9100 56,868 1 19,809 1,505 21,31 8 9600 0 0 0 0 9 9108 0 1 0 1,505 1,505 10 2700 0 0 0 0 11 2800 0 1 0 1,505 1,505 12 2900 0 1 0 1,505 11,505 13 3000 0 0 0 0 14 2700 10,000 0 3,483 0 3,483 15 2600 5,000 0 1,742 0 1,74 16 2400 7,500 0 2,612 0 2,61 17 2301 8,800 1 3,065 1,505 4,57 18 2300 8,800 1 3,065 1,505 4,57 19 5100 9,964 0 3,471 0 3,471 20 4900 15,000 1 5,225 1,505 6,73 21 5200 10,000 0 3,483 0 3,483 22 4300 9,964 0 3,471 0 3,471 23 8300 5,000 1 1,742 12505 3,24 24 8700 3,964 0 1,381 0 1,381 .25 8500 0 0 0 0 26 8600 0 0 0 0 27 9800 0 0 0 0 28 9700 0 0 0 0 29 2400 0 0 0 0 30 8302 14,902 0 5,191 0 5,191 358,332 ft 10 $1242817 $15,050 $139,86 Sanitary Sewer Improvements (General Construction) $1242817 Services $15,050 $139,867 Assessment Formula Sanitary Sewer Improvements $124,817/35,332 fit 2 = $0.34833 /ft2 Services = $1,505 ea. 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Water Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 6" Total Ident. Tax Lot Service Fire Hydrant 6" Service Fire Hydrant Assessable No. No. (ea) (ea) Costs Costs Costs 1&2 2900 1 2 $4,766 $9,943 $14,70 3-6 3800 1 2 4,766 9,943 14,7 7 9100 1 1 4,766 4,971 9,73 8 9600 0 0 0 0 9 9108 0 0 0 0 10 2700 0 0 0 0 11 2800 0 0 0 0 12 2900 0 1 0 4,971 4,971 13 3000 0 0 0 0 14 2700 0 0 0 0 15 2600 0 0 0 0 16 2400 0 0 0 0 17 2301 0 0 0 0 18 2300 0 0 0 0 19 5100 0 0 0 0 20 4900 0 0 0 0 21 5200 0 0 0 0 22 4300 0 0 0 0 23 8300 0 0 0 0 24 8700 0 0 0 0 25 8500 0 0 0 0 [29 8600 0 0 0 0 9800 0 0 0 0 8 9700 0 0 0 0 2400 0 0 0 0 0 8302 0 C 0 0 3.00 6.00 $14,299 $29,828 $44,128 Assessment Formula 6" Services 3@ $4,766 = $14,299 Hydrants 6@ $4,971 = $29,828 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-5 Sidewalk Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 Ydent. Tax Lot Extra Try Extra Tree Grates Total Sidewalk Frontage (ft) Sidewalk Frontage Assessable No. No. ft2 Grates Costs Costs Costs Costs 1&2 2900 566 4 669 $2,556 $3,755 $26,446 $32,758 3-6 3800 566 4 699 2,556 3,755 27,632 33,944 7 9100 566 4 479 2,556 3,755 8,935 25,247 8 9600 0 0 119 0 0 4,704 4,704 9 9108 0 0 280 0 0 11,069 11,069 10 2700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2800 0 0 75 0 0 2,965 2,965 12 2900 0 0 175 0 0 6,918 6,918 13 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2700 0 0 150 0 0 5,930 5,930 15 2600 0 0 50 0 0 1,977 1,977 16 2400 0 0 75 0 0 2,965 2,965 17 2301 0 0 88 0 0 3,479 3,479 18 2300 0 0 188 0 0 7,432 7,432 19 5100 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 20 4900 0 0 150 0 0 5,930 5,930 21 5200 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 22 4300 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 23 8300 0 0 50 0 0 1,977 1,977 24 8700 0 0 140 0 0 5,534 5,534 25 8500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 8600 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 27 9800 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 28 9700 0 0 100 0 0 3,953 3,953 29 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 8302 0 0 250 0 0 9,883 9,883 1,698 ft12 4,237 ft $7,669 $11,265 $167,494 $186,428 Sidewalk Improvements $186,428 Assessment Formula - Costs on Frontage Basis $167,494/4,237 ft $39.5313 /ft (General Construction) Costs directly to Specht Extra Sidewalk 1,698 ft2 @ $4.52/ft2 = $7,675 /ft2 Tree Grates 12 @ $938.76 ea. _ $11,265 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-6 Street 'f'rees and Barkdust Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 2.5" Cal. Barkdust Total Ident. Tax Lot Frontage 3.5 Cal. Trees Frontage Tree Costs Assessable No. No. (ft) Trees (Ea) (Ea) Costs Costs 1&2 2900 888 6 24 $1,067 $16,373 $17,43 3-6 3800 699 0 26 840 10,636 11,475 7 9100 479 0 14 575 5,727 6,30 8 9600 119 0 3 143 1,227 1,37 9 9108 280 0 9 336 3,682 4,01 10 2700 0 0 0 0 0 11 2800 75 0 2 90 818 908 12 2900 175 0 6 210 2,454 2,665 13 3000 0 0 0 0 0 14 2700 150 0 6 180 2,454 2,635 15 2600 50 0 1 60 409 46 16 2400 75 0 2 90 818 908 17 2301 88 0 1 106 409 515 18 2300 188 0 1 226 409 635 19 5100 100 0 3 120 1,227 1,34 20 4900 150 0 2 180 818 998 21 5200 100 0 4 120 1,636 1,75 22 4300 100 0 2 120 818 938 23 8300 50 0 2 60 818 878 24 8700 140 0 3 168 1,227 1,395 25 8500 0 0 0 0 0 26 8600 100 0 3 120 1,227 1,34 27 9800 100 0 1 120 409 52 28 9700 100 0 2 120 818 938 29 2400 0 0 01 - 0 0 30 8302 250 0 6 300, 2,454, 2,755 4,456 ft 6 123 $5,353 $56,870 $62,22 Street Trees & Barkdust $62,222 Less one 2.5" Cal. tree $ (409) $ 61,813 Assessment Formula Costs on Frontage Basis (Barkdust) $5,353/4,456 ft = $1.2012 /ft Street Trees 3.5"Cal. 6 @ $1092.52 = $6,555 2.5" Cal. 123 @ $409.06 = $50,314 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-7 Undergrounding Power, 'T'elephone and TV Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 Total No. Ident. Tax Lot Area ft2) Area Costs Assessable No. No. Costs 1&2 2900 87,522 $21,434 $21,43 3-6 3800 105,048 25,726 25,72 7 9100 56,868 13,927 13,92 8 9600 21,420 5,246 5,24 9 9108 17,998 4,408 4,40 10 2700 28,470 6,972 6,97 11 2800 16,425 4,022 4,02 12 2900 38,325 9,386 9,38 13 3000 10,950 2,682 2,68 14 2700 10,000 2,449 2144 15 2600 5,000 1,224 1,22 16 2400 7,500 1,837 1,83 17 2301 8,800 2,155 2,155 18 2300 8,800 2,155 2,155 19 5100 9,964 2,440 2,44 20 4900 15,000 3,673 3,673 21 5200 10,000 2,449 2,44 22 4300 9,964 2,440 2,44 23 8300 0 0 24 8700 0 0 25 8500 0 0 26 8600 0 0 27 9800 0 0 28 9700 0 0 29 2400 43,000 10,530 10,53 30 8302 0 0 i 511 054 ft2 $125,154 $125,15 Undergrounding Power, Telephone, & TV $125,154 Assessment Formula 100% of costs on Area Basis $125,154/511,054 ft2 = $0.24489 /ft2 5 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-8 AndUary Improvements Rev. 1/10/02 Ident. Tax Lot Total No. No. Area (ft) Assessable Costs 1&2 2900 87,522 $55,129 3-6 3800 105,048 66,168 7 9100 56,868 35,820 8 9600 21,420 13,492 9 9108 17,998 11,337 10 2700 28,470 17,933 11 2800 16,425 10,346 12 2900 38,325 24,140 13 3000 10,950 6,897 14 2700 10,000 6,299 15 2600 5,000 3,149 16 2400 7,500 4,724 17 2301 8,800 5,543 18 2300 8,800 5,543 19 5100 4,982 3,138 20 4900 15,000 9,448 21 5200 10,000 6,299 22 4300 4,982 3,138 23 8300 5,000 3,149 24 8700 3,964 2,497 25 8500 1,400 882 26 8600 3,102 1,954 27 9800 17,964 11,315 28 9700 5,000 3,149 29 2400 43,000 27,085 30 8302 14,902 9,387 552 422 ft2 $347,962 Ancillary Improvements $347,962 Plus one 2.5" Cal. tree $409 $348,371 Assessment Formula 100% of costs on Area Basis $347,9621552,422 = $0.63 /ft2 Right-of-Way Acquisition Catch Basin @ Hampton House removal on Beveland Wheelchair Ramp @ Hampton 1 I,r D°9 1 EXgIB 1 0 1 e 0 --goo gloom maw- MEM so mamas MIMMMEMM 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-9 Summary of Assessment Costs Rev. 1/10102 D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 Ident. Tax Lot Property Owner Street & St.D. & Sanitary Water Sidewalk Street Trees Undergrounding Telephone Ancillary Total Assessable No. No. Water Quality Detention Sewer & Barkdust power, & TV Costs 1&2 2900 Tigard Corporate Center $75,858 $57,378 $31,991 $14,709 $32,758 $17,439 $21,434 $55,129 $306,696 3-6 3800 Tigard Corporate Center 85,716 71,190 38,096 14,709 33,944 11,475 25,726 66,168 347,023 7 9100 Tigard Corporate Center 51,562 37,282 21,314 9,738 25,247 6,302 13,927 35,820 201,191 8 9600 Stephen W. & Lynn L. Peirce 16,271 14,043 0 0 4,704 1,370 5,246 13,492 55,126 9 9108 R & D Property Development LLC 22,905 3,278 1,505 0 11,069 4,018 4,408 11,337 58,519 10 2700 John B. McCroskey 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,972 17,933 24,905 11 2800 Don R. & Cynthia Sue Morton 11,643 0 1,505 0 2,965 908 4,022 10,346 31,390 12 2900 Triangle Terrace LLC 24,063 0 1,505 4,971 6,918 2,665 9,386 24,140 73,648 13 3000 KF LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,682 6,897 9,579 14 2700 Landmark Ford, Inc. 12,441 6,556 3,483 0 5,930 2,635 2,449 6,299 39,792 15 2600 Landmark Ford, Inc. 4,938 3,278 1,742 0 1,977 469 1,224 3,149 16,777 16 2400 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,407 4,917 2,612 0 2,965 908 1,837 4,724 25,370 17 2301 Ella J. Opdal 8,691 5,769 4,570 0 3,479 515 2,155 5,543 30,722 18 2300 Cecil & Donna Rae Jones 12,009 5,039 4,570 0 7,432 635 2,155 5,543 37,383 19 5100 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,494 3,266 3,471 0 3,953 1,347 2,440 3,138 25,109 20 4900 Faimtark Investments LLC _ 14,814 9,834 6,730 0 5,930 998 3,673 9,448 51,427 21 5200 Landmark Ford, Inc. 9,876 6,556 3,483 0 3,953 1,756 2,449 6,299 34,372 22 4300 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,494 3,266 3,471 0 3,953 938 2,440 3,138 24,700 23 8300 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 41938 3,278 3,247 0 1,977 878 0 3,149 17,467 24 8700 IT, Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 9,063 2,599 1,381 0 5,534 1,395 0 2,497 22,469 25 8500 IT, Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 665 918 0 0 0 0 0 882 2,464 26 8600 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 6,602 2,034 0 0 3,953 1,347 0 1,954 15,890 27 9800 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 7,494 3,266 0 0 3,953 529 0 11,315 26,558 28 9700 Mark R. Dana 7,503 3,278 0 0 3,953 938 0 3,149 18,821 29 2400 George Fox University 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,530 27,085 37,615, 30 8302 Peter & Eloise Szambelan 18,027 8,958 5,191 0 9,883 2,755 0 9,387 54,199 $427,471 $255,980 $139,867 $44,128 $186,428 $61,813 $125,154 $348,371 $1,589,211 OWOOMMOOM ~ E ~ EXSIBIT t t t 1 1 1 ~.0 1 1 Jones: D-1 Street & Water Quality Improvements $ 301,190.58 D-2 Storm Drain & Detention Improvements 181,096.50 D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements 99,101.45 D-4 Water Improvements 31,266.30 D-5 Sidewalk Improvements 132,091.92 D-6 Street Trees & Barkdust 44,087.20 D-7 Underground Power, Telephone & TV 86,354.90 D-8 Ancillary Improvements 56.283.35 TOTAL $931,472.20 Payments to Jones: Pay Estimate #1 $ 49,862.15 #2 120,617.31 #3 126,935.69 #4 186,499.24 #5 111,029.39 #6 79,949.28 #7 93,555.10 #8 99,087.99 #9 38,513.79 #10 25.422.26 TOTAL $ 931,472.20 1 l EXHIBIT E Rev. 1/10/02 2 LA&E and Bond Interest and Costs Spread on Construction Cost Basis to Schedules 1-8 1) Engineering $179,691.06 ( 6.502.22) (R/W Engineering) - Schedule 8 $173,188.84 (Spread on Construction Cost Basis) - Schedules 1-8 2) Advertising 11/8/98 $ 58.50 11/18/98 49.77 3/11/99 49.77 5/19/99 121.88 5/19/99 92.43 $372.35 3) Projected Advertising Costs 4 (9 $50.00 = $200.00 4) Plan Reproduction - Lazerquick 5/19/00 $136.94 6/2/00 90.17 $227.11 5) Title Reports $2,970.00 WIN 6) Bond Interest and Costs Bond Counsel $ 4,020.78 BAN Sale Costs (fees) 1,867.50 BAN Sale Cost 1,715.00 BAN Issuance Costs 12,572.50 Financial Advisor 1,050.00 Interest Paid 186,152.17 Projected Interest 12.576.67 $209,954.62 Total LA&E and Bond Interest = $386,912.92 386.912.92 940,604.15 = 0.41135 Construction Costs Rev. 1/10/02 3 Schedule 1 302,420.58 2 181,096.50 3 99,101.45 4 31,266.30 5 132,091.92 6 44,087.20 7 88,676.85 8 61.863.35 Total $940,604.15 Total LAME and Bond Interest Costs spread to Schedule 1-8 on a percentage of construction cost basis = $386,912.92 LA&E R/W costs to Schedule 8 = $6,502.22 1 =Mimi Rev. 1/10/02 4 Street & Water Quality Improvements (Backup for Exhibit D-1) Construction W.A. Jones $301,190.58 (Pay Estimate) Baracade 130.00 Arborvitae 12/29/99 - Mark Dana 1.100.00 $302,420.58 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($302,420.58) _ $125,050.91 TOTAL: Street & Water Quality Improvements $427,471.49 Rev. 1/10/02 5 Storm Drain & Detention Improvements (Backup for Exhibit D-2) Construction W.A. Jones Contract $179,119.25 (Pay Estimate) Special Services for Specht (Change Order #1, Item #5) 1.977.25 (Pay Estimate) Total Construction $181,096.50 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($181,096.50) _ $74,883.46 TOTAL: Storm Drain & Detention Improvements $212,663.74 Construction LA&E Total General Construction $179,119.25 $ 74,065.87 $253,185.12 Specht Construction 1,977.25 817.59 2,794.84 $181,096.50 $ 74,883.46 $255,979.96 Rev. 1/10/02 6 Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Backup for Exhibit D-3) Construction W.A. Jones Contract $99,101.45 (Pay Estimate) LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($99,101.45) _ $40,765.38 TOTAL: Sanitary Sewer Improvements $139,866.83 S.S. Services = 10 @ $1,505.00 = $ 15,050.00 Other = 124.816.83 $139,866.83 n 1 Rev. 1/10/02 7 Water Improvements (Backup for Exhibit D-4) Construction W. A. Jones (Hydrants) $21,134.55 * 6" Services to Specht (Change Order #2, Item #1) 10,131.75 Total Construction $31,266.30 (Pay Estimate) LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($31,266.30) _ $12,861.39 TOTAL: Water Improvements $44,127.69 *S cht 3 ea. 6" Water Services Change Order #2, Item #1 $ 3,027.45 Trench Exc. & B.F. 30 36' = 108' @ 23.00 2,516.40 12x6 Tapping Sleeves 3@ 875.01 2,571.00 6" Tapping Valve 30 348.30 1,044.90 6" D.I. Pipe 30 36' = 108' @ 9.00 972.00 $10,131.75 Construction LA&E Total General Construction $21,134.55 $ 8,693.69 $29,828.24 Specht Construction 10,131.75 4,167.70 14.299.45 $31,266.30 $12,861.39 $44,127.69 Rev. 1/10/02 8 Sidewalk Improvements (Backup to Exhibit D-5) Construction W.A. Jones Contract Total $132,091.92 (Pay Estimate) Total Construction $132,091.92 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($132,091.92) _ $ 54,336.01 TOTAL: Sidewalk Improvements $186,427.93 Construction LA&E Total General Construction $118,676.52 $48,817.59 $167,494.11 Specht Construction Tree Grates (Change Order No. 5) 7,981.80 3,283.31 11,265.11 Extra Sidewalk 5,433.60 2,235.11 7,668.71 $132,091.92 $54,336.01 $186,427.93 Tree Grates 12ea. @ 665.15 = $7,981.80 Extra Sidewalk 1,698ft2 @ 3.20 = $5,433.60 Rev. 1/10/02 9 Street Trees & Barkdust Improvements (Backup for Exhibit D-6) Construction W.A. Jones $44,087.20 (Pay Estimate) LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135 %)($44,087.20) _ $18,135.27 Barkdust $ 3,792.60 (1.41135) _ $ 5,352.69 31/2" Cal. Trees 4,644.60 (1.41135) = 6,555.15 21/2" Cal. Trees 35,650.00 (1.41135) = 50.314.63 $62,222.47 ( 409.06) TOTAL: Street Trees & Barkdust Improvements $61,813.41 * Less cost of one 21/2" caliper tree removed to add light 0 Rev. 1 / 10/02 10 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV Impovements (Backup for Exhibit D-7) Construction W.A. Jones $86,354.90 (Pay Estimate) P.G.E. Reimbursement ( 1,726.04) P.G.E. Energizing 3,357.00 Repair Landscape George Fox 691.00 Total Construction $88,676.86 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (41.135%)($88,676.86) _ $36,477.23 TOTAL: Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV Improvements $125,154.09 Rev. 1/10/02 11 Ancillary Improvements (Backup to Exhibit D-8) Construction W.A. Jones $56,283.35 (Pay Estimate) R.J. Rouse Electric 2/7/00 300.00 (Remove Light Pole) 4/25/00 5,180.00 (Extra Light) KS LLC Landscaping 100.00 Total Construction $61,863.35 R/W Acquisition Kathleen Knowlton 3/11/99 $ 300.00 4/07/99 5,528.75 5/19/99 581.25 6/14/99 2,925.00 6/30/99 1,230.00 6/30/99 2,400.00 8/9/99 506.25 9/16/99 637.50 10/12/99 566.25 $ 14,675.00 Clancy Garner & Peirce 4/15/99 $ 405.00 $ 405.00 State of Oregon (Peirce taking) 6/23/99 $225,000.00 7/26/99 52.500.00 $277,500.00 Tax-Pierce Property $ 1.057.79 $ 1,057.79 The Business Journal $ 85.00 $ 85.00 Daily Journal of Commerce $ 58.50 $ 58.50 Rev. 1/10/02 12 Ancillary Improvements Cont. Community News $ 45.60 $ 45.60 Pacific Coast Credit 1/26/00 $ 6.833.34 $ 6,833.34 Teach Reporting 5111100 $ 335.75 $ 335.75 Moscato Ofner & Henningsen Inc. 5/3/00 $ 600.00 2.645.00 $ 3,245.00 Paula monic Trosen 7/26/99 $ 2,099.50 9/3/99 2.099.50 $ 4,199.00 SML Associates 9/1/99 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Clayton Environmental Consultants 9/29/99 $ 210.00 10/12/99 60.00 $ 270.00 Bonnie Owens 9/29/99 $ 6,510.00 6/30/99 6.510.00 $ 13,020.00 Sherl J. Ireland 6/9/99 $ 20.000.00 $ 20,000.00 Hanna McEldowny & Assoc. 1/15/99 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 Ancillary Improvements Cont. Rev. 1110/02 13 JF Young & Assoc. $ 5,177.82 $ 5,177.82 Limelight Video $ 361.00 52.00 175.00 $ 588.00 Marijane Simon (Court Reporter) $ 580.60 $ 580.60 Mark Dana 8/3/99 $ 432.00 6/30/99 1,211.00 $ 1,643.00 Landmark Ford 8/3/99 $ 864.00 $ 864.00 J.T. Roth 8/3/99 $ 864.00 (3964)(11) _ $43,604.00 9/17/99 77,828.64 Less Real Est. Fee (3,000.00) Sale 40' strip ( 40.604.001 $40,604.00 $ 38,088.64 Pacific Christians Counsel 8/9/99 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Ramis Crew & Corrigan { 6/2/99 $ 394.50 6/30/99 274.50 6/30/99 646.65 6/30/99 1,884.00 6/30/99 1,621.29 9/4/99 930.50 10/5/99 1,436.60 10/6/99 432.00 10/13/99 612.30 10/14/99 859.50 Rev. 1/10/02 14 Ancillary Improvements Cont. 11/18/99 777.10 12/16/99 216.00 12/23/99 117.20 115100 243.00 1/18/00 256.39 1/26/00 166.50 2/16/00 72.70 3/2/00 487.50 3/9/00 227.00 4/6/00 72.00 4/13/00 570.10 4/25/00 63.00 5111100 120.00 6/2/00 993.00 6/13/00 234.10 355.50 96.10 40.50 513.00 5,782.50 6,992.40 465.93 643.50 243.90 184.00 113.80 125.70 183.00 54.00 177.50 6.52 85.50 237.40 70.00 139.20 169.00 422.25 July-Oct, 30,01 1,535.50 Projected Ramis Atty. 10,000.00 $ 44,226.42 Rev. 1/10/02 15 Ancillary Improvements Cont. Preston Gates & Ellis 1,182.29 $ 1,182.29 City Participation ($200,000.00) ($200.000.00) Total R/W Acquisition $254,148.46 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs (Construction) (41.135%)($61,863.55) = $25,447.57 (Right-of-Way) Amendment #1 Legals for R/W Acquisition 1,500.00 Amendment #2 Legals for R/W Acquisition 1,250.00 Amendment #3 Ease for PGE 725.00 House Removal Alts. 780.00 House Removal Alts. 675.00 Amendment #4 Extra Work PC: Possession Delay 1,572.22 $6,502.22 $31.961.79 $347,961.60 * 409.06 TOTAL: Ancillary Improvements $348,370.66 * Plus cost of one 2'h" caliper tree removed to add light 189Final. N 15 Rev. 1/10/02 16 Schedule 1 $ 427,471.49 Schedule 2 255,979.96 Schedule 3 139,866.83 Schedule 4 44,127.69 Schedule 5 186,427.93 Schedule 6 61, 813.41 Schedule 7 125,154.09 Schedule 8 348.370.66 $1,589,211.90 E%]EIIBIT F"1 t t t 1 1 1 It I ism `i~ r r r CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET gill r 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Agustin P. Duenas, P.E., (503) 6394171 r AGENDA: October 13, 1998 TOPIC: Preliminary Evaluation Report for Proposed 69th Avenue LID BACKGROUND: Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LLD) to construct improvements to SW 69's Avenue, SW Dartmouth Street, SW Elmhurst Street, SW Franklin Street, and SW Beveland Street. The proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities. The proposed LID appears feasible. There are advantages and disadvantages in forming the LID, but the overall benefits to the City, to the petitioner, and to the Tigard Triangle are clear. The preliminary evaluation report evaluates the proposed LID and makes recommendations on actions City Council should take to ensure successful formation of the LID and timely construction of the improvements. COST: No funds have been allocated for the formation of the LID. Funding will have to be provided to proceed to the next step in the LID formation process. r r . EXHIBIT F-1 r AGENDA ITEM 11 FOR AGENDA OF October 13, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITFM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITL Preliminary Evaluation Report for Proposed 69th Avenue LID PREPARED BY: A.P. uenas DEPT HEAD Okpf ° - ---CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall City Council proceed with the process to form a Local Improvement District for the improvements to 69'h Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council direct staff to continue with the next step in the LID formation process in accordance with the recommendations of the preliminary evaluation report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to SW 69`h Avenue and a portion of SW Dartmouth Street. The submittal, including all amendments, includes improvements to the following: • SW 69'h Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of- way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of T~vc Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA). cl w' local rcc* . , t:~l.) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68'h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue 5b' 94V • SW Franklin Street between SW 68`h Avenue and SW 69'h Avenue 0, t -7' rW • SW Beveland Street between SW 69'h Avenue and SW 70t1' Avenue S`` • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69`h Avenue and SW 701h Avenue (south side only) i ° I Qe.Sr ~a 1 i-fa, 2,cv (rn ~ ~ ) The proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, includin~er w ter, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overl`i'eali ut litres. The proposed LID appears feasible. There are advantages and disadvantages in forming the LID, but the overall benefits to the City, to the petitioner, and to the Tigard Triangle are clear. The preliminary evaluation report evaluates the proposed LID and makes recommendations on actions City Council sh( uld take to ensure successful formation of the LID and timely construction of the improvements. a OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Jl T~~t~ sI i , Y (o J' /w ~ If )cny the proposal submitted and do not proceed any further in the LID formation process. ~ 3~ pq,,~,1,~:~•: 10 VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION comet iTEE STRATEGY The improvements proposed by this LID meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Safety, strategy Encourage through traffic on major collectors and arterials. It upgrades and existing gravel street to provide safer, more efficient traffic movements. FISCAL NOTES There are no funds currently allocated for the preliminary engineering report. Funding will have to be provided for the LID formation process to continue. i ~c.r,~w.dpa~u.aoc a h Preliminary Evaluation Report Petition for formation of a ]Local Improvement District for 69t" Avenue in the City of Tigard BACKGROUND The Petition Specjtt Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to SW 69`t' Avenue and a portion of SW Dartmouth Street. Attached as Exhibit A are a copy each of the original LID petition and subsequent amendments to the original submittal. The submittal, including all amendments includes improvements to the following: • SW 69th Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA). SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue 6 SW Franklin Street between SW 68'h Avenue and SW 69th Avenue i SW Beveland Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue (south side only) The proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities. The area proposed for improvements comprises approximately twelve (12) acres including the street rights-of-way, is legally described in the petition's Exhibit A, described in narrative form on the petition's Exhibit B, and depicted on the map marked Exhibit C. The LID Process The LID process is outlined in Title 13, Chapter 13.04 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The initiation of this LID was through petition by a property owner with major land holdings within the proposed LED boundary. The remainder of the process is as follows, assuming positive recommendations to Council throughout the process: • Preparation of the Preliminary Evaluation Report (This Report) C Submittal to City Council for discussion and direction Preliminary Evaluation Report PcImon for LID Formation for 69'h Avcnuc September 30, 1998 Pagc I of 8 • Council adopts a resolution directing staff to prepare a preliminary engineer's report • Formation of the District by Ordinance • Preparation of final plans and specifications • Construction of the improvements • Determination and levying of assessments Current Situation SW 69's Avenue, between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Beveland Street, is an existing two-lane gravel street approximately 22 feet in width with drainage provided by a series of open ditches throughout portions of the street. The street has been maintained by the City for a number of years and is usually dusty during the summer months and inundated with potholes during the rainy months. This street was under consideration for paving during the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program. However, the buildup of gravel on that street over the years required engineering design to ensure that the vertical alignment was coordinated throughout the entire length of the street from Dartmouth Street south to Hampton Street. There are existing rights-of=way on 69 h Avenue. Dartmouth Street, Elmhurst Street and Franklin Street. There is no existing right-of-way for-Beveland Street between 69`h Avenue and 70" Avenue. However, the Specht application proposes dedication of the right-of-way needed to provide that connection. Vacation of Franklin Street between 69d' Avenue and 70'h Avenue was approved with conditions in the City Council meeting of September 9, 1998. This street vacation was conditioned upon the development application proceeding forward with the dedication of right-of-way for the J Beveland Street connection. Specht Development, Inc. has under option a large portion of the properties within the proposed LID boundary. Another major property owner, Landmark Ford, has signed non- remonstrance agreements. Together, the properties under these two owners total approximately 70% of the properties under the proposed LID. There are two lots with residential structures within the proposed LID boundary. Attached as Exhibit B is a drawing showing the proposed LID boundary, the Specht properties, and the properties owned by Landmark Ford (Corliss properties). arv There are existing improvements to 691" Avenue south of Beveland Street. There are pending improvements already required through the development review process, namely the Porter, Morton and McCrosky projects south of Beveland. There are currently two homes within the proposed LID boundary, and a residential structure being used as a plumbing/mechanical shop. Status of Land Use Applications • Specht Development Inc., has had a pre-application conference, has submitted an application requesting SDR for grading, and has submitted an application requesting SDR for the buildings. Preliminary Evaluation Rcpori Pcimon for LID Formation for 69`" Avcnuc Scpicmbcr 30, 1998 Pagc 2 of 8 • landmark Ford has signed non-remonstrance agreements for 69"' Avenue. There are SDR conditions remaining that are yet to be fulfilled. • Morton was approved for an SDR in 1995 with requirement for half-street improvements. A temporary use was approved for a trailer in 1997 because of the burnout of the existing office. Morton has not fulfilled the obligation for the street improvements. • McCroskey SDR required half-street improvements and SDR is under construction. • Porter SDR has been approved with half-street improvement requirements but permits have not been issued. • Tim and Teresa Roth and Michael Zoucha own Tax Lot 2900, which is 0.88 acres. Indications are this property could develop in the near future. TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN REQUIREMENTS The Tigard Triangle Street Plan identifies 69`h Avenue as a Local Service Street requiring a 60-foot right-of way.and paved surface 36 feet wide curb-to-curb. The Plan identifies Beveland Street as a local collector requiring a-60-foot right-of-way and 36 foot wide paved surface curb-to-curb. Elmhurst'Street and Franklin Street are identified as Local Service Streets with 60-foot right-of-way requirements and 36-foot wide paved surface. Dartmouth Street is identified in the Plan as a Major Arterial requiring a 70-foot right-of- way with paved surface of 44 feet curb-to-curb. The following is a summary of the existing rights-of-way on each street together with the requirements, which each street must meet upon development: SW Beveland Street (local collector): Existing ROW: 60 feet, west of 72nd and 50 feet between 72nd and 70th Required ROW: 60 feet Pavement requirement: 36 feet curb-to-curb Sidewalks: 6-foot Planter Strips: 6-foot Street Trees: Spreading type to 25-foot height, spaced 22 feet o.c., between sidewalk and curb. Franklin Street (local street): Exi_Jing ROW: 60 feet, between 70th and 66th R< quired ROW: 60 feet f ivement requirement: 36 feet curb-to-curb Pre. minary Evaluation Report Pr, lion for LID Formation for 69" Avcnuc cptcmhcr 30. 1998 Pagc 3 of 8 Sidewalks: 6-foot Planter Strips: 6-foot Street Trees: Spreading type to 25-foot height, spaced 22 feet o.c., between sidewalk and curb. Elmhurst Street (local street): Existing ROW: 60 feet, between 70th and 66th Required ROW: 60 feet Pavement requirement: 36 feet curb-to-curb Sidewalks: 6-foot Planter Strips: 6-foot Street Trees: Spreading type to 25-foot height, spaced 22 feet o.c., between sidewalk and curb. Dartmouth Street (maior arterial): Existing ROW: Varies from 52.95 feet from centerline at NW corner of LID boundary to 65.81 feet from centerline at NB corner of LID boundary. Required ROW: 72 feet, east of SW 72nd Avenue Pavement requirement: 44 feet curb-to-curb Sidewalks: 6-foot Planter Strips: 7-foot Street Trees: Broad-Spreading type, spaced 27 feet o.c., between sidewalk and curb. 69th Avenue (local street): Existing ROW: 60 feet Required ROW: 60 feet Pavement requirement: 36 feet curb-to-curb Sidewalks: 6-foot Planter Strips: 6-foot Street Trees: Spreading type to 25-foot height, spaced 22 feet o.c., between sidewalk and curb. The Tigard Triangle Street Plan requires that Be.veland Street connect with 68th Avenue (see Exhibit Q. No right-of-way currently exists for this connection between 696 t Avenue and 68`s Avenue. POSSIBLE ASSESSMENT METHODS There are several ways that benefit to the property owners can be determined and assessment proportional to the benefits received can be established. These methods include street frontage, total area owned, or a mixture of both. The actual method or Preliminary Evaluation Rcport Pc1ition for LID formation for 69'" Avcnuc September 30. 1998 Page 4 of 8 methods of assessment should be developed and recommended to City Council as hart ol' the preliminary engineering report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED One alternative considered is to include improvements to 696 Avenue south of Beveland all the way to Hampton Street. This alternative does not appear necessary since nearly all of the properties south of Beveland are in various stages of development, and the construction of the improvements should occur in the near future. Another alternative considered is to extend Beveland Street from 69d, Avenue to 68t" Avenue. This connection is required by the Tigard Triangle Street Plan. It would require acquisition of land and a building, which currently houses a commercial business. This acquisition could mean condemnation if the owners involved are not willing to sell. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED LID Advantages The two major landowners in the proposed LID boundary together represent 70% of the benefited property between Dartmouth Street and Beveland Street. Although Landmark Ford is not included in the petition, the City has non-remonstrance agreements on record for this property owner. The TMC prohibits Council from proceeding with the formation of the district if the property owners owning two-thirds of the land area in the proposed LID remonstrate against the formation of the LLD. In this case, successful formation of the LID is assured since landowners in only 30% of the land area can remonstrate against the LID formation. Exhibit B shows the properties involved and the proposed district boundaries. The proposed LID boundary is compact and the improvements proposed appear relatively easy to construct. Terrain will not pose an obstacle in this area, and construction of the improvements should be rapid assuming favorable weather during the construction period. This proposed LID offers the City an opportunity to form an LID that can be rapidly and successfully completed and closed, in marked contrast to the Dartmouth Street LID. The formation of this LID will allow the City to take advantage of non-remonstrance agreements already on record in this area. Although non-remonstrance agreements have been executed for various properties throughout the City, opportunities to take advantage f of these agreements are few and far between. I The proposed improvements to 69u' Avenue would eliminate a maintenance problem for the City. There have been numerous dust-related complaints during the summer. In addition, the street is inundated with potholes during the rainy winter months. Prchrninary Evaluation Rcport Pcuuon for LID Formation for 69' Avenue September 30. 1998 Page 5 of 8 Disadvantages The Tigard Triangle Street Plan requires the connection of Beveland Street to 68rh Avenue. If this connection is not included in this LID, the chances are that connection will not happen in the foreseeable future. To eventually make this connection, the City may have to assume most of, if not all, the costs for the land acquisition and construction of improvements. However, one risk in including this connection to the LID is the inevitable delays that occur in the acquisition of property and residential structure, especially one where an ongoing business currently exists. If the landowner is not willing to sell, condemnation proceedings may have to be initiated. In addition, if the extension of SW Beveland from 69`h to 68 Avenue significantly increases the costs to the LID participants, or significantly increases the time frame in which the LID could be implemented, then the initiators of the LID may abandon their support for the LID and perhaps even their development proposal. At the very least, the inclusion of the extension of Beveland Street to 68`h Avenue should be explored during the preparation of the preliminary engineering report and a recommendation to Council submitted for consideration prior to the final decision on formation of the LID. However, Council should be aware that Specht Development is concern ed that the inclusion of this connection could create 'a major obstacle to timely completion of the improvements and may withdraw their support for the LID if major delays or significantly higher costs result from its inclusion. TIME FRAMES Specht Development, the initiator of this LID proposal, plans to complete its development by late summer of 1999. Construction of the proposed improvements under the LID can realistically be completed by September 1999, assuming no major delays are encountered in the process. This time frame assumes timely initiation and completion of the engineering work, and construction commencement by May 1999. The schedule necessary to enable construction during late spring and summer 1999 would require completion of the construction drawings by early March 1999. Advertisement for bids would be during March and early April 1999 with bid opening set for mid-April 1999. Initiation of construction in mid-May 1999 would ensure at least four full months of construction during the summer months. FEESCHEDULE TMC 13.09 states that Council may establish a fee schedule for LIDS initiated by property owners. A very preliminary estimate of total construction cost for the proposed improvements is $760,000. This does not include extension of Beveland Street to 68'h Avenue. The engineering costs should be approximately 15% of this, or $114,000. The preliminary engineering report needs to include preparation of construction plans and specifications sufficient to provide a detailed cost estimate. Assuming the preliminary engineering report needs to provide plans and specifications up to at least 60% stage, the Preliminary Evaluation Report Petition for [.If) Formation for 69" Avenue Scfrrcrnbcr 30. 1998 Pagc 6 of 8 cost for the preliminary engineering should be established at 80% of $ 1 14,(X)0 or approximately $91.000. Since there are distinct benefits to the City resulting from the proposed improvements, and the formation and construction of the proposed improvements appear to be extremely feasible, the City could opt to assume most, if not all, of the financial risk. The choices are to charge the applicant the $91,000, to have the City foot all of the expenses, or to charge the applicant a portion of the costs with the City assuming the balance necessary to produce the preliminary engineering report. WHAT'S NEXT After considering the preliminary evaluation report, Council may direct staff to terminate work on the proposed district or to adopt a resolution directing staff to prepare a preliminary engineer's report. The resolution to be prepared by staff for Council adoption will include any specific instructions resulting from Council's discussion and decisions after reviewing this preliminary evaluation report. The resolution will be prepared and submitted to Council at the next available business meeting. The preliminary engineering report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. This report should be completed together with 60% plans, specifications and estimates no later than January 1999. If Council directs staff to proceed with preparation of the preliminary engineer's report, Council may adopt a fee schedule to cover all or a portion of the work required. This fee must be paid by the applicant submitting the petition prior to commencement of any work in the preparation of the preliminary engineer's report. The costs to prepare the preliminary engineering report can be rolled into the overall LID costs. If, based on the preliminary engineer's report, Council decides to proceed with the formation of the LID, Council needs to declare its intention to form the district and proceed with the district formation and construction of improvements in accordance with Chapter 13.04 of the TMC. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed LID certainly appears feasible. However, certain key improvements outside the proposed LID boundary should be strongly considered for incorporation into the LID. The recommendations are as follows: • That Council direct staff to proceed with the preparation and submittal of the resolution authorizing preparation of the preliminary engineering report, together with any special instructions that should be included in the resolution Prehmmary Evaluation Report Pculion for LAD Formation for 69" Avcnuc Scpiembcr 30. 1998 Pagc 7 of 8 That Council establish a fee schedule which must be paid by the applicant prior to commencement of the report preparation That Council direct staff (as one of the special instructions for the resolution) to ensure that the preliminary engineering report seriously explores the possibility of extending the LID boundary to encompass the extension of Beveland Street to 68`h Avenue, and that the report submits a recommendation on the feasibility of incorporating that extension into the LID • That Council require that the report be submitted no later than February 1999 together with estimates and 60% plans and specifications Attachments: Exhibit A - Petition by Specht Development Exhibit B - Proposed Local Improvement District for Improvements to 69`h Avenue Exhibit C - Tigard Triangle Street Plan P.r fh'h Un VU k "'A Pk,( Evalua liar ' I P~✓rYu'r~t~i ~rGf~vt"~so t.rr h'ari Wd.~p t- ~,sdt., h'~-► ( AAy, E6( -1v CXYL-,,- ped 6,,uf .f) ort- PW . e-ho Preliminary Evaluation Rcport Petition for LID Formation (or 69d' Avenue Septcmbcr 10. 1998 Page 8of8 Moil SPECHT II~N 1 7 1991 TAR}-~,, 1,1 \11~111,.n1 n n. u••n l 11; I;,1, 1(. TY pF IG V C~ June 12, 1998 Mr. Gus Duenas Via: Facsimile 684-7297 City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Petition for L® Dear Gus: Specht Development, Inc. wishes to include SW Elmhurst Street (full street and associated utilities between SW 69th and 70th Avenue) in the LID petition previously provided to you. Mr. Brian Rager indicated that this letter would serve as adequate notice for the inclusion of Elmhurst in the LID. Please notify me if this is incorrect. We look forward to working with you in the successful completion of the LID formation. On another subject, would you please be so kind as to inform me as to what point in the LID formation process you will allow permits to be issued for our development. To date we have not received a definitive answer. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, SPECHTpDEVELOPMENT, INC. A, Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President Encl. c: Ed Murphy (fax: 968-1674) Mike Robinson, Stoel Rives (fax: 220-2480) Greg Specht Exhibit: ,A. ( 1l odd hosccu11"I Piolmu Todd\T•tud 1i„nguK'UT 1000 ( VL7 SPECHT IIRI,I t RI g "N (I If 1XVt (c,rMt N i cc \II1hUn \ka) • tk•avcrnun. OR V7uo(, O` )O V1,a6 2201 fax 503/626-Fi9o l G` June 5, 1998 Mr. Gus Duenas Via: U.S. Mail City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Petition for L11D Dear Gus: Enclosed please find our application for the formation of an LID. Please note that the application has been amended from the copy that was previously faxed to you, as we are now asking for inefusion of Dartmouth improvements in the LID. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Todd R. Sheaffer Vice President A Encl. c: Ed Murphy (fax: 968-1674) a ( -1add►,olau%1"1F-j-% Iodd%1,j.rd4-Aj1eK0T?D0C [ vu ~j 1'111'I'ITION FOR AND CONSE?N"I' TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL City of Tigard County of Washington State of Oregon In the matter of the improvement of lands described as: Street and utility improvements to SW 69th Avenue, SW Elmhurst Street, SW Franklin Street, SW Beveland Street, and SW Dartmouth Street, all within the "Tigard Triangle" between S W Dartmouth Street and SW Beveland Street, and between SW 681h Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. We, the undersigned petitioners, hereby request that the City of Tigard conduct a preliminary engineering study for the area described below to determine feasibility and estimated costs of making improvements to these streets through the creation of an assessment district. The local improvement district would be for the express purpose of: Improving the following streets to full city street standards, including sewer. water and storm drairtaee facilities. curbs,-Cutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undert±rounding of any overhead electrical, cable or telephone wiring; • SW 69th Street between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property I i ne of Tax Lots 9100. 8800 and 8600. 2S 101 AA ) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue; • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue; • SW Beveland Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue; • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue. The area proposed hereby to be improved by creation of an assessment district comprises approximately twelve (12) acres counting the right-of-ways, and is legally described to the attached sheet marked Exhibit 'A', described in narrative form on Exhibit 'B', and illustrated on the map marked Exhibit 'C', all of which by reference herein are made a part hereof. We hereby declare that we the undersigned petitioners: (I) are in fact the owner(s) or the contract purchaser(s) of the indicated property(s); (2) represent at least fifty percent of the property benefited by the proposed local improvement district; (3) understand that the cost of these improvements would be borne by the benefited properties if a local improvement district were formed; (4) state that by signing this petition we are only acknowledging an interest in having a preliminary engineering report completed, and are not committed to supporting any local improvement district that be proposed as a result of the City's analysis and report; Idmurphy'zpeehuIidpciwoo' I OlhdrrG;ISM I WHEREFORE, petitioners request that said preliminary engineering study be accomplished, and a report be delivered to the City Council regarding the feasibility of creating an assessment district, and that the City Council of the City of Tigard, Oregon, expedite the study as much as possible. SIGNATURE ADDRESS WCTM 2SI01AA (~RF..rci ft'vharsr) Tax Lots 4w,( L64 jrwd~ &yApy./ foe- 1S' iD 800 2900 3804 Le!~ Al. ail 3901 4400 .4200 r•~®~.• 9100 2 EXHIBIT `A' PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT All on Map 2S101AA, the following Tax Lots: 2900 Specht 2700 Corhw* 2800 Specht 2600 Corlisst 3800 Specht 2400 Corliss 3901 Speeht 2301 Snyder/filler 4000 Specht 2300 Joaes 4200 Specht 5100 Corlisss 9100 Specht 4900 Roth 5200 (lots 15 -18) Corliss* 4300 lots 19 - 22) Codisss 8300 Rath 8700 Roth 8800 Roth 8 filed non-remonstrance agreement on this property i i i i edmurphy/vpecht/1idpeooo 08bdr/6/0368 3 JU+-04 -1998 15: 30 93% P 01 Exhibit `B' NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The project would improve the public streets and public utilities to full city standard. Specifically, the project would improve: • SW 69th Avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW Beveland Street, or essentially to the north property line of tax lots 2900, 2800 and 2700, 2S I01AA, and the south property line of tax lots 9100 and 8800, 2S 101AA. Improvements indude full street section, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, landscaping, signing, striping, street lighting, water lines, sewer lines and other utility lines. • SW Beveland Street from its current eastern terminus at SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue. Improvements inclwJe full street section, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, landscaping, signing, striping, street lighting, water lines, sewer limes and other utility lines. Flight-of-way for SW Beveland Street will be dedicated to the public by the owner. • SW Franklin Street from SW 69th Avenue to SW 68th Avenues Improvements to this section of street include only the sidewalk, curb and pavement along the south right-of-way line from SW 69th Avenue east a distance of approximately 100 feet, adjacent to tax lot 8300. • SW Elmhurst Street from its current eastern terminus at SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue. Improvements include full street section, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, landscaping, signing, striping, street lighting, water lines, sewer lines and other utility lines. • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 69th and SW 68th Avenues. Improvements to this section of street include only the sidewalk, curb and pavement along the north right- of-way line of SW Elmhurst Street from SW 69th Avenue east a distance of approximately 100 feet, adjacent to tax lot 2300. • SW Dartmouth Street from SW 70th Avenue to SW 69th Avenue. Improvements to this section of street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes and landscaping within the planter strip along the south side of SW Dartmouth Street, adjacent to Tax Lots 2900, 2800 and 2700. edmurphvrspeeht/Iidpetruonr I Othdrl& 15/98 4 0 4r(A~~, u u o v O Gf=J O I r~ J Io O P d~ a jy-jVj~ a ~fS4'l2 H~ ~p o Ip p O 0 00' s Q.C.iQ000M Ol• Y ° I ° _ODOT TOOlbox a r a~ p 00o 00. 0 0 47 O o , 00 a 0 °0 eoo~o I ' 0 0 4*poea~00 i.rre 00 d eO ®.1 g 0 00 0 f ° a O o o~ O 0 Legend Major Arterial l L , ~ `r Minor Arterial Local Collector Local Street Frontage Road o 0 0 ODOT Tool Box a e. Potential Rotary Locations O Tigard Triangle Street Plan City of Tigard Spencer & Kupper • Lloyd D Lrndlcy. ASLA • Cogan Owens Cogan :-arch 1997 Exhibit C NNW ol~ Proposed LID Boundary `M.M Corliss Properties Specht properties o; o~ Proposed Local Improvement District for improvements to SW 69th Avenue 1 EXIiI~IT Fw. r Ala' e m i e e CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 98- 5-2 t A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED 69M AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: a SW 69`h Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and*the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA) 6 SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68`h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68`h Avenue and SW 69°i Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69'h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69`h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue (South side only); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a preliminary evaluation report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting of October 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, the preliminary evaluation report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID, heard the pros and cons about the proposed LID, and provided an opportunity for input by the initiators of the LID and other property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council has indicated that the LID boundary and improvements included in the LID proposal are satisfactory as submitted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the extension of Beveland Street from 69'h Avenue to 68`h Avenue should not be included in the LID because of potential complications that the extension might cause;and WHEREAS, the City Council has stated that the City of Tigard would provide the funding for the preparation of the preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. has agreed to reimburse the City for expenses incurred should Specht Development withdraw their support for the LID sometime during the formation process; and RESOLUTION NO. 98 EXHIBIT F-? Page I WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to immediately proceed with the preparation of the preliminary engineering report and to prepare this resolution for adoption at the next Council business meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, ICE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of the preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID in accordance with the proposed LID boundary and improvements as described in the LID petition and preliminary evaluation report. SECTION 2: The preliminary engineering report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. This report should be completed together with 60% plans, specifications and estimates for presentation to City Council in February 1999. SECTION 3: The City of Tigard shall provide the funding for preparation of the preliminary engineering report. All expenses towards preparation of the report and the preparation of the construction plans and specifications shall be rolled into the overall LID costs. SECTION 4: Should Specht Development, Inc. withdraw its support for the LID prior to the formation of the LID, all expenses incurred shall be billed to Specht Development, Inc. SECTION 5: Should the LID formation proceed as anticipated, the schedule to be established should seek to initiate construction of the improvements in late spring 1999 with completion of construction by September or October 1999. 77- PASSED: This o 7 day of Z 1 8. - City of Tigard ATTEST: H D6tmty City Recorder - y of Tigard [ Ac itywide\res\691 idres. res RESOLUTION NO. 98-_ Page 2 ro Deed 69 t~, Avenue Focal Improvement District P p u. unxi.»urt+sr LID Corliss Proposed Boundary Properties d FIWIIaI Specht Properties Proposed Street improvements MOOM an so mom I= 1 Eggygl'T F 1 t e ,e s' o ~r PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT 69TH AVENUE CONSTRUCTION LID Scope of work Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the South right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the South right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the South property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 9600, 2S101AA) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) By Resolution No. 98 - 52 , passed October 27, 1998, the Tigard City Council resolved as follows: That SECTION 1: The Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of the preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID in accordance with the proposed LID boundary and improvements as described in the LID petition and preliminary evaluation report. SECTION 2: The preliminary engineering report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. This report should be completed together with 60% plans, specifications and estimates for presentation to City Council in February 1999. SECTION 3: The City of Tigard shall provide the funding for preparation of the preliminary engineering report. All expenses towards preparation of the report and the preparation of the construction plans and specification shall be rolled into the overall LID costs. SECTION 4: Should Specht Development, Inc. withdraw its support for the LID prior to the formation of the LID, all expenses incurred shall be billed to Specht Development, Inc. SECTION 5: Should the LID formation proceed as anticipated, the schedule to be established should seek to initiate construction of the improvements in late spring 19,99 with completion of construction by September or October 1999. t EM~ BIT F-3 The city has subsequently retained DeHaas & Associates, Inc. to provide engineering services and this preliminary Engineer's Report. At the meeting of December 8, 1998, the City Council expressed the desire to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue if at all possible, and directed staff to explore the feasibility of acquiring the house to allow the extension of Beveland Street. The subsequent review of the proposed taldng indicated that the structure could be acquired and the Beveland extension constructed without adversely impacting the construction schedule for completion of 69th Avenue and the other streets in the proposed LID boundary. This Preliminary Engineering Report therefore includes the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue as part of the proposed LID boundary. Findings The engineering review and analysis of the proposed LID area indicates that the LID boundary should be extended south to Hampton Street, and east to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue. The extension to Hampton Street ensures that 69th Avenue between Hampton Street and Dartmouth Street is fully improved to current standards, to include undergrounding of overhead utilities. The extension of Beveland Street from 69th Avenue to 68th Avenue complies with the requirement of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan to provide a direct connection from 68th Avenue to 72nd Avenue along Beveland Street. The engineering analysis finds that the LID as proposed in this report is feasible, and that the improvements can be completed by fall of 1999. Recommendation City Council could approve the report, or approve the report with revisions. The recommendation of this report is that City Council approve the report in its entirety and declare its intention to form the LID and construct the improvements. Time is of the essence. Approval of the report and passage of the Resolution of Intent would ensure that the process proceeds expeditiously to allow completion of the improvements by fall of 1999. The specific details of the proposed LID are as follows: Location of Proposed Improvements The general location of improvements is shown on Exhibit A. Final extent and location of improvements will depend upon final design deliberations. Proposed LID Boundary The proposed district (~P) boundary is shown on Exhibit B. 2 .O Proposed Assessment Methods This is a comprehensive LID, inasmuch as a series of different improvement elements are proposed, each of which benefit a different set of properties. Assessment methods should recognize improvements already completed. Accordingly, it is proposed that each set of improvements be assessed by a method which recognizes its appropriate area of benefit and fairly distributes the costs. Improvement elements have been separated as follow: 1. Street Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis 50% of costs on an Area Basis This method mitigates unfairness related to properties of variable shape and size and reduces the heavy impact on corner parcels that would occur if a 100% Frontage Basis were used. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements 100% of costs on an Area Basis 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis 4. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis 5. Sidewalk Improvements 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis 6. Street Trees and Barkdust 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis 7. Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis 8. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis a. Right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. b. Add catch basin and lateral at NW comer of 69th and Hampton. c. Reconstruct wheelchair ramp at NW corner of 69th and Hampton, if deemed necessary. d. Street Lighting Maps illustrating the respective elements, areas of benefit and assessment factors are identified as Exhibits C-1 through C-8 respectively. 3 Estimated Costs Estimated total cost for each improvement element along with the assessment to each property owner is shown on Exhibits D-1 through D-8 respectively. A composite tabulation showing total estimated assessments to each property is shown on Exhibit E. Construction Schedule It is anticipated construction for the basic portion of the project will commence in late spring of 1999 with substantial construction complete by October of 1999. Completion of the portion of Beveland between 69th and 68th will depend on the process required for right-of-way taking, whether by expedient negotiation or by condemnation. Construction contract document provisions will be written to anticipate construction of the subject section late in the project to allow time for completion of the taking. If delay is extensive, it may be appropriate to construct the subject section by a separate construction contract. Property Entry for Surveying or other Engineering Purposes The Engineer should be authorized to enter all properties in the district for surveying and engineering purposes, and such additional properties as may be necessary to analyze drainage features and develop the drainage report. Project Support and Informal Information Meetings Initiation of the project was by Specht Development, Inc., representing 40.83% of the benefitted property within the district as proposed in this report. The City has non- remonstrance agreements from an additional 9.05% of the benefitted properties. This would indicate that total remonstrances counted at the public hearing on formation of the district, should not exceed-58-0M, unless the City Council revises the boundaries of the district. An informal public meeting was held January 14, 1999 in the TVWD auditorium to which all owners in the district were invited. Exhibits similar to those attached to this report were presented along with explanations of how the LID process works and proposed time schedules. Other miscellaneous questions were answered. The exhibits, cost estimates and assessments, etc., prepared for this report represent adjustments from those presented at the January 14, 1999 meeting, based on continuing input and information provided, along with our refinement of the proposed preliminary design. Another informal public meeting is planned for a few days before the public hearing on formation of the district in order to answer detailed questions, present the refined plans and cost estimates and resolve any misunderstandings. This informal meeting should insure that the owners will be well-informed and will not have to face the difficult task of digging out detailed information in the formal public hearing setting. Notice of the info ay accompany the notice of the formal public hearing. arlin WH, L. S. 4 Attachments Exhibit A Proposed Improvements Map Exhibit B Proposed LID Boundary Exhibit C-1 through C-8 Areas of Benefit and Assessment Factors C-1 Street and Water Quality Improvements C-2 Storm Drain and Detention Improvements C-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements C-4 Water Improvements C-5 Sidewalk Improvements C-6 Street Trees and Barkdust Improvements C-7 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV C-8 Ancillary Improvements Exhibit D-1 through D-8 Individual Assessment for Each Construction Element D-1 Street and Water Quality Improvements D-2 Storm Drain and Detention Improvements D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements D-4 Water Improvements D-5 Sidewalk Improvements D-6 Street Trees and Barkdust Improvements D-7 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV D-8 Ancillary Improvements Exhibit E Composite Tabulation of Individual Assessment Costs 5 ' 69th AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION i i I I AAM I Y,r, 9 I „ mo, i 1-0 sir ' I I I -a IV. A 1 -4 Z, r ,~,j~~ a~r~ ~ r •s'r ~~1 ~ ~ ` a rra r.r• air ai< ~ .r r ti t!d r. t® tAO I [M I ~ 1♦ j j -LIM - t I d j d a. •i:~f-da~lrs~ ~.5~_.~_ -'1...tV ai:f'.OSiasa 4T+. _ _ _.~..yp. .rte-i+.r.•-t+~-•...-.. _vp.q~._ r._....... - - .~J .r.° _._._r_._. - r.... ilia _ I IOU Le. ~x ftr ~~iB a °a°.s ra wn [ Y° a M~.. 1 0~; 1 S,@b ~r~.a...+w+ ~ub°®~ R°M / t d er VA.wa w+rr E C ya Y~I ey ' 11 1a1e18 @/~/aY µ I ~ • ~ . I ; j PROPOSED IMPROVEMENrS A ~ a[Y SAIEFT Q WAaR OUIL/7Y .aG OVCn _.._..J W.IIER smarr nus @ 84RKOUSr 4#WD?a PONM MD-HOVE A N _ _ _ AMtGtRYA" 7S a 1~ _ A. r ~~a a~ ar h AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION Exhib t A i 1 I I I I I I I I h'm i : P.,' e I MAE i \ i; 1 I • I I / I ei I I I i 1 r I «w~ «.wt G -4 it" ..•t .•eYtY.r i 1 ~1wliYrM ~ e~ I ~ ~~~i'~,{irr+we.+. ~a1r1~ ♦pswrt_ I { `~"ri Iwr°I s.~.wwl I ~ I r /a+ StR~Pi IfM f~a. fP ~F YI 1 f 1 I 1 1 r _ . - - ••v r~walRnwr.• _ i+Vi~v(~.~r~ ,..p .Ufii 11 \ r 7 ~eµ C I ~ w /Y w • V @i~~lP 4 t ~P 1 1 Ov Is/ .~~0. Yn O .~I r auaqu~q~M r M ar ~pYM.gI .m lw I w 4Y 5. P 61r.s 4N`Oi°PI _ F~ P IZ. W VPfII ,F! P MU I ¢+RI$ PROPOSED /MPRO EMENTS I I ` ~ srnE€T a WATER OU41ffy ARFA of 57REFT ApR A05 ARY .SEMW S!M•r WAFER SNLK DER TEID71ILM/E B rv A40UARY 90WOMeRS ❑ 3 - _ G- i 6 R !I A= E E R e d E i d E 6 E h E E E t tea- -.X .t a -~~y r m O ~ O n O fD •11' O ` O o 0 loth Avenue - _ s o b b l o c:„) OY j: 3 W 1 f r t 6 f ~~enue a 6~~h. Ave»ue _ m D TT I..... g ~ a 68th Avenue Doren th street Exhibit C- l Street & Water Qua/it Assessment ~ T4 Assessment Mcp t:. Elmhurst Street it..s,oo ~ ~~IL JB00 /dent. No. aCi ? : ric:i:oo` Q ~r Assessment Area ::::::.:.::•:~..~:::•::•...x Frontage Franklin Street r iC TL ~ R 9100 Q e od : ,n~ oo 9eV&1ond Street r SCO/e.' 1 "=200' K 3101 TL 9708 a 9800 ' R 9700 r T - - } ~ e j l r 0 FL 1700 J Qr Q 'n 2ew It 246 1 LID Boundary rz `J000 Homoton Street Dort uth Street EXMlbl? C Storm Drain & De tern tl qn /mpro vem erg is .e Assessment Mco n::29a~a::;•:::•: I $ zor. Elmhurst Street i 4 N9W. /dent. No. i : c :aoo Assessment Area z c::::: ..,...;a . ct: co : Vii::ti: a., Fronk/in Street i. ~ TL .9U00 IL .pioa ` ,lz B10Q` ,rr 00 Beveldnd Street Scale: 1 "=200' •v t. R 9107 !a 9109 . >z 9800 7L 9700 3 I IL 2700 i Q , IL 2800 IZ 246 IZ 2900 LID Boundary {l2 a .1000 Dy Hampton Street a~ Oor 17 !h Street Exhlb t 3 Sanitary Sewer 0 1z .7700\ Improvements Assessment Mao 2 IL 24Vo , R' 290..:•:'•:: r aio.. >z foo` Elmhurst Street ov R 57 ' rr `aeon ! ~ ` /dent. No. ..q- 01 a Assessment Areo Q services -IZ 4" ~R Franklin Street CZ CZ f z &;W R 9100 1 j fi -^R 870012 a 00 Bevetonc( St,-eet Scale: 1 "=200' „ 1444 Z 9101 !L 9108 98001 JL 9707 Q~ n R 1700 a 'v QCi Q IL 1807 R 246 i a 1900 1?) LID Boundary I I 1z I R -1000 C- I Homoton Street Dortn th Street EXh<b%f C'~ I WC ter /M,vro veM et7 is 2" o I n zmo Assessmen t Map 1L 1400 >t zto, j IL 2-TOO • Jd E/mhurst S~reet IL 5100 ~ R JBOO I ,9 c C IL ♦900 O /den t. No. -T >r 1901 I o-- Fire H y dropis :3 7L 5200 Services n czoa;: c°jq n sJ00 I Frank/in Street i r v, BJOO P_ 9100 i1 55 8700 ? JL 800 i i Sco/e: 1 "=200' i 1L 9101 IL 91d9 ! a 9800, a 9700 ~ I JL z7GY! I JL za n D . LID Boundary . I JL JoOO I Oortn. th Street Exhibit C Side wa/!~ / njor gem erg is Assessrmerg t Macy o ; q2MI 0 ?9O0 2 ?JOO ~a k hurst Street R C/dent. No. N~I.. 4900 Frontope b M sloo 4 0 71 *JOO ,C •2~ Franklin Street J 7 72 BJOO Z n 900 15 ,7z e7O,O Tt o0 Beveland Street Scole: 1 "=200' a 9/OI ( 7z Y/os 2 9800; 7Z 9700 t j !0 7z 1700 C Q 11 >z 1900 7Z 146 a ?90o ~O Q L/0 Boundory 7L JOOO 0 Hni+•~n/nn S/Hoof Dorn ,th Street Exhibit C Street Trees & R' 1800 Bart-dust Imp ro vem en is R 1704 M 260_0 Assessment lWaa © Q R 1400 R 1900 O ~ R IJO1 R IJOO Elmhurst Street R 5100 R Jea1 n :3 R 4900 Q /dent. No. R J9pl Frontage Q R 4000 Q O R 5100 C R azao R IJ00 i Fronk/in Street Q j R 8J00 R 9100 b j '-/Z 87001 R 00 Seve%rd Street Scole: 1 "=200' C .08 R 9101 7L 9108 R 9800 R 9700 v i to R 1700 c Q 11 R 2800 R ? ~Ils R 1900 ~ J -,"IZ LID Boundary R JOW a Hompton Street Dortr- th street E-xhlbif C', r ro 6117 dire Power F Teleph ors e & TV Improvements Assessment Allay Elmhurst Street M. JBOO F . O /dent. No. tt : Q : (:(40A0•. W Assessment Area a3 . Q. ^?,':..TC .`d117A`. : 71;:?I TtX1 I C i 77. I! Q Franklin Street ,o v 2 eJOO n 9100 A e700IZ61rz 0o Be vend Street Sco%: 1'"=200' P 4/CFl c. It 9IOB R Yaw: a 9700 q) M. Mori.: : Q i Z.:240 L/D Boundory ' 672 Hcmoton Street Dort,-. ith Street Exhibit C An ci//ary /mpro vem er7 is Assessment Map • ........•r:: c....:1.'.:c Q ~iFC : Zf00. :::':•::::::'.:R: 2~' n ,Jpp: Elmhurst street .ic..s,ae ':i reov: I i i. /dent. No. ::.......::t........Hiiiii ; : aa;. ti Q ::•:t#•;:fa00•: Assessment Areo F j •::•1L:~:3~'0Q r:::•::'::•::•::•: C lrronk/in Street i i Z. T awo ` FL 9100 122 ft 151, -00 Beve/and Street Scole: 1 ",200' • ty:t ' 7L. S!!04 -i: R 910&. rL 9800 '71 9700 Q rz UD Boundary a Homoton Street t :)th Avenue Reconstruction L,.-, Exhibit D-1 Street and Water Quality Improvements February 1, 1999 Total [dent. Tar Lot Frontage (ft Area (sq ft) Frontage Assessable No. No. Improvements Improvements Costs Area Costs Costs 1 2800 100 6204 $4,231 $2.178 $6,409 2 2900 350 81396 14,809 28,571 43,380 3 3800 200 31900 8,462 11,197 19,660 4 3901 0 29750 0 10,443 10,443 5 4000 125 12500 5,289 4,388 9,677 6 4200 155 30970 6,558 10,871 17,429 7 9100 474 55845 20,056 19,603 39,658 8 9101 119 21420 5,035 7,519 12,55 9 9108 280 18000 11,847 6,318 18,165 10 2700 0 0 0 0 11 2800 75 16425 3,173 5,765 8,93 13 2900 155 33945 6,558 11,915 18,474 13 3000 0 0 0 0 0 14 2700 150 10000 6,347 39510 9,857 15 2600 50 5000 2,116 1,755 3,871 16 2400 75 7500 3,173 2,633 5,806 17 2301 88 8800 3,723 3,089 6,812 18 2300 162 7613 6,854 2,672 9,527 19 5100 100 5000 4,231 1,755 5.986 20 4900 150 15000 6,347 5,265 11.612 21 8200 100 10000 4,231 3,510 7.741 22 4300 100 5000 4,231 11755 5,986 23 8300 275 17500 11,636 6,143 17,778 24 87.00 140 4000 5,924 1,404 7,328 25 8500 0 1250 0 439 439 26 8600 100 3750 4,231 1,316 5,547 27 9800 100 5000 4,231 1,755 5,986 28 9700 100 5000 4,231 1,755 5,986 29 2400 0 0 0 0 0 3723 448768 157,525 157,525 315,05 Street & Water Quality Improvements - Total Cost: $315,050 * 75% Assessment Assessment Formula 50% of costs on Frontage Basis $157,525/3,723 ft = $42.31 13/ft 50% of costs on Area Basis $157,525/448,768 sq.ft. = $0.3510/sq.ft. 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-2 Storm Drain and Detention Improvements February 1, 1999 Total Ident. Tax Lot Area (sq ft) Assessable No. No. Improvements Area Costs Costs 1 2800 6204 $3,222 $3,222 2 2900 81396 42,272 42,272 3 3800 31900 16,567 16,567 4 3901 29750 15,450 15,45 5 4000 12500 61492 6,492 6 4200 30970 16,084 16,08 7 9100 55845 29,002 29,002 8 9101 21420 11,124 11,12 9 9108 5000 2,597 2,59 10 2700 0 0 11 2800 0 0 12 2900 0 0 13 3000 0 0 14 2700 10000 5,193 5,193 15 2600 5000 2,597 2,59 16 2400 7500 3,895 3.895 17 2301 8800 4,570 4.57 18 2300 8700 4,518 4.518 19 5100 10000 5,193 5.193 20 4900 15000 7,790 7.790 21 8200 10000 5,193 5.193 22 4300 5000 2,597 2.597 23 8300 20000 10,387 10,387 24 8700 4000 2,077 2,07 25 8500 1250 649 649 26 8600 3750 1,948 1.948 27 9800 5000 2,597 2,59 28 9700 5000 2,597 2,59 29 2400 0 01 0 393985 204,610 204,61 Storm Drain & Detention Improvements $204,610 Assessment Formula 100% of costs on Area Basis $204,610/393,985 sq fl = $0.51933/sq ft u, oth Avenue Reconstruction L,.-~ Exhibit D-3 Sanitary Sewer Improvements February 1, 1999 Tax Total Ident. Lot Service Assessable No. No. Area (sq ft) Service (ea) Area Costs costs Costs 1 2800 6204 0 $972 $0 $972 2 2900 81396 1 12,754 2,400 15,15 3 3800 31900 0 4,998 0 4,998 4 3901 30000 0 4,701 0 4,701 5 4000 12500 1 1,959 2,400 4,359 6 4200 30970 0 4,853 0 4,853 7 9100 59130 1 9,265 2,400 11,665 8 9101 0 0 0 0 0 9 9108 0 1 0 2,400 2,400 10 2700 0 0 0 0 0 11 2800 0 1 0 2,400 2,400 12 2900 0 1 0 2,400 2,400 13 3000 0 0 0 0 14 2700 10000 0 1,567 0 1,56 15 2600 5000 0 783 0 783 16 2400 7500 0 1,175 0 1,175 17 2301 8800 1 1.379 2,400 3,779 18 2300 8700 1 1,363 2,400 3,763 19 5100 10000 0 1,567 0 1,56 20 4900 15000 1 2,350 2,400 4,750 21 8200 10000 0 1,567 0 1,567 L25 4300 10000 0 1.567 0 1,567 8300 20000 1 3.134 2,400 5.53 8700 4000 0 627 0 627 8500 0 0 0 0 0 26 8600 0 0 0 0 0 27 9800 0 0 0 0 0 28 9700 0 0 0 0 0 29 2400 0 0 0 01 0 361100 10 56,580 24,000 80,58 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $56,580 Services $24,000 Assessment Formula Sanitary Sewer Improvements $56,580/361,100 sq. ft. = $0.1567/sq. ft. Services = $2,400 each th Avenue Reconstruction L Exhibit D-4 Water Improvements February 1, 1999 E. Tax 1" 2" 2" Total Ident. Lot Service Service Fire hydrant i" Service Service Fire Hydrant Assessable No. No. (ea) (ea) (ea) Costs costs Costs Costs 1 2800 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 2 2900 0 1 2 0 1,250 9,690 10,940 3 3800 0 0 1 0 0 4,845 4,845 4 3901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4000 0 1 0 0 1,250 0 1,250 6 4200 0 0 l 0 0 4,845 4,845 7 9100 0 1 1 0 1,250 4,845 6,095 8 9101 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9108 1 0 0 300 0 0 300 10 2700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2800 1 0 0 300 0 0 300 12 2900 0 0 1 0 0 4,845 4,845 13 3000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 2301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 4300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 8300 1 0 0 300 0 0 300 24 8700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 8600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 9800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 9700 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.00 900 3,750 29,070 33,72 Assessment Formula 1" Services 3@ $300 ea 900 2" Services 3@ 51,250 ea = 3750 Hydrants 6@ $4,845 ea =29,070 $33,720 Mji 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-5 Sidewalk Improvements a February 1, 1999 Total Ident. Tax Lot Frontage (ft) Frontage Assessable No. No. Improvements Costs Costs 1 2800 = -1-7-5 $4,569 $4,569 2 2900 143 3,734 3,73 ° 3 3800 0 0 0 4 3901 0 0 0 5 4000 0 0 0 6 4200 0 0 0 7 9100 0 0 0 8 9101 118 3,081 3,081 9 9108 100 2,611 2,611 10 2700 0 0 0 11 2800 0 0 12 2900 0 0 0 13 3000 0 0 01 14 2700 150 3,917 3,917 15 2600 50 1,306 1,30 16 2400 75 1,958 1.958 17 2301 88 2,298 2,298 18 2300 187 4,883 4,883 19 5100 100 2.611 2.611 20 4900 150 3,917 3,917 21 8200 100 2,611 2,611 22 4300 100 2,611 2,611 23 8300 100 2,611 2,611 24 8700 100 2,611 2,611 25 8500 0 0 0 26 8600 100 2,611 2.611 27 9800 100 2,611 2,611 28 9700 100 2,611 2,611 29 2400 0 01 0 2036 53,160 53,1601 Sidewalk Improvements $53,160 Assessment Formula 100% of Costs on Frontage Basis $53,160/2036 ft = $26.1100/ft 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-6 Street Trees and Barkdust Improvements February 1, 1999 Total Ident. Tax Lot Frontage (ft) Frontage Assessable No. No. Improvements Costs Costs 1 2800 175 $2,445 $2,445 2 2900 711 9,933 9,933 3 3800 418 5,840 5,84 4 3901 0 0 12 4000' 125 1,746 1,746 6 4200 155 2,165 2,165 7 9100 473 6,608 6,608 8 9101 118 1,649 1,649 N 5 9 9108 230 3,213 3,213 10 2700 0 0 11 2800 75 1,048 1,048 2900 175 2,445 2,445 13 3000 0 0 0 14 2700 150 2,096 2,09 15 2600 50 699 69 16 2400 75 1,048 1.048 17 2301 88 1,229 1,329 18 2300 187 2,612 2,612 19 5100 100 1.397 1,397 20 4900 150 2,096 2,096 21 8200 100 1,397 1,397 22 4300 100 1,397 1,39 23 8300 300 4,191 4,191 24 8700 140 1,956 1,956 25 8500 0 0 0 26 8600 100 1,397 1,397 27 9800 100 1,397 1,397 28 9700 100 1,397 1,39 29 2400 0 0 4395 61,400 61,40 Street Trees & Barkdust $61,400 Assessment Formula 100% of Costs on Frontage Basis $61,400/4,395 ft = $13.9704/ft 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Exhibit D-7 Undergrounding Power, Telephone and TV Improvements February 1, 1999 Total Ident. Tax Lot Area (sq ft) Assessable No. No. Improvements Area Costs Costs 1 2800 6204 $1,261 $1,261 2 2900 81396 16,539 16,53 3 3800 31900 6,482 6,482 4 3901 29750 6,045 6,045 5 4000 12500 2,540 2,54 6 4200 30970 6,293 6,293 7 9100 55845 11,347 11,347 8 9101 21420 4,352 4,352 9 9108 5000 1,016 1,01 10 2700 28340 5,759 5,759 11 2800 16350 3,322 3,322 12 2900 38150 7,752 7,752 13 3000 17440 3,544 3,54 14 2700 10000 2,032 2,032 15 2600 5000 1,016 1,01 16 2400 7500 1,524 1,52 17 2301 8800 1,788 1,788 18 2300 8700 1,768 1,768 0 4900 15000 3,048 3,048 [29 9 5100 10000 2.032 2.032 1 8200 10000 2,032 2,032 2 4300 10000 2.032 2.032 3 8300 0 0 0 4 8700 0 0 0 5 8500 0 0 0 6 8600 0 0 7 9800 0 0 8 9700 0 01 0 2400 46000 9,347 9,347 506265 102,870 102,87 Undergrounding Power, Telephone, & TV $102,870 Assessment Formula 100% of costs on Area Basis $102,870/506,265 sq ft = $0.2032/sq ft 09th Avenue Reconstruction L--) Exhibit D-8 Ancillary Improvements February 1, 1999 Total Ident. Tax Lot Area (sq ft) Assessable No. No. Improvements Area Costs Costs 1 2800 6204 $4,341 $4,341 2 2900 81396 56,952 56,95 3 3800 31900 22,320 22,32 4 3901 29750 20,816 20,81 5 4000 12500 8,746 8,746.1 6 4200 30970 21,669 21,66 7 9100 55845 39,074 39,07 8 9101 21420 14,987 14,98 9 9108 5000 3,498 3,49 10 2700 28340 19,829 19,82 11 2800 16350 11,440 11,44 12 2900 38150 26,693 26,693 13 3000 17440 12,202 12,202 14 2700 10000 6,997 6,99 15 2600 5000 3,498 3,49 16 2400 7500 5,248 5,24 17 2301 8800 6,157 6,15 18 2300 8700 6,087 6.08 19 5100 5000 3,498 3.49 20 4900 15000 10,495 10,495 21 8200 10000 6,997 6,99 22 4300 5000 3.498 3,49 23 8300 15000 10,495 10,495 24 8700 4000 2,799 2,79 25 8500 1250 875 875 26 8600 3750 2,624 2.62 27 9800 13000 9,096 9,09 28 9700 5000 3,498 3,49 29 2400 46000 32,185 32,185 538265 376,615 376,61 Ancillary Improvements $376,615 Assessment Formula 100% of costs on Area Basis $376,615/538,265 = $0.6997/ft Right-of-Way Acquisition 330,000 Catch Basin @ Hampton 5575 Wheelchair Ramp @ Hampton 1890 Street Lighting 39,150 376,615 69th Avenue Reconstruction LID Fxhibit E Summary of Assessment Costs February 1, 1999 Idcnt. Tax l,ot Street & Water St.D. & Sanitary Street Trees (Jndergroundmg Power, Total Assessable No. No. Property Owner Qttuhty Detention Sewer Water Sidewalk & Barkdust Telephone &,rv Ancillary Costs 1 2800 Kenneth M. Mont ome 56,409 53,222 5972 $0 54,569 $2,445 51,261 &1,341 $23,218 2 2900 Donald E. & Julia Gail Pollock 43,380 42,272 15,154 10,940 3,734 9,933 16,539 56,952 198,904 3 3800 Richard L. Carpenter & Julia Gail & Donald Pollock 19,660 16,567 4,998 4,845 0 5,840 6,482 22,320 80,711 4 3901 Richard L. Carpenter 10,443 15,450 4,701 0 0 0 6,045 20,816 57,454 5 4000 Donald E. Pollock 9.677 6,492 4,359 1,250 0 1,746 2,540 8,746 34,809 6 4200 Donald E. Pollock & Richard Carpenter 17,429 16,084 4,853 4,845 0 2,165 6,293 21,669 73,338 7 9100 Donald E. Pollock 39,658 29,002 11,665 6,095 U 6,608 11,347 39,074 143,449 8 9101 Alfred F. & Diane M. Kindrick 12,554 11,124 0 0 3,081 1,649 4,352 14,987 47,747 9 9108 Denise Porter & Sue Bennett 18,165 2,597 2,400 300 2,611 3,213 1,016 3,498 33,801 10 2700 John B. McCroske 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,759 19,829 25,588 11 2800 Don R. & Cynthia Sue Morton 8.939 0 2,400 300 0 1,048 3,322 11,440 27,449 12 2900 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 18,474 0 2,400 4,845 0 2,445 7,752 26,693 62,608 13 3000 KF LLC U 0 0 0 0 0 3,544 12,202 15,746 14 2700 Landmark Ford, Inc. 9.857 5,193 1.567 0 3,917 2,096 2,032 6,997 31,658 15 2600 Landmark Ford, Inc. 3,871 2,597 783, 0 1,306 699 1,016 3,498 13,769 16 2400 Landmark Ford, Inc. 5,806 3,895 1,175 U 1.958 1,048 1,524 5,248 20.654 17 2301 Ella O 1 Snyder & John Milton 6,812 4,570 3,779 0 2,298 1,229 1,788 6,157 26,634 18 2300 Cecil nnna Rae Jones 9,527 4,518 3,763 0 4,883 2,612 1,768 6,087 33,158 19 5100 Landmark Ford, Inc. 5,986 5,193 1,567 0 2,611 1,397 2,032 3,498 22,285 20 4900 Joseph A. & Cheryl A. Mone o & lames Mone o 11,612 7,790 4,750 0 3,917 2,096 3,048 10,495 43,708 21 8200 Landmark Ford, Inc. 7,741 5,193 1,567, 0 2,611 1,397 2,032 6,997 27,538 22 4300 Landmark Ford, Inc. 5'186 2,597 1,567 0 2,611 1,397 2,032 3,498 19,688 23 8300 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 17,778 10,387 5,534 300 2,611 4,191 0 10,495 51,296 24 8700 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 7,328 2,077 627 0 2,611 1,956 0 2,799 17,397 25 8500 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 439 649 0 0 0 0 0 875 1,963 26 8600 Stephen W. & Lynn L. Peirce 5,547 1,948 0 0 2,611, 1,397 0 2,624 14,127 27 9800 J.T., Jr. & Theresa A. Roth 5,986 2,597 0 0 2,611 1,397 0 9,096 21,687 28 9700 Mark R. Dana 5,986 2,597 0 0 2,611 1,397 0 3,493 16,089 29 2400 Western Evangelical Seminary (1 0 0 0 (1 0 9,347 32,185 41,532 315,050 204,610 80,580 33,720 53,160 61,400 102,870 376,615 1,228,005 0 lop CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- / 0 A RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) TO IMPROVE 69TH AVENUE AND CERTAIN OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD. WHEREAS, Specht Development, Inc. submitted a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to the following streets within the City of Tigard: i SW 69'1 Avenue between the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street and the south right-of-way line of the proposed extension of SW Beveland Street (i.e. the south property line of Tax Lots 9100, 8800 and 8600, 2S 101 AA) • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68'h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue 0 SW Franklin Street between SW 68'1 Avenue and SW 69`1 Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 69`h Avenue and SW 70`h Avenue i SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69`1 Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue (South side only); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements include upgrading the streets to full city street standards, including sewer, water, storm drainage facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and undergrounding of any overhead utilities; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a preliminary evaluation report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting of October 13, 1998; and WHEREAS, the preliminary evaluation report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the proposed LID, heard the pros and cons about the proposed LID, and provided an opportunity for input by the initiators of the LID and other property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 98-52 authorized the preparation of a preliminary engineering report for the proposed LID; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided additional guidance since the meeting on October 13, 1998 to extend the LID boundary south to Hampton Street, and to include the extension of Beveland Street from 69`h Avenue to 6801 Avenue to satisfy the requirements of the Tigard Triangle Street Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has retained the firm of DeHaas and Associates, Inc. to prepare the preliminary engineering report; and WHEREAS, DeHaas and Associates, Inc. has completed the preliminary engineering report, which includes extension of the LID boundary to Hampton Street and the extension of Beveland Street from 69'1 Avenue to 68'h Avenue; and RESOLUTION NO. 99-ID EXHIBIT F-4 Page ; WHEREAS, the preliminary engineering report recommends that City Council proceed with the formation of the LID as proposed in the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby declares the intention to form a local improvement district (LID) to improve the following streets within the Tigard Triangle in the City of Tigard: • SW 69th Avenue between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) SECTION 2: The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, lighting, undergrounding power-telephone-TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Basic construction will be procured in accordance with City of Tigard construction contract procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (sewer, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City Forces. SECTION 3: The estimate of probable total costs of the improvements is $1,228,005.00. SECTION 4: The methods of assessment shall be as follow: a. Street and Water Quality Improvements 50% of costs on a Frontage Basis 50% of costs on an Area Basis b. Storm Drain and Detention Improvements 100% of costs on an Area Basis C. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Service extension costs on a Per Each Basis Remaining costs on an Area Basis d. Water Improvements Service extensions and new hydrant costs on a Per Each Basis e. Sidewalk Improvement 100% of costs on a Frontage Basis f. Street Trees and Barkdust 100% of costs on an Area Basis g. 1 ndemrounding_Power. Telephone and TV 100% of costs on an Area Basis RESOLUTION NO. 99- L o Page 2 h. Ancillary Improvements 100% of the following costs on an Area Basis: 1) Right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way and demolition costs related to the taking of right-of-way for Beveland between 69th and 68th. 2) Add catch basin and lateral at NW corner of 69th and Hampton. 3) Reconstruct wheelchair ramp at NW corner of 69th and Hampton, if deemed necessary. 4) Street Lighting SECTION 5: The public hearing to hear remonstrances shall be conducted during the City Council meeting on February 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. SECTION 6: Proper notice shall be given regarding the time and date of the public hearing to hear remonstrances. This notice should include the streets in the proposed LID and a brief description of the proposed public improvements. PASSED: This C// 6A day of F--"2,r 1999. or - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard I.1G1y-delRes%Resolubon of Intent to Form 69" Avenue LID RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 3 EggIBIT F"5 i 1 1 r Jan 07 99 10:28a Engineering 624 0752 P.1 Post-IV Fax Note 7671 Oslo ple9•a► T ~G To From / I I C. Co. . / January 4, 1999 Phone w Phone r Fax # F:ox A /f %wITY OF TIGARD OREGON NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING for 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION LID (Local Improvement District) The City of Tigard is proposing to form a Local Improvement District to effect construction of street and associated improvements in the following areas: • 69'" Avenue between the South right-of-way line of Dartmouth Street and the North right-of-way of Hampton Street • Dartmouth Street between 690'Avenue and 70'hAvenue (South side only) • Elmhurst Street between 68'' Avenue and 70"' Avenue • Franklin Street between 68`" Avenue and.69*' Avenue • Beveland Street between 68th Avenue and 79"' Avenue Possible improvements may be made to the following: d: 9fb /o fh • Beveland Street between-68ph and4EP Avenue • 69"' Avenue between Beveland Street and Hampton Street. As an element of final plan development, the City would like to review the general plans and LID procedure with affected and surrounding property owners. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, January 14, 1999 at the Tigard Water District Building (Auditorium) 8777 SW Burnham 6:00 - 7:30 PM This will be an informational meeting on preliminary plan. Plans will be updated as final designs are completed. If you have any questions, please contact Martin DeHaas or Dave Price @ DeHaas & Associates, Inc. 682-2450. yng%99W%69thVNM9h00rh00d nobee for 691h d0CA EXHIBIT F-5 unwa 72ND AVE - f a ~'p tit 4 z 1'9- ' Boni AVE ' 6TH -AVE ® ~ I ~ to I'~•.. N ~ - _ - - -i'. 'J 68TH AVE ! ,t r I 1 I . AVE IN I III olowsom, so so - ~ r t 1 OtO~i~~M10 I~~ORY11Y 1011 fY~T~• wommommob womm-OTM _ ST ~JI AREA NQTIFIED - 69th Avenue Recor~~O^ w FI No. 313 aA~TMOUTH ST a BE1/Fi ST ST N too 40 yip hw "VOW ~ GONZAGA ST City ofTig~ aM r+ultits~"~ .0 HAMPTON ST --`_`las°nsa+ ~ l 31~ 1',N'i89kr~• Gtt7D2APR pW1 dale: Dec man Now- Comsn~n~ty D~~~M slow 1 EXSIBIT F°6 1 1 Now e 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION AGENDA OUI UNE - Informal Public Meeting 1/14/99 1. INFORMAL INSPECTION OF PLANS AND COST EX [BITS 2. INTRODUCTION a. Marlin -Project Manager b. Dave Price - Project Engineer c. Cliff Meeting - Assistant Engineer d. If anyone needs to call our office, number is 682-2450, fax 682-4018 3. PROJECT REVIEW This project is referred to as 69th Avenue Reconstruction, although there is some new construction proposed. Plans are preliminary only and subject to revisions as the final design is developed. a. Street Improvements (36ft wide with curb and gutter) 1. Reconstruction of 69th from Beveland to Dartmouth. 2. 1/2 street construction on 69th fronting T.L. 2900, 2800 and 9101. 3. 1/2 street construction on Franklin fronting T.L. 8300. 4. 1/2 street construction on Elmhurst fronting T.L. 2300. 5. Sidewalk and Landscaping on Dartmouth between 69th and 70th. 6. Full street construction Elmhurst 69th to 70th. Beveland 68th to 70th. 7. There will be R/W acquisition costs on the portion of Beveland from 69th to 68th. 8. The newly constructed Beveland is proposed to connect to existing Beveland at 70th. 9. The newly constructed Elmhurst is not proposed to connect to the West of 70th. b. Storm Drainage 1. Phase in a new catch basin at Hampton. 2. Construct storm drains serving Beveland and Franklin, all to connect to the existing storm drain to the South, except for 1/2 block which must drain to the West to existing Beveland. 3. Resize and reconstruct the major crossing between Franklin and Elmhurst. 4. Collect drainage on 69th and Elmhurst to drain West to 70th and North on 70th to a water quality/detention facility (approximately 6,000 W). EXHIBIT F-6 ~ r. c. Sanitap► Sewer 1. Extend from Beveland North to Elmhurst. 2. Extend from Dartmouth South to Elmhurst. 3. Construct services as required. d. Water (I=) 1. Construct an 8" main in Beveland from 69th to 70th and connect to existing 4". TVWD has plans to resize the 4" in the future. 2. Construct an 8" main in Elmhurst from 69th to 70th. 3. Construct services as required. e. Ancillary Improvements 1. Underground existing power from Hampton to Beveland, from Franklin to the North side of Dartmouth and on Elmhurst from 69th to 70th. 2. Possible overlay of paving at South end of 69th depending upon pavement strength analysis. 3. R/W acquisition at intersection corners to provide for pedestrian ramps. 4. R/W acquisition for Beveland between 69th and 68th (R/W for Beveland between 69th and 70th is proposed to be dedicated at no cost as a part of conditions for development on the West side of 69th between Beveland and Dartmouth). f. Costs 1. Costs of improvements have been estimated on the basis of preliminary plans and without the benefit of final design. Preliminary costs estimates will be further refined when final designs are complete. We are always investigating opportunities to mitigate costs. g. Timing 1. Public hearing on formation of the LID before council 2/23/99. 2. LID formed by council on 3/9/99. 3. Construction Bid Award 6/1/99. 4. Project substantially complete 9/15/99. 4. LID PROCEDURES a. All cities have ordinances providing for forming L JD's to construct and finance public improvements. This is a project which lends itself to that process. The City sells bonds to finance the design and construction. Bonds are retired as assessments are paid by benefitting property owners. b. In this case initiation of the LID process was by petition of more than 50% of the property benefitted. 2 c. Council calls for a Preliminary Engineering Report. (finis informal meeting is being held before we complete that report). d. The Preliminary Engineering Report is presented to Council where upon they approve the report (with modifications if deemed appropriate) and calls for a public hearing. e. All property owners to be assessed will be notified of the public hearing both individually and by publication in the newspaper. The notice, among other items will: 1) Give the time of the hearing. 2) Describe the project. 3) Estimate of total cost of project and portion proposed for assessment. 4) Will indicate that the purpose of the hearing is to remonstrances (objections) either written or oral. f. If the remonstrance from property owners represents less than 2/3 of the property area within the district, the City can proceed with formulation of the LID. g. Assuming the district is formed, the City completes final design, takes construction bids and constructs the project. h. After the project is complete and all costs are known, assessments are calculated and a public hearing held to consider any objections to the proposed assessments. i. Notices of the assessments are sent to the property owners and they are given the opportunity to promptly pay all or a portion of the assessment, or make application to pay all or remaining portion of the assessment in semi annual installments over a 10 yr period including interest on the unpaid balance. That is 1/20th of the principal plus interest. The interest rate will be set at 2% above the bond yield. The assessment can be paid off at anytime. 5. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT METHODS a. Street and Storm Drain 50% of costs on Frontage basis. . 50% of costs on Area basis. b. Ancillary Improvements Undergrounding power, R/W acquisition, Overlay(If required) 100% of costs on Area basis. c. Sanitary Sewer Services on a Per Each basis. Remaining costs on an Area basis. 3 d. Water Services on a Per Each basis. Remaining costs on an Area basis. 6. OUEMONS AND ANSWERS a. Assembled Group. b. Informal around Exhibits. 4 E~gIgIT F"7 I e r v e r AWL eb 10 99 10:31a Engineering / 62 0752 p.l 02-108/99 DfON 13:33 FAX 5036391471 CITY OF TIGARD ~(6 Q001 r February 8, 1999 7 `ry~® ps7~'Y OF 6 ■ ~s ■ Todd R. Sheaffer OREGON' Spe'cht Develdpment 15400 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, Oregon 97006 RE: 69 Avenue LID Dear Mr. Sheaffer: I I have considered your request for a 20 year term for repayment. of the assessments for t tho' 69`h Avenue LID. Given the strong relationship*between the current assessed value of the properties involved in the LID and the proposed cost of'LID improvements, I have approved your request. i When the .LID: project is complete, I will send a notice of assessment to each property owner for each lot included in the LID. The notice will give each owner the opportunity , to pay their assessment in cash or sign an agreement to. pay their assessment in installments over the twenty year period.. The interest rate.on the assessments to be paid in installments will be determined after all contracts are signed and bonded. ; I am also attaching a description of the State of 'Oregon program for defeh-4 of special assessments as yousequested. If you have any further questions, please call me at 63911171 ext. 345. N ~ vaa I Sincerely Post-It° Fax Note 7671 Date A ay EDA lkgw ~ Fro m W. Go I Wayne Lowry Phone R ! ~sZ . Phone 4 7 1A i Director of Finance Fe><• p Fes' c: Gus Ducnas, City.of Tigard Ed Mtirphy, Ed Murphy and Associates. Marlin De Haas, De Haas & Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT F-7 r 'tIM 1 CITY OF TIGARD f~002 t/oa/99 MON 13:3$ FAX 5096 Information Circular September 1997 Deferral of Special Assessments DEPARTNEN r CF t1EVVA.E Senior citizens can "borrow" to pay for public Improve- 4. If you owe any assessments when you File the ments that are charged against their property. The state application, the property must not have been sold a will. make the payments for those who qualify. All a foreclosure sale. payments, plus interest, must be repaid 5. Your household income must be less S17,500 Oregon homeowners age 62 or older may deter pay- for the. preceding year. Household'in rx1ud ments on certain "special assessments" against their both taxable and nontaxable income. property. These are assessments by a city, county, scan- How to apply Lary district or other taxing district for improvements Apply for the deferral between October 1 and Decem- such as paved streets, sidewalks and sewers. Because ber 1 ac the assessment district office that billed you for these assessments usually are large, homeowners may the improvement. pay in installments over several years. The application must include a certified copy of the How does deferral work? installment agreement. If your payments are delinquent and you want the state to pay them, the delinquent if you qualify for the deferral program. the State of amount must be shown on the application. Oregon will make the installment payments for you. The taxing district bonding officer will send your appli- The payments will be charged to an account that esmi-i- cation to the Oregon Department of Revenue for ap- JWies a lien against your property. The mane)-, plus proval. If the department approves your application, the interest. must be paid back when you move, cell the state will pay your special assessment installments for property. change ownership or die, llte interest rite is 6 you as long as the property qualifies. percent per year. This prr-,grain allows you it) live on your prtirwrry as Iong Paymgnts on the deferred amount - as you wish without snaking apecial ;t as tmnt payments You or your spouse may pay all or part of the deferred You may apply to defer present and future a s..'-sments. If amount. and still defer present or future payments. yt/u hate :cny p:c.t clue xxses tnents. ycxt al.-,o may defer Others (relatives or friends) also may pay for you if you tlu>-e (including interest or prn:dty you one)- don't object. All payment-- should he made to the taxing district office. Do I qualify? To yu;tlify for the dvft ,,;n,1. When deferred assessments are due 1. 1'ou luxt I h3 or older :n the sots rots file the All deferred assessment payments. plus interest. become t OU 1tticm due on August 15 of the calendar year after the year that pplic. ce cc decd to the pntpc m or t1c any of these events occur: 3. Youmusthavt:arec buying the property under a rcoirdvd s der c•ontrtrt. - The person who claimed the deferral dies. Certain trustor-trustee arrangement% qualify ft Pr de- - The ownership of the property changes. ferral. You are not eligible for deferral if %-C)u have - The person who claimed the deferral no longer lives only a life estate interest in the prope•n'. Your on the property (except when required to be absent hotttesteacl is limited to your principal dwelling and for health reasons). the tax lot u d. However. if the person who deferred the payment dies i. YOU n ; t live on the propeny (except ftlr an or is disqualified. that person's spouse may continue the indivi re uired to he rat by reason of deferral if: health). If t to p operty is onvned h) two or more persons. not husband and wife. each sterner must • The survivor was age 591/1 or older when thedisquali- •rpply, live on the propcrty, he 63 or older, and fication occurred. have combined household income of S17.i00 or - Meets other qualifications, and less per year. - Applies by August 15 of the next year. iO 99 10: 32a E neerin6 6" 0752 p•3 r 02/08/99 140N 13:15 FAX 50393 71 CITY OF 1'IGARD 003 When heirs inherit the property and snake it their princi. Oregon tax questions. You can also order tax form's. This pal residence by August 15 of the following year, a service is available 24 hours a day. repayment schedule may be arranged with the Oregon Once you're in the system, push: Department of Revenue. Call Salem at 378.4988 for information about your de- 1--nin personal income tax refund information (begin- Call account balance. This number is not toll-fee. g March TTY (heating or speech impaired only): (503) 945.8617. 2--To order current year or amended forms- (Some Call your assessment district for the assessment balance. federal forms available.) Make any payments to the assessment district. Your 6-For other information. assessment district will send the payments to the Depart- 0- .For assistancefrom a representative. meet of Revenue Representatives are available: 7:30 A.su.-5:10 v.x. Mon. Property fax deferral program day-Friday, accept Wednesday when the hours are 9 Am.-5:10 P.m. Closed on holidays. From April 1- The program deferring special assessments isn't related April 15, represenmtives are available from 7 Am. to the Senior Citizen's Property'Tax Deferral program. until 7 Pm., Monday-Friday. You may defer payments under one'or both programs, TTY (hearing or speech impaired only). These num- but you must rake a separate application for each. You bets are answered by machine only and are not must apply for property tax deferral. wit" your county for voice use- The year-round toll-free number within assessor between January 1 and April 15. Oregon is 1-800.886-7204. In Salem, the number is For more information about tax deferral, write for the (503) 945-$617. free information circular, 'Senior Citizen's Property'Tax Habla Espaikol? Las personas que necesitan asiStencia Deferral; 150-310-675. The address is: en Espanol pueden dejar un mensaje. El nGmero Publications disponible todo cl ano en Salem es (503) 945-8618. Oregon Department of Revenue A message line is available all year for those who PO Box 14999 need assistance in Spanish. The number in Salem is Salem OR 97309-0990 (503) 945-8618. Taxpayer assistance In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). this information is available in alternative fotn»ts Call: Salem (503) 3784988 upon request by calling (503) 3784988. ToA-tree within Oregon 1-800-356.4222 To get forms The loll free dumber is only available fauuarl• IbruuXb April. Income tax booklets are available at many post offices, hanks and libraries. Or write to: Forms, Oregon Depart- For touchtone phones, our telephone voice response ment of Revenue. PO Box 14999. Salem OR 97309-0990. system has recorded tax information 2bOLA many of your Our Intemet addres.. is: http:!/%,Lti4tiv.deustate.or.us 0 low% I February 10, 1999 WY F TIGARD Wolz7JOTf OREGON CE Public Meeting Wednesday, February 17,. 1999 6:00 PM City of Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. to discuss 69th Avenue LID Public Hearing Tuesday, February 23, 1999 7:30 PM City of Tigard Torn Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. (See Attached for additional information) 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Pgard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT F-8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION By resolution No. 99-10 passed February 9, 1999, the Tigard City Council declared its intention to form a Local Improvement District (LID) to improve the following streets within the City of Tigard. • SW 69th Avenue between the North right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the South right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69th Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, street trees, undergrounding power, telephone, TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Ancillary improvements include right-of-way acquisition, a catch basin and wheelchair ramp at Hampton and street lighting. Basic construction will be by letting construction contracts in the usual manner. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (power, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City Forces. Construction is proposed for the Summer of 1999. The property specially benefitted and included in the LID is shown on the attached may. The estimated total cost of the improvements is $1,228,005. All costs are proposed to be paid for by special assessments. The public hearing to hear remonstrances will be conducted during the city Council meeting on February 23, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is to hear remonstrances. In order to be considered, all written and oral remonstrances must be received by the close of the hearing. In addition, an informal meeting will be held at the City Hall at 6:00 p.m., Wednesday, February 17, 1999. The purpose of this informal meeting is to answer detailed questions so that property owners will be well-informed and simplify questions to be answered at the formal public hearing. The preliminary project design and other additional information is available for public review at: 1. The office of the Engineer DeHaas & Associates, Inc. 9450 SW Commerce Circle Suite 300, AGC Center Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 682-2450 (Marlin DeHaas) 2. At the Receptionist Desk Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 189hear.Fa9 i Dortr nth Street Exhibit B / r M L D Bounday Map ii:•i: 41 : .-.2W : z:.: Elrntiust.`5tree: i £rz s.aa:. :•fL:•:I~go. i 5 . ?s :liti70:::. 7i........ i .:fl arlktiri:- Street J.*-':.::::. . ...._#3eve MAW Sco/e: I."=200' n..:: . rt siai.:?. it ;9roe;:. is Saco ti. . LID Boundory Hamntnn StrPPl ~ E%~IBIT F Y 0 t 1 i~ t t 69TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION AGENDA OUTLINE - Informal Public Meeting 2117199 1. INFORMAL INSPECTION OF PLANS AND COST EXHIBITS 2. INTRODUCTION a. Marlin -Project Manager b. If anyone needs to call our office, number is 682-2450, fax 682-4018 3. PROJECT REVIEW This project is referred to as 69th Avenue Reconstruction. Plans are preliminary only and subject to revisions as the final design is developed. a. Street Improvements (36ft wide with curb and gutter) 1. Reconstruction of 69th from Beveland to Dartmouth. 2. 1/2 street construction on 69th fronting T.L. 2900, 2800 and 9108. 3. 1/2 street construction on Franklin fronting T.L. 8300. 4. 1/2 street construction on Elmhurst fronting T.L. 2300. 5. Sidewalk and Landscaping on Dartmouth between 69th and 70th. 6. Full street construction Elmhurst 69th to 70th. Beveland 68th to 70th. 7. There will be R/W acquisition costs on the portion of Beveland from 69th to 68th. 8. The newly constructed Beveland is proposed to connect to existing Beveland at 70th. 9. The newly constructed Elmhurst is not proposed to connect to the West of 70th. b. Storm Drainage 1. Phase in a new catch basin at Hampton. 2. Construct storm drains serving Beveland and Franklin, all to connect to the existing storm drain to the South, except for 1/2 block-which must drain to the West to existing Beveland. 3. Resize and reconstruct the major crossing between Franklin and Elmhurst. 4. Collect drainage on 69th and Elmhurst to drain West to 70th and North on 70th to a water quality/detention facility. c. Sanitary Sewer 1. Extend from Beveland North to Elmhurst. 2. Extend from Dartmouth South to Elmhurst. 3. Construct services as required. EXHIBIT F-9 d. Water ITVWD~ 1. Construct an 8" main in Beveland from 68th to 70th. We have an understanding that TVWD will construct and pay for this new 8" line. There will be no costs therefor to the LID. TVWD has plans to resize the 4" existing in Beveland West of 70th. 2. Construct an 8" main in Elmhurst from 69th to 70th. 3. Construct services as required. 4. Construct Fire Hydrants as required. Ancillary Improvements 1. Underground existing power from Hampton North to TL 9800, from Franklin to the North side of Dartmouth and on Elmhurst from 69th to 70th. 2. R/W acquisition at intersection corners to provide for pedestrian ramps. 3. R/W acquisition for Beveland between 69th and 68th (R/W for Beveland between 69th and 70th is proposed to be dedicated at no cost as a part of conditions for development on the West side of 69th between Beveland and Dartmouth). f. Costs 1. Costs of improvements have been estimated on the basis of preliminary plans and without the benefit of final design. Preliminary costs estimates will be further refined when final designs are complete. We are always investigating opportunities to mitigate costs. g. Timing 1. Public hearing on formation of the LID before council 2/23/99. 2. LID formed by council on 3/9/99. 3. Construction Bid Award 611199. 4. Project substantially complete 9/15/99. 4. LID PROCEDURES a. All cities have ordinances providing for forming JD's to construct and finance public improvements. This is a project which lends itself to that process. The City sells bonds to finance the design and construction. Bonds are retired as assessments are paid by benefitting property owners. b. In this case initiation of the LID was by petition by Specht Development. c. Council calls for a Preliminary Engineering Report. (This informal meeting is being held before we complete that report). d. The Preliminary Engineering Report is presented to Council where upon they approve the report (with modifications if deemed appropriate) and calls for a public hearing. 2 e. All property owners to be assessed will be notified of the public hearing both individually and by publication in the newspaper. The notice, among other items will: 1) Give the time of the hearing. 2) Describe the project. 3) Estimate of total cost of project and portion proposed for assessment. 4) Will indicate that the purpose of the hearing is to remonstrances (objections) either 1 written or oral. f. If the remonstrance from property owners represents less than 2/3 of the property area within the district, the City can proceed with formulation of the LID. g. Assuming the district is formed, the Citycompletes final design, takes construction bids and constructs the project. h. After the project is complete and all costs are known, assessments are calculated and a public hearing held to consider any objections to the proposed assessments. L Notices of the assessments are sent to the property owners and they are given the opportunity to promptly pay all or a portion of the assessment, or make application to pay all or remaining portion of the assessment in semi annual installments over a 10 yr period including interest on the unpaid balance. That is 1/20th of the principal plus interest. The interest rate will be set at 2% above the bond yield. The assessment can be paid off at anytime. 5. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT METHODS a. Street and Storm Drain 50% of costs on Frontage basis. 50% of costs on Area basis. b. Ancillary Improvements Undergrounding power, R/W acquisition. 100% of costs on Area basis. c. Sanitary Sewer Services on a Per Each basis. Remaining costs on an Area basis. d. Water Services on a Per Each basis. Hydrants Per Each Remaining costs on an Area basis. 3 6. QUESTIONS AND ANSW RS a. Assembled Group. b. Informal arou;W'.-Exhibits. 4 O a 00 lot IM February 25, 1999 C17~f OF 71GARD OREGON JV-0T100'-CE Continuation of Public Hearing for C9to Avenue LID (Local improvement District) Tuesday, March 9, 1999 7:30 PM City of Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. (See attachment for additional Information) 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT F-10 Notice of Public Hearing Proposed 69th Avenue Local Improvement District The public hearing on the proposed Oh Avenue LID (Local Improvement District), conducted on February 23, 1999, is continued to the March 9, 1999, City Council meeting. By Resolution No.99-10 passed February 9, 1999, the Tigard City Council declared its intention to form an LID to improve the following streets within the City of Tigard. SW 69th Avenue between the North right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the South right-of-way line of SW Dartmouth Street SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue SW Franklin Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 69h Avenue • SW Beveland Street between SW 68th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69th Avenue and SW 70th Avenue (South side only) The improvements will include street, storm drain, sanitary sewer, water, sidewalk, street trees, undergrounding power, telephone, TV, and other ancillary improvements necessary to bring the streets up to full City standards. Ancillary improvements include right-of-way acquisition, a catch basin and wheelchair ramp at Hampton and street lighting. In compliance with TMC Title 13, Chapter 13.04, Section 13.04.040 a public hearing will be conducted on the proposed district. Basic construction will be performed by construction contract procured in accordance with City procurement procedures. Portions of construction may be completed by public utilities (power, telephone, TV and water). Miscellaneous construction may be provided by City forces. Construction is proposed for the summer of 1999. The properties specially benefited and included in the LID are shown on the attached map. The estimated total cost of the improvements is $1,228,005. All costs are proposed to be paid for by special assessments. The public hearing to hear remonstrances will be resumed during the City Council meeting on March 9,1999 at 7:30 p.m. In City Hall, Town Hall Meeting Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is to hear remonstrances. In order to be considered, all written and oral remonstrances must be received by the close of the hearing. The preliminary project design and other additional information are available for public review at: 1. The office of the Engineer 2. Receptionist Counter DeHaas & Associates, Inc. Tigard City Hall 9450 SW Commerce Circle 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Suite 300, AGC Center Tigard, OR 97223 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 682-2450 (Marlin DeHaas) TT Public 2/18/99 C%e~et Vsotta of h"fVV for 6ft &VWVm WAM ~ L Y LY ! J W LV ~ . r~ Borth) Street Exhibit 9 LID Bounocr Ma :?i2JOb: jai; "h. fa is :4'F; : I i. - . ~ .':F%pjik. Street I r tir^ I wtV; _y i Sco%:1 200' ::'3 ' - ; - _ A 11/0 Boundary _ _ i ; i)3.*. Hompton Street 1 E~IIBIT F-11 t t e ,;o 10 doom CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- D'-7 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1999, AS AMENDED, WITH RESPECT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID #49); DECLARING RESULTS OF THE HEARING HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT; DETERMINING THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED; ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT; AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS BEING PREPARED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99-10 was passed by the City Council of the City of Tigard at its regular meeting of February 9, 1999, which described the boundaries of a proposed street improvement assessment district, and which declared the Council's intention to construct street improvements, including curb, gutters, sidewalk, streetlights, storm d.rainke facilities, sanitary sewer, waterlines, street trees, undergrounding of any overhead utilities, and appurtenances thereto, and to assess the costs for the improvements against the properties within the boundaries which have been found to be specially benefited; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution, legal notice of the hearing scheduled for February 23, 1999 was given by publication in the Tigard Times on February 18, 1999 prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS,•by the terms of the resolution a hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. on February 23, 1999 at the Town Hall Meeting Room in City Hall located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard, Oregon and was continued to March 9, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of affording an opportunity to any parties affected by the proposal to make objections or remonstrances to the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, written notice regarding the continuation of the public hearing was given to all property owners in the proposed assessment district ten or more days prior to the continuation of the hearing in accordance with TMC 13.04.040 (b)(1)B; and AID EREAS, the preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements, the estimates of the work to be performed, and the probable costs of the improvements which each lot should pay were available to the public at the meeting and prior to the meeting; and WHEREAS, by the terms of the resolution and public notice, written objections or remonstrances from not less than 66 2/3% by property area of the owners of the properties within the boundaries of the proposed improvement assessment district were invited as provided by TMC 13.04.040; and WHEREAS, all objections and remonstrances presented prior to the hearing and at the hearing represent less than 66 2/3% by property area within the improvement assessment district, and that the percentage of remonstrances is not a ban to further proceedings in the making of the improvements; and WHEREAS, all proceedings to date have been in conformity with State Statute, the Tigard Charter, Chapter IX, §38, §39, and Tigard Municipal Code, Title 13, and all procedures were regularly and lawfully conducted. ORDINANCE- No 99• I \ci"debrd\O rdinance for Fomution or69° Avenue LID Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F-11 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l: Resolution No. 99-10, adopted by the City Council on February 9, 1999, and attached and marked as Exhibit "A" shall be adopted as a part of this ordinance subject to the amendments set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this ordinance. The amendments are a result of the public hearing proceedings, and the amended resolution is hereby approved, ratified, and confirmed. The boundaries of the area henceforth to be known as 69'b Avenue Local Improvement District, as described in the resolution, are declared and fixed in accordance with the description. SECTION 2: The City Council, having acquired jurisdiction to order the improvements to be made, does hereby authorize the formation of the local improvement district and directs the Finance Director to prepare the Preliminary Assessment Roll. SECTION 3: The City Council fiuther authorizes the acquisition of land as provided by State law and the Tigard Municipal Code, and the construction of street improvements within the boundaries of the 69th Avenue Local Improvement District in conformity in all reasonable particulars with the plans and specifications being prepared for this LID. SECTION 4: The estimated costs and expenses of the improvements to be assessed against the specially benefited properties is $1,228,005.00. The estimated costs include the cost of construction and installation of the improvements, advertising, legal, administrative, survey, engineering, notice, supervision, materials, labor, contracts, equipment, inspections and assessment costs; financing casts including interest charges; the costs of necessary property right-of-way or easement acquisition and condemnation proceedings; attorney's fees and any other necessary expenses. SECTION 5: All lands situated within the boundaries described on the attached Exhibit "A" are determined and declared to be a street improvement assessment district, and it is further declared that each lot, part of lot and parcel of land within said boundaries will be specially benefited by said improvements. The estimated cost is $1,228,005.00 for the improvements including land acquisition costs. The City of Tigard shall be a participant in the street improvement assessment district and shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 for land acquisition costs to permit construction of the Beveland Street Extension between 68h Avenue and 69m Avenue. The project costs estimated to be $1,228,005.00 shall be assessed, according to benefit, against all lands within the district, except that the City of Tigard shall contribute an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 that shall be used to reduce the costs assessible to the benefited properties. Benefit for the purposes of LID #49 is hereby determined to be derived according to improving both the property's ability to develop as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard Triangle Design Standards for the City of Tigard, and the property's access to the improvements. SECTION 6: The final costs of the improvements to be assessed shall be determined after completion of all improvements and acceptance of the improvements by the City of Tigard. The final methods of assessment shall likewise be determined after the improvements are completed and accepted. ORDINANCE NO. 99. I:kitywidebrdl0rdinance for Formation of 69°1 Avenue LID Page 2 of 3 1 SECTION 7: The Tigard City Council finds that the 69" Avenue Local Improvement District improvements are local improvements of the character described in TMC 13.04.010(a) and ORS 310.140, and that they therefore qualify for interim financing pursuant to ORS 223.235. SECTION 8: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its enactment by the Council and approval e by the Mayor. PASSED: By u rV"MULLD vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 4-7r day of -11999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 999. es Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City &ey 3 t ~iG Date ORDINANCE NO.99-~'Z Mcitywid6ord\Ordinance for Ponnaoon of 69` Avenue LID Page 3 of 3 RING r W Iwo .Olson its Q~ Plaill s ;dI to-, sR s g$ -gym: Age s g ~ ~ vQ life M3 SL. I H H I Y N NOW ~ EXHIBIT F"13 1 e r e 0 w /W r. JUfIG JUl1 - 1• t.enter "9 HAAS 94~w. Commerce Circe W tie, OmQw 97070 & (SO3W 2-2450 ss S o c 1 a t e s 9 Inc • • (503)68240I8 Fu I#A Consultint Engineers do Sarveyors may 19, 1999 Vmnie Nguyen City of Tigard 13125 SW FUH Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: 69th Avenue Reconstruction Lm Deft Va mle: Wdum oeflad bids were received by the Eoghwert g Department, city of TSgsrd, 13125 SW Ball Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223 until 2.00 o'dods p.m., May 18, 1999, at which time they wese publicly opened and read. Tea bids were recdved as follow: 1. WA.-- Jones (b. $ 832,341.70 ? Qua Excavation, Inc. 833,96650 3. ldot&wwt >E oveia„ lac. 855,85930 ® 4. Emerald Tower, Inc. 879,117.99 ~j 5.. D & D Cmmft & Utilities, Inc 940,980.00 6. T bree Dimensional Contracting, Inc. 974,55230 7. The Saunders Company, Inc. 1,033,818.70 8. Eagle Msorr, Inc. 1,035,266.90 9. Kcrr Contractors, Inc. 1,037,153.00 10. P. Miller do Sons Contractors, Inc. 1,152,333.10 The Engiaoees Estimate was $813,597.75 A tabulation of bids is auachod_ , We recommend the contract award be made to W.A. Jones Co. in the amount of $832,341.70. Sincerely, {M,,a~rlinY1JzP.FR-1'Pj-.S. rWYUR4 r. 1 cc: 98.189.118 Amts MID/loo 1891tr.M20 EXHIBIT F-13 x d00 r 1 .Y June 17, 1999 W OF OREGION Warren A. Jones W. A. Jones, Company 11270 SW Clay Street Sherwood, Oregon 97140 NOME TO PROCEED 69th Avenue Reconstruction LED The contract documents for the above contracts were received by us in complete form. You are hereby notified to proceed with the work required under the contract. The date for official completion of all schedules except Schedule F is Thursday, September 30, 1999; and the date for official completion of Schedule F is Monday, November 1, 1999. A fully executed copy of the contract document for the project is enclosed. Sincerely, ` Vannie T. y P.E. ~ Engineering Manager ' - Marlin J. De Haas a i L1rr4G9ckM ftVV-wa.pnas.dw 13125 SW Hall Blvd., llgard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 EXHIBIT F-14 i F-15 ~ EXHIBI'IL 1 1 t t 0 t t i DE HAAS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Suite 300 - AGC Center 9450 SW Commerce Circle Wilsonville, Oregon. 97070 CERTIFICATE OF WORK COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE NAME OF PROJECT : 69th Avenue Reconstruction L.I.D. PROJECT No.: CIP 99.07 98.189.118 1. All work for the above referenced project has been completed by us in accordance with the Contract Documents of De Haas & Associates, Inc. and we hereby approve the final estimate quantities as computed by De Haas & Associates, Inc. This firm releases the owner from any liens arising out of this contract; or is providing the Owner herewith, a bond covering any liens outstanding on this contract. Date: ze -'d _ " ~ (Sim gnanue of Authorized Official)- _ .1W, A, Jones Co. (Name of Contracting Firm) 11270 SW Jay Street ---.Sherwood, Or- gon-97140 (Address) 2. Work has been completed on the above referenced project in accordance with terns of the contract applying thereto. i recommend acceptance of the completed project and also ecomm d that final payment be made to the Contractor. ~J Date: By: Dc Haas Associates, Inc. CERT. CM P EXHIBIT F-15 ~ EX~IBI'~ F-16 1 t 1 t t i e WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET _i OF 8_SHEETS PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL IM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS REMARKS 1 Mobrlizabon S All 28 619.60 $28.619.6U __100% 28 619.60 ___0% 0.00 100% $28,619.60 2 TP & DT LS All $1442.00 $1442.00 100% $1.4i.60 0% $0.00 100% $1,442.00 3 Erosion Control LS All $2,7011.70 $2 701.70 100% 52 701.70 0% $0.00 100% $2701.70 4 Cle:lnnq & 31 1 i b1 LS All $28,241.10 $28 241.10 100% 528 241.10 0% $0.00 100% 528 241.10 5 Repave ' Storm Drains ConAe!j LF 77 $9.60 $73920 77 5739.20 0 50.00 77 $739.20 6 Remove ExIstM CatdtHaslns FA 3 5210.60 5631.80 4 $842.40 0 50.00 4 $842.40 7 Repave Existh SldeGradc &_AppMLCon SF 2202 0.60 $132120 1187 F77962 20 0 $0.00 1187 $712.20 Citb' LF 288 $3.90 $1 12320 134 60 0 $0.00 134 $522.60 US" 00 0% $0.00 0% 50.00 8 Remove 9 Rewatk Gravel Sedw of 69th Ave. LS All 020 $2 020 0% 10 Common Emce1►a6oe" CY 2179 .$420 $9151.80 1963 $1.60 0 50.00 1963 58 44.60 11 CY 4242 $2.50 $10 605.00 4162 .00 0 $0.00 4162 $10405.00 1286~lion CY 20 $45.70 $914.00 82 4 5.68 0 $0.00 82 4 53 765.56 13 314'-0 CntstadIR6 lc CY 189 3.60 $4 498.20 397 .60 D 50.00 397 S9 448.60 CY 1594 $23.00 $36662.00 1764.00 0 $0.00 1768 $40664.00 14 1'-0 Crtutte6 Rode LF 4619 $8.40 ' $38 799.60 459$1.60 17 $142.80 4616 538 774.40 15 Curb & Gutter TON 2332 $35.00 581 64090 2227.51 2.85 69.9 $2 446.SD 2297.41 580 409.35 16 A.C. Pavement 2 5200.40 5400.80 1.60 0 $O.DO 4 5801.60 F t 7 Ad ust Tete one Manholes 18 WaterQuali Facili LS All 513,736.40 $13,736.40 100°k 0°h $0.00 100% $13,736.40 F 19 Surve Monument Boxes EA 3 $213.00 $639.00 0 $0.00 5 $1 065.00 F 20 Reconstruct Parki Lot Access LS All $5,781.20 $5,781.20 90% iD°k 5578.12 100% $5 781.20 21 Combination Sto Street Sin EA 6 $185.30 $1,111.80 0 $0.00 5 $926.50 22 Relocate Chain Link Fence LF 475 $10.00 $4,750.00 181 0 $0.00 18f $1,810.00 F $0.00 0 $0.00 0 50.00 Fence Deleted 23 Relocate Wood 20 0 $0.00 791 $18 351.20 F 24 Block ftetainin Wall Standard SF 285 $24.70 $7 039.50 [27 25 Block Retaini Wall Can ac SF 285 $23.20 $6,612.00. 3.18 351. LS All $526.25 5526.25 5526.25 0°!° $0.00 100% $526.25 F Chan a Order #1 Item 28 595.00 52 660.00 $2 660.00 0 $0.00 28 S2 660.00 Change Order !I6 item tI2 ,btotal Schedule A (Original Work Proposed $289,361.30 $292,547.55 $298.023.16 $3,167.42 $301,190.58 PREVIOUS ESTIMATE NO. 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March. 2000 CONTRACTOR r OTAL AMOUNT EARNED 2SS RETAINAGE % EST. NO. AMOUNTS WA. Jones ESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE 112770 SW OCla Ry St. ~ Sherwood. . 97140 AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE (503) 570-0603 'AYMENT DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT )ESCRIPTIUN AMOUNT ESTIMATE o 'jim LEGIBII,IPY 58tH-Y WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET-2-OF-8-SHEETS PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS REMARKS 26 Mobilization LS All 51394.60 16 394.60 100° $16,394.60 0° 0.00 100 16 394.60 F 27 TP 8 DT LS All 5721.00 5721.00 100% 5725.00 04 $0.00 100% $721.00 F 28 Erosion Control LS All 5500.70 5500.70 100% 5500.70 0% $0.00 100% $500.70 F 29 Gru LS All $4,470.40 $4,470.40 100% $4 470.40 0% $0.00 100% $4,470.40 F 30 Trentfi Coin & Class A Bat:}diU LF 345 $17.00 $5 865.00 345 $S 865.00 0 50.00 345 $5,865.00 F 31 Tres 1ch K.-(Corn) & Class 8 LF :17:18--.. $30.10 $51,711.80 1782 S53 638.20 0 50.00 1782 "453 638.20 F _ 32 Trench Founda5on -LF 25 S13:50 $337.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 .0 $0.00 F 33 C. PavemErit LF 0 515.90 $318.00 64 $1017.60 0 $0.00 64 $1017.60 F • 34 6'HDPE O M252 LF '69 $2.40 $165.60 82 5196.80 0 50.00 82 $196.80 F RA252 i LF :..157:-- • $3.50 $199.50 107 $374.50 0 50.00 :107 $374.50 F PT- 35 aSHDPE 0 IV. OM252 LF .'•_325' -$420• $1365.00 325 51365.00 0 -325.: 51365.00 F -37 12741DPE 014129131' LF - `x'60" 54.80' $3648.00 761 5365280. 0 $0.00 7611- -'$3.652.80 F .38 W HOPE AASNTO M294 T S LF 758 $7.60 55760.80 758 $5.760.80 0 $0.00 7681- $5,760.80 F 39 18' HDPE AASHTO M294 type S LF . 23 $8.70 $200.10 23 $200.10 •0 $0.00 23 $200.10 F 40 24' HDPE Pi AASHTO M294 T yp2 S LF 71 $14.00 $994.00 71 $994.00 0 $0.00 71 $994.00 F 41 Catch Basins EA 17 $1.213.30 $20.62610 18 $21,839.40 0 $0.00 18 $21,839.40 F 42 48" Standard Manhole EA 7 $2,119.90 $14,839.30 6 $12,719.40 0 $0.00 6 $12,719.40 F 43 60' Standard Manhole EA 1 $3473.50 $3,473.50 °2 $6,947.00 0 $0.00 2 $6,947.00 F All $4.573.40 $4,573.-40 100 G $4,573.40 0% $0.00 100% $4,573.40 F 44 Construct Beveland Outtall Facilities EA 100% $25,997.20 F 45 Detention Facility LS All $25,997.20 $25,997.20 100% $25,997.20 0% $0.00 46 Connect to Existing Manhole EA 1 $599.50 $599.50 1 $599.50 0 $0.00 1 $599.50 F 47 Class 100 Ri ra CY 15 $71.50 $1,072.50 25 $1,787.50 0 $0.00 25 $1,787.50 F Change Order #1 Item #1 LS All $1,421.00 $1,421.00 100% $1,421.00 0% $0.00 100% $1,421.00 F Change Order #1 Item 94 LS All $2 833.35 $2,833.35 100% $2,833.35 0% $0.00 100% $2,833.35 F Change Order #1 Item #5 LS All $1.977.25 $1,977.25 100% $1,977.25 0% $0.00 100% $1 977.25 F Change Order 04 Item #2 CY 35 $150.00 $5,250.00 35 $5,250.00 0 $0.00 35, $5,250.00 F >ubtotal - Schedule 6 0 final Work Pr sed $163,833.50 $175,315.10 $181,096.50 $0.00 $181,096.50 TOTAL AMOUNT EARNED PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO. 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March, 2000 CONTRACTOR LESS RETAINAGE % EST. NO. AMOUNTS W.A. Jones Co. APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE 11270 SW Clay St. LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT Sherwood, OR 97140 AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE (503) 570.0603 PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ESTIMATE WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET_3_OF_8_SHEETS PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS REMARKS 0 -15-57,, 4 Mobilization LS Pit 494.0 9 494.6 $9,494W 0% $1.L08150 0% $0.00 100% $1,081-50 F 49 TP & DT LS All $1081.50 $1081.50 -100'/. LS All $774.50 $774.50 100% $774.50 0% $0.00 100% $774.50 F 50 control 51 Clews Erosion and Grubbino LS All $915.20 $915.20 100% $915.20 0% $0.00 100% $915.20 F 52 Remove Exist M.H. & 8" S.S. LS All $1264.80 $1 264.80 100% $1,264.80 0% $0.00 100% $53 Trench Ex Common & Class B Qaddil LF 1509 $40.50 $61.114.50 1509 $61,114.50 0 $0.00 1509 $54 Tr+enah Foundation LF 20 $18.90 $338.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 55 AC~PEVemeittR t $15.90 $795.00 57 $906.30 0 $0.00 57 554..~ LF 202 $1.70 $343.40 202 $343.40 0 $0.00 202 57 6• LF 232 $2.20 $510.40 232 $510.40 0 $0.00 232 LF 1075 $320 $3 440.00 1075 $3440.00 0 $0.00 1075 $58 59 _ EA 6 $80,50 $483.00 9 $724.50 0 $0.00 9 $724.50 60InseitaTees EA 3 $137.10 $411.30 2$274.20 0 $0.00 2 $274.20 F 61 48' Standard Manhole EA 5 $2,552.80 $12,764.00 5 $12,764. 00 0 $0.00 5 $12,764.00 F 62 Conned to Existing Manhole EA 1 $654.70 $654.70 1 $654.70 0 $0.00 1 $654.70 F Change Order #1 Item #4 LS All $2,288.85 $2.288.85 100% $2,288.85 0% $0.00 100% $2,288.85 F Change Order #4 Item #2 CY 17 $150.00 $2,550.00 17 $2,550.00 0 $0.00 17 $2,550A0 F I $0.00 $99,101.45 Subtotal - Schedule C (Original Work Pro sed $94.384.90 $99,22175 $99,101.45 TOTAL AMOUNT EARNED PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO. 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March. 2000 CONTRACTOR LESS RETAINAGE % EST. NO. AMOUNTS W.A. Jones Co. LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE 11270 SW Clay St AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 570-0603 PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PAYMENT ESTIMATE I $ J„{yJ~TJ1JJ1J11 1 V 11.. . ® ® ® ® ® ® ® IIIIIIII~ WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET-4-OF-8-SHEETS PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS 0 DOLLARS UNITS 0 DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS REMARKS re x coon ss a 14 4 64 Trench Ex Common 8 Class B Backfill LLF 88 $23.30 $4380.40 F 32 $15.90 5508.80 219 $ $302.10 0 $0.00 219 $302.10 F A.C. Re 65 W D Pavement e 2 LF 336 $9.00 $3024.00 271 $2,439.00 0 $0.00 271 $2 439.00 F 66 6• Ductile lron Pi Class 52 5 $857.00 S4 285.00 7 $5,999.00 0 $0.00 7 $5 999.00 F 67 12' x 6' T Sleeves 5 $348.30 Si 741.50 8 $2 786.40 0 $0.00 8 $Z786.40 F 69 .50 0 $0.00 5 $7.366.50 F 68 6' T Vatv2s EA 6 $1477.30 58 863.80 5 $7,386 Fire is Ch~ ~ 22 1621st 81 EJ1 3 $1 009.15 3 027.45 3 $3.027.45 0 $0.00 3 $3.027A5 F 10096 S3,011.55 096 $0.00 100% $3A11.55 F LS All $3011.55 $3011.55 Cham Order #2 (Rom #2) $31,266.30 $0.00 $31,266.30 .ubtotal - Schedule 0 (Original Work pro Dosed $25,526.70 $31,565 70 TOTAL AMOUNT EARNED PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March. 2000 CONTRACTOR EST. NO. AMOUNTS W.A. Jones Co LESS RETAINAGE % APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE 11270 SW Clay St LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT Sherwood, OR 97140 AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE (503) 570-0603 PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ESTIMATE ~L~yVylyy1l N11LL1-___aw, -__m - -m - WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET_5_OF_8_SHEETS PREY{OUS THIS MONTH TOTAL UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Epp DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS 1 DO LLARS UNITS? DOLLARS REMARKS ee ~r m 12 3.0 71 ' Concrete Sidewalk SF 24660 $3.20 $78 912.00 27861 $69155.20 424 $1 356.80 28285 $90 512.00 Ik & ron SF 3478 $3.90 $13564.20 4745 $18 505.50 212 $826.80 4957 $19 332.30 72 Concrete Side+'ra I - E q 12 5665.15 S7 981.80 12 $7961.80 0 50.00 12 57 981.80 F Item #1 (S All $1424.00 51424:00: 10076 51424.00 0% 50.00 1 51424.00 # SF 266 S4.62 S1 0 .50.00 266 51228.92 266 $1 8.92 !--77-77 - $113 830.52 $127 786.10 $4 305.82 $132,091.92 btotal- Schedule E Od inal Work pro sed $103,195.80 OUNT EA PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO. 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March. 2000 CONTRACTOR ESSRETRNED SS RETAINAGE °k EST. NO. AMOUNTS WA Jones Co. DATE 11270 SW Clay St APPROVED FOR PAYcA Sherwood, OR 97140 ESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT ENT (503) 570 0603 MOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE AYMENT DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT ,ESCRIPTION AMOUNT ESTIMATE ij~ iii h ® ® - SNEET 6 yr go to WORK COMPLETED TOTAL RK PROPOSED TH►S 1A TOTAL -VOTAL REMARKS WO pRE~IOUs p7AL 707AL UNR; 4 5 50.00 7 UNITS DpRS 6 $q 644.60 •usUnent to 100pSF Ornr~ 70THL pOLLARS delivered TOTAL S 0 $0.00 14 $3,792.60 pt"Ul1RS UNIT pOLLARS uNR 124 35. X4.60 .80 6 $4 _2 $541 - PRICE 175 334.40 UN17 QUAtyTITY $6,92.80 16 $774.10 $5147.10 DESCFtIPT10N EA 8 19 $27090 EM reet rees - fi r 100pSF T C-a 7 3-1~ 74 SUeet7rees 75 Bar~dust $44.087-20 $541.80 CONTRACTOR y Slreet Mares I A270 J SW QR ones laCo. pAYMNNT pERl00 $44. 00 .197140 $63.089.90 10 DATE She(WOOd. O6 t ES?IMA7E NO (503) $63089.90 FOR PAYMENT IW~Pro PREVIOUS PAYMENTS APPROVED AMOUNTS PAYMENT l F EST- N0. blota Schedule O ~NED ESTIMATE AMOUNT % ~gs Rr- oUS PAYMENT 5S IMATE P pUEREVI THIS EST M=NT MEMO O1STR16UTJOS AMOUNT aYMEN7 SCRIPTION WORK PROPOSED WORK COMPLETED SHEET-7-OF-8-SHEETS PREVIOUS THIS MONTH TOTAL - - UNIT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS UNITS DOLLARS REMARKS 76 Mobilization LS All N1594- 6113.70 100 $6113.70 0% 0.00 1 113.70 F 77 TP S DT LS All 5540.70 100% 5540.70 0% 50.00 100% 5540.70 F 78 Erosion Control LS All 5384.60 100% 5384.60 0% $0.00 100% 5384.60 F ol LS All i1 37280 100% St 37280 0% 50.00 100% S1 372811 F 79 80 C Trench Ex & gabbi dcf 11 LF 3275 519 322.50 4147 52446730 0 50.00 4147 524467.30 F 81 r4oPVC LF 1so 160 $96.00 o Sooo 160 596.00 82 C Sdwdtft 40 LF 3115 i4 361.00 4147 $5 8G5.80 0 $0.00 4147 ;5_805.80 FA 9 229.30 520063.70 9 520063.70 0 $0.00 9 $20063.70 83 660 IA Vaults FA 3 $718.10 52154.30 3 52154.30 0 $0.00 3 154.30 Pad EA T $587.70 $587.70 1 5587.70 0 $0.00 1 $587.70 84 4242 Pad Vault 85 65r G Cone TAI« LF 352 $75.90 Z5 596.80 779 51 386.10 0 50.00 779 S1 386.10 86 A.C. Pavement R SF 125 $4.70 $587.50 539 533.30 0 50.00 539 533.30 87 Cottaete SideNra4c order #2 itemIm 2 $508.40 $1016.80 2 51016.80 0 $0.00 2 S10t6.80 Order #2 Item 04 LS All S6 637.10 S6 637.10 100% 56 637.10 0% $0.00 100% S6 637.10 F FA 2 $497.50 $995.00 2 $995.00 0 $0.00 2 $995.00 F Change Order #4 Item#1 CY 8 $150.00 $1,200.00 8 51,200.00 0 $0.00 8 $1,200.00 F Gha a Order #4 Item #2 ubtotal -Schedule G (Original Work Pr sed $61,181.30 $71,030.20 U$86.3c $0,00 586.354.90 rOTAI AMOUNT EARNED PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO. 10 PAYMENT PERIOD March. 2000 CONTRACTOR W.A. Jones Co. i_ESS RETAINAGE % EST. NO. AMOUNTS y 0 t_ESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPROVEp FOR PAYMENT DATE Sherw od OR ClaStreet WOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE (503) 570-0603 PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION PAYMENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ESTIMATE MEMO—- an so .,iftt TOTAL MO , tc~KCSE TOTAL ARKS THIS -TOTAL RE[+II PREVIOUS . TOTAL TOTAL UNITS DOLLARS TOTAL T07AL DOLLAR $4 533.60 F TOTAL DOLLARS UNIT 0 000 100°10 8945.90 F UNIT DOLSRS UNITS 4 533.60 O,~o $0.00 PRICE UNIT QUANTITY 4,533.60 4 533.60 S00% 5945.90 $0.00 f4 813 932.F All $945.90 0 f 4 82 7 0.0 0 F 8945.90 14 813 932.80 0 $0.00 2344 $164 , DESCRIPTION LS All .00 fEM Lateral LS $2 786 50.00 $1 168.20 F Catch Basin $995.20 $13 932.80 14 0 198 86 ConsW~ New (chair Ram peteted 14 2 144 51640.80 0 $0.00 VVhee 89 Re lace 14 8199.00 b1484•00 198 $1 168.20 100% S5 865.60 F Demolition of House at Beveland El'• EA 2120 50.70 $1239.00 096 50.00 91 Watt Street Li hts LF 210 $5.90 100% 55865.60 92,324 -18 J Boxes LF 55 865.60 10 5159.00 F g -1tY Schedule 40 PVC ill for Li htin All $5865.60 0 50.00 216 51080.00 94 rer II-Y atwn & Ba f r LS 5159.00 $0.00 216 Si p80.00 m addition to & Ba f or Under 1Q 0 100 56185.00 F 1~,~ $17986.45 F rerlch & 12300 815.90 $731.40 O 12170 12190 46 5250.00 056 $.QO % LF 50 $5.00 tdfl% $6185.00 0% 50.00 60 Avenue. t SF $6185.00 100% $17 986.45 t R nt $6185. 00 45 9 C. S nattc R LS aA4 $17 986.45 517 986. _ LS ~ef~1 Items Ordef q3 1tem1 $56,283.35 $0.00 931472.20 $56 283.35 6931.44 CONTRACTOR $55.939.75 924, 40.76 W .A. Jones Co. 902 542- PAYMENT PERIOD March 2000 11270 SW Clay street 110 1768.30 TE NO PATE OR 97140 ESTIMATE She 57(). ose Oi ina{ Prosed 832 1.70 T ,btotal - Schedule B ri r Work PAYMEN (503) } 570-0603 mat ork Pro PREVIOU S PAYMENTS ilal A! ch u s AMOUNTS APPROVED FOR $931472.20 EST. NO 1 $49862-15 17.31 OT AL AMOUNT EARNED $000 PAYMENT ESS 4 GE89a''04994 2 $126 9355.6 .69 ESTIMATE ESS OUS PAYMENT TE S25422.26 3 $186 499.24 a ~MOUltT DUE THIS EST( 5 $111029.39 6 $79,949.28 nYMEN IBUTION AMOUNT 7 $93,555.10 087.99 ,ESCWpTION 8 899 9 838 513.79 City of Tigard ublac Hearing ®sed Assessments 69th Avenue Focal Improvement District February 12,2002 , , = f ground S' ❖ Initiated at the request of Specht Development in 1998 ❖ Staff presented a Preliminary Evaluation Report to Council on October 13, 1998 ❖ Improvements are to 69th Avenue and intersecting streets ❖ Tigard Triangle Street Plan called for extension of Beveland Street to 68th 2 1 LM M1 AA ground ❖ Preliminary Engineer's Report was prepared - report laid out the proposed boundary - report included the Beveland Extension - Beveland Extension required acquisition of an existing building and land - Council passed Resolution 99-10 on February 9, 1999 declaring intent to form an LID 3 und +9ro - Council conducted a formal public hearing on February 23, 1999 - Council passed Ordinance 99-07 on March 9, 1999 forming the district - Council contributed up to $200,000 to the LID costs to allow for the Beveland Extension - Project was designed and constructed 4 2 Bound ' l 69th Avenue LnM~.a ~ (!D Doundoq' Map a y ' a , . i • S i S$ t r Yx1~~. k^ ~Ject photos ttZ,~ Beveland x e 1~~==a'~ +2~.. F.i:1k r~ a ~ s ..4 6 3 ---.mom millsom t~, 1 ,r eat Photos ~'~'•-:~Y 't'~`:~ avenue 69th Coast, action During rvsA'`z.,, ect Photos {,..y 0 k 69th Avenue Aber construetion • ject Photos b7' R House Removed C Completed Beveland Extension 9 F ect Photos Residential driveway before Residence after completion of improvements 10 5 ject Photos View along Elmhurst c ~r~r rry Improvements completed LID Costs ❖ Total costs to be spread among benefited property owners: $1,589,211.00 ❖ Methods of Assessment spread the overall costs among the benefited properties in accordance with benefits received ❖ Neighborhood meeting - January 10, 2002 to discuss proposed assessments with property owners 12 6 M1~,,jr $ Increase ❖ Factors increasing costs during the process - higher than expected costs in condemnation of the property to allow for the Beveland Extension - inclusion of interest and related expenses for the interim financing of the project 13 *roval of Assessments ❖ Council adopted Resolution No. 02-07 - approving the assessment methods as presented in the Final Engineer's Report - approving the proposed assessments as set forth in that same report ❖ Council directed that a public hearing be conducted to hear objections, if any, to the proposed assessments 14 7 +oval of Assessments ❖ Public Hearing notice was mailed to each benefited property owner ❖ Notice was published in the Tigard Times on 1/31/02 and 2/07/02 ❖ Public Dearing is during tonight's meeting ❖ Deadline for written comments: 12 noon today 15 ,I! or Revisions ❖ Minor revisions to the Final Engineer's Report - Revisions dated February 11, 2002 - Reflected a change in the ownership of one tax lot, which changed two individual assessments - Corrected some discrepancies in the numbers in the Final Report - Total assessment did not change 16 8 i s Next? ❖ Council hears and considers all testimony - Copies of all written testimony have been provided to Council members ❖ Council approves the final assessments as previously approved or makes modifications ❖ Final assessments are spread by ordinance to be submitted to Council on February 26, 2002 17 City of Tigard Hearing J~ C r..,,.'; r,•, y.~~. 410 V ®sed Assessments 69th Avenue Focal Improvement District 1 1 9 Exhibit 'C' - P-ey!=d Beveland Right-of-Way Costs 69th Avenue LID Related to P~ Total Ancillary Beveland R/W _ Costs hAcc g lsi~_ tion FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Construction WA Jones 56,283 17,000 (Cost of Moving House) RJ Rouse Electric 5,480 - / KS Landscaping 100 Total Construction 61,863 17,000 27.5% Q R/W Acquisition U Kathleen Knowlton 14,675 14,675 Clancy Gamer & Pierce 405 405 State of Oregon (Fierce taking) 6/23/99 225,000 225,000 State of Oregon (Pierce taking) 7/26/99 52,500 52,500 Tax - Pierce taking 1,058 1,058 Business Journal 85 85 DJC 59 59 Community News 46 46 Pacific Coast Credit 6,833 6,833 Teach Reporting 336 336 Moscato Ofner & Henningsen 3,245 3,245 Paula Monlc Trosen 4,199 4,199 SML Associates 500 500 Clayton Environmental 270 270 Bonnie Owens 13,020 13,020 Sheri Ireland 20,000 20,000 Hanna McEldowny 750 750 JF Young 5,178 5,178 Limelight Studio 588 588 Marijane Simon 581 581 Mark Dana 1,643 - Landmark Ford 864 - J.T. Roth (net) 38,089 38,089 Pacific Christian Counsel 20,000 20,000 Ramis Crew & Corrigan 42,344 42,344 Preston Gates & Ellis 1,882 1,882 Total R/W Acquisition 454,148 451,641 LA&E and Bond Interest Costs 25,447 6,993 Total LA&E and Bond Interest 25,447 6,993 27.5% Extras Amendment #1 Legals 1,500 1,500 Amendment #2 Legals 1,250 1,250 Amendment #3 Easement for PGE 725 - Amendment #3 House Removal Alts. 780 780 Amendment #3 House Removal Alts. 675 675 Amendment #4 Possession Delay 1,572 1,572 Total Extras 6,502 5,777 Miscellaneous 409 Total Miscellaneous 409 - Total Ancillary Improvements $548,370 $481,411 87.8% SOLUTION SUPPORTED BY SPECHT DEVELOPMENT, INC. Remove Overpayment for R/W $52,500 Subtotal $428,911 Portion in Excess of Original Estimate ($330,000) $98,911 City Participation Increase in City Participation $59,941 60.6% ($200,000 divided by $330,000) of Excess of Original Estimate Previously Committed City Participation $200,000 Total Ancillary Improvements Related to Beveland R/W Acquisition Assessed to LID Property Owners 168,970 Note: The numbers used in arriving at "Total Ancillary Improvements" were reviewed with Marlin DeHaas on 1/11/02 and faxed to Gus Duenas on 1/14/02 for his review. Ed Murphy Associates February 11, 2002 / . OZ HOELSCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. Hoelscher, Esq. Attorney & Counselor At Law D CO S. W. 72"d Avenue G'.Q Tigard, Oregon 97223-8030 q ~~OZ (503) 624-0917 ; FAX 684-8971 Cell. 314-6002 & E-mail: svnegooamsn.com Strut10/1 February 8, 2002 (2:05pm) CITY OF TIGARID, OREGON Att: City Council / Hearings Officer Tigard City Ball 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-2772 Re: Objections to "Proposed Assessments for the 69" Avenue Local Improvement District No 49, concerning Tax Lot # 2S101AA09600; Owners of record: Stephen W. & Lynn Peirce; Proposed Assessment $55,126.00 Gentlepersons: This is to advise you that I am the attorney for the subject owners of record, Stephen & Lynn Peirce [the "Peirces"], and for the purpose of formally submitting their objections to the subject LID proposed assessment, on the grounds and for the reasons that: 1. The only reason that the Peirces own the subject tax lot is that their former commercial building and lot [once located at the corner of 72"d Avenue and Bevland Street] was recently condemned by the City and the Peirces are currently indebted to the City for the sum of approximately $120,000; 2. The Peirces are currently in the process of developing the subject tax lot from a residence to a commercial office building, and pursuant to conditions set by the City's Planning & Development Department, they have been required to expend the sum of approximately $105,000 for the installation of a new sanitary and storm water sewer line from their lot along Bevland Street up toward 72nd Avenue, which sewer line was interided to serve the o-lais owned by five (5) other adjoining lot owners residences and/or businesses; 3. To this writing, the Peirces have neither been reimbursed for the applicable share of this sewer line cost by the adjoining lot owners, nor has the City created a so-called "Reimbursement District" for the purpose of ultimately reimbursing the Peirces for the adjoining lot owners appropriate portions of this City required real property development cost; 4. Further, the City's Planning & Development Department has also required to Peirces 1 to agree to set aside by "Restrictive Covenant' a 5,400 sq ft strip of land [current valued at $20 per sq ft or a total of $108,000] along that portion of their subject tax lot affronting the proposed 701h Street, however, the City has not at this time either purchased that property or instituted coridemnation proceedings to acquire it; and 111111011111111 _011011111 1111111 1-0-1011- 5. The current income derived by the Peirces from their use of the subject tax lot is not sufficient to pay the subject assessment until the Peirces have been reimbursed for the adjoining lot owners for their share of the sewer line and the City purchases or condemns the 5,500 sq ft strip described in paragraphs 2 and 4, herein above, and any action by the City to collect that assessment at this time would in effect confiscate the Peirces subject tax lot without compensation. And in the interim, please do not hesitate to call to my attention any questions you may have _ with regard to this matter. Professional regards, William Hoelscher, sq. OSB# 73140 Attorney & Counselor At Law c: y- Stephen & Lynn Peirce 'Fubl i c 40".vlg /la vz copies to: Mayor/Council they: so o City Manager Jl Council File February 7, 2002 V tFoej\J D C • . Mayor and City Council V Eb 0 a 2002 City of Tigard trat%O'n 13125 SW Hall Blvd Adf61 11S Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mayor Griffith and Members of the City Council: We just received the proposed assessment for the 69 h Avenue LID and a copy of Specht Properties correspondence to you on this subject dated January 22, 2002. We will be unable to attend the public hearing on February 12, 2002, so we wanted to express our opinions once again. We were never in favor of including Beveland in the 69`h LID and in fact remonstrated against it, as did Specht. To add costs of right away acquisition and related costs of adding the Beveland Street extension are unconscionable. What was a straightforward street improvement LID became a complicated one because someone wanted a new street and decided to try to have the wrong property owners pay for it. It simply should not have been done unless the city wanted to pay for all of the costs. We are not sure of the recourse at this point in time, however our opinion is unchanged. To solve the problem we would agree to the suggestion in the Specht Properties letter of January 22, 2002. If that is not accepted we would like to know what recourse exists for us to pay only for the improvements for which we signed the non-remonstrance. Sincerely, I'm im Corliss President "Satisfaction is orrr train cmiceni 12000 S.W. 66th Ave. • 11.0.13ox 23970 • Tigard, Oregon 97281-3970 • (503) 639-1131 • FAX (503) 598-8368 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Proposed new library site master plan community meeting PREPARED BY: Mareet Barnes DEPT HEAD OK Z40__ CITY MGR OK Ww " ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation by the New Tigard Library Construction Committee to update the City Council on the site master plan community meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, The purpose of this presentation is to provide City Council information about this community meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY In August of 2001, City Council approved the recommended site for the proposed new library. In December of 2001, the Council approved an option for purchase of the site of the proposed new library. The site location offers much potential for recreational, educational and cultural opportunities. During the Fall of 2001, the New Tigard Library Construction Committee began to develop strategies to encourage citizen participation and elicit citizen input for this project. One proposal of the Committee was to have a community meeting to assist with the development of a site master plan. This meeting has been promoted through Cityscape, the City Web page, local newspapers, flyers, TVCA and presentations in the community. The Committee has scheduled the Community Meeting for Tuesday, March 5 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. This meeting will be a facilitated discussion, offering community members an opportunity to provide input on the design of the natural areas surrounding the proposed new library site. Some of the topics people may wish to discuss are the potential expansion of the Fanno Creek trail system, landscaping, wetlands and greenspaces, parking and questions about the new library. Staff is prepared to answer questions at this time. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A r VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Vision #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. _0=1111 N_ ATTACHMENT LIST 1. GIS Photo of site of the Proposed new library 2. Site drawing of the proposed new library FISCAL NOTES N/A ~1 11L'J V • • •1L111 1 ✓ 11• . . 0~ \ •!i %r/~-` ` ~ GEOGRAPHIC INFOR-1-H sr- Attachment 1 01 'r^^^•^^ _ L ~ 4 v~ ®Recernh MSite for Me (T `~yI~S r'-~ i t Kid T Proposed NeH Tgard Libra 1 • , 0.$01 l: • \ ,>M Weuands 40r Y - • 9 ''~Jry . ~ W n^wc ~ / Flood Insurance UDaate Bwndary ' f-. I 'I ~ it A •I I F~q y I ~ ' •p.: r 0 700 200 300 400 Feet 1rS"~ r. ' - i I •I t` r I Cit}' of Tigard Intonna4on on this map rs for general location only and JAL., A&j Y ® _ o Q • see ® e s 0 ® should be verified wrth the Development Se ,ces Dion 73125 SVi Hall Blvd v r- _ Tigard. OR 97223 11 (503) 639-4177 -'r _IAd~t ••f:. ~.f hitp '^nww a hgard or us PROPOSED NEW TIGARD LIBRARY N"omom r waows a~ BBBif BULL m"Tm 0 Bp•q AD i PROJECT - newt LOCATION VICINITY SAP fEMA flood pialn line ~J Proposed 6&B fh F5 ~L , Rc% ~ L~' yyyr r }}{~~t+ i CITY OF TIGARD Property /1/ rlt , t„ 4t ~atrtZ _N :d Q~ x j lino/ to fnr l tr i c 3 J SIN i~l S r Y.Q.Y. IJ _ .mac-. HALL BLVD BDUL LVAjD -40' Bus pullout - - IIIIIIIIIII ' /jl. ~r ~1 L ! AEG HT ~lll -6 ° _ Exfstln9 path Z Z -I 7 _ AT NOT l0 SCALE T / - - a ~~en~nan ~ 700660• idY i00 IaYL Oqw mI-'ID^® AGENDA ITEM # 0 FOR AGENDA OF 02/12/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE TMC Chapter 2.20 Amendment PREPARED BY: M. O'Brien & N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Chapter 2.20 ("Jury Trial") of the Tigard Municipal Code be repealed, allowing the City to apply procedures already established by state statute? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. INFORMATION SUMMARY The substantive rights and procedures that apply to jury trials are extensively regulated by state statute. These statutes pre-empt our local ordinances, which already duplicate or mirror the provisions of state law. If Chapter 2.20 is repealed, it will no longer be necessary to revise City ordinances to conform to future legislative changes in Chapters 10 and 221 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Jury trials, although rare in Tigard Municipal Court, can be conducted more efficiently by attorneys who utilize statewide statutes rather than local ordinances that may vary from one jurisdiction to another. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Leave the existing language and update any outdated references. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST 1) Ordinance, including Exhibit A. FISCAL NOTES There are no fiscal impacts, although repeal of the ordinance will avoid future costs for revision and maintenance of Chapter 2.20. AGENDA ITEM # o~. FOR AGENDA OF 02/12/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE TMC Chanter 2.26 Amendment PREPARED BY: M. O'Blien & N. Robinson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Chapter 2.26 ("Witnesses") of the Tigard Municipal Code be repealed, allowing the City to instead apply procedures established by state statute? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the ordinance repealing Chapter 2.26 of the Tigard Municipal Code. a INFORMATION SUMMARY The substantive rights and procedures that apply to witnesses and subpoenas are extensively regulated by state statute. These statutes pre-empt our local ordinances, which already duplicate or mirror the provisions of state law. If Chapter 2.26 is repealed, it will no longer be necessary to periodically revise City ordinances to conform to legislative revisions to Chapters 33, 44 and 136 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. Witnesses and subpoenas can be utilized more efficiently by attorneys who apply statewide statutes rather than local ordinances that may vary from one jurisdiction to another. OTHER ALTI?RNATIVES CONSIDERED Leave the existing language and update any outdated references. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST 1) Ordinance, including Exhibit A. FISCAL NOTES There are no fiscal impacts, although repeal of the Chapter 2.26 will avoid future costs to the City for Code revisions and maintenance. AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF 2/12/02 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Tigard Municipal Code 2.52 Abandoned Found, Seized and Stolen Property PREPARED BY: Capt. Gary L. Schrader DEPT HEAD OK _ CITY MGR OK VVPQ- r ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council amend Tigard Municipal Code section 2.52 Abandoned, Found, Seized and Stolen Property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Amend TMC 2.52. INFORMATION SUMMARY Sections 2.52.030 and 2.52.040 do not reflect the current and past practices for the disposal of abandoned, found, seized and stolen property. The proposed amendment codifies the practice and is consistent with the accepted business practices of other counties and municipalities in the disposal of property. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Change current practice to comply with current code language. This would require the City of Tigard to conduct auctions separately from those being done by other law enforcement agencies. The logistics of conducting such auctions would increase costs and liability for the city. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST #1 Proposed TMC Section 2.52 showing new language #2 Current TMC Section 2.52 #3 Ordinance FISCAL NOTES None r• AGENDA ITEM # 1 44 FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Directing the Preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Wall Street Local Im rovement District PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council approve a resolution directing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Proposed Wall Street Local Improvement District (LID) and further directing the establishment of the funding mechanism for preparation of the report? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve, by motion, the attached resolution directing the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Wall Street LID and directing the establishment of a funding mechanism for the preparation of the report. INFORMATION SUMMARY The extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard is one of two new key alternate routes identified in Tigard's recently adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP). This proposed new route is projected to carry up to 7,000 vehicles per day. One major property owner along the proposed corridor for the road project is interested in forming an LID for construction of this new road. An Option Agreement executed with this property owner to purchase property for the proposed new Tigard Library requires the City to pursue formation of an LID for construction of the street. As part of this Option Agreement, the City agreed to provide the funding for the engineering and construction management of the LID improvements. A Preliminary Evaluation Report was prepared and submitted to City Council at the meeting on January 22, 2002. The report concluded that the proposed LID appears feasible, pointed out the various major issues that need resolution, and recommended that City Council take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report. Council agreed with the findings of the Preliminary Evaluation Report and directed staff to proceed to the next step in the LID formation. The attached resolution directs the Engineering staff to proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID and further directs the establishment of the funding mechanism in the amount of $325,000 for the preparation of the report using the Traffic Impact Fee as the funding source. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The proposed extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Flow by providing a new road that relieves congestion at the HalllHunzikerlScoffins intersections. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution Directing the Engineering Staff to Proceed with the Preliminary Engineer's Report 2. Preliminary Evaluation Report for the Wall Street LID with Exhibits A, B1-4, C and D. FISCAL NOTES The amount of $325,000 would allow for the preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report, including engineering plans in sufficient detail to provide relatively accurate cost estimates and at a level of detail required for the various permit applications. The Traffic Impact Fee is the designated source of funds for the preparation of the report. 1:\Citywide\SumWgenda Summary Directing Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Wall Street LID.doc oil Preliminary Evaluation Report Formation of a Local Improvement District for the Wall Street Extension in the City of Tigard BACKGROUND The Wall Street Extension The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) does not have the funding or the intention to address improvements in capacity to Highway 99W or Hall Boulevard in the City of Tigard. For better circulation within the City, alternate routes to bypass Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard must be developed. One of two new key alternate routes identified in Tigard's recently adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. This connection is projected to carry about 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day and would reduce the level of traffic at two key intersections (Hall/Hunziker and 72"a/Bonita Road). Based on traffic modeling conducted for the draft TSP, this new connector produces adequate capacity at those two intersections and relieves Hall Boulevard sufficiently to allow that street to function adequately at 3 instead of 5 lanes. This proposed street would allow northbound traffic from south Tigard to bypass Hall Boulevard and proceed directly to Hunziker Street, then north to the Tigard Triangle. A proposed future overcrossing of Highway 217 would allow traffic to connect directly from Hunziker to Hampton Street in the Tigard Triangle. Mr. Fred Fields is the owner of several parcels of property through which the proposed street could be constructed. In an Option Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) dated December 18, 2001 for purchase of property needed for a proposed new Tigard Library, the City agreed to consult and reasonably cooperate with Mr. Fields regarding establishment of a road to provide that connection from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street, and to proceed with the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to finance construction of the road. In this same Option Agreement, the City agreed to fund the costs of engineering and construction management for the construction of this road. The LID Process The LID process is outlined in Title 13, Chapter 13.04 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The LID Ordinance is in the process of being updated and with the proposed revisions scheduled for Council consideration on January 8, 2002. The proposed revisions to the LID ordinance remove the requirement for a Preliminary Evaluation Report, substituting a staff report by the City Engineer for that portion of the process. However, the revisions to the LID ordinance will not take effect until at least 30 days after passage. Hence, the Preliminary Evaluation Report is still part of the process until superceded by the revised ordinance. The process is therefore as follows, assuming positive recommendations to Council and approval by Council to proceed to the next steps in the process: Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Pagel of 8 • Preparation of the Preliminary Evaluation Report (This Report) • Submittal of the report to City Council for discussion and direction • Council adopts a resolution directing staff to prepare the Preliminary Engineer's Report • Approval of the Preliminary Engineer's Report and Council direction to prepare an ordinance forming the LID • Formation of the District by Ordinance o Preparation of final plans and specifications • Construction of the improvements • Determination and levying of assessments Current Situation The existing Wall Street between Hunziker Street and the existing railroad tracks is a paved two-lane road providing access to the buildings on the west side of road. There is an existing railroad spur track parallel to the access road, which runs from the main tracks to serve the properties north of Hunziker. There is no existing road from the railroad tracks to Hall Boulevard. Between the tracks and Hall Boulevard are a flood plain, wetlands, and Fanno Creek. A road constructed to provide a connection from Hunziker Street would have to resolve the following issues: • Removal of the existing spur track adjacent to the existing access road • Crossing of two main railroad tracks • Crossing of Fanno Creek, the flood plain, and adjacent wetlands between the railroad tracks and Hall Boulevard. Status of Land Use Applications A conditional use permit for a temporary use as a dog park on the undeveloped portion of Tax Lot ID# 251010001202 may be issued in the future. The application has not yet been submitted, but would probably be submitted in the next few months. The use of this property as a dog park should not adversely affect the formation of the LID. Major Collector Street Requirements The City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards call for the following on Major Collectors: Required ROW: 60-80 feet (minimum) Pavement requirement: 44 feet curb to curb (minimum) Sidewalks: 6-foot sidewalks (minimum) Planter Strips: 1.5 feet (minimum) Street Trees: Street trees are required; must be on the approved street tree list Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 2 of 8 There is no existing rights-of-way along the proposed corridor for the Wall Street Extension. The required rights-of-way would have to be acquired from the property owners for the project to be constructed. ASSUMPTIONS This report assumes that the proposed library site remains under the ownership of Mr. Fred Fields and includes the property as part of the LID. This is a worst case scenario because if the library bond issue does not pass and the LID formation proceeds, the properties in the proposed site would be included in the LID. In addition, no contributions from the library bond are included. Should the bond issue pass, the costs can be reduced accordingly. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED There are four alternatives considered to provide the connection from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. All four alternatives include a common segment from the railroad tracks to Hunziker. They differ in alignment from the railroad tracks to Hall Boulevard. The alternatives are described as follows and are depicted in the attached drawings labeled Exhibits B-1 through B-4: • Alternative 1: Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street. This alternative works well for traffic circulation, but severely impacts the property as a future library site and creates a situation whereby traffic could increase along O'Mara to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. (See Exhibit B-1). The estimated cost for the project (excluding rights-of-way acquisition) is approximately $4.37 million. e Alternative 2: Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at the south end of Tax Lot ID# 2S102DD00200. This would include the 20-foot access easement immediately south of this tax lot. This alignment locates the intersection approximately 350 feet south of the Hall/O'Mara intersection. This is not the ideal alignment from the standpoint of intersection spacing and traffic circulation, but moves the street to the south end of the proposed library site and allows for construction of the library and site development as envisioned in the model prepared for the New Tigard Library. A variation to this alternative would be to move the street up to 70 to 80 feet south of the access easement. This variation would require acquisition of rights-of-way from the lot adjacent to the library site, but would allow for better use of the library site for site development and parking. (See Exhibit B-2). The estimated cost for the project (excluding rights-of-way acquisition) is approximately $4.34 million. Alternative 3: Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at the south end of Tax ID# 2S 102DD00300. This alignment is at the south end of property that is not owned by Mr. Fields. The owner of that property has placed the property for sale. This alignment would be ideal from the standpoint of intersection spacing because it places Wall Street approximately 650 feet from O'Mara Street to the north and the same distance from McDonald Street to the south. The disadvantages are that the property is not under the control of Mr. Fields and would require land acquisition from the adjacent property owner to accommodate the street construction. In addition, unless Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 3 of 8 oil the City purchases the entire parcel, development would most likely eventually occur north of the proposed road. This future development may or may not be compatible with the proposed library. Alternatives 3 and 4 are two slightly different variations of the same basic alignment. Alternative 3 begins the curve in the street earlier than Alternative 4 and leaves less of the parcel for development. (See Exhibit B-3). The estimated cost for the project (excluding rights-of-way acquisition) is approximately $4.52 million. • Alternative 4: Connect Wall Street to Hall Boulevard at the south end of Tax ID# 2S102DD00300. This alignment begins the curve towards the railroad tracks later than Alternative 3 and leaves slightly more land available for development north of the road. (See Exhibit B-4). The estimated cost for the project (excluding rights-of- way acquisition) is approximately $4.82 million. The costs for the first three alternatives are basically the same. Alternative 4 is the most expensive at approximately $300,000 more than any of the other alternatives. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Some of the major issues that need to be resolved for the successful implementation of the improvements in the proposed LID are: • Removal of the existing spur track adjacent to the existing access road • Crossing of two main railroad tracks (requires approval by Portland & Western and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) • Obtaining all applicable permits for crossing of Fanno Creek, the flood plain, and adjacent wetlands between the railroad tracks and Hall Boulevard. • Acquisition of property for the road improvements • Approval from ODOT for the intersection location and improvements at the Wall Street/Hall Boulevard intersection RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT Alternative 2 appears to be the most suitable alignment for the proposed LID. It moves the street to the south end of the proposed new library site and allows development of the library as envisioned in the concept plan and model. Moving the street even further south into the property to the south of the proposed library site would maximize the development potential of the new library. An analysis should be performed to determine the cost of acquiring the additional property versus the expected benefits. This analysis should be part of the preliminary engineering report that fixes the final alignment for development of the plans for construction. ESTIMATED COSTS The following are the estimated costs for the Wall Street Extension using the alignment described in Alternative 2: Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 4 of 8 Description Estimated Cost Wall Street Extension from Hunziker Street to the $1,150,000 railroad tracks (not including the railroad crossing). This is common to all four alternatives Wall Street from the railroad tracks (including the $3,190,000 crossing and related improvements) to Hall Boulevard Project Subtotal (Improvements only) $4,340,000 Land Acquisition costs for rights-of-way to allow $1,770,000 for construction of the improvements (70 feet in width plus intersection widenings at Hunziker and at Hall. Subtotal (Land Acquisition Costs) $1,770,000 Total Cost for the LID Project (not including interest $6,110,000 on the interim financing) Interest & related costs for Interim Financing (4.5% $940,000 assumed Total Cost for LID Improvements $7,050,000 COSTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARATION The total estimated project cost (excluding land acquisition and interest on the interim financing) is $4,340,000.00. The engineering and construction management costs should be approximately 15% of this, or approximately $650,000.00. The preliminary engineering report needs to include preparation of construction plans and specifications sufficient to provide a detailed cost estimate. Assuming the preliminary engineering report needs to provide plans and specifications up to at least 60% stage, the cost for the preliminary engineering report preparation should be established at approximately $325,000.00. Because this is a City-initiated LID, the City would have to finance the costs to prepare the Preliminary Engineering Report. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED LID Advantages Exhibit C shows the properties involved and the proposed district boundary based on implementation of Alternative 2, the recommended alignment for the new Wall Street Extension. The properties owned by Mr. Fields constitute slightly over 76% of the benefited Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 5 of 8 properties in the proposed LID. Exhibit D shows the following for each lot: the tax lot number, the owner, the size in square feet, and the percentage of each lot in relation to the aggregate total in square feet of all lots. In addition, it summarizes the lots by ownership and presents the percentages of the total for each owner. The TMC prohibits Council from proceeding with the formation of the district if the property owners owning two-thirds of the land area in the proposed LID remonstrate against the formation of the LID. In this case, successful formation of the LID is assured since landowners in only 24% of the land area can remonstrate against the LID formation. In addition, the owner of Tax Lot ID# 2S 1 02DD00300 has indicated a willingness to participate in the formation of an LID to build a road to which future development on that lot can connect. Mr. Fields has also stated that the new owners of COE Manufacturing have indicated no objections to the proposed LID. This does need to be verified, but if true, would guarantee successful formation of the LID. The willing participation of a major landowner with benefiting properties along the proposed route offers a rare opportunity for construction in the immediate future of a major connection that alleviates the traffic congestion at the Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins intersections. This opportunity may not come again, especially if the various parcels are sold resulting in multiple landowners along the proposed route. Disadvantages The existing flood plain, wetlands and Fanno Creek are all obstacles to construction of the new roadway. Permits have to be obtained for the crossings and creek realignment, and wetlands mitigation will be required as part of this process. In addition, approval from Portland & Western and ODOT for new at-grade railroad crossings (two tracks must be crossed) may prove difficult to obtain. Finally, the Local Improvement District formed will have to acquire the rights-of-way needed for the roadway construction. This further adds to the cost of the total overall improvement costs. There is no funding currently available to continue the LID formation process. The most likely primary source of funding for the preliminary engineering report preparation, as well as the engineering and construction management costs, is the Traffic Impact Fee Fund. Because this is not an authorized project under the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program, funding needs to be made available to proceed with the Preliminary Engineering Report initially, followed by engineering design and eventually construction management of the project. There is a risk that expenditures by the City in the formation process may not result in construction of the desired project. The issues to be resolved are serious and may not be resolved in a timely manner. In addition, there is always the possibility that the major land owner could withdraw support for the LID at any step in the process. Any costs incurred to that point would be the City's responsibility. On the other hand, the importance of this connection does appear to warrant the effort to move forward towards eventual construction of the project. Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 6 of 8 Feasibility of the LID The LID does appear feasible. However, the total costs are relatively high because of the railroad crossings, flood plain, wetlands and creek that lie in the proposed alignment. With land acquisition and interim financing costs factored in, the total LID cost is slightly over $7 million. The value of the properties owned by the owner representing approximately 76% of the benefited properties can be generally estimated at $10 million using a relatively low and conservative $3 per square foot as an average cost of the undeveloped property. It appears that the costs of the LID can be covered by the value of these properties. If the major property owner is still interested in proceeding with the LID (after seeing the anticipated costs involved), the City can continue with the next step in the process to form it. Possible Assessment Methods There are several ways that benefit to the property owners can be determined and assessment proportional to the benefits received can be established. These methods include street frontage, total area owned, or a mixture of both. The actual method or methods of assessment should be developed and recommended to City Council as part of the preliminary engineering'report. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed LID appears feasible despite the numerous major issues that must be resolved. These key issues are reiterated as follows: o Removal of the existing spur track adjacent to the existing access road s Crossing of two main railroad tracks (requires approval by Portland & Western and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) • Obtaining all applicable permits for crossing of Fanno Creek, the flood plain, and adjacent wetlands between the railroad tracks and Hall Boulevard. • Acquisition of property for the road improvements o Approval from ODOT for the intersection location and improvements at the Wall Street/Hall Boulevard intersection The alignment shown as Alternative 2 in Exhibit B-2 is the recommended alignment at this point. However, that alignment may shift south on Hall Boulevard if circumstances prove favorable to doing so. The final alignment will be established during the design phase of the project. The recommendations are as follows: o That Council direct staff to proceed with the preparation and submittal of the resolution authorizing preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report, together with any special instructions that should be included in the resolution • That Council direct the establishment of the funding mechanism for preparation of the report designating the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund as the funding source Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 7 of 8 The appropriate funding source for the Preliminary Engineer's Report is the TIF Fund. However, before the TIF Fund can be designated as that source, the Wall Street Extension has to be added to the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee Base Report as an eligible collector facility. Council approved the Transportation System Plan (TSP) at the meeting on January 8, 2002. The ordinance approving the TSP becomes effective 30 days after that date. Both the addition of Wall Street to the Base Report and the request for use of TIF funds for the Preliminary Engineer's Report have to be approved by the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC). The current practice is for its technical arm, the WCCC Transportation Advisory Committee, to review all such requests and make a recommendation to the WCCC. This could take two to three months, depending upon the meeting schedules for those two bodies. If funding is needed while this process to get TIF funding approval for the project is still underway, internal borrowing from the General Fund in the interim could be authorized. WHAT'S NEXT After considering the Preliminary Evaluation Report, Council may direct staff to terminate work on the proposed district, or continue with the process by adopting a resolution directing staff to prepare a preliminary engineer's report. The resolution, to be prepared by staff for Council adoption, will include any specific instructions resulting from Council's discussion and decisions after reviewing the Preliminary Evaluation Report. It will also include direction from Council on the funding mechanism to be established for preparation of the report. The recommended funding source is the TIF Fund. The costs to prepare the report can be rolled into the overall LID costs. However, because the City has committed to funding the engineering and construction management costs, these costs will be deducted from the overall costs when the LID assessments are computed. The resolution, if directed by Council, would be prepared and submitted to Council at the next available business meeting. The Preliminary Engineer's Report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial If, based on the Preliminary Engineer's Report, Council decides to proceed with the formation of the LID, Council needs to declare its intention to form the district and proceed with the district formation and construction of improvements in accordance with Chapter 13.04 of the TMC. Attachments: Exhibit A - Option Agreement for purchase of property for a New Tigard Library Exhibit B-1 to B-4 - Alternative alignments for the Wall Street Extension Exhibit C - Proposed district boundary with benefited properties shown Exhibit D - LID Ownership Percentage Analysis 1:\Eng\Gus\Wail Street LID\Preliminary Evaluation Report for Wall Street LID.doc Preliminary Evaluation Report Proposed LID Formation for Wall Street January 10, 2002 Page 8 of 8 ate J!I ti. Z. f' `'.1 of ' •Ir• r~t 1. w.~ ! ra • 1 •V ~t}Ivt+ j t' 14t ~s r *y, y~i I I1Ir! 4/ f. 'w.rrrl ,~,~u„u~' • P• , 74 /S•~ ya,;•~~ i~y-'~ ~~~.,y$,~, (r J ! y tr°~r 7,^r, C !~i'1rt ,'~i' ,ir~.~(' ?`q'.aNi !'t r 3("1 ~ 4 ,l~i _ x~ i II 7:~~ '~f ~vS , tit F Id ~d.~ y. ~1.~~,:1 ~ • *=.'.lr 3 .:.ti ~ ~~y rr, 's'ale" ' Y! ~r4 t j, f s~ ' ,i,.,,, f i ~ i i t+ •t~ f ~ sue.'.. o~ 1 ;I I'I 1 I 1 i M _1+H'Cu w ~ `,may dL ~ W"^f3~f~RR ~'s ~1 n. ~ ' r i r ~ • I 1 1 111 fi'r'. ~ 1 • inaM'~ i" t a t>r !!sue s r .Lw r''~»'~'r ;t i , ~ 0 • ~ ~ I a• J, 7 0 ~ LID Ownership Percentage Analysis Null Street Extension LID Tax Lot Ownership Taxlot ID Owner Area Sq ft Acres 2S1010001201 COE MANUFACTURING CO, THE 303,170.8 6.32 2S1010001202 COE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 448,877.9 9.78 2S1010001100 FIELDS, FRED W 583,516.6 13.21 251010000800 FIELDS, FRED W 1,017,969.0 24.37 2S1010001200 FIELDS, FRED W 1,116,072.0 26.32 2S102DD00100 FIELDS, FRED W 145,096.3 3.37 2S102DD00200 FIELDS, FRED W 143,962.2 3.37 2S102DA00600 FIELDS, FRED W 351,382.2 8.03 2S102DD00300 ZANDER, DENELL D 263,051.8 6.16 Summary By Percentages Owner Area Sq ft Percentage FIELDS, FRED W 3,357,998.2 76.8% COE MANUFACTURING CO, THE 752,048.7 17.2% ZANDER, DENELL D 263,051.8 6.0% Total Area (Square Feet) 4,373,098.7 100.0% Exhibit D Exhibit A OPTION AGREEMENT THIS OPTION AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 18th day of December, 2001, by and between Fred W. Fields ("Fields") and the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City"), with reference to the following facts: A. Fields is the owner in fee of that certain real property located in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has communicated to Fields that necessity and the intention of the City to exercise its power of eminent domain with regard to the property unless the parties can agree on terms for (i) acquisition by the City of an option to purchase the Property, and (ii) the actual purchase of the Property by the City after exercise of such option. C. After discussions and negotiations between the parties, Fields desires to grant to City an option to purchase the Property upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, and City desires to acquire such option. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements herein set forth, and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I GRANT OF OPTION Fields hereby grants to City the exclusive option to purchase the Property upon all of the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein (the "Option"). ARTICLE 2 TERM AND MANNER OF EXERCISE a~ 2.1 The Option shall be exercisable by City at any time during the period commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and terminating March 3 T, 2003 (the "Option Period") only by delivering to Fields written notice of exercise of the Option in the manner set forth in Section 12.9 hereof prior to the expiration of the Option Period. a Page 1 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\Real-EsUte\Tigard\L'abrarySite\Bocuments\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc 2.2 If City fails to exercise the option on or before the last date for such exercise specified above, the Option and this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. If City timely exercises the Option, this Agreement shall become a contract for the purchase of the Property on the terms and conditions herein set forth. ARTICLE 3 OPTION CONSIDERATION The consideration for the Option consists of the mutual promises contained herein, and the following covenants of the City: 3.1 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise of the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding establishment of a road (the "Extension Road") from Hall Boulevard providing access to other real property owned by Fields (the "Adjacent Property") which lies generally eastward of the Property. 3.2 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields and will establish discussions among the City, Fields (or his representative), the owner/operator of that certain railway track(s) and right-of-way (the "Railway") bordering the Adjacent Property, and property owner(s) having property(ies) abutting the Railway and having rights that maybe affected by the Extension Road, with the purpose of negotiating a crossing of said track and right-of-way for the Extension Road. In the event the Railway refuses to permit a crossing of said track and right-of-way, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields with regard to the establishment of alternative roadway access from Hall Boulevard and from Hunziker Road to the Adjacent Property. 3.3 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields in the formation of a local improvement district to finance construction of the Extension Road, with such consultations to include: (i) the appropriate siting of the Extension Road, (ii) construction of the Extension Road across the Adjacent Property (and possibly across the Property), and (iii) the appropriate location of a Railway crossing for connection of the Extension Road to SW Hunziker Avenue. As part of such cooperation, the City agrees to assume, and promptly pay as required, the costs of engineering work and construction manaacmel)t for fie formation of the local improvement district and construction of the Extension Road, will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding an equitable distribution of E:,tension Road costs through local improvement district assessment liabilities, and will discuss and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding allocation of local improvement distri,:t as,,.essment liabilities in the event of passage, or failure to pass, of a City bond measure to Page 2 - OPTION AGREEMENT G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\i ,olds option Ag 8(121801).doc obtain funds for construction of a library facility on the Property. The obligation of the City to pay costs of engineering work and construction management for the Extension Road is a continuing obligation that shall survive the termination of this Option Agreement and continue in force even in the event the City does not exercise the Option. 3.4 From and after the date of this Option Agreement and as a condition precedent to the right of the City to exercise the Option, the City will consult and reasonably cooperate with Fields regarding possible amendments to the provisions of this Option*Agreement setting forth the terms for the purchase- of the Property after exercise of the Option in order to 'provide lawfully available tax benefits to Fields. ARTICLE 4 TERMS OF PURCHASE In the event City exercises the option, City shall purchase and Fields shall sell the Property on the terms set forth in the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (the "Sale Agreement") attached as Exhibit B. ARTICLE 5 TITLE 5.1 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a preliminary title report (the "Title Report") showing the current state of title of the Property. City hereby approves such state of title, as it may be amended by the City's comments set forth as a part of Exhibit C. 5.2 City's fee title to the Property shall be insured by an ALTA owner's extended coverage policy of title insurance to be issued by First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon at the Close of Escrow (as that term is defined in the Sale Agreement) with liability in the amount of the Purchase Price, containing such endorsements as are acceptable to City, and showing title vested in City subject only to: (a) Non-delinquent real property taxes and special assessments, if any; and (b) Such other matters accepted and approved by the City as set forth in Exhibit C hereto. 5.3 Non-delinquent real estate taxes and assessments are subject to proration as provided in the Sale Agreement. Fields agrees that he will not create or permit any encumbrance, lien or other matter to affect or encumber title to the Property during the term of this Option Agreement without first securing the written consent of City, except that Fields may create Page 3 - OPTION AGRF MIENT G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\L ibrarySite\Documenta\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doe leases, licenses or other minor possessory interests in the Property so long as such interests are extinguished as of the Close of Escrow. In the event that any matter not shown on the Title Report affects marketable title to the Property prior to the Close of Escrow and City objects thereto, Fields shall at his option discharge such matter, or obtain title insurance coverage for the benefit of, and acceptable to, the City with respect to such matter. If City elects to take title to the Property subject to a monetary lien or encumbrance which can be discharged by the payment of less than $10,000.00, City may take title to the Property subject thereto, and reduce the Purchase Price accordingly. If any matter affecting marketable title has been created through no fault of Fields, as the sole remedy of City (but only if such matter materially affects marketable title and City elects not to purchase the Property as a sole result thereof), City may terminate this Option Agreement and the Sale Agreement prior to the Close of Escrow. ARTICLE 6 INSPECTIONS/ZONING MATTERS/PERMITS/SIGN 6.1 From and after the date of this Agreement, City shall have the right at City's sole cost and expense to enter onto the Property (through its employees, designated agents and representatives) at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner after giving reasonable notice to Fields for the purpose of making such inspections as City deems necessary in connection with this Agreement; provided that City shall, if requested by Fields, be accompanied by Fields' employees in connection with any inspection of the Property, and shall not make any physical alteration to the Property without first securing the written consent of Fields. Fields shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to such right to enter by City. In addition, the City may enter onto the Property and erect a sign mutually acceptable to the parties hereto identifying the Property as the future site of a library facility. 6.2 Fields agrees to join with City in any applications to governmental authorities for permits, modifications to land use regulations affecting the Property, and any other authorizations the City deems necessary or appropriate so long as City pays all expenses incurred in connection therewith. 6.3 City shall indemnify and hold Fields harmless from any loss, liability, expense or damage (including reasonable attorneys' fees) in connection with any such inspections and applications, and in the event City shall not exercise the Option and purchase the Property, City will remove any physical alterations to the Property made by City without Fields's written consent, and shall restore the Property as nearly as possible to the condition in which it existed at the date of this Agreement. Page 4 - OPTION AGREEMENT 0:ULe4il_Ectate\TigardkIAbrarySite\Documenta\Ftelds Option Ag 7(121701).doe t ARTICLE 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 7.1 As an inducement to Fields to enter into this Agreement, City represents, warrants and covenants that it is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Oregon; that it has the power and authority to enter into this Agreement, and to consummate the transaction herein contemplated; and that the execution and delivery hereof and the performance by City of its obligations hereunder will not violate or constitute an event of default under the terms or provisions of any agreement, document or instrument to which City.is a party or by which City is bound. 7.2 As an inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Fields represents, warrants and covenants as of the date hereof as follows: (a) Fields has the requisite power and authority to (i) enter into this Option Agreement, and (ii) sell the Property. The execution and delivery hereof and the performance by Fields of its obligations hereunder will not violate or constitute an event of default under the terms and provisions of any agreement, document or instrument to which Fields is a party or by which Fields is bound; (b) This Agreement is a valid and binding obligation of Fields; (c) There are no leases, subleases, licenses, tenancy or occupancy agreements, service contractors, union contracts or other agreements to which Fields or the Property is bound, whether written or unwritten, covering or affecting the Property which will affect the Property on the Close of Escrow other than the matters shown on the Title Report and approved herein or otherwise approved in writing by City; (d) Fields has not received actual notice from any governmental authority that existing uses of the Property are not in full compliance with all applicable zoning laws (and applicable variances) and any other local, municipal, regional, state or federal requirements or that the improvements on the Property do not comply with all applicable building, safety, health, zoning, environmental, subdivision and other laws, ordinances and regulations; (e) To the knowledge of Fields as of the date hereof, there is no action, proceeding or investigation whether in the nature of eminent domain or otherwise, pending or threatened, with respect to the ownership, maintenance or operation of the Property, and Fields has no knowledge of any litigation or threatened litigation affecting title to the Property or its use or operation; Page 5 - OPTION AGREEMENT C3:\Real_Estete\Tigard\Librarysite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc (f) Fields has not granted any options or any other rights to acquire fee title or other interests in the Property, other than as set forth in this Option Agreement; and (g) If (i) any of the representations, warranties or covenants contained in this Section 7.2 are materially inaccurate on the Close of Escrow, and (ii) such inaccuracy materially and adversely affects the Property or City's intended use thereof and (iii) City elects in writing not to purchase the Property as a sole result of such inaccuracy, then City may terminate this Option Agreement. 7.3 The truth, accuracy, and completeness of each of the representations warranties and covenants of City and of Fields herein set forth, shall constitute a condition precedent to the obligations of Fields and City, respectively, hereunder. All representations, warranties and covenants herein set forth shall survive the Close of Escrow, and City and Fields each agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other from any claim, demand, liability, loss or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) which the other may sustain because of any material breach of or inaccuracy in the respective representations, warranties and covenants of Fields and City set forth in this Agreement. 7.4 City acknowledges that, except as provided in Section 7.2, Fields makes no representations or warranties, either express or implied, with respect to the Property, its present condition or its fitness or suitability for any particular purpose and that the Property is to be sold in an "as is" condition. In this respect, City confirms that it is relying solely upon its own investigation of the present condition of the Property and all governmental laws and ordinances which might affect City's use and development of the Property. ARTICLE 8 COMIVIISSIONS Fields and City each hereby represent and warrant to the other that it has not dealt with any broker or finder or any other person who might be entitled to a fee in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property and that no fee or commission is due to any broker, finder or other person in connection with this Agreement or the sale contemplated thereby. Fields agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City, and City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Fields, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, judgments, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising directly or indirectly out of any claim for a fee or commission due to any broker or finder or other person arising from the actions or failure to act of Fields and City, respectively. These representations, warranties and agreements shall survive the Close of Escrow. Page 6 - OPTION AGREEMENT a:XReal_Ehtate\Tigard\UbrerySite\Documenta\Fie.da Option Ag 7(121701).doe M7 ARTICLE 9 ASSIGNMENT Neither City nor Fields may assign this Agreement or any of their rights hereunder for any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the other party (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by either party) and any purported assignment shall be absolutely void and of no force or effect. ARTICLE 10 RISK OF LOSS In the event that, prior to the Close of Escrow, the Property, or any part thereof, is destroyed or materially damaged, City shall have the right, exercisable by giving notice to option or within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of such destruction or damage, to terminate this Agreement, in which case Fields shall refund the Option Price to City and, upon City's receipt thereof, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder. ARTICLE 11 CONDEMNATION If prior to the Close of Escrow all or any material portion of the Property is taken or threatened to be taken by eminent domain, Fields shall so notify City. In such event, City may elect (i) to purchase the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, in which case Fields shall assign to City on the Close of Escrow all of Fields's interest in any proceeds of eminent domain, or (ii) to terminate this Agreement without further liability to either party hereto, in which case City shall have no further interest whatever in the Property. ARTICLE 12 MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and no prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or added to except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto. 12.2 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Page 7 - OPTION AGREEMENT O:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\Fields Option Ag 7(121701).doc 12.3 Attorneys' Fees. Should any action be brought arising out of this Agreement, including without limitation any action for declaratory or injunctive•relief, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings or in any action or participation in, or in connection with, any case or proceeding under Chapter 7, 11 or 13 or the Bankruptcy Code or any successor statutes, and any judgment or decree rendered in any such actions or proceeding shall include an award thereof. a 12.4 Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Fields and City and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 12.5 No Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver Constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 12.6 Further Acts. Each party shall, at the request of the other, execute, acknowledge (if appropriate) and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other acts, as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 12.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement. 12.8 Amendments. This Agreement may not be changed or modified except by an instrument in writing executed by the party asserted to be bound thereby. 12.9 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind which either party may be required or may desire to give to or serve upon the other, shall be made in writing and delivered by personal service to any officer of the other party or sent by certified or registered mail, postage paid, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: To Fields: Fred W. Fields 1149 SW Davenport Portland, Oregon 97201 To City: City of Tigard Attn: William A. Monahan, City Manager 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 ~i Page 8 - OPTION AG1tF M NT o:\ teal_FsLtelTigard\LArarySite\Doaimeota\Fi l& Option Ag 7(121701).doe With Copy to: Dominic G. Colletta Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 Any such notice sent by mail shall be presumed to have been received by the addressee forty, eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States mail. Either party may change its address by giving the other party written notice of its new address as herein provided. 12.10 Headings. Any headings in this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties and are not part of this Agreement. 12.11 Governing Law. This Agreement and the transaction herein contemplated shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. 12.12 Recording. A Memorandum of Option Agreement referring to this Agreement has been executed and delivered on the date hereof and will be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Washington County, Oregon. In the event that City does not exercise the Option herein granted prior to the expiration date, it shall immediately deliver to Fields a duly acknowledged quitclaim deed of all of its interests in the Property under this Option Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fields and City have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation B By: Fred W. Fields Its: Mayor Page 9 - OPTION AGREEIvIENT 0:Uteal_Batate\TigatdUArarySite\Documer &\Fselds Option AS 7(121701).doe " `Order No. 935232 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL II: The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard--- County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL III: All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed 'to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page *193 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:' Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains Wpst and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47°43' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26158' West 126.0 feet; South 6144' West 86.8 feet; South 30°08"East 40.5 feet; South 73651' East 44.8 feet; North 53056' East 71.7 feet;-South 74006' East 33.1 feet; South 4044' West 72.6 feet; South 24°24' East 64.3 feet; South 51 12' East 137.0 feet and South 11 035' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence North 89000' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39°18' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet, South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12002' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this _ day of December, 2001, by and between FRED W. FIELDS ("Seller") and THE CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Purchaser"). RECITALS A. Seller is the owner of certain real property which is legally described in Exhibit 1 hereto (the "Property"). B. The City has determined that the Property is needed for public purposes, and has communicated to Seller that necessity and the intention of the City to exercise its power of eminent domain in regard to the Property unless the parties can agree on terms for acquisition of the Property by the City. C_, Purchaser wishes to acquire the Property owned by Seller, and, under threat of condemnation, Seller is willing to sell the Property to Purchaser under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. AGREEMENT For valuable consideration, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Seller agrees to sell to Purchaser at Closing, and Purchaser agrees to purchase at Closing, the Property in accordance with the terms hereof. 2. Purchase Price. Upon Closing, Purchaser will pay Seller an aggregate purchase price of Two Million.One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,100,000.00) for the Property. - The purchase price shall be payable all in cash or other immediately available funds at the Closing. 3. Title. Title to the Property at Closing will be free of encumbrances or defects other than the Permitted Exceptions (as defined in this paragraph 3) and will be so insurable at and as a condition of Closing, for Purchaser's benefit, as evidenced by a binding commitment from Escrow Agent to issue an owner's extended coverage policy of title insurance (the "Title Policy"). For the purposes of this Agreement, "Permitted Exceptions" will include (a) matters shown as exceptions 1 through 5 and on the Preliminary Title Report, effective as of , issued by Escrow Agent; (b) matters of record approved or deemed to have been approved by Purchaser, and (c) exceptions attributable to the acts or omissions of Purchaser or its agents, employees or contractors. Encumbrances to be discharged, if any, may be discharged through escrow out of purchase money at Closing. Page- 1 -PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 0:\Real_Estate\Tigud\Library5ite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc EXHIBIT 4. Deed. Title to the Real Property shall be conveyed by special warranty deed (the "Deed") in the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 2, free of encumbrances or defects, except the Permitted Exceptions. 5. Seller's Representations and Warranties. Seller makes the following representations and warranties to Purchaser: (a) Seller's Authority. Seller has the requisite power and authority to own and operate the Property. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Seller have been, or will prior to Closing be, duly authorized by all necessary action and proceedings, and no further corporate action or authorization will be necessary on the part of Seller in order to consummate the transactions contemplated herein. (b) Foreign Person. Seller is not a "foreign person" within the meaning of Section 1445(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. (c) Creditors. No attachments, execution proceedings, assignments for the benefit of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or other proceedings are pending or threatened against Seller, nor are any of such proceedings contemplated by Seller. Seller's representations and warranties shall survive Closing for a period of twelve (12) months and shall terminate as of the end of such period except to the extent that Purchaser advises Seller in writing of an alleged breach thereof prior to such termination date, stating with specificity the nature of the alleged breach and providing Seller concurrently therewith with documentation thereof. 6. Purchaser's Representations and Warranties. Purchaser makes the following representations and warranties to Seller: (a) Purchaser's Authority. Purchaser has the requisite power and authority to acquire the Property. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Purchaser have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action and proceedings, and no further action or authorization is necessary on the part of Purchaser in order to consummate the transactions contemplated herein. (b) No Conflict. Neither the execution nor delivery of this Agreement by Purchaser, nor performance of any of its obligations hereunder, nor consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, will conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under, the terms and conditions of the organizational documents pursuant to which Purchaser was organized, or any agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound, or any order of any court, regulatory body, administrative agency or governmental body having jurisdiction over Purchaser. Page- 2 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G:\Real_Estate\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc (c) Source of Funds. Purchaser has available to it adequate financial resources to enable it to purchase the Property at Closing without seeking recourse to any contingent funding source. 7. Closing. (a) Closing will occur in the offices of the Escrow Agent on a date mutually agreed to by Seller and Purchaser, but no later than . The parties shall cooperate to permit the Closing to occur by means of an escrow and the faxing and couriering of documents so that Closing does not require the physical presence of the parties in the office of Escrow Agent. (b) At Closing Seller will deposit in escrow the Deed, a FIRPTA affidavit and Seller's share of escrow fees, closing costs and prorations. At Closing Purchaser shall deposit the Purchase Price to be paid in cash or other immediately available funds, along with Purchaser's share of prorated items, fees and charges for all title upgrades and special endorsements in excess of that for an ownees extended policy of title insurance, if any, requested by it; one-half (1/2) of the escrow fee; and all other Closing costs, except those designated to be paid by Seller under terms of this paragraph. Seller shall pay the title insurance premium for an owner's standard coverage policy of title insurance; the recording fee on the Deed, and one-half (1/2) of the escrow fee. Each party shall pay its own attorneys' fees. 8. Prorations. (a) Real and personal property taxes, assessments, rents, and operating expenses of the Property (other than Seller's insurance premiums) shall be prorated as of midnight of the day preceding Closing. Real and personal property taxes and assessments shall be prorated on the basis of the best information available as of Closing, including taxes based on the latest assessed valuation for the Property. If after Closing, real and personal property taxes or assessments are determined to be different from those apportioned at Closing, then the parties shall promptly adjust the prorated amount to actuals by payment from the party who paid too little or received too much of a credit at Closing. (b) For purposes of calculating prorations, Seller shall be deemed to be in title to the Property, and therefore entitled to the income therefrom and responsible for the expenses thereof, through midnight of the day before the Closing Date. All prorations shall be made on the basis of the actual number of days of the year and month which have elapsed as of the Closing Date. The amount of prorations shall be adjusted in cash after the Closing, as and when complete and accurate information becomes available. Seller and Purchaser shall cooperate in making post Closing adjustments to prorations within thirty (30) days following Closing, if and to the extent possible. 9. "As-is" Sale• Limitation: Disclaimer Notice. Purchaser acknowledges that notwithstanding any prior or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or understandings, this agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any such prior or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or understandings. Purchaser further Page- 3 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G:\Real_E.titate\TigazN ibrarySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doc acknowledges that, except as set forth in paragraph 6 or the deed (i) neither seller, nor any principal, agent, attorney, employee, broker or other representative of seller has made any representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding the property, either express or implied, and (ii) that purchaser is not relying on any warranty, representation or covenant, express or implied, with respect to the property, except as set forth in paragraph 6 or the deed, and agrees that purchaser is acquiring the property in wholly an "as-is" condition with all faults and waives all contrary rights and remedies available to it under state and federal law. In particular, but without limitation, except as set forth in paragraph 6 and in the deed, seller makes no representations or warranties with respect to the use and condition of the property, including without limitation the condition of the soils or groundwaters of the property and the presence or absence of hazardous materials on or under the property or its compliance with applicable statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, regulations or requirements relating to leasing, zoning, subdivision, planning, building, fire, safety, health or environmental matters or its compliance with covenants, conditions and restrictions (whether or not of record) or other local, municipal, regional, state or federal requirements, or other statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, regulations or requirements. Except for the representations and warranties contained in paragraph 6 and in the deed, purchaser waives, relinquishes and releases any and all rights, claims and causes of action, including, but not limited to, all rights of contribution and indemnity, which purchaser may have or may be entitled to assert against seller under or with respect to the property or the condition thereof. Purchaser expressly understands and acknowledges that it is possible that unknown problems, conditions or claims may exist with respect to the property and that purchaser explicitly took such into account in determining the purchase price for the property, and that a portion of such consideration, having been bargained for between the parties with the knowledge of the possibility of such unknown problems, conditions or claims, was given in exchange for a full accord, satisfaction and discharge of all such problems, conditions, losses and claims. Purchaser acknowledges that following closing seller shall have no liability or duty of any kind with respect to property, regardless of the basis for the claim, except for fraud or a breach of its paragraph 6 or deed representations and warranties. Purchaser's Initials 10. Disclosure. If prior to Closing either party discovers a fact or circumstance which might render a representation or warranty by the other party inaccurate in any material respect, it shall advise the other party thereof in writing promptly upon such discovery. If Purchaser discovers or is so advised in writing of such a fact or circumstance involving a Seller representation or warranty, it shall have, as its sole and exclusive remedy, the option, exercisable within five (5) business days thereafter to either (a) elect to terminate this Agreement and receive a return of the Deposit, or (b) to waive such inaccuracy in writing, in which event it shall be deemed to have, -,vaived all claims and causes of action against Seller related thereto. i 11. Remedies. i (a) If seller is not in default, and purchaser fails or refuses to consummate its purchase of the property, purchaser and seller agree that it would be impractical and extremely difficult to estimate the damages that seller may suffer. Therefore, purchaser and seller agree that a reasonable estimate of the total net detriment that seller would suffer in the event that purchaser defaults and fails to complete the purchase of the property is and shall be, and seller's sole and Page- 4 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G:\Real_Estatc\Tigard\LibrarySite\Documents\PAS3(121001).doe exclusive remedy (whether at law or in equity), an amount equal to the deposit. This amount shall be the full, agreed and liquidated damages for any breach of this agreement by purchaser. The payment of this amount as liquidated damages is not intended as a forfeiture or penalty, but is intended to constitute liquidated damages to seller. Upon any default. by purchaser, this agreement shall be terminated and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under it, except for the right of seller to collect such liquidated damages. from purchaser. (b) If purchaser is not in default and seller fails or refuses to consummate the sale of the property without legal excuse, purchaser shall have the right to the return of its deposit together with accrued interest thereon as liquidated damages, or be entitled to available legal or equitable remedies including but not limited to specific performance; provided, however, in no event shall seller be liable to purchaser for special, punitive, consequential or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits. By their initials below, purchaser and seller specifically acknowledge that they have read and specifically negotiated and agreed to forfeiture of the deposit and limitation of remedies as provided for in preceding paragraphs 12(a) and 12(b). Purchaser's Initials Seller's Initials 12. Condemnation. If any portion of the Property becomes the subject of a condemnation proceeding prior to Closing, Purchaser shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if it so notifies Seller in writing not later than the first to occur of (a) ten (10) days after it is advised of the condemnation proceeding or (b) Closing. Seller shall notify Purchaser in writing of a condemnation affecting the Property within the earlier of (i) Closing 'or (ii) five (5) days of Seller's receipt of notice thereof. If Purchaser elects not to terminate this Agreement, then Seller will assign to Purchaser at Closing Seller's rights with respect to all condemnation proceeds related thereto. 13. Notices. All notices provided for herein may be telecopied (with machine verification of receipt), sent by Federal Express or other overnight courier service or delivered or mailed registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If a notice is mailed, it shall be considered delivered upon receipt or refusal thereof. If a notice is sent via telecopy on a business day it shall be deemed received upon receipt of verification of transmission. If a notice sent via overnight courier, it shall be deemed received upon receipt or refusal thereof. The addresses to be used in connection with such correspondence and notices are the following, or such other address as a party shall from time to time direct: To Seller: Fred W. Fields 1149 SW Davenport i Portland, Oregon 97201 To Purchaser: City of Tigard Attn: William A. Monahan, City Manager 13125 SW Nall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Page- 5 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G:\Real_Estate\TigardVLibmySite\Documen s\PAS3(121001).doc With Copy to: Dominic G. Colletta Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 14. Transfer. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their heirs, successors and assigns; provided, however, Purchaser may not assign its rights hereunder without Seller's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in Seller's sole discretion. No such assignment shall release Purchaser from primary liability under this Agreement. In the event of an assignment the term "Purchaser" as used herein shall include Purchaser's assignee. Any assignment in violation of this paragraph 15 will be void. 15. Confidentiality. Purchaser covenants that it will maintain the confidentiality of all information which it receives from Seller or its agents and all reports, studies and other documentation which it develops based thereon until Closing, except as otherwise required by applicable law or court rule or order if this transaction closes, and further covenants that, if this transaction does not close, it will destroy all such documents and all copies which Purchaser made thereof. Purchaser's provision.bf such information to employees and consultants during the term hereof shall not be deemed to violate the foregoing covenant so long as the recipients agree to honor the confidentiality, requirement. 16. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 17. Brokers Fees. Each party shall pay any real estate brokers or agents fees arising out of agreements such party may have entered into in connection with the purchase and sale of the Property and shall indemnify, defend and hold the other party harmless with respect thereto. This indemnification obligation shall survive Closing. 18. Costs and Expenses. Except as otherwise provided herein, each party hereto will bear its own costs and expenses in connection with the negotiation, preparation and execution of this Agreement and other documentation related hereto and in the performance of its duties hereunder. 19. Miscellaneous. (a) Headings. The headings in this Agreement.are for convenience only and do not in any way limit or affect the terms and provisions hereof. (b) Calculation of Time Periods. Unless otherwise specified, in computing any period of time described in this Agreement, the day of the act or event after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included and the last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless such last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. The final day of any such period shall be deemed to end at 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Page- 6 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT G:\Real_Eslate\Tigard\LibiarySite\Documcnts\PAS3(12I GO 1).doc (c) Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. (d) Gender. Wherever appropriate in this Agreement, the singular shall be deemed to refer to the plural and the plural to the singular, and pronouns of certain genders shall be deemed to include either or both of the other genders. (e) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which when taken together shall constitute one and same instrument. (f) Exhibits. The Exhibits referred to herein and attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 20. Attorneys' Fees. If any lawsuit or arbitration arises in connection with this. Agreement, including without limitation, an action to rescind this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party therein shall be entitled to recover from the losing party the substantially prevailing party's costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection therewith, in preparation therefore and on appeal therefrom, including those in any bankruptcy proceeding, which amounts shall be included in any judgment entered therein. 21. Unenforceability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the remainder of such provision or any other provisions hereof. 22. Amendment/Modifications. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, changed, waived, terminated or modified in any respect or particular unless the same shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the party to be charged therewith. 23. Waiver. A party may, at any time or times, at its election, waive any of the conditions to its obligations hereunder, but any such waiver shall be effective•only if contained in a writing signed by such party. No waiver shall reduce the rights and remedies of such party by reason of any breach of any other party. No waiver by any party of any breach hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. 24. Facsimile Signatures. Each party (i) has agreed to permit the use, from time to time and where appropriate, of telecopied signatures in order to expedite the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, (ii) intends to be bound by its respective telecopied signature, (iii) is aware that the other will rely on the telecopied signature, and (iv) acknowledges such reliance and waives any defenses to the enforcement of the documents effecting the transaction contemplated by this Agreement based on the fact that a signature was sent by telecopy. Page 7 - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT \\FSIWOMORCCB\Real FstateWtigatd\LibrarySite\Documentt\PAS3(121001):doc 25. Delivery of Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on the Closing Date subject to the Permitted Exceptions. 26. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, express or implied, and all negotiations or discussions of the parties, whether oral or written, and there are no warranties, representations or agreements among the parties in connection with the subject matter hereof except as set forth herein. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A RESIDENCE AND WHICH LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIIUNG FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES. The City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation By: By: Fred W. Fields Its: Page S - PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT %%FSIWOLIIORCCB\Rea1 Fstate\TigardUArarySita\Documenta\PAS3(121001).dcc Order No. 935232 EXHIBIT PARCEL I: The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL II: -The South. one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard- County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL III: All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0122' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37°01' East 110.0 feet; South 26°58' West 126.0 feet; South 6°44' West 86.8 feet; South 30008' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53°56' East 71.7 feet; South 741106' East 33.1 feet; South 4144' West 72.6 feet; South 24124' East 64.3 feet; South 51 12' East 137.0 feet and South 11 135' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence North 89000' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet, South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12102' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 891100' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County. Exhibit 2 to Purchase and Sale Agreement AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: Attn: Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Fred W. Fields ("Grantor") conveys and specially warrants to City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Grantee"), the following described real property free of encumbrances created or suffered by Grantor except as specifically set forth herein: See Exhibit A Subject to exceptions set forth on attached Exhibit B. ' The true consideration for this conveyance is Two Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($2,100,000.00). THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIIVIITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. Dated this day of December, 2001. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation By: Fred W. Fields Name: Title: r Notary acknowledgements appear on the following page. Page 1- WARRANTY DEED G.AREAL_ESTATnTIGARDIUBRARYSrMDOC[ RNENCSISPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.DOC(V99) t Exhibit 2 to Purchase and Sale Agreement STATE OF OREGON ) ss COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Notary Public My Commission expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ss COUNTY OF ) This-instrument was acknowledged before me on by Notary Public My Commission expires: Page 2- WARRANTY DEED G:IREAL ESTATE\TIGARDUBRARYSrMDOCUMEN MPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.DOC(9/99) • Order No. 935232 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL II: The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard; County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL 111• All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0122' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37001' East 110.0 feet; South 26058' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8-feet; South 30008' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53°56' East 71.7 feet; South 74006' East 33.1 feet; South 4044' West 72.6 feet; South 24024' East 64.3 feet; South 5102' East 137.0 feet and South 11035' West 42.7 feet to a point on the. North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence North 89°00' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet, South 86°48' West 41.6 feet and South 12°02' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County. Exhibit B - Exceptions to Title 7. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : December 15, 1971 in Book 847, page 55 Favor of : Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon For : Underground pipeline and/or mains Affects : Parcel III 8. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 295 Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For . Sewer Affects : Parcel 1 9. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 298 Favor of : Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For : Sewer Affects : Parcel 11 Recording Alert Ai Eli Washington ar~d'~t armunties' & edw w recording standards effective October 99~Effective on said date the counties will be refusing to record any documents that they do not feel have statutory authority. In order to best facilitate your.transaction and to determine whether or not your documentation will be accepted by the county, we ask that you forward drafts of the documents to us as far as possible before recording/closing. We will verify with the county recorder the recordability of your document. If the county. states the document is not recordable, then it will allow you time to modify the document to -meet their requirements or to prove proper authority does exist for the.recording of said document. EXHIBIT v~o> I A. " , " r r.r y First zcan Title Insurance _ ;any of Oregon An wmd brbsw of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 fAX (503) 790-7856 Preliminary Title Report August 31, 2001 ALTA Owners Stand. Cov. $OPEN Premium S ALTA Owners Ext. Cov. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Stand. Cov. $ Premium $ ALTA Lenders Ext. Cov. $ Premium $ Order No. : 935232 Indorsement Premium $ Re : Fields/City of Tigard Other Cost $ Govt. Serv. Charge Cost $ 50.00 A consolidated statement of all charges and advances in con- nection with this order will be provided at closing. RAMIS, CREW, CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Attention: Dominic Colletta Telephone No.: (503)222-4402 Fax No.: (503)243-2944 We are prepared to issue Title Insurance Policy or Policies in the form and amount shown above, insuring title to the following described land: For legal description see Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and as of August 24, 2001 at 8:00 a.m., title vested in: FRED W. FIELDS; Subject to the exceptions, exclusions and stipulations which are ordinarily part of such Policy form and.. the following: 1. Taxes for the fiscal year 2001-2002 a lien not yet payable. 2. City Liens, if any, of the City of Tigard. Note: There are no liens as of July 31, 2001. 3. Statutory Powers and Assessments of Unified Sewerage Agency. 4, Rights of the public and of governmental bodies in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying below the high water mark of Fanno Creek. (Affects Parcel 111) 5. Any adverse claim based upon the assertion that some portion of said land has been removed from or brought within the boundaries thereof by an avulsive movement of the Fanno Creek or has been formed by the process of accretion or reliction or has been created by artificial means or has accreted to such portion so created. (Affects Parcel 111) 6. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying within the limits of roads, streets or highways. This report is for the exclusive use of the parties herein shown and is preliminary to the issuance of a title insurance policy and shall become void unless a policy is issued, and the full premium paid. Page 2 Order No. 935232 7. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : December 15, 1971 in Book 847, page 55 Favor of : Tigard Water District, a municipal corporation of Washington County, Oregon For : Underground pipeline and/or mains Affects : Parcel III 8. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded : July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 295 Favor of : Unified ;Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For . Sewer Affects : Parcell 9. An easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof; Recorded July 20, 1972 in Book 878, page 298 Favor. of Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, a municipal corporation and county service district of the State of Oregon For Sewer Affects Parcel 11 10. Unrecorded leases or periodic tenancies, if any. 11. The following matters pertain to Lenders Extended coverage only: (a) Parties in possession, or claiming to be in possession, other than the vestees shown herein. (b) Statutory liens for labor and/or materials, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for employment compensation and for workman's compensation, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. NOTE: This report does not include a search for Financing Statements filed in the office of the Secretary of State, or in a county other than the county wherein the premises are situated, and no liability is assumed if a Financing Statement is filed in the office of the County Clerk (Recorder) covering fixtures on the premises wherein the lands are described other than by metes and bounds or under the rectangular survey system or by recorded lot and block. NOTE: Washington County Ordinance No. 267, filed August 5, 1982 in Washington County, Oregon, imposes a tax of $1.00 per $1,000.00 or fraction thereof on the transfer of real property located within Washington County. " Certain conveyances may be exempt from said ordinance, in which case, Washington County will require ' a correct and timely filing of an affidavit of exemption. For all deeds/conveyance documents which are recorded (including situations to meet lender requirements) either the transfer tax must be paid or affidavit 7 acceptable to the county must be filed. NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount $1,510.49 Code No. 023.74 Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DD-00100 Account No. R468951 (Affects Parcel 1) Page 3 Order No. 935232 NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount $2,422.97 Code No. 023.74 Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DD-00200 Account No. R468960 (Affects Parcel ll) NOTE: Taxes for the year 2000-2001 paid in full. Tax Amount $2,414.25 Code No. . 023.74 Map & Tax Lot No. 2S12DA-00600 Account No. . 8468050 (Affects Parcel III) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON ` G JENNIFER L. WATSON Commercial Title Officer Voice (503) 790-7866 Fax (503) 790-7856 E-Mail jewatson@firstam.com JLW:ilw Recording Information: Filing Address: Washington County 155 North 1st Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124-3087 Recording Fees: $5.00 per page $6.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fund) $11.00 per document (OLIS Assessment & Taxation Fee) $5.00 for each additional document title $20.00 non-standard fee THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE We look forward to assisting you In all of your title and escrow needs Order No. 935232 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL I: The North one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD ACRE TRACTS, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL 11: The South one-half of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon. PARCEL 111: All that certain tract of land in the William Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39 in Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washington and State of Oregon, conveyed to Beecher B. Robinson by Deed recorded at page 193 of Volume 126, Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the aforesaid Robinson Tract in the center of the County Road at the Northwest corner of Lot 1, EDGEWOOD, a duly recorded subdivision of Washington County, Oregon, which beginning point is said to bear 5.60 chains West and 21.02 chains North of the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, of the Willamette Meridian; thence from said point of beginning North 0022' East in the center of the said county road 969.4 feet to the Northwest corner of the said Robinson Tract; thence South 47043' East 26.9 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing South 47043' East 431.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 99.0 feet to an alder tree marked "C.S."; thence continuing South 16.0 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears North 19.9 feet; thence down stream following the center of Fanno Creek the following courses and distance: South 37001' East 110.0 feet; South 26058' West 126.0 feet; South 6044' West 86.8 feet; South 30008' East 40.5 feet; South 73051' East 44.8 feet; North 53056' East 71.7 feet; South 74006' East 33.1 feet; South 4044' West 72.6 feet; South 24024' East 64.3 feet; South 5102' East 137.0 feet and South 11035' West 42.7 feet to a point on the North line of said EDGEWOOD SUBDIVISION; thence North 89000' West along the North line of aforesaid subdivision 35.1 feet to a point in the center of Fanno Creek, from which point an iron pipe bears South 89000' East 17.1 feet; thence running downstream in the center of Fanno Creek North 39018' West 32.8 feet North 58029' West 104.5 feet, South 86048' West 41.6 feet and South 12002' West 76.4 feet to a point on the North line of aforesaid subdivision, from which point an iron pipe bears North 89000' West 28.0 feet; thence leaving Fanno Creek and running along the North line of said subdivision 528.0 feet to the place of beginning. SAVE AND EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and through the State Highway Commission recorded August 20, 1965 in Book 656, page 306, Records of Washington County. •~Sr. AM ER r First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLICY (10/97/92) The laflovring matters are expressly exckdad learn the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pray loss or damage. costA anarreys' lees or expenses whin arise by reason d: 1. (a) Mytaw. ordnanceorgovemrhentalregulation (incld'xtgbulnotlimited to build irgandzoniglaws. ordnances.orregulaGoru)restrxtirg,tegt/a6ng.pohib"orre(alinjtoMtheoax1sxncy. use. or enjoyment of the find: (M) the chmader, dimensions or location d any improvem now or hereafter ceded an ttw land; (ii) a separation in ownsrsh p or a dwgo in the dimensions or area of die lord or parcel d wtuch to land is or was a pan; a (iv) environmental protection. or to effect of arty violation of these laws. ordinances of govern mental regulations. except to the axteM Vial a notice d Cte enl,.0'c M shared or a notice of a delad, fen or encumbrance re=" from a violation of albgedviolation affecting the laird has been recorded in In pub& retards at Dab of Policy. (b) Any govermrorital police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent Cial a relice of the exercise thered or a notice of a defect, fan or encumbrance resulting horn a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the pudic records at Data of Policy. 2 A!!" of eminent domain unless ncctics of the exercise thereol has been recorded in the pubic records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any laking which has ocaned prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on to rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects. Stars. encumbrances. adverse claims mother matters: (a) created, suffered. assumed or agreed to by the insured ciaimanl; (b) not known be the Company. not recorded in the pudic records at Date d Policy but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the dale to insured claimant became an insured under this policy. (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or created n bsoquent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the hen of Cie insured over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or the extent int-anoe is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction a completed at Date dfPdreyl:e w (e) resulting in less or damage which would not have been sustained it the insured claimant had pad value for the insured mortgage. 4. tkuanforceabiSty of the ken of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the idebtednes3, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. imaidity or uneriforceadity of the lien of the insured mongage• or claim tared. which arises out of the transaction evidenced by Cher insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or bum in lending taw. Ti. Arty stabAM fen for services, labor or materials for the claim of priority of any sl3tutory ken for services, labor or materials over the Sen of the bsurod aaggee) aris~ing from an improvement or work rotated to tie I:.nd which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Dale of Policy and is not financed in whole or in pan by proceeds of the ndededness seared by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any daim. which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy. by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency. or si ilaraedilore rights Lava. that is based on: the transaction creating Cue interest of the insured mortgages being deemed a trauduknt conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ig to subordination of the interest of tie instated mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subodination; ur (ii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) b timely record the instrument 61 transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value a a ju rigemerd or lien uedita. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (10/17192) The following matters are expressly excluded horn the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss of damage, costs, attorneys' lees or expenses which arise by reason ot: 1. (a) Any law. ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not imh4od to building and zoning laws. ordinances. or regulations) restrictin regulabrg• prohibiting orrelating to M the ocouhanty use. of enjoyment of the land; (i) the character. dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the lard: (5) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pad; of (iv) erw'ramental protection, or the effect of arty violation of these laws, ordinances or govedimentalnegutaeons, exciept to the extent that anotice d the enforcement thereof of a notice of a defect, ken or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting foe land has been receded in Cue public records al Date of Policy. (b) Any govartnenlal police power not excluded by (a) above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defM• ben or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of emirwo domain unless notice of am exercise thereof has been recorded in the pubic records at Date d: but not ex Policy. cknding from coverage any lal6rig wtddi has occurred prig b Data of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser lot value without knowledge. I Deters. Sam, encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured daimhanl; (b) not known b die Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the Insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior b the dale the insured claimarhl became an insured under this polity: (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant. (d) 'ataurirhg of created subsequent to Data of Policy: or (o) resulting in less of damage which would not have been sustained it the insured claimant had paid value la the estate orinterest instated by this policy. 4. Any daim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in to muted the estate or interest insured by tts policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolysrhcy, of similar cre rights laws. that is based on dibrs' (i) the transaction creating tho estate or Wecasl inured by this policy twig deemed a fraudulent corweyance or fraudulent transfer. or (1-6) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferentialtransfer except where the preferential transfer results from tM failure: (a) b timed record the insUunw4 d Yamfw; or (b) of such recordation to umpan nonce to a purchaser for value or a judgement or San creditor SCHEDULE OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS The ALTA standard policy form will contain rr Schedwe 8 the Ioltowirg standard exceptions b coverage. 1. Taxes or a33e3Lne0ta which ate not snows as existing hens by ehe records of any taxing authority that levies taxes of assessments on real property or by the public records: Proceedings by a pudic agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices or such proceedings. whether Of not shown by the records Of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any fats. rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the pudic records but which could be ascertained try an inspection of said nand or by making ingttuy of persons in possession thweol. 3. Easements. encumbrances. or dawns hereol. not shown by the pubic records. unpatented mimg claims, reservations or exceptions in patents of in ads authorizing the issuance thereof. water rights. dawns or We to water. 4 Any Mn. or right to alien, for services, tabor, of maternal heretofore or hereafter furrrslhed. imposed by taw and not shown by the public records. i Disuepancisa, conflicts in boundary Ines, shortage on area. enccroachmai ts• or arty odw facts which a correct surrey would disclo". NOTE: A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM tOR FORMS) WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST. TI 149 THIS MAP IS FURNISHED AS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PRO AND THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LI B FOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISC BY ACTUAL SURVEY First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon An assumed OMSrlass name Of TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 S.W. FOURTH, AVENUE. PORTLAND, OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 r ISOO Loo 1500 loo . .•I!•~J.lr, AXT 1]01 » JJ!!a 1M I T r _ 6 .00 q iNla ! X1.00• w .rnr. J ® I.n r F ' 700 300 i ILt~ ~ f • / 1IOO = J z r s' 7 J _ lip/ J J a.r- Rza1NA N. + . STOO» . ' 23-r4 • Sa00 li00 L ♦ TR a. • K _ • •Iti ' laa•. too -3 400 1 ' set MAP !11 J~ 1..... J9 1 _ I 1C1. 7..TW1 ,to aof Goo = j ! _ S.IY. w ww FOR ASSESSMENT r7 l ~~77= i . . .J a. w'.! . a•a _ MIRMits ORLT !1 J ..rKa t .'q0 r ♦iGO' 5100 SOOO y f•OOf 'a 00 00 100'r ALLY OM 7 = . raC /OII ANY OT"" 0s[ . + 1 L'-3W y-~•s 11 10 • Gtr ma r~ ' f ! ~ L Ws• 3 - t•5OV wpo SSOO!.43S N.1 . a.. 4a00 00a 2 la - V) y fal• 17 1 y - ♦f00 O i _Z TRACT _ - S .s 4 y~ W 1 iiooU •11.~G e = P A all . 1 l L St00• • ! tire ra >4 6, r{ L- K = a~00 i L.CZ :soo i zro`o { a T a s '°.Y ♦ F - 1 N LSOtUo ]loco s+ob~ • ~aoo ^o0 5 U sot a05, na -~`vY oar 10 11 Q n N J.la .got,- L .y -1. TRACT cI TOI laoo C• \ - A 34 0i1 K 'K 5 s atao P in 1. FF=j{ «.w r 1 t 2 ( 1 f 2 1.0 la 17 a~ IS 9 :a P 1 A ..^K.1 xs , TILL sts TIGARD zs 1 loss 2S I Z DD . 1 I THIS MAP IS FURNIS A CONVENIENCE IN LOCATING PROPE) THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILII Y rOR ANY VARIATIONS AS MAY BE DISCLOSED 811 -ACTUAL SURVEY ! 'Z AM CRIt, First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon An assimod ousmmss name of TITLE 04SURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON 1700 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OR 97201-5512 (503) 222-3651 "wosu ow" , 4 A oo NOT RELY ON • ` 9C FOR ANY OM A s01 S 400 s~k • X/c t 7 $4 ! C SEE k"P 25 1 1 a 4 . i ~ .w..'..•• w.w ~ S ai~A. IcA mnn `i 1 E `~O l i . t J rs 600 s\\ 23=74 I = S xa , wo stne u,.. • . r F 'Emil `3 --b ` wa 701 as ss•1 •1 1SO..e iW • + •i r~ i •ti TIGARD e S•W- O MARA4>•* STREET. t o 1 A • 2312o0 ...w...w. r !r o ~ .y ~ r 11 lr a!1 street weasiolk ~w~`•`. if j elf "alfiv ij ti ! ' r 3~ wy e r t j. \ \ ,>n a .i=_ ,i ♦ RRR ` _ wail ExtenslOn -d \ ,l L I~•C~;.-J. - - try ' L, -2 Exhibit I % • I ~s~ssni':tet kly/ ` i ll Sta'e Ex~ansloto I r cor MANUFACIURING ~I 10,30 ACRES ! MANUFAC G `~IICARDtAM~ ~'`iy car Q 1u ES ` `fir 2,X37 ACW naDs FRm w. I'A40 ACRES J ACRES d••.n n.aar Exhibit In Awe" - ~ =IN er v FREOw. , B~Ot A r . 23.82 ACRES vv, } WhItAlAreet Extension , I \ \ ri i , % Alternative 4 1 ! bHM \ y ` yO \96 AGES ~ rr =A IMAt JQr L FZMO.% FRED N 21 JI ACRES 1140 ACRES w l t ' t 3OFRED w AW \ \ Exhibit -4 I k r`•^, , as i,♦ I N~sw~ WA& STAWVrw4ovam \ \ rt i_._ f Far al•~+ sN om_m_ K ei:~Rn sL a ' 1~ jib \t F7aM FRED W \ \ t -l~ . 1 r r t; ,i i 2162 ACRES ` \ soon r,. .,yf gi+sl... : ~ a '.3+o'•.r r f ,t t i¢!r'yy i{` l 71~ ..r. I• r Y , A •!e1 tyM j4, ...:i 1 , r .~s ~ln F I.j.+.. '`.rf 1 .,1 0` +~.j r.• N. 9- a+:. :3i'~ A~ ' y' 111th-I }~t 17A•YJ lx .CIy~,-. . f d 1- may. ~ga•. . ~.l"F:Y .2 t ti... , ` ~ +r fi~x„ y ~ ~ .s ~ r • 1 - ~ { ~t i a < r~r' ~ r S 14 ~y;. 'r /s ~ ^ f . 1 pltl~l + j+ 1rrA = , Ii ~ t e9 ♦ n i ~ r',~' i ~ ` ~ ~ S .,p t II r a Ir t~r f .,.r. t ._S y 4`✓rx ~ `y •rt .1. }1 r r 'I. 1{1tli ` 1~ Rk~x • .f ' t st 1:` t .pr 'Ai ~ 5+i' f :tr;s;. Z J t•:4 ~I h• t • +~lK ` ti: ~ Vi`i' p }rjf.y J f } r L i ,41 a.y4:r r c sh ~ts >s .j- t t- et ,t'' . s r<•.r:' ,B r~ 4. ♦u 4 of ? 1 f f, r 1 ty s .,.•r a ~ . ~ i lt~~ir ; .t F •':.dr ~"'ry''`s,*U' 7'4 V ~ ~ j e^,~t w ! ~ y 1..~.. •'ie.. LM1'p^7, r.w yak •Y i },~r'~'lary ~az +a'" ,y, t:rx44W`k i„i" r .r,.~ . ' ' 'r < r yet h c ~e"<{'S-,•-a:v;. • P! ~`~s. r r w / t'. `r, ~t ? , \ r.r,v..t,:.~ h : I i~ '•r rig, p }r+~ ~ ~ ' rs•64 r `,}I y,4,~ f tV •+t ,C haw S.r ! ° s ~ ~ •~y. i{'t` i ♦ r • : ~ - , • f 1~ to y7 r. s+' x. / {r -y~ IC• _ •1 ~ ~ ~ ssY r<.t'~ L." Ill r•;: I.y, s ~~i.~ • t c . fh'7 `~y{~'+ 4 %=T ~{t. y'+F7 .1 3'1:, ~r ;lV t • gr x S 'i:s ~ ` 7. J I '•9F "C- 9' i'' Jc" E s~ 3 j n r r .ice " / ? . ; $r:_'' s. 3 ~:f •j /y,.r~~ ~y y>~.,tit rYA ,I y ~p. •r y't $•,.ay~ ( J>e,'~` 6r~Y~ s r' ~ y!, - ~;,3 • ' /r'•'t.t~, l '.~r e'''• ~ 5•'~'~~ ~ •i~ 1 ~L~[~'~9iR ice...°S - ,..ye a ~ ...-•Itr .{fit r~ i, w 't ter- ~ 1 ` • q ~ ' QQ` ~ t. SS ~ t.., iy 1fst ~ Y(`L ~ ~ i - ~+r,f. 1 ~,,.._~~L~fn y~ ! tr ~w~ k~' _ ` ♦ ♦ f rJ~.ti ~ , T t~Pt~r ..:fit 'YS` ~1. ¢ l j,,. d' p•4 ~-~3~x ` 't n~l ~u~: ~ e ~ ~.fF 4 _r,? ^.4.: m. .~r" ~t t. •R .t`-' t1 tr~tr ~My4• '1~' I 11'x: l,.. 'J ~^~~..}~~L.~j. r, .e_•1fc►t.:Y' % .t el' •''4~.:1 ♦ • B y 7,t.1 '`+b Fn. 1. ~h y. i t r • $ _ I ef• ' t t } ty,.. L ~ 1 t LID Ownership Percentage Analysis Wall Street Extension LID Tax Lot Ownership Taxlot ID Owner Area Sq ft Acres 2S1010001201 COE MANUFACTURING CO, THE 303,170.8 6.32 2S1010001202 COE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 448,877.9 9.78 251010001100 FIELDS, FRED W 583,516.6 13.21 251010000800 FIELDS, FRED W 1,017,969.0 24.37 2S1010001200 FIELDS, FRED W 1,116,072.0 26.32 2S102DD00100 FIELDS, FRED W 145,096.3 3.37 2S102DD00200 FIELDS, FRED W 143,962.2 3.37 2S102DA00600 FIELDS, FRED W 351,382.2 8.03 2S102DD00300 ZANDER, DENELL D 263,051.8 6.16 Summary By Percentages Owner Area Sq ft Percentage FIELDS, FRED W 3,357,998.2 76.8% COE MANUFACTURING CO, THE 752,048.7 17.2% ZANDER, DENELL D 263,051.8 6.0% Total Area (Square Feet) 4,373,098.7 100.0% Exhibit D AGENDA ITEM # 15 FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bull Mountain en House Briefing PREPARED BY: Beth St. Amand DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A briefing on the Bull Mountain Open House and Town Hall Meeting, which took place January 31, 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY At its January 15, 2002, meeting, Council reviewed and approved the agenda and format for the Bull Mountain Annexation Study Open House and Town Hall meeting on January 31, 2002. The purpose of this event was to present the Bull Mountain Annexation study to area residents and to provide an opportunity for comments and questions. Staff from both the City and County attended. This event was the follow-up meeting to the July 26, 2001, Bull Mountain Annexation focus group meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth ! boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: Agenda for Bull Mountain Public Meeting, 1/31/02 FISCAL NOTES N/A 1:\LRPLN\beth\Wnnexation\ais 2-12-02.doc Attachment #1 AGENDA FOR BULL MOUNTAIN PUBLIC MEETING, 1131102 6:00 Open House Stations/tables with each City department and the County to answer questions, notepads for residents to write down questions and comments, refreshments. Councilors will mingle with public. 7:00 Welcome and Introductions --Introduce Mayor, City Councilors, County Officials --Mayor and County Officials Speak: Tone of speaking points: pleased to be presenting study; it's a good thing; next steps taken together; collaborative process --Overview of tonight's purpose Bill Monahan 7:10 PowerPoint Overview of the Study, Annexation Methods (Jinn Hendryx) 7:25 Town Hall Discussion Write comments on flip chart/have two scribes Discussion Points: 1) What do you think of the study conclusions? 2) What are the remaining issues? 3 What are our next steps? 8:15 Adjourn Town Hall; Direct people to tables for last questions Thank you, reminder of next steps 8:30 Adjourn \\TIG333\USR\DEPT'S\LRPLN\beth\Annexation\Agenda Bull Mtn 131 02.doc AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Coun Urban Services Agreement 05 PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK lan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council renew the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Washington County to provide planning, building, and engineering related services to the Urban Services Area? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that the agreement be extended for another 5 years. This recommendation is with the knowledge that the agreement includes a provision that either party may terminate the agreement between the dates of March 1s` and July 151 of any year, with 90 days written notice to the other party. INFORMATION SUMMARY Washington County and Tigard entered into an Urban Services Agreement in May of 1997. The agreement initially provided for the City to provide for development related planning, building, engineering services, and street maintenance activities. The agreement was subsequently amended, eliminating Tigard provision of street maintenance activities. The terms of the agreement remain in effect for 5 years and the agreement is due to expire on May 12, 2002, unless terminated before that date by mutual agreement. The agreement goes on to state that either party may terminate the agreement between the dates of March ls` and July 1" of any year, with 90 days written notice to the other party. At issue is whether Council desires to terminate the agreement. If that is the desire of Council, notice must be provided to Washington County. Staff will return to Council at the March workshop with a detailed review and any recommended amendments i to the IGA. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Terminate the agreement. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - January 30, 2002 memo to Council - Urban Services Agreement FISCAL NOTES Washington County has provided financial assistance initially and subsequently to make the program financially neutral to the City. Attachment 1 A55W k CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: James N.P. Hendryx A/"Z- ~ DATE: January 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Urban Services Agreement Washington County and Tigard entered into an Urban Services Agreement in May of 1997. The agreement initially provided for the City to provide for development related planning, building, engineering services, and street maintenance activities. The agreement was subsequently amended, eliminating Tigard provision of street maintenance activities. The terms of the agreement remain in effect for 5 years and the agreement is due to expire on May 12, 2002, unless terminated before that date by mutual agreement. The agreement goes on to state that either party may terminate the agreement between the dates of March 1St and July 1St of any year, with 90 days written notice to the other party. At issue is whether Council desires to terminate the agreement. If that is the desire of Council, notice must be provided to Washington County. _ Overall, Council should be aware that the agreement has been a benefit to the City. It is assumed i that the area within the Urban Services Boundary (USB) will ultimately be incorporated into the City. Our involvement in the development of the USB allows for conformance to City standards, procedures, etc. This would not be the case if the agreement was terminated. I have initiated discussions with the County to identify any problems with the implementation of the agreement. Problems are generally minor in nature and deal with minor communication problems, e.g., staff to staff. With the help of Mark Brown, Washington County Interim Assistant Director of Land Use and Transportation, discussions are underway. We are also looking at any necessary amendments to the IGA. It has been in effect for 5 years and could potentially be revised to reflect current procedures and needs. However, additional work is necessary to finish our review. I anticipate completing that review for the March Council workshop meeting. S The County has been very willing to work with Tigard to see that the IGA works. Financial assistance was provided initially and subsequently to make the program financially neutral to the City. Discussions with residents within the USB on Bull Mountain are underway, regarding consideration of annexing portions of the area covered by the IGA. Terminating the agreement at this time would not serve this process. It is staffs recommendation that the agreement be extended for another 5 years. This recommendation is with the knowledge that the agreement includes a provision that either party may terminate the agreement between the dates of March 1St and July 1St of any year, with 90 days written notice to the other party. I will return to Council at the March workshop with a detailed review and any recommended amendments to the IGA. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 12, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Council Goals for 2002 PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review and approve the Council Goals for 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and approve the Council Goals for 2002. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council met in a goal-setting session on Monday, January 14, 2002. The Council reviewed the progress made toward attaining completion of the goals Council set for 2001. Council discussed goals to be carried over into 2002 as well as new goals to be initiated. Draft goals were reviewed by the Council during the study session of the January 22 City Council meeting. Changes and corrections have been incorporated into the latest draft now before Council for adoption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY ATTACHMENT LIST FISCAL NOTES EIADM\CITY COUNCIL=UNCIL AGENDA REM SUMMARIESCOUNCIL GOALS 2002.00C 2001 Tigard City Council Goals Goal Achievement GOAL 1: TRANSPORTATION A. Complete the City Transportation System Plan, discuss funding mechanisms and initiate information. The City Council adopted the Transportation System Plan in January 2002. B. Support and promote commuter rail. The City Council supported commuter rail as it obtained funding at the state and federal level. C. Develop a fixed route bus program for Tigard intra-city service. The city made some progress by contacting Tri-Met and initiating discussions and data gathering. The city shared information with Tualatin and will align for future discussions with Tri-Met. The city will continue to communicate its needs to Tri-Met with an objective of establishing a fixed-route bus program for Tigard intra-city service. D. Revisit transportation improvement projects (the 2000 bond measure) and potential funding sources. The city did this, reconstituting the bond measure committee to be the Transportation Finai icing Strategies Task Force. This is an ongoing effort. E. Promote resolution of 99W issues (and other state-owned facilities in Tigard). Input was given when opportunities were present, there is more work to be done. 01 2001 Tigard City Council Goals Goal Achievements 2 .Ai~k GOAL 2: PROVIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Tasks: 1. Develop and define a strategy to provide recreation opportunities for all citizen needs including-- a. Programs b. Facilities c. Activities The city effort was focused at forming and facilitating a Youth Forum to involve all youth recreation and services providers in developing a strategy to provide recreation opportunities. There was good success in this effort. Of the city efforts for recreation opportunities for citizens other than youth were the Dog Park (good success), volunteer opportunities, and the development of a library plan which will have capacity for providing some of the recreation program opportunities at the library. In addition, the city initiated a Skateboard Park Committee. 2. Evaluate the need for a separate Parks and Recreation Committee. The city decided that the use of task forces and forums was a more viable way to address parks and recreation needs and issues. Therefore, we may not need to form a separate Parks and Recreation Committee. GOAL 3: SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSOCIATION (TCBDA) AND THEIR PLAN TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN. Tasks: 1. Assist in getting funding for implementation of the TCBCA downtown program. The council completed its effort by providing the opportunity for TCBDA to seek a Business Improvement District (BID) and Economic Improvement District (EID). At the request of the TCBDA and the downtown property owners, the request for funding mechanism was withdrawn. Thus, the council completed its task, however, funding is not available. I MMI r 2001 Tigard City Council Goals Goal Achievements 3 2. Determine the level of city financial support to the revitalization effort. The city provided financial support to each activity undertaken by the TCBDA. The long-term level of city financial support to the revitalization effort has not been determined. 3. Review development code requirements that affect the downtown (i.e., parking, etc.). The city did complete the parking standard review, however, additional code sections require attention. This was put on hold at the time the BID and EID funding did not move forward. GOAL 4: CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY PARK MASTER PLAN. Tasks: 1. Apply funding to the plan. The city did that with significant results at Cook Park. 2. Urge that Washington County establish a Parks Systems Development charge for the Tigard Urban Services area. Two separate efforts were made to urge the establishment of this charge. The effort continues. 3. Complete the Summerlake Park plan. Further meetings were held to complete the plan. At this point, the draft plan is headed to the Planning Commission for review. 4. Update the City Park Master Plan elements as land is added to the city system. This is a continuing task. 5. Continue to implement the Cook Park Master Plan. Good progress was made as additional funding was obtained through a grant from the State of Oregon and a loan which 2001 Tigard City Coundl Goals ® Goal Achievements 4 allowed the city to move forward faster with improvements in the original plan. Phase I of the Master Plan is complete. 6. Continue discussions with the Tigard-Tualatin School District for creation of a City park associated with the proposed Alberta Rider School. During the council's annual meeting with the Tigard-Tualatin School District information was presented to the board on this issue. In addition, earlier discussions were held with the superintendent of schools to keep this project active so when the district constructs the school, the city investment can take place simultaneously. GOAL S: DETERMINE THE CITY'S LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY. Task: 1. Evaluate the three options presently under review. The city evaluated the three options and determined that the South Fork option is no longer feasible. The city will continue to evaluate the options for long-term water supply presented to us - The City of Portland and the Joint Water Commission. GOAL G: ESTABLISH AN ANNEXATION POLICY FOR NON-ISLAND AREAS. Tasks: 1. Consider options available to apply to annexation proposals. The city considered all options and is ready to apply appropriate options. 2. Determine if the city should actively encourage annexation of- a. parcels b. areas The City Council reviewed the options and determined that the Bull Mountain area is the only area to be addressed at this time. The city prepared a complete analysis of the Bull Mountain area annexation opportunities and issues following a workshop meeting in July involving area residents. Also 2001 Tigard City Council Goals ® Goal Achievements 5 initiated discussions with the community and discussions are ongoing. The council also processed annexation requests for those property owners seeking annexation, on a case-by-case basis. GOAL 7: ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT PRIVA'T'E SECTOR PROGRAMS TO REHABILITATE EXISTING, AND DEVELOP NEW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Tasks: 1. Continue to enforce the housing code. This task was carried out with good success. 2. Consider ways to support provision of affordable housing. The council supported the request of CPAH for property tax abatement for three projects. In addition, CPAH has broken ground for a new project with council waiving of permit fees. The City Council gave direction that it wishes to evaluate other ways to support affordable housing programs. The staff is evaluating other opportunities prior to the FY 2002-03 budget cycle. GOAL 8: REVIEW THE REPORT OF THE NEW TIGAR.D LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (NTLCC) AND PROVIDE DIRECTION. Tasks: 1. Hear the report of the NTLCC regarding programming and potential sites for construction. 2. Provide direction: a. Size, b. Cost, C. Location, & d. Funding 3. Determine when a bond measure for construction of a new library should be placed before the voters. The City Council completed this task. It heard reports of the Committee on all issues. Direction was given for creation of a 47,000 sq. ft. library at $14.2 million to be located on a site on the east side of Hall Boulevard with funding via city funds, proceeds of two bequests, and a $13 million bond to be placed on the May 21, 2002, ballot. 2001 Tigard City Council Goals Goal Achievements 6 GOAL 9: DEVELOP A NEW CITY-WIDE SEWER COMPLETION POLICY. Tasks: 1. Develop a city-wide sewer program which includes- a. cost alternatives and options; b. a proposed construction sequence. 2. Take into consideration how to make the program equitable for those property owners who previously participated in the city sewer reimbursement program. The City Council did establish a sewer program taking into account cost alternatives and options. Consideration was given to making the program equitable to those who had already participated. In fact. reimbursement checks were sent to 32 property owners who paid the higher fees under the old sewer incentive program. The goal was completed so the carrying out of the policy now becomes a task. GOAL 10: EXPAND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. Tasks: 1. Focus on improved ways to inform the public, 2. Expand citizen involvement opportunities. 3. Make more effective use of media (Cityscape, cable television, City Web page, press coverage, meetings, and public contact). 4. Strive toward a consistent public involvement effort. 5. Conduct a "City 10 1 " education program for the public. The city achieved its goal expanding citizen involvement opportunities at all levels. Greater attention was paid to the Cityscape, the city Web page, cable television production, meetings, and public contact. Opportunities were given to citizens to participate in new task forces and committees to address issues. Our effort to increase cable television capabilities and production options were limited due to difficulties in obtaining a contract with TVCA. The city Web page was improved throughout the year with introduction of the new city Web page on January 2, 2002. A Webmaster was hired during the year to spearhead this effort. Citizen involvement opportunities through committees improved, however, CIT attendance did not increase. The CIT program was changed by having one tape-delayed meeting and initiation of e-mail messaging to the CIT. A "City 10 1 " 2001 Tigard City Council Goals Goal Achievements 7 education program was conducted in conjunction with a CIT meeting early in the year. GOAL 1 1: PARTICIPATE IN THE 2001 OREGON LEGISLATIVE SESSION. Tasks: 1. Provide input to discussions of the Oregon Legislature regarding retention of telecommunication franchise fees for local government. 2. Provide input to the Oregon Legislature as it addresses concerns raised by voter approval of Measure 7. Throughout the year the city council met with Representative Max Williams and Senator Ryan Deckert. In those meetings, both tasks were addressed. I:L4DM1CIT1' COUNCIMOALS1 OOM001 COUNCIL GOAL ACHIEVEMENTS,DOC.DOC 2002 Tigard City Council Goals GOAL I TRANSPORTATION GOAL 2-PARKS & RECREATION GOAL 3-DOWNTOWN GOAL 4-WATER GOAL 5-GROWTH MANAGEMENT ! GOAL 6-LIBRARY GOAL 7-COMMUNICATION In consideration of the 2002 Goals, the City Council stated the following: "The present state of the economy is a concern that could impact the council's completion of the 2002 Goals. Each of the 2002 Goals could be impacted if the state, federal, or local economic situation results in a decrease in available fiends for Tigard operations and projects." 2002 ® Tigard City Council Goals 2 GOAL 1: TRANSPORTATION A. Explore funding sources for transportation needs. Funding for maintenance and capital are needed for the following- 1. Roads 2. Trails/Bicycles 3. Pedestrian Safety (Sidewalks, streetlights, crosswalks) 4. Bridges B. Work with Tri-Met to develop intra-city bus service and Park- and-Ride locations. C. Work with ODOT on state-funded facilities. GOAL 2: PARKS AND RECREATION A. Complete master plans for city parks (Summerlake, Fanno Creek Park expansion, Dog Park, etc.) B. Continue to work with and support the Youth Forum and youth activities (before and after school programs, Skateboard Park Committee). GOAL 3: DOWNTOWN A. Plan for the commuter rail station. B. Review zoning and comprehensive plan standards in the downtown. B. Work in conjunction with the Tigard Central Business District Association, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, and other interest groups on a downtown redevelopment plan. GOAL 4: WATER A. Continue to evaluate options for a long-term water supply. MMIM 2002 Tigard City Council Goals 3 GOAL 5: GROWTH MANAGEMENT A. Continue to evaluate the results of the Bull Mountain study and discuss the findings with the residents. Cooperatively develop a course of action. B. Monitor the progress of the Durham Quarry development, receiving regular council updates. C. Consider ways to support the provision of affordable housing. D. Actively support implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. E. Evaluate the need and feasibility of having the Tigard Post Office Branch become the Tigard Post Office. GOAL 6: LIBRARY A. Council members will individually support promotion of the library construction bond. GOAL 7: COMMUNICATION A. Continue to meet with local, county, regional and state partners. B. Continue to improve and expand communication with Tigard citizens through the CIT program, Cityscape, Website, cable, media, Community Connectors, and other means. C. Support English-as-a-Second-Language programs in Tigard. I: WDMICITY COUNCIOGOALS120=002 TIGARD CRY COUNCIL GOALS.DOC